Our decisions are driven a large part by pent up emotions. The most critical decisions are made in the moment of catharsis- a moment of a release from suspended feelings. Most people's view their decisions as rational, justifiable and strategic. It is at the end of the day, a release from the multitude of emotions- the decision insofar is to eradicate this suspended emotion.
Therefore bouts of jealousy, envy, rage, dictates therefore our decision in removing this moment of suspense. Society has insofar kept these emotions in check via means of social order, culture and symbolism. Hence our pent up emotions does not reveal itself and is kept in check by means of denial, eating, laughing and transposing. These are socially acceptable means by which emotions are released or kept in check.
But the question begs that is emotions therefore rational? Hence, is anger, envy and jealousy therefore the result of real injustice or inequality being done?
Have you seen a dog that is affectionate and loyal- hence therefore is the dog's emotions rational in this case? And if so, where does this rationality comes from? Therefore if a dog's emotions are rational, then what is the difference therefore between a dog and a human?
Therefore it is my belief that the difference lies in the proportion of which a dog and a human is able to approximate his emotions with that of his actions. The greater therefore the grievance- injustice or inequality done- the greater the action. Hence a person who acts beyond the justification of the emotion often commits a sin or a wrong. Hence we feel guilty for kicking an animal or ill-treating a child out of anger- because the action does not approximate the emotion.
Therefore we have release our emotions via actions quite disproportionate to that of the emotions. Hence therefore we do feel guilt, a sense of doubt and a lingering unsettled uneasiness in spite of the release.
Since emotions therefore in this case can be structured in the sense to create a release therefore at the critical moments to influence the decisions and therefore the outcome. It is therefore an excuse to justify a emotional decision in the name of a rational one.
Music in shopping centres, movies, magazines and the television are all avenues of which these emotions can be created and yet be released. It would then appear insofar that it was rational but yet these release are often strategically placed to ensure an outcome- creating a suspense and thereby providing an outlet via a decision. The creation of these mediums can then calibrated to ensure a favourable outcome at critical moments and to cause a frenzy or a panic- since very often, we experience very similar emotions. It then ultimately have made the frenzy or panic seems almost rational.
Since emotions in itself is invisible and cannot be prosecuted- since private properties needs an endorsement and does not say anything about the arise-ment of the contract in the first place- it would then can be said to put it bluntly as a point- a science of theft- isn't it. The reason henceforth is that I might not have bought or made a decision had one not covertly placed mechanisms of which to manipulate my decisions and therefore influence the outcome to the interest of the perpetrator. Hence in such context, this decision is therefore questionably rational.
To put it plainly, I might not be writing this piece had i not been spurred by emotion- which perhaps that of release created by a certain event- since for example, say I would not be writing this piece had I say been stuck in a dessert for some time.
Therefore to say that our decisions are purely rational is to say that we are truly independent of these influences and if so, I would like to meet these guy of which I would seek counsel in all matters.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Friday, July 27, 2012
The Long and Short of it
I am angry. Totally angry. I get mocked at for my balding plate. I get mocked at for being below 1.7m.
The thing that gets me the most is that why don't I get mocked at for having say my hairy chest. I have hairier chest than most but really perhaps thats where my hair went right. Moreover, you know what they say: testosterone is the main cause for a balding plate. Hence by extension, a balding man is really more manly- emits more male pheromones then say a man with full head of hair. A full head of hair presupposes virility- on the head that is. You are not really to playing with the hair. With you get excited by tousling a man's hair all the time, no man- if he is one- would really stand for it isn't it.
Hence at this juncture, let us make a case for a man with a full head of hair. Let's just see, well for one, he can look cool constantly combing his floppy hair. He can join a boy band filled with adolescent screaming teenage girls. He can compete with Ronaldo for shampoo and hair cream advertisement. He can of course participate in Kim Robinson's hairstyle demonstration. These are excellent perks one might say.
Well let us look at the case for balding man then in this case. We save alot on shampoos. We can make be the butt of all jokes. And of course, we do not need to contend with Ronaldo, we just need to take on the bald Italian referee. And lastly we make lot's of money being guinea pigs for thousand and one hair treatment clinics. We get paid for having too much testosterone. [ Well at least, hormones get paid rather than dealing with adolescent screaming girls right.]
Now then let's deal with being short. Think of Bernie Eccelston. I cannot think of tall rich man with strapping girlfriends or models. The only ones that are, are full time superstar athletes- you have contend with Ronaldo again and the Gisele Bundchen's All star quarterback husband. And what if you grow old and can't play the sport. You would be the old tall guy that sticks out and people will always ask you what did you do before.
Now let's talk about being tall. Well, there isn't much to talk about except that perhaps you can play basketball, volleyball until you are 35 that is.
Now what then can a young balding, short guy shorn of confidence to do when faced with overwhelming odds of a tall basketball captain who seems to have everything.
You play the point guard or forward in the basketball team. He will play the centre who catches the rebound and reaches for the ball while you attack the basket.
Do not get distracted by all the attention that this tall basketball captain get. It is natural that when you are centre of attention, everyone wants to get near you. But trust me, you me, things will get decidedly easier when physical attributes and sporting prowess suddenly becomes quite irrelevant as one gets older. Even that tall basketball captain would feel so, and if he is good looking, it is almost likely he will be an actor or musician- just to leverage on the good looks.
The young balding short guy would probably still remain so as he grows older, the only difference then and now would be that popularity no longer is the currency but something more lasting than that- and that of resilience and steadfastness.
Hence do not afraid to break away from the labels that people placed upon you as you get older. The only thing you need to break from is stop looking at the school belle but rather wait for the holidays before doing anything embarrassing and silly about that.
The thing that gets me the most is that why don't I get mocked at for having say my hairy chest. I have hairier chest than most but really perhaps thats where my hair went right. Moreover, you know what they say: testosterone is the main cause for a balding plate. Hence by extension, a balding man is really more manly- emits more male pheromones then say a man with full head of hair. A full head of hair presupposes virility- on the head that is. You are not really to playing with the hair. With you get excited by tousling a man's hair all the time, no man- if he is one- would really stand for it isn't it.
