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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


  

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.

  

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.

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.

Education

There have always been two schools of thought regarding education. One of which is that it enlightens insofar that it goes beyond common prejudices and stereotypes. The other sees education as instrumental in nature and seen as means of given end- often economic or social goals.

But in recent chaotic times, education is now seen as liability. It is seen as lacking in street cred and a byword for poor social product of a misguided generation which prides paper qualification over actual action.

It has proven without doubt and quite across a number of cultures and cutting across all context that education is not a liability but rather as a tool for emancipation and as a economic tool as well. I have seen this really ridiculous fad of ridiculing those whom have had done well academically and at this current moment comes of melting pot of strange occupation which replaces the academic route- singers, online stars, overnight Internet tycoons and quite a number of hare-brained ideas.

Brand-name schools no longer counts for anything more than a source of embarrassment for those that did not attend them. The previous era of branded snob appeal is replaced by a haphazard recognition which resembles anything close to fame. It was politically incorrect and impolite to mention that you come from brand-name schools to other's whom might not have attend them- and now it is replaced by a sense of guilt for having succeeding in a route which the "common" person did not attend. One almost feel inferior that one pay good money and spend good effort and time in obtaining an education as compared with someone whom have roamed the street and obtained street smarts and know the common prejudices more than anyone else.

The flattening out of the social structure is at this current juncture resembles that of a bazaar- where anything goes and anything comes so long as there is a price. This is fueling short term fads, speculations and crack pot theories, manias and crisis in the name of political corrected-ness.

The snob appeal is replaced by an unhealthy lack of skepticism resulting from the devaluation of education in the first place. It is almost to the era of who blinking first- regardless of whether quality- an overemphasis on situational brinkmanship and one-upmanship. It is ushering the eras of superstition in the name pusedo-scientific theories under the banner of political-correctedness. Being polite doesn't you are right, it means that I respect your point of view but it doesn't mean that I agree with you.

There are some things that education and conventional explanations are unable to argue convincingly but similarly, it doesn't mean the admission of all things which sound plausible and yet quite un-true.
Education have this value of opening your eyes and giving new perspectives- but it doesn't mean admitting everything new, it breaks down existing prejudices but it doesn't mean that everything else that we did not see previously becomes true. Otherwise, everything else will have no value whatsoever- insofar that you can hoodwink the person opposite of you.

Street cred is being realistic but it doesn't mean that it is the whole truth.

This flattening out of social structure, the political corrected-ness of not being snobbish, the value of opening your mind is not an excuse for any con-artist to enter into legitimacy in the name of universal suffrage.

It is true that changes comes from uncomfortable times, but when we know something smells fishy and stinks of a con, a sum of all of parts explanation is not good enough to look away of which is ultimately really taking advantage of an ideal of which is to allow a competition of contesting ideas and not an excuse for allowing any person putting self-interest in the name of general interest.



   

Aging Population

There are two truths in life as they say: death and taxes. The latter is adjustable, the former well, let us discuss things that happen prior to that. Most of us would probably die of old age- of wear and tear and illness-, but the slow burning question is that what happens to the environment as we grow older and of course vice versa.

There are a few responses to aging- one is that of piety- the respect of older folks as the guiding light. 2) tradition- one of which rituals and rites are used to guide appropriate behaviour and dissent in the community. The last is of context- we are the product of times and therefore we must move with the times and not vice versa.

The capitalist system has produced a couple of responses to that of a aging population. Initial responses where that of pension schemes and retirement schemes- both voluntary and mandatory. This is ensure that the retired and older folks have a basic standard of living after they retire and also funds to meet various medical needs as they grow older. This has raised taxes, increased private and public cost and at the same time made economies somewhat uncompetitive- resulting from the senority based reward system.

Another system is that community based aging system. The community replaced the state as the caregiver- and the state would only provide indirect financial assistance. The onus is therefore on the community and family to provide care in the retirement. The reason for it's relative infancy is that of it's uninstitutionalized character within a bureaucratic capitalist system. The informal nature meant the sprawling administration is seen as being helpless and cruel in not directly servicing it's citizens- of which is implicitly understood as the basic provision of the state- in providing rights of it's citizens if one is unable to fulfil it's obligations due to extenuating circumstances- in a social contract.

The last response of which is even more rare is that total community aging response. There are no private property- and only community property. Therefore the community decides on it's needs of the various individuals as if they were equals. The lack of institutional character meant that it does not exist except that of in small communities such as kibbutzim.

Socialism and communism even with it's equality ideals and communal ideas often fall short in execution as it eventually relies on it's bureaucratic character to deliver social goods to it's citizens. The most recent response is that of communitarianism- of which society is the state and vice versa- and with it's rather Orwellian speak, it often come under the purview of another facade for authoritarianism.

Ultimately then, the various responses of which to approach generational divide is often 2 means 1) institutional care 2) community welfare. But in providing retirement facilities for the aged does not answer the question: Does doing this transfer the burden to the young and hence by extension, does the market rule in society or really the community rule society and therefore the economy- and as such how competitive are we then if our response then if it is tha latter and secondly are we no more than market players for the former.

