http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art  see Value Judgment.  This reflects in the process of judging art.
    Okay so I find myself judging a bit of art here now, or at least compelled to answer this along humanistic grounds.  One if to describe from the philosophical aspect of human nature, it seems wholly contrived for an individual to claim complete detachment from their work, their surrounding, their environment, their subject matter of art.  While perhaps, one could assert in a limited space and time, a context of separation, a feeling, an emotion, in most cases, this weren't the case, or at least I would imagine in context of time and subject matter,  most humans would feel something of an emotion regarding a given subject matter (even if this were supposed to something of an ambivalence).  Any significant claim otherwise it seems fall under the judgement of bad art on these lines, or merely constitute a claim of deception?...at least bad art neither in asserting something of a humanism with respect to a given composition.  Finding myself emotionally compelled because its seems maybe I've accorded something to the artist here.  That art weren't merely simply innocent or detached representations, or at least it seldom should seem that enough detachment could exist in the emotive centers of a human being, in so far as the construction of a work were concerned...unless someone simply found ways of engaging in the form of perfect 'enlightenment' which detached all experience from body and mind itself, often times, a context of emotional attachment should exist in some form.  Which draws me to a bit of fair 'moral' criticism of a liar otherwise, or at least someone sloppily un aware either as a thinker or much considerate to the meaning of being human.  Hmm...finding myself parsing this idea of judging art again, because of a moral certainty regarding a level of self awareness.  Seeming bias in stating that art were 'bad' merely because an artist could be either sloppily self un aware regarding the exchange between art and being, or that they were merely dishonest which could exist for any number of reasons.  As to explanation and derivation of a given composition, if intentions itself could be absent from the process of creation, one might be inclined to overlook, but when the claim is intertwined with the process of creation and work itself, it seems this is yet another problem, and then I wonder how often the artist themselves are really provided so much freedom to anonymity in working...surely Shakespeare were a name that really were theorized  as a group of writers?!  If an artist were subject to the scrutiny of provisioning some defense, explanation to work also describe the inherent 'moral' bias of a higher art world, and even in a previous age, it would seem the expectation were that a single mind and name produced any number of works known today.  This leads me to consider in the way, a history of, for instance, representational art, which often times could include the artists biases in selecting a given subject matter (e.g., consider art and politics, art and religion, and so forth), and then even so called modern art, however abstracted weren't immune to biases of the artist?  Unfortunately it would seem 'modernism' to many could be co opted to serve as to the dis connection people have with a particular media, as though describing in some vague manner the employment of anything that could serve as media for a given subject matter.  If this were true though, one could suspect at some level, an artist might serve himself to torture, for example, someone and begin discussion about the transformation of media as represented before and after, but it would seem there are limits to this...I consider another bit of moral criticism of the following: 'Actions which no longer serve imagination have the effect of dis integrating levels of art itself.'  It seems this bias were reserved with respect to the propaganda of violence itself, namely, that when reality itself were horrific, the art of a subject matter may suffer for it, or in other words, it seems freedom in conveying suffers at times.  Returning to the original subject matter of the tortured subject, a so called modern artist might be hard pressed to convey his/her works in an exhibit, or at least have only so much defense.  This is to say, the statement accords, 'Moralists have no place in an art gallery.'  asserts something less then well thought out in my opinion, haphazard to the condition of human nature and civilizations themselves.  At least, a given space is permeated, and more so one is to wonder how characteristic abstraction reflects only more so the reflexive and careful conditioning of minds?  In fairness, one might also retort in world of popular art over less then popular art, one were left to the reflexive and haphazard co opt of a subject matter that were often times thought of as nothing more then phallic graffiti...here, one might be inclined to detest this in as much at times the ACLU?!   While poorly drawn characters make for ample return of agreement on a little and often despised subject matter...if you hadn't supposedly needed controversial statements from an electronic 'modernist' composer Stockhausen here, all other pop culture likely were to suit you fine until some firebrand of a cultural warrior re emerged in some future day.  Generally speaking, and maybe Stockhausen were right in some manner:  did one need to be well understood or accessible?
 
    Anyways, deliberately started this post as a cryptic response to something today.  I should eventually get around to my reading of Kafka and the Terror of Art or some book title that I bought like this so many years ago...Don't we all have Gregor Samsa moments? 

The Fine Art of Love movie review

    Sort of writing this review offering perhaps less review and more so a glimpse into our present culture.  Particular it seems because as evidenced to a slice of Americana if a given set of views whether art were truly bad art or not, it seems in certain spheres most judgement would be reserved with exception to few candidates...unfortunately this sort of reservation in judgement it seems has also led to any number of problems regarding censorship at times in recent past, but a form of personal liability.  Generally speaking if at times the surreal and illogical works of any candidate work only having provided at sometime an interpretative structure to a time frame, for instance, in historical drama.  Unfortunately the presence of 'nubile' s and dramatization while neither appealing to certainties of character...never mind here often times the paradox of, for instance, any person brainwashed into believing one thing while on the other hand in the prior sense having known completely the opposite.  Illogical and irrational human behavior has littered human history throughout the ages, and then even the absurdities of seemingly illogical behavior in fiction and works of art.

