Ruling

 
The below was written at 7pm on 19/1/2013 Saturday at a cafe in town:

The biggest fallacy of all is age. The dichotomous relationship of having either one or the other is an untruth of the highest degree.

The common conception is that the young is of a certain quality and the old is of another opposite set is simply myopic and fallacious.

The argument is such that the personality will change with time resulting external social context is a manner of sociological determinism which no one will ever endorsed. The argument that the social context provides the definite building blocks is trying to say that everyone reacts to a social situation in a similar way. And as such, everyone that is 55 acts in a way and those at 21 will act almost the complete opposite.

Following then such argument, everyone older will smarter, richer and better in every aspect- but we know that there are many in jail or bankrupt are really of the older set.

It is like using the same ruler to measure everyone as one grows older. The best form of comparison is form those of the similar social background and not of a variable that does not correspond to the expectations of an independent variable.

Therefore anyone who to do otherwise is simply trying to compare a banana and a wine. A wine intoxicates and requires an acquired taste while the banana is simply a catch all- why the hell, would anyone to compare these two together.

Simply the most frustrating thing that anyone attempts to make comparison is one of which simply have no bearing on actual outcome of any relationship. No one would bother with a variable which simply have no form of correlation or causation to the objective of the comparison in the first place.

The point of a race is to find one who is fastest. And if you introduce a wheel chair bound person and everyone is obligated to run slower in order not to appear rude is simply not making a comparison in the first place. A race is a race and not a race to the moral high ground. A priest or theologian will do a better job than you.

Let us then approach the slippery subject of ethnicity. The economics of dye in certain countries in history presupposes a preference for particular 'colours'. Some have even made money simply by inventing new colours.

The simple argument is 2 fold- 1) passing fads 2) an ideological hung up caused only the historical and social context.

In the first, this simply skillful management of mass media- and in the second, it is simply an extension of the first. Just much much longer that's all.

The power is simply as such that it is the associative powers. It is such that if we do not have the 'natural' attributes for it- we simply find a multitude of ways to be associated to it insofar that it is towards a certain interest.

The imperial color of China is yellow and no one was allowed to wear it insofar that only the emperor has monopoly over it. It is simply to identify itself as the heaven's son and also it closest to it's subject. The only reason that I suspect is that it is the one thing that we cannot change without going through a radical physical transformation. It has nothing to do with a peasant in a far flung corner of it's empire or that of the heaven. Either way, has no direct bearing to it's superiority. Hence then, this obsession with colours has a ruler towards measurement is trying to say that rulers made from different materials have different lengths. Therefore 1 cm in one is really 3 cm in another. I am not sure how does that fit into say a proper comparison.

It is saying that a person wearing red for example runs 90 meters because it is measure in this manner and another wearing green has to run 120 meters because it is measure in this way and then an announcement is made to everyone that it is really a 100 meters race and the time taken remains the same.

This is not even a comparison or a competition. This is a show- that's all- of posterity. And anyone who attempts to obtain a definitive result from this- is better off watching American Idol or Avatar. It is simply more entertaining.

And indeed if this was a straight race- it would be easy. The argument pertaining to the above is to the superiority of one over another on a common measure. The problem is that we cannot even agree on what is common and how then can we say that we are competing in the same race.

Yesterday, I went for a run- an endurance run, to work towards building my stamina and not my speed. For some strange reason, someone ran really fast beside me and had the bragging rights with everyone watching, I simply ignored him and he took it personally and rested every lap just to show he is faster.

Hence perhaps for him, speed was important, who am I to judge but really I am training for a longer distance- there isn't really a need for me to build up so much explosive power. Otherwise, I wouldn't even last the full distance .

The only variable I have mentioned is already place and the other is time. These are simply contextual elements of which to measure performance. Take for example a race: the race is scheduled for say 3pm and it is only known to 7 of the 8 runners and the last runner turned up later and is measured from 3pm onwards- what type of race is this without even proper information dissemination. How do you measure a performance when the racer did not even know the timing of the race in the first place.

Some have used time with connotative elements: The connotative elements is not equal and of similar intensity to everyone- hence how can change one's performance in a 24 hrs clock.