This divide and clash between the "old" and the "new" is more divisive than most thought out to be. The latter believes that they arise out of a vacuum and am above the history, context and structure of prevailing norms and values. They want to be "stars" and assert their individualistic personna by setting themselves in direct opposite of it the public character- thinking that they were newer, better and stronger. But the question remains that they are nothing more than the other side of a same coin.

After all, how can we rebel or be different without somebody being the authority or being conventional in the first place. Some want to test the system and climb up the system by employing unconventional means- having the very idea that he merited the place by the very virtue of being newer, or better, or faster in the new system. But really, how can one be "better" without someone being "worse". Ultimately, most employ to this particular tactic thinking that they have succeeded in the market place- but they managed only to semantically switch places in their brains and nothing else. They are not better or "newer" or "faster"- they basically just flip the coin thats all. The market will eventually punish them for adding no value in it other than flipping the coin. Chameleon will always remains chameleons. No risk is taken in changing colours and therefore- they will always be eating insects and spiders.

Hence, the common refrain in that the new complained that the old refuse to budge and the market will always punished the slow, the weak and the out-of-date. But the fact remains is the methods employed often are uncreative, a poor derivative of the original, lacking in imagination and vision and a lack of risk and gumption; and seems to derived it's competitive edge by constantly shifting the semantic categories and employing sometimes quite anti-social and ethically questionable- even though not illegal- techniques in gaining an upper hand.

The old on the other hand- is the master of asserting it's authority and therefore often espoused the need for respect and tradition- similarly often employs moral suasion to make a point. They do not need to be "better", "faster" or "stronger", they just need to sit there- and most are quite happy to do so- to survive. They lack the ambition and drive- and understandably so, given their age- and are comfortable with the status quo, after all, it benefits them more than anything else anyway. I had a boss who told me this: the less you do, the less mistakes you make. That very often is their mantra. It is both the product of the convention and that of a bureaucratic capitalist system imposition on the labour market requirements on non-capital owners. They condemned themselves to their fate as much as they condemned other's to their similar fate.

Hence, affirmative action preferring either ends often distort the already distorted markets. Therefore the solution is not to prefer one over the other or to encourage market-based solution- as an "objective" "by-the-way" solution.

More then 50% of the young in Spain is jobless, in most countries there are more graduates than there are graduate jobs available- in Japan, Korea, U.S. The ultimate solution is jobs, jobs and more jobs. It is not good enough to argue about the semantics of changing market place- but really where to find the capital to create jobs, and keep the economy chugging along as well.

Given the above numbers, it is not the time to argue about semantics of market place- but nothing really matters until you can put the food on the table. The numbers are drastic, any positive change is positive change, and until you can outpace jobs with labour growth, it doesn't really matter how you do it. The above argument will not exist as such.

Overkill

I am not the type to poke fun at people lifestyles. Sometimes, I do respect the life choices of people from different background but I find it rather strange that they need to flash their life for everyone to see. It's a Facebook thing and a social media thing I supposed but sometimes, we really don't want to know where you went between 7 to 9 and how does your child's poo looked like or even how many strands of hair your kid have.

Yes, we share your joy but really isn't that sometimes a little bit of an overkill.

I really find it rather strange that when you were in school and was a dork- you don't really flash the number of hours you played in World of Warcraft or how badly your date went but now you flash your kid like she was Kate Middleton and your family photos like you were BranAngelina.

Yes we do share your joy and we are happy that you are happy- but don't hogged the limelight vicariously through the child or family. Once or twice, we are genuinely happy, third time, we are politically correct, and anything more, is just killing the moment. Savour your moment while you can- yes at my age, a family is the in Thing and everybody's doing it. And family always get positive publicity everywhere- but really: I get this rather sneaky feeling that the more you try to hawk your family and children after 30, the more unpopular and geeky you were in school or younger.

It feels like payback- but the bad thing is that, it is just politically incorrect to rile against wholesome families but I guess it is probably fine to rile against socially awkward students. There is almost no outlet to vent legitimate frustration against those who seemed to parade themselves and their family for some photo-gawking time which they missed in school.

As you grow older and perhaps you were left single for whatever reason- perhaps anything after 30- it feels like you are the awkward kid back in class now. It feels like I have to have a family to be "cool" and to "fit in".

I resent that and I do not wish for the rest of my 30-40 years of my life to be rested on an instinct to "be cool". "Being cool" when you are younger requires little commitment but after 30, narcissism have no part left in being cool.

Therefore, I hoped for those who are happily married with kids- we genuinely are happy for you- but really sometimes, just don't kill the moment for yourself.

P/S: I really do not dislike families and marriage but sometimes, people kill themselves parading themselves. I love you but just don't put it in my face. You get the drift...

Game Theory

Game Theory is the science behind how people make decisions. It is the interplay of which whether the players would cooperate or to be self-interested. The Game is essentially simple- it is put a various amount of permutations of which who will nudged the player to rat out on a person or to cooperate with a fellow player or "prisoner" to achieve a win-win outcome. Very often, the game is played out assuming perfect information and that all player's decision are rational.

