The Immense Power of Limitations

Swine flu in America represented by pig dressed as doctor with American flag Stock Photo - 8025184

Stockphoto- Swine flu in America represented by pig dressed as doctor with American flag

During one of the seminars I attended for my biology class, my professor introduced the session a new species that scientists have created. By manipulating the DNA of a bio luminescent jellyfish and inserting them into an embryo, scientists have created glow-in-the-dark pigs!

Yes, it is not a new species but it is highly intriguing and might I add, quite “cool”.

These scientists hope that the glow will be able to help track diseases such as cancer or to escalate the idea of adding proteins to ill patients, such as fabricating a gene to synthesize blood-clotting enzymes for people with hemophilia. The possibilities of changing DNA in order to create healthier lives is riveting.

However, these types of experiments will be challenged in its ethics, techniques, and even put under investigation by the law to check if they are appropriate. Such limitations could cause a ruckus between the opposing and the supporting groups, that could possibly lead to ultimately halting these or similar experiments or even watering it down, making it much less efficient.

Why bother going against the tides of what you believe is right if it would only be drowned by the wails and power of ordinary citizens and the government? Unless you want to constantly move from country to country in order to avoid such backlash, like a particular screenplay writer named Bertolt Brecht, then it is worth the risk.

Brecht was alive during an era rampant of bloodshed, World War II. During that time, he created a screenplay called Mother Courage and Her Children, a story staged in the time period of The Thirty Years War. The main character, Mother Courage, uses the war as a means to flourish her business, ensuring her own survival but undoubtedly causing the demise of herself and her family. His story is meant to invoke a reaction from the audience to think and question when the characters of Brecht’s play would rather adapt to the violence and bury their virtues.

War. The merciless and corruption of war that forces society to expect it and accustom to it, creating the illusion that there is no power for individuals to stop it.

Could one single person stop it? Brecht would disagree, he did follow a communistic ideology of  group-thinking and acting as a community to solve issues. It made sense why he held that belief, as Germany in its Nazi regime was increasing in power, it could have been dismantled if more citizens worked together to have stopped it, perhaps even preventing the destruction of the beginning of World War II.

I live in a country where my opinions are supposed to have meaning, that my voice is significant for both the government and America itself. Yet, I am only a young girl, how can I even possibly make a difference?

Maybe I can’t right now, there is certainly a process I have to follow, and  many men of American history had to work hard to make a change, and one of my personal favorites is a man called Thomas Paine.

Common Sense by Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine, a figure that I dressed as for a project in my European History class in high school. Paine is also a figure who wrote a pamphlet called Common Sense in 1776 which helped begin a chain reaction of rebellion amongst the thirteen original colonies to fight against the British. The work was written in response of how the monarchy that the colonies were ruled by are abusing their powers, therefore, the states must be prepared to defend whatever rights that were slowly being stripped away from them by the king.

It was not just about the story of a bunch of liberty fighters throwing tea off a harbor because the taxes were too high, the background of the Boston Tea Party held more significance than that over-simplified story.

King George III was a reactionary ruler, and by the time the colonies established unique laws and cultures due to his lack of supervising of the thirteen states, he immediately taxed and paraded them with laws that were not agreed upon between them and the monarchy. The issue was not about the taxes. No, it was the lack of say the colonies had during the sudden change of their life. Their “representation” in the king’s establishment were British senators who barely even walked in the colony’s territory.

When Common Sense printed and spread throughout the colonial population, an upheaval of independence swayed to and fro and declarations for freedom rung the air. The American Civil War was fought and the colonies earned their independence.

Two Bald Eagles Who Love America

Perhaps an individual could make a difference, but only with support. Thomas Paine realized that communication was key in writing his pamphlet, and he wrote the language of it in a way that made it easier for any civilian, rich and poor, to understand it. Common Sense may have made him a target for attack, he understood the risks he was taking if any British soldiers decided to stop by his home and gun him down.

Paine was not alone in his efforts, but he did ensue the beginnings of a war with his own words and his own actions in a book. Yet, if no one read his work, his effort would be for nothing. People need a leader, and a leader needs their followers. Both rely on one and the other to accomplish their goals. Both are limited of what they could do, allowing a balance of control on both parties.

This is certainly a limitation of agency if an individual could not do fully what they want unless they are allowed to. Of course this may cause a constant battle between both groups, such as the example I used for the pig experiment.