For example you want to use the ruler at 3pm and you didn't tell everyone that you want to use it and only you turn up- and of course you will be the best right- simply because you are the only one in the competition and you invited everyone to watch this farce of a show right.

And then you look beside you- the only ones are the one that you have a pact with. The best part is that, this show was so large that one even believed in one's superiority.

The only variable in this form of determinism is such that of time and place and if it is used to determine the true quality- the most straightforward thing would be to have equal information and measurement so as to have a common measure. Any other deviation from this is simply ideological and an absolute waste of time and a shifting of musical chairs and when the music stop playing- everyone will realize that the chair everyone is sitting, is the same- and other's have walked out to buy their own chair. Or at least earn their way to buy one and not wait for the music to stop playing to realize that one chair is missing and everyone is fighting for that finite number.

Make Babies and be Merry

A comparative method only works and to find the variable is only useful if you are able to hold other things constant. And if this particular variable has salience then does it have any form of correlation and causation.

If other things are not held constant, then insofar, the variable is in itself flawed. For example, if you are looking for a tastiness of apples from two different farms, one cannot used orange and an apple from two different farms to make comparison- simply because these are two different fruits altogether. This all sounds extremely scientific and common sensical.

Let me then demonstrate to you for extremely un-usefulness of using comparative method in finding your life partner. For one, one seeks a partner for different reasons: 1) some for love 2) some for the comapnionship 3) some for money and there are many other whimsical reasons for that as well.

A person seeking companionship is different from one seeking for love. Therefore one man's or woman's poison can be another man or woman's meat. Assuming that companionship has certain qualities- personable, genial and conversational might be attributes for one- but one who is seeking love, they are better off finding a dog instead. And let's not forget about the third, but I think that is self-explanatory although not mutually exclusive.

Hence one is really looking a red chilli pepper, and the other one is looking for comfort fruits like mango and the last well, just like to have foie gras for every meal [ that would be an extreme]. Hence therefore, when one is looking for a partner: those with these different eyes can almost look at the same thing totally differently.

And in making a comparison, each have different preferences and history and insofar then if we were to used conventions- the weightage on different dimensions are almsot different and insofar too, these are the more common ones and for each personality- there are all various idiosyncratic qualities that one look for. And I am not even talking about love- I am just talking about partner selection- and on the former, the one whole pandora's box will be open.

I used to chase this girl- I think that the only reason that we rejected me was that she was probably close to my height or taller than me. This is perfectly fine by me- because I think people think differently about different things- and I respect that. Maybe that's what she is looking for and if that was deal breaker- why torture yourself in a manner of which into circumstances that cannot be changed. This is not a manner of love- it is simply that she/he doesn't like you. We remained friends somewhat but well, we just move along.

There is saying that "all's fair in love and war." My question to that would be: I am sorry, how do I start. I all for fair competition if you are in love or really like this particular person but how does comparison or competition come into play. And assuming that you have "won the heart"- what does it even mean. Let's just look at the above.

And at this current moment, I have seen much that what used to capture me- somehow or rather lost the shine and in similar terms- simply my biological clock is ticking- but I am not a woman hence I have no biological clock to speak off really. Well, I think you get the drift.

This is not a manner of having a roving eye or no one is good enough for me- but rather in reality, I have no practical reasons to be practical if you think about it. I can dream if I so can, simply because and force a "better hand" so to speak simply because time is well, one can say on my side. My ovaries don't malfunction at 35 and everything will work fine so long as I remain relatively healthy hence why should I take a lousy hand when my hand is really much bigger.

Well, women on the other hand- don't have luxury- unless children is not on their cards. And even if so, I am pretty sure that question will come up one time or another- well for me, I really don't have a need for that dilemma. I know that things will not be risky even when I am 21 or when I am 55, it really doesn't makes a difference anyway.

Meanwhile, I'll hold my hand first and let other's do the baby making duties.

Happy baby-making everyone.

P/S: If I do, my babies would turn out better than your's- trust me on that.

Keeping up with the Joneses

Is loneliness a justification for companionship or companionship a justification for loneliness. This means that if I can socially induced "loneliness"- can I not also produce the antidote, similarly in the second, there is the statement that lays this principle.