That is the reason game theory is used frequently in economics, politics and many other forms of social sciences- of which is to "predict" the behaviour of fellow human beings as social and rational actors.

Game theory was aptly shown in the movie: " A Beautiful Mind" where, John Nash protagonist started out from the idea whereby how come all the blond girls ultimately are left alone- because all the men where chasing them ironically.

The theory of course have more larger utilities beyond dating but it is the idea that how can achieve a given outcome given a benefit and punishment system. But like all Grand Theory, it has four fatal flaws 1) it is deterministic 2) homogeneity is a given 3) all players have perfect information 4) all players are rational creatures

The problem with all "Grand Theory" is that purports to explain all human behaviour without really clarifying the underlying assumption of which is the above.

1) Determinism is the belief that the theory will follow reality and we believe that the causal relationship is vice versa as well. And if it does, we would have created an utopia on earth- and all knowledge is made redundant.

2) Homogeneity is a given. In the game, all players are rational creatures, but the problem with reality is that what is carrot to some might be punishment to others. And vice versa. Hence therefore given such a scenario, the eventual outcome is an equilibrium of which is not reflective of the values of the players. For rationality to succeed in such circumstance, homogeneity must be a given. Otherwise weights and values are not given place in the carrot and the stick.

3) Perfect Information. This is related to the second. Perfect information refers firstly that all players have equal amount of information of which to decide the best outcome for himself/herself. But if what I viewed as important of which you don't and vice versa- and ultimately both have differing assumptions of each other, the game itself is skewed. Equilibrium can never be reached because both parties are searching for different things. What then ultimately transpired would always be a string of short run unsettled stable points isn't it.

4) All players are rational creatures. This assumption has been attacked by all corners and by every of scientist everywhere. Hence I will not say further but the ultimate payoff is that if we are all rational creatures- why aren't we aren't equally rich in the first place.

Since we are on this topic of Game Theory, I just like to add little more spice into this discussion. Since I have some knowledge of the Game Theory, why aren't am I applying to your personal life in the first place and secondly, and since you are so familiar with the game, I should be excellent at playing it isn't it.

Ultimately then, it must be said, one must look into assumption 2) and 3) for the answers. What is perfect information- and really is that the life you wish to live: and look assumption 4) and in the end we come back to 1), do we really wish to our live in this way.

At the end of the day, all knowledge is tautological and really as they say: "we are wiser when we know that we don't know."

Eugene

Choices, Dialectics and Subversion

I have written about the idea of dialectics which I have applied in many areas. Once again, quite a number of people have taken this synthetical idea to a literal sense. It should be viewed from at an abstract level and not on a micro level. Dialectics only work insofar that on a certain aggregate level- it should not be used as a form of conflict for conflict sake; hence justifying starting an argument just so to gain an upper hand. It goes against the principle in the first place.

The idea of conflict resolution insofar that the outcome would be better than a preponderant force imposing it's will on the general interest. Therefore the idea of starting an argument just so to gain an upper hand is in itself a cop-out and rigging of the idea in the first place. The reason is very simple- the intention is to impose it's will in the first place- the idea of conflict is just a means to an end, an end of which is to perpetuate it's own interest.

Therefore it results in an escalation of tension of which is detrimental to the spirit of it in the first place. Therefore one who starts an argument just for the sake of starting one while pretty familiar in the final outcome is in itself stating a parochial interest in the name of a general one.

It is therefore that the final outcome is ultimately worse off- this is because in comparison with a harmonious model where harmony and hierarchy rules, how does maintain this model while espousing another- which is ultimately the conflict one. Insofar in this case, it stated intention is a dialectical one but it's real one is that of harmonious and hierarchical one. Therefore of course we do better if we say and do harmony but how does one say conflict and do harmony. It's final outcome is already in itself a foregone conclusion.

Therefore, in order to operationalize this idea in our everyday actions while being aware of it's aggregate outcome is ultimately the way for it to work. Because prevailing interest always attempt to prevail, there includes in everyday discourse, in the intelligentsia and in the mass media. Hence it would be easy to see the idea in operation- the idea of conflict for conflict sake- while remaining ignorant that it's form prevails over the function.

This can be felt in an angst that we feel everyday- the existential question whereby where does my actions genuinely lead to? And if it leads otherwise, why the hell do we still follow it in the first place.

And the moment you take that route that somehow doesn't feel right- there is a sense of fatalism and it is only cured by all forms of pressure and tension releasing exercises- of which I believed most of us are already quite familiar with.

And the cycle continues every single day and minute. You are never released until the day you die, somehow is the feeling that you get.

Therefore that's why I have previously stressed on the importance of choices. The choices that we make every single day, aggregates the outcome on any given day. Hence if there is intention to cop-out, and sufficient people does the same thing, eventually the sense of fatalism feels even more heavier.

But the problem remains is that the moment I put it in words- it is then subjected to subversion. Someone would ask you the amount of water you drink today would result in when you would die- it is subverting the idea of choices to add an even harder dosages of fatalism. That's the reason that my ideas and thoughts were subverted till this end insofar that to perpetuate a prevailing interest. I am restricted by words but the idea remains authentic.