Hence at this juncture, let us make a case for a man with a full head of hair. Let's just see, well for one, he can look cool constantly combing his floppy hair. He can join a boy band filled with adolescent screaming teenage girls. He can compete with Ronaldo for shampoo and hair cream advertisement. He can of course participate in Kim Robinson's hairstyle demonstration. These are excellent perks one might say.
Well let us look at the case for balding man then in this case. We save alot on shampoos. We can make be the butt of all jokes. And of course, we do not need to contend with Ronaldo, we just need to take on the bald Italian referee. And lastly we make lot's of money being guinea pigs for thousand and one hair treatment clinics. We get paid for having too much testosterone. [ Well at least, hormones get paid rather than dealing with adolescent screaming girls right.]
Now then let's deal with being short. Think of Bernie Eccelston. I cannot think of tall rich man with strapping girlfriends or models. The only ones that are, are full time superstar athletes- you have contend with Ronaldo again and the Gisele Bundchen's All star quarterback husband. And what if you grow old and can't play the sport. You would be the old tall guy that sticks out and people will always ask you what did you do before.
Now let's talk about being tall. Well, there isn't much to talk about except that perhaps you can play basketball, volleyball until you are 35 that is.
Now what then can a young balding, short guy shorn of confidence to do when faced with overwhelming odds of a tall basketball captain who seems to have everything.
You play the point guard or forward in the basketball team. He will play the centre who catches the rebound and reaches for the ball while you attack the basket.
Do not get distracted by all the attention that this tall basketball captain get. It is natural that when you are centre of attention, everyone wants to get near you. But trust me, you me, things will get decidedly easier when physical attributes and sporting prowess suddenly becomes quite irrelevant as one gets older. Even that tall basketball captain would feel so, and if he is good looking, it is almost likely he will be an actor or musician- just to leverage on the good looks.
The young balding short guy would probably still remain so as he grows older, the only difference then and now would be that popularity no longer is the currency but something more lasting than that- and that of resilience and steadfastness.
Hence do not afraid to break away from the labels that people placed upon you as you get older. The only thing you need to break from is stop looking at the school belle but rather wait for the holidays before doing anything embarrassing and silly about that.
Social or Rational?
What are the relations insofar between individuals- are they social or are they rational? Social is the glue that ties the interest together. Culture allows the networks to be built hence facilitating for the articulation of mutually-beneficial interest.
But the ties that bind together is ultimately material interest- social ties built on sociability more likely than not degenerate into power relationships. Social roles based on form than on function- more often than not result in exploitation and greed. Altruism and benevolence in such context are likely to be random and self-motivated. Charity in such context too appear to be procurement of goodwill hence enhancing and thereby entrenching existing social roles as opposed to uplifting of social strata.
Hence social roles based on function or in other words, a team: would have to find an enemy. A team without a goal or objective is more likely to be of the above paragraph. A team without a goal and objective, would kill themselves over existing spoils rather than growing them. A team with ambiguous team roles, would often result in disorientation and disillusion.
Hence each team member more often play for themselves rather than for the team. In such context, then, individuality counts for alot more. The ability rather then supporting each other in the accomplishment of each other's roles hence enhancing the team effort would be one of emotional control rather than of camaraderie. Jealousy and envy is bound to happen: hence the ability to focus on the utilitarian aspect is of utmost importance in ensuring that team goals are accomplished: which is to win.
Such a team would require one of utmost ethical standards as the ability to discern right from wrong as opposed to sociability is paramount to that finding the common "enemy". The enemy is therefore not the "Other" but rather yourself.
We win on the basis of individual decisions rather than of collective normative objective. Hence such a team if done correctly are often much admired as they are proven to be worthy individuals- and the resulting effect therefore is an accumulation of often spectacular team capital.
Therefore in order to foster such a team: the irony lies not in making the best decision to win but rather how do we include sociability into the calculus of each individual team member's decisions. Insofar that we are not perfect players, we do need to play to the strength rather than the weakness of each team member.
Hence a team often traverse between what is important: to win and how to win. One cannot do without the other.
Therefore the debate would continue then that whether are we ultimately rational and calculative individuals or are we just blind fools. We are blind fools only insofar that we have no yearning to win- like a cute and innocent baby-, we are cold-blooded, rational creatures only when we realise survival is the final test.
But the question remains: if we are cold-blooded lizards, what then of little children whom have been born for a couple of millennial?
The tension between self-interest and that of social reciprocity is a debate we faced every single day. We often shelved that unknowingly to the social roles that we have been practicing for our entire live. But what of genocides, mass killings, racism, xenophobic killings on the basis of social reciprocity- did anyone dictate that role for us? Are we that blind to kill someone for physical characteristics is wrong.
I leave it to you to think: are we complicit in this discrimination everyday?
But the ties that bind together is ultimately material interest- social ties built on sociability more likely than not degenerate into power relationships. Social roles based on form than on function- more often than not result in exploitation and greed. Altruism and benevolence in such context are likely to be random and self-motivated. Charity in such context too appear to be procurement of goodwill hence enhancing and thereby entrenching existing social roles as opposed to uplifting of social strata.
Hence social roles based on function or in other words, a team: would have to find an enemy. A team without a goal or objective is more likely to be of the above paragraph. A team without a goal and objective, would kill themselves over existing spoils rather than growing them. A team with ambiguous team roles, would often result in disorientation and disillusion.
Hence each team member more often play for themselves rather than for the team. In such context, then, individuality counts for alot more. The ability rather then supporting each other in the accomplishment of each other's roles hence enhancing the team effort would be one of emotional control rather than of camaraderie. Jealousy and envy is bound to happen: hence the ability to focus on the utilitarian aspect is of utmost importance in ensuring that team goals are accomplished: which is to win.
