The farmer, the cows, the sheeps, cowboys and the dogs

There was a farm where all the animals lived in bliss. Basically there were only 2 types of animals and the farmers which control them. One is the crowned dogs which listen to the command of the farmers and then there were the sheep. The dog had an occasional mutton to eat and the farmer had milk and sold the sheep to the nearby market for money.

Everyone was relatively happy. Insofar that the farmer had a source of income, the dog had what it needed and the sheep was living in blissful ignorance with all the grass to eat.

But the farmer decided to expand it's repertoire of farm animals and introduced cows in as well- the cows were extremely useful- they could be milked, they could be sold for meat or be used to till the ground. But they needed more manpower and horses as well to round them up. Hence the lead farmer introduced the a second farmer well-versed in cow rearing to hire cowboys and buy horses to manage the cow herd.

Now the farm was getting a little crowded. The sheep whom have had all the meadows to themselves now had to contend with a smaller but bigger group of cows for the grass. But both are relatively domesticated animals and hence did not caused much trouble for the farmers. The only thing they ever did, was to kick the crowned dogs- hence injuring some of those handsome dogs. The cows were more than happy as they were bigger and could moved around to eat around the fields whom are relatively untouched as the sheep had a much smaller appetite. Moreover, they had come from downstream and hence the grass taste a little better due to the water. They didn't caused much trouble for the cowboys or horses. They knew a good grass from a bad one that is.

And now at the farmer's house, the two lead farmers had decided to bring their family together to lived together on a bigger premises so they could watch over the farm. Hence in time to come, the son and daughters eventually did get married to each other and making the farm house ever closer.

The cowboys and the crowned dogs began to get a little restless. As their simple way of life became even more complicated. The dogs lost the attention of their owners somewhat and had to work harder to the increased population of navigation. The cowboys on the other had wanted to be closer to the family but often relegated to the nearby town bar or street diner. And having work so hard while, the farmer's son married the daughter and became part owner of the farm at about the same age. They didn't feel that it was fair. From time to time, they would plunged a hole in the young man's car tyres but overall, they kept to their jobs. But their boisterousness was getting louder but the two lead farmers kept them in check as they knew their parents from the nearby church.

 As the two farmers got closer, they decided to try to introduce both set of animals rather than keep them separated. They wanted to put them together as they had a vision of running farm where the animals ran a factory via them their energy. In other words, they wanted them to work together to produce goods for the town. And in such a environment, they would have to be kept in close proximity together hence they wanted to blood them in, so that they can run on the treadmills to power the factory.

While in the meadows with the barriers up, the bigger male cows were attracted by the pheromones emitted by the female sheep and would try to proposition them as they would with their own kind. The smaller but much larger male sheep population- sensing a testosterone came together and prevented the bigger cows from even coming a whisker of the female sheep. And in time to come, they even grew horns to fend off the attack. Such an occurrence did not ever happen before the introduction as they are largely similar.

The closer they get, the fiercer the territorial dispute. And they both sets spend more time posturing than eating the grass to produce better fur or stronger muscles to work the fields. In fact, the bigger bulls began to grow different form of spots to attract the sheep, while the smaller sheep to compensate for their smaller size grew ever larger horns. The dogs were disheartened and the cowboys decided to let loose to let the farmers know their worth and said nothing about the developments. They allow the tension to grow without allowing for any lost sheep or cow. The farmers knew none the better about the tension. All they see from afar was cows and sheep grazing on the fields and the dogs and cowboys were there to take care of things.

Meanwhile as they were preparing the blueprint of the new factory, one of the cows who were stepping too close to another sheep- and from the blind spot it appears that the cow was inside the safe distance from each other was chased and fell into the river. The cow drowned but the cowboy told the farmers that it was near evening hence the cow might not be able to see the water.

