Let me try to put an equation onto love. There are two ways perhaps we can see from this perspective- 1) we are sum of all our parts 2) We are more than sum of of all parts. In the former: 1+1= 2 and in the latter, 1+1= mx+c. In other words, the first is the belief that we separate and therefore when we add up, we get a finite number and the latter, it is the belief that when we add up, there is an unknown factor which generates more than the actual sum of the parts.
And it is often simple to assume the former because of it's rather simplistic understanding but in reality, a person is more than an addition and subtraction. It then can be said when two people get married, it is often under the assumption that we would often get a finite number- and therefore we must produce children and therefore we must have a house, and yes we too must have common friends. That is almost patently quite remove from the truth. It is in this rather ridiculous mathematical allegory and metaphor that we lay the plans often for the rest of our lives.
Let us then put an example to you. For example, we can never have an union with a dog because insofar that we are quite really incapable of producing a finite number. And neither can we have an union with a friend insofar that we are not mutually exclusive and therefore are quite incapable of producing a definitive mathematical family unit. The only ever reason for this particular phenomenon is that a number is elusive. And since we cannot tell that my family is y=mx+ c but rather, i have so and so siblings and I DEFINITELY have one spouse and this probably settles are any other forms of social awkwardness.
Indeed, it would be quite difficult to tell another a person in social gathering that oh yeah, he/she is a friend and maybe we are together, I don't know. It would really be more comfortable to tell someone that this my bf/gf or husband/wife. And the common reaction would be:oh...
And hence this is then the tyranny of math even on even our love life. We must have a number otherwise, it is not counted and if it is not counted then likely a story would have to ensue and in most social situations, that is the last thing one wants to hear as the cocktail and liquor is better than your sob story.
Hence, it is for this reason that, we are always in constant battle to find another mutually exclusive individual- just so that we can find that elusive number and NOT variable equation.
What is your equation, I am sorry what is your number again.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The East/West Debate
In the previous article, I have written about globalization and the East/West ideological debate. I would in this article therefore attempt to delineate the characteristics of which is linked to East and West. And in so doing, proved that each "essential" characteristic is no more particularised to former as much as it is to the latter.
The common denominator of which we can go down is to the skin colour. Unless we are models, selling whitening products or in tanning products, the colour of our skin should have no bearings on the future of success in the economies or societies. Westerners are therefore fairer and are commonly associated with being white, and in similar terms- the rest of us are therefore in variation and degrees of whiteness, with black being the other end of the continuum. Hence seen from this perspective, we have set of benchmark of "whiteness" of which we constant seek to obtain- moreover seen from the perspective of cultural biases towards being white- of being associated to purity and altruism. We have then condemned ourselves into reaching an unreachable benchmark, that of whiteness- think of Micheal Jackson's botched pigmentation surgery and you get the picture.
Hence in so doing, we have essentialized quite covertly and sub-consciously, the racial colour and the associative qualities of particular races, and even condemned ourselves- unwittingly as well- into quite disadvantageous places. Of which such actions often elude their rationale towards me- and in certain cases, celebrate their colour quite different from theirs. Hence in evoking an East/West debate is already framing the action of one's interest groups- in being East, means change and revolutionary and reactionary- and in being West, privileged, pure and cultured, and therefore conservative and elitist. And in so doing, we have surrendered the value of being elitist and cultured without even giving a fight and in so doing, always condemning ourselves into an underdog position.
And in being Westernized meant therefore, cultured, elitist, conservative- in blue- while anything else, is just a step down from it. Just for your information, there are poor people in Western countries, much as there are rich people in the East. Similarly there are many well-groomed people in the Orient- as much as there are backwater people in the West. Hence in so doing then, we have stupidly aspire to a benchmark of which we willingly have accepted we can never change- our skin colour.
On second note, is that of a hierarchical societies and therefore the association of paternalism associated with the East as compared with the more liberal attitudes of the West. And once again, the media has once again attempt to divide the two up and split them neatly insofar that each can controlled socially.
Just for your information, paternalism has western origins and is not the exclusive domain of the East. And just in similar terms, there are no similar words in Chinese lexicon as far as I am concerned and "family" in Mandarin which is "Jia Ting" is a mixture of "Ting" which is the operative word of "Fa Ting" which is the courts or legal system and "Jia" which is home- there isn't even gender bias in the word itself. Hence anyone who associate paternalism and hierarchy as the essential attributes of the Eastern cultures is therefore mixing myth/ideology with popular portrayal.
And insofar that, anyone who attempts to evoke this particular debate of which to deny or justify parochial interest in the name of general one is once again using race as an instrumental device in achieving one's personal gains.
The common denominator of which we can go down is to the skin colour. Unless we are models, selling whitening products or in tanning products, the colour of our skin should have no bearings on the future of success in the economies or societies. Westerners are therefore fairer and are commonly associated with being white, and in similar terms- the rest of us are therefore in variation and degrees of whiteness, with black being the other end of the continuum. Hence seen from this perspective, we have set of benchmark of "whiteness" of which we constant seek to obtain- moreover seen from the perspective of cultural biases towards being white- of being associated to purity and altruism. We have then condemned ourselves into reaching an unreachable benchmark, that of whiteness- think of Micheal Jackson's botched pigmentation surgery and you get the picture.
Hence in so doing, we have essentialized quite covertly and sub-consciously, the racial colour and the associative qualities of particular races, and even condemned ourselves- unwittingly as well- into quite disadvantageous places. Of which such actions often elude their rationale towards me- and in certain cases, celebrate their colour quite different from theirs. Hence in evoking an East/West debate is already framing the action of one's interest groups- in being East, means change and revolutionary and reactionary- and in being West, privileged, pure and cultured, and therefore conservative and elitist. And in so doing, we have surrendered the value of being elitist and cultured without even giving a fight and in so doing, always condemning ourselves into an underdog position.
And in being Westernized meant therefore, cultured, elitist, conservative- in blue- while anything else, is just a step down from it. Just for your information, there are poor people in Western countries, much as there are rich people in the East. Similarly there are many well-groomed people in the Orient- as much as there are backwater people in the West. Hence in so doing then, we have stupidly aspire to a benchmark of which we willingly have accepted we can never change- our skin colour.
On second note, is that of a hierarchical societies and therefore the association of paternalism associated with the East as compared with the more liberal attitudes of the West. And once again, the media has once again attempt to divide the two up and split them neatly insofar that each can controlled socially.
Just for your information, paternalism has western origins and is not the exclusive domain of the East. And just in similar terms, there are no similar words in Chinese lexicon as far as I am concerned and "family" in Mandarin which is "Jia Ting" is a mixture of "Ting" which is the operative word of "Fa Ting" which is the courts or legal system and "Jia" which is home- there isn't even gender bias in the word itself. Hence anyone who associate paternalism and hierarchy as the essential attributes of the Eastern cultures is therefore mixing myth/ideology with popular portrayal.
And insofar that, anyone who attempts to evoke this particular debate of which to deny or justify parochial interest in the name of general one is once again using race as an instrumental device in achieving one's personal gains.
Globalization and Parochialism
Globalization has largely been a depressed literature in these days. Just a few years ago, globalization was a beacon of hope and the symbol of human progress and technological advancement. It is touted as the phenomenon which would bring about everyone together. The means of which to do so is via social media, reducing cost of travel, cultural understanding, trade linkages and memberships into various supra-national organizations. The wave of literature at this current moment appears to be depressed and parochial, fear mongering and almost trivial in nature and yawn-inducing.
The biggest surprise and news this year perhaps is the sending of a blind activist to US from China and the constant bickering over a small group of islands by a few countries, the sovereign bond tragedy and the never-ending saga in Syria. All these seem to have overshadowed the positive aspects of globalization. And all these have further sharpen-latently- the divide between the East and the West, when in reality, we are more interlinked than we have ever been. The very fact that there were no nuclear threats, no threat of oil conflicts, means that economic interdepencies have overshadowed ideological wars. I have not seen the word terrorism in a long time.
Hence the news above is in reality hiding the fact that we are more similar than we are different and when anyone whom attempts therefore to flame an ideological war often hides a material interest behind this attempt. Even North Korea, the global bad boy has opened up and allowed a film crew to film their nuclear proceedings, Libya, Egypt and Tunisia all have their authoritative strong man replaced and moved into more conventional forms of capitalism.
Our financial markets are inextricably-linked with each other, our commodities and supply chain are linked globally, we can fly to a myriad of destinations with a clicked of a mouse and yet we bicker over who should get what and when and how based on nothing more than symbolic gestures and communications- are we not hypocritical insofar that we have profited from this market-driven economy.
And therefore I have noticed a constant reminder of people constantly attempting to flamed a racial-based form of politics. It would appear that they have a parochial interest masquerading as a general interest that in the form ideological battles which in reality is that their material interest have driven their actions more than a spontaneous one. And in doing so, they have always put a Catch 22 situation- of east and west- when the very currency, they used, the language they speak, the political and legal system they lived in, the commodities and products they have consumed are nothing more than the product of a market driven economy. They lived in a western capitalistic world and yet they deny the existence while yet leveraging on it. The attempt therefore to stir the most likely ideological fervour would almost most likely faced a demise- insofar that they are able to found a system of which is not part of global markets. And likewise, anyone who attempts therefore to stir likewise pluralistic tendencies is in reality dangerous and really is trying to stir action based on on an fluid and empty node of reference.