When we were younger, we were often teased by the popular classmates- and when you get close to them or gain their acceptance, they would often do the things together, however uncharacteristic that it can be. Some simply call this bullying. And when we grow up and we started working, when we are left out of lunch, we felt that we are not part of grapevine- and when there lunches, there were simply gossip about colleagues. Then you just go along, not wishing to eat lunch alone- when what was being said at lunch have nothing to what you are going to do at work. Whether it is instinctive behaviour of a group to self-regulate via patrolling of boundaries or simply just "social" behaviour- there wasn't even a mention of loneliness. It is simply a given, that it is the way that it is- either you with us or you are against us.

Following this particular argument- being with us or against us- has nothing to loneliness, it is a matter of self-interested behaviour. And if so, why then does one continue to do the "ineffective" or "wrong" thing when it is not in our interest to do so- and risk losing your job for lousy performance or engaging unhealthy acts. The human condition has captured that why we act has nothing to why we act- we are simply afraid to be left out or be alone.

The funny thing about this psyche is that in this group, at the same time, they attempt to differentiate themselves. It means that they want to be different and yet be in the group both at the same time. That is the reason that you would see people scrimping and saving to branded goods to lift their status and also printing tattoos and dressing outlandishly while not really doing illegal or deviant.

The recognition of adding value in a group beyond effort is intuitive to the human psyche but the strange thing is we are quite incapable to being different just for the being "different". This means that we are simply wearing the "emperor's new clothes"- which is essentially nothing. But yet the behaviour has the effect of giving the euphoric behaviour of "standing out" when in reality, there is nothing there.

I was in town today, and printed tees making a statement can sell for $100 and upwards- when in reality, they are just t-shirt with a bit more words thats all. The cosmetic industry in Korea is booming and botox injection is as common as going to the dentist- this has a effect that looking good and looking young has a currency in the market. And in similar terms, we want to look young beyond our age and yet maintain the status quo. This has a simple effect of 50 year olds looking like 30 year olds- and for those not quite affording these sessions, they compensate simply by buying more status enhancing products  however how inappropriate it is for their social setting.

And if you are 50 year and look like 50 year- you are simply alone when everyone else doesn't look like your age right. But what is the difference between 50 year old and 30 year old regardless of appearance- everyone who has a history will tell you that it simply different.

The above is not a manner that beauty is bad- but rather keeping up Joneses does not necessarily have a practical value and therefore I concur with this above statement that companionship is sometimes a justification for loneliness. You are made alone not by the force of nature but the a conflicting behaviour of other's both acting out of the norm and yet wanting to stay the same. This has an effect of really driving each other crazy- simply because one is never good enough for the person next to you.

I would rather look lonely looking my age and rather than succumb to what is a relentless pursuit for an eternal fountain of perfection. I'll leave Joneses to keep up with Joneses. Meanwhile, I'll just stick to talking with them- if it is not too demeaning for them.

Being Faithful

Love is a difficult thing- not because it is difficult to fall in love. It is difficult precisely because it is too easy. It is easy to infatuate about something and form positive feelings about someone which eventually becomes an attachment and evocative emotion. Anyone who went through teenage life with a crush would tell that.

The thing about this form of love is that it is so pleasurable and so stirring that nothing in this world will compare to that feeling. It is that's why we always have a lingering feeling about the first time until it fades into oblivion as layers of skepticism lay thin to that powerful feeling.

It is precisely that all of us wish to have that feeling at least once or have always attempted to regain that feeling again. Sex- even the transactional kind- always have a sense of excitement and euphoria, otherwise no one would want to spend money on what is nothing more than a release of bodily fluids. Many of us whom constantly seek this form of pleasure are constantly on the lookout for the euphoric or high that punctuate an otherwise routine life.

Puppy love- then is really the breaking down of barriers- both physically and mentally in which everything seems to harmonize with each other and there are birds singing on the trees with every bouncy step. The euphoria is so subtle that every little thing bounces off from us and nothing can do any wrong. It is no wonder that everyone seeks that state.

And the transactional form seeks to find this euphoria insofar not as a mental state but rather as a form of blip in a plateau of which only makes the plateau all the more tolerable. It is a means to an end rather than a mood.