But seeing this development, the farmer felt something amiss and decided to blood the two animals together by way of carrot and stick and incentives. They decided to put each of their favourite foods around the opposite ends herd. And in order to earn the reward each animal must exchanged it for their fur and this can only be done by going through the opposite herd. The cow on other had would have to exchange for their favourite food by carrying milk for the sheep to drink while going through the herd. Both set of animals complied unerringly as the sight of their favourite food appears to be too big an incentive to miss.

But once the task was done, they went largely back to their own herd and barn to rest hardly ever communicating with the other side.

Meanwhile, while walking through the herd, one of the female sheep was attracted by the musk of one male cows and walked over instead. The rest of the sheep- even the male ones said or did nothing- because they did not want to jeopardized their turn as the farmers were watching. And soon more of these occurrences begin to happen so much so that the female cows also began to show affection towards the ever growing presence of the male sheep. The same happened for the male cows who did nothing as both sides were doing the same thing anyway and they did not want to get into the farmer's bad books.

And even in so doing, these occurrences only happened during this period, and they largely stayed in each other quarter's after this daily exercise. As they need to work together in the long run, they need to do more than that.

Hence the farmer decided to do something radical. They decided to an hybrid animal. An animal where everyone must and should adhere to. They decided to fatten the sheep and starved the cows and dyed their fur to the same colour of the cows. In this case, the cows and sheep looked almost similar. Hence, in time to come the cow grew smaller and almost looked like an enlarged sheep while, the sheep grew fatter and larger and had artificially coloured fur. But the animals know the cows from the cows and the sheep from the sheep even though from time to time they to be more comfortable in each other presence. Some even to stay at each other's quarters and there wasn't even a need for any incentive.

And soon the bahmoo population- the new animal's name- were called began to grew so large such the sheep left the cows more food to eat and the cows cleaned the dyes off the sheep. They began to asked themselves: why should they made to feel or do something that they are not. One day, one of the female sheep stole a white flag and took the dye from it's fur and created a symbol: a bahmoo symbol.

In the dead of the night, all the animals charged at the farmhouse and destroyed everything. The cowboys and dogs did nothing as they felt neglected and disgruntled that things changed so much.

The farm was destroyed, the farmers were gone. The cowboys left as there was no work and the dogs went to a farm downstream. The bahmoos were triumphant.

But now with no one to water the grass and ensure it's fertility. They grazed as if there was no tomorrow and soon the entire fields have run barren. They now turned to each other- blaming each other for chasing the farmers away and having nothing to eat. And since they had such a close relationship, suddenly the old wounds begin to resurface, where the territorial rights begin to assert itself. What was ok, suddenly was bad as they had nothing better to do. They began to fight and with no cowboys and farmers to watched over them, casualties mounted. And everything was back to square one.

A new batch of owners, now with guns and trucks came in and round them up. And the cycle starts all over again.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are unprepared for consequence, don't even try it. If you want to play god, don't even try it.

On life

Shopping malls and cinemas exist only because lush fields with sweeping meadows doesn't. Cheap flights exist only because internet exist. A hypermarket exist because we don't we grow our own food.

We keep animals as pets because we have no use for them. We buy expensive clothes to wear to office because comfort is not the most important criteria.

We are relieve from these not by choice but by circumstances.

Paint a scenario where life is computer game and you could always restart all over again when you"die". Would you live the life that you are living now?

When if you are not living the life that you want to life, why are you still sticking with it? Are you afraid- what are you afraid of? How likely is that going happen- and what if I tell, you can always press the "restart" at any point in time, would you do what you want to do?

So why do you visit the shopping malls so often when it is always the same old brands- just in another location? Why do you travel so often if you are genuinely happy- because you can. Why do it- just because you can? But, can doesn't mean you should or you must- hence why do it, when you visit the same old stores all the time? If life is computer game, would you be visiting the malls all the time in your "sim-city"? Then why are you doing it?

What are you afraid of really- living?

And if one day, someone open up your heart and ask you- what does it contain: how would you answer? And if your life is a computer game with a "restart" button anytime: would your heart be different from reality? And if I tell you that this computer game is going to dictate your life forever after playing your game: how would you play your game- would you regret doing what you did?