I would therefore dare these people who attempt to flame these politics again to move onto an island of which is able to supply themselves sans the help of global markets. I wait with bated breath the ability of these people to do likewise. And in so doing, please help the global economies in creating a similar standard of living of which one has so brilliantly re-created independently. That is indeed a work of genius similarly.
The biggest surprise and news this year perhaps is the sending of a blind activist to US from China and the constant bickering over a small group of islands by a few countries, the sovereign bond tragedy and the never-ending saga in Syria. All these seem to have overshadowed the positive aspects of globalization. And all these have further sharpen-latently- the divide between the East and the West, when in reality, we are more interlinked than we have ever been. The very fact that there were no nuclear threats, no threat of oil conflicts, means that economic interdepencies have overshadowed ideological wars. I have not seen the word terrorism in a long time.
Hence the news above is in reality hiding the fact that we are more similar than we are different and when anyone whom attempts therefore to flame an ideological war often hides a material interest behind this attempt. Even North Korea, the global bad boy has opened up and allowed a film crew to film their nuclear proceedings, Libya, Egypt and Tunisia all have their authoritative strong man replaced and moved into more conventional forms of capitalism.
Our financial markets are inextricably-linked with each other, our commodities and supply chain are linked globally, we can fly to a myriad of destinations with a clicked of a mouse and yet we bicker over who should get what and when and how based on nothing more than symbolic gestures and communications- are we not hypocritical insofar that we have profited from this market-driven economy.
And therefore I have noticed a constant reminder of people constantly attempting to flamed a racial-based form of politics. It would appear that they have a parochial interest masquerading as a general interest that in the form ideological battles which in reality is that their material interest have driven their actions more than a spontaneous one. And in doing so, they have always put a Catch 22 situation- of east and west- when the very currency, they used, the language they speak, the political and legal system they lived in, the commodities and products they have consumed are nothing more than the product of a market driven economy. They lived in a western capitalistic world and yet they deny the existence while yet leveraging on it. The attempt therefore to stir the most likely ideological fervour would almost most likely faced a demise- insofar that they are able to found a system of which is not part of global markets. And likewise, anyone who attempts therefore to stir likewise pluralistic tendencies is in reality dangerous and really is trying to stir action based on on an fluid and empty node of reference.
I would therefore dare these people who attempt to flame these politics again to move onto an island of which is able to supply themselves sans the help of global markets. I wait with bated breath the ability of these people to do likewise. And in so doing, please help the global economies in creating a similar standard of living of which one has so brilliantly re-created independently. That is indeed a work of genius similarly.
Productive Value and Real Wage, and Labour Demand
Very often, I have asked myself why did I quit several jobs in spite of being far ahead of other's- what did it speak to me. I used to say that, I took a risk and wanted to see how far I can go. But it was inadequate- because in spite of taking risk and seemingly reducing market value, I continued to refuse accept something that I deemed is appropriate. Therefore since risk does not commensurate rewards, therefore, I should relent right- but I did not.
Keynesian Economics which critiques much of classical economic of which a large part of world's economies has one critical comment 1) negotiation between worker's and entrepreneurs is open and the only reason that the worker refuse to supply labour is that one refused to accept the wage at a given marginal product [ or productive value] as the economy is assumed to be at full employment of resources and the only reason for unemployment is frictional- which is adjustment of resources rather than structural. The second of which he did highlighted is one that the reason that one does not supply labour is because 2) the demand for the labour at a given marginal product at a particular real wage for outstrips the supply.
Therefore in this second insight, I have realised intuitively the reason for my unhappiness. I know my value and the value of labour- and I know I have artificially been denied the ability to utilize my resources insofar that the wage does not commensurate with the demand. Assuming that there are 10 Eugene's in this world and all are paid the same wage, they are all effectively underpaid insofar that there were say 20 labour demander's for this particular characteristics
Therefore I knew then at this point, I knew that I had reputation, I knew I had the skills, the only reason that demand is not reaching is insofar that it has artificially been pushed down. Therefore intuitively, I knew I was why I felt disgruntled and felt constantly shortchanged. Demand outstrips the supply at a given real wage even if the marginal product- or effort- remains. I am what people perceived that I am- and if I am artificially pushed down, insofar by non-market driven means, it means that I should not accept my wage; hence I felt constantly short-changed.
Therefore I feel constantly defensive when people accused me for being arrogant or a prima donna- I would normally concentrate on my job and really does not speak unless I have something to say. It is therefore, I understood that intuitively that the actions of other's seeks only to artificially devalue the perceived value and therefore the frustration.
The frustration is therefore in being underpaid in view of a particular skill set rather than in asking for something more than the market demands. And even impeded by structural and organizational constraints- the only reason that I felt that the value insofar does not commensurate if what the market demands is such that the there was no effort insofar to compensate for these material factors in other forms. And therefore lies the frustration rather than that of being unwilling to accept prevailing market conditions and environment.
P/S: however anyone attempts to deny the plagiaristic value of my work and the amount of trickle down effect it generates- the more frustration it would generate. The plagiarism only serves as a reminder of the demand of which outstripping the supply. And it is for this reason, intuitively, I have not accepted the existing conditions. Any label of which to placed other's on a moral high ground is to me, highly unjustified.
Keynesian Economics which critiques much of classical economic of which a large part of world's economies has one critical comment 1) negotiation between worker's and entrepreneurs is open and the only reason that the worker refuse to supply labour is that one refused to accept the wage at a given marginal product [ or productive value] as the economy is assumed to be at full employment of resources and the only reason for unemployment is frictional- which is adjustment of resources rather than structural. The second of which he did highlighted is one that the reason that one does not supply labour is because 2) the demand for the labour at a given marginal product at a particular real wage for outstrips the supply.
Therefore in this second insight, I have realised intuitively the reason for my unhappiness. I know my value and the value of labour- and I know I have artificially been denied the ability to utilize my resources insofar that the wage does not commensurate with the demand. Assuming that there are 10 Eugene's in this world and all are paid the same wage, they are all effectively underpaid insofar that there were say 20 labour demander's for this particular characteristics
Therefore I knew then at this point, I knew that I had reputation, I knew I had the skills, the only reason that demand is not reaching is insofar that it has artificially been pushed down. Therefore intuitively, I knew I was why I felt disgruntled and felt constantly shortchanged. Demand outstrips the supply at a given real wage even if the marginal product- or effort- remains. I am what people perceived that I am- and if I am artificially pushed down, insofar by non-market driven means, it means that I should not accept my wage; hence I felt constantly short-changed.
Therefore I feel constantly defensive when people accused me for being arrogant or a prima donna- I would normally concentrate on my job and really does not speak unless I have something to say. It is therefore, I understood that intuitively that the actions of other's seeks only to artificially devalue the perceived value and therefore the frustration.
The frustration is therefore in being underpaid in view of a particular skill set rather than in asking for something more than the market demands. And even impeded by structural and organizational constraints- the only reason that I felt that the value insofar does not commensurate if what the market demands is such that the there was no effort insofar to compensate for these material factors in other forms. And therefore lies the frustration rather than that of being unwilling to accept prevailing market conditions and environment.
P/S: however anyone attempts to deny the plagiaristic value of my work and the amount of trickle down effect it generates- the more frustration it would generate. The plagiarism only serves as a reminder of the demand of which outstripping the supply. And it is for this reason, intuitively, I have not accepted the existing conditions. Any label of which to placed other's on a moral high ground is to me, highly unjustified.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Symbols
Semiotics is the study of symbols. Semiotics has a triangular relationship. The signifier, the signified and the relationship between the signifier and the signified. People have placed tremendous value on the associative value as opposed to the relationship. Of particular importance is the relationship rather than the symbolic meaning. How the symbolic meanings arises is patently more important than what it signifies.
The signified is fluid in it's meaning. For example, dragon in western cultures is malevolent creature while in the Chinese culture- it is an auspicious one- in fact the Chinese are seen as children of the dragon. Similarly, in Russian culture, smiling is frown upon- and is seen as an insult to the host- but on the other hand, in most other cultures, it is a sign of friendship.
Therefore, the use of visual communication to deliver messages is not immutable and the signified should not be place with particular importance. Of particular importance is that of the rising of the symbol in the first place.
Take for example, political symbols. A local one perhaps highlight better. The use of a ligthning symbol in red an encircled in blue while with a white background is of particular importance in the arising of the imcumbent party in the first place. In the pre-independence days of the departure of the British, a wave of cold war, rampant unemployment and poor social environment. These symbols communicate a practical value of which speaks to the common citizen who wanted action- seen in lightning symbols coloured in red, a relatively conservative outlook- seen in blue- and with a relatively pure and non reactive ideology seen in white. This is in contrast with the red base- of reactive and revolutionary basis- and with a ideological appeal, it had a similar effect who wanted to effect change in prevailing status quo.
Hence seen in this context, with the general retreat of communism and it's ideological clarion call- it is therefore no wonder the former party had won through. Similarly, seen in the light of the general demise of East Germany, the modernisniation of China and Vietnam, Russia, it is therefore seen from the general wave that the colour of choice in Singapore and many places around the region are therefore conservative and non-revolutionary in nature.