Love then you see- one would release has little space for daily life- not once did I ever mention that love is a solution or is the antidote of life- but rather it is a condition of which only makes our life meaningful. And without it, all duties are routines and all rights are entitlements.

That is exactly why it is so elusive and yet so powerful. It is easy to fall in love but it is really difficult to do something because it means something otherwise many things would not be done. That is exactly why, when we grow older, love is not that weightless feeling anymore but rather something like a task and a chore of which we would have to manage among the many other things in our life. To fall in love is simply not practicable in real life- it is really just too cumbersome and bothersome- everyone knows it, but yet everyone seeks the opposite.

There are some who say that conceptions of love is romantic and flourishing- there is such a thing as contentment and satisfaction. Granted that such feelings exist, but why would anyone seek a lover or partner when a dog or cat or even any other thing can give you that same feeling. I suspect that it is nothing more than euphemism of which that it is nothing more than companionship and loneliness than love.

That is then I too suspect that many regret their choices in partners or lovers simply because they couldn't stand being lonely rather than sticking to their guns and finding something that they want. I have no beef with that and it is that life is simply matter of trade offs- whether deliberate or instinctive. But then, think about that lingering look of someone that made a pass at you- did it just skipped a beat- and if it did, on what matters did it make it sense that you are satisfied with what you have. This is not temptation or a sin- it simply that sticky feeling that you reminded yourself of the potential feeling that one gave up in frustration for something less than ideal. It's your regret that throbs and not devil whispering in your ear.

If you read all the recent sex scandals and all infidelity- it is never about love- it is always about the tryst. And you gave it up when you suspend your standards for something to relieve that pain inside you. You were short-changed and you simply want to have the cake and eat it as well.

Being faithful is never about the other person, it is about you slacking and trading off something you might have for something you can have. You screw up not because you are sexy and desirable and somebody wants you- you screwed up because you want to have the feeling of being desirable. Sadly, it is really all about you- but not in the manner that you think you are. No one tempted you- you gave that up a long time ago.

 

Hell

I like to think we no more than social creatures but rather thinking creatures. To put it simply, we have the ability to think outside of ourself and also acting within the limits of ourselves.

For example, you do not like smoking and you know that it is harmful, but your friends smoke and chide you for not doing so- the mental dilemma in your head is then insofar that of the above. Instinctively, you would smoke- not knowing better, but you hesitate only insofar that you thinking for yourself and not within yourself. And if do the latter- you would smoke because simply because you cannot control yourself.

Let us then revisit whether these two can be collapse together- which means that I can make the social part of you into the rational part and vice versa. For example, smoking is good therefore I should smoke. I was watching a documentary on cigarette companies hosting huge concerts in Indonesia, I don't think there was outright sale of the cigarettes but the songs did not say to smoke- it just simply gather a huge group of people sponsored by these companies in the name of fun. And when everyone is having fun at the expense of someone else- how can one actually say no. It is almost irrational to do likewise. But by attending the concert, you have already circumscribed your rationality in the manner of which would that lowers the social barriers so much so that your left side of your brain would have to work much harder to prevent the subliminal messages from coming in.

I am not engaging in a crusade against cigarette companies. But the point is that these dilemmas are existent in every social interaction. They are intentionally circumscribing your rationality with no regard for your interest. It is really a one-size fits all type of situation in most interactions.

Why do you cross the road only when the green man lights up, and why do you really need a $2,000 handbag and why must you wear in a certain way to attract people of the opposite sex- you did not go for classes for it, well, you simply just do it. And if so, it makes sense, where does your knowledge or information came from- is there a genetic code to identify likewise which was imprinted even before you are born- and it simply because your social self kicking in- you knew before you knew simply because everyone else is doing it: it is really as simple as that. You want to fit in and fitting in simply means that it must be right- and then if so, would you want to fit into a squatter or do you want to fit in a mansion. You are fitting in isn't it- why didn't you want to fit in into somewhere that makes even more "sense" than your existing position. So if fitting in is so important- why did you choose to fit in say being a "prostitute". They have codes and way of behaviour- why doesn't one want to fit in there- simply because you are not thinking within yourself, and because you know the consequences of pursuing such a path. And how different is it for a person to say that my parents are bus driver and therefore I do not wish to be one- the parents would say good for you, and I support you.

