Politics is not just a matter show of blatant and overt power. It is also a show of denying means to access to power.
The reason that we have moved on from an absolutist regime, to one where we separate the legislation, the executive and the judiciary- is to ensure that no one single source can be preponderant force upon society.
And there is a reason too for giving a person a choice in parties, in being a left, centrist or a conservative. This is not just to ensure a check and balance- but also a more rounded sense of truth. A party which covers from left to right hence in this case, is no different from being an absolutist regime.
When a conservative party takes a stable position, it is right only insofar that it is beneficial. When it take centrist position, all cost and benefit covers always concludes to same thing- they are right. When they take a leftist position- they instil fear and ridicule. In order words, a conservative party which wants to cover all it's bases is by any means of a any imagination- is an absolutist, an ideoolgical "despot" isn't it.
And therefore, even if there is a choice- all choices as already been circumscribed and circumvented. The last I check, when I am given a choice- I should not have any fear of repercussions of any decision. Otherwise, of what choice is choice- but a compromised choice or a false choice.
Then at the end of the day, if no choice is given, we have to take a choice of the sky. To take one of moral high ground- denouncing all forms of choice as false and invalid. And to take ideological standpoint of which to show falsehood of the choices as opposed to bringing the merits and demerits of it.
The point of having choices is to weigh merits and demerits- and of use is having choices- when merits, demerits has been presented in point form, platable only to the reader rather than making an informed choice.
Politics is a like a pie- or this is what everyone expects it to be. They enjoy splitting up the pie and giving each and other adherents what they deserve- like warlords. And indeed if this was the time of warlords and feudal lords- it would pass. But we lived in the world whereby we it's one man and one vote- which means regardless of power, race, economic status and gender, there should not be any discrmination whatsoever.
And if there discrimination and there is one man and one vote mentality- the spirit of all elections would indeed be fradulent and therefore all choices is circumscribed to present a platable view, and who then is guard against the guardians who circumscribed these views in the first place.
Therefore it comes to the ultimate question: Who will guard against the guardians?
Sunday, May 27, 2012
On Being Right.
The problem with people who think they are creative and innovative is that they must have the right of way. Which means that if you want to be the with bright ideas and solutions, you must show that you are right.
The problem with this type of thinking is that if it is truly right, everyone would have done it already!! There would not be a need for you to declare that you are right because by definition, someone has already established that it is right so hence, if you think that you are right and everyone agrees with you- sorry dude, your ass has just been kissed.
We cannot get more right because when by establishing you are more right- is too established that you are more pure- then it is best to leave to those in the business of establishing goodness and evil.
Therefore those with a giant ego, pride and perception of strength are always to in the wanton need to establish their right-ness - because there are no other way to justify their strength. If you strong and yet wrong- you are terrorist; if you strong and right- you are an authority. Therefore even as we get stronger, we have to established that we are "right-er" because you can be easily labelled as a "terrorist" without even realising it.
How to justify that we are "righter": by demonstrating and appealing to prevailing values and norms. But ultimately, it is a never ending game of hypocrisy because at the end of day, the quality of "right-ness" is not judged by an independent panel expert in ethics and morality but by a public perception of the "wholesome-ness" of our actions.
Hence it is of no surprise that people put in more time into looking good and appearing good then they do in really doing good as they get more stronger.
The competition to appear good becomes then a never-ending battle to be a the "nice guy" who so happen to get rich and popular.
In the end, by trying to appear right- we appear all so wrong in trying to impress rather than being genuine. It leaves not just a bitter taste in one's mouth but rather an emptying feeling of sickening triumph.
Ouch... Here's a plaster for you... [After slapping your face without you knowing it, I need you to tell everyone what a nice guy I am as well...]
The problem with this type of thinking is that if it is truly right, everyone would have done it already!! There would not be a need for you to declare that you are right because by definition, someone has already established that it is right so hence, if you think that you are right and everyone agrees with you- sorry dude, your ass has just been kissed.
We cannot get more right because when by establishing you are more right- is too established that you are more pure- then it is best to leave to those in the business of establishing goodness and evil.
Therefore those with a giant ego, pride and perception of strength are always to in the wanton need to establish their right-ness - because there are no other way to justify their strength. If you strong and yet wrong- you are terrorist; if you strong and right- you are an authority. Therefore even as we get stronger, we have to established that we are "right-er" because you can be easily labelled as a "terrorist" without even realising it.
How to justify that we are "righter": by demonstrating and appealing to prevailing values and norms. But ultimately, it is a never ending game of hypocrisy because at the end of day, the quality of "right-ness" is not judged by an independent panel expert in ethics and morality but by a public perception of the "wholesome-ness" of our actions.
Hence it is of no surprise that people put in more time into looking good and appearing good then they do in really doing good as they get more stronger.
The competition to appear good becomes then a never-ending battle to be a the "nice guy" who so happen to get rich and popular.
In the end, by trying to appear right- we appear all so wrong in trying to impress rather than being genuine. It leaves not just a bitter taste in one's mouth but rather an emptying feeling of sickening triumph.
Ouch... Here's a plaster for you... [After slapping your face without you knowing it, I need you to tell everyone what a nice guy I am as well...]
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Happiness
I have come to a conclusion that we are mostly unhappy most of the time. Happiness only exist as a form of euphoria rather than a lasting pleasant sense of satisfaction.
From the richest to the poorest, we are mostly unhappy most of the time. We lay expectations on ourselves and others that no one really knows what one wants and what each other wants. It is like laying misery on each other because happiness itself is an agent of change and hope itself is something that propels action. Only by piling misery on each other, can we ensure that no one can be truly happy with our status quo.
Happiness as a form of high and in the most acceptable forms are mostly hollow and banal. It's humour is not in the irony of situation but rather a cruel form of poking fun at each other- think of comedy but gladiator style. It's ultimate aim is really not to entertain but perpetuate our misery so as to ensure that we get a form of "high" from our superior position.
Ironic humour is dangerous too. It blows the gap wide open and pokes fun at things we would otherwise not dare to think about or even say. But unfortunately it is in this form of humour that one finds the most satisfaction. The humour lies not in the joke but rather it pokes fun at the truth- which is something of a rare commodity in everyday life.
It begs then the question if we all seek happiness- does truth hurts or does it bring happiness?
Truth sometimes hurts but happiness without truth is like eating chocolates everyday. You do not know of other pleasures or experience except that of sweetness.
But the fact remains 1) is the truth really that bitter that we have to resort to eating sweet things everyday single day. And if we don't, do we pile on the misery onto others- in order to make our own truth easier to swallow.
The thing about truth is that it is what we make it out to be. If we think that life is miserable and the only way to get ahead is step on somebody or piss on someone's head then we would recycle the truth in our daily actions. And if every other person believes in this truth- we at the end of the day subject each other to each other's misery and therefore becomes a given truth in everyday life.
And if this indeed is the truth that most us are living and one can say that it is irreversible- then ultimately we would lived in a hollowed out existence. And of what is happiness when everyday life is degradation and overloading of senses to freeze the mind.
From the richest to the poorest, we are mostly unhappy most of the time. We lay expectations on ourselves and others that no one really knows what one wants and what each other wants. It is like laying misery on each other because happiness itself is an agent of change and hope itself is something that propels action. Only by piling misery on each other, can we ensure that no one can be truly happy with our status quo.
Happiness as a form of high and in the most acceptable forms are mostly hollow and banal. It's humour is not in the irony of situation but rather a cruel form of poking fun at each other- think of comedy but gladiator style. It's ultimate aim is really not to entertain but perpetuate our misery so as to ensure that we get a form of "high" from our superior position.
Ironic humour is dangerous too. It blows the gap wide open and pokes fun at things we would otherwise not dare to think about or even say. But unfortunately it is in this form of humour that one finds the most satisfaction. The humour lies not in the joke but rather it pokes fun at the truth- which is something of a rare commodity in everyday life.
It begs then the question if we all seek happiness- does truth hurts or does it bring happiness?
Truth sometimes hurts but happiness without truth is like eating chocolates everyday. You do not know of other pleasures or experience except that of sweetness.
But the fact remains 1) is the truth really that bitter that we have to resort to eating sweet things everyday single day. And if we don't, do we pile on the misery onto others- in order to make our own truth easier to swallow.
The thing about truth is that it is what we make it out to be. If we think that life is miserable and the only way to get ahead is step on somebody or piss on someone's head then we would recycle the truth in our daily actions. And if every other person believes in this truth- we at the end of the day subject each other to each other's misery and therefore becomes a given truth in everyday life.
And if this indeed is the truth that most us are living and one can say that it is irreversible- then ultimately we would lived in a hollowed out existence. And of what is happiness when everyday life is degradation and overloading of senses to freeze the mind.
Friday, May 25, 2012
One
I have never really thought what family, friends are for. But it seems to many that friends and family are just basically for 2 reasons 1) because they belong to the same ideology 2) they have a common interest. For the former, I think quite a number mistaken that as true friends and for the latter, they consider them in terms of expediency.
What I do believe in this society and what many have mentioned before is the affliction of alienation. Alienation means a feeling of emotional dissonance. It means that your emotions is not in consonant with your actions. Hence, one feel forever lonely and helpless in spite of being around your friends. As we lived in ever crowded spaces, our actions are constantly restricted by the gaze of the others, hence even though we walk freely, we do not act freely- or lack the experience of emotional consonnance- which is required for being happy.
As our crowded spaces becomes more confined and we meet with people from different walks of life- we constantly check ourselves, looking for people with the common ideology for comfort. But at the end of the day, we realise that it was a futile effort because, each one of us have different experiences and therefore different outlook in life- and in some ways, different from one another.