Such a team would require one of utmost ethical standards as the ability to discern right from wrong as opposed to sociability is paramount to that finding the common "enemy". The enemy is therefore not the "Other" but rather yourself.
We win on the basis of individual decisions rather than of collective normative objective. Hence such a team if done correctly are often much admired as they are proven to be worthy individuals- and the resulting effect therefore is an accumulation of often spectacular team capital.
Therefore in order to foster such a team: the irony lies not in making the best decision to win but rather how do we include sociability into the calculus of each individual team member's decisions. Insofar that we are not perfect players, we do need to play to the strength rather than the weakness of each team member.
Hence a team often traverse between what is important: to win and how to win. One cannot do without the other.
Therefore the debate would continue then that whether are we ultimately rational and calculative individuals or are we just blind fools. We are blind fools only insofar that we have no yearning to win- like a cute and innocent baby-, we are cold-blooded, rational creatures only when we realise survival is the final test.
But the question remains: if we are cold-blooded lizards, what then of little children whom have been born for a couple of millennial?
The tension between self-interest and that of social reciprocity is a debate we faced every single day. We often shelved that unknowingly to the social roles that we have been practicing for our entire live. But what of genocides, mass killings, racism, xenophobic killings on the basis of social reciprocity- did anyone dictate that role for us? Are we that blind to kill someone for physical characteristics is wrong.
I leave it to you to think: are we complicit in this discrimination everyday?
Weather and Markets
The market has been extremely quiet the last couple of months. Volumes are down and only the smaller cap stocks appear to be at play- barring transport-related and retail sectors. I believe the reason is that of having too much noise in the market.
Market talk has been drowned out by political talk, sports and sometimes even weather reports. Weather really...
We have gone from talking business to talking everything under the sun related to business. Many things are related to business but business is not necessary related to every other thing.
These distractions meant only one thing- rumour-mongering and everything flows from the grapevine and nothing is ever verified in the first place. Hence small cap stocks, cyclical and defensive plays appears on a rather subdued top volume charts. No one really knows the truth from the lie, hence valuation is artificially depressed- everybody just pretends to be busy that's all. And everyone looks at the weather now- looking for directions.
In order to bring up the volumes and stem this rather ridiculous phenomenon, a couple of things must be done: 1) media must start talking the talk- rather stirring or creating at best tangential news reports and unnecessary create an informal grapevine of news 2) Get back to basics- and not be swayed by faddish trends that really have absolutely no relation to the objective of the story [ robotic comedian from Japan appeared on prime time news at the most prime time slot 3) Do not be creative: news is information, even though information might not be news- hence be selective in choosing information.
4) Do not create innuendos. Stick to your facts. Unnecessary information that really have no bearing on the slant of the news report should be removed. An angle is not an excuse to create an impression but rather to give an opinion.
If the most of us uses news, information and data to form a general opinion on prevailing trends, do not use your personal views to colour your presentation. Hence this rather subdued market is the result of a confused audience fed with quite frivolous information quite unrelated to issues facing the world today. Therefore, it is no wonder that the world is more interested in what weather, colours and numbers represent and indicate than tackling the problem head-on.
Weather do not dictate your decisions, but you have decided to look at the weather and took your eye off the important issues. If you think weather controls your decision, then stay at home- and you will forever be dry. But landslides, flood reports, home fires have been on the rise as well. Oh well, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
If you got burnt, you got nobody to blame but yourself: for looking at weather, rather than asking YOURSELF what to do next.
Market talk has been drowned out by political talk, sports and sometimes even weather reports. Weather really...
We have gone from talking business to talking everything under the sun related to business. Many things are related to business but business is not necessary related to every other thing.
These distractions meant only one thing- rumour-mongering and everything flows from the grapevine and nothing is ever verified in the first place. Hence small cap stocks, cyclical and defensive plays appears on a rather subdued top volume charts. No one really knows the truth from the lie, hence valuation is artificially depressed- everybody just pretends to be busy that's all. And everyone looks at the weather now- looking for directions.
In order to bring up the volumes and stem this rather ridiculous phenomenon, a couple of things must be done: 1) media must start talking the talk- rather stirring or creating at best tangential news reports and unnecessary create an informal grapevine of news 2) Get back to basics- and not be swayed by faddish trends that really have absolutely no relation to the objective of the story [ robotic comedian from Japan appeared on prime time news at the most prime time slot 3) Do not be creative: news is information, even though information might not be news- hence be selective in choosing information.
4) Do not create innuendos. Stick to your facts. Unnecessary information that really have no bearing on the slant of the news report should be removed. An angle is not an excuse to create an impression but rather to give an opinion.
If the most of us uses news, information and data to form a general opinion on prevailing trends, do not use your personal views to colour your presentation. Hence this rather subdued market is the result of a confused audience fed with quite frivolous information quite unrelated to issues facing the world today. Therefore, it is no wonder that the world is more interested in what weather, colours and numbers represent and indicate than tackling the problem head-on.
Weather do not dictate your decisions, but you have decided to look at the weather and took your eye off the important issues. If you think weather controls your decision, then stay at home- and you will forever be dry. But landslides, flood reports, home fires have been on the rise as well. Oh well, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
If you got burnt, you got nobody to blame but yourself: for looking at weather, rather than asking YOURSELF what to do next.
It's not you, it's me
I have broken up with my girlfriend for a couple of years and have been single for that long a time as well. From the very beginning, I have never made a deliberate attempt to really chase a girl. It just sort of happen. The only real time I have ever made a purposeful attempt- and that lasted a week or so of courtship- to do that, the only reason I really did that was that I wanted to feel how it would like to have a pretty girlfriend. Fortunately or unfortunately or so, we did hook up and it was breathless to say the least.
Since then, it would be quite difficult to get me breathless again- not because like I was still crazily pinning for my previous girlfriend- but rather, I can't seem to find something that I desperately want in a girl that would get me my mojo back. Every guy wants a beautiful girlfriend, it is dream that everyone wants to live- those that don't get it, eat sour grapes or you know lead an alternative lifestyle. But the truth is that, once you get it, you realise that it wasn't worth all the effort in the first place. Believe me you not, guys.