On the second manner, where social codes are used to instill control and therefore restrict the self-interested behaviour of individuals. The idea is that for the greater good, it is best to restrain than to unleash. It means that if everyone is self interested, we would simply collapse under the weight of divergent behaviour of individuals. The simple dilemma and the age old paradox comes into play: if everyone is the same- would we be what we are today? We would be stuck in beliefs of animism and various other forms of superstition. Hence if we are really nothing more than self-interested animals waiting to unleash oneself to the world and wreak havoc- lest not forget that wars are waged by nations and parties, never by individuals. And if war is a condition of pathology, then isn't groups and communities the source of it.

There are no answers to the above question, only more questions. And if one claimed to have one- asked one very simple question: are you an absolute- otherwise, who are you?

Tomorrow, as an exercise do this: don't say hello to your neighbours or colleagues or anyone- and you would see how fast things fall apart. The community has unleashed hell.

Melon Colie and Melancholy

There are many whom have mistaken a premise for the actual story itself. Many are so caught up with the premise that the forgot it is a story after all. For example, a person reading about Alice in Wonderland is dreamer- but in reality it is an allegory about the tales of our lives. In similar terms, a person watching Pretty Woman is hoping to be a prostitute and marry a rich guy- it is a story and it is a vision. The point is that it has meaning- the premise is the one contains it- there is no difference in content of Snow White and Seven Dwarfs; it is a romance story. A princess or a prostitute.

I was browsing through the bookstore as I always do and I picked up Memories of my Melancholy Whores by Gabriel Marcia Marquez- he is a Nobel Prize winner in Literature- and I was given dirty looks like I was the 90 year old protagonist. This is not a promotion of pedophilia- it is a premise for which the visceral nature of it's writing is it's main thrust. If he was anything like this particular protagonist- I don't think he will win the Nobel Prize. The best part is that the best of us, never even came close to finishing a short story- and here we are judging- seriously. If you think it is hedonistic or debauchery, nobody force you to read it- you can just walk away- just like you would at any public displays that offend you.

My suggestion is that if one have not read the book, do not force your holier-than-thou opinion. And if it offends your morals, I am polluting myself and not you- why is one so caught up in trying to force the moral upper hand of the opinion. Let's not get into any spiritual proof and the like- I think everyone gets the drift. Respect each other's space and find a way to communicate rather than capitulate- no one wins, especially in morality.

Anyway, I am not promoting his "loose" morals of his stories but if one closes one's eyes- one realise that the way to love seems to weave in his narrative. And I don't think I would be so prolific as the other protagonist in Love in Time of Cholera. He wasn't even born then and how the hell did he manage to write about the cholera spread in South America- and so I rest my case.

There are many whom have prized resolute-ness over doubt and Inquisition. I don't really say you are wrong- but there is no need to prove your resolute-ness to me. If you think, I am weakening you- I have no problem in not speaking my mind, but the weather has that much to talk to you about anyway.

I was at bookshop and it is at least 200,000 square feet of floor space- and if it does offend you- feel free to move away to the other end of the bookstore. I don't need to respect your opinions insofar that I did not read aloud to you or cut across you rudely. If you can't get even the simple things right, I really doubt I can ask you the difference between Melancholy and Melon Collie. [ By the way, one is an emotion, the other is an album by Smashing Pumpkins- and it is not really a word per se.]

Walk away- if it irritates you now. Just don't overstay your presence.

Self-Loath

Many believed that they can arouse attention or elicit a response simply by doing something a particular action that is counter-intuitive. Simply by fighting a particular emotion is not tantamount to getting an opposite emotion. For example, a lonely person very often would do anything to hide his emotion simply by gesticulating loudly. The lonelier the person, the larger and louder the counter-intuitive response. This is in particular for any form of emotion which one is attempting to cover. The more obvious the cover, the bigger and louder the absence. 

In reality, this is a response of which is of desperation and helplessness. One cannot solve nor ameliorate a particular feeling and therefore, of which to feel alive is to the do the exact opposite. This is really a response to a lack. 