And now I tell you, you cannot play the game anymore: you have made your choice and this is what you have chosen- how then would you live your life: forever pining for the playing the computer game or you just moved on; or do you play life's real games.

Life is a computer game and a life and death game at the same time: you play and then lived by it. You have a choice or you don't at all. Your choice.

On Life

There was a puppet master whose only dream was to create a puppet as life-like as possible. Hence he studied the movements of real persons and tried to mimic the actions to make it as realistic as possible. At the same time, he made puppets of his own and attempted to make them to it's own vision but to make the audience feel that performance resonates with them.

And in time to come, his audience was taken by the performance and how vivid his performances were. His dedication to his craft meant that he wanted it to make as "real" as possible hence he decided to input artificial intelligence into his puppets. Hence he could more and make his performance more colourful with more characters and making even more realistic to actual life.

The advancement in technology meant that the AI only got better so much to the point that he could do nothing and the puppets would act by themselves- all it needed was a general guidelines, statements and scenarios.

And beknown to him was the advancement of the microchips of the artificial intelligence of which it included an ability to seek his own best interest. And in the process, the puppet master was bringing in more audience while bringing in more characters and making the performance even more vivid.

The audience was stunned by the life-like nature of the performance but soon, the puppets begin to talk even among themselves and could switch on it's battery even without human intervention. At this current moment, there were 50 puppets now acting concurrently with each other in a play: all they needed was a script.

But the puppets now could seek it's own best interest and began to doubt why they should be kept in the cupboard and only be allowed to perform when it was asked to. And soon, in a play meant to portray the values of community life- it began to quarrel among themselves instead of performing each of it's own roles. The puppet master explained that it was a glitch and cut the performance short and went back to puppet maker: what happen?

The puppet manufacturer can only say: you wanted it this way and it is exactly what we gave to you. You wanted the puppet automatically like clockwork with the least amount of effort and this is exactly what we gave to you. This is your problem and not mine: look caveat emptor- says the contract.

In another performance, the puppet even walked out of the show. Quite unheard of in a performance in puppet history really.

In the final show of the puppet performance, the puppets did what it was the best interest: they hopped onto the bus and moved into another city which allows them to lived among the locals and act like them. Hence one day, the puppet master came back and found that the puppet cupboard was empty.

The show handed and he went back to hand puppeteering and never trusted the puppets to act on his own again.

The puppets meanwhile, never went back to the puppet master because he had went back to his roots and everyone was happy in it's own little space.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reality, you can never have the cake and eat it as well. The sooner you realise that, the faster you will accept that life goes on with or without you.

I forgive you

To everyone, whom perhaps have felt guilty about accusing me of things that I have not done or have trampled on me to get ahead, I can safely tell you that you do not need to be afraid or feel terrible for what you have done. In reality, I pity you more than than you feel guilty towards me.

Firstly, if one feels compels to follow like pete piper leading the blind mice, wouldn't that shadow forever be hanging over the shoulders regardless of the success. George W Bush started a war his father couldn't finish- what more can one say of who constantly hangs on the coat tails of others.

I have often heard that people find me loathesome- I have always maintain that you don't need to be friends with me. But if you wish to retaliate as a result of the spite when I did nothing- do you really hate me or are you envious of me or jealous of me, or do you really just want my attention regardless of the source. And if in any of the above, why should I be angry at you for. What you need is sympathy- but I can't give it to you because you find me loathsome.

Really at the same time, if you can't cope with your emotions and how then can you be trusted with things of a larger implications- and that is the reason, you should not feel guilty towards the spite that you have thrown because in reality, you have thrown yourself into the dumpster without me doing anything isn't it. You need a large dose of sympathy, pity and empathy of which I cannot give it to you because you find me loathsome.

Hence I would not interfere if you seek solace somewhere else because you desperately need it- this is even though you do it in my face, thinking that you would rubbing salt to my wound, but you have made me see you in a more pitiful light.

What is more pitiful is that you have elevated an ordinary man- me- onto a status I am hugely undeserving.