Therefore, a further step must be highlighted to see the importance in the relationship rather than the signified. As mentioned before, the revolutionary character of red has somewhat been doused- the association with abrupt change and disruptive character has been diluted to the point that it has been circumscribed within the existing capitalist system.
Take for example, a recent publishing manifesto of an aspiring opposition party with an worker agenda. The origins and history is fought on basis of worker's rights advancement- which is diametric opposite to the elites and capitalist within the market driven economy, but it's manifesto was based on achieving a First World Parliament. It really does not sound exactly revolutionary nor seem to allude to fighting for proletarian rights.
But it then must seen in the context of the advancement of Singapore society. Singapore is a advanced economy now and it can be considered as one of capitalist success stories with two sovereign wealth funds with equity ownership in many western capitalist companies and properties even. Hence to fight desperately against the capitalist and elites would then, be destroying the rice bowl of the very people they are fighting for- whom are practical in nature rather than doused in ideological fervour. Hence seen from this particular context, the relationship, the cultural context and power relationships can be seen therefore of particular importance than what it really signifies. Therefore seen from a strict linear relationship, the red is no longer a game changer but rather been circumscribed within a system- and the signified as shifted, insofar that the underlying context has changed.
Therefore very often, we act as Pavlov's dog- and thinking that voting or deciding based on a associative value is acting in one's interest. But we have disregard therefore the underlying interest, often materially in the instrumental use of symbols. Therefore I rest my case, in the use of symbols as a short hand for correct decision but rather an understanding of relationship between the signified and the signifier than it's simplistic associative value.
[ P/S: refer to the Boxer Rebellion which used symbols to trick it's adherents into thinking " knife and gun cannot penetrate it's body" - that is therefore the instrumental use of symbols to mobilize it's people]
The signified is fluid in it's meaning. For example, dragon in western cultures is malevolent creature while in the Chinese culture- it is an auspicious one- in fact the Chinese are seen as children of the dragon. Similarly, in Russian culture, smiling is frown upon- and is seen as an insult to the host- but on the other hand, in most other cultures, it is a sign of friendship.
Therefore, the use of visual communication to deliver messages is not immutable and the signified should not be place with particular importance. Of particular importance is that of the rising of the symbol in the first place.
Take for example, political symbols. A local one perhaps highlight better. The use of a ligthning symbol in red an encircled in blue while with a white background is of particular importance in the arising of the imcumbent party in the first place. In the pre-independence days of the departure of the British, a wave of cold war, rampant unemployment and poor social environment. These symbols communicate a practical value of which speaks to the common citizen who wanted action- seen in lightning symbols coloured in red, a relatively conservative outlook- seen in blue- and with a relatively pure and non reactive ideology seen in white. This is in contrast with the red base- of reactive and revolutionary basis- and with a ideological appeal, it had a similar effect who wanted to effect change in prevailing status quo.
Hence seen in this context, with the general retreat of communism and it's ideological clarion call- it is therefore no wonder the former party had won through. Similarly, seen in the light of the general demise of East Germany, the modernisniation of China and Vietnam, Russia, it is therefore seen from the general wave that the colour of choice in Singapore and many places around the region are therefore conservative and non-revolutionary in nature.
Therefore, a further step must be highlighted to see the importance in the relationship rather than the signified. As mentioned before, the revolutionary character of red has somewhat been doused- the association with abrupt change and disruptive character has been diluted to the point that it has been circumscribed within the existing capitalist system.
Take for example, a recent publishing manifesto of an aspiring opposition party with an worker agenda. The origins and history is fought on basis of worker's rights advancement- which is diametric opposite to the elites and capitalist within the market driven economy, but it's manifesto was based on achieving a First World Parliament. It really does not sound exactly revolutionary nor seem to allude to fighting for proletarian rights.
But it then must seen in the context of the advancement of Singapore society. Singapore is a advanced economy now and it can be considered as one of capitalist success stories with two sovereign wealth funds with equity ownership in many western capitalist companies and properties even. Hence to fight desperately against the capitalist and elites would then, be destroying the rice bowl of the very people they are fighting for- whom are practical in nature rather than doused in ideological fervour. Hence seen from this particular context, the relationship, the cultural context and power relationships can be seen therefore of particular importance than what it really signifies. Therefore seen from a strict linear relationship, the red is no longer a game changer but rather been circumscribed within a system- and the signified as shifted, insofar that the underlying context has changed.
Therefore very often, we act as Pavlov's dog- and thinking that voting or deciding based on a associative value is acting in one's interest. But we have disregard therefore the underlying interest, often materially in the instrumental use of symbols. Therefore I rest my case, in the use of symbols as a short hand for correct decision but rather an understanding of relationship between the signified and the signifier than it's simplistic associative value.
[ P/S: refer to the Boxer Rebellion which used symbols to trick it's adherents into thinking " knife and gun cannot penetrate it's body" - that is therefore the instrumental use of symbols to mobilize it's people]
Friday, October 19, 2012
C'est la vie
This year is an important year. There are 2 major leadership changes in two major countries and the contemplation of a patching or break up of a political and economic union. I cannot remember the last time such occurrences happening in a single year and that is the reason that I believed for the extremely thin market volume, economic activities and incremental changes.
This year is almost a yawn. there were nothing spectacular and most people are adopting a wait-and-see attitude. Many companies are on a cost-cutting mode or conservative trajectory and this has trickle down to many everyday happenings.
The United States are holding their elections next month, and the incumbent is not prepared to rock to boat and lose it's consolidated base- this explains for a lack of any interesting legislation- which has been the hallmark of Barack Obama. His challenger is not fiery politician- and suffers from being a Conservative upsetting a Democrat- which means, it is not in it's interest to appear to far left. Therefore, this makes for an extremely dull Presidential election. Therefore, the likely effect is that the election result is not quite going to be spectacular or inspirational which is quite unlikely from American politics or anything for that matter.
China is holding their decade-long leadership transition roughly about the same time. Politics in comparison with the U.S appears even more dramatic with the assassination of a foreign businessman, the ouster of political hot favourite and the trial of the star and his wife. But otherwise, where power structures often remain relatively stable and rarely reach a climax except in times of extreme duress, Chinese politics are really a matter of foregone conclusion except where mistakes are exposed or are found out. Hence I would not expect anything to upset the apple cart unless there are some behind-the-scenes brinkmanship which is really quite atypical of their political culture. Hence many people, businesses and organizations are expected to stand by the sideline, major projects are delayed until clarity is confirmed and anything which upset the status quo at this current moment is being delayed even from the protesters standpoint- as they would a expect a stronger coercive force in such sensitive times. Therefore it is not surprising these countries has for some reason stayed behind headlines and not wanting to be too public- barring some skirmishes with some neighbouring countries- as it allow for a smooth transition.
Perhaps the most drama can be found in Europe, where periphery countries dominate the headlines, as they attempt to restructure their finances to keep themselves afloat. The funny thing is that the numbers being pandered around is like a drop in the ocean of even some global banks, let alone major countries- and it is a cause for concern for many fearing a domino effect. And even so, the implication is departure of periphery countries of which might have wider implications remains to be seem. Hence the year has been an uninspiring one looking for great new ideas, a leap of faith or revolutionary changes. It almost seem like this is a year of heightened tension of which is being distracted by the finances and troubles of relatively smaller smaller countries. Perhaps bearing this in mind, most are playing ball by not being antagonistic against the big boys and allow themselves perhaps some air time and take the heat and spotlight away from them in these sensitive and potentially explosive times.
Therefore, I do not expect any big surprises at least for next half a year or so, as the changes and transitions begin to sink in and warm their seats. And once the seat is warmed, the people briefed and the ideals outlined, we shall see a clearer picture for a foreseeable future and from which then we can see then the new people stamping their signature on their respective countries and areas of influence.
Meanwhile I would suggest sitting back and singing to the tune of : C'est la vie
This year is almost a yawn. there were nothing spectacular and most people are adopting a wait-and-see attitude. Many companies are on a cost-cutting mode or conservative trajectory and this has trickle down to many everyday happenings.
The United States are holding their elections next month, and the incumbent is not prepared to rock to boat and lose it's consolidated base- this explains for a lack of any interesting legislation- which has been the hallmark of Barack Obama. His challenger is not fiery politician- and suffers from being a Conservative upsetting a Democrat- which means, it is not in it's interest to appear to far left. Therefore, this makes for an extremely dull Presidential election. Therefore, the likely effect is that the election result is not quite going to be spectacular or inspirational which is quite unlikely from American politics or anything for that matter.
China is holding their decade-long leadership transition roughly about the same time. Politics in comparison with the U.S appears even more dramatic with the assassination of a foreign businessman, the ouster of political hot favourite and the trial of the star and his wife. But otherwise, where power structures often remain relatively stable and rarely reach a climax except in times of extreme duress, Chinese politics are really a matter of foregone conclusion except where mistakes are exposed or are found out. Hence I would not expect anything to upset the apple cart unless there are some behind-the-scenes brinkmanship which is really quite atypical of their political culture. Hence many people, businesses and organizations are expected to stand by the sideline, major projects are delayed until clarity is confirmed and anything which upset the status quo at this current moment is being delayed even from the protesters standpoint- as they would a expect a stronger coercive force in such sensitive times. Therefore it is not surprising these countries has for some reason stayed behind headlines and not wanting to be too public- barring some skirmishes with some neighbouring countries- as it allow for a smooth transition.