And therefore in order to maintain a common ideology after facing a barrage of discomforting images, we employ 2 mechanisms 1) we become puritans- which means that we must be the same, otherwise, each of us becomes uncomfortable hence making it difficult to become friends in a group 2) we constantly check ourselves to esnure that we constantly in line with each other's ideology in spite of our differences; and so that we can so-called be friends in spite of our differences.
Puritans then therefore become a race to the bottom- trying to find the lowest common denominator of which we can agree on- very often external features.
The second makes us claustrophobic and as a result of alienation and unhappiness- even in spite of so-called popularity. This is because we constantly check our behaviour that we feel sometimes our body is outside of ourselves- a form of emotional dissonance or alienation. We are not at one with ourselves- and this is the cause of unhappiness. This is because we aim to self-regulate our behaviour to the appeasement of others- while other's are self-regulating themselves to the appeasement of you as well. That makes everyone who attempts to "fit in" all the more unhappy. We at the end of the day look for external things for gratification. Shopping, or eating endorphins-laden food to take away the hollow-ness. Anything that gives us a certain "one-ness" with our body.
And coming back to family and friends again- this is how people in groups become friends and how family attempts to stay together. We think that the phenomenon of around family and friends and being around people- makes us normal, sociable and likeable. But if pictures and postcards are our emotions then that would work- unfortunately, quite often the act itself is quite different from the emotions that one feels inside.
I have highlighted an issue. How then does one attempts to improve your emotional state without jeopardizing your relationship with family and friends?
Ask yourself: when are you the happiest- when was the last time that you were doing something that you forgot the time and where you were?
You were at "one" with yourself without realising it. Replicate that.
What I do believe in this society and what many have mentioned before is the affliction of alienation. Alienation means a feeling of emotional dissonance. It means that your emotions is not in consonant with your actions. Hence, one feel forever lonely and helpless in spite of being around your friends. As we lived in ever crowded spaces, our actions are constantly restricted by the gaze of the others, hence even though we walk freely, we do not act freely- or lack the experience of emotional consonnance- which is required for being happy.
As our crowded spaces becomes more confined and we meet with people from different walks of life- we constantly check ourselves, looking for people with the common ideology for comfort. But at the end of the day, we realise that it was a futile effort because, each one of us have different experiences and therefore different outlook in life- and in some ways, different from one another.
And therefore in order to maintain a common ideology after facing a barrage of discomforting images, we employ 2 mechanisms 1) we become puritans- which means that we must be the same, otherwise, each of us becomes uncomfortable hence making it difficult to become friends in a group 2) we constantly check ourselves to esnure that we constantly in line with each other's ideology in spite of our differences; and so that we can so-called be friends in spite of our differences.
Puritans then therefore become a race to the bottom- trying to find the lowest common denominator of which we can agree on- very often external features.
The second makes us claustrophobic and as a result of alienation and unhappiness- even in spite of so-called popularity. This is because we constantly check our behaviour that we feel sometimes our body is outside of ourselves- a form of emotional dissonance or alienation. We are not at one with ourselves- and this is the cause of unhappiness. This is because we aim to self-regulate our behaviour to the appeasement of others- while other's are self-regulating themselves to the appeasement of you as well. That makes everyone who attempts to "fit in" all the more unhappy. We at the end of the day look for external things for gratification. Shopping, or eating endorphins-laden food to take away the hollow-ness. Anything that gives us a certain "one-ness" with our body.
And coming back to family and friends again- this is how people in groups become friends and how family attempts to stay together. We think that the phenomenon of around family and friends and being around people- makes us normal, sociable and likeable. But if pictures and postcards are our emotions then that would work- unfortunately, quite often the act itself is quite different from the emotions that one feels inside.
I have highlighted an issue. How then does one attempts to improve your emotional state without jeopardizing your relationship with family and friends?
Ask yourself: when are you the happiest- when was the last time that you were doing something that you forgot the time and where you were?
You were at "one" with yourself without realising it. Replicate that.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
European Union and it's issues
The European Union and the Euro dollar is suppose to provide better integration between the European countries with a long history trade, conflicts and fairly similar traditions. But it's inability to form a political consensus is preventing anything from getting done. At heart of the issue, is the idea of sovereignty and economic benefits that an Union brings.
The idea of an EU is to make financial markets more fluid and deeper and trade and movement more easier between member countries. An EU bloc enables member countries to tap into a deeper financing market of which by itself might be difficult or expensive to do so. Secondly, trade between these countries should have been more accessible hence enhancing growth as border are made more open to investment, goods and services.
But beyond economic benefits, no country would want their own national interest to be undermined by trading that for trade and financing. At the same time too, an European Union provide for better cooperation and communication in other pertinent political issues- but at the end of the day, no country would not want all these while losing their ability to govern themselves and manage their own internal affairs. No one at the end of the day, would want someone from another end of Europe telling them that, we cannot enjoy our local food and economy for integration purposes.
Therefore, at heart of the issue is not asking one to choose between membership or independence- but rather how does one ensure each and every member's sovereignty while ensuring that each and every member enjoy the fruits of better economic integration.
Therefore the impasse faced in Greece- is not so much that of membership or independence but rather, how do you respect the opinion of it's parliament- without appearing to be an incursive- while implementing plans that are needed to get them out of the credit freeze.
Greece itself is facing internal political strife as well. It is hanging onto a hung Parliament with no clear majority or coalition- and that have further add to the problems. The austerity measures proposed by the EU have to go through the Parliament in order for it to go into law and to be effective- therefore with a split Parliament, it is impossible for it to be implemented.
Further complicating the issues is the ticket that some of parties have used to get themselves into Parliament- which is anti-austerity- which means that they would have to oppose the EU for them to appear credible to their electorate. A term in Parliament is for the tenure of 4-5 years, but it's passing is swift and quick- once enacted, it will become effective.
That much is clear, but how then does these anti-austerity ticket holders intend to prop up growth and seek financing for it's debt appears to eluded. Unless independence by way of opposing is their ultimate aim- then in this case, riding on that anti-austerity ticket appears to be a sleight of hand and quite incredible to the electorate then.
The idea of an EU is to make financial markets more fluid and deeper and trade and movement more easier between member countries. An EU bloc enables member countries to tap into a deeper financing market of which by itself might be difficult or expensive to do so. Secondly, trade between these countries should have been more accessible hence enhancing growth as border are made more open to investment, goods and services.
But beyond economic benefits, no country would want their own national interest to be undermined by trading that for trade and financing. At the same time too, an European Union provide for better cooperation and communication in other pertinent political issues- but at the end of the day, no country would not want all these while losing their ability to govern themselves and manage their own internal affairs. No one at the end of the day, would want someone from another end of Europe telling them that, we cannot enjoy our local food and economy for integration purposes.
Therefore, at heart of the issue is not asking one to choose between membership or independence- but rather how does one ensure each and every member's sovereignty while ensuring that each and every member enjoy the fruits of better economic integration.
Therefore the impasse faced in Greece- is not so much that of membership or independence but rather, how do you respect the opinion of it's parliament- without appearing to be an incursive- while implementing plans that are needed to get them out of the credit freeze.
Greece itself is facing internal political strife as well. It is hanging onto a hung Parliament with no clear majority or coalition- and that have further add to the problems. The austerity measures proposed by the EU have to go through the Parliament in order for it to go into law and to be effective- therefore with a split Parliament, it is impossible for it to be implemented.
Further complicating the issues is the ticket that some of parties have used to get themselves into Parliament- which is anti-austerity- which means that they would have to oppose the EU for them to appear credible to their electorate. A term in Parliament is for the tenure of 4-5 years, but it's passing is swift and quick- once enacted, it will become effective.
That much is clear, but how then does these anti-austerity ticket holders intend to prop up growth and seek financing for it's debt appears to eluded. Unless independence by way of opposing is their ultimate aim- then in this case, riding on that anti-austerity ticket appears to be a sleight of hand and quite incredible to the electorate then.
First-Borns
Who has an oldest brother or son or friend who is the oldest son of a family and who is doing very well? Who has a younger brother or sister or friend who is the younger sibling of the family and who is doing fine?
In this rather competitive world of which money and power can be decided just by the order of things, it would appear that there is a cultural bias against the oldest sibling of a family. This is especially so where societies are more structured and the bias is calculated to prevent the concentration of power and means which might upset the popular imagery of society.
There was a story I heard that a king ordered the killing of all the first born's of a kingdom he was ruling- the reason being was that he felt insecure about his position and therefore felt threatened by the authority and power a first born have over his family. It was not religious or out of anger but rather a calculated strategic move to consolidate his position. A family without a head is easier to manage.
And of course, in today's world- this is draconian; and with or without a head, somebody is going to protest against the taking of innocent lives by a despot. But in today's context, the political move is much more sophisticated.
Concentration of power normally resides in the economic in this world and skills and knowledge are rather important in ensuring that the economic instrument is correctly purchased. Therefore I have begun to noticed that- as society's structures becomes hardened- the first-born of many families have begun to pick up "soft" skills as compared with "hard skills of yesteryears.
Nonetheless, the world of today- in constant competition with each other- seems to subtly shifting the division of labour of "hard" skills towards the younger siblings. This I do not believe is happening spontaneously but rather in a contrived manner- aimed primarily at diffusing the power of each unit of society, mainly the family.
Ultimately in such manner, a family unit becomes relatively inert in it's orientation. Because the order cancels out the supposed "higher" economic value of the younger sibling. This is as good as removing the head of a family since the positivity generated from a strong figure head is negated from a supposed "younger" challenger. Ultimately the family as a whole becomes less united and much more fragmented. This makes management of a society much more simpler because the people are busy fighting among themselves. Such a move as the same effect of removing the first born of a family altogether in the first place.