Quite frankly, I do see anything wrong in being something that you are not. There is no need to cover up for your flaws- if you do, the more apparent the flaws- that sinking feeling of not feeling good enough is really the cause of this innate urge to hide one's weakness. 

Insofar that to protect the ego and self-image of one, the lengths of which one attempt to reflect a positive self-image went as far as being hyper-"anything". The normal is the abnormal is the normal. It is perfectly fine with not being perfect- I don't think it is fine to over-do anything. 

Today, in response to a threat- a father signal an authoritative tone to his young son- this is highly inappropriate for 2 reasons 1) He is only 3 years old- I think it is tolerable 2) an appropriate response in a public context is not to be overly aggressive- for fear of receiving a similar response- but rather it lies a latent motive beyond what is discipline to eyes of the audience. It is really a "hyper" reaction- a reaction of which tangential to actual action. It was never about disciplining the kid- it was about something else- and I'll leave you to your imagination to conjure up the various intentions in the head. It is loud not to the kid- but to everyone seeing the act right in the middle of plaza.

Hence, in response of being lonely, desperate and helpless- and of course, these emotions are normal, it is perfectly fine to have these feelings- but what is not fine is the denial of these feelings which manifest itself in ways that one even loses track of why one is feeling in the first place.

The common charge is then it would appear that one would have to in control of your emotions in this case- there really isn't a need to- it is a simply a reaction to the self-loathing of one's self-image. This unfortunately goes deeper beyond simply self-control. You dislike yourself and that's exactly what you are feeling right now.

It is sad- and you deny it. What is even more sad- that you try to cover it. And when in the process of doing so, you hurt people around you and the self-loathing gets even more intense as a result. Let go, rather than control it. And do everyone around you a favour.

The Elephant in the room

I was having dinner just now and I noticed a very strange phenomenon: that it is perfectly alright for old man to have young girlfriends. That to me is perfectly fine by me since I am really getting old myself. The thing is that there almost seem to be no form of embarrassment or "shame" on the side of the old man.

The look on most girls I noticed is fairly constant: that is, oh well, he is old but what can I do about it. It's like a form of reticent and acquiesced resignation.

But the old man, it seems to bask in the light of being adored by a young girl- but the look on the girl almost gives everything away. I am not sure why the old man seems to lack the irony to detect it and really made himself more embarrassing than it should be. No matter how young one tries to be or pretends to be- everyone knows- everyone just ignores the big white elephant in the room that's all.
The funny thing is that the more one tries to save him this embarrassment, the more he tries to make the elephant in the room even bigger than it already is.

I am not one to judge but really, everyone knows what in your head, so save us the social niceties and really eat your meal, and move along with it. Let's not make the social situation more awkward than it already should be. And do save the poor girl some face as well.

Everyone wants to be young forever- but some age more gracefully than others. There are some who apparently want to retrieve their lost youth and really hit on young defenceless people just because they have earn some money along the way. It is perfectly natural to be richer than them- you have already worked at least a good 30 years, they probably just started out, so I would hesitate to gloat about this if I were you.

Let me just say that I am getting old, my hairline is receding at a rate of a tsunami retreating and it never comes back regardless of the gravitational pull of the moon and so don't give me the crap that I won't understand- trust me, I really do.

Some things are so rude in the broad daylight that some people do not have the decency to restrain themselves in full view of people watching. Their intention so plain that it is like a giant elephant-s in a tiny room- regardless of how big the public place is.

I am not sure what got into their head in blatantly showing this behaviour- but there is a particular trade which is really the oldest in the world.

There are places for this and there are times for this- and it is profession for a reason- do what you have to do and don't treat the world as your own private bedroom.

Oh by the way, with globalization, the world is getting smaller and there is that much space to contain that many elephants. If I was someone associated with you, trust me, I would give that much a berth I would towards an elephant. Act your age, there are kids watching for crying out loud.

" No Passion's Slave"

In recent years, I hardly read about achieving equality and equity as an aspiration. It appears that practical concerns have triumphed over that of goals and visions much further away. Most are concerned with cutting budget deficit or reducing reliance on credit- which is really a worthy cause. But have we forgot that there is also a human character in the numbers?

