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.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Sunday, September 30, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, September 28, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, September 21, 2012
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...
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...
Thursday, September 20, 2012
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
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
Sunday, August 26, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
6 Beliefs
There have been alot of confusion upon what I believed in. Some believed that I believed in nothing at all while other's think that I am attempting to recreate a new age thing or some believed that I am a derivation of something existing and I am trying to usurp their position. Normally I do not bother with trying to categorize who is the subset of what and vice versa. I do not attempt to trace my origins but I would try to write out what I believed in- and the rest is out of my hands and I leave it to you to decide.
Firstly I do not attempt to answer the question whether god or other ther-worldly things exist. I find it a futile attempt because if it would really exist, I believed that everyone would be the first to know or last to know. Because then in this case, we would have an utopia or dystopia on this world. Till that day comes, I would stay as an agnostic- a belief that something supernatural exist but we just do not know what it is- because I do not believed I know everything and can always make the best decision every time and even if we can know everything- we are restricted by the language that we speak.
Secondly, contrary to popular belief that I am a lazy bastard- I believed that we reap what we sow. Therefore sitting at home and doing nothing, pretending that something will drop from the sky and save us from our misery is just wishful thinking. The only reason that I did that was rather altruistic- however naive that might have sound. My thoughts was that I thought it was best to write as often as I could and to help as many as I could given some form of special privilege- but it was just that the world moved faster than I could write. Hence some new fangled stuff probably replace what I have written without me getting any leverage on that.
I knew it was rather silly of me to believed that but I took a risk- and not all risk are for self-interested reasons only- and it was a notion to believed that I had a pipe dream to be an Internet Star or the next the J K Rowling. This was nothing further from the truth. Perhaps it would be good to expand on the above. We often assume risk is associated with reward- and the first thing that comes to find is material rewards. Therefore then, in this case, when we took risk, it must be for the reason of more personal rewards.
But the thing is that it is true that to a certain degree, I did it for self-interested reason- but if we increase risk just to increase more rewards, then a person with mountains of cash would have reaped the most rewards isn't it. But because he had put in mountains of case, wouldn't that mean, he had to expect mountains of cash to come back to him as well. What have I got to lose- time. I did not really put in a ton of effort at the same time, neither did I put in any money- but what I gotten back: the very fact that you are still reading this blog in spite of my so-called "scandals".
But of course, I would not know the material rewards resulting from this effect but this is a commodity of which many people spends tons of effort, money and time doing it- I did it just by sitting at home and typing away. I can foresee right now, some person trying to replicate this effect just at this current moment, but you would have put in alot more effort just to differentiate yourself from me- and perhaps then it would be time for me to move on to some other things.
Thirdly, I do not discriminate anyone based on their race, religion or other forms of obvious markers. The only reason I ever appear to be so otherwise was that: I am human. I have my own personal preferences. I do not need to explain to anyone why I choose one over another just because he/she was different from the rest. I am choosing what I eat, wear and other things- I am not writing a policy here.
Fourthly, that I loved money more than anything else in the world. I have a depleting bank account and net worth, and yet I do not worry about getting my next meal. The reason is that I took a risk, and I knew that this would have an impact- and I had to deal with it when the time comes. If I had worried about the next meal, I wouldn't even have taken this step in the first place. Then it is that, the money is a means to an end but the end would be that the money would eventually have to be taken care care off for the end to have any chance of succeeding. It is that I shed my assets and money- and had I taken the route of seeing the money as the end goal and the only goal, I would have sat in my cushy job and not have done anything in the first place. There was not even a need for me to do that if that was my only reason.
Fifthly, I do not care what you believed in or what you think that of what I think of you. I do not hold like hold long term grudges neither do I detest anyone based on their personal beliefs or habits. And of course like anyone, I expect basic level of social manners, hygiene and presentation- other than that, I do not hold like a personal vendetta towards anyone.
Lastly, that I imposed my views upon others: like what I have said at the start of this entry, I can only say things that I believed to my best ability is true, accurate and beneficial. The rest like I say is up to you.
Suddenly I appear all the more normal and no different from each and everyone of you.
There are no sweeping statements there neither are there any ambitious proclamations- therefore I leave it to you to decide is there anything quite conflictual in my beliefs.
Eugene
Firstly I do not attempt to answer the question whether god or other ther-worldly things exist. I find it a futile attempt because if it would really exist, I believed that everyone would be the first to know or last to know. Because then in this case, we would have an utopia or dystopia on this world. Till that day comes, I would stay as an agnostic- a belief that something supernatural exist but we just do not know what it is- because I do not believed I know everything and can always make the best decision every time and even if we can know everything- we are restricted by the language that we speak.
Secondly, contrary to popular belief that I am a lazy bastard- I believed that we reap what we sow. Therefore sitting at home and doing nothing, pretending that something will drop from the sky and save us from our misery is just wishful thinking. The only reason that I did that was rather altruistic- however naive that might have sound. My thoughts was that I thought it was best to write as often as I could and to help as many as I could given some form of special privilege- but it was just that the world moved faster than I could write. Hence some new fangled stuff probably replace what I have written without me getting any leverage on that.
I knew it was rather silly of me to believed that but I took a risk- and not all risk are for self-interested reasons only- and it was a notion to believed that I had a pipe dream to be an Internet Star or the next the J K Rowling. This was nothing further from the truth. Perhaps it would be good to expand on the above. We often assume risk is associated with reward- and the first thing that comes to find is material rewards. Therefore then, in this case, when we took risk, it must be for the reason of more personal rewards.
But the thing is that it is true that to a certain degree, I did it for self-interested reason- but if we increase risk just to increase more rewards, then a person with mountains of cash would have reaped the most rewards isn't it. But because he had put in mountains of case, wouldn't that mean, he had to expect mountains of cash to come back to him as well. What have I got to lose- time. I did not really put in a ton of effort at the same time, neither did I put in any money- but what I gotten back: the very fact that you are still reading this blog in spite of my so-called "scandals".
But of course, I would not know the material rewards resulting from this effect but this is a commodity of which many people spends tons of effort, money and time doing it- I did it just by sitting at home and typing away. I can foresee right now, some person trying to replicate this effect just at this current moment, but you would have put in alot more effort just to differentiate yourself from me- and perhaps then it would be time for me to move on to some other things.
Thirdly, I do not discriminate anyone based on their race, religion or other forms of obvious markers. The only reason I ever appear to be so otherwise was that: I am human. I have my own personal preferences. I do not need to explain to anyone why I choose one over another just because he/she was different from the rest. I am choosing what I eat, wear and other things- I am not writing a policy here.
Fourthly, that I loved money more than anything else in the world. I have a depleting bank account and net worth, and yet I do not worry about getting my next meal. The reason is that I took a risk, and I knew that this would have an impact- and I had to deal with it when the time comes. If I had worried about the next meal, I wouldn't even have taken this step in the first place. Then it is that, the money is a means to an end but the end would be that the money would eventually have to be taken care care off for the end to have any chance of succeeding. It is that I shed my assets and money- and had I taken the route of seeing the money as the end goal and the only goal, I would have sat in my cushy job and not have done anything in the first place. There was not even a need for me to do that if that was my only reason.
Fifthly, I do not care what you believed in or what you think that of what I think of you. I do not hold like hold long term grudges neither do I detest anyone based on their personal beliefs or habits. And of course like anyone, I expect basic level of social manners, hygiene and presentation- other than that, I do not hold like a personal vendetta towards anyone.
Lastly, that I imposed my views upon others: like what I have said at the start of this entry, I can only say things that I believed to my best ability is true, accurate and beneficial. The rest like I say is up to you.
Suddenly I appear all the more normal and no different from each and everyone of you.
There are no sweeping statements there neither are there any ambitious proclamations- therefore I leave it to you to decide is there anything quite conflictual in my beliefs.
Eugene
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Life Imitate Art
There was boy who enjoyed playing board games. The objective of the board game is very simple- the idea is to switch the colours at the right time at any given move to gain the most points and the most soldiers.
This game was invented by himself but it soon spread to his friends. And therefore after a while he invited his friends over to play this new board game that he recently invented.
The rules of this game is very straightforward. Each person is entitled to one statement and one colour at every move. At the end of every statement, everyone have choice to exchange colours at the permission of the owner. Therefore the person who makes the popular statement and the one who holds the clout very often who most of cards and will only switch the cards only when the interest is best for him.
The thing about this game ultimately is not about the one makes popular statement and who holds the clout- the thing about this game is that to perform a sleight of hand to give a weaker card to it's opponent without him even realise that his permission is seek. How this is done is very simple. Firstly, pretend that he has an upper hand- then he would go out to purchase more soldiers for his team. And at the last moment, when making payment, give him the weaker card because very often the soldier is really the quality that he does not wished the seek and at this moment, he would switch his card with the purchaser- hence giving him the upper hand- without making a single effort.
Of course, the game was invented by him and therefore only he knows the rules the game. And so when more players come in join in the game- everyone wonder, how come he always seem to get the best card.