Now there are more divorces and there are fathers who are more like play-mates than paternalistic figures of yester-years. It might have positive familial effect of being more approachable but I suspect the latent utility is much more calculated and strategic and beyond it's the positive emotional connection.
In this rather competitive world of which money and power can be decided just by the order of things, it would appear that there is a cultural bias against the oldest sibling of a family. This is especially so where societies are more structured and the bias is calculated to prevent the concentration of power and means which might upset the popular imagery of society.
There was a story I heard that a king ordered the killing of all the first born's of a kingdom he was ruling- the reason being was that he felt insecure about his position and therefore felt threatened by the authority and power a first born have over his family. It was not religious or out of anger but rather a calculated strategic move to consolidate his position. A family without a head is easier to manage.
And of course, in today's world- this is draconian; and with or without a head, somebody is going to protest against the taking of innocent lives by a despot. But in today's context, the political move is much more sophisticated.
Concentration of power normally resides in the economic in this world and skills and knowledge are rather important in ensuring that the economic instrument is correctly purchased. Therefore I have begun to noticed that- as society's structures becomes hardened- the first-born of many families have begun to pick up "soft" skills as compared with "hard skills of yesteryears.
Nonetheless, the world of today- in constant competition with each other- seems to subtly shifting the division of labour of "hard" skills towards the younger siblings. This I do not believe is happening spontaneously but rather in a contrived manner- aimed primarily at diffusing the power of each unit of society, mainly the family.
Ultimately in such manner, a family unit becomes relatively inert in it's orientation. Because the order cancels out the supposed "higher" economic value of the younger sibling. This is as good as removing the head of a family since the positivity generated from a strong figure head is negated from a supposed "younger" challenger. Ultimately the family as a whole becomes less united and much more fragmented. This makes management of a society much more simpler because the people are busy fighting among themselves. Such a move as the same effect of removing the first born of a family altogether in the first place.
Now there are more divorces and there are fathers who are more like play-mates than paternalistic figures of yester-years. It might have positive familial effect of being more approachable but I suspect the latent utility is much more calculated and strategic and beyond it's the positive emotional connection.
Capitalism and Faith
Is the "survival of fittest" doctrine of capitalism compatible with the altruistic nature of faith and religion? How then as an extension, a person who proclaims religiosity remains a competitive person in a cut-throat world of market-based economies? And furthermore, has religion becomes instrumental in the workings of capitalism?
The best starting point of which is what they call the Protestant Ethic or the Calvinist attitude towards work. It is thought that the relatively secular nature of Protestant's doctrine dictates that we have our station in the life and our job is to work and perform well in our roles contributes to partly the wealth of Protestants. This is in contrast with other religions which place guilt and salvation as it's primary role and therefore uses fear to restrict action rather than encourage it.
But such understanding is rather out-moded in today's world. In the 19th century where as this was understood, hard work could really get you somewhere where agriculture and manual labour was the rule rather than the exception. But in today's world, more labour no longer equates to more wealth- on the other hand, it would appear competition is key to survival in today's world. A person that is rather insular but performs his tasks diligently would do well as the market was such that it wasn't so unforgiving. But in today's world, where competition and survival is the lingua franca- all advantages must be exploited and all disadvantages emphasized, there appear to be no room for the wholesome nature of such a benign view of the cultural impact of religion.
But rather having religion in today's world is not so much about the Sunday worship or temple visits but rather the network it brings and the "positive marketing" one gets for espousing one's religiosity. Similarly, the doctrine has slowly turned from "working for God and He will reward you" to " God creates wealth for you so you can enjoy".
Religion legitimizes on two-fold 1) you are seen as a Godly man and therefore trustworthy and hardworking[ like a brand-name stuck to your personality] 2) Money and God no longer clashes now.
Social Norms-wise, religion has smoothed out the inconsistencies for it's members- fitting today's social context with their brand of message. It would be easy to be associated with them without feeling guilty walking into the shopping centre later and splurging on a $500 pair of shoes later.
Religion comforts and soothes like nothing- after fighting tooth and nail from Monday to Friday, backstabbing, deceiving and stepping on someone's head, rumour-mongering and spewing spite- and on Sunday, someone tells you it is ok. God wants you to keep the money so it's perfectly fine to do what you do because why- God says we need to work to make money so it is "necessary evils".
I am the good guy, so why the hell make it difficult for me- so it must be your fault for making things difficult for me. It is pretty clear who is the good guy from the start. You can't argue with the good guy right because by definition you must be the bad guy isn't it- for arguing against him/her in the first place.
Well unless the office becomes a much less spiteful environment where every advantage must be exploited and every weakness exposed- I would say religion and the corporate environment just don't mix. A man who is a God-fearing man and yet climbs to the top without an hitch- I would be rather wary how did he do it in the first place. And climbing to the top means stepping on someone else, I have doubts that he did it in such a wholesome way in the first place. At best, a hypocrite and at worst, who knows.
The best starting point of which is what they call the Protestant Ethic or the Calvinist attitude towards work. It is thought that the relatively secular nature of Protestant's doctrine dictates that we have our station in the life and our job is to work and perform well in our roles contributes to partly the wealth of Protestants. This is in contrast with other religions which place guilt and salvation as it's primary role and therefore uses fear to restrict action rather than encourage it.
But such understanding is rather out-moded in today's world. In the 19th century where as this was understood, hard work could really get you somewhere where agriculture and manual labour was the rule rather than the exception. But in today's world, more labour no longer equates to more wealth- on the other hand, it would appear competition is key to survival in today's world. A person that is rather insular but performs his tasks diligently would do well as the market was such that it wasn't so unforgiving. But in today's world, where competition and survival is the lingua franca- all advantages must be exploited and all disadvantages emphasized, there appear to be no room for the wholesome nature of such a benign view of the cultural impact of religion.
But rather having religion in today's world is not so much about the Sunday worship or temple visits but rather the network it brings and the "positive marketing" one gets for espousing one's religiosity. Similarly, the doctrine has slowly turned from "working for God and He will reward you" to " God creates wealth for you so you can enjoy".
Religion legitimizes on two-fold 1) you are seen as a Godly man and therefore trustworthy and hardworking[ like a brand-name stuck to your personality] 2) Money and God no longer clashes now.
Social Norms-wise, religion has smoothed out the inconsistencies for it's members- fitting today's social context with their brand of message. It would be easy to be associated with them without feeling guilty walking into the shopping centre later and splurging on a $500 pair of shoes later.
Religion comforts and soothes like nothing- after fighting tooth and nail from Monday to Friday, backstabbing, deceiving and stepping on someone's head, rumour-mongering and spewing spite- and on Sunday, someone tells you it is ok. God wants you to keep the money so it's perfectly fine to do what you do because why- God says we need to work to make money so it is "necessary evils".
I am the good guy, so why the hell make it difficult for me- so it must be your fault for making things difficult for me. It is pretty clear who is the good guy from the start. You can't argue with the good guy right because by definition you must be the bad guy isn't it- for arguing against him/her in the first place.
Well unless the office becomes a much less spiteful environment where every advantage must be exploited and every weakness exposed- I would say religion and the corporate environment just don't mix. A man who is a God-fearing man and yet climbs to the top without an hitch- I would be rather wary how did he do it in the first place. And climbing to the top means stepping on someone else, I have doubts that he did it in such a wholesome way in the first place. At best, a hypocrite and at worst, who knows.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Class
I am beginning to see a that previous models on class perpetuation is no longer valid.
Class perpetuation in previous analysis is flawed in that only by releasing and facilitating economic opportunities would result in class and social mobility. This to me is not only a myth but a flawed narrative of the economic story of a common on the street.
As compared with 50 years, it is true that many a masses have improved economically- where wages and quality of life have improved. But the point of any upwardly mobile and dynamic society is not one where everyone improves together but rather one where how mobile and how sticky are the class stratification. It is therefore can be said that what are the barriers of entry between classes- are they being strengthened or are they more open to the individuals who strive towards in the upgrade in status and class position.
Previous class analysis assumes that the material or economic interest formed the superstructure of society- from religion, legal system and culture. But this flawed in the sense whereby an improvement in the economic outcome appears to level the class structure but in reality, class structure and upward mobility appears ever the more elusive because the barriers between classes are being built taller and taller, and class differences are ever the more subtle but even more effective.
Therefore rather than focus solely on economic interest as the main driver, we must be aware of the how the narration and imagery of class differences is being played out between it's members. Indeed class differences a couple decades have been relative sharper and distinct but now it is becoming more and more blurry and it's social markers ever the more subtle. That is to say that in today's age, it is very difficult to differentiate between a teenager with means and an office worker who has to work for living.
It would appear that previous social markers of family with means has become so accessible that even the middle class could easily passed off as such. The result is not the effect of class mobility but rather things have become subtler but no less the power relations remains- the main thrust of class relations in the first place.
Family with means have built a high wall of barriers of entry that just earning alot of money does not ensure it's acceptance. Because not entering an upward class almost ensure a certain dislocation of means and status which ultimately means that one would almost lost as fast as he/she has made. The aspiring mobile class member would have lost his previous comfortable network of friends with similar backgrounds while not gaining support from the upgraded class.
And as such class relations as a subset of power relations within society perpetuates itself in a sense that status are not accorded to the merited and therefore denies the aspiring mobile class member means of which to consolidate his/her position within an upgraded class. And therefore even if the aspiring mobile class member earns more than an upper class colleague in a year- he would lose it faster than he could keep it as he/she is denies means of which to manage this wealth and work even harder to keep his status.