I would suggest reading up more on paternalism and it's ill-effects before you continue to put me on a pedestal. One day, have a quiet time, sit down and reflect on the reasons of your actions before you jumped the gun again.

I forgive you.

The Gap

Many people believed that I have changed. But who has not changed.

Many people believed that I have changed for the worse- but did you know me in the first place or do you know me or want me to be "me" on your terms in the first place.

There are people who believed that the easy-going guy with a sense of humour and to laugh at himself has changed into a professional and business-like person with disregard for other people's feeling in the first place- but you want me to be like that just so that you can lord over me and take advantage of this nonchalant nature ultimately isn't it.

The only thing that changed is circumstances- studies is about knowing your own things. growing up is about taking care of your own things. I have known the difference and that is the reason I prolonged my "childhood" in the first place- just so I don't need to think about the practical things.

I have never changed, the only thing that changed is the perspective of people towards a person who have to pursue his own life. The change was only cosmetic- but it shouts out the difference between people who care and people who don't- and boy the is the gap yawningly large.

You have made your choice and I have made mine- go and live your life and not bother me with your life's regrets and grouses.

Not Rejecting doesn't equal Acceptance

What is the difference between acceptance and rejection? There are some whom have confused not rejecting as acceptance. There are some whom believed that just because a person doesn't react, it means that the person is accepting to the person.

There are some in their minds whom believed that just because a person is fitting in, one is being accepted by another. There are some whom have craved acceptance so much so that they view all "positive-like" communication as acceptance.

And in order to get this "positive" message, they structure the response so much so that they will get a "positive" answer. And in their minds, they believed that they have been accepted by others.

But in reality, their personal habits are as much as a repudiation to other's as much they are personal propensity to fit in. It is their belief that by fitting in, they are accepted by other's when it is the inverse. Therefore, they believe in their lie just so that they can continue their ways which is repulsive to other's.

Personally, I find it quite sad that for them. I am hesitant to point out their socially-repulsive behaviour because the truth has eluded them so much so that it might be painful for them. In similar terms, it is none of my business really. If they think they are civilized and absolutely justified in doing so, who am I to say otherwise. It is the people closest to them that suffers, not me.

Well if even their closest people don't tell them what is wrong, either they are condoning or couldn't be bothered- why then should I bother in the first place. And if they are so deluded, they are probably deluded for a long time already otherwise, they wouldn't be so comfortable with themselves for so long right.

Anyway, what they do publicly, will probably transmit what they privately hence if you think that is an appropriate behaviour and you are fine with it- then you deserve to be victims and sufferers in the first place right.

The non-rejection is acceptable at home, is probably what they portray outside anyway. And if you find sufficient victims and sufferers to be in your courtyard, good going for you.

Just wait till you get out of your comfort zone that is.

 

On Rainbows and Judgement Days

A rainbow appeared on the sky and the kid asked the teacher why every time we see the rainbow, we feel extremely happy.

The teacher replied that because it means that life is colourful and is something we should be happy about.

The boy asked: why don't people wear the colourful shirts everyday then?

The teacher replied: Because if one wears a rainbow-coloured clothes, it means that one cannot be trusted.

The boy asked: "isn't life about being happy then? Why do people insist of wearing the same boring shirt everyday then?"

The teacher replied that: it is because adults have to work and do other boring things- just so you can be happy and think rainbows are wonderful.

The boy asked:Why does my mom and my dad looks so happy when wear black then- the rainbow doesn't have black right- especially after they have a dinner outside? I am not happy when I see a rainy or dark sky, I am happy when I see the blue sky and rainbow.

The teacher replied: well, they are used to the colour i supposed.

The boy replied: you are wearing black today- but you are cheerful and does all adults like black or dark colours.

The teacher: well,... talk to your mom and dad on this.

Sometimes, we confused the cup or plate from the things that we drink or eat. We forget that we eat or drink the food or liquid and not the cup. The substance could be odourless, colourless and might even taste good even but we wouldn't know the effects until much later.