    Only it seems strange to me saying this because at least a critic would have acknowledged some aspects of 'fine art'...on the one hand, if a movie appealing as much to the convention of entertaining a certain audience of movie go er, Django Unchained, entertained so much but neither appealed strictly in the absolutist sense of providing honesty to the better half of an audience offended by so much absurdity in one context while simultaneously entertained by it in another context, it would seem there just weren't so much of an audience to review a film here being a lesser known work one should imagine.  The dark narrative seems unashamed in some form of bias and full of indictment, or at least selectively dramatic in presentation here.  If it were un apologetic in offense, it would only seem that plenty fairness has been given to those in power to write history often times and having it censored at the same time.  Never mind, the absurd horrors and veneer of appeal to social conventions and laws of a given time, that speak of so much the paradox having born at times brainwashed neurosis.  Why were it possible that destitute people in another part of the world bought into the idea that their lives would possibly so much greater in another country such as America if they might have heard or known in some ways before all manner of outcomes possible for a given future.  Didn't paradoxically something exceptional ring in the hearts that any freedom of any idea were better then the freedom of the certain reality, and that such freedom of idea entertained all sorts of imagined possibilities? 
 
   But this illustrates another point in judgement, leading me to how one claims to judge: good versus bad art?  Is it because the artist appears so contemptuously haphazard in some appeal, having provided so much work with respect to costuming, and some work with respect to music direction.  Strange hearing a 70s Gothic horror sounds to Chopin, while the flowing costumes of the young dancers reminds of old vintage footage that I could recall in a Fritz Lang movie.  Of course, in some ways I might have appealed by way of convention to a history itself on these matters, a 'finishing' school were select enough and only perhaps a small cross section of this society, not sure how this compared to potential of abuse in power, or that at least cultures engaged in liberalizing socially would still deal with potentials of abuse excused on this premise, or whether or not writer's convention, or shades of truth in history appealed with respect to conveying the tragedy of victims, that  damage meant one's being were irreparably harmed.  Of course, this seemingly plays into so much contradictions.  Social liberalization ingratiating the emotive centers of sensuality while on the other hand restrained in another sense, homosexuality weren't exactly tolerated in the more clear and open sense, but at least some old perverted woman could use the pretence of Greek classicism to appreciate a young female.  Here the paradox of revivals, liberalization allowing for much greater chance of personal intimacies while girls coveted in boundaries of sexual space...and opportunity for contact with men more likely traumatic if not by chance, if only a life being reserved to a selected man in the way of sexual servitude on the topic of slavery, much of this master's mentality of the world were in the brewing as a pretext to our world wars: weren't the prince of this film something of a representation of the masters of that culture?  I might be interested in a way to know more about this subject matter from the historical perspective, as to the narrative, it very well maybe modern interpretation on a lesser known subject.  In a way the movie has all the appearance of a movie that might have been done in the 70s as opposed to in our new century, and sometimes I wonder if there weren't a conspiracy to release old shelved films in some ways?!  :) But if it seems something of the trend to the experience of history as lens ed in the vintage as compared to historical drama, the film itself might not be so much of a revelation alongside anything else produced, except saying something else maybe.  As to the topics of psychological and sociological survey's I'd profess enough my own ignorance on this subject matter.  It would seem aspects of this film should seem in some ways like the sorts of narrative conventions of b rated 70s horror while on the other hand providing stark contrast and the backdrop of drama concerning an unsettling history...at least one could claim a group of peoples did some of their work in the period representations aspect here, or if this movie failed miserably, appealing too much to the convention of attempting at face value entertainment while weaving itself into the corner of cliches...then it were nothing more then the façade of fine art left in the retro 70s b horror camp, as to cult film, no. In fairness, to another critic, you know, ironically I were attracted to the film because of the title and in fairness it were a bit of 'bait and switch', not sure if I had outgrown those old late night cinemax days, and obviously there were something of a cleverness here.  If it were set to offend, why these attempts have been done for a long time what's new these days?  And anyway s, how does this historical drama provide illustration to our generation.  Technically speaking, I were too young to have experienced my parent's liberalization, their experimentations with sex and drugs, too young to experience their path to enlightenment, too young to experience their trips to India (well technically my mother and father only made it as far as a small college town in Kansas and as to sex and drugs??), but old enough to have experienced something of ensuing angst in later years.  Therein it seems while having recalled so much the liberalization with respect to openness in cultures, are we living amidst something of revelations or merely pretense to resurrections of witch hunts, or at least previous generational parallels may neither be well served here?   If only at face value, one were left with what should seem period film with period filming techniques, maybe this were merely on the surface conventional novelties for culture, or in better fairness, maybe it were in giving chance to any previous generations film maker the film desired in filming?  Sort of tire in saying this, but emphasis on being victim's of your parent's liberalization runs along the lines of generalization,  I honestly hadn't felt so traumatized when I secretly chose to watch Sin e max at the age of twelve on late night television, and then in some round about way, sometimes I wonder...maybe a misread.

