요즘 비가 많이 오네요.
씨에틀은 원래 부슬비가 많이 내리는 지역인데
요즘들어 빗방울이 매우 굵어지고 있습니다.
대학 원서 작성하다 한숨이 나와 적어 봅니다.
이런 상상들은 유토피아에서나 가능할까? 이런 세상은 존재한다. 우리가 그 세상을 일주했다.

A True Gift
In The Scarlet Letter written by Nathaniel Hawthorne, Pearl is easily interpreted as a character that symbolizes freedom. As the sole bright color that shines above the Puritanical law with her notable beauty and caprice, there is no denying that she is truly different from the rest of the rather gray society. It is no coincidence that Pearl is the only character in the novel who proved capable of laughing, and in general, being happy. When other characters, namely Hester, Chillingworth, and Dimmesdale, are taken into the picture, however, Pearl's representation of freedom is met with a seemingly contradictory symbol of sin. She is, after all, the outcome of the sin her parents had committed. And alas, the role of Pearl as a symbol becomes that much more elusive.
The one word that describes Pearl in the most succinct manner is “sin”. Everyone in the novel views her as nothing more than a direct result of adultery, and as someone “…whose innocent life had sprung, by the inscrutable decree of Providence, a lovely and immortal flower, out of the rank luxuriance of a guilty passion” (80). Even to Hester, her Pearl, whom she sees as her entire world, is a constant reminder of her sin. Her laughter alone brings images of imp; her hostility towards other children force people to wonder if she is indeed a devil. In a sense, Pearl is a constant reminder to the society of everything that they have done wrong, and every sin that they have committed. Her mere presence becomes a disturbance to their peace.
Such peace is nothing but the outcome of mass hypocrisy. Hawthorne believed that from the moment Adam and Eve took the apple from the tree, no human being was ever free from sin. And when Pearl was born into such a world with her background, everyone unknowingly saw in her the very sin that they've learned to abhor all their lives, but was never able to repel completely. That is why all those people who saw it fitting to speak loudly of Hester's sin still loved the clothes she made, and all those who deemed it necessary to abuse Hester still somehow gladly wore the clothes she sewed. Such contradictory behavior reflects that people are sensing the same adulterer, or the desire to become one, in themselves. They may not fully understand it with conscious minds, but as they wear Hester’s clothes, they are acknowledging that they too are just as sinful as Hester is. Then it is not surprising, but natural, that the so feeble and flawed nature of human beings would tempt the Puritans to deny the very existence of their “secret” sin by utterly shunning the existence of Pearl and Hester.
Yet there was one person who fully
embraced her, acknowledged her, and accepted her. Perhaps Hester, exiled from
the human society, had no choice but to take care of Pearl as her legitimate
child. But whatever the reason was, Pearl did her best job to remind Hester of
her sin – of herself as the result of Hester's adultery, and of the scarlet
letter. Every time Pearl asked about the scarlet letter, and every time she
threw flower petals at her scarlet letter, Hester's heart burned. Over the
course of time, while Hester has lost her womanly characteristics, she attained
the imperturbability of a rock and the composed attitude that derives from deep
within her hardened heart. Such development did not happen in Dimmesdale who failed to acknowledge
Pearl.
The pitiful turn of events and the worldly settings have made Dimmesdale, an exceptionally “good” man, into a wretch who constantly battles against himself in a hell created in his own feeble mind. It is perhaps fate that put him in such a dismal state of being, that made him bear all his characteristics that prevented him from acknowledging his sin – his daughter Pearl. He is forever shackled by Pearl in his hell, and only grows weak at the sight of his daughter. Throughout the novel he continues to search for peace from his sin, but fails completely, all because he would not, and cannot acknowledge Pearl. It should not come as a surprise then, that “[Dimmesdale has] even been afraid of little Pearl” (177). Considering how Pearl described her father as the “Black Man” (161), and how she sternly refused to kiss him when asked, Pearl's attitude towards her father could be best described as unfriendly. But this all changes in the end when Dimmesdale finally acknowledges his sin, his daughter. Only then did Pearl show tears and kiss her father.
Is it safe to say that Hester has gained freedom by acknowledging her sin? Does Pearl symbolize freedom or sin? Maybe what Pearl symbolizes is neither freedom, nor sin, but her name itself. Pearl is there all the time, shining in her distinct scarlet color. The sunlight embraces Pearl as its playmate (160) as does the forest (178). She is a treasure, a scarlet jewel, and the most valuable gift given by Nature, but only an intangible reflection on a brookside when you deny the present (183). May you be provident enough to take the treasure for yours, and enjoy the true meaning of freedom.