Of course, this was game invented by him when he was younger. And then he began to be obsessed with playing this game when he grew up. Therefore he know pretends that all his friends, enemies, associates and anyone related to him has a colour code. And so he assigned different colour codes to different people related to him.
He bugged his old school friends to play with him to play his real life game- and eventually a few friends did eventually come to play this game. As this game got round that people were playing really games in their life, a cult game then became a reality game. Soon life imitates art. The colour code assigned to each type of person soon begins to replicate the personality associated to each colour code. Therefore the game became so popular that everyone started playing the game and even begin to strategize even in real life. Thinking that a good strategy would replicate a good outcome in their real and daily life. Soon getting the right colour was a ticket to good luck- no need for hard work really.
Therefore a game has become an obsession- and people started avoid certain colours because there was very little clout- unless someone had made a powerful statement to increase the influence of the particular group. It became painfully obvious, a game has turned into a reality circus show- everyone started wearing as many colour as they want to avoid being caught out. It was Mardi Gras show really.
People eventually was no longer interested in studying or working towards a better outcome- all they want to find out everyday was, what was the favourite colour tomorrow. Never mind, that the colour doesn't jumped out and work for you but basically, the only job was, what was favourite colour tomorrow- and everybody envisioned a positive day ahead, regardless of whether they earned or did not earned it. If they get it right, they thought they could make wishes and all his dreams will come true.
And soon everyone began to watch t.v, internet, radio and all other forms of media predicting the future for tomorrow- because wearing the right colour and other permutations like the timing of statements was important in a "good luck" day, so people delay making decisions, going out and doing other things just so it can timed to perfection. They were effectively being controlled by all these communications without even realising it.
At the end of the day, the inventor of the game became very rich, powerful and all other things imaginable because he could predict accurately the flow of everything, because he held all the cards in the first place as he could switch quite expertly- as he was the inventor of the game in the first place and therefore made the rules anyway.
What started out as schoolboy game- turned out to be a global phenomenon, in which what happened in the head of the young school boy was replicated into real life. Giving life to simple objects, colours and symbols. Life imitated art. Art made lots money for this little boy.
This game was invented by himself but it soon spread to his friends. And therefore after a while he invited his friends over to play this new board game that he recently invented.
The rules of this game is very straightforward. Each person is entitled to one statement and one colour at every move. At the end of every statement, everyone have choice to exchange colours at the permission of the owner. Therefore the person who makes the popular statement and the one who holds the clout very often who most of cards and will only switch the cards only when the interest is best for him.
The thing about this game ultimately is not about the one makes popular statement and who holds the clout- the thing about this game is that to perform a sleight of hand to give a weaker card to it's opponent without him even realise that his permission is seek. How this is done is very simple. Firstly, pretend that he has an upper hand- then he would go out to purchase more soldiers for his team. And at the last moment, when making payment, give him the weaker card because very often the soldier is really the quality that he does not wished the seek and at this moment, he would switch his card with the purchaser- hence giving him the upper hand- without making a single effort.
Of course, the game was invented by him and therefore only he knows the rules the game. And so when more players come in join in the game- everyone wonder, how come he always seem to get the best card.
Of course, this was game invented by him when he was younger. And then he began to be obsessed with playing this game when he grew up. Therefore he know pretends that all his friends, enemies, associates and anyone related to him has a colour code. And so he assigned different colour codes to different people related to him.
He bugged his old school friends to play with him to play his real life game- and eventually a few friends did eventually come to play this game. As this game got round that people were playing really games in their life, a cult game then became a reality game. Soon life imitates art. The colour code assigned to each type of person soon begins to replicate the personality associated to each colour code. Therefore the game became so popular that everyone started playing the game and even begin to strategize even in real life. Thinking that a good strategy would replicate a good outcome in their real and daily life. Soon getting the right colour was a ticket to good luck- no need for hard work really.
Therefore a game has become an obsession- and people started avoid certain colours because there was very little clout- unless someone had made a powerful statement to increase the influence of the particular group. It became painfully obvious, a game has turned into a reality circus show- everyone started wearing as many colour as they want to avoid being caught out. It was Mardi Gras show really.
People eventually was no longer interested in studying or working towards a better outcome- all they want to find out everyday was, what was the favourite colour tomorrow. Never mind, that the colour doesn't jumped out and work for you but basically, the only job was, what was favourite colour tomorrow- and everybody envisioned a positive day ahead, regardless of whether they earned or did not earned it. If they get it right, they thought they could make wishes and all his dreams will come true.
And soon everyone began to watch t.v, internet, radio and all other forms of media predicting the future for tomorrow- because wearing the right colour and other permutations like the timing of statements was important in a "good luck" day, so people delay making decisions, going out and doing other things just so it can timed to perfection. They were effectively being controlled by all these communications without even realising it.
At the end of the day, the inventor of the game became very rich, powerful and all other things imaginable because he could predict accurately the flow of everything, because he held all the cards in the first place as he could switch quite expertly- as he was the inventor of the game in the first place and therefore made the rules anyway.
What started out as schoolboy game- turned out to be a global phenomenon, in which what happened in the head of the young school boy was replicated into real life. Giving life to simple objects, colours and symbols. Life imitated art. Art made lots money for this little boy.
Monday, August 20, 2012
One-upmanship
What is competition? Is competition just basically a matter of one-upmanship- a matter of winning every single battle which would lead to the victory of a war? Is one-upmanship just winning every single hissy fit- which would ultimately lead to a total victory- or one-upmanship just needless escalation of tension just to show the authority over another? And really of what use then is this authority if it does not breed any final outcome? Authority for authority sake- sounds like a dirty word isn't it.
Let us then pretend that authority has a need- or in other words we need leaders to map out the final vision and guide us along. And if authority is there to promote values- assuming that the vision is not some grand plan- then, really don't we all need saints rather than people who attempts one up-manship. Let us then pretend that one-upmanship has a positive value- henceforth, this up-manship must promote the value of competition and sense of competitive will rather than coercion for authority sake isn't it. This competitive will should breed therefore better outcomes of stronger collective group as opposed to weak collective which ultimately defeats the original intention- one could say. This is a value we attempt to inculcate but on the flip side- what does one-upmanship got to do with winning, since this is really the value we are trying to forged?
Therefore then, if we all want to get even for all the wrong-doings done- how then does one-upmanship pretend that getting even is tantamount to revenge for revenge sake? Ultimately, isn't that quite dissimilar from the idea of a competitive will of which is to win at the final game and not to getting even at every turn.
Therefore one-upmanship as an act of value almost appear to be quite incompatible with the actual behaviour of it. Therefore competition for competition sake and for it's very sake appears to have a material intention then to promote a sense of positive value. It is really at the end of day a matter of serving the interest of those who gains the most from one-upmanship. It is really for group interest rather than for general interest. Those who espouse the positive values of competition while getting every opportunity to take a payback serves no other interest other than those gains the most from one-upmanship- which is that who are one-up in the first place. The disposed never play hardball- it is not in their interest but if it does, it calls really for admiration than for condemnation.
Hence, the idea of one-upmanship or the escalation of competition is really an excuse for a fight- an unfair fight of which is to decimate rather than inculcate. Therefore those who propose such fights pretend to have the right of trampled pride but really at the end of the day abuse the right to be so insofar to stamp their authority and perpetuate their prevailing interest.
Let us then pretend that authority has a need- or in other words we need leaders to map out the final vision and guide us along. And if authority is there to promote values- assuming that the vision is not some grand plan- then, really don't we all need saints rather than people who attempts one up-manship. Let us then pretend that one-upmanship has a positive value- henceforth, this up-manship must promote the value of competition and sense of competitive will rather than coercion for authority sake isn't it. This competitive will should breed therefore better outcomes of stronger collective group as opposed to weak collective which ultimately defeats the original intention- one could say. This is a value we attempt to inculcate but on the flip side- what does one-upmanship got to do with winning, since this is really the value we are trying to forged?
Therefore then, if we all want to get even for all the wrong-doings done- how then does one-upmanship pretend that getting even is tantamount to revenge for revenge sake? Ultimately, isn't that quite dissimilar from the idea of a competitive will of which is to win at the final game and not to getting even at every turn.
Therefore one-upmanship as an act of value almost appear to be quite incompatible with the actual behaviour of it. Therefore competition for competition sake and for it's very sake appears to have a material intention then to promote a sense of positive value. It is really at the end of day a matter of serving the interest of those who gains the most from one-upmanship. It is really for group interest rather than for general interest. Those who espouse the positive values of competition while getting every opportunity to take a payback serves no other interest other than those gains the most from one-upmanship- which is that who are one-up in the first place. The disposed never play hardball- it is not in their interest but if it does, it calls really for admiration than for condemnation.
Hence, the idea of one-upmanship or the escalation of competition is really an excuse for a fight- an unfair fight of which is to decimate rather than inculcate. Therefore those who propose such fights pretend to have the right of trampled pride but really at the end of the day abuse the right to be so insofar to stamp their authority and perpetuate their prevailing interest.