Hence now, I am reduced to really just "bird-watching", I would go "oh yeah". I might just make an attempt if it appears that there are signs but like the show "Bodyguard", a bevy of guys would to use the colloquial word "cock-block" it. And I have not even open my mouth.
Truth be told, these guys feel useful being useful but really just waiting for the chance where they can be a knight in shining armour waiting to save the damsel in distress of which their competition is really their friends- who have the same thoughts as well. My first thoughts was: "really". How long have you been hanging around her and are you really that protective- and by the way, my mom is trapped in train carriage, could you be a knight and save her too- a knight is chivalrous by nature rather than contingent on the opposite party right.
Hence, when I see such a scene, I normally don't make a move. Not because that I am intimidated or anything but rather, a person who thinks he is a knight is more dangerous than one who is really one- this is especially so, in events of absolutely zero mortality danger. They tend to get their blood rush to their head unwittingly and get their personal image as the actual reality. A girl is a girl is a girl- insofar that I don't know her, she is still a girl. Period.
Hence, I have realised that the number of such guys like the above is really quite astounding large hence, rather than excite a self-declared guard dog; I would rather sip my beer, watch my football and watch the girl flirting with everyone around her except those closest to her- waiting for her to give them a bone.
When they do get the girl, they would realise ultimately they are really just a substitute- and all the effort put out in being the "protector" and "security guard" suddenly paid off, but it's "conquest" almost seems hollow.
Therefore, I have to say to all the pretty girls and even the not so comely ones- I do notice you but as the cliche really goes and it's true: "it's not you, it is me."
Since then, it would be quite difficult to get me breathless again- not because like I was still crazily pinning for my previous girlfriend- but rather, I can't seem to find something that I desperately want in a girl that would get me my mojo back. Every guy wants a beautiful girlfriend, it is dream that everyone wants to live- those that don't get it, eat sour grapes or you know lead an alternative lifestyle. But the truth is that, once you get it, you realise that it wasn't worth all the effort in the first place. Believe me you not, guys.
Hence now, I am reduced to really just "bird-watching", I would go "oh yeah". I might just make an attempt if it appears that there are signs but like the show "Bodyguard", a bevy of guys would to use the colloquial word "cock-block" it. And I have not even open my mouth.
Truth be told, these guys feel useful being useful but really just waiting for the chance where they can be a knight in shining armour waiting to save the damsel in distress of which their competition is really their friends- who have the same thoughts as well. My first thoughts was: "really". How long have you been hanging around her and are you really that protective- and by the way, my mom is trapped in train carriage, could you be a knight and save her too- a knight is chivalrous by nature rather than contingent on the opposite party right.
Hence, when I see such a scene, I normally don't make a move. Not because that I am intimidated or anything but rather, a person who thinks he is a knight is more dangerous than one who is really one- this is especially so, in events of absolutely zero mortality danger. They tend to get their blood rush to their head unwittingly and get their personal image as the actual reality. A girl is a girl is a girl- insofar that I don't know her, she is still a girl. Period.
Hence, I have realised that the number of such guys like the above is really quite astounding large hence, rather than excite a self-declared guard dog; I would rather sip my beer, watch my football and watch the girl flirting with everyone around her except those closest to her- waiting for her to give them a bone.
When they do get the girl, they would realise ultimately they are really just a substitute- and all the effort put out in being the "protector" and "security guard" suddenly paid off, but it's "conquest" almost seems hollow.
Therefore, I have to say to all the pretty girls and even the not so comely ones- I do notice you but as the cliche really goes and it's true: "it's not you, it is me."
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Hypocrisy and Loneliness
Is hypocrisy justified on the grounds of avoiding loneliness? Hypocrisy is justifiable insofar that that it is to bring out the authenticity of the emotions. People respond to authenticity and never to emotional dissonant words or disconnected expressions.
A comforting word however further from the truth in times of distress speaks volumes for emotional consonance more than the actual solution or truth. Hence the words are a source of comfort rather than actual effect of a solution.
Hence hypocrisy compounds loneliness rather than reduces it. It's actual effect of hypocrisy is to enhance likability insofar that it enhances sociability. But it says nothing about having emotional dissonances or in other words, loneliness. Therefore, we often heard before the phrase: "being alone in a crowd".
Hypocrisy in this world is insofar of practical considerations. The outward appearance of sociability serves only to enhance the appearance of likability and therefore by extension more friends and opportunities. Therefore the appearance of more friends almost presupposes more opportunities, and therefore of more practical use of having friends with a wide network.
We live in a market-driven economy and therefore friends are resources we leverage upon hence the appearance of sociability is of really mutual benefit. The quality of network insofar is hard to gauge from appearances really.
Therefore this competition for appearance of sociability have collapsed sociability with that of happiness. The hypocrisy that we have to upkeep in these competitive environment meant that the motivations are likely to be from without than from within.
Therefore the resultant effect of hypocrisy ironically really more loneliness. The effect of having lived outside of yourself.
Therefore hypocrisy or not speaking your true feelings can only justified on 2 counts 1) one for that of comfort and therefore enhancing the authenticity and encouraging connection rather than that of compounding disconnection 2) out of practical considerations- a lie of which of a decidedly altruistic nature- where one's intention is the betterment of the other party. Therefore the emotional dissonance or discomfort experienced from speaking inauthentic is one for the greater good rather than for self-motivated reasons. The loneliness or rather the misunderstanding occurred is being outweighed therefore by the actual benefits brought about by the resultant effect of the disconnected words- that mostly of energy brought about by the sharp effect of the words.
Therefore hypocrisy for the sake of enhancing sociability does not reduce the effect of loneliness but rather compounds an isolated and desolate feeling. But I suspect this propensity to search for familiar faces is the result of an instinctive reaction towards unfamiliar grounds of which have perpetuated the misguided notion of mixing sociability with that of happiness. Sociability is not happiness and neither is it vice versa.