As I read and finished Mother Courage, my belief that war is inevitable was reinforced, a reaction that Brecht may not be very happy with.

To an extent, the violence could stop if both sides were to agree that punches and bullets are forbidden during the argument, but there is still a “war”. The diversity of ideas and beliefs is a curse and a blessing. Whatever I say may not lead to my death but there will be backlash for my opinions and ideas. Two very different people could both intelligent and stubbornly disagree with the other on mind-numbing topics.

The glow-in-the-dark pigs arouses the ideas of ethics and its borders in the scientific community. Were there any immoral activity involved in the research? Should we change the DNA of species to suit not only our health needs but also for our pleasure? How many restrictions should be established during the process of these experiments?

Even if the experiments did help society, there needs to be a battle to fight about, there needs to be a challenge of ideologies. Balance is more crucial than what is deemed to be “better” for the world.  If people were to simply accept anything just because it may sound or look good to avoid hurting the emotions of their peers or follow the status quo, what exactly are we accomplishing?

Let me change pigs to humans, and scientists to Nazis. Sound familiar? Their experiments used on Jews helped understand the human anatomy better, should we continue with these practices, even if it made us understand the limitations of our own skin better? No. What if they agreed to such horrific testing? Usually we would send people who think harming themselves is good to therapy.

The Drama Teacher-Theatre of War

There is a constant war, constant battles needed for us to grow and learn. Stability overrules what could be deemed as “better”. If the British regime created a perfect peaceful society for America but the consequences are following their culture and laws completely without a any sort of argument to it, the conflicts would arise immediately, no matter the perfection of it.

Brecht is right in that being swept up by events would promote no meaningful change, such lazy ideology to just adapt could only bring about nothing.

We do have the capacity as individuals to change the conditions of the world through our actions, but the limitation of agency is a necessity not only to establish a sense of order among a population but to create a balance of powers to effectively allow such actions to follow through. I promote people to go against the grain of society if they believe that their thoughts are worth to be expressed, but do not cower away if a war needs to be fought, because you may not be the only one with the same idea, and building that support could bring about the change you so desire.

To quote Thomas Paine: “Lead, follow, or get out of the way”.


Her Story is Better Than History

         It’s All About Perspective

A couple weeks ago, I checked out William Faulkner’s Light in August from my campus library in hopes of reading a mentally engaging novel (as well as making any breaks from studying or working more enjoyable). The story is set in Mississippi, in a time period where racism is  rampant, men could be employed as easily as showing up in front of a building, and pregnant ladies would ride from wagon to wagon for almost a month to find her unborn child’s father. Of course the romance and drama held my attention, yet the culture and the environment shown of the deep south was interesting as well. The novel is a fictional story but the author certainly shared a small glimpse of southern history within it.

If we were to focus on Faulkner’s novel as a representation of the South’s history, how much could we gain and learn from it? The limited perspective could pose as a problem for any avid historian but this issue is certainly not uncommon, as much of history is told by individuals. Whether it be from a journal or a picture taken, it is part of the past that the present would eagerly investigate and learn from.

How much of a problem do these perspectives of history pose? That depends entirely on the context and mindset of the individual who shares this piece of the past.

Allow me to put the Thirty Years War on the spotlight for this subject, as it was a period of unforgotten and radical antiquity of Europe where destruction and death spread like a virus in the Holy Roman Empire, causing catastrophic battles between religions, states, and people. It ended in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia to allow a sovereign system between states and the nation as a whole and finally bring about peace for the empire, but it would never completely fix the damage it caused on cities, homes, and the innocent bystanders who were stripped away of life.

Such a tragedy could never be replicated perfectly in words, but authors have attempted different angles to represent this slice of the bloody past. Von Guerick, Brecht, and Grimmelshausen will be a few from the many writers I will be discussing on how their point of view of The Thirty Years War is reflected in their works.

events, Thirty Years War 1618 – 1648, Swedish Intervention 1630 – 1635, Sack of Magdeburg, 20.5.1631, attack on the ramparts, co

In 1631, Germany, the city Magdeburg is set ablaze and utterly destroyed by the Swedish army to break through the protestant territory. Guerick, who was mayor of Magdeburg, gave an eyewitness account of the attack called The Sack of Magdeburg. He describes the events as if it were a report, detailing how it began and how it ended, adding few specific details, preferring more broad descriptions.

