Ravishment of Art

When the Brainless begin to fall in love with allegory or metaphor, regardless of what they want to call it, the world becomes immersed with cliches. A cliche by itself is of no harm. It only demonstrates to those of us who have a brain that even truism can one day be degraded to the extent that it becomes nonsense. One of the terms that the Brainless love to use is "rape" or in verb form "to rape". I am not sure of why, but they just love to use it in a very broad sense. They like to say, "you are raping the [result of the] poll." Or they say, "you are raping the will of the people." Even worse, perhaps, they say, "you are raping your own dignity." But what they do not know is that they are raping the word 'rape'. They would feel surprised that the term 'rape' can now be raped. The use of the term "rape" or the verb "to rape", like some chanting of life, provides the Brainless with some sense of meaningfulness in their unworthy life.

Just read an article from a local newspaper that says Mona Lisa, the painting Leonardo created, is being spiritually raped by a bunch of dudes who come from a country called China. How can civilisation like China rape another civilisation that flourished because of the Renaissance? Perhaps there is some misunderstanding of this civilisation or that civilisation. China boasts herself that she has a civilisation of 5,000 years or more if those who domiciled in where now China is and looked more like their kins the chimpanzee than us homo sapiens, are included. But the civilisation of the West is quite different from China's. I would tend to believe that civilisation of China is no longer existent. It perished after Tang Dynasty as civilisation had met its pinnacle then. Afterwards, civilisation headed downward and when Qing Dynasty became corrupted that even a newly developed Japan could beat it, civilisation was no longer civilisation, but the situation only represented a current being of the 5,000-year history. Call it a snap-shot? I would prefer the term snap-shot to Zeitgeist, for the spirit of time is nothing of what we have now is nothing but antiquity. After many years weakness and travesty, a new China re-emerged in the early 1980s. What we saw was, in fact, merely a billion people who were completely outmoded after years of backward alienation. Then another 2 decades have gone, what we now see is 100 million people who can afford to go out of China, buying some good stuffs like Louis Vuitton - for them it is a two-letter word LV, for Louis Vuitton proves as too difficult for them as philosophy is to the monkeys. But they have money -- they have been given plenty of monies by the Japanese, the US and Europe, for the people there are cheap. They have 300 million workers who are willing to make a shirt at 5 pence. The advantage of China is they have people and those people can work. 1/100 th of their population can collapse Louvre! Now they know civilisation, again, and they rush to see civilisation of the West. Lord Clark asks "what is civilisation?" and he answers in the meantime, facing the Notre Dame of Paris, "I don't know .... but I shall know it when seeing it, and I am seeing it now." But what they do is the complete contrary of civilisation - a property of Chinese people. Even in "a bit more developed place" such as Hong Kong, the situation does not much deviate from the old backward China. People there like "to be there". They have things to talk to their relatives or friends and boast, in such a shallow, obnoxious tone, that they have been there - seeing Mona Lisa, the real one, very much like a small kid tells his peers that he has been to a zoo and has watched an elephant as told derisively in this newspaper article. Wow, hail civilisation! In fact, for the civilised, I have to agree, this is a ravishment of art, which civilisation in fact forbids. Where is an old civilisation placed, when the re-emerged one is so in lack of the elements of a civilisation? Should it still be called a civilisation. Lord Clark opines that civilisation declines and falls as it becomes exhausted. I take the liberty to add, after imagining 100 million people look at Mona Lisa in such an obscene manner, that civilisation is suffocated to death.

The Divinity of Humanity

This is a grand title. In the sense that it is a statement subject to verification, this title appears to be nonsensical. However, the Principle of Verification has long been scrapped and made way for the Principle of Confirmation, Principle of Credulity, etc. No principle per se suffices to describe what I mean to say here. The Divinity of Humanity belongs to human beings - not human forms of sub-humans or non-humans, defined as so not by biological means or, if you will, principles, but by observation against a set of non-exhaustive behaviour standards that we see out of true human beings.

Let's talk about hypocrisy. You may want to subdivide this into hypocrisy of the clever and hypocrisy of the ignorant. The former is hypocrisy; the latter is not. It is so called because such behaviour bears the apparent forms of hypocrisy, but the underlying elements that lead to such behaviour and the rationale behind the elements and the behaviour itself are not the same. George W. Bush is hypocritical, and no-one would disagree. And as President of the United States, he possesses such hypocrisy which we are safe to say as hypocrisy (I don't need to add such redundancy as true hypocrisy). Some non-descript A, who shows extra care to a pregnant woman, though, possesses such "hypocrisy" which is not hypocrisy. Although A shows the same hypocritical behaviour as George W. Bush has shown to the tortured prisoners of war in Iraq, A has a profound belief that he shows such extra care as he truly believes such extra care does the woman good, while in fact, though not in itself bad, such extra care spoils the woman to the extent that she will exploit such extra care as much as she believes she is inborn to be entitled to such extra care that everyone else should make way for her, if something does not go her way.

Living things do not live in such pathetic manner as these sub-humans, such lowlives. Living itself is precious and elegant; perhaps quoting Hemingway who though refers to our world but should bear the same sense, is worth fighting for. "Fighting for" is the key word. We need to fight for life. For us, it need not mean that we need to kill or hurt others to survive. Instead we live by ourselves as much as we can rather than receiving such extra care only to suggest that we are fragile, but as we are sacred, we are more entitled to live than other living organisms. As we are created by God and know how to worship God, we are much higher than other living organisms. We deserve the extra care in the same manner as the pregnant woman receives from non-descript, totally spoiled A, who now irresponsibly attempts to spoil others as he has been spoiled since childhood.

Let me tell me, Gentlemen, life is not like that. Life is not as pathetic as that, which is why I hereby write the Divinity of Humanity as our Humanity is at the brink of extinction as such irresponsible behaviour as we now know as the hypocrisy of the ignorant are infesting. The Divinity of Humanity is not we can pretend to be good by irresponsibly showing the extra care to someone who can absolutely take care of herself when she was born with the genes being capable of teaching her to survive; not we can speak some language and praise God, wrongfully presuming that we are different from the rest of the living planet and exploiting the world. I have to say, we need to stand on our own feet - we have been given so much advantage to live in this world. But I see how the Emperor Penguins live their life. I see the Great Tortoise strive to crawl to the sea. I see how a frozen frog can resume to life after thwarting. When I see all these, I see the Divinity of Humanity as we stand up before Nature and live.