dal niente

Month: April, 2007

The Paper from Hell

I really had so very little to write in this paper, because I’ve never really studied any art history or anything. So, this is a paper that I sorta made my way through with a great deal of difficulty and with a lot of fluff. It turns out to feel more like a bit bit of a metaphysics paper than a philosophy of aesthetics paper, but welll……………… I thought I’d just put it here so I could look back at it someday and laugh about how convoluted some of my writing is.




Function or form?  Realism or abstraction?  The art world is a dialectic between the two camps: one advocates art as realistic representation, striving to capture with accuracy that which it is modeled after; the other suggests that art is abstraction, or non-representational, striving to allude to meaning extrinsic of the original model. But is art ever exclusively abstract, or realistic?  And furthermore, is the nature of art, either as one or both of these qualifications, static?  This paper aims to demonstrate that art is always composed of both realistic and non-representational elements simultaneously, and that the ratio of these two qualifications is dynamic.

We can approach the dual nature of art by attempting to isolate it as distinctly realist or non-representational.  First though, we must determine what about art is realist or non-representational; we must isolate the root concept of art up until the specific point where it appears to separate into two branches of qualifications.  This junction, this last common denominator, is a want to preserve an idea.  “At the origin of painting and sculpture, there lies a mummy complex,” (9) says Bazin.  “To preserve, artificially, his bodily appearance is to snatch it from the flow of time, to sow it away neatly, so to speak, in the hold of life” (9).  In that sense, an object of art is meant to take an idea and present it in a time and place separate from its original occurrence.

This representation outside of an original occurrence is an act of preservation. The act of preservation is thus common to both realist and non-representational art.  The disagreement lies not in the act of preservation, but in the idea following it: that which is target of preservation.  The concept of realist or abstract comes to refer to this target idea’s distance from the model.  Is the idea we are trying to preserve intrinsic in the model, or is it extrinsic?

Says Bazin: “Painting was torn between two ambitions: one, primarily aesthetic, namely the expression of spiritual reality wherein the symbol transcended its model; the other, purely psychological, namely the duplication of the world outside” (11).

Bazin’s terminology differs slightly from modern jargon, but his definition of “aesthetic” tends to be art which is more non-representational; while his use of “psychological” tends to be synonymous with realistic.

For example, take a painted portrait of a person.  What idea is being preserved?  The person depicted might be a means of focusing on a particular idea, that doesn’t require that particular model; a thoughtful expression on the subject’s face might be the goal of the painting, in order to preserve the idea of thinking qua thinking; the painting of might reveal the beauty of the model, where the goal of the painting is to preserve the beauty (not the model).  Essentially, this would be a non-representational perspective because the focus isn’t necessarily on the model itself.  Rather, the painting uses the model (the person) as a means attributing significant to something extrinsic to the model.  The closer the painting comes to conveying this extrinsic idea by any means necessary, the more successful the painting is from an aesthetic point of view.

On the other hand, the painting might simply point to that individual model, representing nothing more or less than the person qua subject to be preserved.  This painting’s objective is to preserve the individual in himself.  The closer the painting is to reproducing the idea of that individual in such a way that it approximates the physical sense-data that we would have from seeing the original occurrence of the individual (the person himself), the more realist the painting is said to be.

So, to address one of our original questions: can art ever be exclusively realistic or non-representational? Our findings are that even if these two interpretations place the focus of artistic appreciation on an idea with variable distance from the model, the fact is that with at even these two interpretations, they are interpretations ultimately of the same work of art.  We are not irrelevantly comparing apples and oranges (we are not taking into consideration two separate works of art); we are comparing the different appreciable components of the same fruit (we are regarding abstract and realistic value within the same piece of art). The significance might be the thought portrayed by the model, or it might be the model itself for example—but it is the same model.

