I’m unrelatable as a person not frequently aware of my impressions. I write with a need to communicate, as a drive to be understood. I try to wonder why I like something. I can’t choose why I like something. I can only choose to understand something more. I have a view of life that my interests can change but since they don’t always, I should understand them more. I think many of us overlook our interests and treat them more as coincidences than well-thought out choices. Interests have a lot of deep meaning, and it’s foolish to ignore what’s beneath the surface. It’s inaccurate to think of oneself as so unique as to be an exception, but a unique person is more unique when they pursue activities beyond ideas. Some events can’t be reduced to kitsch. If someone is really onto something good, there has to be something that makes sense in a domain. Something that makes sense, literally, the opposite of non-sense, is something that can’t sit well with antagonistic ideas. It can, however co-exist in a cooperative arrangement. Too often does debate and controversy overshadow sense. Sense, not sensibility, or rational thought. Rational thought is independent of reality. Sense- does it add an organic touch? I perceive much sense is abandoned, forgotten or misused. Phenomenal people tend to view their conflicts as defense. But many times it is a poor judgement during conflict. Consider Six Characters in Search of A Story. There is an intrinsic drive to make sense, even in the absence of a plan. I’m not canny or uncanny. I’m not organic nor inorganic. I’m just impromptu, and a chronicler of certain things. There is much emphasis on plans and expectations, but experience is often underused when it comes to playing by ear. The phrase “useful” is not synonymous with good manners- it connotes quotidan chores. But there is a noble wisdom in usefulness. I am smitten with a scene from the Last Emperor, where a Chinese Communist re-education prison governor asks Puyi, “What’s so terrible in being useful?” Really, what is there? To understand other cultures is to dig deep into its revolutionary origins. Otherwise, other nations will reform themselves in ways far different from their original Gang of Fours set out to. It’s like a house of cards built on a former palace with no original purpose guiding the present mission statement. The revolution may have been a de jure success, but has anyone learned anything? The Last Emperor clearly conveys the change that comes with old age, but it requires viewer effort to notice that it is about teachers who have dangerous students. The students are unwilling to learn from their former masters. Was the revolution a generational uprising? Or was it an opportunistic acquisition of wealth? I’m too willing to believe the narration in The Last Emperor is the fairest and impartial. Propaganda always appears biased. But English and Western portrayal, even when multi-faceted, succeeds where one-dimension is a relative influence. As I research into this topic more, I hope to document more ideas that make sense.