Mental Health

     Human nature to fall into harder times, while others find resilience in their ways of overcoming whatever obstacles, others seem to have more difficulty finding restorative balance.  As to the risks at earlier age, its seems in a way anecdotal that at an earlier age some should be more prone and susceptible to the chasms of depression or anything which seems much insurmountable, or at least the sorts of debilitation that lead inexorably to the perception of persistence in the same condition would ebb with age, this is to say, one should imagine that one less likely thinks of the persistence in their state of being.  Here generalized anxiety seemingly should play into this: perspectivity lost in youth.  Dealing with loss, dealing with rejection in the world in some form seems a natural experience in life, how does mental inclinations range here?
 
    Over the years, its I've considered the cause of environment with respect to depression, but I am not so sure personally.  How does an active life, for instance, relate to a more sedentary life?  How does environmental stimulus relate to the nature of happiness?  Are we inclined to be happier people if we are more active in our daily lives, and find stimulation which aid us in the problem of being too prone to dwelling...and not dwelling in the positive sense of introspection?  It seems right in saying that we find a healthy balance of activity in life, that we seek positive support in our environment, or to say the least we find ways of shaping it to create the happiness that should exist.  As to the relationship of pain to the sufferer,  chronic pain hadn't made individuals less prone or more immune, or adapted to problems of this type, but having provided continuation if not progressions.   This could be thought of in the context of electronics as signal to noise interference problem with progression of noise interference over time.   Then it were mentioned some of the big offenders from the holistic standpoint commonly found were:  alcohol consumption, nicotine consumption, poor diet and lifestyle having contributed to signal noise problem here.