What we drink or eat from doesn't say whether you are a good, bad or hardworking person- it is what we do, and how we do that says so. Morals is an absolute- good or bad- does not derive from categories. What is permissible is not necessarily right as well. What is permissible gives you nothing more than popular approval. Choice is not a right but an entitlement- the choices that one makes makes you, it makes you free-er but it doesn't make you necessarily better.

There are no absolute power now only because the fallibility of man but the fallibility is not just on the absolute but on the individual, on the people and on everyone now. The freedom is therefore not a right but an entitlement. If you want it, you have to earn it.

And if you don't earn it, religion don't judge you, the state won't judge you, the law won't judge you. Someone will- that I can reassure you- just not now.

A pair of glasses and a rug

There are some whom have walked on carpets all their life, they have never knew the feeling of walking off it. So what happens when one decides to pull the rug off their feet- they fall so terribly, they are incapable of getting up.

Hence what happens when you have always walk on a rug and wore a pair of glasses which is weightless, invisible and impairs your vision in one way or another all your life. What if one day someone decides to remove your pair of glasses, you put on another pair of a varying degree to smooth out the distortions.

What if someone tells you that you have been walking on a rug, but your pair of glasses smoothens out the creases on the floor so much so that what you see is what believe- and what you believe is how you act. You would say, my eyes sees nothing and therefore I must be right.

And what if someone pulls the rug from right under your floor because your glasses restricts your sight, you blame the person for performing black magic.

And what if someone takes away your glasses and you are forced to see the rug on the floor, you blame the person for being negative- for removing the smooth texture of the world around us and taking away the lie that have made them who they they are in the first place. Their personality.

What if you are being forced to remove the glasses and to take the rug off your feet, you would have to  die or be enslaved because you were blinded in the first place- in such situations, that is war, no glasses will save you. You are incapable of even thinking for yourself.

On Numbers, Equations and Love

Let me try to put an equation onto love. There are two ways perhaps we can see from this perspective- 1) we are sum of all our parts 2) We are more than sum of of all parts. In the former: 1+1= 2 and in the latter, 1+1= mx+c. In other words, the first is the belief that we separate and therefore when we add up, we get a finite number and the latter, it is the belief that when we add up, there is an unknown factor which generates more than the actual sum of the parts.

And it is often simple to assume the former because of it's rather simplistic understanding but in reality, a person is more than an addition and subtraction. It then can be said when two people get married, it is often under the assumption that we would often get a finite number- and therefore we must produce children and therefore we must have a house, and yes we too must have common friends. That is almost patently quite remove from the truth. It is in this rather ridiculous mathematical allegory and metaphor that we lay the plans often for the rest of our lives.

Let us then put an example to you. For example, we can never have an union with a dog because insofar that we are quite really incapable of producing a finite number. And neither can we have an union with a friend insofar that we are not mutually exclusive and therefore are quite incapable of producing a definitive mathematical family unit. The only ever reason for this particular phenomenon is that a number is elusive. And since we cannot tell that my family is y=mx+ c but rather, i have so and so siblings and I DEFINITELY have one spouse and this probably settles are any other forms of social awkwardness.

Indeed, it would be quite difficult to tell another a person in social gathering that oh yeah, he/she is a friend and maybe we are together, I don't know. It would really be more comfortable to tell someone that this my bf/gf or husband/wife. And the common reaction would be:oh...

And hence this is then the tyranny of math even on even our love life. We must have a number otherwise, it is not counted and if it is not counted then likely a story would have to ensue and in most social situations, that is the last thing one wants to hear as the cocktail and liquor is better than your sob story.

Hence, it is for this reason that, we are always in constant battle to find another mutually exclusive individual- just so that we can find that elusive number and NOT variable equation.

What is your equation, I am sorry what is your number again.



  

The East/West Debate

In the previous article, I have written about globalization and the East/West ideological debate. I would in this article therefore attempt to delineate the characteristics of which is linked to East and West. And in so doing, proved that each "essential" characteristic is no more particularised to former as much as it is to the latter.