An example of this would be how he describes the city in flames “During such rage, this wonderful and great city, like a princess over the entire land, stood completely in flames amidst terrible misery, unspeakable distress, and heartbreak.”. The text is not specific on what exactly is happening, even with the figurative language to add emphasis, it produces  barely enough insight for the reader to understand the horrors of the carnage. Guerick is mayor of the ruined city, he would most likely have used this perspective for professionalism in order to focus more on the seriousness of the situation, rather than for the emotional and dramatic appeal. What is also to be noted is how he is not writing the city’s turmoil in a past perspective, rather than an in-time, present one. The technique is possibly used to add the effect that this is not a problem of the past, but an issue that needs to be resolved immediately. Guerick is the only one from my examples to have chosen this angle for his account and having a work that presents the whole picture rather than a very specific account of a particular scene.

Mother Courage and Her Children by Brecht provides a much more face-to-face perspective of The Thirty Years War. This is a play that is based on Grimmelshausen’s spin-off, also called Mother Courage, but the elements of this story will not be like Grimmelshausen’s.

Since the play is told in the typical script format, we have a better idea of how the scenes are set up and have a better idea of what the character’s are doing and thinking. Brecht’s style is quite interesting that makes his play stand out a bit more in its language and content than Guerick’s and Grimmelshausen. The entertainment value plays a significant role, in that each character is a hypocrite. This scene sums up most of Mother Courage perfectly:

Farmer. My arms ripped open.

The Chaplain. Where’s the linen?

Everyone looks at Mother Courage who doesn’t move.

Mother Courage. Taxes, tolls, penalties and payoffs! I can’t spare a thing.

Growling, Kattrin picks up a plank and threatens her mother with it.

Mother Courage. Have you snapped your tether? You put that planck down now or I’ll slap your face off you, you cramp! I’m giving nothing, no one can make me, I’ve got myself to think about.” (5.59)

The character, Mother Courage (the title and main character), is depicted here as a greedy and selfish lady, who would allow the death of bystanders grow in order to increase her business. This contrasts greatly with other parts of the play in which she was very protective of her sons from joining the war, being adamant about their involvement in the army as it would certainly lead to death. However, this hypocrisy is the key to understanding the play, despite its dark humor and spontaneous singing, Brecht is much more interested in having the audience think about each event, and the hypocrisy exists to challenge the audience’s knowledge of the war.

It could also be said that the language used for this is much less formal, to display a better representation of how people acted and talked normally. Since this perspective surrounds the life of Mother Courage, it is very limited on how much is shown in each scene. Sometimes the viewers will have no clue what exactly is the setting or background to a particular sequence. Brecht’s play is interesting in its style of political commentary from inside the war rather than an overhead shot of the entirety of The Thirty Years War, yet it is also vague on details of who is fighting who and where are the characters. It makes Brecht’s play more universally open to debate on the topic of all wars due to the vagueness of the play, a quality not shown by the other two authors.

Finally, we reach Grimmelshausen’s Simplicius Simplicissimus. Why I chose this last was due to how absolutely insane the novel is. Unlike Mother Courage and The Sack of Magdeburg, Simplicius directs its commentary and perspective on the cultural background of how ordinary citizens adapted around the war through the eyes of his main character, Simplicius. Like Mother Courage, it does contain elements of comedy that is much more forward for entertaining the audience rather than being abrupt like in Brecht’s play. The tale is told in a fashion of naivete in the beginning that gradually becomes more mature as Simplicius becomes more aware and critical of his environment. Since each chapter is told by Simplicius from the future telling us about his past, this would be an aspect of another very limited viewpoint, as we can only gather information from Simplicius, the only book out of the three that primarily focuses on only one person. What lacks in perspective makes up for it in commentary.

Mother Courage and Simplicissimus both offer their audience to think about each plot line, but Simplicissimus is much more direct about the hypocrisy of a typical person. Each comment by Simplicius is very satirical  and humorous such as the scene in book two where Simplicius must be forced to act like a calf, but when he is questioned about the intelligence of animals, he considers his fellow cows and bees to be of the better species, relying on their own instinct rather than on compasses, like what humans do typically. Simplicius tends to be much more focused on people rather than the Thirty Years War itself, but the social and political remarks is important to study and relate too.