<기능성 블로그의 대표주자, 티스토리>

<플러그인 목록을 보기만 해도 귀차니즘의 압박이 다가왔습니다>

<언제나 굉장한 물량을 보여주는 네이버>
게임 Credits에 이름이 나오는게 원칙이지만 이번엔 무슨 일에서인지 한글화 작업팀을 싹 다 빼먹었다고 하네요. 이 기회를 살려 (은근히 내 이름에 밑줄좀 치고) 방문자수나 먹튀하렵니다.
그렇죠, 허세를 부리려면 기회가 있을 때 부려야 하는게 아니겠습니까.
출저 : http://demonique.egloos.com/4769168
한글화팀 이름미상
Project Support
최재승(raf)
Korean Translations
최원진(Demonique)
하헌준(Loopy)
한상훈(Simmba2)
Linguistic QA
최재승(raf)
최원진(Demonique)
Musai 스튜디오
Producer
이인욱
Recording Engineer
여경천
Korean Voice Actor (NDS)
김영찬
박만영
박성태
성완경
손종환
송준석
안장혁
이호산
정승욱
최승훈
최지훈
Lifeless World
In the beginning, there was no space; there was no time. And then at some point of nothingness, there came a big explosion that created the heaven and the earth. The best part of this miracle is, every atom in the universe agreed to cooperate and cling together to form nebula, stars, planets, asteroids, and perhaps the most fascinating of all, life. Our planet came to hold numerous life forms, one of which includes human beings. With luck, we prospered on Earth and soon formed civilizations. Eventually, we even learned to utilize nature and create things of our own interest.
It is perhaps this charming history of our origin that makes the majority of people to believe that robots, inanimate objects created by and designed after human beings, are fundamentally inferior to them when it comes down to the ability to think. As much as people would like to be classified in a different category than robots, nothing proves that human beings are more complex and intelligent than their creation. We view robots as repetitive objects that only follow the given protocols to reach the end function of their programs, believing that human beings have no such limit. We like to take comfort in the ever sketchy idea of free will to further cover the truth. The sad truth is, no matter how many more brain cells we have, our process of thinking is almost the same as that of robots: we use the given information to calculate the best possible action and its outcome, just as computers in robots do. We also have in our blood genetic codes that constantly manage our behaviors. The only difference is, we have lots and lots of variables to calculate.
One might argue that human irrationality proves that we are fundamentally different from robots, that since some individuals make unreasonable decisions, we must be different from robots, which only make logical choices. This argument completely misses the fact that human irrationality is not irrational at all. It’s just that, because every human being is born relatively unique compared to the computer CPUs which are mass produced in factories, it becomes almost impossible to obtain all the necessary data to analyze everyone’s chains of thoughts. In other words, human irrationality is just an excuse created to cover our inability to fully understand each other. The only reason artificial intelligence seems rudimentary is we, being the creators, fully comprehend every aspect of it. If there is an omniscient being capable of understanding all the elements that make us who we are, to him our intelligence would seem just as rudimentary, repetitive, predictable, and limited.
Common sense can help prove that human beings are no different from robots. Incapable of rewinding the flow of time, a human being can only make one choice in a given environment. Of course, those who disagree might argue that human beings are capable of making multiple decisions at once. They, however, fail to perceive that human beings are actually not capable of creating any decisions at all. The list of decisions people can make has been already given by the predetermined environment, which no human being can alter beyond the limit of time. Simply put, human beings do not “make” decisions. Rather, they “choose” decisions through the process of mental calculations, and because there is nothing “irrational” about the way we think, every choice we make is bound to be the most rational choice (however flawed it may be) that would most closely satisfy the ultimate motivation of life, which is to be happy.
The concept of infinite universes can help clarify this point. If there exists an infinite number of universes, all of which that contain the exact same environments and the exact same inhabitants, logically, each inhabitant in every universe would act the exact same way since all the conditions within the universes are the same. If human beings are indeed capable of making both rational and irrational decisions freely, there needs to be an infinite number of different actions taken by the inhabitants of the universes. But as even the simplest form of logic would suggest, identical universes can only give birth to identical courses of events, because every condition leading to the events are exactly the same.
To think that we can actually transcend the decisions we make is blatantly arrogant. No matter how much we try to be free from ourselves, we are still bound to our flesh. There is no reason to believe that human beings are more sophisticated than robots simply because our bodies are mostly made of protein. Who is to say that we are not as inanimate as robots? Who is to say that our bodies, which are made only to rot underground one day, are better than silicons and plastics, which do not rot as fast? Sure, robots can't naturally appreciate art or music or love, but what difference does it make? We are beings that cannot do anything beyond our comprehension and cannot comprehend anything beyond our humane limit. We are, in a sense, biological robots.
Look around the world we live in today. Every day, people mindlessly go about their businesses without knowing what really drives them. Not many ever make the effort to understand things beyond our five senses, and even fewer people vaguely understand themselves. Where we had the chance to differentiate ourselves from robots, we have failed, and are continuing to fail. The result is the creation of a world no bigger than a sandcastle, which can crumble and fade away in a matter of seconds. Why is it that we marvel at the “progress” we've achieved so far when the same progress polluted the Earth, drove many species to extinction, and began melting the whole world? Why is it that we have a special predilection for killing each other, to a point where we created weapons capable of destroying the entire world over and over again? Why is it that we can easily save the whole world from starvation, yet still decide to invest 75 times the necessary money into war preparations? Whereas human beings would come up with many different complex answers to these questions, all robots would answer, with certainty and clarity, that it is because we are humans. That, cannot be further away from the truth.