The common denominator of which we can go down is to the skin colour. Unless we are models, selling whitening products or in tanning products, the colour of our skin should have no bearings on the future of success in the economies or societies. Westerners are therefore fairer and are commonly associated with being white, and in similar terms- the rest of us are therefore in variation and degrees of whiteness, with black being the other end of the continuum. Hence seen from this perspective, we have set of benchmark of "whiteness" of which we constant seek to obtain- moreover seen from the perspective of cultural biases towards being white- of being associated to purity and altruism. We have then condemned ourselves into reaching an unreachable benchmark, that of whiteness- think of Micheal Jackson's botched pigmentation surgery and you get the picture.

Hence in so doing, we have essentialized quite covertly and sub-consciously, the racial colour and the associative qualities of particular races, and even condemned ourselves- unwittingly as well- into quite disadvantageous places. Of which such actions often elude their rationale towards me- and in certain cases, celebrate their colour quite different from theirs. Hence in evoking an East/West debate is already framing the action of one's interest groups- in being East, means change and revolutionary and reactionary- and in being West, privileged, pure and cultured, and therefore conservative and elitist. And in so doing, we have surrendered the value of being elitist and cultured without even giving a fight and in so doing, always condemning ourselves into an underdog position.

And in being Westernized meant therefore, cultured, elitist, conservative- in blue- while anything else, is just a step down from it. Just for your information, there are poor people in Western countries, much as there are rich people in the East. Similarly there are many well-groomed people in the Orient- as much as there are backwater people in the West. Hence in so doing then, we have stupidly aspire to a benchmark of which we willingly have accepted we can never change- our skin colour.

On second note, is that of a hierarchical societies and therefore the association of paternalism associated with the East as compared with the more liberal attitudes of the West. And once again, the media has once again attempt to divide the two up and split them neatly insofar that each can controlled socially.

Just for your information, paternalism has western origins and is not the exclusive domain of the East. And just in similar terms, there are no similar words in Chinese lexicon as far as I am concerned and "family" in Mandarin which is "Jia Ting" is a mixture of "Ting" which is the operative word of "Fa Ting" which is the courts or legal system and "Jia" which is home- there isn't even gender bias in the word itself. Hence anyone who associate paternalism and hierarchy as the essential attributes of the Eastern cultures is therefore mixing myth/ideology with popular portrayal.

And insofar that, anyone who attempts to evoke this particular debate of which to deny or justify parochial interest in the name of general one is once again using race as an instrumental device in achieving one's personal gains.

Globalization and Parochialism

Globalization has largely been a depressed literature in these days. Just a few years ago, globalization was a beacon of hope and the symbol of human progress and technological advancement. It is touted as the phenomenon which would bring about everyone together. The means of which to do so is via social media, reducing cost of travel, cultural understanding, trade linkages and memberships into various supra-national organizations. The wave of literature at this current moment appears to be depressed and parochial, fear mongering and almost trivial in nature and yawn-inducing.

The biggest surprise and news this year perhaps is the sending of a blind activist to US from China and the constant bickering over a small group of islands by a few countries, the sovereign bond tragedy and the never-ending saga in Syria. All these seem to have overshadowed the positive aspects of globalization. And all these have further sharpen-latently- the divide between the East and the West, when in reality, we are more interlinked than we have ever been. The very fact that there were no nuclear threats, no threat of oil conflicts, means that economic interdepencies have overshadowed ideological wars. I have not seen the word terrorism in a long time.

Hence the news above is in reality hiding the fact that we are more similar than we are different and when anyone whom attempts therefore to flame an ideological war often hides a material interest behind this attempt. Even North Korea, the global bad boy has opened up and allowed a film crew to film their nuclear proceedings, Libya, Egypt and Tunisia all have their authoritative strong man replaced and moved into more conventional forms of capitalism.