Thirty Years War

Guerick, Brecht, and Simplicius provide a very distinct range of how to view The Thirty Years War. Despite their obvious limitations of point of view, commentary, genre, or even medium, they present their works that can be valuable in their own way. Guerick might now have had a “view from above” type of account, it helped complete a broad picture of the  devastation from The Thirty Years War, relying less on specific details and more on the war as a whole. Brecht intended the audience to see his play as something that could be challenged and criticized about the cruelty of war, using his characters to show how the armies and people reacted towards the events. Grimmelshausen’s novel is the most restricted, as it is mostly about the culture within a civilization around The Thirty Years War, leading to a better understanding of the lives of ordinary people.

Each one is important to understand and learn from, each degree may not be as general or specific as the last, but it is certainly valuable to learn each perspective. Perhaps there is limits, but history requires many ways to look at it in order to comprehend it to the fullest. It is how we learn from our past and create a better history for the future.

Where Have All The Good Art Gone To?

Art, a representation of how one views the world around them. A glimpse of an artist’s inner psyche which can only be interpreted through their work. Paintings, drawings, sculptors and the never-ending list of creations have developed and changed overtime, from impressionism to cubism to modern art, there is no sign of the evolving chain stopping.

Yet, a large and quite important question lingers among every art critic or artist themselves : when is an artist… an artist?

Surely when one looks at a painting of Vincent Van Gogh it is easy to label it as an incredible piece of art. Ironically, this famous artist was not appreciated for his work during his time period as much as he is adored in the modern day era. Why such a shift of disinterest or dislike to intriguing and admirable?

The answer may rely on the effects of culture on the artist.

In other words, there is a strong presence of how the majority of the population views a particular subject, in which a general notion and or standard must be followed in order for something to be considered acceptable. Van Gogh had one theme in his art that was presented strongly when he was alive: it did not follow the typical gradient or norm of his time period.

Van Gogh focused primarily on the style of post-impressionism, using multiple, short brush strokes to create an image. An example of this is his “Irises” painting.

                              Vincent Van Gogh: Irises

For such a beautiful work of art, it surely must have attracted attention, correct? Of course, after his death. It seems that the majority of his works were only considered important once the man shot himself.

During his lifetime, there was a revival of classicism as well as post-impressionism, the after-effect of impressionism. Both styles differed drastically as well as their meanings behind it. Classicism preferred a realistic and dramatic style of art, with blending of soft colors and scenes so real, it’s as if you could jump in them. Post-impressionism focuses much more on solid, vivid colors with various brushstrokes, giving the effect that the picture is blurred or blotched. The two methods of art are near opposites of one another. Classicism was favored as the culture became more secular and materialistic that only classicist artworks represented. Due to impressionism being a new technique of art, and straying away from the secular idea, the reception was at first hostile, even towards its counterpart, post-impressionism, until later on in the century 19th century where it became popular.

As ideas became more flexible and freely spread, impressionism was finally accepted as a modern art, and for good reason. It is visually appealing and allows more room for an artist to perhaps give a different look of their perspective of life.

Now, Vincent Van Gogh was not necessarily considered an artist at that point of his life, only when society decided to have a change of heart after he passed away.

What if there was no change? Will Van Gogh still be considered an artist?

This is a very tricky subject in the sense that I am a part of the culture who once did not accept Van Gogh as an artist, in a way, it depends roughly what exactly is considered “art”.

Personally, art must be a reflection of an experience that is represented through the work. My definition may not be universally accepted, however, there is a pattern of masterpieces that will follow it. Let me provide a couple examples:


Picasso’s Guernica, an anti-war icon during World War II that shows the tragedy of the bombing of the village Guernica in Spain. The distortions and colors are not considered a flaw, in fact, they heighten the raw emotion of chaos and misery. It was not a beautiful event, but an ugly event, a terrible event that could only be reflected as such.


Frida’s Two Fridas is a surreal self portrait of herself and her internal struggle reflected in the painting. Without any context, it is easily relatable for its depressive tones and split personality take. Frida painted this when she divorced her husband. It is clear that the two “Fridas” represent her past and former self. One is wounded from the heart in traditional clothing, a wedding dress I believe. The other is her casual attire, though her heart is mended, scars are still visible. Both cling onto each other for support and possibly a hold onto the past.


