"i'll like a drop of rainwater refracting light...
and a dash of illumination across the endless dark too."

Saturday, January 23, 2010

be reasonable. because this is not an excuse.

recently fish is simply tired of trying to discuss things peacefully and amiably, tired of her constantly listening attitude and never-being-heard moments. she is tired of people's rude and disrespecting attitudes and detests getting into "self-assumed conversations" with those who only wanted themselves to be heard. she even lost track of the number of times when she felt like ending such "conversations" there and then, the countless times where she just wanted to tell these people: hey, you might as well just go talk to a mirror or a wall, since they would be ever patiently listening, and never give their opinions in exchange at all, and guess what? you simply don't have to talk to me you know? what we are having here is a one-sided conversation, so why not let's simply end it earlier.

people like to use 'excuses' to convince others, and 'reasons' to convince oneself.
yet essentially, excuses and reasons are all but subjective, defined differently by different people.

nonetheless, at the end of the day, all of us just want to be in a good light, appear responsible, that "we had no other choice" and blameless. fish personally feels however, that this should be left for others to decide for themselves, and not using one's utmost efforts to carefully select certain information to portray oneself in a nice light. for if these people are reasonable, they would neither judge nor be easily taken over by one's incessant insistence. they would be objective in their observations and not see through clouded spectacles. and if they are unreasonable, then to fish, their opinion simply does not matter one bit, period.

"i had no choice since everyone else is doing that." personally, fish firmly and strongly believes and classifies this as an excuse. if you truly detest what others are doing, and allow your very self to do the very same thing unto others, then stop trying so hard to give an excuse so as to see yourself in the light you want. you are but one of them, period.

here's something fish can never stand. overly self-absorbed in "being right" attitude and refusal to hear what others have to say before one gives his or her own judgement. if one firmly believes one is right, then shouldn't he or she have even more patience, composure and grace to hear what the other party has to say first, before incessantly insisting that one's argument is faultless? wouldn't it be easier to convince the others if you first understand the thinking trend they got themselves into and then steer them thereafter?

IT IS OUTRIGHT IRRITATING when fish waits for the person to finish saying what he or she is trying to say and then tries to tell him or her what she thinks and then the person just cuts in before fish finishes, or worse, doesn't even try feebly to let her begin her points. for even the most aggressive debating competitions allow both parties the right to speak, hence to fish, this is outright inconsiderate, rude and uncivilised. and she automatically places that person under her category of "people whom she'll never strike a sincere conversation with or talk to, on her own accord if she has a choice".

to fish, the logic, value and purpose of a conversation is this: she enjoys knowing your opinions, trend of thoughts and feelings on certain matter, and she is hoping to open herself to more views and perspectives which might never have occurred to her before, but at the same time as she is learning all these, if you don't even try feebly to listen, then it is to be considered that a fair exchange of ideas has never taken place, for it is simply a presentation by a presenter, but never a conversation. the soul and heart of a conversation lies in its engagement of the minds, thoughts and ideas of BOTH parties, as it is the case for hands to clap.

Monday, January 18, 2010

upon the shattered mirror her long intent stare.
her depth of soul, the abyss!
darkness creeps.

wants and desires, devoid of taste!

how long her gaze, in or out?
sad was her gaze, in and out.

her wait, her aches, her confusion.
her weary, cheerful looks.
she tiptoed on her shining silver dancing shoes.
watch her silent dance on edges of the green grass patch,
from faraway, somewhere faraway...

she will be alright,
she will be alright.

tell her you weren't seeing,
tell her you know not.
she is too tired for thy worried looks and the weathered grounds.

free her, let her go.
thy hand must not hold back what thy can never grasp.
to nowhere, she belongs,
to nowhere she must go.

she will be alright,
she will be alright.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

according to wikipedia, friendship is defined as the cooperative and supportive relationship between people. In this sense, the term connotes a relationship which involves MUTUAL knowledge, self-esteem, affection and respect, along with a degree of rendering service to friends in times of need or crisis. Friends will welcome each other's company and exhibit loyalty towards each other, often to the point of altruism. Their tastes will usually be similar and may converge, and they will share enjoyable activities. They will also engage in mutually helping behaviour, such as the exchange of advice and the sharing of hardship. A friend is someone who may often demonstrate reciprocating and reflective behaviours. Yet for some, the practical execution of friendship is little more than the trust that someone will not harm them.