Choices make or break your day, but ignoring some choices is in itself a choice- because we must be aware that why should be forced to make a choice in the first place; who are these people to impose a choice on us in the first place- and decide our future for the rest of our lives.

Not making a choice is not being random- it is therefore that information is needed before making a choice, and not having to make a choice just because someone forced you to. Are you are playing Russian Roulette.

Subversion is not just restricted to the young and reckless- anyone can subvert it for their own ends. It is the intention that lies behind it- one is to assert an interest, the other is to perpetuate their's. Subversion is hollowing out of the words and to fill one's own to serve it's own interest and nothing else.

Therefore insofar that the ideas and thoughts I have written were already well-recognized among many- it surprises me that it could be twisted to a form quite unrecognizable by many familiar with it. I did not promote conflict- and to start an argument just for the sake one- neither did I say to make a choice on even how much water you want to drink to prevent drowning- all I ever did say was that the choices we make ultimately would make synthesis and not to continue one.

Therefore we have to recognize when the idea was being subverted in the first place- and the angst that one would feel is symptomatic in that, something is amiss. Why do I feel short-changed- one way or another- it's like damned if I do and damned if I don't?

That is really when your interest has been siphoned off from you. You would have done much better otherwise. Why must you make you choice in the first place- who says that drinking ice-cream today will lead to obesity 40 years later?

These are not choices but "categories" created insofar to contain your desires inasmuch that it could be used to better manage your needs. Management is not fatalism- if your cup is always full, then how do hell do you move your cup without spilling anything in the first place. When your cup is too full and filled to the brim. It would mean then that, no other substance can go in- hence how then can your cup be constantly full every single time; unless you can tell the future. And if we can, why do we bother working in the first place.

Really at the end of the day, this is not a clarion call to start a rebellion or revolution- this is a clarion call to ask yourself every single day, what have you done to improve your lot. The reason is very simple, people will always want to perpetuate their own interest- starting a revolution could just play into their own hands. How then could you improve your interest and lot without ever being made to make fatalistic choices- these are NOT divinely made choices, but constructed categories; it is malleable and have always been, otherwise the world would be stagnant for a long time.

6 Beliefs

There have been alot of confusion upon what I believed in. Some believed that I believed in nothing at all while other's think that I am attempting to recreate a new age thing or some believed that I am a derivation of something existing and I am trying to usurp their position. Normally I do not bother with trying to categorize who is the subset of what and vice versa. I do not attempt to trace my origins but I would try to write out what I believed in- and the rest is out of my hands and I leave it to you to decide.

Firstly I do not attempt to answer the question whether god or other ther-worldly things exist. I find it a futile attempt because if it would really exist, I believed that everyone would be the first to know or last to know. Because then in this case, we would have an utopia or dystopia on this world. Till that day comes, I would stay as an agnostic- a belief that something supernatural exist but we just do not know what it is- because I do not believed I know everything and can always make the best decision every time and even if we can know everything- we are restricted by the language that we speak.

Secondly, contrary to popular belief that I am a lazy bastard- I believed that we reap what we sow. Therefore sitting at home and doing nothing, pretending that something will drop from the sky and save us from our misery is just wishful thinking. The only reason that I did that was rather altruistic- however naive that might have sound. My thoughts was that I thought it was best to write as often as I could and to help as many as I could given some form of special privilege- but it was just that the world moved faster than I could write. Hence some new fangled stuff probably replace what I have written without me getting any leverage on that.

I knew it was rather silly of me to believed that but I took a risk- and not all risk are for self-interested reasons only- and it was a notion to believed that I had a pipe dream to be an Internet Star or the next the J K Rowling. This was nothing further from the truth. Perhaps it would be good to expand on the above. We often assume risk is associated with reward- and the first thing that comes to find is material rewards. Therefore then, in this case, when we took risk, it must be for the reason of more personal rewards.

But the thing is that it is true that to a certain degree, I did it for self-interested reason- but if we increase risk just to increase more rewards, then a person with mountains of cash would have reaped the most rewards isn't it. But because he had put in mountains of case, wouldn't that mean, he had to expect mountains of cash to come back to him as well. What have I got to lose- time. I did not really put in a ton of effort at the same time, neither did I put in any money- but what I gotten back: the very fact that you are still reading this blog in spite of my so-called "scandals".

But of course, I would not know the material rewards resulting from this effect but this is a commodity of which many people spends tons of effort, money and time doing it- I did it just by sitting at home and typing away. I can foresee right now, some person trying to replicate this effect just at this current moment, but you would have put in alot more effort just to differentiate yourself from me- and perhaps then it would be time for me to move on to some other things.

Thirdly, I do not discriminate anyone based on their race, religion or other forms of obvious markers. The only reason I ever appear to be so otherwise was that: I am human. I have my own personal preferences. I do not need to explain to anyone why I choose one over another just because he/she was different from the rest. I am choosing what I eat, wear and other things- I am not writing a policy here.

