I started watching Poldark -- mostly cause the production team is who will supposedly be working on the Lymond TV series; I'm surveying, apparently, heee. Intermittently, I feel horrified at how they might butcher the Lymond Chronicle's characters, Lymond and Philippa especially. They are my precious pair; I would be quite enraged at any miscasting, I think.

Right now, Aidan Turner is doing well as Ross Poldark (not that I read the books to really know the integrity of this adaptation). I kind of like him so far. What I don't like though is the general romantic direction of the plot: it's a DT!Hermione-thing, isn't it? Every time this kind of romantic plot surfaces in a story, my blood simmers and boils.

The DT!Hermione trope is the kind of woman (or man too, I suppose) who attempts (or if I'm being ungenerous, pretends) to do right by the men she loves. Yes, men; by some stupid circumstance, she has somehow accidentally won the heart of two different persons. She doesn't mean to. (Oh, don't bullshit me.) So she supposedly tries to do what is right, picks one of them, but doesn't exactly properly let go of the other. She will try to. (Bullshit again. I have no sympathy for this kind of person.) How enraging the character is usually depends on how she really tries to let go of the other person. It drives me crazy that this character is not evil enough for me to be justified in hating them (oh, you know, she is trying to stay away from said other person) but clearly not so blithely ignorant of their actions that they are blameless. DT!Hermione was beyond annoying; which is why for me, she has become the benchmark for this kind of character.

It is easy to confuse this with a typical love triangle, but it is emphatically not. And good writers know the difference -- thankfully there looks to be another love interest for Ross Poldark in this romantic plot, which means this trope is done as it's meant to. We're meant to dislike this person. The worse situation is when the writer means for us to root for this trope instead of disliking them; the travesty! I can't come up with an example from the top of my head at the moment (mostly because I will trash the story out the window if I came across it in a book), but Bella from the Twilight series strikes me as a possible example. I might be wrong! because I obviously could not stomach the movie, much less the book, so what do I know.

I get passionate about this I think because I'm an... absolutist? ... a purist? Maybe it's quite mean of me, because we are all human; but I have little sympathy for people who get themselves into moral quandaries that appear obviously preventable, given a little more prudence, level-headedness, or simple loyalty earlier on. What, you didn't know if you spent that much time together you would get involved? Really? In the case of Elizabeth in this story: what, Elizabeth, did you think him 100% dead, that you were not willing to wait for 100% evidence, before you broke a promise and went on with your life? The way I see it, your love was not great enough, period. You don't deserve any sympathy.

Come on, Ross, yes! You're not a halfwit. You're better than this!

This line won him over for me.

I went for a philosophy discussion thing earlier this week about Plato's Symposium, 

that left me more or less mind-blown -- 

and then I started seriously looking up Plato's Theory of Forms 

and The Allegory of the Cave. 

Which if you have no idea about, have a sampling here:

I feel somewhat vindicated now as a professed idealist. I didn't know Plato was an idealist (or apparently, a realist, if we're using proper philosophical terms), and I find myself very compelled by a lot of his ideas. He makes being an idealist sound like absolutely the way to live a good life because it means you are striving towards the Real. And if you're not, you're basically blind; content to live life knowing only phantoms of what is Real.

I think I understand now what The Theory of Forms means,
but it's really difficult to put it simply, or to summarize it satisfactorily.

But I shall try:

The modern world puts a lot of stock into materialism. In other words, if you can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell something, scientists will say it is real. If we can't measure or detect it by our senses, the modern world will say it isn't real.

Plato says that everything material is in constant change and flux. You, me, the screen you're looking at, the food you just ate, the clothes on your body. Everything material is impermanent. How can something so impermanent and temporal be real? How can they be true? He posits that only the permanent and eternal are true and real.

An example of what is real: mathematical truths. They will always be true. The concept of a perfect circle is Real. The perfect circle has the same distance from every point on its circumference to its center. A circle that exists in our material world however can only at best approach this concept of a perfect circle. Plato calls such concepts, Forms. Forms have to exist outside our material world; we can refer to this world for the moment as the abstract world. (I'm sure there's a name for this world but I haven't learnt that far.) Plato is thus a dualist (I just learnt this today!), someone who believes in two separate worlds (unlike Aristotle's idea that came later, I think, that tried to combine both the material and the abstract -- hm, I'm not sure about Aristotle yet).