The market has won, no one is talking about shared community but rather lifting the middle class and reducing income inequality. Politics is almost swallowed up by the economics of our times. The opposition and alternatives have found a space and a niche in every corner of society- which is sad really- which means that they have given up changing things but rather accept their limited lot in their fate. They have been circumscribed.

Ideals have been lost, visions have been compromised and dreams has been traded. I almost missed terrorism because at least they have something to fight for- but now, it appears that every body's reaction is really tepid in most times and dramatic for a fleeting moment only at best. The most exciting thing that happened last year was really a blind man and an almost non-existent skirmish somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

I read somewhere that we are only peaceful when we are the same which means that the preconditions to non-violence is well being homogeneous. This is the opposite of essential behaviour- which means that everything is meaningless and flat- this is skepticism gone ideological. It's like we do not care therefore we do not fight you.

The walking dead attempts to eat all healthy human beings and turned them to zombies- where they do not eat other. The zombies walk among the zombies not recognizing one from the other,isn't that the end of the world coming.

Today is a trend of cool skepticism where it is no longer trendy to hold a banner and fight for your "rights"- whatever that maybe. It no longer is political correct to fight for "freedom" or "oppression", and it is also not politically correct to criticize authoritarian regimes because simply because of "cultural" context. It is as if, one single word can explain away all the "wrongs" in the world.

When Myanmar release it's political prisoners, it was almost an non-event, where a few years ago, it would be lauded as a triumph for "democracy". Now it is like, "oh well, the world has moved on, so should Myanmar. And when North Korea had a failed rocket launch, no one chided them or try rubbed salt into the wounds- everyone kept quiet, almost of an disquieting civility.

Cold War has ended, Russia no longer even tries to be communist and no one even attempts to be anything now. Are we going to save the dolphins now and see no light, no end and no passions to improve the human condition?

How do you want the world to be- think hard, work smart and play even harder.

 

I am a fun, interesting and adventurous- you just don't know it yet. Come and know me!!

I am really just a boring person. There is nothing absolutely interesting about me. Firstly I make logical arguments of which no one really cares- and I make a fool out of myself without really trying. How then can it be that there is anything interesting about me?

Firstly one, I do not show any interest in women who show interest in me. And secondly, they hate me for the guts and thirdly, they become embroiled in a name-calling match of which I came looking more like Frankenstein than a bored person.

I am not sure which is better, someone making salacious stories about me and making me more interesting than I really am or simply because I just am flattered with all the attention. But I'll stick with the second, I am better with that.

This has got me thinking that why I am really perceived as an extremely bored person: after some serious self-contemplation, I have made up of the following list?

1) I do not talk- it is really hard to be interesting when all I do is to stare into my hand phone and write  notes of everything else but not the important things.

2) I visit the same place over and over again- so much so that it seem that my geography is limited to these few places

3) I am really deep down, just a good boy with strong wholesome values and a beacon for everyone. I am really just too damn good that's all.

I am not sure why, even when I don't talk, there are so much laughter around me that I am wondering whether they know what I am writing in my hand phone. And then if so, it doesn't really matter whether I talk or not. They simply just laugh. Hence by this definition, I am not a boring person- regardless of whether I am the source of jokes.

2) I like to think interpretation is more important than novelty. Like the bookstore I visit quite often- they seem to know my life more than I care to remember or can remember. The placement of books is such that I get a new discovery every time I visit the place. The place remains the same, the experience I get is so different. Hence I beg to differ that novelty trumps experience- you just have to know where to look for it.

3) This is extremely debatable. You see a good boy with strong wholesome values can be just as interesting. Like I say, I mind my own business and two I get new experiences every single day, who say, a guy with strong wholesome values is boring- I say screw this stereotype. Apologies, pardon my French [ I absolutely mean it].

Having brought down the particular stereotype, I have nothing but perfect admiration for myself and therefore I like to conclude that I am really the most interesting person in the world- hence whoever that intends to think otherwise- can kiss my ass. [ figuratively speaking of course- I am strong guy with good wholesome values remember.]

Nights.

Enjoy the last day of the year while it still lasts.