It seems that the key weakness in defining the purpose of art lies in the targeting of the significance of the work of art.  This is further complicated, because it brings us to the secondary issue of the intrinsic value or intention of work of art.  Is art created, in whole, by the artist? Does the object fail to be art until it is recognized as such by an audience?  Though the artist may create a piece of art with a particular intention or purpose, the audience must still decide what they will take as the most important idea.  And even the artist himself cannot claim pure intention: “No matter how skillful the painter, his work was always in fee to an inescapable subjectivity.  The fact that a human hand intervened cast a shadow of doubt over the image” (12).  Meaning, it is not only the interpretation of the art as either realist or aesthetic that is subjective—the very production process too is subjective. The artist does not see the whole of his model in perfect objectivity—he is, at first, an audience, deciding is significant in his model before recreating it.  Thus, paradoxically, the greatest attempt at realism is rooted in subjectivity.

Conversely, even the greatest attempt at abstraction seems rooted in the real world.  When we regard, for example, an abstract work of art which is several lines on an otherwise blank canvas.  The squares themselves, as well as the color and composition, may be conceptual—but upon regarding them, such concepts are still ultimately digested through our physical understanding of the world.    A diagonal line, for example, gives off a sense of dynamic motion, of “leaning” or imminence because of our recognition of our own physical tendency to lean when we are moving forward.  The divide between nonsense and abstraction lies in the anchoring into reality.  If we cannot find a way to link abstraction into our understanding of reality, then it is nonsense.

Therefore, it seems likely that neither aesthetic nor realistic interpretation is absolutely exclusive of the other—they both rely on each other in order to allow for the possibility of significance.

Where did the idea of art as strictly aesthetic or realistic ever come from, if it seems that the two are two sides of the same spinning coin?  If we look at the issue historically, it is more likely that something is classified when a new, contrasting method or technique is introduced.  That is to say, our consideration of art effect tends to be comparison to its own limitations.  Much of our appreciation of art tends to be in retrospect; it regards what we have seen in the past in relation to what we see and expect today.

The realist or abstract value of a piece of art is at least partly determined by the audience.  This means that even if the piece of art does not change, the audience’s interpretation of the art might change with time, depending on how their ways of thinking evolve.  Thus, not only are the production or interpretive mechanics of the art subjective—the very audience, composing of people with constantly changing beliefs and preferences, itself changes, depending on the current technical and technological distance from the work in question.

In other words, we return to our second question: is even the audience-qualified interpretation of artistic value static? No.

Thus, an attempt to classify art as being exclusively abstract or realistic is futile, since such polarity implies a stasis of status.  Not only can’t we agree that a piece of art holds an objective intrinsic value (either abstract or realistic), but even if such were the case, such an intrinsic value of the piece of art is only half of the experience of art itself.  The audience makes up the other half, and that second half does not have absolute perceptions.  The effect of an existing piece of art tends to change with the passing of time, because even if the object of art does not change, the audience does.

Art is human experience.  It must be created by someone, and it must be interpreted by someone. Somewhere between a sheet of white paper and a pencil, the act of sketching out an image and then reviewing it with expectation adds meaning to it beyond the atomic considerations.  It is not merely paper and graphite, but the way in which a human hand combines it, and the way in which a human interprets the combination, that not only adds significance to it, it creates significance.  Art is thus an act of focusing our attention.  The process is the act of reproduction and preservation of things in the human experience.   The significance is that focus which, in varying degrees, is exaggerated to our senses to gain some insight.  It is something that exists in reality because of our attribution of attention and interpretation to it. 

Bazin takes what is ultimately a synergistic view of the relationship between realism and abstraction:


The quarrel over realism in art stems from a misunderstanding, from a confusion between the aesthetic and the psychological; between true realism, the need that is to give significant expression to the world both concretely and its essence, and the pseudorealism of a deception aimed at fooling the eye (or for that matter the mind); a pseudorealisim content in other words with illusory appearances. (12)


Bazin here has introduced particular terminology for his explanation.  First, what we consider realist art, Bazin calls the “psychological”.  Psychological appreciation of art occurs when we recognize that something has been represented with accuracy in reality, outside of its original occurrence in time.  For example, a photograph would have a psychologically artistic appeal, because it provides us with an image that simulates the sense data without us being at the time and place of the scene’s original occurrence.  By psychological appreciation, he implies that it is appreciated because it recreates the physical reality as accurately (realistically) as possible.