I found myself having contemplated to some degree about environment could play some role in depression.  Maybe because this were something else with respect to the relational manner of mental health...only thinking in concert to some article written years ago about NASA research regarding long term environmental research regarding semi-permanent to permanent life habitation on Mars.  Here findings that suggested that environmental structures had some relation to the social behavior and mental health of occupants that were subject to lengthy conditions of stay.  In the study, a number of participants tended to feel more comfortable, less anxious, when they were surrounded by organic reminders of their previous environment as opposed to living in 2001 ish sterile cold, clean geometric lines that one should envisage in any manner of sci fiction.  I wonder how much we are like this however here at home and what cognitive role physical space might play into the nature of depression itself?  Do we need to encourage ourselves to get out more?   I've lived in a world saturated more so by the persistent sounds of televisions, or general social noises, but then I wonder about our evolutionary past itself in relation to this?  Did we have the persistent chatter of televisions always, and what role might this play in sleep disorders?  Often I envisaged something of a more primitive man, albeit social in smaller groups relative to the urban metropolis found today, having been entertained in story telling, where written language had not existed, and having been social at some point likely near a fire side, like during the refrain of a day's previous activity.  Naturally it seems something of this social order would have likely persisted for many thousands, if not tens of thousands of years to the inception of our own existence, and then suddenly, within a relatively short time frame, more complex human societies had emerged.  How well have we adapted socially to the television, to the technologies that we have?  I'd offer this is purely speculative and neither a form of advocacy in its own right, or at least if advocacy should apply, maybe we need to make time to get outdoors to remind ourselves of the sorts of spaces that we typically lived in? If thinking the space of the world were the centers of human civilization alone, and if you had chance to step into a quieter world, would it seems so anxiety ridden, full of antagonisms, and antithetical to one's nature, one likely finding a benign if not peaceful place, and at least in a given civilization of this day, it would seem one were more free to be about in the places that would seem less desirable to a previous world.  This isn't to say, maybe there is a point of introspective refrain from the hustle and bustle of daily life which seems to have us thinking of any many of stresses and anxieties that otherwise exist.  I'd almost expect a chorus of dissent here:  'If we could only afford to take that trip somewhere else!'  To this end I couldn't say either that I weren't to the best of the advice that I've contemplated.  Somewhere herein there could be a balance, and anyways sometimes space shouldn't be so far away, and any space for a breather should help if cabin fever is setting, and then sometimes relative all else in life, if mental sanity at times might be found dangling two thousand feet above, while I've liked reading accounts at a distance, it seems practical balance could also work.
    Of course, I've at times been generally silent to the bellicosity of social networks and harassment therein, fundamentally though its a place that I don't dwell around or near, and hearing some cry baby complaining about freedom of speech because one personally hadn't desired dwelling in their space seems noxious enough.  If you hadn't heard enough of protest on the manner of censorship over a private corporations decision to hire and fire on whatever grounds so chosen, its hardly an affront to censorship here...at least private decisions are private decisions neither to be confused with freedom of speech especially given way to many soap box avenues of one sort or another that allows for the multitude of the professed?  Here the advice should seem simple enough:  shape your environment.  I am not a believer in given equal due to any every opinion.  Live firm in neither the expectation of changing or being changed in so far as basic steadfast opinions when it comes to personal conduct and behavior.
      Summing elements here, it should seem more obvious, if we are often too tired to do the any number of activities which promote healthy physical functioning, we are likely to sleep more often on a given day, less likely to want to go out.  Smoking or drinking hadn't helped in so far as energy levels, or in the context of exercise.  Gravitation towards the things which would promote quicker energy boosts like sugars more likely here.  Now in the short term, perhaps, sugars may actually play some beneficial role as an anti depressant, but in the long term, if the drawback is significant enough weight gain, coupled with erratic energy levels, this could be problematic to the progression of signal noise problems.  This is to say our nervous system tissues are like much other tissue dependent possibly on healthy physiological functioning, and that any number of correspondences between lifestyle could inhibit healthy functioning with respect to our nervous system pathways.  If we are less likely to get out, we maybe more likely to feel situational depression.  Inhibition of personal autonomy and freedom contribute to the experience of depression, particularly problematic in context of aging.  While in the short term, extra rest, eating comfort foods, pain relief medications may provide immediate relaxations in pains experienced, the unchecked long term effects could be consequential here.  In the pain cycle we are more prone not only to pains, but things like body tremors and spasms (very much part of the signal noise problem), and furthered immobility may only lead to the vicious cycle of progression in problems of this type.  Lastly if we thought of our social networks as a good thing, there could at least be some hope in providing many with greater ease and convenience access to social accesses which were of aid to mental health issues.  The problems of modern social networks, however, are the differences with respect to the ways we socialize online versus face to face.  We may be more inclined to say whatever we think and feel, more socially intolerant and neither precluded by physicality which are natural social inhibitors...obviously if a physically large man could be a greater social inhibitor to those of an aggressive nature, or this is to say if insulting the wrong person...as it used to be more likely you'd be afforded less then a gun or bad language shielded behind anonymous alts as a supposed equalizer.  It would seem the more common prankish behavior has also been provided uplift alongside all else likewise.  The problem with ease in expenses in socializing are the possible downsides: harassment  bullying, for example.  In truth though, for the suicides, it would seem the statistics demonstrate the more prime vulnerable ages in the 18-35 years group...generally, the good news is that in this age range statistically less prone to the aging disease issues and chronic pain if chronic pain were characterized or could be characterized this way, or at least outside of unusual circumstances, such couldn't be characteristically described as a norm.  The downside, is that if you were young and thought yourself invulnerable: wait till you get older!
     If you were once young, impressionable enough to believe that much of the world could be represented by such a small slice of life that you had experienced, you'd at least outgrown this immature view of life at some point, or you'd realize that the tendency of picking and choosing could be relational to the world that you were perceiving?!  Hard to judge life here so much, to me it seems a much tougher life, if you lost your parents and much family in something like a Bhopal tragedy?  A desensitized society doesn't help, one could imagine, at least in so far as in the promotion of have versus have not?  If you could get through the social potentials, genocides, social or otherwise, it seems the modern industrial world could be frought with so much, and then one were left to something of a basic question the doctor would likely ask at the moment:  are you okay?  As in right now...generally it would seem.  As in right now, and that is the crux of mental health it seems often times, and sadly enough, often it seems when the issue of survival comes up.  Who can do significant future planning?
    I would be inclined to end it here, but I can't help but re use the metaphor of science fiction with respect to psychology.  I've watched the Tarkovsky original Solaris any number of times, and it seems equal enough to re visiting the theme of many worlds within a world.  This is to say conscious thought which should manifest itself repeatedly, and then however evasive are we too the nature of reality in mind when it comes to power of mental protections?  How often are we willing to see what agrees or disagrees to confirm what we are thinking in mind at any given moment?  The subtleties of these should confer often what were thought as rationalizations to decisions it should seem.  One could refer to this as a principle of selectivity with respect to sense, and perhaps in communication the same as is equally true (e.g., selective hearing, selective sight).  Of course, in setting to human nature, if we gravitate towards what makes us happy and choose selectively what brings us more happiness, we may be inclined to see 'destined' fulfillment here, but on the other hand, something which confirms negativity may also lead to any number of self fulfillment s, or in other words, how often could you use the characteristic:  I relate to people best when they have problems?  I ask myself this question only in the sense that the patterns that we establish in life often times reflect a natural inclination and instinct with respect to behavior and actions.  Especially true, for example, if I have the unconscious habit of grabbing a smoke after a meal, or grabbing a smoke when I stimulated by a set of new ideas.  In a social setting when certain levels of social excitement are present?  But then if quitting the patterned behavior of addiction in smoking, for instance, one it seems not only at times deal with the immediate consequence of physiological addiction but also the 'pavlovian' triggers which seem to be ever present.  In the same way, if we have made habit to dwell negatively on our emotions, our angers and fears with any level of persistence through the course of a given day.  These also in some like kind provide a level of stimulation to our bodies.  As in the case of any addiction it seems at least some benefit may be present with respect to the physiological aspects of internal biochemical releases, or at least this hopefully isn't in combination to pharmacological or illicit stimulation either which tend to enhance and perhaps reinforce patterning in behavior, emotions, and thoughts.  Thus if we had chance to avert in some ways the previous patterns of addictions it would seem having recognized an established pattern firstly.  Of course, I would at least wonder, if not the entirety of life could be characteristically described as an exchange of addictions of one form or another.  In this view, it would seem we only describe truly the negative one's as 'addictions' by labels and leave others less stated.  It used to be that when I smoked a pack of cigarettes, a series of consumption of packs of smokes would likely occur before I could break the pattern of addiction personally, but as I've grown older.  I've managed more so to be able to pick up just one cigarette sometimes, and quit promptly for an extended duration, or quit after two packs of smokes.  Although I've yet to make an extended commitment as in 'for this lifetime',  it also seems easier if I don't provide the opportunity for continuity in habit making.  Of course, the physiological effects seem the same to me, but in another way because I've also have the experience of withdrawal  it also seems easier in quitting cold turkey, or with aids.   Strangely enough though I've managed to determine generally a constant rate of consumption flow with respect to my habit making when it has arisen, and breaking these patterns outside of cessation has actually been more challenging...leading me to characterize the habit as a genuine addiction here.  Generally I couldn't say the same for any other habit...maybe gaming.