And in keeping such class differences- it ensured that power relations ever the more sticky and ever the more disadvantaged to the aspiring mobile classes of society. And this class imagery and narration would continue to repeat itself in culture, traditions and minds of the popular consciousness- denying even themselves,- the disadvantaged- the chance to move upwards, because they themselves don't even believe they can do it.
Class perpetuation in previous analysis is flawed in that only by releasing and facilitating economic opportunities would result in class and social mobility. This to me is not only a myth but a flawed narrative of the economic story of a common on the street.
As compared with 50 years, it is true that many a masses have improved economically- where wages and quality of life have improved. But the point of any upwardly mobile and dynamic society is not one where everyone improves together but rather one where how mobile and how sticky are the class stratification. It is therefore can be said that what are the barriers of entry between classes- are they being strengthened or are they more open to the individuals who strive towards in the upgrade in status and class position.
Previous class analysis assumes that the material or economic interest formed the superstructure of society- from religion, legal system and culture. But this flawed in the sense whereby an improvement in the economic outcome appears to level the class structure but in reality, class structure and upward mobility appears ever the more elusive because the barriers between classes are being built taller and taller, and class differences are ever the more subtle but even more effective.
Therefore rather than focus solely on economic interest as the main driver, we must be aware of the how the narration and imagery of class differences is being played out between it's members. Indeed class differences a couple decades have been relative sharper and distinct but now it is becoming more and more blurry and it's social markers ever the more subtle. That is to say that in today's age, it is very difficult to differentiate between a teenager with means and an office worker who has to work for living.
It would appear that previous social markers of family with means has become so accessible that even the middle class could easily passed off as such. The result is not the effect of class mobility but rather things have become subtler but no less the power relations remains- the main thrust of class relations in the first place.
Family with means have built a high wall of barriers of entry that just earning alot of money does not ensure it's acceptance. Because not entering an upward class almost ensure a certain dislocation of means and status which ultimately means that one would almost lost as fast as he/she has made. The aspiring mobile class member would have lost his previous comfortable network of friends with similar backgrounds while not gaining support from the upgraded class.
And as such class relations as a subset of power relations within society perpetuates itself in a sense that status are not accorded to the merited and therefore denies the aspiring mobile class member means of which to consolidate his/her position within an upgraded class. And therefore even if the aspiring mobile class member earns more than an upper class colleague in a year- he would lose it faster than he could keep it as he/she is denies means of which to manage this wealth and work even harder to keep his status.
And in keeping such class differences- it ensured that power relations ever the more sticky and ever the more disadvantaged to the aspiring mobile classes of society. And this class imagery and narration would continue to repeat itself in culture, traditions and minds of the popular consciousness- denying even themselves,- the disadvantaged- the chance to move upwards, because they themselves don't even believe they can do it.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Further to the earlier post, I would be creating a new blog to push agendas I have mentioned in the previous post.
The new blog would focus on issues which should be highlighted for public benefit.
This blog would have a privacy setting on which I would only allow readers approved by myself access to material I have written.
The new blog would focus on issues which should be highlighted for public benefit.
This blog would have a privacy setting on which I would only allow readers approved by myself access to material I have written.
Agendas
Why do you write things in the first place?
I started out writing only that there were ideas which I felt should be shared with everyone. There was no intentions to be famous or attention grabbing in the first place. My page views never crossed 30 in a day before- it did cross 50 only once- when an well-read online website linked up one of my postings onto it's page. That was probably 3-4 years ago.
But well, that was all in the past. Perhaps, some people like my ideas and there were some who felt my ideas were too radical. And there were some who felt that an unknown who have no backing should not have a voice in first place.
Well, perhaps that was true. And at the end of the day, had I wish to put thought into actions- I would galvanize my support, focus on certain pertinent issues and gather like-minded people to push and publicize my agenda in the first place.
My blog touched on issues of such diverse nature that it would be impossible to be called a proper political platform in the first place.
Firstly I would like to thank those whom have viewed some of my pieces favourably and appreciate those whom have levelled criticisms at those whom they felt infavourbly towards. This has enable me to view things from a broader and more critical perspectives.
The goal if there was one in this blog was very modest: it was just an outlet to express certain opinions and views of which I have read and experienced. At the end of the day, it was not a platform for expressing or implementing major changes.
But if someone were to asked me what issues would you champion if you were a politician for a day, they would be 1) transport 2) education 3) jobs
These are things that a proper politician should do. The rest that if I did mention in my blog are important- but they remain as issues that could be explored further following discussions with interest groups and interested parties.
Yes, what I wrote was interesting to me but they do not dominate my discussion if I would to be one- the above would be my platform.
I started out writing only that there were ideas which I felt should be shared with everyone. There was no intentions to be famous or attention grabbing in the first place. My page views never crossed 30 in a day before- it did cross 50 only once- when an well-read online website linked up one of my postings onto it's page. That was probably 3-4 years ago.
But well, that was all in the past. Perhaps, some people like my ideas and there were some who felt my ideas were too radical. And there were some who felt that an unknown who have no backing should not have a voice in first place.
Well, perhaps that was true. And at the end of the day, had I wish to put thought into actions- I would galvanize my support, focus on certain pertinent issues and gather like-minded people to push and publicize my agenda in the first place.
My blog touched on issues of such diverse nature that it would be impossible to be called a proper political platform in the first place.
Firstly I would like to thank those whom have viewed some of my pieces favourably and appreciate those whom have levelled criticisms at those whom they felt infavourbly towards. This has enable me to view things from a broader and more critical perspectives.
The goal if there was one in this blog was very modest: it was just an outlet to express certain opinions and views of which I have read and experienced. At the end of the day, it was not a platform for expressing or implementing major changes.
But if someone were to asked me what issues would you champion if you were a politician for a day, they would be 1) transport 2) education 3) jobs
These are things that a proper politician should do. The rest that if I did mention in my blog are important- but they remain as issues that could be explored further following discussions with interest groups and interested parties.
Yes, what I wrote was interesting to me but they do not dominate my discussion if I would to be one- the above would be my platform.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Happiness
The politics of governance appear to surround over one issue: happiness.
In certain quarters, happiness surrounds having family ties, kinship and friendship. Therefore in certain camps, we work for everyone rather than self benefit, so really disputes are largely shun upon.
On other camps, economic outcomes are a means of justifying legitimacy. It means that only by providing equal opportunity and resources can happiness be achieved. In other words, the government's job is associated with providing the framework for achieving your happiness and do not regulate insomuch as to how you attain it.
The divide is quite painfully obvious.
In the former, everything comes together, nothing is separate from each other. Everything is inseparable from each other. We are community beings and any attempts to separate this-even in theoretical terms- is tantamount to breaking things up.
In the latter, separation is the key to happiness. Only by providing check and balance- can one prevent an interest group provide a preponderant force over the rest of society. The government is minimal and only provide means of attaining happiness and does not regulate how or what to be happy.
I straddle both lines. I know in my mind that the harms one can do when a harmful preponderant force can have on the rest on society but at the same time, personally I come from a background of which such thoughts are considered taboo- and it is not really as bad as it turn it to be, you just need to be good in the important issues and try to toe the line in less critical ones.
Indeed, I think quite a number of us who have this type of exposure would at some point in time would have to grapple with this dilemma.
I believe quite a number of us would feel frustrated as we are considered "rebels" or "westernized" or "debauchery" when we personally believe that everyone should have a voice. At the same time, we have studied and exposed on the ill-effects of believing from an authoritative source as a compared with learning from multiple sources.
As a personal experience, it is because that I believed in learning from multiple sources that I strive to find out the sources of conflicts which arises from both camps.
It is a difficult journey as one who is not faithful from either camp would be considered as disloyal and unfaithful. Indeed they say that a spot makes a man- that much is true.
Indeed, it is extremely inconclusive to say it as bad as I have went through 30 years of year- and for the last 28 years, it wasn't so bad- until one starts getting exposed to different ideas and experience. For one, I had held these "foreign" ideas for the last 10- it was not really as "totalitarian" and inhumane as one would describe in more polemical ones. I had friends who discuss these ideas in school and nothing happen to us- and these classes were taught in tertiary institutions as well.
Indeed, in the latter form which prides choice over normative rules- we had a choice to choose these less "popular" courses- even though they might be frowned upon- which is pretty fine considering that everything and everyone has a preference one way or another.
Likewise, at the end of the everything, I realised a single truth is that: Nothing really matters until you believe that it is true. And both are equally false and true at the same time.
In certain quarters, happiness surrounds having family ties, kinship and friendship. Therefore in certain camps, we work for everyone rather than self benefit, so really disputes are largely shun upon.
On other camps, economic outcomes are a means of justifying legitimacy. It means that only by providing equal opportunity and resources can happiness be achieved. In other words, the government's job is associated with providing the framework for achieving your happiness and do not regulate insomuch as to how you attain it.
The divide is quite painfully obvious.
In the former, everything comes together, nothing is separate from each other. Everything is inseparable from each other. We are community beings and any attempts to separate this-even in theoretical terms- is tantamount to breaking things up.
In the latter, separation is the key to happiness. Only by providing check and balance- can one prevent an interest group provide a preponderant force over the rest of society. The government is minimal and only provide means of attaining happiness and does not regulate how or what to be happy.
I straddle both lines. I know in my mind that the harms one can do when a harmful preponderant force can have on the rest on society but at the same time, personally I come from a background of which such thoughts are considered taboo- and it is not really as bad as it turn it to be, you just need to be good in the important issues and try to toe the line in less critical ones.