Perhaps the most drama can be found in Europe, where periphery countries dominate the headlines, as they attempt to restructure their finances to keep themselves afloat. The funny thing is that the numbers being pandered around is like a drop in the ocean of even some global banks, let alone major countries- and it is a cause for concern for many fearing a domino effect. And even so, the implication is departure of periphery countries of which might have wider implications remains to be seem. Hence the year has been an uninspiring one looking for great new ideas, a leap of faith or revolutionary changes. It almost seem like this is a year of heightened tension of which is being distracted by the finances and troubles of relatively smaller smaller countries. Perhaps bearing this in mind, most are playing ball by not being antagonistic against the big boys and allow themselves perhaps some air time and take the heat and spotlight away from them in these sensitive and potentially explosive times.
Therefore, I do not expect any big surprises at least for next half a year or so, as the changes and transitions begin to sink in and warm their seats. And once the seat is warmed, the people briefed and the ideals outlined, we shall see a clearer picture for a foreseeable future and from which then we can see then the new people stamping their signature on their respective countries and areas of influence.
Meanwhile I would suggest sitting back and singing to the tune of : C'est la vie
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Tired
I am sitting down in front of my computer.
It is really amazing how one year can change things in a flash. I have went from one with at least middle class aspirations to one of which just scrapping by. I sit down here and the worst thing is that I cannot even pinpoint the very mistake that I make.
The only ever mistake I have ever make is being too straightforward, expect alot from others and thought that everyone will act decently at the very least.
Much as I have not expected is the discovery of the extend of which people really want me to fail.
Sometimes, it is not that I have given up on doing anything of note. But the very fact that, the amount of dissent from other's of which is really just innocuous comments and opinions really surprises me.
What I do, as I have always maintained, is really what I think is right- I do not expect other's to follow. Much as even with one don't like my actions and of which have no bearings on your life directly at all, I am really surprised the amount of unhappiness generated. Perhaps the thing that shocks me the most is the amount of effort invested in ensuring that I don't succeed.
I am okay with not being like the biggest star or being the highlight of everything but I am still perplexed at the amount of effort in discouraging my every endeavours. It is like there is a personal investment on everybody's part of my failure. I don't really feel discouraged by this particular situation but rather I am extremely curious about this situation. Why me and why the amount of energy in ensuring so?
I have from the very start never court fame, fortune, approval or anything material. The only thing that I wanted was that I be left alone and allowed to grow and be myself. I am just wondering why is that so difficult?
Why does everyone have an opinion on my action is what really surprises me.
The siege mentality makes me nervous not because like I am afraid of competition. This siege mentality gives me the feeling that it is almost stupid to engage someone quite unrelated to me. Why should I expend energy on someone whom I don't even know or have any engagement with.
I am not related to you neither are you are related with you- the world is always big enough for everyone, why is this concerted effort to make life so damn difficult for one single person?
I am no Qin Shihuang nor am I Magneto, I am all of Eugene and nothing more.
Sometimes, I am just tired of all these posturing- where nothing is ever done. I just want to get back to doing real things. I just wonder when can I get back in doing so.
Sometimes, I am really tired.
It is really amazing how one year can change things in a flash. I have went from one with at least middle class aspirations to one of which just scrapping by. I sit down here and the worst thing is that I cannot even pinpoint the very mistake that I make.
The only ever mistake I have ever make is being too straightforward, expect alot from others and thought that everyone will act decently at the very least.
Much as I have not expected is the discovery of the extend of which people really want me to fail.
Sometimes, it is not that I have given up on doing anything of note. But the very fact that, the amount of dissent from other's of which is really just innocuous comments and opinions really surprises me.
What I do, as I have always maintained, is really what I think is right- I do not expect other's to follow. Much as even with one don't like my actions and of which have no bearings on your life directly at all, I am really surprised the amount of unhappiness generated. Perhaps the thing that shocks me the most is the amount of effort invested in ensuring that I don't succeed.
I am okay with not being like the biggest star or being the highlight of everything but I am still perplexed at the amount of effort in discouraging my every endeavours. It is like there is a personal investment on everybody's part of my failure. I don't really feel discouraged by this particular situation but rather I am extremely curious about this situation. Why me and why the amount of energy in ensuring so?
I have from the very start never court fame, fortune, approval or anything material. The only thing that I wanted was that I be left alone and allowed to grow and be myself. I am just wondering why is that so difficult?
Why does everyone have an opinion on my action is what really surprises me.
The siege mentality makes me nervous not because like I am afraid of competition. This siege mentality gives me the feeling that it is almost stupid to engage someone quite unrelated to me. Why should I expend energy on someone whom I don't even know or have any engagement with.
I am not related to you neither are you are related with you- the world is always big enough for everyone, why is this concerted effort to make life so damn difficult for one single person?
I am no Qin Shihuang nor am I Magneto, I am all of Eugene and nothing more.
Sometimes, I am just tired of all these posturing- where nothing is ever done. I just want to get back to doing real things. I just wonder when can I get back in doing so.
Sometimes, I am really tired.
Saturday, October 06, 2012
Trust
A couple of years back, I met this lady who was selling tissue at 50cents a pack- I gave to her without thinking much as she seems to need it. The next day, while at Boat Quay- a drinking place- I saw her hawking the same thing- and giving the same forlorn look. This time round, I refused to give it to her. Can you be forever forlorn all the time- and if charity doesn't cheer you up- what else will then.
It is the very same way that I run many things in my life. "Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me." You can only earn my trust once, and the moment you lose it, you lose it forever. I make no concessions for anyone close to me. The only difference is that I give them the benefit of doubt more often than most- and once you are proven beyond reasonable doubt your character, I will erect walls even if it means closing off every single person.
The speed of trust- of which I ask no questions- and taking a hand's off approach is off the table. Now at this current moment is trying to negotiate to get the best outcome. Your interest is no longer my interest, my interest is now my interest, your interest is now your interest, unless our interest are mutual, you will get nothing from me as far as I am concern.
Therefore I subscribe to this idea of maintaining trust and harmony up till a certain age. And the moment, you hit that age, you are on your own. You can say that I have no interest in you anymore but trust would have to be maintained- otherwise broken, I would take the above approach.
Therefore, alot of people have accused of being selfish, self-centred and not caring about anyone but myself- I don't really care. Before you want to accused me of doing so, you better ask yourself what have you done to deserve this treatment in the first place. As far as I am concern, I have made sufficient concessions, you just blew it for yourself.
If being difficult means maintaining a certain level of trust and human decency, then you can accused me of being the most difficult person. And if you cannot even maintain it while I gave you an easy ride, how then can I ever trust you with even bigger things.
The speed of trust is a wonderful thing, the moment you lose it: it can be the most difficult thing in the whole world.
It is the very same way that I run many things in my life. "Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me." You can only earn my trust once, and the moment you lose it, you lose it forever. I make no concessions for anyone close to me. The only difference is that I give them the benefit of doubt more often than most- and once you are proven beyond reasonable doubt your character, I will erect walls even if it means closing off every single person.
The speed of trust- of which I ask no questions- and taking a hand's off approach is off the table. Now at this current moment is trying to negotiate to get the best outcome. Your interest is no longer my interest, my interest is now my interest, your interest is now your interest, unless our interest are mutual, you will get nothing from me as far as I am concern.
Therefore I subscribe to this idea of maintaining trust and harmony up till a certain age. And the moment, you hit that age, you are on your own. You can say that I have no interest in you anymore but trust would have to be maintained- otherwise broken, I would take the above approach.
Therefore, alot of people have accused of being selfish, self-centred and not caring about anyone but myself- I don't really care. Before you want to accused me of doing so, you better ask yourself what have you done to deserve this treatment in the first place. As far as I am concern, I have made sufficient concessions, you just blew it for yourself.
If being difficult means maintaining a certain level of trust and human decency, then you can accused me of being the most difficult person. And if you cannot even maintain it while I gave you an easy ride, how then can I ever trust you with even bigger things.
The speed of trust is a wonderful thing, the moment you lose it: it can be the most difficult thing in the whole world.
Being Mr Market's friend
You know what what when you get too good at certain things, you tend to lose the sense of reality. My job was to make money for clients and I was so damn good at it that a large majority of my clients made money more than they have lost. But the difference between making money in the financial markets and making money from labour is that there is a disconnect between the amount of money you earned from the amount of work you put in. To be quite frank with you, it wasn't that difficult. Had I not screwed up, I would be probably be holding a large portfolio of clients with ready cash.
I had a client who made a 20% return in spite of 5% charge three times in a row within two years. When the market was direction-less, they got an interest higher than they would have anywhere else. When the market was down, some picked up bonds which have appreciated 20% while picking up 5% coupon for the last 3 years. When the Thai market was down relative to regional index, my customer bought in and the fund has doubled in value, in 3 years. When the Australian dollar was down, we picked up the yield at double the normal rate while keeping a strike at 15 cents cheaper than a month ago.