Okay may construct a series of this...
     Leads me to wonder about the more vulnerable of age groups.  I've mentioned before something of a biased opinion considering the more vulnerable age populations with respect to mental health issues at least in so far as possibilities, but why this age relative any other?  Obviously, I mentioned an idea that could be crucial here.  The term growing into adulthood, having to overcome social obstacles to prove something in so far as identity.   For instance, such a rite could be characteristically described as passage in aboriginal cultures by way of 'walkabout'.  Here passing into manhood or failure described by death itself, and there it seems a similarity should exist even in modern industrial societies to some degree.  At least as in the modern sense of the word, established maturity and delineation of adulthood defined by a given independence whether by the pattern of independently forming relationships, having some occupation, albeit having changed from previous distinctions that might have had in the extended sense much relation under the same roof, and then even considering world economies, normative culture can be described fluidly in this regard.  For instance, where first world economies have slumped it maybe more commonplace, that children could be living with their parents as the possibilities of building equities have declined.  These boundaries aren't necessarily rigid, but one couldn't speak of boundary without something of a defined rigidity in thought, and maybe this plays something into the problematic aspect of why psychological phenomena should be more acute in these age groups.  Is it coincidence that schizophrenia, for instance, is manifest in the 18 to 35 year old age range?  Likely not, it perhaps reflects when environmental stresses are acute relative to other age groups where likely younger children neither have the same sets of environmental and social standards relative to young adults making more significant social transition, and likewise, once young adults have grown older, maybe it is more likely they are socially adjusted by way of family, occupation and much else.  It would seem 'growing up' is its own 'stress' test, but this also expresses something of the problem I believe inherent to this portion of our own society.