Apocalypse Now
Tech companies are no longer the tech companies that they used to be. It is such that tech companies were the high beta plays but now they almost appear to be like traditional brick and mortar companies. There seem to be a new fangled website or company every now and then, but now, tech companies are like the boogie man for everything that is wrong about a risk taking and capitalist society.
The sense is that tech companies is losing it's flavour and they have been slowly replaced by a constant pangs of impending crisis in every turn. There was the Eurozone crisis, then there was jobs crisis, there was the trading scandal crisis, there was the political standoff crisis. Crisis is the new event-driven play. Predict the next crisis and you can predict the next play- it would appear.
But crisis is not new. There have been crisis from the beginning of time, and every time they say there was an apocalypse, miraculously the market will still climb. And when there is calm in the storm, suddenly the market falls off the cliff. Fear is the sure fire way of getting jittery, not the price, and definitely not whether the company is corrupted or well-run or not- but rather a quite unspeakable fear that "something" is going happen. But I have noticed, all the crisis that has been talked about is like asking you to look left and look right before crossing the road, lest you get into an accident. The crisis they talked about almost never materializes.
This crisis is a suspension of your belief that mayhem is coming tomorrow. There have been calls for the end of the world from the Mayan calender, to Mar's landing and an asteroid hitting earth- strangely enough, after 5,000 years of human civilization, no one ever really caught one of these. Likewise for financial markets, every time they say this economy will collapse or that market will fall, it almost never seem happened- and it's market is less than 200 years old. The real crisis happens just when you think nothing is happening.
This fear I suspect is really not as fortuitous one thinks. It's contrived nature, is steeped in mass media culture where reporting of headline-grabbing numbers and statements breeds a sense of uneasiness rather than as a functional communication of data and information.
Reporting that the world will end tomorrow while continuing to report the world will end next week when it doesn't happen tomorrow- the media gets away with it because it is their job to inform rather than to judge. But the net effect of the world's news in half-hour's segment purports to to tell you the world will end tomorrow- with disasters, floods and landslides- while reporting a bush fire in another part of the world next week, it is almost the world is almost really flooding or on fire everyday. The world is so big, some shit is bound to happen somewhere somehow. We just need to pick it for you to read right.
Everyday, there will be another crisis and tomorrow will have some flood and next week there will be earthquake- and if let's say we want to sum up the world's events and report everything, you wouldn't watch the news.
The odds of a Ferrari driven by a mainland Chinese man knocking a taxi cab carrying a Japanese passenger every week is not that big- there are not enough of that in Singapore to cover the whole year, so I suggest that you do not read too much into another crisis of badly behaved foreigners.
Likewise, if you think that China will go into slowdown because the GDP missed by 0.1%- I think you missing the whole point, they have 1.3 billion people and half of them are pretty young. What do young Chinese want more than anything else- more money and jobs right. And does more productivity by many young agile hands perform better than aging albeit elitist and expert hands as an economy- or by extension what is the difference between earning $10,000 a year to $12,000 next year compared with earning $50,000 to $55,000 a year later- the former would find it easier to find jobs, the latter will have to upgrade itself. Unemployment, inflation and other economic issues always crops up- and then if these are crisis, I say most of us would have suffered a heart attack a long time ago.
Therefore similarly tech companies that lose money always existed- companies that lose money existed even before tech companies existed. But companies that existed while other companies lost money also existed. These were crisis even before tech companies faced a crisis- there were crisis even before companies existed. If crisis is a matter of semantics- then I suggest that stretch that definition just a little more, just to fit the modern version because the last I check, a slave loses his head for bringing too warm a water to drink not too long ago. Talk about a crisis.
Crisis ultimately is not to tell you the world is ending tomorrow but rather a crisis of confidence- insofar that you can check your own behaviour- rather than telling you that there is flood in a Pacific island hence it will hit you because a crisis is happening the world; and it is matter of time that it will hit you eventually.
Just so you know, the odds of hitting lottery is better than a apocalypse happening tomorrow because the odds of the former is a finite number and that of the latter is well- nil- because it has never happen before.
Nights
Eugene
The sense is that tech companies is losing it's flavour and they have been slowly replaced by a constant pangs of impending crisis in every turn. There was the Eurozone crisis, then there was jobs crisis, there was the trading scandal crisis, there was the political standoff crisis. Crisis is the new event-driven play. Predict the next crisis and you can predict the next play- it would appear.
But crisis is not new. There have been crisis from the beginning of time, and every time they say there was an apocalypse, miraculously the market will still climb. And when there is calm in the storm, suddenly the market falls off the cliff. Fear is the sure fire way of getting jittery, not the price, and definitely not whether the company is corrupted or well-run or not- but rather a quite unspeakable fear that "something" is going happen. But I have noticed, all the crisis that has been talked about is like asking you to look left and look right before crossing the road, lest you get into an accident. The crisis they talked about almost never materializes.
This crisis is a suspension of your belief that mayhem is coming tomorrow. There have been calls for the end of the world from the Mayan calender, to Mar's landing and an asteroid hitting earth- strangely enough, after 5,000 years of human civilization, no one ever really caught one of these. Likewise for financial markets, every time they say this economy will collapse or that market will fall, it almost never seem happened- and it's market is less than 200 years old. The real crisis happens just when you think nothing is happening.
This fear I suspect is really not as fortuitous one thinks. It's contrived nature, is steeped in mass media culture where reporting of headline-grabbing numbers and statements breeds a sense of uneasiness rather than as a functional communication of data and information.
Reporting that the world will end tomorrow while continuing to report the world will end next week when it doesn't happen tomorrow- the media gets away with it because it is their job to inform rather than to judge. But the net effect of the world's news in half-hour's segment purports to to tell you the world will end tomorrow- with disasters, floods and landslides- while reporting a bush fire in another part of the world next week, it is almost the world is almost really flooding or on fire everyday. The world is so big, some shit is bound to happen somewhere somehow. We just need to pick it for you to read right.
Everyday, there will be another crisis and tomorrow will have some flood and next week there will be earthquake- and if let's say we want to sum up the world's events and report everything, you wouldn't watch the news.
The odds of a Ferrari driven by a mainland Chinese man knocking a taxi cab carrying a Japanese passenger every week is not that big- there are not enough of that in Singapore to cover the whole year, so I suggest that you do not read too much into another crisis of badly behaved foreigners.
Likewise, if you think that China will go into slowdown because the GDP missed by 0.1%- I think you missing the whole point, they have 1.3 billion people and half of them are pretty young. What do young Chinese want more than anything else- more money and jobs right. And does more productivity by many young agile hands perform better than aging albeit elitist and expert hands as an economy- or by extension what is the difference between earning $10,000 a year to $12,000 next year compared with earning $50,000 to $55,000 a year later- the former would find it easier to find jobs, the latter will have to upgrade itself. Unemployment, inflation and other economic issues always crops up- and then if these are crisis, I say most of us would have suffered a heart attack a long time ago.
Therefore similarly tech companies that lose money always existed- companies that lose money existed even before tech companies existed. But companies that existed while other companies lost money also existed. These were crisis even before tech companies faced a crisis- there were crisis even before companies existed. If crisis is a matter of semantics- then I suggest that stretch that definition just a little more, just to fit the modern version because the last I check, a slave loses his head for bringing too warm a water to drink not too long ago. Talk about a crisis.
Crisis ultimately is not to tell you the world is ending tomorrow but rather a crisis of confidence- insofar that you can check your own behaviour- rather than telling you that there is flood in a Pacific island hence it will hit you because a crisis is happening the world; and it is matter of time that it will hit you eventually.
Just so you know, the odds of hitting lottery is better than a apocalypse happening tomorrow because the odds of the former is a finite number and that of the latter is well- nil- because it has never happen before.
Nights
Eugene
Good and Evil
Is there a Good and Evil- is there an eternal war between God and Devil? I am not here to answer the question whether a God and Devil exist, these are questions beyond anything Science can offer- because Science has limits, God and the Devil- by it's definitions- has no limits.
In most cultures and religions, there is often a Good and Evil, a pain and joy, tears and laughter, a black and a white. We do not know one without knowledge of the other. Let us assume that we lived in paradise from birth, how then do we know sadness even when we encounter one, we might not even have the language to explain that emotion. Hence although, it would be very difficult to swallow for some, without evil, good cannot exist because we wouldn't know a bad egg from a good one since we are all the same hence by extension, in everyone language, we wouldn't know Us from Them or the "Others". Therefore in seeking our identity, we do not know ourselves if we do not the "Other" side or by what other name you want to call it.
Therefore when we stand on the side of "Good" for example, we ironically derive our identity from the "Bad' or "Evil" because insofar that the term "Good" does not exist in vacuum. Assuming that all of us is "Good", there would not be a good and evil- there would just be "us".
Hence let us assume that Good and Evil is verifiable, in other words, like in the movies, we see them as monsters or are extremely ugly, while the Good are well just like you and I- with common features- then by extension, we would know who to fight; and ironically there would no longer be no Evil in this world- since well like carbon on a sticky pan, we scrub it off till it's clean. But of course in reality things do not work this way.