The abstract effort to exaggerate our focus is that same act preservation, but of focused aspects that only are distantly conveyable by objects in physical reality. Thus we arrive at what Bazin dubs ‘pseudorealism’.

In a way, Bazin’s differentiation between realism and pseudorealism is parallel to the Russian distinction between two different translations for the word truth: istina, and pravda.  Realist work aspires towards istina, while pseudorealist work, being more abstract, aspires towards pravda.

Bazin’s approach is interesting in that it attributes a particular importance to the abstract in realism, in the same way that pravda is important to istina.  As a pseudorealism, the pseudorealistic is that which not only preserves an idea, but also paradoxically creates something new.  That which is extrinsic of the model is, in Bazin’s view, not part of the model at all—it is something that is attached, but in its isolation, is in itself independent through our focus and thus new.  In that way, art is a reproduction of an idea that must maintain realism to a minimal degree where the pseudorealism can at least still be anchored within a model.  An abstract idea is not the antithesis to a realist one, but rather, in a sense, an extension of a particular idea which is anchored into our understanding using a realist one.  This assumes that the new thing that is created, that which Bazin considers the “deception” or “illusory appearance”, is something extrinsic of the model.  Thus, the aesthetic which Picasso or Dali create are only possible because of the realistic concepts upon which the appreciation plays with our expectations.

Bazin inducts photography to his discussion to illustrate the paradox between abstraction and realism.  For if all art was purely realist, what room would there be for originality if such strong objectivity was suddenly possible? Consider this: what separates a newspaper’s account of an event, versus a fictionalized novel? Where is the line between documentary and art?

If art lies half in the production, then it seems that documentary would be somewhat lacking because it would be too realistic.  If the production of art involves the intent and purpose, which is the artist’s contribution to the work of art, documentary is preserving a particular event which cannot be disputed; the event itself is in fact beyond objective, because it happened in reality.  “For the first time an image of the world is formed automatically, without the creative intervention of man,” (10) says Bazin.

However, this is the interesting effect of new technology.  Leonardo Da Vinci, for example, was regarded as the archetypal “Renaissance Man” for his attention to realism.  Take into consideration his numerous drawings of human anatomy.  His drawings express a great deal of attention to realism; that is to say, they attempt to portray physical reality as accurately as possible.  And yet, even if his sketches of human anatomy were considered realistic, they are considered diminished in this importance today compared to modern photographs of human anatomy.  Thus, what was viewed as objective and documentary back in the Renaissance era came, in retrospect from modern technology, to once again be viewed as somewhat subjective.  As technology tends to make the preservation of an idea outside of its original occurrence more realistic, our expectations for realism heighten, and our conception of past methods changes.  Past works of art tend to be less valued, relatively speaking, for their realism, and more valued for their subjectivity and abstraction.

So it is that modern photography, as a medium, is viewed as having more realistic potential (at least in terms of physical reality) than mediums previous to it, such as painting.  And, to take it a step further even, film adds another dimension of realism, that of time.

This is, however, in no way to say that photography’s potential potential in art is because of it its objectivity. A case might be made to suggest that a newspaper isn’t a piece of art, because of its objectivity approaching documentary function.

Just as Da Vinci’s anatomical sketches were viewed as documentary back then, it seems quite likely that modern documentary, such as newspapers and photographs, still have plenty of room for subjectivity which we merely need to explore with deeper retrospect.  And indeed, Bazin accounts for this possibility: “The personality of the photographer enters into the proceedings only in his selection of the object to be photographed and by way of the purpose he has in mind,” (10).  Thus, even if the image captured seems to be realistic and could theoretically be without significance, in that it simply exists, there is something to be said about the reasons for the photographer choosing his particular subject.