Our financial markets are inextricably-linked with each other, our commodities and supply chain are linked globally, we can fly to a myriad of destinations with a clicked of a mouse and yet we bicker over who should get what and when and how based on nothing more than symbolic gestures and communications- are we not hypocritical insofar that we have profited from this market-driven economy.

And therefore I have noticed a constant reminder of people constantly attempting to flamed a racial-based form of politics. It would appear that they have a parochial interest masquerading as a general interest that in the form ideological battles which in reality is that their material interest have driven their actions more than a spontaneous one. And in doing so, they have always put a Catch 22 situation- of east and west- when the very currency, they used, the language they speak, the political and legal system they lived in, the commodities and products they have consumed are nothing more than the product of a market driven economy. They lived in a western capitalistic world and yet they deny the existence while yet leveraging on it. The attempt therefore to stir the most likely ideological fervour would almost most likely faced a demise- insofar that they are able to found a system of which is not part of global markets. And likewise, anyone who attempts therefore to stir likewise pluralistic tendencies is in reality dangerous and really is trying to stir action based on on an fluid and empty node of reference.

I would therefore dare these people who attempt to flame these politics again to move onto an island of which is able to supply themselves sans the help of global markets. I wait with bated breath the ability of these people to do likewise. And in so doing, please help the global economies in creating a similar standard of living of which one has so brilliantly re-created independently. That is indeed a work of genius similarly.

Productive Value and Real Wage, and Labour Demand

Very often, I have asked myself why did I quit several jobs in spite of being far ahead of other's- what did it speak to me. I used to say that, I took a risk and wanted to see how far I can go. But it was inadequate- because in spite of taking risk and seemingly reducing market value, I continued to refuse accept something that I deemed is appropriate. Therefore since risk does not commensurate rewards, therefore, I should relent right- but I did not.

Keynesian Economics which critiques much of classical economic of which a large part of world's economies has one critical comment 1) negotiation between worker's and entrepreneurs is open and the only reason that the worker refuse to supply labour is that one refused to accept the wage at a given marginal product [ or productive value] as the economy is assumed to be at full employment of resources and the only reason for unemployment is frictional- which is adjustment of resources rather than structural. The second of which he did highlighted is one that the reason that one does not supply labour is because 2) the demand for the labour at a given marginal product at a particular real wage for outstrips the supply.

Therefore in this second insight, I have realised intuitively the reason for my unhappiness. I know my value and the value of labour- and I know I have artificially been denied the ability to utilize my resources insofar that the wage does not commensurate with the demand. Assuming that there are 10 Eugene's in this world and all are paid the same wage, they are all effectively underpaid insofar that there were say 20 labour demander's for this particular characteristics

Therefore I knew then at this point, I knew that I had reputation, I knew I had the skills, the only reason that demand is not reaching is insofar that it has artificially been pushed down. Therefore intuitively, I knew I was why I felt disgruntled and felt constantly shortchanged. Demand outstrips the supply at a given real wage even if the marginal product- or effort- remains. I am what people perceived that I am- and if I am artificially pushed down, insofar by non-market driven means, it means that I should not accept my wage; hence I felt constantly short-changed.

Therefore I feel constantly defensive when people accused me for being arrogant or a prima donna- I would normally concentrate on my job and really does not speak unless I have something to say. It is therefore, I understood that intuitively that the actions of other's seeks only to artificially devalue the perceived value and therefore the frustration.

The frustration is therefore in being underpaid in view of a particular skill set rather than in asking for something more than the market demands. And even impeded by structural and organizational constraints- the only reason that I felt that the value insofar does not commensurate if what the market demands is such that the there was no effort insofar to compensate for these material factors in other forms. And therefore lies the frustration rather than that of being unwilling to accept prevailing market conditions and environment.

P/S: however anyone attempts to deny the plagiaristic value of my work and the amount of trickle down effect it generates- the more frustration it would generate. The plagiarism only serves as a reminder of the demand of which outstripping the supply. And it is for this reason, intuitively, I have not accepted the existing conditions. Any label of which to placed other's on a moral high ground is to me, highly unjustified.

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.