Everything material, like our circle, has its essence in something more Real, i.e. the concept of a circle. A circle you draw out, or the circular shape of a plate you hold, is never the perfect circle but it is built on the concept of circularity i.e. the Form of a circle. In other words, the abstract is the cause for the physical.

Since abstractness is the cause of the physical, it is therefore more real. This totally blew my mind when I heard it that night. Because obviously it overturns popular modern thinking, where we only value the physical and the material.

And this Platonic idea totally corroborates Sufi poetry that often talks of God as the only Real etc. We are all contingent on God; only God is Real.

Fireworks in my brain yay! Sometimes thinking on philosophy feels like my brain is in danger of exploding.



Plato comes insanely close to Islamic theology; this is amazing (no wonder at the discussion, they were saying how Muslims have speculated if Socrates was possibly a prophet of God -- oh wells, an outsider would be inclined to think Islam took it from ancient Greek philosophy instead):

(I quote from my battered 17-year-old copy of Sophie's World -- I can't believe we were made to read this at Secondary 2; what did I know at the time):

Plato believed that reality is divided into two regions. 

One region is the world of the senses about which we can only have approximate or incomplete knowledge by using our five (approximate or incomplete) senses. In this sensory world, 'everything flows' and nothing is permanent. Nothing in the sensory world is, there are only things that come to be and pass away. The other region is the world of ideas, about which we can have true knowledge by using our reason. This world of ideas cannot be perceived by the senses, but the ideas (or forms) are eternal and immutable. 

According to Plato, man is a dual creature. We have a body that 'flows', is inseparably bound to the world of the senses, and is subject to the same fate as everything else in this world -- a soap bubble, for example. All our senses are based in the body and are consequently unreliable. But we also have an immortal soul -- and this soul is the realm of reason. And not being physical, the soul can survey the world of ideas. 

Plato also believed that the soul existed before it inhabited the body. But as soon as the soul wakes up in a human body, it has forgotten all the perfect ideas. Then something starts to happen. In fact, a wondrous process begins. As the human being discovers the various forms in the natural world, a vague recollection stirs his soul. He sees a horse -- but an imperfect horse. The sight of it is sufficient to awaken in the soul a faint recollection of the perfect 'horse', which the world once saw in the world of ideas, and this stirs the soul with a yearning to return to its true realm. Plato calls this yearning eros -- which means love. The soul, then, experiences a 'longing to return to its true origin'. From now on, the body and the whole sensory world is experienced as imperfect and insignificant. The soul yearns to fly home on the wings of love to the world of ideas. It longs to be freed from the chains of the body.

As Muslims say when one of us passes on from this life,
إِنَّا لِلّهِ وَإِنَّـا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعونَ
To God we belong, and to Him we shall return.

While watching fan reaction and discussion videos of BTS,

I found out that the organ piece played by Suga in their Blood, Sweat and Tears music video,

was the piece played by the character Pistorius in the book Demian by Herman Hesse.

(Which means Suga portrays Pistorius in the book is it!

-- and now I have to re-analyse everything again hahaaaa)

It made me gasp. The detail, ohmygoodnessssss.

We all know a lot of the WINGS album was based on this book (which I read last year in preparation for their album release), but to discover little precious gems like this littered so subtly throughout their work is one of the joys of being a fan. Seriously, this fantastic layered artistry, wins me over more than anything else.

It reminds me of Lymond. It's the mark of good art, isn't it! It's like, yes, you've read/seen/heard it once, but you're nowhere near done understanding the depth of this piece of work.

I'm supposed to be an introvert and all, but sometimes my life appears to imply the opposite: the entire week, I was out and about either for work or social engagements and sleeping little. I was so exhausted and depleted that I finally and utterly crashed the whole of today. Slept the entire morning away, missing my Arabic exam, and now I'm finally spending a day proper at home, and couldn't muster any energy to get out of the house. Luckily, my scheduled events for the day (other than my missed exam, gah!) were cancelled.

Seriously, S, somehow, someday, something has got to give.

I have actually started a separate journal to reflect on my lifestyle, and work on my daily healthy and spiritual habits. Apparently, it takes an average of 66 days to develop a habit. Please, God, I have to learn to strike a balance.