Although it seems that abstract works of art might be more readily tagged as art because of their obvious subjectivity, the art of realistic art has to do with a game played. “Today the making of images no longer shares an anthropocentric, utilitarian purpose,” (10) says Bazin.  “It is no longer a question of survival after death, but of a larger concept, the creation of an ideal world in the likeness of the real, with its own temporal destiny” (10).  That is to say, realistic art plays right beneath our senses—it satisfies our psychological need for an anchor into reality. It preserves something, and we recognize this.  But the realist art is also complimented by subtle abstraction—that which makes the photograph more than just a document, which hints at something and gives us an entry by which our interpretation as an audience can still give it subjective meaning.

The push and pull between abstraction and realism in both production and induction tends to be catalyzed by the advent of new technologies and techniques.  This is because the individual’s life is so deeply affected by technology.  The idea, which we are preserving, is a subject of debate, since: the act of preservation is subjective; and the interpretation method is subjective.  This idea can thus be qualified to varying degrees in terms of realism and abstraction, however, only with the understanding that the two qualifications are inexorably linked to one another.  Art, thus, perhaps can be said to be defined by its escape from definition.  It is a concept of totality in the process of constant evolution, rather than one of particularity.


The Metropolitain Challenge: 27 days remaining

For those of you who didn’t click those previous links, myself and some friends intend to do what is known as the Metropolitain Challenge.  It’s basically a Montreal wide bike excursion over the span of a day, that will cover a minimum distance of 75km, and a maximum distance of 150km.  It depends on how far you think you can make it and when you want to drop out.

I’ll be chronicling the event as much as I can.  We have 27 days to get in condition to finish this.

:::: MC 2007 / T-minus 27 days ::::

  • So far, I’ve got Jimmy, Zanshin and Alfredo who have signed up with me.  I sent out 110 invitations, and honestly, I wanted to get 5 confirms or so, so this is very good considering that this is only a day after I sent out the call to arms.  If nobody else, a 4 person team is pretty doable.
  • Tomorrow, I’m going to be taking my bike down to the shop to have it tuned. I could do it myself, but I don’t want to take any chances that I might have overlooked anything, so I’d rather get it done by professionals.
  • When you organize an event, people have one of three possible responses when you actually corner them– yes, no, and maybe.  No is one thing.  Yes is one thing.  Maybe is the subject I’d like to address.  See, some people say “maybe” because they are actually trying to tie up some loose ends and seeing if they have to shift their schedules or arrange whatever before they can, commitedly, decide to join the event.  Those of you who are the genuine maybes: this post is not addressed to you!  But then, the kinds of maybes that I hate are the ones where people put “maybe” just because they’re stalling and don’t want to say yes, but they’re too chicken to say no.  I mean, come on!  If you don’t intend to come, don’t waste my time waiting on you!  Saying no doesn’t hurt my feelings anymore than saying maybe until the day of the event and then it just passes and everyone’s like “Oh, well….”  Now, assuming I care whether or not you come (which I should, since I invited you in the first place) and that either way, your presence is going to be missed whether you officially say “no” or “maybe”, at the very least have the decency to SAVE ME SOME TIME by skipping all the bush beating.  For gods sakes, people are always lecturing me about honesty, but they’re a buncha … well.  I tell you, it’s just a horse with it’s chin up, it’s not even really that high.  It’s not really honesty if you’re up to your hips in white lies, playing on words.

Shameless Advertising

I’m sorta trying to get some groups together for some events. I didn’t create the events, but I did create facebook groups for these events. So if you’re in Montreal and want to ride with me and some of my peeps, check out the details.

For you people who have bikes and are willing to tough it out:


And for the casual bikers just looking to have some fun:


Concordia University’s Response to the Virginia Tech Incident

April 17, 2007 |

Dear President Steger,

The Concordia community was shocked to learn of the carnage that
took place on the campus of Virginia Tech. We would like to express our
solidarity and offer any support we can during this difficult period
for your institution.