John Constable’s The Hay Wain, a landscape painting. Nothing symbolic or dramatic, simply a glimpse of his life and culture, a piece of melancholy history he used to be a part of.

All these artists expressed a part of themselves through their work in original and special ways, even if they do not all look visually appealing. Perhaps they were not appreciated to the fullest extent in their lifetime, but it certainly showed they had artistic merit, therefore, they are an artist even during their lifetime of having their art rejected.

However, art itself is loosely define, which is why sometimes art can be extended not only from paintings but to books and to biology and such. The boundaries widen and it becomes more vague and easy to label anything as art.So if I were to bite an apple, and stick it to some wall, and decided it is art, it could be art, strangely enough!

Another difficult situation is the art having meaning for different people. For example, If I bite an apple and glue it to a wall, certainly I won’t call it art since there is no strength or idea I put into it, but what if someone else saw it and was emotionally moved by a meaning that I could not find. I did say that an artwork should have some kind of raw emotion or experience, but is it the same if someone were to add an experience and love and care to an object that was never labeled as “art” by someone else?

Whether art should have a solid universal definition, this type of topic is applicable to other areas not motivated by drawing or sculpting.

Such as, what makes a doctor? Someone who performs a very specific but well technique for a certain system in the body, or a person who has a broad knowledge of the human biology but does not necessarily perform any medical procedures except give medicine? There is that peculiarity of titles versus actions, which is why we usually have distinct titles for a vague title: Cardiologists and Pharmacists respectively.

Funny enough, there is a show that uses this broad definition, Doctor Who, where the main character is a doctor by title but not by occupation. How are people comfortable with this? Well, he is the doctor, who saves lives but not by standard medical procedures. He is and he is not. Being a doctor is a manipulative word, just as much as the word art.

The can an artist truly be that word? A word that could flex and bend?

I think it could. People have a standard, whether it be beauty or meaning, I am positive that anyone with a pair of healthy eyes would know a calculator is not necessarily art and more of an invention by engineers. I understand that sometimes the norm may be “wrong”, such as how audiences of the past reacted to Van Gogh’s art. It is a new form and anyone who yields from the norm tend to be not appreciated. Yet, I am a person who is not fond of calling splashes of paint on a wall as art. Am I wrong because I can’t find the meaning or perhaps I am just not used to it in general?

By my definition, I rather believe its not, or atleast to the extent that the artist wants me to believe its art. To have that title of an artist, to me is more than drawing a dot on the ceiling, its a process, and who knows, maybe I’ll find that splatter of paint to be art someday, I just need a good reason as to why.




Citation Page

Samu, Margaret. “Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History.” Impressionism: Art and Modernity. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Oct. 2004. Web. 9 Oct. 2015. .

Wolf, Justin. “Impressionism Movement, Artists and Major Works.” Impressionism. The Art Story Contributors, 2015. Web. 9 Oct. 2015. .

“Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History.” Vincent Van Gogh (1853-1890). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Mar. 2010. Web. 9 Oct. 2015. .

Robinson, Lynn. “Picasso, Guernica.” Khan Academy. Khan Academy, 2015. Web. 9 Oct. 2015. .

Barker, Elizabeth. “John Constable (1776-1873).” John Constable (1776-1837). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1 Oct. 2004. Web. 9 Oct. 2015. .

Bravo, Doris. “Khalo, The Two Fridas (Las Dos Fridas).” Khan Academy. Khan Academy, 2015. Web. 9 Oct. 2015. .

Agency: The Never-Ending Topic of Debate

Marvel Illustrated: The Iliad (Volume) 

Is it really possible to be able to have full control of our decisions or are we a part of destiny’s plan?

Agency or lack of it, I believe, are more than a simple black and white answer. Perhaps we do lack the control of certain conditions that may be presented in our lives, however that does not mean those predisposed traits or positions should be an excuse to never improve around it, as there are still choices to be made that may allow people to act on their own accord against these constraints.

Let us look at one of the major problems affecting America that may bring a better understanding of my claim.

America has an issue, a very common issue that would be considered a type of blessing to someone living in the dark ages of the past. This little issue is called obesity. There is an estimated amount of 20-35% of adults in the country being overweight. This serious health issue is very fatal, causing heart problems, diabetes, degeneration of bone, and many other bodily problems. We could easily blame the food industry or simply genetics for the cause of obesity, yet there has been evidence that disproves that people are just naturally fat and it is mostly their diet that makes them so for most of the victims suffering from obesity.