Fourthly, that I loved money more than anything else in the world. I have a depleting bank account and net worth, and yet I do not worry about getting my next meal. The reason is that I took a risk, and I knew that this would have an impact- and I had to deal with it when the time comes. If I had worried about the next meal, I wouldn't even have taken this step in the first place. Then it is that, the money is a means to an end but the end would be that the money would eventually have to be taken care care off for the end to have any chance of succeeding. It is that I shed my assets and money- and had I taken the route of seeing the money as the end goal and the only goal, I would have sat in my cushy job and not have done anything in the first place. There was not even a need for me to do that if that was my only reason.

Fifthly, I do not care what you believed in or what you think that of what I think of you. I do not hold like hold long term grudges neither do I detest anyone based on their personal beliefs or habits. And of course like anyone, I expect basic level of social manners, hygiene and presentation- other than that, I do not hold like a personal vendetta towards anyone.

Lastly, that I imposed my views upon others: like what I have said at the start of this entry, I can only say things that I believed to my best ability is true, accurate and beneficial. The rest like I say is up to you. 

Suddenly I appear all the more normal and no different from each and everyone of you.

There are no sweeping statements there neither are there any ambitious proclamations- therefore I leave it to you to decide is there anything quite conflictual in my beliefs.

Eugene

Life Imitate Art

There was boy who enjoyed playing board games. The objective of the board game is very simple- the idea is to switch the colours at the right time at any given move to gain the most points and the most soldiers.

This game was invented by himself but it soon spread to his friends. And therefore after a while he invited his friends over to play this new board game that he recently invented.

The rules of this game is very straightforward. Each person is entitled to one statement and one colour at every move. At the end of every statement, everyone have choice to exchange colours at the permission of the owner. Therefore the person who makes the popular statement and the one who holds the clout very often who most of cards and will only switch the cards only when the interest is best for him.

The thing about this game ultimately is not about the one makes popular statement and who holds the clout- the thing about this game is that to perform a sleight of hand to give a weaker card to it's opponent without him even realise that his permission is seek. How this is done is very simple. Firstly, pretend that he has an upper hand- then he would go out to purchase more soldiers for his team. And at the last moment, when making payment, give him the weaker card because very often the soldier is really the quality that he does not wished the seek and at this moment, he would switch his card with the purchaser- hence giving him the upper hand- without making a single effort.

Of course, the game was invented by him and therefore only he knows the rules the game. And so when more players come in join in the game- everyone wonder, how come he always seem to get the best card.

Of course, this was game invented by him when he was younger. And then he began to be obsessed with playing this game when he grew up. Therefore he know pretends that all his friends, enemies, associates and anyone related to him has a colour code. And so he assigned different colour codes to different people related to him.

 He bugged his old school friends to play with him to play his real life game- and eventually a few friends did eventually come to play this game. As this game got round that people were playing really games in their life, a cult game then became a reality game. Soon life imitates art. The colour code assigned to each type of person soon begins to replicate the personality associated to each colour code. Therefore the game became so popular that everyone started playing the game and even begin to strategize even in real life. Thinking that a good strategy would replicate a good outcome in their real and daily life. Soon getting the right colour was a ticket to good luck- no need for hard work really.

Therefore a game has become an obsession- and people started avoid certain colours because there was very little clout- unless someone had made a powerful statement to increase the influence of the particular group. It became painfully obvious, a game has turned into a reality circus show- everyone started wearing as many colour as they want to avoid being caught out. It was Mardi Gras show really.

People eventually was no longer interested in studying or working towards a better outcome- all they want to find out everyday was, what was the favourite colour tomorrow. Never mind, that the colour doesn't jumped out and work for you but basically, the only job was, what was favourite colour tomorrow- and everybody envisioned a positive day ahead, regardless of whether they earned or did not earned it. If they get it right, they thought they could make wishes and all his dreams will come true.

And soon everyone began to watch t.v, internet, radio and all other forms of media predicting the future for tomorrow-  because wearing the right colour and other permutations like the timing of statements was important in a "good luck" day, so people delay making decisions, going out and doing other things just so it can timed to perfection. They were effectively being controlled by all these communications without even realising it.

At the end of the day, the inventor of the game became very rich, powerful and all other things imaginable because he could predict accurately the flow of everything, because he held all the cards in the first place as he could switch quite expertly- as he was the inventor of the game in the first place and therefore made the rules anyway.

What started out as schoolboy game- turned out to be a global phenomenon, in which what happened in the head of the young school boy was replicated into real life. Giving life to simple objects, colours and symbols. Life imitated art. Art made lots money for this little boy.

One-upmanship

What is competition? Is competition just basically a matter of one-upmanship- a matter of winning every single battle which would lead to the victory of a war? Is one-upmanship just winning every single hissy fit- which would ultimately lead to a total victory- or one-upmanship just needless escalation of tension just to show the authority over another? And really of what use then is this authority if it does not breed any final outcome? Authority for authority sake- sounds like a dirty word isn't it.

Let us then pretend that authority has a need- or in other words we need leaders to map out the final vision and guide us along. And if authority is there to promote values- assuming that the vision is not some grand plan- then, really don't we all need saints rather than people who attempts one up-manship. Let us then pretend that one-upmanship has a positive value- henceforth, this up-manship must promote the value of competition and sense of competitive will rather than coercion for authority sake isn't it. This competitive will should breed therefore better outcomes of stronger collective group as opposed to weak collective which ultimately defeats the original intention- one could say. This is a value we attempt to inculcate but on the flip side- what does one-upmanship got to do with winning, since this is really the value we are trying to forged?