Well, it was fine and dandy but one actually realises that I literally did nothing to make those money. All I ever did was to look at the financial reports, news and analysis and made a prediction- I had literally add no value to society. The only caveat was that it was legal and the market was willing to pay me this amount of money to do that. The market paid me to do something quite literally to talk to it and nothing else. I used to tell some friends that the cleaners add more value to the world than what I did but they get paid way less and are given much lesser respect and status.
I was really good at my job and the market paid me for doing so but it doesn't detract from the fact that in terms of value and labour- what have I done- quite literally nothing.
Since we are measured in terms of financial success in this world, it is quite easy to think that I have deserved everything the world has given me. I did not commit a crime, neither did I even commit even a sin- or even a lie-, and neither did I even tried to hoodwink or shortchange my clients, they just paid me what they think is right. I was doing what society and market tells me is the right thing to do.
By the age of 29- I had an apartment, a fully-paid car, a number of investments, some wads of cash, I had boasted of too quite "fifty-shades of grey experience". I literally had it all but really- what did I really do to deserve it- quite literally nothing. What I did was to talk to Mr Market- and very often he respond quite positively to me.
I was smart, smooth and white as a sheet. To everyone, I earned it through legitimate means, to everyone, I was the success story- the boy who knew it all, the boy who made it good, the boy who was poster boy for everything good about this society-. But really.
Shouldn't you be celebrating people who quite literally make your neighbourhood cleaner, shouldn't you be celebrating the people who put food on the table for you. Shouldn't you be celebrating people who gets you to work in one piece. Shouldn't you be celebrating people who actually makes the things that you use.
Making the market more efficient does not make the world a better place, it is the by-product and not eventual outcome. The financial market allocate capital efficiently and we are suppose to exploit the price arbitrages but to say that I did something good was like putting a crown on a trader.
The ultimate outcome for it is that, I had become a poster boy for something that the society values- financial success- but in reality, it almost feels that I really quite did nothing to help anyone. That remains the simple fact.
I was frugal yes and not frivolous by some of my peer's standards but really, I don't think I deserve to be the benchmark, the model or ideal. I was smart yes, but I definitely was not your shining example. There are many more other's much more deserving than I do- they deserve the limelight much more than I do.
There many more other's who contribute to society much more than I did and they deserve spotlight much more than Mr Market's friend.
I had a client who made a 20% return in spite of 5% charge three times in a row within two years. When the market was direction-less, they got an interest higher than they would have anywhere else. When the market was down, some picked up bonds which have appreciated 20% while picking up 5% coupon for the last 3 years. When the Thai market was down relative to regional index, my customer bought in and the fund has doubled in value, in 3 years. When the Australian dollar was down, we picked up the yield at double the normal rate while keeping a strike at 15 cents cheaper than a month ago.
Well, it was fine and dandy but one actually realises that I literally did nothing to make those money. All I ever did was to look at the financial reports, news and analysis and made a prediction- I had literally add no value to society. The only caveat was that it was legal and the market was willing to pay me this amount of money to do that. The market paid me to do something quite literally to talk to it and nothing else. I used to tell some friends that the cleaners add more value to the world than what I did but they get paid way less and are given much lesser respect and status.
I was really good at my job and the market paid me for doing so but it doesn't detract from the fact that in terms of value and labour- what have I done- quite literally nothing.
Since we are measured in terms of financial success in this world, it is quite easy to think that I have deserved everything the world has given me. I did not commit a crime, neither did I even commit even a sin- or even a lie-, and neither did I even tried to hoodwink or shortchange my clients, they just paid me what they think is right. I was doing what society and market tells me is the right thing to do.
By the age of 29- I had an apartment, a fully-paid car, a number of investments, some wads of cash, I had boasted of too quite "fifty-shades of grey experience". I literally had it all but really- what did I really do to deserve it- quite literally nothing. What I did was to talk to Mr Market- and very often he respond quite positively to me.
I was smart, smooth and white as a sheet. To everyone, I earned it through legitimate means, to everyone, I was the success story- the boy who knew it all, the boy who made it good, the boy who was poster boy for everything good about this society-. But really.
Shouldn't you be celebrating people who quite literally make your neighbourhood cleaner, shouldn't you be celebrating the people who put food on the table for you. Shouldn't you be celebrating people who gets you to work in one piece. Shouldn't you be celebrating people who actually makes the things that you use.
Making the market more efficient does not make the world a better place, it is the by-product and not eventual outcome. The financial market allocate capital efficiently and we are suppose to exploit the price arbitrages but to say that I did something good was like putting a crown on a trader.
The ultimate outcome for it is that, I had become a poster boy for something that the society values- financial success- but in reality, it almost feels that I really quite did nothing to help anyone. That remains the simple fact.
I was frugal yes and not frivolous by some of my peer's standards but really, I don't think I deserve to be the benchmark, the model or ideal. I was smart yes, but I definitely was not your shining example. There are many more other's much more deserving than I do- they deserve the limelight much more than I do.
There many more other's who contribute to society much more than I did and they deserve spotlight much more than Mr Market's friend.
Friday, October 05, 2012
Participatory Ethnography
You know in anthropology, there is a term called participatory ethnography. That means that participate actively with whom the people you are trying to understand so as to create a better biography for them. This active participation gives us direct experience into the culture and worldview of the people one is trying to understand- this is direct contrast with the scientist standing on the side as an disinterested observer passing authoritative judgments.
For a while, my soiree into the world of money was part curiosity, part practicality and part ambition. It was a mixture of getting into a mind of others while trying to stand above them and also that is where the money is-quite literally.
Once I had written an email to my boss about being the CEO- and to many other's, this would just career suicide- but another part of me, wanted to try how these power relations would panned out. It was really at least half of it was just curiosity and the other part of it was just risk-taking. This was by far I think the stupidest thing ever done in causing unnecessary attention to yourself.
On another situation, having earned some badges on my belt- I felt being exploited and oppressed by my supervisor- and I decided to went up to the HR head and made a complain- just 1 month into the job and I wasn't even confirmed yet. Once again, that is by far in most cases, the most foolhardy thing a person can do in managing up.
I am always proud to say that prior to that, bosses loved me because I manage up superbly but really at that point in time, I just wanted to see how the system coped with a fireball and boy was it- inflexible, vicious, swift and far-reaching-. This probably confirmed my suspicion that the world is really small and everybody knows everybody- and you just need to draw some attention to yourself thats all.
All these risk-taking and seemingly hare-brained excursions didn't seem to deter people from hiring me as at that point in time, I have acquired a skill set of which I can utilized as and when I want- the only difference is that very often these exertions often meant too much attention to yourself by quite a number interest meant in maintaining their position and therefore the result often did not culminated into actual outcome. The final straw came that, the world is really way larger than I imagined it to be.
An inside joke turn out to be the biggest payoff in my life. The vastness, the depth, the swiftness and the ferocity in overcoming a fireball suggest it's rather far -reaching consequences.
I have always maintained that what everyone did was an overkill- and I still maintained it to be so. I am all but one man, but in your propensity to protect yourself and interest made me bigger and powerful than I actually am. You created a monster/virus/ foreign entity/ alien because you have no idea who you are. It was never about me destroying your life or your livelihood- it was always about you maintaining your wavering self-identity.
I was never really working per se, I was just taking everyone for a ride and for that very reason- you provided the ride for me.
You were the experiment and you just confirmed quite a number of suspicion thats all.
For a while, my soiree into the world of money was part curiosity, part practicality and part ambition. It was a mixture of getting into a mind of others while trying to stand above them and also that is where the money is-quite literally.
Once I had written an email to my boss about being the CEO- and to many other's, this would just career suicide- but another part of me, wanted to try how these power relations would panned out. It was really at least half of it was just curiosity and the other part of it was just risk-taking. This was by far I think the stupidest thing ever done in causing unnecessary attention to yourself.
On another situation, having earned some badges on my belt- I felt being exploited and oppressed by my supervisor- and I decided to went up to the HR head and made a complain- just 1 month into the job and I wasn't even confirmed yet. Once again, that is by far in most cases, the most foolhardy thing a person can do in managing up.
I am always proud to say that prior to that, bosses loved me because I manage up superbly but really at that point in time, I just wanted to see how the system coped with a fireball and boy was it- inflexible, vicious, swift and far-reaching-. This probably confirmed my suspicion that the world is really small and everybody knows everybody- and you just need to draw some attention to yourself thats all.
All these risk-taking and seemingly hare-brained excursions didn't seem to deter people from hiring me as at that point in time, I have acquired a skill set of which I can utilized as and when I want- the only difference is that very often these exertions often meant too much attention to yourself by quite a number interest meant in maintaining their position and therefore the result often did not culminated into actual outcome. The final straw came that, the world is really way larger than I imagined it to be.
An inside joke turn out to be the biggest payoff in my life. The vastness, the depth, the swiftness and the ferocity in overcoming a fireball suggest it's rather far -reaching consequences.
I have always maintained that what everyone did was an overkill- and I still maintained it to be so. I am all but one man, but in your propensity to protect yourself and interest made me bigger and powerful than I actually am. You created a monster/virus/ foreign entity/ alien because you have no idea who you are. It was never about me destroying your life or your livelihood- it was always about you maintaining your wavering self-identity.
I was never really working per se, I was just taking everyone for a ride and for that very reason- you provided the ride for me.