Indeed, I think quite a number of us who have this type of exposure would at some point in time would have to grapple with this dilemma.
I believe quite a number of us would feel frustrated as we are considered "rebels" or "westernized" or "debauchery" when we personally believe that everyone should have a voice. At the same time, we have studied and exposed on the ill-effects of believing from an authoritative source as a compared with learning from multiple sources.
As a personal experience, it is because that I believed in learning from multiple sources that I strive to find out the sources of conflicts which arises from both camps.
It is a difficult journey as one who is not faithful from either camp would be considered as disloyal and unfaithful. Indeed they say that a spot makes a man- that much is true.
Indeed, it is extremely inconclusive to say it as bad as I have went through 30 years of year- and for the last 28 years, it wasn't so bad- until one starts getting exposed to different ideas and experience. For one, I had held these "foreign" ideas for the last 10- it was not really as "totalitarian" and inhumane as one would describe in more polemical ones. I had friends who discuss these ideas in school and nothing happen to us- and these classes were taught in tertiary institutions as well.
Indeed, in the latter form which prides choice over normative rules- we had a choice to choose these less "popular" courses- even though they might be frowned upon- which is pretty fine considering that everything and everyone has a preference one way or another.
Likewise, at the end of the everything, I realised a single truth is that: Nothing really matters until you believe that it is true. And both are equally false and true at the same time.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Romantic Asia
I do not know how to write clearly and succinctly without trying to outshine anyone or appear to be smart.
The point of communication was always 1) the job 2) the salience. 1) the job refers to communicating a point and deliver the message 2) the salience- was to hit the meaning spot on, so that the message would sink in and not just bubble on the surface- and that means carrying an emotional and social/reciprocity content so to speak.
And this has been the pain of a person schooled in science and rationality but taught in ways of respect and human bondage. At home, we are taught to be grateful, respectful and understanding but in school and at work, we are expected to be performing and outstanding.
And at the same time, we grappled with human loyalties and yet maintaining an even keel on issues. We no longer lived in a world on our own- there are filters but they are huge and porous.
Secondly, without appearing to be really smart, I have notice one very single thing that some Westerners have a romanticized version of Asian culture while some Asians themselves have a strong identity about themselves.
It would indeed be extremely erroneous to think in such dichotomous terms as well because ultimately it would I think subconsciously formed a "me vs them" mentality. It would without anyone realising it that we have in our head prepare for a conflict in our head.
And speaking from this particular juncture, it is even harder for anyone whom is Chinese and Asian who works in Western style market place, products and to communicate in western style concepts and yet able to connect to the world where respect and understanding is paramount.
It is ultimately very difficult to communicate to someone and telling them about counter party risk, interest rate risk and equity premium risk without sounding disrespectful, money-minded and Mr know-it-all.
Indeed, I know some of friends, colleagues and family might not be happy in me for saying in this: when I say some Westerners have a romanticized version of Asian culture because they are not accessible to the so-called " not-so-nice" side of it all.
Asians will protect themselves and their turf at all cost. If you are outsider, then you would remain as one. You have no way of redeeming yourself except for asking for their forgiveness.
And when I mean you are outsider, they don't tell you are one- they would entirely justified in doing whatever they want to you- because you are outsider- and unless you asked for their forgiveness, there is really no limit they can push you,death, bankruptcy and suicide is not off-limits. Once you are inside, there is an order and only when someone above you did wrong, there is no way you can move up.
And when inside, there are insiders and outsiders as well- and when you are an outsider within it- there are many ways of helping you along with mistakes. It is really survivor of the fittest- Asian style. And yes, there is human relations and bondage- but it only goes so far as there are really no mistakes.
And some people might not like to hear what I would say- as I have personal experience of it before. I maybe Chinese and Asian- and I might have only Chinese girlfriends- it still doesn't qualify me as an insider within an inside circle as I do not strongly defend my so-called Asian heritage.
I do not hide along with everyone and would normally try to communicate and go to get what I want as compared with some of my peers who believed in working unerringly and quietly while waiting for the older and more respected seniors to give the rewards. The thing about Asians is that they would not grudgingly let you grab the limelight- once you are off the stage, motions are in place already to disadvantaged you or helped you along with the mistakes- that's your "punishment" for pushing your way up the line.
It would appear that there seems to be sticks and no carrots but those in the inner circle always play the ones outside it. The carrots are in these people who are outside this circle- it would be indeed justifiable to screw around with them and cream off their efforts because they are not "family" or in the "inner circle".
To the outsider or the western style critic- this would be nepotism, cronyism and to the Asian romantic, this is the idea of cultural norms and reciprocity. And unless, you are within the system, it is not as simple as criticizing or embracing it. The thing about Asian culture is that once you are out, you are out- attacking or loving it would not make a difference.
And at the same time, I always strive for effectiveness and excellence- and to some this are western style ideas, we should pride teamwork instead; and to other's in local slang- be "smart", and " don't try to out-smart everyone".
I can safely tell you that the above is true because I am an Asian Chinese schooled in western ways and lived among Asian families and culture. To the Westerner who might be reading this, you should be thankful that you are not a "yellow banana"- yellow outside and white inside-, and to the Asian especially Chinese, who might be reading this, be careful to watch over your shoulder because reading this has already cast you slowly out of the inner circle.
I always thought attending schools and attaining a degree would be at least a ticket to a comfortable life but when I strived harder and pushing harder a little later in life, it occurred to me that my place was already set when I was growing up and earlier in my life. And that is the Asian system for you.
The point of communication was always 1) the job 2) the salience. 1) the job refers to communicating a point and deliver the message 2) the salience- was to hit the meaning spot on, so that the message would sink in and not just bubble on the surface- and that means carrying an emotional and social/reciprocity content so to speak.
And this has been the pain of a person schooled in science and rationality but taught in ways of respect and human bondage. At home, we are taught to be grateful, respectful and understanding but in school and at work, we are expected to be performing and outstanding.
And at the same time, we grappled with human loyalties and yet maintaining an even keel on issues. We no longer lived in a world on our own- there are filters but they are huge and porous.
Secondly, without appearing to be really smart, I have notice one very single thing that some Westerners have a romanticized version of Asian culture while some Asians themselves have a strong identity about themselves.
It would indeed be extremely erroneous to think in such dichotomous terms as well because ultimately it would I think subconsciously formed a "me vs them" mentality. It would without anyone realising it that we have in our head prepare for a conflict in our head.
And speaking from this particular juncture, it is even harder for anyone whom is Chinese and Asian who works in Western style market place, products and to communicate in western style concepts and yet able to connect to the world where respect and understanding is paramount.
It is ultimately very difficult to communicate to someone and telling them about counter party risk, interest rate risk and equity premium risk without sounding disrespectful, money-minded and Mr know-it-all.
Indeed, I know some of friends, colleagues and family might not be happy in me for saying in this: when I say some Westerners have a romanticized version of Asian culture because they are not accessible to the so-called " not-so-nice" side of it all.
Asians will protect themselves and their turf at all cost. If you are outsider, then you would remain as one. You have no way of redeeming yourself except for asking for their forgiveness.
And when I mean you are outsider, they don't tell you are one- they would entirely justified in doing whatever they want to you- because you are outsider- and unless you asked for their forgiveness, there is really no limit they can push you,death, bankruptcy and suicide is not off-limits. Once you are inside, there is an order and only when someone above you did wrong, there is no way you can move up.
And when inside, there are insiders and outsiders as well- and when you are an outsider within it- there are many ways of helping you along with mistakes. It is really survivor of the fittest- Asian style. And yes, there is human relations and bondage- but it only goes so far as there are really no mistakes.
And some people might not like to hear what I would say- as I have personal experience of it before. I maybe Chinese and Asian- and I might have only Chinese girlfriends- it still doesn't qualify me as an insider within an inside circle as I do not strongly defend my so-called Asian heritage.
I do not hide along with everyone and would normally try to communicate and go to get what I want as compared with some of my peers who believed in working unerringly and quietly while waiting for the older and more respected seniors to give the rewards. The thing about Asians is that they would not grudgingly let you grab the limelight- once you are off the stage, motions are in place already to disadvantaged you or helped you along with the mistakes- that's your "punishment" for pushing your way up the line.
It would appear that there seems to be sticks and no carrots but those in the inner circle always play the ones outside it. The carrots are in these people who are outside this circle- it would be indeed justifiable to screw around with them and cream off their efforts because they are not "family" or in the "inner circle".
To the outsider or the western style critic- this would be nepotism, cronyism and to the Asian romantic, this is the idea of cultural norms and reciprocity. And unless, you are within the system, it is not as simple as criticizing or embracing it. The thing about Asian culture is that once you are out, you are out- attacking or loving it would not make a difference.
And at the same time, I always strive for effectiveness and excellence- and to some this are western style ideas, we should pride teamwork instead; and to other's in local slang- be "smart", and " don't try to out-smart everyone".
I can safely tell you that the above is true because I am an Asian Chinese schooled in western ways and lived among Asian families and culture. To the Westerner who might be reading this, you should be thankful that you are not a "yellow banana"- yellow outside and white inside-, and to the Asian especially Chinese, who might be reading this, be careful to watch over your shoulder because reading this has already cast you slowly out of the inner circle.
I always thought attending schools and attaining a degree would be at least a ticket to a comfortable life but when I strived harder and pushing harder a little later in life, it occurred to me that my place was already set when I was growing up and earlier in my life. And that is the Asian system for you.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Stupidity 2
It has been a rather an eventful 2 weeks or so. No, I am not a good man and no, I do not pretend to be one.