Therefore then, if we all want to get even for all the wrong-doings done- how then does one-upmanship pretend that getting even is tantamount to revenge for revenge sake? Ultimately, isn't that quite dissimilar from the idea of a competitive will of which is to win at the final game and not to getting even at every turn.

Therefore one-upmanship as an act of value almost appear to be quite incompatible with the actual behaviour of it. Therefore competition for competition sake and for it's very sake appears to have a material intention then to promote a sense of positive value. It is really at the end of day a matter of serving the interest of those who gains the most from one-upmanship. It is really for group interest rather than for general interest. Those who espouse the positive values of competition while getting every opportunity to take a payback serves no other interest other than those gains the most from one-upmanship- which is that who are one-up in the first place. The disposed never play hardball- it is not in their interest but if it does, it calls really for admiration than for condemnation.

Hence, the idea of one-upmanship or the escalation of competition is really an excuse for a fight- an unfair fight of which is to decimate rather than inculcate. Therefore those who propose such fights pretend to have the right of trampled pride but really at the end of the day abuse the right to be so insofar to stamp their authority and perpetuate their prevailing interest.

Apocalypse Now

Tech companies are no longer the tech companies that they used to be. It is such that tech companies were the high beta plays but now they almost appear to be like traditional brick and mortar companies. There seem to be a new fangled website or company every now and then, but now, tech companies are like the boogie man for everything that is wrong about a risk taking and capitalist society.

The sense is that tech companies is losing it's flavour and they have been slowly replaced by a constant pangs of impending crisis in every turn. There was the Eurozone crisis, then there was jobs crisis, there was the trading scandal crisis, there was the political standoff crisis. Crisis is the new event-driven play. Predict the next crisis and you can predict the next play- it would appear.

But crisis is not new. There have been crisis from the beginning of time, and every time they say there was an apocalypse, miraculously the market will still climb. And when there is calm in the storm, suddenly the market falls off the cliff. Fear is the sure fire way of getting jittery, not the price, and definitely not whether the company is corrupted or well-run or not- but rather a quite unspeakable fear that "something" is going happen. But I have noticed, all the crisis that has been talked about is like asking you to look left and look right before crossing the road, lest you get into an accident. The crisis they talked about almost never materializes.

This crisis is a suspension of your belief that mayhem is coming tomorrow. There have been calls for the end of the world from the Mayan calender, to Mar's landing and an asteroid hitting earth- strangely enough, after 5,000 years of human civilization, no one ever really caught one of these. Likewise for financial markets, every time they say this economy will collapse or that market will fall, it almost never seem happened- and it's market is less than 200 years old. The real crisis happens just when you think nothing is happening.

This fear I suspect is really not as fortuitous one thinks. It's contrived nature, is steeped in mass media culture where reporting of headline-grabbing numbers and statements breeds a sense of uneasiness rather than as a functional communication of data and information.

Reporting that the world will end tomorrow while continuing to report the world will end next week when it doesn't happen tomorrow- the media gets away with it because it is their job to inform rather than to judge. But the net effect of the world's news in half-hour's segment purports to to tell you the world will end tomorrow- with disasters, floods and landslides- while reporting a bush fire in another part of the world next week, it is almost the world is almost really flooding or on fire everyday. The world is so big, some shit is bound to happen somewhere somehow. We just need to pick it for you to read right.

Everyday, there will be another crisis and tomorrow will have some flood and next week there will be earthquake- and if let's say we want to sum up the world's events and report everything, you wouldn't watch the news.

The odds of a Ferrari driven by a mainland Chinese man knocking a taxi cab carrying a Japanese passenger every week is not that big- there are not enough of that in Singapore to cover the whole year, so I suggest that you do not read too much into another crisis of badly behaved foreigners.

Likewise, if you think that China will go into slowdown because the GDP missed by 0.1%- I think you missing the whole point, they have 1.3 billion people and half of them are pretty young. What do young Chinese want more than anything else- more money and jobs right. And does more productivity by many young agile hands perform better than aging albeit elitist and expert hands as an economy- or by extension what is the difference between earning $10,000 a year to $12,000 next year compared with earning $50,000 to $55,000 a year later- the former would find it easier to find jobs, the latter will have to upgrade itself. Unemployment, inflation and other economic issues always crops up- and then if these are crisis, I say most of us would have suffered a heart attack a long time ago.

Therefore similarly tech companies that lose money always existed- companies that lose money existed even before tech companies existed. But companies that existed while other companies lost money also existed. These were crisis even before tech companies faced a crisis- there were crisis even before companies existed. If crisis is a matter of semantics- then I suggest that stretch that definition just a little more, just to fit the modern version because the last I check, a slave loses his head for bringing too warm a water to drink not too long ago. Talk about a crisis.

Crisis ultimately is not to tell you the world is ending tomorrow but rather a crisis of confidence- insofar that you can check your own behaviour- rather than telling you that there is flood in a Pacific island hence it will hit you because a crisis is happening the world; and it is matter of time that it will hit you eventually.