Evil therefore in this world is not ugly- neither does it tell you that he is evil; but rather it is line drawn by human forces to tell what is "Good" and what is "Evil". Who is " us" and who is "them" or the "Others". Assuming that this line drawn is subjected then by a very human judgement- then how are we to say who is bad and who right.
Therefore the idea of "evil" assuming that the divine forces work in human objects- therefore could ironically be wrong. Hence then the idea of "Good" and "Evil" without the intervention of an absolute sanctified by an unquestioned source- like a heaven's mandate-, is really quite subjective.
Therefore the vehemence laid upon the "Others" without first hand knowledge but reliant on a proxy authority is subject therefore to empty labelling and stereotyping. Stereotypes, symbols and badges without any real relationships are easy to dislike, real humans are not.
We can often trace the source of the division to how the society is organized and how we divide our work. Labourers are given certain symbols, managers are given certain status, and business owners are given other markers. Once we approportion out the lines, it is then easy to see the Us and Them, and whoever that does not perform the roles of it's ascribed status- is therefore "them", or really by any other names, evil, foreigners, untouchables and other tags. Hence once we apportion out the titles, it's own set morality and behaviour comes into play- and once again these are markers for the likelihood of all deviant tags.
It is then at this point that one realise that the wrong-ness of any particular act is really quite separate from the verdict meted out on any allegations. Therefore assuming then that "wrong-ness" has it's own code, the judgement can therefore be quite different for different sets of people. This ultimately flies in the face of this idea of really "Good" for "Good" sake and "evil" has it's just desserts."
Ultimately it really begs the question, let's say that someone from authority says this person is evil and he has an unquestioned legitimacy- ultimately he is all the human- which part of him/her can one say is guilty/evil/ wrong without finding out the due process. The price of a wrong judgement is laid upon the defendant rather than the audience, but it is the audience who watches and wishes not to be him/her- and that in itself has already work it's magic. Therefore being wrong is not punishable, but rather being caught wrong is the real punishment- there in itself is the biggest carrot for docile followers.
In most cultures and religions, there is often a Good and Evil, a pain and joy, tears and laughter, a black and a white. We do not know one without knowledge of the other. Let us assume that we lived in paradise from birth, how then do we know sadness even when we encounter one, we might not even have the language to explain that emotion. Hence although, it would be very difficult to swallow for some, without evil, good cannot exist because we wouldn't know a bad egg from a good one since we are all the same hence by extension, in everyone language, we wouldn't know Us from Them or the "Others". Therefore in seeking our identity, we do not know ourselves if we do not the "Other" side or by what other name you want to call it.
Therefore when we stand on the side of "Good" for example, we ironically derive our identity from the "Bad' or "Evil" because insofar that the term "Good" does not exist in vacuum. Assuming that all of us is "Good", there would not be a good and evil- there would just be "us".
Hence let us assume that Good and Evil is verifiable, in other words, like in the movies, we see them as monsters or are extremely ugly, while the Good are well just like you and I- with common features- then by extension, we would know who to fight; and ironically there would no longer be no Evil in this world- since well like carbon on a sticky pan, we scrub it off till it's clean. But of course in reality things do not work this way.
Evil therefore in this world is not ugly- neither does it tell you that he is evil; but rather it is line drawn by human forces to tell what is "Good" and what is "Evil". Who is " us" and who is "them" or the "Others". Assuming that this line drawn is subjected then by a very human judgement- then how are we to say who is bad and who right.
Therefore the idea of "evil" assuming that the divine forces work in human objects- therefore could ironically be wrong. Hence then the idea of "Good" and "Evil" without the intervention of an absolute sanctified by an unquestioned source- like a heaven's mandate-, is really quite subjective.
Therefore the vehemence laid upon the "Others" without first hand knowledge but reliant on a proxy authority is subject therefore to empty labelling and stereotyping. Stereotypes, symbols and badges without any real relationships are easy to dislike, real humans are not.
We can often trace the source of the division to how the society is organized and how we divide our work. Labourers are given certain symbols, managers are given certain status, and business owners are given other markers. Once we approportion out the lines, it is then easy to see the Us and Them, and whoever that does not perform the roles of it's ascribed status- is therefore "them", or really by any other names, evil, foreigners, untouchables and other tags. Hence once we apportion out the titles, it's own set morality and behaviour comes into play- and once again these are markers for the likelihood of all deviant tags.
It is then at this point that one realise that the wrong-ness of any particular act is really quite separate from the verdict meted out on any allegations. Therefore assuming then that "wrong-ness" has it's own code, the judgement can therefore be quite different for different sets of people. This ultimately flies in the face of this idea of really "Good" for "Good" sake and "evil" has it's just desserts."
Ultimately it really begs the question, let's say that someone from authority says this person is evil and he has an unquestioned legitimacy- ultimately he is all the human- which part of him/her can one say is guilty/evil/ wrong without finding out the due process. The price of a wrong judgement is laid upon the defendant rather than the audience, but it is the audience who watches and wishes not to be him/her- and that in itself has already work it's magic. Therefore being wrong is not punishable, but rather being caught wrong is the real punishment- there in itself is the biggest carrot for docile followers.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Black and Pink
A car is a car is a car isn't it. Or is it more than that. Some have argued that the colour, the brand and the model of car, shirt or any thing insofar that is associated to you means alot more than the function that it actually performs.
Hence by any extension, everything would be related to you since we all breath the same air and have the same features isn't it. It is then by pulling a little longer, the narration would always remained the same isn't it. If meaning of colours or any badge for that matter remain singularly faithful to it's original meaning, then we would have the same outcome from time immemorial isn't it. Therefore if a badge is worth more than the weight in gold, than of what function does gold perform other than to give it an exchange value.
But the material interest as such is that we buy and exchange things in value and not in badges, hence a change in badges can only suffice therefore if it generates the same amount of significance which can be exchange for something for the same value. Therefore we would never exchange a golden necklace for a golden T-shirt wouldn't we.
Hence a car or any thing that purports to perform beyond it's reported or expected function serves no other purpose than to signal to other's the meaning of it's audience. But if we were to break it down that communication is a function rather than a haloed need, we would then realise that we would have overpaid beyond what the mere function plus the "communicative value" it generates to it's audience.
Let us take it to the flip side that the meaning is indeed a haloed need, hence insofar to take this position is by extension to condemning yourself to repeating the story of it's original meaning. Therefore let us then assume that black is a symbol of death for everyone- which means that every single person and culture associates black with death- then by extension, we should never be drinking black coffee, T-shirt, pants, cars, watches and other material goods, because we would be in effect cursing ourselves isn't it. But why do we tolerate black moles on our face, hair, eyeballs but we cannot tolerate any other things associated to it.
Therefore to take this particular position is not that it is foolhardy or fatalistic but rather it is extremely difficult to see what is right and what is wrong. Of course, some would call these superstitious and it is really- if we do not believed beyond what we experienced- can be so, but rather taking an opposite direction would mean that we can explain everything and everything is knowable within human knowledge.
Hence it has been time immemorial that there is a tug between busting a myth and leaving to vagaries to something larger or beyond us, hence we would have known the answer at this juncture, we would be God or would have created an utopia on earth- because we would discovered something that sticks, an absolute that would stick which is unquestionably "true". Hence insofar that there are no agreement on the "true-ness" of any absolute, it would always be that symbols and anything performing beyond it's function has a communicative value to the intended audience. It therefore does not have any special significance other than it's intention to relay a meaning to it's cultural readers.
But at the end of the day, like many other things, you believed what you want to believe hence insofar that if one were to take offence at the above message, it is a piece that offers nothing more than an opinion. I leave it to you to believe that wearing a black shirt will save you from a bullet while wearing a pink bullet-proof vest does not.
Hence by any extension, everything would be related to you since we all breath the same air and have the same features isn't it. It is then by pulling a little longer, the narration would always remained the same isn't it. If meaning of colours or any badge for that matter remain singularly faithful to it's original meaning, then we would have the same outcome from time immemorial isn't it. Therefore if a badge is worth more than the weight in gold, than of what function does gold perform other than to give it an exchange value.
But the material interest as such is that we buy and exchange things in value and not in badges, hence a change in badges can only suffice therefore if it generates the same amount of significance which can be exchange for something for the same value. Therefore we would never exchange a golden necklace for a golden T-shirt wouldn't we.
Hence a car or any thing that purports to perform beyond it's reported or expected function serves no other purpose than to signal to other's the meaning of it's audience. But if we were to break it down that communication is a function rather than a haloed need, we would then realise that we would have overpaid beyond what the mere function plus the "communicative value" it generates to it's audience.
Let us take it to the flip side that the meaning is indeed a haloed need, hence insofar to take this position is by extension to condemning yourself to repeating the story of it's original meaning. Therefore let us then assume that black is a symbol of death for everyone- which means that every single person and culture associates black with death- then by extension, we should never be drinking black coffee, T-shirt, pants, cars, watches and other material goods, because we would be in effect cursing ourselves isn't it. But why do we tolerate black moles on our face, hair, eyeballs but we cannot tolerate any other things associated to it.