Eventually, what really irks me is not losing per se, it is losing to someone and something quite pretentious. I can lose, it's fine by me, but just don't pretend to be the good guy.
Indeed, competition is the life and death of live and it is the survival of the fittest but at the end of the day, you just look like sour puss by losing.
There are quite a number of detractors and critics and by whatever name you can call them. They are what I call ideological attackers- they have chosen a path and intend to stick to it till death and therefore any deviation is not just a switch in thinking- it is the loss of the soul of the entire being.
They are better off dead if they lose- they would be drug addicts and the walking dead if found that the ideology is gone and dusted. An hollow empty shell of man and woman who devoted a large part of their life which eventually they found out amount to nothing, losing their meaning and direction in life.
Religion is not the new religion, culture is the new religion. This cult do not have outward symbol- they have identifiable habits. It's adherents do not declare themselves- they just act like a light at the end of tunnel- blindly doing what other's of the same kind do; and fighting off anything deviating from it.
Wars are fought on geographical turf, this war is fought on an ideological and imaginary one. The winners are the one shifting the ideological tide. Things are changing- I can sense the rumbles of change quaking just below my feet.
It would be by any consequence that this war is not fought on conflict- it is fought on bondage. It is the "Family" acting against another. And therefore in any case, anyone who wins the war is the one who keep harmonious together while finding a bigger target to fight. The target is again ideological, there are no demons or aliens involved- just cardboard characters.
I am slowly pigeon-holing myself in one tiny caricature call the one who " does and says what he wants". This stereotype is in itself is a giant target board- because no one likes to hear the truth and the hard stuff, everyone wants to hear comforting words- self-affirming actions.
I like to think this is not ideological, because I am dealing with this situation in a way most palatable to me I can. I am not saying that I right, I am just dealing in the best way that I can do.
In any case, I would prefer to live in a world that people which are thinking, willing and seeing- and I seriously doubt, this would ever materialize in my life-time.
People live and die by ideology, they would never live and die by understanding and reason.
I used to think that people are stupid, now I really believe that they are stupid- not for the lack of capacity but the lack of desire and willingness.
Eventually, what really irks me is not losing per se, it is losing to someone and something quite pretentious. I can lose, it's fine by me, but just don't pretend to be the good guy.
Indeed, competition is the life and death of live and it is the survival of the fittest but at the end of the day, you just look like sour puss by losing.
There are quite a number of detractors and critics and by whatever name you can call them. They are what I call ideological attackers- they have chosen a path and intend to stick to it till death and therefore any deviation is not just a switch in thinking- it is the loss of the soul of the entire being.
They are better off dead if they lose- they would be drug addicts and the walking dead if found that the ideology is gone and dusted. An hollow empty shell of man and woman who devoted a large part of their life which eventually they found out amount to nothing, losing their meaning and direction in life.
Religion is not the new religion, culture is the new religion. This cult do not have outward symbol- they have identifiable habits. It's adherents do not declare themselves- they just act like a light at the end of tunnel- blindly doing what other's of the same kind do; and fighting off anything deviating from it.
Wars are fought on geographical turf, this war is fought on an ideological and imaginary one. The winners are the one shifting the ideological tide. Things are changing- I can sense the rumbles of change quaking just below my feet.
It would be by any consequence that this war is not fought on conflict- it is fought on bondage. It is the "Family" acting against another. And therefore in any case, anyone who wins the war is the one who keep harmonious together while finding a bigger target to fight. The target is again ideological, there are no demons or aliens involved- just cardboard characters.
I am slowly pigeon-holing myself in one tiny caricature call the one who " does and says what he wants". This stereotype is in itself is a giant target board- because no one likes to hear the truth and the hard stuff, everyone wants to hear comforting words- self-affirming actions.
I like to think this is not ideological, because I am dealing with this situation in a way most palatable to me I can. I am not saying that I right, I am just dealing in the best way that I can do.
In any case, I would prefer to live in a world that people which are thinking, willing and seeing- and I seriously doubt, this would ever materialize in my life-time.
People live and die by ideology, they would never live and die by understanding and reason.
I used to think that people are stupid, now I really believe that they are stupid- not for the lack of capacity but the lack of desire and willingness.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Stupidity
What I am about to say is probably taboo. It should never be said so as to guard against some ignorant fool who might walk into it unknowingly. But these are ideas I find it absolutely preposterous that I found it extremely difficult to contain.
And why it is taboo, precisely because people believe in it- so saying it just means it becomes blasphemous and sacrilegious even. It is like telling your kid that Santa does not exist. But we are not kids unfortunately- hiding behind fantasies is like dipping your head in the sand. Let's just wish for things to go away without doing anything, so long as I can "arrange" certain things in my favour.
Things were not in your favour not because the Gods favour you, it is because it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You wish for it to happen and for some reason, some people understand your deep down fantasy and played along with you- thinking that this is good karma that would be returned back in kind later. Culture and rituals is one thing, luck and fortune is another thing altogether.
While you watch the tribal documentaries and secretly mock at them for their primitive ways- thinking that praying to some rain god will bring them rain or praying to some spirit would bring them food- of what difference is you and these primitive jungle dwellers. If one were to believed that symbols would bring them good fortune, then of what difference is praying to these gods by these tribal people. One pray to something he does not see, the other thinks that symbols emanates luck and fortune.
It is this type of belief that conflicts and differences arise. People jockey for the best position and symbols regardless of the issue at hand. And having the so-called symbolic upper-hand, they start getting confident and start demanding things for self interest in the name of general interest. It is as if gaining a cultural advantage is as good as winning the actual war. Why don't people wave the flag at people rather than shoot guns at each other.
It is really superstition of the highest degree and futile battle fought in the imaginary worlds of the unseen. People repeat themselves over and over again, fighting these imaginary battles in their head- thinking a special arrangement of certain symbols would guarantee them victory in reality.
What this "divine" arrangement will give you is ignorance. The symbols will not come in the night and fight with each other- you have to fight it yourself. What these symbols do is tell people I believe in this animanistic bullshit, and if you believe it, you should help me too.
And eventually everybody engage in this mumbo jumbo and we are just walking tribal apes with a special inclination to certain symbols. We do not have capacity to think ethically, to act functionally, to address appropriately and to manage equally.
We are given eyes to see and act and not to discriminate unthinkingly, we are given ears to hear, not to differentiate between accents but to gather information. But we choose to ignore this and choose the easy way out by letting imaginary symbols fight the battle for us.
Symbols have meanings only because we give meaning to it. It doesn't jump out and save the day the for you like some restive spirit.
Stupid...
And why it is taboo, precisely because people believe in it- so saying it just means it becomes blasphemous and sacrilegious even. It is like telling your kid that Santa does not exist. But we are not kids unfortunately- hiding behind fantasies is like dipping your head in the sand. Let's just wish for things to go away without doing anything, so long as I can "arrange" certain things in my favour.
Things were not in your favour not because the Gods favour you, it is because it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You wish for it to happen and for some reason, some people understand your deep down fantasy and played along with you- thinking that this is good karma that would be returned back in kind later. Culture and rituals is one thing, luck and fortune is another thing altogether.
While you watch the tribal documentaries and secretly mock at them for their primitive ways- thinking that praying to some rain god will bring them rain or praying to some spirit would bring them food- of what difference is you and these primitive jungle dwellers. If one were to believed that symbols would bring them good fortune, then of what difference is praying to these gods by these tribal people. One pray to something he does not see, the other thinks that symbols emanates luck and fortune.
It is this type of belief that conflicts and differences arise. People jockey for the best position and symbols regardless of the issue at hand. And having the so-called symbolic upper-hand, they start getting confident and start demanding things for self interest in the name of general interest. It is as if gaining a cultural advantage is as good as winning the actual war. Why don't people wave the flag at people rather than shoot guns at each other.
It is really superstition of the highest degree and futile battle fought in the imaginary worlds of the unseen. People repeat themselves over and over again, fighting these imaginary battles in their head- thinking a special arrangement of certain symbols would guarantee them victory in reality.
What this "divine" arrangement will give you is ignorance. The symbols will not come in the night and fight with each other- you have to fight it yourself. What these symbols do is tell people I believe in this animanistic bullshit, and if you believe it, you should help me too.
And eventually everybody engage in this mumbo jumbo and we are just walking tribal apes with a special inclination to certain symbols. We do not have capacity to think ethically, to act functionally, to address appropriately and to manage equally.
We are given eyes to see and act and not to discriminate unthinkingly, we are given ears to hear, not to differentiate between accents but to gather information. But we choose to ignore this and choose the easy way out by letting imaginary symbols fight the battle for us.
Symbols have meanings only because we give meaning to it. It doesn't jump out and save the day the for you like some restive spirit.
Stupid...
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Operating a Farm
Yes, I run a farm. I enjoyed running a farm. It was by far the most interesting thing a person can do. But you see, my farm is rather special. The cows in my farm do not belong to me.
I loaned the cows from this group of cattle ranches, and in return, I will give them part of the milk of which I have obtained from them. Well, the amount of milk I obtained, part of it goes to them, the rest of right, I sell it away to the market where only fellow farmers and myself have access to.
And even though I do the milking of the cow, what I did to the cow- was that I loaned the singular cow further to other smaller wanna-be farmers that are looking to use the milk for other products like cheese and cake. Well, I am a farmer by nature, and I don't really engage in these type of activities.
Well, you might think that what I did was illegal- well it is not true. You see, I go to the monthly meetings at the Cow Farmers Association and report whom I loaned my cows to and how many dies as a result. As a result, and on top of paying a monthly membership fee, the association helps to guarantee up to a certain amount of cows, they will subsidize should anything happen.