Re-watched this movie today: He's Just Not That Into You.
I have decided it's one of my favourite romantic movies ever.
This is romantic realism, if there is such a thing.
Watching this movie feels like being doused with cold water,
but then being held to the sunshine after.

Yes, a lot of real life isn't romantic, and a lot of the romantic stuff or fluff we see or read or believe will never ever be true for us. but! there are still exceptions to the rule. And though being smart means you understand that you're probably the rule, perhaps living happily means you still hope despite odds that you can be the exception.

one of the best stand-up-for-women scenes in a romantic movie!

and then we have this satisfying ending for this pair in the movie (:

and here Gigi wraps it all up happily for us 💜

It's been a while!

Here are some videos I've been watching:

Some thoughts:

This whole being the author of your own story -- I mostly agree, but I've felt in recent times that the analogy is slightly off. As I discussed with a friend the other day, we're not actually the author, we're only the protagonist. You have no control over the setting of your story, the characters of your story, and the plot twists of your life. And in so much as you are able to direct the movement of your plot as the protagonist, that's the extent of control you have in your life. Little, in reality. Or not very much, at least.

As the protagonist, you then start to understand that your role is being the best protagonist you can be; not to force your hand on fate. The plot twists are not up to you. You won't be able to help it if a war happens, or if someone you love dies or leaves, or if you contract a terminal disease. You just try living life as the best human you know how, no matter the weather, event, or music, and pray that your author treats his protagonist kindly (and thank God, we are not Lymond and Dunnett our writer, because how Lymond suffered). God is the writer of your story; your job is to change yourself, and God will change your condition, if He so wishes.

This is how I've learnt and am still learning to live life, with equanimity and peace, and insya Allah, with a fervor to be the best kind of protagonist I can be. Because, man, I love stories. And I certainly want to be the kind of protagonist I like.

And here, I finally watched Shaykh Hamza's talk 

when he was in Singapore a few months back! 

Apparently it was a public lecture (that obviously got snapped up in mere seconds, I bet) 

but I knew nothing of it. Breaks my heart 💔, I tell you.

Lastly,

when I need to destress and blank out, 

BTS cheers me up:

Hola! and bye.

So I've been getting excited about revisiting Japan (soon-ish),

and I stumbled upon this book on a library shelf:

It's awesome!!! Basically, it's a graphic memoir

of a French artist, who spent half a year in Tokyo back in 2006 -- 

he drew various spots in the city, 

adding cute-sy amusing comments,

chronicling his time there.

There are maps like this:

Descriptions of Japanese pedestrians (along Takeshita dori, Harajuku) like this:

Of buildings and everyday neighbourhoods like this:

And he also drew JE! 

Who I have missed, now that I am waaay into BTS.

Hehe, Kame in his early twenties was very alligator-like;

(he looks better now in his thirties)

SMAP (with Shinzo Abe being extra) when they were alive and thriving!!!

So sad that SMAP is officially no more :(

I've been contemplating getting a hard copy for myself for keeps.

Hmmmmm.

---

On other matters:

Datin S and I were talking in between work some time this week (yes, we are working together now, woohoo!), and when our endless conversations started getting really heavy as per our usual way -- I suddenly felt, and said as much to Datin S, that she should go read some storybooks (which she hadn't in a long time). Reading books, and specifically FICTION, gives such perspective, brings you out of yourself and so deeply into others' lives, that you will inevitably be better informed, equipped, and emotionally-armoured to battle your own life.

I witnessed some other human problem tonight, and while talking it over with my sis, she was the one who brought up, "This would not have happened with someone who does literature." Perhaps it's pompous, overly-fallacious, or misguided because I am no expert -- but it feels increasingly apparent to me that the nuance, the empathy, and the perspective that makes a gracious human being can be gained via reading stories. You could gain it elsewhere, maybe -- like living a difficult life, living among people who struggle, living among the poor. But otherwise, born into privilege and the lap of comfort or luxury, how else would you get it?

Suddenly, I am reminded of the hours of CIP (Community Involvement Project) we had to do for school so as to cultivate a civic-mindedness in students; oh come on, how much of it was just surface grade-fulfillment and how many of us truly succeeded in planting the seeds of compassion and care in our hearts? What is it that builds great character at the end of the day, right? Isn't that always the question.

For me, reading. It's still reading. And then you go and do your CIP.