We have known our share of tragedy at Concordia and so have other
sister institutions in Montreal. We also know how important it is to
continue the academic mission and dedication to students in times of
turmoil. You have done this admirably, and we salute your courage and
commitment to maintaining the integrity of your institution.

On a personal level, I want to extend my most sincere condolences to
the family and friends of the deceased and those injured. If there is
anything that faculty, staff or students at Concordia can do to help,
please feel free to contact me.

On behalf of all of us at Concordia, our thoughts are with you and
we wish you strength in the aftermath of this senseless and tragic

Claude Lajeunesse
President, Concordia University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

I’m going to critisize this letter later on, both the way it’s written, and what it represents.  But I’ll get to that later, I need to sleep right now so I can awaken in time to go to work. (This post is a placeholder to remind myself to write more about this later.)

In the meantime, feel free to try and guess what I don’t like about this!

LBA 2007 Champions

Random Thoughts:

  • I got my Champion shirt for being part of a winning team in this year’s LBA League.  Yay!  Pictures will follow once I get my bluetooth adapter back.
  • I bought a technical shirt that’s made in USA, and a pair of technical shorts, also made in USA.  It’s my habit, nowadays, to try and be more conscious about what little I do buy.  So if it’s something that looks like sweatshop work– I probably won’t buy it.
    • Now, far from being perfect: YES, I realize, I still eat meat. So that does mean that, because of me, a lot of farm animals suffer totally deplorable ‘living’ standards just to put that meat on my plate.  I am trying to cut down to reduce my impact.  I’m not saying I’m perfect– I’m saying I’m TRYING to do my part in whatever ways I can.  That means that when I don’t need to be a drain on the world, and I know I don’t have to be, I won’t do it.  It’s that simple.
      • This is why I’ve never been in a rush to get a driving liscence.
  • Now, and important, and I say VERY important thing I ought to mention– don’t try to use fallacious reasoning with me to tell me that what I’m doing is hypocritical just because of something else I do that’s wrong.  Like, don’t tell me that “You bike to work? But that’s hipocritical.  Don’t know know that that bike comes from China and was probably assembled in a sweatshop?”
    • First of all, Fuck You.
    • Second of all, look:  There are no perfect solutions, there is no documentation on how to live a perfect, saintly life.  Get off my case.  You can always pick holes and try to kick my house of cards down. Any asshole can do that.  The thing is, I’m doing what I can, the best way I think I can.
    • Thirdly, don’t give me that crap as some sort of reason for you yourself not to actively be more conscious about your own imact on the world.  Just because someone else (say, me) might be wrong about certain things because I try, doesn’t excuse you from trying to find your own way as well.  We all experiment in our own ways.  This is the only way we get at answers.   You can critisize my answers– help me get at the right one if you can– but don’t you dare tell me that the process is in itself useless.  I could write a whole essay about how you owe it to yourself and how you owe it to society for you to do your best, but I don’t have time at the moment.
    • Bottom line: Trust me, I’m working on it.
    • Bottom line 2: YOU should be working on your way of making the world a better place to.  And no, that doesn’t mean just buying more consumer goods to ‘stimulate the economy’.
    • Okay, enough about me ranting about that stuff.
  • So, I got a pair of tight shorts, it’s the sort of thing that looks like what bikers wear. I wear them for badminton, under my regular shorts. And I actually feel a difference– my legs are less tired.  I don’t exactly have the time to discuss the technology or the ideas behind it right now, but suffice it to say they cover my quadriceps and hamstrings and they make your msucles give you more bang for your buck. They don’t make you stronger or faster, but they do make me last longer. More on this later, maybe.
    • The shirt and shorts cost me a total of 98$ CAD. That’s the more money than I’ve spent on clothes in the last two or three years combined. I kid you not.
    • They are worth it, because of their special features!
    • It was a choice between more technical clothes (which i consider an investment, because it makes me able to do more things I enjoy, and these things are good for my health) or 180$ for a Nintendo DS Lite with flash cart (so I can play ‘backup’ games!).
      • IN the end, it was the clothes because while that’s an investment in a healthy lifestyle, a DS Lite is a gaming console that only takes up time and makes me more antisocial.  As it stands, I spend enough time on my PS2 and Halo that I can’t really warrant another pieslice of my life going towards gaming.
  • I am going to be going to asia for a 1 month vacation this summer! WOhooo!  Philipines and Taiwan are the main destinations. Not quite sure if there will be stops in singapore or hong kong yet.
  • Photoshop is fun. It’s like a game. It has a similar feeling to games where you collect things, like pokemon, or  build up your character, like in an RPG– it’s sorta got this ‘cumulative’ feeling to it where you just keep tuning it. Eventually, you get a few basic techniques down and then you’re like, wow, that’s so easy! Then you can build on that and move further. It’s actually a lot like badminton and kickboxing, or even music.