    In a bit of free form to switch tracks here in discussing a bit of social and personal philosophy...at least with the intention of discussing, how pattern of actions, thought and behavior, speak to the testament of how we live and survive in our worlds. How do the contrast of cultures decrying 'entitlement' versus the centers of economy given unemployment, or given a certain level of employment.  The reality for most being fame and fortune were quite exceptional in terms of opportunity likewise as opposed to norm, or maybe as good of odds winning fortune as winning a lottery?  Obviously if the stakes should be perceived higher in more competitive societies, maybe the ramifications with respect to the perception of failure should be given some higher accord.  Did more tolerance for mediocrity imply likely more self loathing, greater chance for despair, or did it mean something else?  As maintained by one guest commentator on NPR whom chaired enough important in the philosophy branch of his school, his books on mediocrity were far better sellers, then the more 'serious' subject matter of philosophy itself, and what does mediocrity have anything to do with 'entitlement' really?  The truth is that 'entitlement' seems to be a very vague word often co opted within social political establishments, countered by leftist professors in some sitcom that would sever the strings attached of their children's well being to prove they were anything but entitling their children, or would counter the argument that the very entitled were something like myself, an adult child living at home with the parents...mindful Italian politics having been using this same argument for the past decade in advocacy to the gerontocracy (technically not a real word, but refers in my usage to the establishment of an aging ruling population)...the youth aren't trusted, considered too spoiled, not knowing how to run their own political institutions.  Nevertheless, one wonders if any of these were really true.  Truly someone like me would be more of an exception in a way then a norm, and then with respect to the state of unemployment, relative to some countries, American unemployment while historically high, is also very low relative to other countries.  Likely its more the quality of work, or that American's are working for lesser wages or working part time, not necessarily un employed in general? Why the book on mediocrity then?  If having examined American productivity one would find that relative other countries, American's spend more time working not less to other countries which have been operating in the budgetary sense of the word better.  In other words, American's are not hemmed in from the financially successful sense because they are lazy.  In fact, they maybe over burdened with stresses as opposed to not willingly accepting enough obligations to the duties that they might have.  So why the to do in perpetuating in some manner that the stress of America were brought on by entitlement, or that American's were lazy, and yet in some way a philosophy professor could popularly sell better books referring to mediocrity?  As it turns out, the sense of 'entitlement' originated somewhere in the vague turf of credit rating systems, mortgage scandals, and all else.  Certainly homes weren't be given out without background checks, or I imagine without checking job references, and all else, even then when consumer credit considerations were more lax in scrutiny, and even then American productivity were still in the same ballpark today?  While it seems easy to fault both applicant and those providing mortgage opportunities, it would still seem something were amiss?  Could it still be some sense of 'entitlement'...likely here even economic moderates might have shy ed away from specifics here, and instead resort to some generic brand.  It seems 'entitlement' hadn't easily provided the notion of legal accountability for those involved in a given mortgage crisis, and it seems more so the emphasis at times pushed that personal 'individualistic' accountability were pushed as a social agenda to main street.  Meanwhile, the appeal of in efficiency ringing in mind here.  At some point even nature may neither push 99% efficiency at times, or more likely it would seem a happy medium of inefficiency should be better for the long haul if having provided enough slack so that one could in the short term lessen the slack when needed for short duration and resume the old pace if needed.  The cost of too much efficiency were less room to give once the boat starts really sinking!
    I realized that I meant for the word mediocre, procrastination which is different here.  Not sure why I thought of the word mediocre which is wholly different, or maybe both words could apply into translations for success given the right circumstances.  And what of procrastination here?  If procrastination should mean deliberately refraining from schedules and timelines with respect to the completion of any certain subject matter.  But why the lack of orderliness in accomplishment of goals here, or why should this in a way feel appealing?  It seems related to the concept of irrationality, or that something irrational inside of us exists, that neither appeals to similarity in schedules.  That is, one must do something today, tomorrow, to know where one will be, to plan the 'perfect' vacation.  I wouldn't go on the perfect vacation because from the time I were child, the perfect vacation seemed like bad movie trailers which would seem to suggest something of the opposite, and then level of expectations should be higher with regard to outcomes.  Thus indirectly it seems the art of procrastination should arise as in I avoided thinking of planning the a vacation much if such were demanded of me, and artfully resorting to the spontaneity of enjoying a trip...where one hadn't set so much expectation into the sets of possible outcomes.  More likely since I am poor though it would seem, procrastination applying in the sense of work and accomplishment.  Where one tired of working on a particular problem, and this were a reason for procrastination.   Again I think of procrastination relating to efficiency here likewise, or inherent to Melville's Bartleby the Scrivener...maybe this inappropriate here?  Was Bartleby a procrastinator...only it seems difficult to apply this definition with adherence, since in part procrastination could be associated to its own sets of internal logic which were...offsetting work of priority for lower priority work because the consequence of priority related to anxiety, and clearly Bartleby weren't responding to the added stress that were created being non conformed as he were.  Offering here, that I quit a particular project and I haven't lifted so much of a finger on it for some time.  In a way, there might have been some reason for this such as volumes of logic that can compound over time leading to greater inefficiency in thought processes if organization isn't as efficient inherently leading to slower creation processes, and this in itself can be problematic to a larger project, but there were something else, clearly it seems there were enough desire for the results of the product itself.  I found myself suddenly reading on some other related subject matter hoping for added insight, and then having also found myself taking a break from the regularity of previous routines.  How often do we permit or are permitted this freedom?
     The longer lived life one should imagine were generally imagined in mind as a 'good' life.  Maybe a quieter on average.  Here I imagined some of the mentally and physically healthier often tending a garden in a Mediterranean village, but why is this life so much better or different relative to an existence elsewhere in the world?  Is it just a bit more necessary sunlight relative to where I live today?  No, likely not, since I reside on a latitude approximate with North Africa really, or more fairly it seems weather could be more temperate and at least a given sea nearby would provide visual remedies to the psychic doldrums, and then some might relate to the ocher, sienna, or any number of colors having reminded of the iron in your blood, and body of one's flesh.  It seems at least if people were more likely to get together or harass people to get out of their house in some communal effort somewhere more likely one should suspect less depression likewise.  In fairness, it seems an imagined idealism in mind that strikes of have versus have not comparisons...what about here?  It seems here more likely recalling something of Woolf's essay concerning her imagines of the climate of Great Britain versus Greece, it seems climate should lead one to the circumstance of being sheltered in some manner of isolation for any duration of the year.  Shouldn't this have some displacement upon mood and temperament?  Even as I could recall having fairer and temperate weather having lived in the pacific northwest for a time, I hadn't realized how much more sunlight permeated my natural living space in the Midwest until I came back.   Had this subtle effect displaced something in mind and temperament?  If we could do something to change our environment such as rearranging interiors, opening blinds, bringing in more light, or promoting more light...would you more likely love light promoting birch interiors more likely in northern areas?  Doesn't seem like coincidence to me.

