Codesmith

Life, Or Something Like It
2005-03-21 20:02:42 (UTC)

Acting

It's 0321, Monday. 148pm. No change in weather.

If acting were just an art where you attempted to mimic the
everyday quality of life, as well as anticipate human
emotions ... why couldn't everyone be actors? Why couldn't
a random person be conscripted to play any role? When I
say "any" role, I mean ... say, some sort of soap opera on
t.v.

I mean, those shows feature normal people. Well, ... they
feature people. People who, are observed to go through the
rigors of life experiences, both normal and not. So, what
makes my next door neighbor unfit for that sort of
profession? I guess, the first response to that question
would be that not very many people are in the position to
experience the wide ranges of experiences that people on
soap operas are suppose to experience. For instance, the
traumatic shock of finding out that you're really adopted.
Not only that, but your adopted parents are in cahootz with
some devious jack-of-all-trades millionaire with a curious
cuban accent, who schemes to take over the world.

Who better to portray such complex feelings than an actor?
Afterall, not everyone has that sort of ... experience. But
then, do actors have that experience? Well, no. Maybe, not
all of them. But the thing with actors is that they have
that quality where they are able to ... pretend that they
are. Convincingly.

If it's a matter of pretending, then it's really an
admirable skill. I mean, most people try to pretend how
they feel and some succeed and some do not. You say you're
alright when you're not. You're basically lying. But,
people lie for different reasons. Societal and not. To go
through each reason would be beyond the scope of this entry.

What did Shakespeare say? All the world's a stage? I think
maybe he was being literal.

I've hidden how I felt for so long, that I find it
difficult to express it correctly. Sometimes anger comes
out uncontrollably, and other times depression which I know
should not strike so harshly, strikes even more harshly.

I was at the bookstore the other day, and I was skimming
this book about the number phi. ... I still have no idea
what the number phi is. What I liked about the book though,
was all on the first paragraph. It was this quote from Lord
Kelvin, the person whom we have to thank for the Kelvin
scale. He said in a lecture, that if you can't explain it
in numbers, than it's not worth mentioning.

I'm happy to know then, that alot of my stuff is worth
mentioning since I've tried to ... explain them in numbers,
more or less. Although, I think I'm taking Lord Kelvin's
comment a bit too literally.

The book store was nice. I feel ... odd for even saying
that. Like, I should be doing something more. Something
more interesting ...

I don't know. Firing a bazooka? Constructing ... something?

Human interactions are interesting things. You have a near
infinite amount of ways for an encounter to develop. Yet,
at the same time, there are limitations. So it's like ...
1/x^2.

The graph, I mean. You have a graph 1/x^2, and it has a
shape on a two dimensional plane. Obviously. And say, you
took vertical slices of the graph from whatever the Y-point
is, to the x-axis. The graph extends into infinity, of
course. Each slice represents a possible way for something
to happen. So how many slices could we have? Well ...
infinite.

But if we add up all the slices, we get a finite number.
Namely, 1.

How do we add an infinite amount of numbers and get 1? Well
that's a calculus topic.

I thought it would be more interesting, but in retrospect
it doesn't seem that way. I'm ... depressed. Not about the
numbers, but just about something in particular.

Let me put it this way. My life will be finite. Yet along
the way, I'm going to have a near infinite amount of
problems. Like, for example, I might have some problem "A",
that might be solvable through some solution "A."
Sometimes, I'll be able to procure solution "A" and
sometimes I won't be able to.

But in the long run, there's no guarantee that I'll be able
to solve all my problems. That is, there's no guarantee
that my ability to procure a solution for any given problem
will guarantee a solution for my next problem.

There is no cause-effec relationship, no direct correlation
that just because I can solve one problem, I can solve all
my problems. Obviously. I'm not stating anything profound.
I mean, if that weren't the case, then all exams would be
either a 100% or a 0%.

I mean, you can write a program to do something. That
doesn't mean you can write any kind of program to do
anything. I mean, you come up against the Halting problem
in regards to algorithms. I think it was Turing who proved
it.

Anyway, ... according to Turing, not all problems are
solvable. But then again, in Turing's world, everything was
math. Are such quantifable things appropriately applicable
to the world of emotions?

Hard to say.

If Lord Kelvin were here, he might say that in the world of
emotions, ... nothing is worth explaining.

... In a weird kind of way, ... maybe he's right. Maybe
it's not worth explaining because it just ... is. For that,
things should be taken as they are. Not to be understood,
but for as they are ... and nothing more.

Dude, that sucks.

At anyrate, I'm going to take some personality quiz that
the Thespian sent me. Let's see if I'm as depressed as I
say I am. Or something.




Ad: