short treatise on the puzzles of life

We try to impress
knowing nothing, trying to save
light in a bottle, dreaming destinies
that have yet to be known
what would we be if we knew only slowly
and our minds were blind?
what would be left, but raw desire
for the satisfaction of the body
and pride?
Sing sweetly, little bird
for now I close
the blinds of destiny
like the stars
have never been shown
to our yearning eyes
what we wish
has been before, and vast
they were, suns multiplied
but now they are dead
we know not, for we see only
that twinkling bright
for hope is a light in the dark, shining
and all seems not lost
for we have their past, and hopefully
more.

Mignon's political notes 1. Population overload

Mignon’s political notes – what I would change if I ever became president
Reasons we cannot achieve social stability:
1. Too many people.
2. Unhealthy family environments (immature parents)
3. High divorce rates
4. Sexual liberation
5. Untrustworthy government
6. Indiscriminate media
Today I’m focusing on 1. Too many people.
I live in a city. There are people everywhere. Competition for schools and jobs are fierce. Crime occurs like clock-work. It kind of makes one feel insignificant. It’s suffocating. You start caring less for other people because you need to preserve your personal space/sanity. I returned from the United States with smiles for everyone but realized it wouldn’t work because it’s exhausting to smile at so many people in a day, and if you smile at them they talk to you, and if they talk to you you’re obliged to listen and invest time and emotion into this new relationship that you hadn’t wanted. You simply wanted to smile at people so it’d brighten their day. At least this is my case. I’m too polite to flat out ignore someone.
In the city, there are more youths who think it’s cool to listen to songs about murder (ex: Bloody Valentine) and draw death related pictures. (Okay, I admit, I love that song, but it doesn’t mean it’s right.) Because there are too many people we withdraw into our own little minds. Our instincts know that this density threatens our very survival, so we must lessen the population. It automatically turns to desensitize ourselves from the deaths of others, so we won’t value lives so much, sometimes not even our own. Our logical side tells us that there are too many people, that in order for our society to be stable there must be less. Our in-between self is perplexed, isolated, hurt and feeling extremely powerless.
We have this famous science fiction author in Taiwan (or is it Hong Kong?) called 倪匡who writes excellent books (I wish they’d translate his work into English, he’s that good). In one of his works he mentions that mice drown themselves by the hoards when they become too crowded, and that society is not ideal because there are too many people fighting for resources. If what he says is true (I have yet to confirm it. He is, after all, a science fiction writer), why don’t humans have a self-destruct mechanism when threatened by lack of space and resources (ie: wealth, creature comforts, food, living space, jobs)? I believe we do. That’s why city people don’t care about someone being smooshed by a train in their own city, that’s why so many people commit suicide.
What I find a little disturbing is the fact that couples or single females who have less to offer their offspring find it necessary to have a lot of children. If married couples who are not well-off decide to have one or two, they would be adequately populating the world with their share of genes. I believe the growing gap between the rich and poor is also caused by the reluctance of the rich to reproduce aggressively (thus keeping their fortunes intact) and the poor reproducing at copious amounts (spreading an already meager inheritance).
That doesn’t mean I believe the rich are better parents and the poor bad ones. By “less to offer their offspring” I’m also pointing to a healthy family environment (with time to be with the kids, mature parents who don’t have psychological crutches).

Tendencies of the sexes

I’m going to quote my friend Tarver on this. I had talked to him that men seem to be able to take one look at something and want it right away, while women need to be convinced and flattered by the saleslady or appraised by a friend before buying something (or in the case of falling in love, can do so by the persistence of the man even though she initially didn’t like him. For men if a girl keeps going after him most would consider her a stalker.)
“Speaking of returning to subjects, my mind still remembers one we never quite concluded. It was about the male-female mindset, how males tend to see what they want and go for it, while females need more so to be convinced. My mind had run into quite a quandary there as it reviewed all my friends and their tendencies, whether male or female. For the most part, I saw in all my male friends the tendency to see what they want right away. I proved this especially with friend Josh, who once pointed out to me all the girls in one grade that he thought were attractive. I looked at the photos, turned back a grade, and was able to point out every girl he thought was attractive in that grade. I think I rather surprised him there? But though most of my male friends are like that, I found that a select few were anything but. The worst of it was, myself was included. I could also pinpoint a select few girl friends who would choose and chase a guy right away. Fortunately, that doesn’t disprove your theory. After I thought about it more, I realized that it takes only a slight shift in wording. It’s not strictly a male’s inclination to choose immediately and a female’s job to watch and be convinced, it’s the masculine and feminine tendencies. When I think about my friends, I saw a correlation to all those who didn’t fit the male archetype. Most notably Ben and myself, all those not fitting had more feminine characteristics. Remember when I took that test and found I was more feminine than masculine? That’s what I mean. Ben took that test as well and found the same. And all females who chase guys immediately are more masculine than feminine? So, in a way, your idea holds true.”
Isn’t he an awesome writer? He concludes so well, and he soothes my ego (which is disproportionately large).