So nowadays, we began to open many cow sourcing centres of which to procure my cows. But the market is bad. There are too many cows in the market because the government decided to give steroid enhancers to the calf-birthing cows resulting in large quantities of cows giving birth and at the same time, there are lesser small time farmers looking to loan our cows as well. Well business is really tough.
The good thing is that since we have so many cows, the chances of we running out of cows is very low and the rate at which it dies is therefore only a small percentage of our population- as statistics shows that cows are healthier when they are put in large numbers.
Recently, the price of cheese, cakes and other dairy products is falling- and at the same time, transportation cost is rising. To make matters a little worse, the government have decided to promote a campaign for cow retention- in order words, milk your own cows and make your own products- making business even more difficult for my cow partners.
Therefore, some of my cow partners are finding it hard to make ends meet. And if they can't pay me back the milk, I can't pay it back to those whom loaned me the cows in the first place.
Well some of my fellow colleagues in the Cow Farmers Association have come up with an ingenious idea, why not sell the cow that we have to other areas who needs it more than I do. In order words, even though we loaned the cows, but our milking rate is very low, so why not sell the cow wholesale to other places [ I heard that country X is running out of cows so we can sell it to them and to make back the difference here]- get the funds and buy milk from our market and give it back to the cow loaners in the first place. And when the cow loaners wants it back, we can recall from them asap as well.
And some of my colleagues decided to set up a cow Trading operations. In order words, while we loaned the cows to our local small-time farmers- scrutinizing them- and at the same time, what we do is that we will see a larger portion to these external buyers and use the difference to return the milk back to the cow loaners. This arrangement is perfect because happens is that the cow loaners are happy with the interest, the the external buyers are happy and I am happy because I make even more than just taking difference paying them and keeping it for myself.
And in time to come, what colleagues did was- seeing the profitability of the operations began to use this method more than more often; meaning that more cows was apportioned for selling than for milking.
Things got even profitable when I can use one cow as a collateral for the milk of ten cows- just so long as one year later, I am able to produce the milk for them to use and of course so long as the price keeps going up, I can sell it even before one year is up. Brilliant eh. And I don't even need to do any milking or buying. I just need to call the desk that's all.
And eventually, the trading desk was calling the shots as they could use the cows to get ten times more cow and since they are very aware of the seasonality of the cows and the conditions of which to buy and sell, they were making a large portion of my farm's revenue.
But I thought that was big problem. What if one day, the cow loaners decide to recall the cows together or suddenly the cows that we loaned to dies or that all those future milking revenue doesn't materialize, and so I suggested to separate the cow leasing business from the trading desk. This is to ensure that good cows are not given away for a quick profit and only those extra cows left can be used for buying and selling, and the rest kept in case, the cow loaners wants them back.
Then suddenly, the mad cow disease struck. The government gave us growth steroids and chemically induced milk to pay the loaners first- hopefully, we can get by- otherwise everyone will have nothing to eat and live. Let's just hope against hope that we can pull through then.
I loaned the cows from this group of cattle ranches, and in return, I will give them part of the milk of which I have obtained from them. Well, the amount of milk I obtained, part of it goes to them, the rest of right, I sell it away to the market where only fellow farmers and myself have access to.
And even though I do the milking of the cow, what I did to the cow- was that I loaned the singular cow further to other smaller wanna-be farmers that are looking to use the milk for other products like cheese and cake. Well, I am a farmer by nature, and I don't really engage in these type of activities.
Well, you might think that what I did was illegal- well it is not true. You see, I go to the monthly meetings at the Cow Farmers Association and report whom I loaned my cows to and how many dies as a result. As a result, and on top of paying a monthly membership fee, the association helps to guarantee up to a certain amount of cows, they will subsidize should anything happen.
So nowadays, we began to open many cow sourcing centres of which to procure my cows. But the market is bad. There are too many cows in the market because the government decided to give steroid enhancers to the calf-birthing cows resulting in large quantities of cows giving birth and at the same time, there are lesser small time farmers looking to loan our cows as well. Well business is really tough.
The good thing is that since we have so many cows, the chances of we running out of cows is very low and the rate at which it dies is therefore only a small percentage of our population- as statistics shows that cows are healthier when they are put in large numbers.
Recently, the price of cheese, cakes and other dairy products is falling- and at the same time, transportation cost is rising. To make matters a little worse, the government have decided to promote a campaign for cow retention- in order words, milk your own cows and make your own products- making business even more difficult for my cow partners.
Therefore, some of my cow partners are finding it hard to make ends meet. And if they can't pay me back the milk, I can't pay it back to those whom loaned me the cows in the first place.
Well some of my fellow colleagues in the Cow Farmers Association have come up with an ingenious idea, why not sell the cow that we have to other areas who needs it more than I do. In order words, even though we loaned the cows, but our milking rate is very low, so why not sell the cow wholesale to other places [ I heard that country X is running out of cows so we can sell it to them and to make back the difference here]- get the funds and buy milk from our market and give it back to the cow loaners in the first place. And when the cow loaners wants it back, we can recall from them asap as well.
And some of my colleagues decided to set up a cow Trading operations. In order words, while we loaned the cows to our local small-time farmers- scrutinizing them- and at the same time, what we do is that we will see a larger portion to these external buyers and use the difference to return the milk back to the cow loaners. This arrangement is perfect because happens is that the cow loaners are happy with the interest, the the external buyers are happy and I am happy because I make even more than just taking difference paying them and keeping it for myself.
And in time to come, what colleagues did was- seeing the profitability of the operations began to use this method more than more often; meaning that more cows was apportioned for selling than for milking.
Things got even profitable when I can use one cow as a collateral for the milk of ten cows- just so long as one year later, I am able to produce the milk for them to use and of course so long as the price keeps going up, I can sell it even before one year is up. Brilliant eh. And I don't even need to do any milking or buying. I just need to call the desk that's all.
And eventually, the trading desk was calling the shots as they could use the cows to get ten times more cow and since they are very aware of the seasonality of the cows and the conditions of which to buy and sell, they were making a large portion of my farm's revenue.
But I thought that was big problem. What if one day, the cow loaners decide to recall the cows together or suddenly the cows that we loaned to dies or that all those future milking revenue doesn't materialize, and so I suggested to separate the cow leasing business from the trading desk. This is to ensure that good cows are not given away for a quick profit and only those extra cows left can be used for buying and selling, and the rest kept in case, the cow loaners wants them back.
Then suddenly, the mad cow disease struck. The government gave us growth steroids and chemically induced milk to pay the loaners first- hopefully, we can get by- otherwise everyone will have nothing to eat and live. Let's just hope against hope that we can pull through then.
The writer and the Painter
There were two cups. One was labelled as "more pessimissm" and the other was labelled "less optimism".
One day, somebody decided to fill up both cups with two different water clours. One is blue, the other was in red.
Then another person came in and wanted to paint a river, and so decide to pour more blue water. The cup with different labels and with blue water is filled to brim and the one with red water was only half-empty.
A writer who was documentating and was authoring an article that was published to everybody, took note of this observation and concluded that blue was better than red as he observed the painter in the house filled with empty walls- used the blue water and used the red one sparingly. Hence he concluded that since it was used more often and it was filled to the brim, the painter must have valued blue water more than the red one. This conclusion was written and send out as official information.
It was printed and send out and those who do not know to read was given the same story by those who knew.
After the writer left the house, the painter wanted to paint a rose and left the blue paint one side.
Meanwhile, since everyone didn't know how to write except the writer, his book was widely disseminated and broadcasted to everyone and taken as important knowledge. Consequently, since other colours were not discovered yet, everyone wanted to pay anyone who can produce blue paint more; and used the red paint sparingly and - and were only used as emblemishment and nothing more- as a result the price was much lower and much less in demand
Meanwhile, unbeknown to the hustle and bustle outside his house, the painter began to used the red water much more just as the writer walked away. He went to the well and poured the cup with "less optimism" to the brim and started using it. He subsequently took the cup filled with blue water and labelled "more pessimissm" one side- concentrating on painting roses and apples.
And once, the master painter has finished painting, he invited the writer to come in and view his masterpiece once more. The writer was wowed by his master piece and was taken by the painting.
But noticed that the painted river forms the background and the base of the picture, and the roses and apples were nothing more than added emblemishments and decorations and concluded that the painter valued blue more than red.
He wrote out his conclusion and disseminate this knowledge to everyone. But just before the writer left, the painter handed the cups filled with blue and red water to him and said: Stare at both cups and tell me your conclusion, it's your job now.
Meanwhile he sat down and ate his apple and drinking his fully filled cup of water- thinking of what to paint next, of trees and clouds perhaps.
One day, somebody decided to fill up both cups with two different water clours. One is blue, the other was in red.
Then another person came in and wanted to paint a river, and so decide to pour more blue water. The cup with different labels and with blue water is filled to brim and the one with red water was only half-empty.
A writer who was documentating and was authoring an article that was published to everybody, took note of this observation and concluded that blue was better than red as he observed the painter in the house filled with empty walls- used the blue water and used the red one sparingly. Hence he concluded that since it was used more often and it was filled to the brim, the painter must have valued blue water more than the red one. This conclusion was written and send out as official information.
It was printed and send out and those who do not know to read was given the same story by those who knew.
After the writer left the house, the painter wanted to paint a rose and left the blue paint one side.