You were the experiment and you just confirmed quite a number of suspicion thats all.
Being made a Monkey
In reality, I am in an unusual position. Most people with my background, are either in government service, teachers, lecturers or in background positions. I entered erstwhile into an area of which I had written against rather than for while in school. Called it an irony but I purposefully seek in that direction rather than serendipitously happening.
I had I think had this conviction I think bubbling below that being questioning, doubtful does not make us a liability in an institution; on the other hand, it makes us at an advantageous standpoint of which we can see angles blindsided by most with conventional education- which are mostly instrumental in nature- which means that the ends are mostly implicit and therefore we often are running in circles without really solving the problem itself. My observation is that most people work because it is like a "lifestyle" thing- of which really, the act of solving problems is sometimes quite devoid from the act of working in the first place.
We work because everyone else is working- really the end product is often of no consequence to us. In fact, the end product is of no consequence to us precisely because we are only one cog in entire assembly line of producing the product in the first place- there are therefore no satisfaction nor a sense of fulfillment in seeing the fruits of our labour- quite unlike farmers of another era- where the end products are physical and often tangible. And therefore most of us indulge in mindless consumerism to tell ourselves that we have worked hard and therefore are deserving of our status-enhancing products.
But in entering a field of which are of different orientation from it was extremely difficult. Because the conventional mannerisms and other speak was really in reality quite laughable- I apologize for being condescending here- the pomposity of which certain individuals carry out their chores were at times quite amusing here. Had I not been their colleagues and are of the similar background, I would during coffee had a good laugh with my school mates. I had to restrain myself over social decencies as I know they were acting because it was "right" thing to do for them and it was extremely rude to do so- but in my world, the form was superseding substance really.
I had the gumption to be likewise because I was achieving faster, better and more than them in spite of their apparent worship of their status of which they flaunt like peacocks. And really, in reality, I think I was playing an inside joke with these people of which I think had I not venture out of my comfort zone, I would probably not have any interaction with. I would probably be growing a beard and looking more like a hippie than an executive in reality- not exactly privilege banking or corporate customers material.
Ok, if you look at my C.V- you would know I have been working in the banking and finance line for some time. You might be thinking I was strangely out of my depth and I was-initially that is- that's why I took another course in Finance; of which I did not exactly just to be familiar with the language, the terms and metrics of which to make sense of various reports- that's why I read financial reports like it was poetry, the arguments were really not that difficult truth be told- you just need to cut through the jargon.
I used my deconstructing language 101, coupled with capitalist ideas and mixed it with financial arguments which have economic roots really, and you can tell the quack from the real stuff. That's the reason I dissed technical analysis- in my world, numbers are numbers, it is meaning that we impute into it that makes sense. Hence if you can make a drawing out of seemingly random numbers plucked from a myriad of permutations, so can I make another drawing based on another set of numbers. Who wins- the one where most people believed wins isn't it.
I might have been an asshole for doing this and making a monkey and an inside joke on everyone- but really who ultimately lost. No one really lost and we just get disillusioned that's all and realized that the whole world is a one big damn lie. Hence trust me, you are not angry at me for making monkey out of you, you are angry at yourself being made a monkey by everyone else. We are really just monkeys at the end of the day- fooling ourselves that we are better than everybody else.
I had I think had this conviction I think bubbling below that being questioning, doubtful does not make us a liability in an institution; on the other hand, it makes us at an advantageous standpoint of which we can see angles blindsided by most with conventional education- which are mostly instrumental in nature- which means that the ends are mostly implicit and therefore we often are running in circles without really solving the problem itself. My observation is that most people work because it is like a "lifestyle" thing- of which really, the act of solving problems is sometimes quite devoid from the act of working in the first place.
We work because everyone else is working- really the end product is often of no consequence to us. In fact, the end product is of no consequence to us precisely because we are only one cog in entire assembly line of producing the product in the first place- there are therefore no satisfaction nor a sense of fulfillment in seeing the fruits of our labour- quite unlike farmers of another era- where the end products are physical and often tangible. And therefore most of us indulge in mindless consumerism to tell ourselves that we have worked hard and therefore are deserving of our status-enhancing products.
But in entering a field of which are of different orientation from it was extremely difficult. Because the conventional mannerisms and other speak was really in reality quite laughable- I apologize for being condescending here- the pomposity of which certain individuals carry out their chores were at times quite amusing here. Had I not been their colleagues and are of the similar background, I would during coffee had a good laugh with my school mates. I had to restrain myself over social decencies as I know they were acting because it was "right" thing to do for them and it was extremely rude to do so- but in my world, the form was superseding substance really.
I had the gumption to be likewise because I was achieving faster, better and more than them in spite of their apparent worship of their status of which they flaunt like peacocks. And really, in reality, I think I was playing an inside joke with these people of which I think had I not venture out of my comfort zone, I would probably not have any interaction with. I would probably be growing a beard and looking more like a hippie than an executive in reality- not exactly privilege banking or corporate customers material.
Ok, if you look at my C.V- you would know I have been working in the banking and finance line for some time. You might be thinking I was strangely out of my depth and I was-initially that is- that's why I took another course in Finance; of which I did not exactly just to be familiar with the language, the terms and metrics of which to make sense of various reports- that's why I read financial reports like it was poetry, the arguments were really not that difficult truth be told- you just need to cut through the jargon.
I used my deconstructing language 101, coupled with capitalist ideas and mixed it with financial arguments which have economic roots really, and you can tell the quack from the real stuff. That's the reason I dissed technical analysis- in my world, numbers are numbers, it is meaning that we impute into it that makes sense. Hence if you can make a drawing out of seemingly random numbers plucked from a myriad of permutations, so can I make another drawing based on another set of numbers. Who wins- the one where most people believed wins isn't it.
I might have been an asshole for doing this and making a monkey and an inside joke on everyone- but really who ultimately lost. No one really lost and we just get disillusioned that's all and realized that the whole world is a one big damn lie. Hence trust me, you are not angry at me for making monkey out of you, you are angry at yourself being made a monkey by everyone else. We are really just monkeys at the end of the day- fooling ourselves that we are better than everybody else.
The uncommon Life
I have just read a novel. It has been a long time since I have mentioned to sit down and enjoyed reading a novel- not for any reason other than for the very sake of it.
I remembered previously that I have always enjoyed reading novels. But in recent years, my book list contains mostly on finding the origins of the financial crisis, on power and politics, history and culture of various countries. It seemed rather impressive but to a certain degree, it all seems extremely instrumental in it's nature.All these reading kept my mind focused on being economical and finding insight as opposed to self-discovery. It served me so well that I have turned into a machine- that made me too good at what I did- which made me wholly inaccessible and "effective" to a fault even.
I recalled reading Marxism, watching porn as a academic module, debating on " how making a hole is easier than making a pole" and making Freudian references. It is all too fun and when I started working, I knew that I had to put all these asides and cull my reading such that to capture the essence and be expedient rather than be really cut out all frills- the only thing that surprises me was how successful I was in doing so. That I have managed to strip everything down to it's essence and leave whatever Dionysian inclination out of the window.
The behaviour was utilitarian to a fault that all actions must have pragmatic bend otherwise it was absolute useless. The only difference was that when I marched forward, I left everybody behind. This made me a "one man everything"- and there was not a market for such a thing. The thing that made me so damn good, had also made me so damn ineffective.
Looking back, I must have to admit, I have swung perhaps too far to the pragmatic bend that made almost unpragmatic that made me no different from a machine or an Oracle. It made me quite incapable to respond to otherwise pretty common behaviour without trying to find a leverage or angle on it. I was too economical to a fault that people had to erect barriers just so they can prevent me from knowing them too well. To a certain degree, I am glad that I got distracted earlier otherwise I might not be able to survive to this age even.
Hence this reading of a novel have made me reclaim some part of me that I have lost. The part of which made living my life worthwhile thus far. The part of me where there were still wonder left where not everything can be articulated and compressed into a simple language.
Quite frankly, I am extremely surprised the extend of which I have moved from being student to a economical unit in such a short period of time. My learning curve was uncommonly short and such that I had to unlearned what I learned and learned back what I used to know intuitively.
I had to learn to live again.
I remembered previously that I have always enjoyed reading novels. But in recent years, my book list contains mostly on finding the origins of the financial crisis, on power and politics, history and culture of various countries. It seemed rather impressive but to a certain degree, it all seems extremely instrumental in it's nature.All these reading kept my mind focused on being economical and finding insight as opposed to self-discovery. It served me so well that I have turned into a machine- that made me too good at what I did- which made me wholly inaccessible and "effective" to a fault even.
I recalled reading Marxism, watching porn as a academic module, debating on " how making a hole is easier than making a pole" and making Freudian references. It is all too fun and when I started working, I knew that I had to put all these asides and cull my reading such that to capture the essence and be expedient rather than be really cut out all frills- the only thing that surprises me was how successful I was in doing so. That I have managed to strip everything down to it's essence and leave whatever Dionysian inclination out of the window.
The behaviour was utilitarian to a fault that all actions must have pragmatic bend otherwise it was absolute useless. The only difference was that when I marched forward, I left everybody behind. This made me a "one man everything"- and there was not a market for such a thing. The thing that made me so damn good, had also made me so damn ineffective.