A comforting word however further from the truth in times of distress speaks volumes for emotional consonance more than the actual solution or truth. Hence the words are a source of comfort rather than actual effect of a solution.
Hence hypocrisy compounds loneliness rather than reduces it. It's actual effect of hypocrisy is to enhance likability insofar that it enhances sociability. But it says nothing about having emotional dissonances or in other words, loneliness. Therefore, we often heard before the phrase: "being alone in a crowd".
Hypocrisy in this world is insofar of practical considerations. The outward appearance of sociability serves only to enhance the appearance of likability and therefore by extension more friends and opportunities. Therefore the appearance of more friends almost presupposes more opportunities, and therefore of more practical use of having friends with a wide network.
We live in a market-driven economy and therefore friends are resources we leverage upon hence the appearance of sociability is of really mutual benefit. The quality of network insofar is hard to gauge from appearances really.
Therefore this competition for appearance of sociability have collapsed sociability with that of happiness. The hypocrisy that we have to upkeep in these competitive environment meant that the motivations are likely to be from without than from within.
Therefore the resultant effect of hypocrisy ironically really more loneliness. The effect of having lived outside of yourself.
Therefore hypocrisy or not speaking your true feelings can only justified on 2 counts 1) one for that of comfort and therefore enhancing the authenticity and encouraging connection rather than that of compounding disconnection 2) out of practical considerations- a lie of which of a decidedly altruistic nature- where one's intention is the betterment of the other party. Therefore the emotional dissonance or discomfort experienced from speaking inauthentic is one for the greater good rather than for self-motivated reasons. The loneliness or rather the misunderstanding occurred is being outweighed therefore by the actual benefits brought about by the resultant effect of the disconnected words- that mostly of energy brought about by the sharp effect of the words.
Therefore hypocrisy for the sake of enhancing sociability does not reduce the effect of loneliness but rather compounds an isolated and desolate feeling. But I suspect this propensity to search for familiar faces is the result of an instinctive reaction towards unfamiliar grounds of which have perpetuated the misguided notion of mixing sociability with that of happiness. Sociability is not happiness and neither is it vice versa.
Banking Inquisition
I find the recent regulation and spotlight on banks and all forms of financial institutions extremely overdone. The public out of jealousy and envy have stereotyped all bankers and banks as demons and demonic institutions respectively. It has put the public as "Us" and bankers as the "Others". Therefore if bankers are outsiders, they therefore must be banished for the safety of the general public.
The effect hence has been twofold 1) That of reversion of traditional banking- that of borrowing and lending on that spread 2) The sudden recollection of old stalwarts of banks.
Hence the effect has therefore been the further entrenchment of prevailing interests. The traditional due to the lack of direct experience in recent financial developments are unable to grapple with new movement have taken decidedly Either/Or approach- either the "old" or the "new". Hence with their recent revival- it would therefore be unsurprising that they would prefer to the traditional- with the resulting outcome of a perpetuating their own interest.
Hence in order to justify the reversion back to the traditional, the legitimation process hence is three-fold 1) fear-mongering, and a scuttling back to security 2) demonizing of the "other"- which is the bank" 3) lastly a regulation and suspending the movement of banks. Hence thereby justifying the need to bring back the "old" and familiarity.
1) The fear-mongering are often an outright denouncement of all things risky and "fear" words like "cliff", "disaster" and "crisis". Problems always exist- but no deaths have really occurred isn't it.
2) Finding the scapegoat. Banks. we cannot justify a crucifixion unless we can find the enemy- which ultimately is the devilish and risk-taking bankers. Excesses and big pay packages are exposed when quite a number of years- they made quite a number of money for everyone and kept the system going for everyone. If they are devils, the ones that used them are not much better really.
3) Who then can we curbed evil? Restraint them of course and hit them with a big stick. Therefore, banking inquisition then become much televised events.
Lastly who is to fill the vacuum left by the global managers valve of the global monetary system. The old guys of course- just for comfort sake isn't it.
Then of course the inquisition and revival is then complete.
The effect hence has been twofold 1) That of reversion of traditional banking- that of borrowing and lending on that spread 2) The sudden recollection of old stalwarts of banks.
Hence the effect has therefore been the further entrenchment of prevailing interests. The traditional due to the lack of direct experience in recent financial developments are unable to grapple with new movement have taken decidedly Either/Or approach- either the "old" or the "new". Hence with their recent revival- it would therefore be unsurprising that they would prefer to the traditional- with the resulting outcome of a perpetuating their own interest.
Hence in order to justify the reversion back to the traditional, the legitimation process hence is three-fold 1) fear-mongering, and a scuttling back to security 2) demonizing of the "other"- which is the bank" 3) lastly a regulation and suspending the movement of banks. Hence thereby justifying the need to bring back the "old" and familiarity.
1) The fear-mongering are often an outright denouncement of all things risky and "fear" words like "cliff", "disaster" and "crisis". Problems always exist- but no deaths have really occurred isn't it.
2) Finding the scapegoat. Banks. we cannot justify a crucifixion unless we can find the enemy- which ultimately is the devilish and risk-taking bankers. Excesses and big pay packages are exposed when quite a number of years- they made quite a number of money for everyone and kept the system going for everyone. If they are devils, the ones that used them are not much better really.
3) Who then can we curbed evil? Restraint them of course and hit them with a big stick. Therefore, banking inquisition then become much televised events.
Lastly who is to fill the vacuum left by the global managers valve of the global monetary system. The old guys of course- just for comfort sake isn't it.
Then of course the inquisition and revival is then complete.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Margin Call
I just posted a film review on a classic by Alfred Hitchcock set in the 1950s and now lets move into the modern times. I caught another film: Margin Call which was set in modern times amidst the global financial crisis. The reason I picked up this DVD is not because I wanted to watch something related to finance- of which I written about quite often- but rather I want to watch how they bring drama into finance on the big screen. I was quite surprised it was quite a good film and very watchable but ultimately cliches and stereotypes remain quite divorced from reality.