    I find myself in some ways driven to aesthetic in life.  Of course, it should seem that the path chosen in life were as much important with respect to the inclination of future planning oversight that often times had so much sacrifice and expense here and now to something that should be wonderful in the end.  Consider the more sad if not humorous irony, having worked so hard for retirement then succumbing to heart failure before having sacrificed to such much extent the potential joys of here and now.  Life weren't either about not living to live a future life, or living to a lesser extent in sacrificing so much personal well being?  It seems thus an aesthetic would appreciate the daily here and now, neither wrapping one so inward which had provided so much uplift to the trivial or mundane...yet one may ask oneself in the sense of routine: dishes to be done, clothes to be washed, dropping children off at school, taking kids to practice, and sometimes in greater preoccupations loss of introspection, of reflection?  I admit readily, I would have too much time for introspection at times, and maybe neither enough time for routine, but then I asked myself:  how often need I wash clothes, bathe by convention, and then with respect to general orderliness versus clutter by what appeal of import is orderliness in one's life.  Did it regard creativity?  No, not necessarily, some great thinkers have cluttered desks and think inspiration-ally at their best to the contrary of an orderly environment.  Then it seems the domestic environment and its orderliness matters to some enough, if not having provided something of daily purpose, structure, and routine.  It also defines something of a given life aesthetic.  For at least if we are emotionally responsive to the actions of such routine, it seems there is some meaning that we must be cognizant in our actions, even if we think ourselves more actively of being elsewhere.  I found myself thinking in terms of the centered ness of being in occupation, namely, I felt compelled to be more in judgement of my thoughts of being elsewhere while doing something of any number of repeated tasks.  If thinking of being elsewhere, why not be elsewhere as opposed to doing what one were doing?  As if the manner of one's existence itself were something of a prison that needed escaping from.  This might have been better understood if options were truly limited but when are such more so the case, if opportunity seems to exist?     Having considered a task with trivial seems to rank one's work in life as such, granted it would seem that in a given society uplift to the task of serving embraces the nature and import of one's work.  Should not a restaurant server's position in life be equally important to a doctor's?
    Equally writing this is saying something, however, well composed or not so well composed in knowing something or believing one know something.  This isn't to say that I were well composed in terms of actions.  I've worked a position that evoked something of escapist thoughts in mind...if at least wondering when enough money would be saved to be hiking or climbing, for instance.  I also wonder sometimes with respect to the nature of what makes us think less that our existence weren't so tenuous either.  I mean what joys could be had in the freedom of simply having the ability to be angry at what should seem so mundane and trivial, or were this freedom truly a personal freedom that enhances the essence of our existence?  What pitfalls, likewise, exist with respect to the graves that we may construct for ourselves without us ever considering so wisely, judiciously, or cautiously the consequence of our actions?  If only telling ourselves in some daily manner, yes, just this one time for the sake of personal reform, and playing something of a personal gamble, it is something that I am afraid personally provokes fear in me.  Existentially it is hard for us to imagine the eternity of time, the centered ness of the world that we create or that should always have existed and never cease to exist.  Seemingly the forgetfulness, if you believed in karma, were the essence of deception in which free will should allow for so much other consequence, or at least statistically speaking, I laugh one should find less in fear choosing by way of action the pathways so chosen in life.  Likewise, if having feared, at least the fear failing is yet another idea for the world that places people in larger then life roles beyond the sorts of shared power found in more egalitarian roles.  How political leaders and executives survive institution seem interesting enough?  Contrary to what I had thought, it seems more so they were likely less desiring time for being elsewhere in life, or served to roles that should seem too large in fitting.  Nonetheless, Lincoln were still a depressed man, maybe a worrier to some degree from what I could tell...and why not great power means only greater responsibility?  I myself sometimes tremble at the idea...of course, institutions, laws and structures makes for greater ease for psychological consolations where only problems of culpability have arisen when societies have made use of the institutions themselves in leading wrongdoing without recourse.  That simple village life idea seems suddenly more appealing to me now.