Something I was playing with in Photoshop. What I had intended to be a few photo tweaks turned out to be about 4 hours in Photoshop.

Depicted is the RsM 4A team that I’m captain of, but it’s missing the heads of for
Jenny, Jing, Yuan and Marieve since I either didn’t have any pictures
of them, or the pictures that I do have don’t fit the “looking forward” motif.

The RsM 4A team is something that came to its conclusion a few weeks ago when we beat West Island (the only team to ever dent our record by beating us once) and Ile Bizard.  Ile Bizard was a marked improovement– the first time we played them, we escaped by the skins of our teeth– we won 5-4.  The second time around though, having grown a lot as players and as a team, we beat them 9-0.

I say that RsM 4A came to it’s conclusion because next year, it will be dubbed RsM 3– we’re moving up in skill levels from Division 4 to Division 3.  That means it’s going to be tougher than it’s ever been before.  We have our work cut out for us– but I’m confident that, just as this year was better than last, next year will be yet another step forward.

The badminton player is a sportsman.  The sportsman is, in a sense, an artist.  Some would say a warrior-scholar.  It doesn’t matter. Those are just words.  The point is, the activity is something that ‘doesn’t matter’ for survival.  It doesn’t protect you.   It doesn’t serve any primal purpose, like putting shelter over your head, clothes on your back, or food in your gut.

So the need isn’t physical.

And yet, in a different way, it is.  Because the physical doesn’t ever feel right if the spirit isn’t satisfied. Because even if we can satisfy our basic physical needs, the spirit demands something else. The sportsman is the result of that fighting spirit; the sportsman exists when a normal person decides that to be exist isn’t enough: rather, one must live.

Somewhere within the sportsman is an ideal that all the energy we have, from the bad days, the unanswered questions, the anxieties of life, all that can be used in a medium that returns us to the very basics of emotion.  It is a place where we can undercut all the complications of our lives, and arrive at something deeper, something more primal than any anxieties or frustrations, something  that we knew naturally and sincerely since we were babies– that something is fun.

For a bit of fun, a real fighter will step forward a thousand times– because it is scarce.  Fun isn’t easy to have. It’s easy to ignore it, it’s easy to overlook it or to forget what it is.  Ironically, as simple as fun is, fun takes discipline.

The sport is the fusion of the physical fighter and the fighting spirit… forward it goes, to affirm it’s place in the world.

So when I say fighter– I don’t even necessarily mean you have to put on boxing gloves, or that you have to get your racket and compete.  I mean, simply, that you have to be willing to earn your fun.  You can have it handed to you, sure.  But it’s only those who pursue something greater that ever get to experience anything greater.  You get what you put into it.

And so it is that for something that ‘for just a game’ people madly run about the courts, cursing, hurting, praying, crying….

Are you willing to do what it takes to have your fun?  Alright then– so lace up your shoes, and step forward.