Therefore to take this particular position is not that it is foolhardy or fatalistic but rather it is extremely difficult to see what is right and what is wrong. Of course, some would call these superstitious and it is really- if we do not believed beyond what we experienced- can be so, but rather taking an opposite direction would mean that we can explain everything and everything is knowable within human knowledge.
Hence it has been time immemorial that there is a tug between busting a myth and leaving to vagaries to something larger or beyond us, hence we would have known the answer at this juncture, we would be God or would have created an utopia on earth- because we would discovered something that sticks, an absolute that would stick which is unquestionably "true". Hence insofar that there are no agreement on the "true-ness" of any absolute, it would always be that symbols and anything performing beyond it's function has a communicative value to the intended audience. It therefore does not have any special significance other than it's intention to relay a meaning to it's cultural readers.
But at the end of the day, like many other things, you believed what you want to believe hence insofar that if one were to take offence at the above message, it is a piece that offers nothing more than an opinion. I leave it to you to believe that wearing a black shirt will save you from a bullet while wearing a pink bullet-proof vest does not.
An Elusive Wallpaper
The biggest myth in this world is possession. The belief in that just being there or having it is good enough.
This is an idea primordial perhaps in nature but imprinted perhaps from day one, and this is something everyone attempts to transcend. We seek beyond what it is external and satisfaction beyond the mere material form. It is therefore that we often are never satisfied. More is more to most and less is more to some- thinking a subversion, or an austere outlook gives us a visceral appreciation beyond it's mere possession. The idea remains the same, we seek satisfaction beyond this world.
Assuming then that I can give you an antidote to give you a somatic experience similar to this satisfaction, but it would ultimately always seem to fall woefully short. Life ultimately becomes one long addiction trail.
It ultimately leaves you with an insatiable appetite not for satisfaction but rather for a waunderlust for the unknown.
If we cannot possess it neither can we concoct it, it must then ultimately be it's elusiveness rather than it's actual experience that really matters. The actual experience of it is almost neglible if we have constant access to it isn't it.
Therefore the journey of it becomes in itself is an elusion isn't it. The idea of this "lust" for satisfaction then therefore cannot be measured by how much or how many but rather in it's ability to match the bodily experience with the actual work done isn't it.
Hence by extension, coming back again, we could potentially recreate this satisfaction simply by tweaking either side of the coin isn't. And how then- would a puppet feel that he/she is nothing more than a "puppet"? Once again this satisfaction however fortitious the person doing it feels while so, is nothing more than a sham. How then would you feel explaining to a child that Santa Claus does not exist. But really how would then the child knows that Santa Claus does not exist- will it crush him/her- no, I do not think so, but rather it is then the process of growing up isn't it.
When the child grows up, will he/she tell the same story to his/her children-probably yes- even if he/she knows it is untrue. Why- we think children knows any better. We think since we cannot be satisfied, we must satisfy our kids.
How far do we wish to concoct this myth for everyone to consume- is ultimately why the truth however bitter it seems, seems all the more sweeter. It finally explains why one is a hamster running a treadmill rather than really one really running around. The hamster realises that the cage it lives in is not a paradise filled with mountains and trees pasted around it's cage but really it is just a wallpaper.
It finally makes one realise that the contrived nature of their construction of reality- was made with intentions by someone else rather than a result of it's genuine expended somatically experienced labour or effort. Suddenly it makes everyone realise that the truth must ultimately be sweeter. Otherwise, why the secret?
If life is one big race- what if I told everyone sorry, you have always been running on the treadmill, you were not moving, the pictures were.
How then were the mere satisfaction to actually running to somewhere quite desirable when really it really is just a wallpaper. How then would simply getting there or getting a souvenir be all the more satisfactory. Therefore the race continues always to the next desirable wallpaper- which is the carrot sitting right in front of you when you run.
Elusive wallpaper- suddenly doesn't seem so enticing after all isn't it.
This is an idea primordial perhaps in nature but imprinted perhaps from day one, and this is something everyone attempts to transcend. We seek beyond what it is external and satisfaction beyond the mere material form. It is therefore that we often are never satisfied. More is more to most and less is more to some- thinking a subversion, or an austere outlook gives us a visceral appreciation beyond it's mere possession. The idea remains the same, we seek satisfaction beyond this world.
Assuming then that I can give you an antidote to give you a somatic experience similar to this satisfaction, but it would ultimately always seem to fall woefully short. Life ultimately becomes one long addiction trail.
It ultimately leaves you with an insatiable appetite not for satisfaction but rather for a waunderlust for the unknown.
If we cannot possess it neither can we concoct it, it must then ultimately be it's elusiveness rather than it's actual experience that really matters. The actual experience of it is almost neglible if we have constant access to it isn't it.
Therefore the journey of it becomes in itself is an elusion isn't it. The idea of this "lust" for satisfaction then therefore cannot be measured by how much or how many but rather in it's ability to match the bodily experience with the actual work done isn't it.
Hence by extension, coming back again, we could potentially recreate this satisfaction simply by tweaking either side of the coin isn't. And how then- would a puppet feel that he/she is nothing more than a "puppet"? Once again this satisfaction however fortitious the person doing it feels while so, is nothing more than a sham. How then would you feel explaining to a child that Santa Claus does not exist. But really how would then the child knows that Santa Claus does not exist- will it crush him/her- no, I do not think so, but rather it is then the process of growing up isn't it.
When the child grows up, will he/she tell the same story to his/her children-probably yes- even if he/she knows it is untrue. Why- we think children knows any better. We think since we cannot be satisfied, we must satisfy our kids.
How far do we wish to concoct this myth for everyone to consume- is ultimately why the truth however bitter it seems, seems all the more sweeter. It finally explains why one is a hamster running a treadmill rather than really one really running around. The hamster realises that the cage it lives in is not a paradise filled with mountains and trees pasted around it's cage but really it is just a wallpaper.
It finally makes one realise that the contrived nature of their construction of reality- was made with intentions by someone else rather than a result of it's genuine expended somatically experienced labour or effort. Suddenly it makes everyone realise that the truth must ultimately be sweeter. Otherwise, why the secret?
If life is one big race- what if I told everyone sorry, you have always been running on the treadmill, you were not moving, the pictures were.
How then were the mere satisfaction to actually running to somewhere quite desirable when really it really is just a wallpaper. How then would simply getting there or getting a souvenir be all the more satisfactory. Therefore the race continues always to the next desirable wallpaper- which is the carrot sitting right in front of you when you run.
Elusive wallpaper- suddenly doesn't seem so enticing after all isn't it.
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Noise
It is terrible living in a HDB flat. The amount of noise that one has to endure living in public housing is really overbearing. Noise from motorbikes without silencers, the braking of trains and generally the amount of noise that one hears from living in close quarters of poorly selected locations is really quite jarring.
I made a recording of the noise that I can hear from my room. The noise that one hears is not background hum-drum but rather noises which break from monotonous beat. These noises in itself is extremely disturbing and I suspect that it stems from inconsiderate actions of others who probably are more self-interested then they are self-aware.
This stem from the fact that a general lack of manners which result in an attention-seeking behaviour. There is a need for them to understand, the noise of one small vehicle can cause disruption to the surrounding areas. The noise travel with the vehicle and it does not just exist in a vacum. Hence these vehicle owners need to understand it's actions can have wide implications from it's one simple act of removing the silencer or flooring the turbo charger in densely populated areas.
If other vehicles can move without causing much of a disturbance, really the motorist must be aware of his inappropriate and rather inconsiderate behaviour.
I believed that when we see such behaviour, we must approach the person and tell him his inappropriate act. If one has to will to act, then one must have the will to face it's implications.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Rationality and Emotions
Our decisions are driven a large part by pent up emotions. The most critical decisions are made in the moment of catharsis- a moment of a release from suspended feelings. Most people's view their decisions as rational, justifiable and strategic. It is at the end of the day, a release from the multitude of emotions- the decision insofar is to eradicate this suspended emotion.
Therefore bouts of jealousy, envy, rage, dictates therefore our decision in removing this moment of suspense. Society has insofar kept these emotions in check via means of social order, culture and symbolism. Hence our pent up emotions does not reveal itself and is kept in check by means of denial, eating, laughing and transposing. These are socially acceptable means by which emotions are released or kept in check.
But the question begs that is emotions therefore rational? Hence, is anger, envy and jealousy therefore the result of real injustice or inequality being done?
Have you seen a dog that is affectionate and loyal- hence therefore is the dog's emotions rational in this case? And if so, where does this rationality comes from? Therefore if a dog's emotions are rational, then what is the difference therefore between a dog and a human?
Therefore it is my belief that the difference lies in the proportion of which a dog and a human is able to approximate his emotions with that of his actions. The greater therefore the grievance- injustice or inequality done- the greater the action. Hence a person who acts beyond the justification of the emotion often commits a sin or a wrong. Hence we feel guilty for kicking an animal or ill-treating a child out of anger- because the action does not approximate the emotion.