Just so you know, the odds of hitting lottery is better than a apocalypse happening tomorrow because the odds of the former is a finite number and that of the latter is well- nil- because it has never happen before.

Nights

Eugene

Good and Evil

Is there a Good and Evil- is there an eternal war between God and Devil? I am not here to answer the question whether a God and Devil exist, these are questions beyond anything Science can offer- because Science has limits, God and the Devil- by it's definitions- has no limits.

In most cultures and religions, there is often a Good and Evil, a pain and joy, tears and laughter, a black and a white. We do not know one without knowledge of the other. Let us assume that we lived in paradise from birth, how then do we know sadness even when we encounter one, we might not even have the language to explain that emotion. Hence although, it would be very difficult to swallow for some, without evil, good cannot exist because we wouldn't know a bad egg from a good one since we are all the same hence by extension, in everyone language, we wouldn't know Us from Them or the "Others". Therefore in seeking our identity, we do not know ourselves if we do not the "Other" side or by what other name you want to call it.

Therefore when we stand on the side of "Good" for example, we ironically derive our identity from the "Bad' or "Evil" because insofar that the term "Good" does not exist in vacuum. Assuming that all of us is "Good", there would not be a good and evil- there would just be "us".

Hence let us assume that Good and Evil is verifiable, in other words, like in the movies, we see them as monsters or are extremely ugly, while the Good are well just like you and I- with common features- then by extension, we would know who to fight; and ironically there would no longer be no Evil in this world- since well like carbon on a sticky pan, we scrub it off till it's clean. But of course in reality things do not work this way.

Evil therefore in this world is not ugly- neither does it tell you that he is evil; but rather it is line drawn by human forces to tell what is "Good" and what is "Evil". Who is " us" and who is "them" or the "Others". Assuming that this line drawn is subjected then by a very human judgement- then how are we to say who is bad and who right.

Therefore the idea of "evil" assuming that the divine forces work in human objects- therefore could ironically be wrong. Hence then the idea of "Good" and "Evil" without the intervention of an absolute sanctified by an unquestioned source- like a heaven's mandate-, is really quite subjective.

Therefore the vehemence laid upon the "Others" without first hand knowledge but reliant on a proxy authority is subject therefore to empty labelling and stereotyping. Stereotypes, symbols and badges without any real relationships are easy to dislike, real humans are not.

We can often trace the source of the division to how the society is organized and how we divide our work. Labourers are given certain symbols, managers are given certain status, and business owners are given other markers. Once we approportion out the lines, it is then easy to see the Us and Them, and whoever that does not perform the roles of it's ascribed status- is therefore "them", or really by any other names, evil, foreigners, untouchables and other tags. Hence once we apportion out the titles, it's own set morality and behaviour comes into play- and once again these are markers for the likelihood of all deviant tags.

It is then at this point that one realise that the wrong-ness of any particular act is really quite separate from the verdict meted out on any allegations. Therefore assuming then that "wrong-ness" has it's own code, the judgement can therefore be quite different for different sets of people. This ultimately flies in the face of this idea of really "Good" for "Good" sake and "evil" has it's just desserts."

Ultimately it really begs the question, let's say that someone from authority says this person is evil and he has an unquestioned legitimacy- ultimately he is all the human- which part of him/her can one say is guilty/evil/ wrong without finding out the due process. The price of a wrong judgement is laid upon the defendant rather than the audience, but it is the audience who watches and wishes not to be him/her- and that in itself has already work it's magic. Therefore being wrong is not punishable, but rather being caught wrong is the real punishment- there in itself is the biggest carrot for docile followers.

Black and Pink

A car is a car is a car isn't it. Or is it more than that. Some have argued that the colour, the brand and the model of car, shirt or any thing insofar that is associated to you means alot more than the function that it actually performs.

Hence by any extension, everything would be related to you since we all breath the same air and have the same features isn't it. It is then by pulling a little longer, the narration would always remained the same isn't it. If meaning of colours or any badge for that matter remain singularly faithful to it's original meaning, then we would have the same outcome from time immemorial isn't it. Therefore if a badge is worth more than the weight in gold, than of what function does gold perform other than to give it an exchange value.

But the material interest as such is that we buy and exchange things in value and not in badges, hence a change in badges can only suffice therefore if it generates the same amount of significance which can be exchange for something for the same value. Therefore we would never exchange a golden necklace for a golden T-shirt wouldn't we.

Hence a car or any thing that purports to perform beyond it's reported or expected function serves no other purpose than to signal to other's the meaning of it's audience. But if we were to break it down that communication is a function rather than a haloed need, we would then realise that we would have overpaid beyond what the mere function plus the "communicative value" it generates to it's audience.

Let us take it to the flip side that the meaning is indeed a haloed need, hence insofar to take this position is by extension to condemning yourself to repeating the story of it's original meaning. Therefore let us then assume that black is a symbol of death for everyone- which means that every single person and culture associates black with death- then by extension, we should never be drinking black coffee, T-shirt, pants, cars, watches and other material goods, because we would be in effect cursing ourselves isn't it. But why do we tolerate black moles on our face, hair, eyeballs but we cannot tolerate any other things associated to it.