It will not be handed to you.


I generally go to my grandparents’ house to visit at least once per week, sometimes more (depends on how hungry I am) and it usually happens pretty late.  I mean, at dinner time, or after work, or after school (which I usually finish pretty late). 

I noticed something different because I went there yesterday morning.  The place is completely different during the daytime.

Maybe it’s because when I’m there on my own, the place is so quiet with just my grandparents. It sort of reminds me of when I was young and used to be babysat there with my sister– no adults except my grandparents.  No matter what I’m doing, they’re cooking me food to eat even if I’m full.

I am reminded of the lyric from Dave Matthew’s “Ants Marching”, which said ‘…playing under the table and dreaming…’

Because that’s exactly what we used to do, we used to hide under tables and pretend they were houses.

Some things never change.

The Midnight Club

When I was in college, there were so many people who were online for chatting past midnight.  I wonder how that changed?

I’m listening to the Blue Man Group because I find that it helps clear my head.

Tonight is one of those “I want to Scream” night where people are just pissing me off.

I think that when one does even a bit of boxing, the situation automatically becomes complicated.  See, if you don’t know how to punch someone, you don’t miss the sensation.  You don’t know what it’s like to feel a solid connection between knuckles and cheekbones.  It’s like– I don’t miss skydiving, and though I do want to try it, I don’t know how much more I’ll want it because I’ve never done it yet before.

But I have punched people, both in and out of sporting situations.  And in it’s own way, that’s the problem– because I know what it’s like to do that, and that’s why the temptation is so much greater.

There are days when I feel this force rising up in me that just really wants to do something destructive.  It’s a fuel that demands to be used.  This emotion… It’s not hate.  It kinda tastes a lot more like frustration.

Night like this, I play a bit of a game.  These negative energies that circulate throughout me… I have no illusions about them. I can’t just ‘ignore them’.  That would just make it worse.

No, I’m trying to ride it.  I can’t think of a better verb for this.  Go with it? This flow? To try and steer it or something?

There are days where I give in to pure terror and I feel myself being paralyzed where I lie.  I mean, physically.  Fighting it makes me more tense.  Instead, trying to ride it out works better.

… perhaps it’s just the sleep deprivation talking.  I shall go to sleep after this.


[From the Good Today, Better Tomorrow  FB group]

Low on inspiration?
Feel like your life is going nowhere? Or are you someone who is
frustated about those around you who can’t find that ‘something’ to
make their lives complete?

This is a Facebook group dedicated to
dealing with the existential challenge that is life. Everywhere around
the world, people are suffering from a feeling of disconnectedness with
their lives to a certain degree, and society makes it such that
oftentimes that isolation is viewed as weakness that should be swept
under the rug. It is a problem that is ignored or stigmatized as ‘not
our problem’, when, ironically, it is *everyone’s problem*.

fear, insecurity: all these things in life happen to everyone. To
ourselves, our families and our friends, and even our enemies. Not
everyone needs to see a psychiatrist, but everyone needs to realize
that they are not alone with these thoughts.

This group is
created to take advantage of the global audience of Facebook to connect
thoughts and experiences on all things about life. It aims thus to
inspire; a second goal is the advancement of ‘techniques’ and
philosophies that will help to either deal with our own moments of
doubt, or gain insight into others who doubt with the purpose of
achieving a Good Today, and a Better Tomorrow for all societies.

This group welcomes peoples of all religions and philosophies to share their experiences!


See, I’m not exactly sure where to start, but here’s a shot in the dark to see if I can get my foot in the door of something good.

If you’re on facebook, please join in the group I started so we can see if we can’t make a difference:


No, I’m not joking.  As corny and ineffectual as this may sound to you, i’d really appreciate all the help I can get in getthing this off the ground.

I must stress that we need anyone and everyone’s experiences to make this forum work!

Damn you all

… Jeez, I am trying to procrastinate here, and you people aren’t posting anything! God, you’re all so selfish!