Therefore we have release our emotions via actions quite disproportionate to that of the emotions. Hence therefore we do feel guilt, a sense of doubt and a lingering unsettled uneasiness in spite of the release.
Since emotions therefore in this case can be structured in the sense to create a release therefore at the critical moments to influence the decisions and therefore the outcome. It is therefore an excuse to justify a emotional decision in the name of a rational one.
Music in shopping centres, movies, magazines and the television are all avenues of which these emotions can be created and yet be released. It would then appear insofar that it was rational but yet these release are often strategically placed to ensure an outcome- creating a suspense and thereby providing an outlet via a decision. The creation of these mediums can then calibrated to ensure a favourable outcome at critical moments and to cause a frenzy or a panic- since very often, we experience very similar emotions. It then ultimately have made the frenzy or panic seems almost rational.
Since emotions in itself is invisible and cannot be prosecuted- since private properties needs an endorsement and does not say anything about the arise-ment of the contract in the first place- it would then can be said to put it bluntly as a point- a science of theft- isn't it. The reason henceforth is that I might not have bought or made a decision had one not covertly placed mechanisms of which to manipulate my decisions and therefore influence the outcome to the interest of the perpetrator. Hence in such context, this decision is therefore questionably rational.
To put it plainly, I might not be writing this piece had i not been spurred by emotion- which perhaps that of release created by a certain event- since for example, say I would not be writing this piece had I say been stuck in a dessert for some time.
Therefore to say that our decisions are purely rational is to say that we are truly independent of these influences and if so, I would like to meet these guy of which I would seek counsel in all matters.
Therefore bouts of jealousy, envy, rage, dictates therefore our decision in removing this moment of suspense. Society has insofar kept these emotions in check via means of social order, culture and symbolism. Hence our pent up emotions does not reveal itself and is kept in check by means of denial, eating, laughing and transposing. These are socially acceptable means by which emotions are released or kept in check.
But the question begs that is emotions therefore rational? Hence, is anger, envy and jealousy therefore the result of real injustice or inequality being done?
Have you seen a dog that is affectionate and loyal- hence therefore is the dog's emotions rational in this case? And if so, where does this rationality comes from? Therefore if a dog's emotions are rational, then what is the difference therefore between a dog and a human?
Therefore it is my belief that the difference lies in the proportion of which a dog and a human is able to approximate his emotions with that of his actions. The greater therefore the grievance- injustice or inequality done- the greater the action. Hence a person who acts beyond the justification of the emotion often commits a sin or a wrong. Hence we feel guilty for kicking an animal or ill-treating a child out of anger- because the action does not approximate the emotion.
Therefore we have release our emotions via actions quite disproportionate to that of the emotions. Hence therefore we do feel guilt, a sense of doubt and a lingering unsettled uneasiness in spite of the release.
Since emotions therefore in this case can be structured in the sense to create a release therefore at the critical moments to influence the decisions and therefore the outcome. It is therefore an excuse to justify a emotional decision in the name of a rational one.
Music in shopping centres, movies, magazines and the television are all avenues of which these emotions can be created and yet be released. It would then appear insofar that it was rational but yet these release are often strategically placed to ensure an outcome- creating a suspense and thereby providing an outlet via a decision. The creation of these mediums can then calibrated to ensure a favourable outcome at critical moments and to cause a frenzy or a panic- since very often, we experience very similar emotions. It then ultimately have made the frenzy or panic seems almost rational.
Since emotions in itself is invisible and cannot be prosecuted- since private properties needs an endorsement and does not say anything about the arise-ment of the contract in the first place- it would then can be said to put it bluntly as a point- a science of theft- isn't it. The reason henceforth is that I might not have bought or made a decision had one not covertly placed mechanisms of which to manipulate my decisions and therefore influence the outcome to the interest of the perpetrator. Hence in such context, this decision is therefore questionably rational.
To put it plainly, I might not be writing this piece had i not been spurred by emotion- which perhaps that of release created by a certain event- since for example, say I would not be writing this piece had I say been stuck in a dessert for some time.
Therefore to say that our decisions are purely rational is to say that we are truly independent of these influences and if so, I would like to meet these guy of which I would seek counsel in all matters.
Friday, July 27, 2012
The Long and Short of it
I am angry. Totally angry. I get mocked at for my balding plate. I get mocked at for being below 1.7m.
The thing that gets me the most is that why don't I get mocked at for having say my hairy chest. I have hairier chest than most but really perhaps thats where my hair went right. Moreover, you know what they say: testosterone is the main cause for a balding plate. Hence by extension, a balding man is really more manly- emits more male pheromones then say a man with full head of hair. A full head of hair presupposes virility- on the head that is. You are not really to playing with the hair. With you get excited by tousling a man's hair all the time, no man- if he is one- would really stand for it isn't it.
Hence at this juncture, let us make a case for a man with a full head of hair. Let's just see, well for one, he can look cool constantly combing his floppy hair. He can join a boy band filled with adolescent screaming teenage girls. He can compete with Ronaldo for shampoo and hair cream advertisement. He can of course participate in Kim Robinson's hairstyle demonstration. These are excellent perks one might say.
Well let us look at the case for balding man then in this case. We save alot on shampoos. We can make be the butt of all jokes. And of course, we do not need to contend with Ronaldo, we just need to take on the bald Italian referee. And lastly we make lot's of money being guinea pigs for thousand and one hair treatment clinics. We get paid for having too much testosterone. [ Well at least, hormones get paid rather than dealing with adolescent screaming girls right.]
Now then let's deal with being short. Think of Bernie Eccelston. I cannot think of tall rich man with strapping girlfriends or models. The only ones that are, are full time superstar athletes- you have contend with Ronaldo again and the Gisele Bundchen's All star quarterback husband. And what if you grow old and can't play the sport. You would be the old tall guy that sticks out and people will always ask you what did you do before.
Now let's talk about being tall. Well, there isn't much to talk about except that perhaps you can play basketball, volleyball until you are 35 that is.
Now what then can a young balding, short guy shorn of confidence to do when faced with overwhelming odds of a tall basketball captain who seems to have everything.
You play the point guard or forward in the basketball team. He will play the centre who catches the rebound and reaches for the ball while you attack the basket.
Do not get distracted by all the attention that this tall basketball captain get. It is natural that when you are centre of attention, everyone wants to get near you. But trust me, you me, things will get decidedly easier when physical attributes and sporting prowess suddenly becomes quite irrelevant as one gets older. Even that tall basketball captain would feel so, and if he is good looking, it is almost likely he will be an actor or musician- just to leverage on the good looks.
The young balding short guy would probably still remain so as he grows older, the only difference then and now would be that popularity no longer is the currency but something more lasting than that- and that of resilience and steadfastness.
Hence do not afraid to break away from the labels that people placed upon you as you get older. The only thing you need to break from is stop looking at the school belle but rather wait for the holidays before doing anything embarrassing and silly about that.
The thing that gets me the most is that why don't I get mocked at for having say my hairy chest. I have hairier chest than most but really perhaps thats where my hair went right. Moreover, you know what they say: testosterone is the main cause for a balding plate. Hence by extension, a balding man is really more manly- emits more male pheromones then say a man with full head of hair. A full head of hair presupposes virility- on the head that is. You are not really to playing with the hair. With you get excited by tousling a man's hair all the time, no man- if he is one- would really stand for it isn't it.
Hence at this juncture, let us make a case for a man with a full head of hair. Let's just see, well for one, he can look cool constantly combing his floppy hair. He can join a boy band filled with adolescent screaming teenage girls. He can compete with Ronaldo for shampoo and hair cream advertisement. He can of course participate in Kim Robinson's hairstyle demonstration. These are excellent perks one might say.
Well let us look at the case for balding man then in this case. We save alot on shampoos. We can make be the butt of all jokes. And of course, we do not need to contend with Ronaldo, we just need to take on the bald Italian referee. And lastly we make lot's of money being guinea pigs for thousand and one hair treatment clinics. We get paid for having too much testosterone. [ Well at least, hormones get paid rather than dealing with adolescent screaming girls right.]
Now then let's deal with being short. Think of Bernie Eccelston. I cannot think of tall rich man with strapping girlfriends or models. The only ones that are, are full time superstar athletes- you have contend with Ronaldo again and the Gisele Bundchen's All star quarterback husband. And what if you grow old and can't play the sport. You would be the old tall guy that sticks out and people will always ask you what did you do before.
Now let's talk about being tall. Well, there isn't much to talk about except that perhaps you can play basketball, volleyball until you are 35 that is.
Now what then can a young balding, short guy shorn of confidence to do when faced with overwhelming odds of a tall basketball captain who seems to have everything.
You play the point guard or forward in the basketball team. He will play the centre who catches the rebound and reaches for the ball while you attack the basket.
Do not get distracted by all the attention that this tall basketball captain get. It is natural that when you are centre of attention, everyone wants to get near you. But trust me, you me, things will get decidedly easier when physical attributes and sporting prowess suddenly becomes quite irrelevant as one gets older. Even that tall basketball captain would feel so, and if he is good looking, it is almost likely he will be an actor or musician- just to leverage on the good looks.