The film is set in an investment firm of which the firm's name remain conspiciously left out- for fear of allusion to any existing firms I suppose. The firm is facing well- a margin call- as the accumulation of toxic debts meant that the firm might be insolvent as the losses on these debts might cost more than the firm itself. Think of the trading losses by certain banks and investment firms that you see in the papers the last couple of years.
Again like all films, once again the focus is on the drama and rather than on the wider picture. It explains what happens on the trading floor quite well actually and let's you know how does traders buy and sell securities but it cannot escape from glamourizing a job which really at the end of the day is not really that exciting 99.9% of the time. What they just described is once in a life-time crisis of which swift and dramatic action is necessary but the rest of the lifetime non-crisis days are really just lots of grunt work and involving quite a lot less money for the 99.9% of us.
What they have described is really 0.1% of the investment people doing 0.1% of the scenarios. You would never get that scenario again if you were enter the same world. You would highly likely be shoving papers and taking much smaller positions and lesser leverage than you are a shouting match with people on the other end of the phones- this is even more likely so in this part of the world. Hence to me it was a good film but the stereotypes were used to tell a story and nothing else.
90% of us are not so wanton, and the best of us, makes good use of connections rather than blow it away. If you have a bank account, you would know who we are and if it didn't break you previously, what makes you think that it would break now. Hence if most of us are really just gamblers and just self-interested bastards- where did your money go the last 200 years it existed. I have to say something this out because I noticed the bad press and media coverage bankers have been getting recently and I do not think it is highly justified if this film is anything to go by.
A businessman, commodity broker, a real estate investor or even small-time business man would have sold bad stock asap if you are running a business. The moral difference that differentiates a small time gutless businessman that sell bad stocks to ignorant housewives and an investment bank that sells bad stocks to other investment banks is that one outsmarts the other while the other well just exaggerates I suppose.
The film itself is not really breakthrough hence I do not intend to comment on it's filmic qualities but rather the stereotypes that it brings to the table I find it rather misguided. The second stereotype that it brings out is the difference between the traders and risk managers. The traders are seen as pompous self-interested traders with a flair for silver tongue and sales pitching while the risk managers are engineers and mathematicians are safe and morally upright people who would saved the bank from the excesses of the former. Do let me tell me truth: the engineers wants us to be traders but they will never be because they are hardwired to think differently. And no, engineers and mathematician are not the saviours and guardians of the banks.
They rely on the traders for their own personal fat bonuses as well- they are in it as much as the traders. They just so happened to be at the right place at the right time, where crisis meant that protection rather demand generation is the name of the game. But in the last the 95 years of the last 100 of the banking worlds, engineers want to be traders: traders never want to be engineers. Engineers rely on the traders for a fat bonuses, traders are sitting on their hands now and have maintained a low profile but trust me, traders never rely on risk managers. The engineers, mathematicians and risk people are not absolved from the whole financial debacle: they are just as complicit. Where were they when they took the fat bonuses generated by the "silver tongued traders"- isn't that their job to prevent them in the first place. When they break the rules, aren't those "nice", soft-spoken and brilliant engineers and mathematicians created models that prevent them from doing so- doesn't the bonuses given earlier enough to do their job.
The film just stereotype traders as silver tongued and trigger happy and the risk managers and engineers as genial and really nice. I know people from both sides of the coin and trust me both are not stupid and both are equally cut-throat as each other: and none of them will hand you a dime without asking you a ton of questions. That much is pretty clear.
The film is set in an investment firm of which the firm's name remain conspiciously left out- for fear of allusion to any existing firms I suppose. The firm is facing well- a margin call- as the accumulation of toxic debts meant that the firm might be insolvent as the losses on these debts might cost more than the firm itself. Think of the trading losses by certain banks and investment firms that you see in the papers the last couple of years.
Again like all films, once again the focus is on the drama and rather than on the wider picture. It explains what happens on the trading floor quite well actually and let's you know how does traders buy and sell securities but it cannot escape from glamourizing a job which really at the end of the day is not really that exciting 99.9% of the time. What they just described is once in a life-time crisis of which swift and dramatic action is necessary but the rest of the lifetime non-crisis days are really just lots of grunt work and involving quite a lot less money for the 99.9% of us.
What they have described is really 0.1% of the investment people doing 0.1% of the scenarios. You would never get that scenario again if you were enter the same world. You would highly likely be shoving papers and taking much smaller positions and lesser leverage than you are a shouting match with people on the other end of the phones- this is even more likely so in this part of the world. Hence to me it was a good film but the stereotypes were used to tell a story and nothing else.
90% of us are not so wanton, and the best of us, makes good use of connections rather than blow it away. If you have a bank account, you would know who we are and if it didn't break you previously, what makes you think that it would break now. Hence if most of us are really just gamblers and just self-interested bastards- where did your money go the last 200 years it existed. I have to say something this out because I noticed the bad press and media coverage bankers have been getting recently and I do not think it is highly justified if this film is anything to go by.
A businessman, commodity broker, a real estate investor or even small-time business man would have sold bad stock asap if you are running a business. The moral difference that differentiates a small time gutless businessman that sell bad stocks to ignorant housewives and an investment bank that sells bad stocks to other investment banks is that one outsmarts the other while the other well just exaggerates I suppose.
The film itself is not really breakthrough hence I do not intend to comment on it's filmic qualities but rather the stereotypes that it brings to the table I find it rather misguided. The second stereotype that it brings out is the difference between the traders and risk managers. The traders are seen as pompous self-interested traders with a flair for silver tongue and sales pitching while the risk managers are engineers and mathematicians are safe and morally upright people who would saved the bank from the excesses of the former. Do let me tell me truth: the engineers wants us to be traders but they will never be because they are hardwired to think differently. And no, engineers and mathematician are not the saviours and guardians of the banks.