Therefore to take this particular position is not that it is foolhardy or fatalistic but rather it is extremely difficult to see what is right and what is wrong. Of course, some would call these superstitious and it is really- if we do not believed beyond what we experienced- can be so, but rather taking an opposite direction would mean that we can explain everything and everything is knowable within human knowledge.

Hence it has been time immemorial that there is a tug between busting a myth and leaving to vagaries to something larger or beyond us, hence we would have known the answer at this juncture, we would be God or would have created an utopia on earth- because we would discovered something that sticks, an absolute that would stick which is unquestionably "true". Hence insofar that there are no agreement on the "true-ness" of any absolute, it would always be that symbols and anything performing beyond it's function has a communicative value to the intended audience. It therefore does not have any special significance other than it's intention to relay a meaning to it's cultural readers.

But at the end of the day, like many other things, you believed what you want to believe hence insofar that if one were to take offence at the above message, it is a piece that offers nothing more than an opinion. I leave it to you to believe that wearing a black shirt will save you from a bullet while wearing a pink bullet-proof vest does not.

An Elusive Wallpaper

The biggest myth in this world is possession. The belief in that just being there or having it is good enough.

This is an idea primordial perhaps in nature but imprinted perhaps from day one, and this is something everyone attempts to transcend. We seek beyond what it is external and satisfaction beyond the mere material form. It is therefore that we often are never satisfied. More is more to most and less is more to some- thinking a subversion, or an austere outlook gives us a visceral appreciation beyond it's mere possession. The idea remains the same, we seek satisfaction beyond this world.

Assuming then that I can give you an antidote to give you a somatic experience similar to this satisfaction, but it would ultimately always seem to fall woefully short. Life ultimately becomes one long addiction trail.

It ultimately leaves you with an insatiable appetite not for satisfaction but rather for a waunderlust for the unknown.

If we cannot possess it neither can we concoct it, it must then ultimately be it's elusiveness rather than it's actual experience that really matters. The actual experience of it is almost neglible if we have constant access to it isn't it.

Therefore the journey of it becomes in itself is an elusion isn't it. The idea of this "lust" for satisfaction then therefore cannot be measured by how much or how many but rather in it's ability to match the bodily experience with the actual work done isn't it.

Hence by extension, coming back again, we could potentially recreate this satisfaction simply by tweaking either side of the coin isn't. And how then- would a puppet feel that he/she is nothing more than a "puppet"? Once again this satisfaction however fortitious the person doing it feels while so, is nothing more than a sham. How then would you feel explaining to a child that Santa Claus does not exist. But really how would then the child knows that Santa Claus does not exist- will it crush him/her- no, I do not think so, but rather it is then the process of growing up isn't it.

When the child grows up, will he/she tell the same story to his/her children-probably yes- even if he/she knows it is untrue. Why- we think children knows any better. We think since we cannot be satisfied, we must satisfy our kids.

How far do we wish to concoct this myth for everyone to consume- is ultimately why the truth however bitter it seems, seems all the more sweeter. It finally explains why one is a hamster running a treadmill rather than really one really running around. The hamster realises that the cage it lives in is not a paradise filled with mountains and trees pasted around it's cage but really it is just a wallpaper.

It finally makes one realise that the contrived nature of their construction of reality- was made with intentions by someone else rather than a result of it's genuine expended somatically experienced labour or effort. Suddenly it makes everyone realise that the truth must ultimately be sweeter. Otherwise, why the secret?

If life is one big race- what if I told everyone sorry, you have always been running on the treadmill, you were not moving, the pictures were.

How then were the mere satisfaction to actually running to somewhere quite desirable when really it really is just a wallpaper. How then would simply getting there or getting a souvenir be all the more satisfactory. Therefore the race continues always to the next desirable wallpaper- which is the carrot sitting right in front of you when you run.

Elusive wallpaper- suddenly doesn't seem so enticing after all isn't it.

Noise

It is terrible living in a HDB flat. The amount of noise that one has to endure living in public housing is really overbearing. Noise from motorbikes without silencers, the braking of trains and generally the amount of noise that one hears from living in close quarters of poorly selected locations is really quite jarring.

I made a recording of the noise that I can hear from my room. The noise that one hears is not background hum-drum but rather noises which break from monotonous beat. These noises in itself is extremely disturbing and I suspect that it stems from inconsiderate actions of others who probably are more self-interested then they are self-aware.

This stem from the fact that a general lack of manners which result in an attention-seeking behaviour. There is a need for them to understand, the noise of one small vehicle can cause disruption to the surrounding areas. The noise travel with the vehicle and it does not just exist in a vacum. Hence these vehicle owners need to understand it's actions can have wide implications from it's one simple act of removing the silencer or flooring the turbo charger in densely populated areas.

If other vehicles can move without causing much of a disturbance, really the motorist must be aware of his inappropriate and rather inconsiderate behaviour.

I believed that when we see such behaviour, we must approach the person and tell him his inappropriate act. If one has to will to act, then one must have the will to face it's implications.