The young balding short guy would probably still remain so as he grows older, the only difference then and now would be that popularity no longer is the currency but something more lasting than that- and that of resilience and steadfastness.
Hence do not afraid to break away from the labels that people placed upon you as you get older. The only thing you need to break from is stop looking at the school belle but rather wait for the holidays before doing anything embarrassing and silly about that.
Social or Rational?
What are the relations insofar between individuals- are they social or are they rational? Social is the glue that ties the interest together. Culture allows the networks to be built hence facilitating for the articulation of mutually-beneficial interest.
But the ties that bind together is ultimately material interest- social ties built on sociability more likely than not degenerate into power relationships. Social roles based on form than on function- more often than not result in exploitation and greed. Altruism and benevolence in such context are likely to be random and self-motivated. Charity in such context too appear to be procurement of goodwill hence enhancing and thereby entrenching existing social roles as opposed to uplifting of social strata.
Hence social roles based on function or in other words, a team: would have to find an enemy. A team without a goal or objective is more likely to be of the above paragraph. A team without a goal and objective, would kill themselves over existing spoils rather than growing them. A team with ambiguous team roles, would often result in disorientation and disillusion.
Hence each team member more often play for themselves rather than for the team. In such context, then, individuality counts for alot more. The ability rather then supporting each other in the accomplishment of each other's roles hence enhancing the team effort would be one of emotional control rather than of camaraderie. Jealousy and envy is bound to happen: hence the ability to focus on the utilitarian aspect is of utmost importance in ensuring that team goals are accomplished: which is to win.
Such a team would require one of utmost ethical standards as the ability to discern right from wrong as opposed to sociability is paramount to that finding the common "enemy". The enemy is therefore not the "Other" but rather yourself.
We win on the basis of individual decisions rather than of collective normative objective. Hence such a team if done correctly are often much admired as they are proven to be worthy individuals- and the resulting effect therefore is an accumulation of often spectacular team capital.
Therefore in order to foster such a team: the irony lies not in making the best decision to win but rather how do we include sociability into the calculus of each individual team member's decisions. Insofar that we are not perfect players, we do need to play to the strength rather than the weakness of each team member.
Hence a team often traverse between what is important: to win and how to win. One cannot do without the other.
Therefore the debate would continue then that whether are we ultimately rational and calculative individuals or are we just blind fools. We are blind fools only insofar that we have no yearning to win- like a cute and innocent baby-, we are cold-blooded, rational creatures only when we realise survival is the final test.
But the question remains: if we are cold-blooded lizards, what then of little children whom have been born for a couple of millennial?
The tension between self-interest and that of social reciprocity is a debate we faced every single day. We often shelved that unknowingly to the social roles that we have been practicing for our entire live. But what of genocides, mass killings, racism, xenophobic killings on the basis of social reciprocity- did anyone dictate that role for us? Are we that blind to kill someone for physical characteristics is wrong.
I leave it to you to think: are we complicit in this discrimination everyday?
But the ties that bind together is ultimately material interest- social ties built on sociability more likely than not degenerate into power relationships. Social roles based on form than on function- more often than not result in exploitation and greed. Altruism and benevolence in such context are likely to be random and self-motivated. Charity in such context too appear to be procurement of goodwill hence enhancing and thereby entrenching existing social roles as opposed to uplifting of social strata.
Hence social roles based on function or in other words, a team: would have to find an enemy. A team without a goal or objective is more likely to be of the above paragraph. A team without a goal and objective, would kill themselves over existing spoils rather than growing them. A team with ambiguous team roles, would often result in disorientation and disillusion.
Hence each team member more often play for themselves rather than for the team. In such context, then, individuality counts for alot more. The ability rather then supporting each other in the accomplishment of each other's roles hence enhancing the team effort would be one of emotional control rather than of camaraderie. Jealousy and envy is bound to happen: hence the ability to focus on the utilitarian aspect is of utmost importance in ensuring that team goals are accomplished: which is to win.
Such a team would require one of utmost ethical standards as the ability to discern right from wrong as opposed to sociability is paramount to that finding the common "enemy". The enemy is therefore not the "Other" but rather yourself.
We win on the basis of individual decisions rather than of collective normative objective. Hence such a team if done correctly are often much admired as they are proven to be worthy individuals- and the resulting effect therefore is an accumulation of often spectacular team capital.
Therefore in order to foster such a team: the irony lies not in making the best decision to win but rather how do we include sociability into the calculus of each individual team member's decisions. Insofar that we are not perfect players, we do need to play to the strength rather than the weakness of each team member.
Hence a team often traverse between what is important: to win and how to win. One cannot do without the other.
Therefore the debate would continue then that whether are we ultimately rational and calculative individuals or are we just blind fools. We are blind fools only insofar that we have no yearning to win- like a cute and innocent baby-, we are cold-blooded, rational creatures only when we realise survival is the final test.
But the question remains: if we are cold-blooded lizards, what then of little children whom have been born for a couple of millennial?
The tension between self-interest and that of social reciprocity is a debate we faced every single day. We often shelved that unknowingly to the social roles that we have been practicing for our entire live. But what of genocides, mass killings, racism, xenophobic killings on the basis of social reciprocity- did anyone dictate that role for us? Are we that blind to kill someone for physical characteristics is wrong.
I leave it to you to think: are we complicit in this discrimination everyday?
Weather and Markets
The market has been extremely quiet the last couple of months. Volumes are down and only the smaller cap stocks appear to be at play- barring transport-related and retail sectors. I believe the reason is that of having too much noise in the market.
Market talk has been drowned out by political talk, sports and sometimes even weather reports. Weather really...
We have gone from talking business to talking everything under the sun related to business. Many things are related to business but business is not necessary related to every other thing.
These distractions meant only one thing- rumour-mongering and everything flows from the grapevine and nothing is ever verified in the first place. Hence small cap stocks, cyclical and defensive plays appears on a rather subdued top volume charts. No one really knows the truth from the lie, hence valuation is artificially depressed- everybody just pretends to be busy that's all. And everyone looks at the weather now- looking for directions.
In order to bring up the volumes and stem this rather ridiculous phenomenon, a couple of things must be done: 1) media must start talking the talk- rather stirring or creating at best tangential news reports and unnecessary create an informal grapevine of news 2) Get back to basics- and not be swayed by faddish trends that really have absolutely no relation to the objective of the story [ robotic comedian from Japan appeared on prime time news at the most prime time slot 3) Do not be creative: news is information, even though information might not be news- hence be selective in choosing information.
4) Do not create innuendos. Stick to your facts. Unnecessary information that really have no bearing on the slant of the news report should be removed. An angle is not an excuse to create an impression but rather to give an opinion.
If the most of us uses news, information and data to form a general opinion on prevailing trends, do not use your personal views to colour your presentation. Hence this rather subdued market is the result of a confused audience fed with quite frivolous information quite unrelated to issues facing the world today. Therefore, it is no wonder that the world is more interested in what weather, colours and numbers represent and indicate than tackling the problem head-on.
Weather do not dictate your decisions, but you have decided to look at the weather and took your eye off the important issues. If you think weather controls your decision, then stay at home- and you will forever be dry. But landslides, flood reports, home fires have been on the rise as well. Oh well, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
If you got burnt, you got nobody to blame but yourself: for looking at weather, rather than asking YOURSELF what to do next.
Market talk has been drowned out by political talk, sports and sometimes even weather reports. Weather really...
We have gone from talking business to talking everything under the sun related to business. Many things are related to business but business is not necessary related to every other thing.
These distractions meant only one thing- rumour-mongering and everything flows from the grapevine and nothing is ever verified in the first place. Hence small cap stocks, cyclical and defensive plays appears on a rather subdued top volume charts. No one really knows the truth from the lie, hence valuation is artificially depressed- everybody just pretends to be busy that's all. And everyone looks at the weather now- looking for directions.
In order to bring up the volumes and stem this rather ridiculous phenomenon, a couple of things must be done: 1) media must start talking the talk- rather stirring or creating at best tangential news reports and unnecessary create an informal grapevine of news 2) Get back to basics- and not be swayed by faddish trends that really have absolutely no relation to the objective of the story [ robotic comedian from Japan appeared on prime time news at the most prime time slot 3) Do not be creative: news is information, even though information might not be news- hence be selective in choosing information.
4) Do not create innuendos. Stick to your facts. Unnecessary information that really have no bearing on the slant of the news report should be removed. An angle is not an excuse to create an impression but rather to give an opinion.
If the most of us uses news, information and data to form a general opinion on prevailing trends, do not use your personal views to colour your presentation. Hence this rather subdued market is the result of a confused audience fed with quite frivolous information quite unrelated to issues facing the world today. Therefore, it is no wonder that the world is more interested in what weather, colours and numbers represent and indicate than tackling the problem head-on.