Meanwhile, since everyone didn't know how to write except the writer, his book was widely disseminated and broadcasted to everyone and taken as important knowledge. Consequently, since other colours were not discovered yet, everyone wanted to pay anyone who can produce blue paint more; and used the red paint sparingly and - and were only used as emblemishment and nothing more- as a result the price was much lower and much less in demand
Meanwhile, unbeknown to the hustle and bustle outside his house, the painter began to used the red water much more just as the writer walked away. He went to the well and poured the cup with "less optimism" to the brim and started using it. He subsequently took the cup filled with blue water and labelled "more pessimissm" one side- concentrating on painting roses and apples.
And once, the master painter has finished painting, he invited the writer to come in and view his masterpiece once more. The writer was wowed by his master piece and was taken by the painting.
But noticed that the painted river forms the background and the base of the picture, and the roses and apples were nothing more than added emblemishments and decorations and concluded that the painter valued blue more than red.
He wrote out his conclusion and disseminate this knowledge to everyone. But just before the writer left, the painter handed the cups filled with blue and red water to him and said: Stare at both cups and tell me your conclusion, it's your job now.
Meanwhile he sat down and ate his apple and drinking his fully filled cup of water- thinking of what to paint next, of trees and clouds perhaps.
Please sir, I want some more
I am not a charitable man. I do not have a heart of gold.
I think that helping others is an absolute waste of time. We have so many wants and needs that we cannot satisfy, why the hell bother with the plight of others.
Quite frankly if ten million dollars fell on my lap, I would spend a spanking new car, but a new apartment and get a steady stream of income and live on the beach for the rest of my life. In this way, I would never need to work for the rest of my life and yet get a comfortable lifestyle without really needing to think about running our of money.
Why the hell, do we need to have consideration for other's in the first place. Ten million dollars can go a long way in doing many things, and of course, I have to give to people whom have helped me along the way as well. This people would help me more since I have I have repaid their gratitude right. It is really just a virtous cycle of generosity right- I help those that helped me and in turn they will helped me.
Of what use, do I helped someone whom have no way of even helping themselves- there is no payback or reciprocity- really there is no benefit in stretching out my hand. I give because I have to, because if I don't I would be viewed as a heartless miser in front of everyone else, so perhaps I would flicked a coin or two. well, it's nothing to me but it means alot to this person right. Well, I get away scot-free and this person walk away happy, isn't that such a nice little arrangement.
I never give to charity unless someone is looking unless it is mandated. Charity is well charity, it should come from the heart right, it is not that I don't have the heart, it is just that I want so many things, but well, I think this people- plight as pathetic as it can be- just had to wait.
I want to eat at the nice little restautant and I need to save up my kid's education- what is more important than their educatoion- even when education is heavily subsidized and I earned about $10,000 a month. And of course, I need to buy dinner and tonics for my parents, yes they are very important right, even when they have golf membership and stayed in that bungalow, and jets around the world as and when they like.
Oh yeah, don't forget my friends. Well, they are buying the new home theatre system or that nice diamond ring for their wife- well, wives are important right, pampering them. And I am so noble and selfless that I keep on buying things for others and I forgot about myself. Oh well, I should do that and pamper myself too- I was eyeing their diving watch- even though, I have never dived before[ well thats a small detail, we will get to that later]
Oh at the end of the day, I am just a man working hard for my family, kids and friends and some little luxuries for myself.
I am sorry I am really don't have time for people who is trying to make ends meet. I am really really sorry, I liked to help but....
[ Oliver: Please sir, I want some more...gruel]
I think that helping others is an absolute waste of time. We have so many wants and needs that we cannot satisfy, why the hell bother with the plight of others.
Quite frankly if ten million dollars fell on my lap, I would spend a spanking new car, but a new apartment and get a steady stream of income and live on the beach for the rest of my life. In this way, I would never need to work for the rest of my life and yet get a comfortable lifestyle without really needing to think about running our of money.
Why the hell, do we need to have consideration for other's in the first place. Ten million dollars can go a long way in doing many things, and of course, I have to give to people whom have helped me along the way as well. This people would help me more since I have I have repaid their gratitude right. It is really just a virtous cycle of generosity right- I help those that helped me and in turn they will helped me.
Of what use, do I helped someone whom have no way of even helping themselves- there is no payback or reciprocity- really there is no benefit in stretching out my hand. I give because I have to, because if I don't I would be viewed as a heartless miser in front of everyone else, so perhaps I would flicked a coin or two. well, it's nothing to me but it means alot to this person right. Well, I get away scot-free and this person walk away happy, isn't that such a nice little arrangement.
I never give to charity unless someone is looking unless it is mandated. Charity is well charity, it should come from the heart right, it is not that I don't have the heart, it is just that I want so many things, but well, I think this people- plight as pathetic as it can be- just had to wait.
I want to eat at the nice little restautant and I need to save up my kid's education- what is more important than their educatoion- even when education is heavily subsidized and I earned about $10,000 a month. And of course, I need to buy dinner and tonics for my parents, yes they are very important right, even when they have golf membership and stayed in that bungalow, and jets around the world as and when they like.
Oh yeah, don't forget my friends. Well, they are buying the new home theatre system or that nice diamond ring for their wife- well, wives are important right, pampering them. And I am so noble and selfless that I keep on buying things for others and I forgot about myself. Oh well, I should do that and pamper myself too- I was eyeing their diving watch- even though, I have never dived before[ well thats a small detail, we will get to that later]
Oh at the end of the day, I am just a man working hard for my family, kids and friends and some little luxuries for myself.
I am sorry I am really don't have time for people who is trying to make ends meet. I am really really sorry, I liked to help but....
[ Oliver: Please sir, I want some more...gruel]
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Feasting
Structures are what we aworked with. Structures are what we preserved. And order comes from the structures of which we stubbornly upheld.
There are in my opinion many different perspectives on which we can see matters. We can see in matter categories, intensity and space. But in these categories is not we would basically hold.
As a matter of subjectivity and opinion, the truth of matter of which no one wants to admit is that boxes and lines do not exist except for those that exist in our heads.
But as a matter of management and authority, it is best for people to be kept within these lines. And indeed, certain people of a different nature, attempts to change these lines via various means- of which viewed as anti-social or of crude disposition.
And indeed sympathies exist in those few who attempt to break these lines while the head rules on an individual basis, the futility of their actions. I have begun to view them with increasing intensity of sympathies rather and apathy as I realised that they were really much braver than I am.
They are driven by causes over and above oneself, while I am whom is no more driven by a curiosity and a foolhardy mind. But sympathies are the best that I can do because I am not a man of noble ambitions or vision but rather one of self-interested desires.
I am not a man of faith but yet in my deepest recesses of my mind, I hope they succeed not in the perverse way but in a way where a man of smaller mind admiring that of one with a grander vision.
With foolishness I can claim ignorance, but with knowledge comes choices of which a man of my cooler disposition is ill-advised to take on a project of such a grand scale.
Although, it is indeed a tough pill to swallow, I would have to succumb to the best of my instincts that everyone has won and I have lost. And indeed, I would have to be like everyone else, to stick to my lines, my station and accept the winds of change- of which I know would be really hard given the out-sized expectations previously.
I have no grand vision nor a great project- I do not possess the ego nor the confidence to make this bold claim.
And as I write these words, I hear the wolfs howling and I hear the vultures encircling, but my life is not a movie, of which dramatic events happened everywhere I go.
I have no idea how this would end- but I reckon this would happen quietly and without fuss.
But I do see signatures of my work imprinted all over the world and media- for the better or for the worse.
I have always talked about unintended consequences before, but this is one unintended consequence that has really elude me for so long- that my ideas have provided strands of which life has been organized, and I believed that it would permeate longer than I would expected, wider than I anticipated.
I do not need a knighthood or scholarship to affirm that.
Let the feasting begin.
Cheers,
Eugene
There are in my opinion many different perspectives on which we can see matters. We can see in matter categories, intensity and space. But in these categories is not we would basically hold.
As a matter of subjectivity and opinion, the truth of matter of which no one wants to admit is that boxes and lines do not exist except for those that exist in our heads.
But as a matter of management and authority, it is best for people to be kept within these lines. And indeed, certain people of a different nature, attempts to change these lines via various means- of which viewed as anti-social or of crude disposition.
And indeed sympathies exist in those few who attempt to break these lines while the head rules on an individual basis, the futility of their actions. I have begun to view them with increasing intensity of sympathies rather and apathy as I realised that they were really much braver than I am.
They are driven by causes over and above oneself, while I am whom is no more driven by a curiosity and a foolhardy mind. But sympathies are the best that I can do because I am not a man of noble ambitions or vision but rather one of self-interested desires.
I am not a man of faith but yet in my deepest recesses of my mind, I hope they succeed not in the perverse way but in a way where a man of smaller mind admiring that of one with a grander vision.
With foolishness I can claim ignorance, but with knowledge comes choices of which a man of my cooler disposition is ill-advised to take on a project of such a grand scale.
Although, it is indeed a tough pill to swallow, I would have to succumb to the best of my instincts that everyone has won and I have lost. And indeed, I would have to be like everyone else, to stick to my lines, my station and accept the winds of change- of which I know would be really hard given the out-sized expectations previously.
I have no grand vision nor a great project- I do not possess the ego nor the confidence to make this bold claim.
And as I write these words, I hear the wolfs howling and I hear the vultures encircling, but my life is not a movie, of which dramatic events happened everywhere I go.
I have no idea how this would end- but I reckon this would happen quietly and without fuss.
But I do see signatures of my work imprinted all over the world and media- for the better or for the worse.
I have always talked about unintended consequences before, but this is one unintended consequence that has really elude me for so long- that my ideas have provided strands of which life has been organized, and I believed that it would permeate longer than I would expected, wider than I anticipated.
I do not need a knighthood or scholarship to affirm that.
Let the feasting begin.
Cheers,
Eugene
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