Though there is no denying that people have different levels of metabolism. Actually, this can be an ill-fated like feature for someone who is more likely to gain weight than their peers. Does this mean a person should be less inclined to be healthy if the body is less likely to burn calories? Of course not! The same response will be made if a student is having a more difficult time in a math course than their peer, should they slack off and end their class with a bad grade? Certainly not! There are programs to help these students, they could perhaps study more, find a different method of learning or maybe switch out of the class to have a different teacher. There are an endless amounts of possibilities of how to solve an issue. People who are overweight or are more inclined to be overweight must work harder to be healthy like a student working harder to achieve a better grade.

          Calvin becomes a fatalist

We cannot let disadvantages stop people from trying to achieve better and change their “fate”.

Now, the issues and solutions I presented above could fall into the category of fatalism, that every action is a part of the destiny in the lives we are in, therefore, we have absolutely no power whatsoever to control it, only to live it.

It is not a surprise that the Greeks in Socrates or Homer’s time period believed in such a concept. The goddesses Moirai and Ananke wield the power of destiny in the palm of their hands, being able to set fate for both men, gods, and even the king of them all, Zeus. Moirai could control who dies and tells prophecies of anyone’s fate while Ananke has ultimate power to control the doom and fortunes of all the gods, being an entity of cosmic space and time and creator of the universe.

This would explain the reaction from the Achaean army in book two of The Iliad when Agamemnon announced a fake prophecy from Zeus about how the whole infantry is fated to be crushed by the Trojans, and it would be wise to leave immediately. There was no argument nor protest as soldiers flooded to their ships in order to return home, it was until Odysseus convinced them to stay and fight. Despite Atrides Agamemnon, who held the scepter containing his royal rights passed down by gods, allowing him to have authority over his men, his militia would rather put their trust in a dream than in their king, simply because what he told was based on a type of prophecy of their future. Ironically, if the vision were true, the men trying to escape would soon meet their demise by the Trojan army.

                              Whispering of the Prophecy

Fatalism is not just an idea that was held in the past but it is still held in modern day times. Astrology, for example, tells of one’s personality by the day they were born and the planets they relate to, thus, if someone were to be born on the 27th of April, they would be destined as the home-body, stubborn Taurus. This could, quite quickly, destroy my previous claim of obesity and not so smart students. Perhaps their personalities are not meant to be good at math or be responsible of their bodies, as the stars say they could not! Another popular fatalistic activity people may participate in are fortune-tellings, where an individual’s hand may have the answers to their future by the creases or prints on it, or through the powerful magic of a crystal ball, giving entrance to communicate with spirits. These are usually given positive answers, as the word “fortune” is in the name of the activity. I doubt I’d be willing to pay twenty dollars to find out if I’d be a cat lady for the rest of my days.

Whether people have agency or not over their lives, it does not take away the fact that humans will most likely not care about it. People who read astrology on the internet understand that their personalities are based on the alignment of matter and hot gases of space, and will defend those claims, even if they do not have free-will. This would raise questions of humans being naturally bad or naturally good, another concept that challenges the idea of the use of psychologists, teachers, or anyone helping bad or mentally unstable individuals. What is the use of aiding them if they are created that way?

People who state that they do have complete agency over their decisions have a sense of extra responsibility of their actions, though I doubt they choose wisely every single action of their daily routines, especially if they let their emotions go out of hand. Control of emotions, another peculiar concept. Emotions are not necessarily controllable, if they are, then there will be little or no such thing as depression, any person with a love for happiness would not want it. Emotions are a mix of chemicals anyway, should a concept of agency be discussed at a molecular level?

In a way, both extremes depend heavily on how comfortable a person is about both concepts. Are you happier knowing that your life is already set like a novel, ready to be read until the end, or would you feel more content knowing that life is a canvas, but only you could make the images and brush strokes?

Either way, my stance still holds that there is a limitation of how we act but not to the point of absolute predetermination of one’s life’s choices. There are many layers of how fate rules just as much as how humans rule their own. Decisions will be made, sometimes out of your own whim, or out your boundaries. It’s all a complicated, and in a way, that’s just the beauty of being human.