Weather do not dictate your decisions, but you have decided to look at the weather and took your eye off the important issues. If you think weather controls your decision, then stay at home- and you will forever be dry. But landslides, flood reports, home fires have been on the rise as well. Oh well, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
If you got burnt, you got nobody to blame but yourself: for looking at weather, rather than asking YOURSELF what to do next.
It's not you, it's me
I have broken up with my girlfriend for a couple of years and have been single for that long a time as well. From the very beginning, I have never made a deliberate attempt to really chase a girl. It just sort of happen. The only real time I have ever made a purposeful attempt- and that lasted a week or so of courtship- to do that, the only reason I really did that was that I wanted to feel how it would like to have a pretty girlfriend. Fortunately or unfortunately or so, we did hook up and it was breathless to say the least.
Since then, it would be quite difficult to get me breathless again- not because like I was still crazily pinning for my previous girlfriend- but rather, I can't seem to find something that I desperately want in a girl that would get me my mojo back. Every guy wants a beautiful girlfriend, it is dream that everyone wants to live- those that don't get it, eat sour grapes or you know lead an alternative lifestyle. But the truth is that, once you get it, you realise that it wasn't worth all the effort in the first place. Believe me you not, guys.
Hence now, I am reduced to really just "bird-watching", I would go "oh yeah". I might just make an attempt if it appears that there are signs but like the show "Bodyguard", a bevy of guys would to use the colloquial word "cock-block" it. And I have not even open my mouth.
Truth be told, these guys feel useful being useful but really just waiting for the chance where they can be a knight in shining armour waiting to save the damsel in distress of which their competition is really their friends- who have the same thoughts as well. My first thoughts was: "really". How long have you been hanging around her and are you really that protective- and by the way, my mom is trapped in train carriage, could you be a knight and save her too- a knight is chivalrous by nature rather than contingent on the opposite party right.
Hence, when I see such a scene, I normally don't make a move. Not because that I am intimidated or anything but rather, a person who thinks he is a knight is more dangerous than one who is really one- this is especially so, in events of absolutely zero mortality danger. They tend to get their blood rush to their head unwittingly and get their personal image as the actual reality. A girl is a girl is a girl- insofar that I don't know her, she is still a girl. Period.
Hence, I have realised that the number of such guys like the above is really quite astounding large hence, rather than excite a self-declared guard dog; I would rather sip my beer, watch my football and watch the girl flirting with everyone around her except those closest to her- waiting for her to give them a bone.
When they do get the girl, they would realise ultimately they are really just a substitute- and all the effort put out in being the "protector" and "security guard" suddenly paid off, but it's "conquest" almost seems hollow.
Therefore, I have to say to all the pretty girls and even the not so comely ones- I do notice you but as the cliche really goes and it's true: "it's not you, it is me."
Since then, it would be quite difficult to get me breathless again- not because like I was still crazily pinning for my previous girlfriend- but rather, I can't seem to find something that I desperately want in a girl that would get me my mojo back. Every guy wants a beautiful girlfriend, it is dream that everyone wants to live- those that don't get it, eat sour grapes or you know lead an alternative lifestyle. But the truth is that, once you get it, you realise that it wasn't worth all the effort in the first place. Believe me you not, guys.
Hence now, I am reduced to really just "bird-watching", I would go "oh yeah". I might just make an attempt if it appears that there are signs but like the show "Bodyguard", a bevy of guys would to use the colloquial word "cock-block" it. And I have not even open my mouth.
Truth be told, these guys feel useful being useful but really just waiting for the chance where they can be a knight in shining armour waiting to save the damsel in distress of which their competition is really their friends- who have the same thoughts as well. My first thoughts was: "really". How long have you been hanging around her and are you really that protective- and by the way, my mom is trapped in train carriage, could you be a knight and save her too- a knight is chivalrous by nature rather than contingent on the opposite party right.
Hence, when I see such a scene, I normally don't make a move. Not because that I am intimidated or anything but rather, a person who thinks he is a knight is more dangerous than one who is really one- this is especially so, in events of absolutely zero mortality danger. They tend to get their blood rush to their head unwittingly and get their personal image as the actual reality. A girl is a girl is a girl- insofar that I don't know her, she is still a girl. Period.
Hence, I have realised that the number of such guys like the above is really quite astounding large hence, rather than excite a self-declared guard dog; I would rather sip my beer, watch my football and watch the girl flirting with everyone around her except those closest to her- waiting for her to give them a bone.
When they do get the girl, they would realise ultimately they are really just a substitute- and all the effort put out in being the "protector" and "security guard" suddenly paid off, but it's "conquest" almost seems hollow.
Therefore, I have to say to all the pretty girls and even the not so comely ones- I do notice you but as the cliche really goes and it's true: "it's not you, it is me."
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Hypocrisy and Loneliness
Is hypocrisy justified on the grounds of avoiding loneliness? Hypocrisy is justifiable insofar that that it is to bring out the authenticity of the emotions. People respond to authenticity and never to emotional dissonant words or disconnected expressions.
A comforting word however further from the truth in times of distress speaks volumes for emotional consonance more than the actual solution or truth. Hence the words are a source of comfort rather than actual effect of a solution.
Hence hypocrisy compounds loneliness rather than reduces it. It's actual effect of hypocrisy is to enhance likability insofar that it enhances sociability. But it says nothing about having emotional dissonances or in other words, loneliness. Therefore, we often heard before the phrase: "being alone in a crowd".
Hypocrisy in this world is insofar of practical considerations. The outward appearance of sociability serves only to enhance the appearance of likability and therefore by extension more friends and opportunities. Therefore the appearance of more friends almost presupposes more opportunities, and therefore of more practical use of having friends with a wide network.
We live in a market-driven economy and therefore friends are resources we leverage upon hence the appearance of sociability is of really mutual benefit. The quality of network insofar is hard to gauge from appearances really.
Therefore this competition for appearance of sociability have collapsed sociability with that of happiness. The hypocrisy that we have to upkeep in these competitive environment meant that the motivations are likely to be from without than from within.
Therefore the resultant effect of hypocrisy ironically really more loneliness. The effect of having lived outside of yourself.
Therefore hypocrisy or not speaking your true feelings can only justified on 2 counts 1) one for that of comfort and therefore enhancing the authenticity and encouraging connection rather than that of compounding disconnection 2) out of practical considerations- a lie of which of a decidedly altruistic nature- where one's intention is the betterment of the other party. Therefore the emotional dissonance or discomfort experienced from speaking inauthentic is one for the greater good rather than for self-motivated reasons. The loneliness or rather the misunderstanding occurred is being outweighed therefore by the actual benefits brought about by the resultant effect of the disconnected words- that mostly of energy brought about by the sharp effect of the words.
Therefore hypocrisy for the sake of enhancing sociability does not reduce the effect of loneliness but rather compounds an isolated and desolate feeling. But I suspect this propensity to search for familiar faces is the result of an instinctive reaction towards unfamiliar grounds of which have perpetuated the misguided notion of mixing sociability with that of happiness. Sociability is not happiness and neither is it vice versa.
A comforting word however further from the truth in times of distress speaks volumes for emotional consonance more than the actual solution or truth. Hence the words are a source of comfort rather than actual effect of a solution.
Hence hypocrisy compounds loneliness rather than reduces it. It's actual effect of hypocrisy is to enhance likability insofar that it enhances sociability. But it says nothing about having emotional dissonances or in other words, loneliness. Therefore, we often heard before the phrase: "being alone in a crowd".
Hypocrisy in this world is insofar of practical considerations. The outward appearance of sociability serves only to enhance the appearance of likability and therefore by extension more friends and opportunities. Therefore the appearance of more friends almost presupposes more opportunities, and therefore of more practical use of having friends with a wide network.
We live in a market-driven economy and therefore friends are resources we leverage upon hence the appearance of sociability is of really mutual benefit. The quality of network insofar is hard to gauge from appearances really.
Therefore this competition for appearance of sociability have collapsed sociability with that of happiness. The hypocrisy that we have to upkeep in these competitive environment meant that the motivations are likely to be from without than from within.
Therefore the resultant effect of hypocrisy ironically really more loneliness. The effect of having lived outside of yourself.
Therefore hypocrisy or not speaking your true feelings can only justified on 2 counts 1) one for that of comfort and therefore enhancing the authenticity and encouraging connection rather than that of compounding disconnection 2) out of practical considerations- a lie of which of a decidedly altruistic nature- where one's intention is the betterment of the other party. Therefore the emotional dissonance or discomfort experienced from speaking inauthentic is one for the greater good rather than for self-motivated reasons. The loneliness or rather the misunderstanding occurred is being outweighed therefore by the actual benefits brought about by the resultant effect of the disconnected words- that mostly of energy brought about by the sharp effect of the words.
Therefore hypocrisy for the sake of enhancing sociability does not reduce the effect of loneliness but rather compounds an isolated and desolate feeling. But I suspect this propensity to search for familiar faces is the result of an instinctive reaction towards unfamiliar grounds of which have perpetuated the misguided notion of mixing sociability with that of happiness. Sociability is not happiness and neither is it vice versa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