Living amongst old stuff, I am remembering what?
    My energy is up and down recently.  Only reminding myself cost and expense here up until this point, and as to time, I am healing.
    If one ever thought that existence were in loving or being attached, I wonder myself.  One once could be jealous of the idea of wanting or being wanted in some way, but then having grown older what had this meant.  I've written in a way before...reminding oneself of so much relativity found about the world regarding what one had or hadn't, it would be hard to describe fairness.  In reflecting and given so much opportunity to do so, the existence of feeling should come more so into being.
    Neither appropriate saying that sentience alone is not enough, or at least if there were self perception and perception of existence by way of distinction, animals themselves suffer from depression, they suffer from loss and express in varying ways grief.  You might have thought this when the world were passing by and then out of focus for a time.  Surely while somewhere else, the world had slowed down, given way to refrain for life, elsewhere one were the tree whose fallen existence were unheard, and then as to the graveyard, if you were a ghost, you were lucky to be thought of past a generation or two.
    At some point it would seem letting go of those attachments, one likely moved on, remain attached to the lives they might have once had, or become silent voyeurs of the world in a way. 

Then you might have read more ominously into the phrase: graveyards are filled with indispensable men.  Or in more modern parlance, it would seem all inclusive eventually.  At some point, maybe we are fortunate neither in struggling, as in having gone to sleep, and having awoken with a new consciousness, or purely having gone to sleep into the infinity beyond.
 What keeps us here it would seem are the people that we love that exist around us, and maybe something purely selfish.
    I hadn't liked most of but at least a line of particular horror film concerning some all invasive dark matter as death, or at least,
    something to the effect:  I am such and such and I exist!  Is true though!  Then another film with enigmatic subtleties,
    The Edge of Heaven containing a beautiful enough landscape.  
 

Segway to the previous post...mentions to the possibilities of interstellar travel

   Couldn't discount nano technology here.  Why so?  It seems if you needed the optics and instrumentation to accomplish the task of research, if a corresponding piece of hardware could developed in a streamlined manner relative a predecessor, why use bulkier more massive technology that would increase fuel requirements for travel.  If you could significantly reduce mass you reduce fuel, and this in turn leads to an added possibility that the first interstellar voyagers would indeed not only be machines, but one's that were quite small.  It would be added risk cost factors should also diminish or at least the acceptability for loss threshold would only increase with declined cost otherwise.  Or in other words, the first interstellar visitors could be also likely those that were completely unseen to the naked eye?  Seems less glamours or spectacular to the idea of gargantuan structures, or at least designed around the premise of housing so much a human colony, but likely it seems the reality of possibilities outside of faster then light travel.

    Of course, I mentioned in some past attempt at a bit of science fiction the idea, that such machines themselves (a sort of adaptation from Clarke's envisioned Von Neumann device), a sort of generic self assembler that should work in adaptive arrays.  Ideally for instance, they might also contain maps, something like genetic blueprints in which surveying and assembling indigenous materials for any desired structures, or in other words, why spend all the fuel to send the materials in building something that could be built readily with materials around.

   It seems much of mission work at present were spent devoting resources to travel to one and one destination only rather then forming a mission that could accomplish the task of sweeping an area for study at one time.  Seems wasteful to me in a way...or in other words, if arrays of nanos could spend the task building colonies for research purposes at many given sites that were part of an area sweep, why not send colonies to multiple hosts sites at once.  You wouldn't be limited to one crater site, or one ideal candidate in theory but many sites on a given site with a fleet of nanos for instance, which in turn build larger scale research structures at the site rather then delivering mass and spending all the fuel and limiting candidate site study possibilities.

Map of the universe and relativism

Starting with a map of the universe as an inspiration point, a thought occurred to me...going back to the representation of the universe as a map were done so with all sorts of implication.  It would seem the map were cosmological projections of structures in time that may or may not exist, or at least these structures would likely be in much different alignments relative to the past that were projected into our present.  The map it seems were entirely relative, at least how might a map coincide with a map in a different galaxy that were closer to another galactic structure then ours...it seems they would be mapping a time relative to ours that appeared different to them relative us, and vice versa.  Could you hand a map to an alien visitor for another galaxies and have them clearly understand much of what were known...maybe, maybe not?  And given the varied subdivision of space and overall considering a known cross sectional length of the universe, there would be potentially a very large number of maps that could be drawn at any given time that should be difficult in reconciling correspondences?

 All of these drawn maps would be called perspective maps in some manner, or at least the problem of perspectively couldn't be neglected in the relational scope from map to map.  Of course, generally being confined to much smaller distances in travel, its not so much a problem considered however at the moment for our planet.

Now consider as thought experiment 'grand map' that expressed all structures of the universe at their present location at any given time that were all local in the time relative sense...meaning this were the true position of such structure at a given point in time that could be characterized as local present, or in other words a map derived in all space at a local present time in all such locations.  This map it would seem would could be understood in all local space relatively speaking, but more distant cosmological structures would neither visibly correspond to the optical images present from any given vantage.  Of course, it seems some structures could be missing for the compilation of all such local presents...if you were advanced enough you could apply predictive maths in deducing an optical map that might correspond to a given vantage, but this were always limited in scope given the complexity of the n bodies interaction problems were concerned at the detailed level.  You might find something approximately resembling but neither finely resolved.