Looking back, I must have to admit, I have swung perhaps too far to the pragmatic bend that made almost unpragmatic that made me no different from a machine or an Oracle. It made me quite incapable to respond to otherwise pretty common behaviour without trying to find a leverage or angle on it. I was too economical to a fault that people had to erect barriers just so they can prevent me from knowing them too well. To a certain degree, I am glad that I got distracted earlier otherwise I might not be able to survive to this age even.
Hence this reading of a novel have made me reclaim some part of me that I have lost. The part of which made living my life worthwhile thus far. The part of me where there were still wonder left where not everything can be articulated and compressed into a simple language.
Quite frankly, I am extremely surprised the extend of which I have moved from being student to a economical unit in such a short period of time. My learning curve was uncommonly short and such that I had to unlearned what I learned and learned back what I used to know intuitively.
I had to learn to live again.
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Always Close but never Closed enough
I have never been one to wallow in self-pity. Neither am I who cry for attention. But for the very first time in my life, now I know how self-pity can be such a comforting thought.
Judging from my previous entries, it is fairly obvious that I am a man who really cannot stand anything that is not done economically or thought out. It has been a curse and a bane of my life as I also try to live my life as expediently as I how I write it. One can say that when the law of diminishing returns start kicking in, it is always without fail that I am looking for the next springboard. Of course, some other's might differ, but I leave it to their designs.
It is by this behaviour that I-looking back- have been searching for the next springboard, hence I am not able to hang on onto anything substantial in the last couple of years. And it is this propensity that drives me also to plunge head first into whacked out ideas and even theories that have proven absurd to me previously. Sometimes, it is in the absurdity that we find the biggest gems. But it has been a risky venture as it turned out to be a fruitless endeavour which only end up in lost time and quite unsavoury reputation.
To understand something while internalizing old ones is a risky venture as one loses the sense of reality of which to make sense of the world. I tried desperately to incorporate something I know at the back of my hand of with something quite anti-thetical to it's assumptions and found that certain knowledge arise as a result of it rather than in spite of it. Hence when one attempts therefore to move the other way round- it often becomes a schizophrenic attempt of which no anchor is found in underpining it's two quite different assumptions.
For example, I attempted to understand Chinese culture and tried desperately to argue for a hierarchical society while attempting to use quite Euro-centric concepts, I found that the concepts were quite woefully out of depth in attempting quite a number of phenomenon. The reason is rather simple, certain terms and concepts are never fully expounded because the very act means having to perform sacrilege on it. And to perform something sacrilegious is sometimes in itself short-changing it in the first place. The attempt often fall short because there no language nor term to explain the particular phenomenon or experience as it is precisely the objective. Because to articulate it, is to short-change the process, and to short-change the process is to short-change the understanding.
And therefore having really step out of the zone, I have already performed quite sacrilegious and therefore- I would never fully understanding the whole experience and process however how hard I try. Therefore, my attempts in understanding and using it to my full advantage is really at best laughable. I have missed the first part and second part of the earlier stages therefore I would never fully grasp the third which should comes naturally as a result.
Likewise, my attempts has been woefully short and really did not come to me as naturally as it should be. At best, my attempts is to make it effective without interfering in the process in the first place. And for that I am not even needed- because I am not even clear of the whole process in the first place.
I will be locked out of the whole process because I think even young kids are better than me at this as they have picked up the first step and I really have no clue on the fundamentals in the first place. My education have proven to be rather successful thus far until I attempt to incorporate that with rather "conservative" concepts of which my understanding has no language to explain, The language is in the experience- and for that I have fallen woefully short as I cannot fast-forward nor "instant-nized" as it is not in concepts but rather muscle memory and sub-conscious reflexes that will even render me even more inept than young children.
Anyway, it is in the language of risk that perhaps I am more familiar with and I attempt to be something that I am neither accustomed to nor familiar with and even riled against in the first place. And now at this juncture, I realised that I am wholly inadequate in tackling what might seem even juvenile to most children. Hence perhaps at this particular point, perhaps it is part of process to recognize the limits of my ability to absorb what I am quite ill-equipped to grasp.
At least I tried and really I think I failed quite miserably even as much to understand the psyche and inner-workings of the art, it is in the process and experience that I have failed and however how hard I tried, the tradition remains perfectly malleable to incursions of language and concepts: always close but never close enough.
Judging from my previous entries, it is fairly obvious that I am a man who really cannot stand anything that is not done economically or thought out. It has been a curse and a bane of my life as I also try to live my life as expediently as I how I write it. One can say that when the law of diminishing returns start kicking in, it is always without fail that I am looking for the next springboard. Of course, some other's might differ, but I leave it to their designs.
It is by this behaviour that I-looking back- have been searching for the next springboard, hence I am not able to hang on onto anything substantial in the last couple of years. And it is this propensity that drives me also to plunge head first into whacked out ideas and even theories that have proven absurd to me previously. Sometimes, it is in the absurdity that we find the biggest gems. But it has been a risky venture as it turned out to be a fruitless endeavour which only end up in lost time and quite unsavoury reputation.
To understand something while internalizing old ones is a risky venture as one loses the sense of reality of which to make sense of the world. I tried desperately to incorporate something I know at the back of my hand of with something quite anti-thetical to it's assumptions and found that certain knowledge arise as a result of it rather than in spite of it. Hence when one attempts therefore to move the other way round- it often becomes a schizophrenic attempt of which no anchor is found in underpining it's two quite different assumptions.
For example, I attempted to understand Chinese culture and tried desperately to argue for a hierarchical society while attempting to use quite Euro-centric concepts, I found that the concepts were quite woefully out of depth in attempting quite a number of phenomenon. The reason is rather simple, certain terms and concepts are never fully expounded because the very act means having to perform sacrilege on it. And to perform something sacrilegious is sometimes in itself short-changing it in the first place. The attempt often fall short because there no language nor term to explain the particular phenomenon or experience as it is precisely the objective. Because to articulate it, is to short-change the process, and to short-change the process is to short-change the understanding.
And therefore having really step out of the zone, I have already performed quite sacrilegious and therefore- I would never fully understanding the whole experience and process however how hard I try. Therefore, my attempts in understanding and using it to my full advantage is really at best laughable. I have missed the first part and second part of the earlier stages therefore I would never fully grasp the third which should comes naturally as a result.
Likewise, my attempts has been woefully short and really did not come to me as naturally as it should be. At best, my attempts is to make it effective without interfering in the process in the first place. And for that I am not even needed- because I am not even clear of the whole process in the first place.
I will be locked out of the whole process because I think even young kids are better than me at this as they have picked up the first step and I really have no clue on the fundamentals in the first place. My education have proven to be rather successful thus far until I attempt to incorporate that with rather "conservative" concepts of which my understanding has no language to explain, The language is in the experience- and for that I have fallen woefully short as I cannot fast-forward nor "instant-nized" as it is not in concepts but rather muscle memory and sub-conscious reflexes that will even render me even more inept than young children.
Anyway, it is in the language of risk that perhaps I am more familiar with and I attempt to be something that I am neither accustomed to nor familiar with and even riled against in the first place. And now at this juncture, I realised that I am wholly inadequate in tackling what might seem even juvenile to most children. Hence perhaps at this particular point, perhaps it is part of process to recognize the limits of my ability to absorb what I am quite ill-equipped to grasp.
At least I tried and really I think I failed quite miserably even as much to understand the psyche and inner-workings of the art, it is in the process and experience that I have failed and however how hard I tried, the tradition remains perfectly malleable to incursions of language and concepts: always close but never close enough.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
You and I
In this rather practical world predicated on pragmatism and covert and overt power relations- it is not easy to lived a life based on happiness alone. In the most extreme form, happiness is quite divorced from reality insofar that one believes that it is survival of the fittest or "life is short, brutal and nasty". Happiness is therefore must have payoff otherwise, it is of absolute useless.
Hence if you see this from this particular perspective, if all our actions is calibrated towards maximizing our payoff- insofar then we would never be happy. Therefore any move without any strategic payoff is therefore seen an unnecessary expediation of precious strategic resources. Insofar, if you subscribe to this particular belief, you have just condemned yourself to an eternal chess game.
Strangely enough I have noticed that people play power games without even realising it. The subtle nuance to gain a leverage either via conventional stereotyping or psychological hoodwinking to them is a matter of "fitting in" insofar that everyone gets a share of the pie in the name of "teamwork". The survival notion is so strong in such groups such that most of them have been patrolled to never go beyond it's given circumscribed area- hence therefore never knowing how far one can go in terms of personal growth or experience. Hence insofar that, one have sacrificed happiness in the name of survival- and therefore since one have made this particular choice, one should never be unhappy for condemning oneself to living one social's roles for the rest of your life.
I do not see why one should condemned others for being brave insofar that one have made that choice to conformity.
Therefore, when one loses strategic advantage in the name of risk insofar to gain an additional experience or for growth, is not without due course. Very often, we categorized other's incapability and incapacity to fit in as "Ah Q"- in other words, so much self-absorbed that one lacks self awareness in one's ability to assess one's social status. Therefore one is seen as stupid and foolish- for losing precious resources, just so one can be happy for a brief moment.