fish wonders... can two people with different ideals of friendship truly be friends? if one's expectation for a friend is to only understand what he or she feels but not interested to listen or even try to understand that friend of his or hers, can this essentially be termed friendship to begin with? if one defines friendship as you share my joy but i am not interested to share yours, wouldn't that someone be better off with a diary or journal book? when one does not even try to make an equal effort on his or her side, is this a balanced friendship?

everyone needs friend, but how much is one willing to give of thyself to whom you call a friend at the end of the day? fish has high expectations for that aspect. selfish fish in a way perhaps, but idealistic. if at the end of the day, fish does not enjoy being around selfish and self-centered people the tiniest bit, does this make fish one of them too? yet all fish looks for, is the willingness to try, on both sides. that's what she calls friendship.

Monday, January 4, 2010

a truly idealistic love story is one that should never happen in real life.

then there's an aspect which i begun to think about... that when one loves another, one is essentially only loving that person in his/her mind. the projection which one has made of the other person based on their past memories shared or, the imagined possibilites to be shared with that person. i.e. no one actually love another person for who that person really is - one only love that person for who one thinks he/she is... when the image fits in with one's hidden or sub-conscious idealism, voila! love sparks fly. this itself is explained in the theory that without love, there will be no disappointment.

see, disappointment only arises if one has expectations of another in the first place. if you truly love another person no matter who he or she is, then why would one have any expectations of him/her in the first place? it is because one is in love with one's imagination of that person, that's why disappointment occurs. one is disappointed at the fact that love, however idealistic one wishes it to be, is still grounded in reality.

the only mysterious component in love is the ability to feel deeper and more intense the emotions of that someone. without this empathising ability in one, there would hardly be any love to speak of. perhaps, we love so as to minimise the other negative emotions that arise if we did not love. so essentially we love others because we love ourselves, no? we make choices that might hurt us so people we love might be happy, and we call this sacrifice. but could it also be that if we did not make these choices, we are still hurt by the fact that people whom we truly love will not be happy? thus, "irrational" decisions we make can also be logical in this way.

complications in love only come in when we happen to love more than one person, presenting us with some conflicting choices to make. complications also arise when infinite future possibilities are projected differently between different people, of different people. see why loving a person who is unformed, like a child is so much easier as compared to loving someone who is fixed and formed and vastly different from what we hope he/she would have been like.

as long as one feels the depth of another's joy and pain beyond his/her comprehension, one is already in love.

Friday, January 1, 2010

cruel temptation


watched till the last episode. love it. nice soap opera. like the story. like the different characters and the way each of them go about making their choices... those seemingly straightforward/right ones, or those which one can't really tell till the very last moment. honestly surprised at the ending. felt a little ??! + cheated. nonetheless, still like the way each character metamorphosised.

 salute the lady scriptwriter. despite her slight dragginess at certain instances, and some far-fetched coincidences and timings, the whole production remains a fairly decent one. like the way she weaves the whole story, linking up signicficant places and her final knit-up of the complicated relations among the three families in a reasonably neat way. kudos to kim suh hyung, for an outstanding shin-ae-ri portrayed and jang seo hee, for all the tears she shed in all of the whole 129 episodes.

thought about the show a bit after finishing it... if the theory in this show is that love is something which one can neither make it happen nor work hard for it, yet one also can't ignore it, then what exactly is one supposed to do about it? isn't it somewhat irritating to find that its essentially something which one can do nothing to it or about it, and yet at the same time one also can't pretend it did not happen?

it appears that no matter whether one holds onto love tightly, or try to let it go, both seemed equally painful. so then what should one do in the end? then there is also the issue of looking at the big picture... if love is about two persons and the two persons only, then why should others be in the picture of consideration too? another confusing aspect of love. random, but i guess Jung Soo Bin would still be the character i like most - clear-headed and in control.

if love taken to both extremes meant unhappiness, one who is wise should perhaps then take it to nowhere.