They rely on the traders for their own personal fat bonuses as well- they are in it as much as the traders. They just so happened to be at the right place at the right time, where crisis meant that protection rather demand generation is the name of the game. But in the last the 95 years of the last 100 of the banking worlds, engineers want to be traders: traders never want to be engineers. Engineers rely on the traders for a fat bonuses, traders are sitting on their hands now and have maintained a low profile but trust me, traders never rely on risk managers. The engineers, mathematicians and risk people are not absolved from the whole financial debacle: they are just as complicit. Where were they when they took the fat bonuses generated by the "silver tongued traders"- isn't that their job to prevent them in the first place. When they break the rules, aren't those "nice", soft-spoken and brilliant engineers and mathematicians created models that prevent them from doing so- doesn't the bonuses given earlier enough to do their job.
The film just stereotype traders as silver tongued and trigger happy and the risk managers and engineers as genial and really nice. I know people from both sides of the coin and trust me both are not stupid and both are equally cut-throat as each other: and none of them will hand you a dime without asking you a ton of questions. That much is pretty clear.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
North by Northwest
I had just watched the film North by Northwest and it was a brilliant film as far as I am concerned. It managed to wrap romance, a who-did-it and politics in one single show.
The dialogue is fantastic and the editing as always from Alfred Hitchcock is first class. The start itself keeps you in suspense for a good 60% of the show and it left you wondering what the hell happen to the protagonist: Roger Thornhill or George Kaplan [ a fictitious name that has been used many other films to tell you it's an alias- I think I saw NCIS using this name as well] It starts with a sequence where the protagonist got abducted and mysteriously got mistaken for someone else and even for a murder. The first question that keeps you thinking for the rest of the show: Who did it?
That's why the editing is fantastic. It went from revealing familiar characters in different contexts and raising questions without revealing the true intentions. It keeps you in suspense without letting you go.
The main thrust ultimately is catharsis: of which you would get a release only 75% into the show. Where finally it is revealed: Roger Thornhill is George Kaplan and he is nothing but a red herring. He was created to nab the real fish: an art dealer. The real mastermind is a spy agency.
The rest of the 25% of the show introduces politics into the movie: of which the final scene is filmed at Mount Rushmore and in the context of Cold War era. And it then wraps romance around spying: the love versus duty dichotomy: a moral device so often used in many modern spy movies from James Bond to the Bourne series.
The film was right snapped in the middle of shifting social mores in America and moving towards the swinging 60s. Sexual promiscuity is strongly suggested but never explicitly filmed on set hence it costumes of the ladies were bright red, black and striking orange and the men conspicuously older and almost unfailingly suave and the age gap was further legitimize by the fact that the men refuse to "young down" but rather remain their age hence, dull grey, brown and bowl hats dominate that of the clothes of the men. Hence the men remain their age, the women remain unfailingly attractive and attention-grabbing- and often surrounded by much older men and no other female companion. I believe this mise-en-scene is legitimize only by the setting of a spy movie of which seduction and charm is of paramount importance- and in a "everyday" movie, this would be rather ridiculous really.
It is therefore then unsurprisingly that the film is set mostly in cities, art galleries and posh locales like hotels and mountain top homes.
The dialogue itself remains witty- if you are of the alpha male persuasion- of which the clever lines belong to the men and the women well plays the love interest of which are to be used isn't it. After all, the protagonist is a ad-man isn't it. If the woman are wittier than the men, it wouldn't be a charm isn't it- it would be a contest.
Let us then move on to the cinematography. I remembered quite distinctly that when the international art dealer was discussing with his associate how to kill the female protagonist after finding out that she is a spy: the camera work immediately moved above them. This is to suggest that a third person perspective a la: God passing judgement on a ploy. This suggest that the audience, the author and director knows it should be taken objectively and therefore what transpired was the capture of the art dealer and the death of his associate following the scene. I remembered this quite distinctly because this was the only time it was used: on other scenes, a to-and-fro: you and me camera work was used and therefore moral judgement is suspended.
Alfred Hitchcock editing has always been extremely focused. He excludes all scenes that is not necessary to the storyline. Hence he does not show lingering scenes of that in the long bus ride or a plane journey, he simply moves from boarding to the alighting at the destination. This is quite unlike modern films where a scene in a plane, bus is quite necessary for moving from place to place. It is as if something exciting is going to happen in these places hence modern films in a recent nod towards realism have placed emotive elements into these films as if to tell you: hey look I take a bus like you but what I do is discuss my feelings in them. When was the last bus or train ride been emotionally charged for you- yes, when I was taking my MRT ride for the first time that is.
Therefore the editing in these films is really interested in mastering the craft has opposed to adding these frills of which is cheap to do but really quite removed from that story telling. Having said that, it is not that emotions have no place in story telling but rather in quite a number of films it is really taking the easy way out of attracting attention without really saying anything. A good "emotional" film I would supposed is the of "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". The emotions is then contingent to a good film but rather then a time filler.
Hence the editing tie in ultimately in the relationship between each sequence of montages. The badly edited leaves you scratching your head- like how does this character got to do with the other. But this one ultimately fulfills the end of which he wishes to achieve: that of suspense, romance and politics. The chauvinism quite obvious in the film must be put into context of it's 1950s- rather be seen as a flaw but must contextualized to be understood as prevailing social mores rather than as a given truth.
Sunday, July 08, 2012
To all
Hi,
I am extremely heartened by the amount of weight of which everyone put on my opinions. I have never expressed that out but that has always been my thoughts.
I must therefore apologize for never acknowledging those that have respected the opinions of mine.
The reason is not out of disrespect and condescension but rather that I do not see my opinions as special and therefore undeserving of such attention. At the same time, it would be rude to assume publicly such attention and therefore I have seek a route of "everyday-ness" as the best course of action.
Further to that, I felt that this attention might have neglected those more deserving of this attention. Although lacking in the necessary experience, they would otherwise require more guidance and therefore more time and attention.
Similarly, I must expressed much appreciation to those that shown have great faith in me during these difficult times in spite of overwhelming pressure. I am truly grateful for your support- both kind and unspoken.