Perhaps then, the habitual Machevallian- it is foolish- but to the philosopher, to other perhaps omnipotent beings- it is a particular valid choice. The only difference lies in the very fact, this happiness is insofar covered by particular stereotype. Hence in this satisfaction or contentment, one is safely happy. But a really simple question: describe a moment, you a safely happy and contended- and without the recognition of danger from young- how did you acquire this relative form of happiness in the first place. When you are younger, one is happy with a toy and 30 years later, how then are you not happy with the same thing- and since happiness is derived from experience, why then are you not always in constant bliss or happiness. You should isn't it- why then are you happy with playing the same social role for the rest of your in the first place?
It is never that I looked down on people who are less intelligent- but rather it is that most of us have this particular choice and insofar that I do not feel smirk but I do feel a sense of sympathy and pity even. Most are quite capable of many things- looking from the answers that they give- but their unwillingness to step out for their box- of which they have horned from young- meant that they have condemned themselves to this role. Hence insofar in this case, to destroy this box that they have created for themselves or someone have created for them, would be to leave in paralysis and lost. Unless one is willing to take a risk, there would always remain a gap between you and me. I will not guarantee that you will live a good, happy and fulfilling life- and if I do, I would have defeat the whole purpose in the first place.
Likewise, people have the notion that I am progressive, different and special if they are nice, weird, strange, and abnormal if that day on the week comes. And they think I have something special or different to offer them and they want to copy or wish replicate and otherwise, do the direct opposite, to differentiate themselves. Let me tell you: don't do that. Not because I am better than you and on one can copy me but rather you wasting your time and creating a pipe dream for yourself. It wears nicely on me because I did it- it might not wear nicely on you because you are doing what I did.
On the second note, some people have called me stupid and why do I keep on repeating the same mistakes and I must be grateful and thankful. It is never because that I am not grateful or thankful, neither is it because, I did not learn my mistakes, it is simply because that when you take that away from me, what is left of me.
Likewise, if your entire life is predicated on fitting yourself in a zero-sum set-up then ultimately, your life remains a total zero even if you have the whole world at the cusp of your hands. I do not think that I have lived frivolous life but the very fact that people have taken advantage of that particular situation meant that they have a particular notion of which they are willing to lived for their rest of their life. Otherwise, there is nothing left to exploit insofar that you believed the cup is constantly full- and anything spilled is matter of life and death. If everyday, your life is on tenterhooks, what more can you say about your life, worldview and ideology- constantly looking for an anchor of which none really exist. And if strength, faithfulness and fidelity are desired qualities, then insofar that loyalty, integrity and justice must exist, otherwise, there is nothing left but a matter of power relations masquerading as reciprocity, feelings, friendship and kinship.
Likewise, I am distant because you are distant from yourself. If you are not comfortable of yourself then insofar, I would only interact with your "for itself" and insofar, once in a while, I let you win, just cause I can live a better life than you did.
Neither am I your knight in shining armour and neither am I your hero, patriot or champion, you do not deserve one unless you are one yourself. Neither am I your competitor, your nemesis or love rival, I have never considered anyone to be one because they are playing in their own box- and all I did is merely to amuse them in the way platable to their box. You are your worst enemy- if you don't even know yourself, how do I know I am better than you- and if you constantly seek gratification and satisfaction from someone else, then you have no business taking me on.
Likewise, I am not your pyschologist- therefore go and find a shrink or a fight club. I am not your diametric opposite- you are.It is tough playing your diametric opposite, just so you can prove to yourself that you are right-similarly, likewise for yourself, you think you are amusing me, the feeling is rather mutual really. Stop acting to keep yourself in play, know yourself and you don't need to focus on other's. Focus on yourself and how you can grow rather than proving yourself relative to other's. There is nothing here, move on.
On the second note, I would not be appreciative that if you help me to achieve a personal vendetta. Fix yourself first before you come and fix me. Similarly, do not use me to achieve your personal vendetta. It is your own personal problem- not mine. And if I do help you, do not be grateful- I did it more out of sympathy than empathy. I only help you along with the crutch thats all.
Hence if you see this from this particular perspective, if all our actions is calibrated towards maximizing our payoff- insofar then we would never be happy. Therefore any move without any strategic payoff is therefore seen an unnecessary expediation of precious strategic resources. Insofar, if you subscribe to this particular belief, you have just condemned yourself to an eternal chess game.
Strangely enough I have noticed that people play power games without even realising it. The subtle nuance to gain a leverage either via conventional stereotyping or psychological hoodwinking to them is a matter of "fitting in" insofar that everyone gets a share of the pie in the name of "teamwork". The survival notion is so strong in such groups such that most of them have been patrolled to never go beyond it's given circumscribed area- hence therefore never knowing how far one can go in terms of personal growth or experience. Hence insofar that, one have sacrificed happiness in the name of survival- and therefore since one have made this particular choice, one should never be unhappy for condemning oneself to living one social's roles for the rest of your life.
I do not see why one should condemned others for being brave insofar that one have made that choice to conformity.
Therefore, when one loses strategic advantage in the name of risk insofar to gain an additional experience or for growth, is not without due course. Very often, we categorized other's incapability and incapacity to fit in as "Ah Q"- in other words, so much self-absorbed that one lacks self awareness in one's ability to assess one's social status. Therefore one is seen as stupid and foolish- for losing precious resources, just so one can be happy for a brief moment.
Perhaps then, the habitual Machevallian- it is foolish- but to the philosopher, to other perhaps omnipotent beings- it is a particular valid choice. The only difference lies in the very fact, this happiness is insofar covered by particular stereotype. Hence in this satisfaction or contentment, one is safely happy. But a really simple question: describe a moment, you a safely happy and contended- and without the recognition of danger from young- how did you acquire this relative form of happiness in the first place. When you are younger, one is happy with a toy and 30 years later, how then are you not happy with the same thing- and since happiness is derived from experience, why then are you not always in constant bliss or happiness. You should isn't it- why then are you happy with playing the same social role for the rest of your in the first place?
It is never that I looked down on people who are less intelligent- but rather it is that most of us have this particular choice and insofar that I do not feel smirk but I do feel a sense of sympathy and pity even. Most are quite capable of many things- looking from the answers that they give- but their unwillingness to step out for their box- of which they have horned from young- meant that they have condemned themselves to this role. Hence insofar in this case, to destroy this box that they have created for themselves or someone have created for them, would be to leave in paralysis and lost. Unless one is willing to take a risk, there would always remain a gap between you and me. I will not guarantee that you will live a good, happy and fulfilling life- and if I do, I would have defeat the whole purpose in the first place.
Likewise, people have the notion that I am progressive, different and special if they are nice, weird, strange, and abnormal if that day on the week comes. And they think I have something special or different to offer them and they want to copy or wish replicate and otherwise, do the direct opposite, to differentiate themselves. Let me tell you: don't do that. Not because I am better than you and on one can copy me but rather you wasting your time and creating a pipe dream for yourself. It wears nicely on me because I did it- it might not wear nicely on you because you are doing what I did.
On the second note, some people have called me stupid and why do I keep on repeating the same mistakes and I must be grateful and thankful. It is never because that I am not grateful or thankful, neither is it because, I did not learn my mistakes, it is simply because that when you take that away from me, what is left of me.
Likewise, if your entire life is predicated on fitting yourself in a zero-sum set-up then ultimately, your life remains a total zero even if you have the whole world at the cusp of your hands. I do not think that I have lived frivolous life but the very fact that people have taken advantage of that particular situation meant that they have a particular notion of which they are willing to lived for their rest of their life. Otherwise, there is nothing left to exploit insofar that you believed the cup is constantly full- and anything spilled is matter of life and death. If everyday, your life is on tenterhooks, what more can you say about your life, worldview and ideology- constantly looking for an anchor of which none really exist. And if strength, faithfulness and fidelity are desired qualities, then insofar that loyalty, integrity and justice must exist, otherwise, there is nothing left but a matter of power relations masquerading as reciprocity, feelings, friendship and kinship.
Likewise, I am distant because you are distant from yourself. If you are not comfortable of yourself then insofar, I would only interact with your "for itself" and insofar, once in a while, I let you win, just cause I can live a better life than you did.
Neither am I your knight in shining armour and neither am I your hero, patriot or champion, you do not deserve one unless you are one yourself. Neither am I your competitor, your nemesis or love rival, I have never considered anyone to be one because they are playing in their own box- and all I did is merely to amuse them in the way platable to their box. You are your worst enemy- if you don't even know yourself, how do I know I am better than you- and if you constantly seek gratification and satisfaction from someone else, then you have no business taking me on.
Likewise, I am not your pyschologist- therefore go and find a shrink or a fight club. I am not your diametric opposite- you are.It is tough playing your diametric opposite, just so you can prove to yourself that you are right-similarly, likewise for yourself, you think you are amusing me, the feeling is rather mutual really. Stop acting to keep yourself in play, know yourself and you don't need to focus on other's. Focus on yourself and how you can grow rather than proving yourself relative to other's. There is nothing here, move on.
On the second note, I would not be appreciative that if you help me to achieve a personal vendetta. Fix yourself first before you come and fix me. Similarly, do not use me to achieve your personal vendetta. It is your own personal problem- not mine. And if I do help you, do not be grateful- I did it more out of sympathy than empathy. I only help you along with the crutch thats all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