To those that shown all kinds of understanding and has stayed unwavered in spite of my lack of response- this is the best time for me to say thank you very much and I am fully aware of your presence.
I do not bite and I promise I will be more responsive and treat your attention as a blessing and less as a matter of practicality.
Lastly I seek further your understanding in that in spite of my greatest effort, I might not be able to respond to you as fast as I wish I could.
Hence, I put forward my apologies first and rest assured that I would respond to all requests to the best of my ability.
Bless
Eugene
I am extremely heartened by the amount of weight of which everyone put on my opinions. I have never expressed that out but that has always been my thoughts.
I must therefore apologize for never acknowledging those that have respected the opinions of mine.
The reason is not out of disrespect and condescension but rather that I do not see my opinions as special and therefore undeserving of such attention. At the same time, it would be rude to assume publicly such attention and therefore I have seek a route of "everyday-ness" as the best course of action.
Further to that, I felt that this attention might have neglected those more deserving of this attention. Although lacking in the necessary experience, they would otherwise require more guidance and therefore more time and attention.
Similarly, I must expressed much appreciation to those that shown have great faith in me during these difficult times in spite of overwhelming pressure. I am truly grateful for your support- both kind and unspoken.
To those that shown all kinds of understanding and has stayed unwavered in spite of my lack of response- this is the best time for me to say thank you very much and I am fully aware of your presence.
I do not bite and I promise I will be more responsive and treat your attention as a blessing and less as a matter of practicality.
Lastly I seek further your understanding in that in spite of my greatest effort, I might not be able to respond to you as fast as I wish I could.
Hence, I put forward my apologies first and rest assured that I would respond to all requests to the best of my ability.
Bless
Eugene
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
Love
What is the difference between passion and maturity? Passion is loving and seeing one step ahead and maturity is thinking and seeing nine steps ahead. Hence passion is instinctive and therefore maturity is one with the third person perspective. Hence is love by definition then short term, and maturity devoid of it? That is not true.
Love enjoys destruction and creation both at the same time hence it's fluid nature. Without fluidity, it is really just pure evil. Maturity on the other hand builds relationships- it does not destroy neither does it creates but it builds hence it lacks a very visceral experience.
Hence if love is emotive- and that's happens when one is young- one often go around searching for love. It often builds as fast as it collapses. But if one views love as building networks and expanding one's capability to last, insofar then, the building then is slow burning but inter-related network meant that the relationship would last.
Therefore those who jump the gun or jumped in too fast, often find themselves empty-handed. They might have the first-mover advantage but very often, they rely on pure finesse and dexterity to get by and everything goes with age. Hence getting in as fast as one getting out is of critical importance. But love is delicate issue. Getting in and getting out fast might mean never getting back in again. Once broken, one would have to moved on.
Hence if you want a longer lasting one, albeit a less visceral one, one cannot be too instinctive and rely purely on testosterone or oestrogen. If you want the shapely and comely girl, one better ask, can you afford it? If you want the hunky beefcake, can you control him? If you want it, it is highly likely then, alot of other's want it as well.
Hence, one then realise, in order to get Adonis or Aphrodite would then be impossible- hence everyone would compromise and therefore give and take a couple of flaws and qualities. It would then come to this end where: the rich and powerful would get the shapely, comely and probably air-head girls which would be love of the first example- the shapely, comely and smart girls often end up getting rich and successful for the first decade of her adulthood and depending on her ambitions, either become rich man's wife and doing charity for the rest of her life or if she is independent enough, she seek a less powerful and successful man and live vicariously through him- which is love of the second example.
Well for the rest of us, we read magazines and gossip pages to find out how these people are doing. Meanwhile, in our lives, we would then have to compromise on the flaws and qualities unless we hear rock music and shoot the breeze. Then the girls would buy insurance protection on you then and lived off your death.
Well, when we are young, we often find a surge in emotions and hormones and looking for new experiences- but before you take it too seriously, ask yourself this question: what are you losing and what do you have to fall back on?
Love enjoys destruction and creation both at the same time hence it's fluid nature. Without fluidity, it is really just pure evil. Maturity on the other hand builds relationships- it does not destroy neither does it creates but it builds hence it lacks a very visceral experience.
Hence if love is emotive- and that's happens when one is young- one often go around searching for love. It often builds as fast as it collapses. But if one views love as building networks and expanding one's capability to last, insofar then, the building then is slow burning but inter-related network meant that the relationship would last.
Therefore those who jump the gun or jumped in too fast, often find themselves empty-handed. They might have the first-mover advantage but very often, they rely on pure finesse and dexterity to get by and everything goes with age. Hence getting in as fast as one getting out is of critical importance. But love is delicate issue. Getting in and getting out fast might mean never getting back in again. Once broken, one would have to moved on.
Hence if you want a longer lasting one, albeit a less visceral one, one cannot be too instinctive and rely purely on testosterone or oestrogen. If you want the shapely and comely girl, one better ask, can you afford it? If you want the hunky beefcake, can you control him? If you want it, it is highly likely then, alot of other's want it as well.
Hence, one then realise, in order to get Adonis or Aphrodite would then be impossible- hence everyone would compromise and therefore give and take a couple of flaws and qualities. It would then come to this end where: the rich and powerful would get the shapely, comely and probably air-head girls which would be love of the first example- the shapely, comely and smart girls often end up getting rich and successful for the first decade of her adulthood and depending on her ambitions, either become rich man's wife and doing charity for the rest of her life or if she is independent enough, she seek a less powerful and successful man and live vicariously through him- which is love of the second example.
Well for the rest of us, we read magazines and gossip pages to find out how these people are doing. Meanwhile, in our lives, we would then have to compromise on the flaws and qualities unless we hear rock music and shoot the breeze. Then the girls would buy insurance protection on you then and lived off your death.
Well, when we are young, we often find a surge in emotions and hormones and looking for new experiences- but before you take it too seriously, ask yourself this question: what are you losing and what do you have to fall back on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