Eugene

High and Low

A disrespect for a personal space and time is symptomatic of a culture which is ineffective in progressing beyond mere possession. In public space, noise travel and everything is within a glance or a earshot. Just because we owned something or allowed to do so, doesn't mean that one has the right to do so. Civilization has progressed such a way that we are able to artfully communicate a message without the need to rouse a disturbance. And in so doing otherwise, norms are not established and it's rules are rudimentary and crude in nature.

In Switzerland, one is barred from flushing the toilet after a certain time for fear of waking up the neighbours. But in many countries, many people are pleased to do whatever they please just because they own a particular piece of property.

There is no manner of high or low culture in this particular respect. This not an appreciation in the difference between Mattise and Renoir, this is a manner doing of how you wish to communicate in a manner that is not unruffling. And it does not take a diplomat to constantly speak in political correct tones- this is just a manner of if you were doing something, would you want to disturb or be told in a certain manner.

It would seem the above would raise the question of the dichotomous nature masculinity and feminist. But tell any politician or successful business person, and they will you that this is an act. A politician with brute force is not one, a business person with sheer weight will only work in almost non-existent monopolistic environment.

An army general with no clue of the skilled art of diplomacy will ruffle the feathers of those in S1 and intelligence department- who will tell you that it is not as simple as sending your tanks over to find out intel about your enemy or procuring for new weapons.

Anybody in this particular aspect whom have no respect for personal property and the possible affliction caused by the frivolous actions seen by one's rather parochial worldview is one whom has not acquire the art being heard without being heard or being seen without being seen. Insofar, that in many aspects, the progress of many culture in spite of much lauded economic success has not kept pace with each other. There is a difference between status and being rich- these are not collapsed together. Any self-made man would tell you this- it is those that have not make it that would tell you otherwise.

Being "social"

There are some whom have confused with "being social" and "sociable". Being social means observing social norms but keeping a distance but "sociable" means the act of being social- or actually doing the act of enjoying mixing around.

Take for example, I socialize around people that I might not like but I have to- for posterity sake- for the appearance of being well-liked and one always stand outside of oneself- always finding ways of fitting in-. Therefore one can be social without being "sociable" in this sense.

One in effect can be sociable without being "social". Social relationship require an awareness of social context and if one senses a negative one- the social and "sociable" one- would have to be dexterous and not committed.

At the supermarket, I was walking through the aisle, a guy zoom past me without really highlighting his presence while heading straight for the counter- this unfortunately is not an Olympiad, and there are no prizes for finishing first. You might show to your friends an extremely quick feet- navigating the crowd- but to everyone else, it is just a nuisance.

I was buying DVDs- let's just say of the bootleg nature- somewhere in the world, I was alone buying and suddenly out of nowhere, a crowd suddenly gathered around me also buying them, and this "stall" has been around for some time already. This is NOT a "social" phenomenon- and no, it does not constitute as "sociable", it might be socially permissible- but it sure is not being in line with "being social" as well. You are doing something that is condone by other's but it is not necessarily "being social" with them.

Having said that, there are some whom enjoy the act of being part of a group participating furiously in an event that is popular and well-attended, that is the nature of being a "social animal". Do not confuse the experience of "being social" with that of actually "am social". You might be enjoying yourself in a public event but the same might not be said of the person beside you.

Have you told a kid off in a playground that you are making too much noise while playing with other kids- the only difference is that you cannot tell another adult that you are making a nuisance of yourself in spite of the "self-delirium".

One might "feel" part of the group- but being "part" of a group is a whole new ball game altogether.
The whole idea of a gang is "being part of group" but would you call them "sociable" or "social". This is rhetorical question I know.

Good Bye

The God of wine is Dionysius, and pretending that you are god of wine is not going to make an immortal. If you are brave only because you don't recognize people around you, it doesn't make you brave.

In the moment, doesn't mean that you are not who you are. It means that you are so consume by something you cannot control that you are forget who you are.

It's amorphous nature is fallacious to think that we can keep it under control- you would not know the what you did today will cause a virus tomorrow, death later or stupid conflict and lastly sadness. Do not pretend that you can control what you did just because you cannot endure it. 

Do not confuse for what you are with what what you really are- do not for a second think that your rage, anger, jealousy is justified just because there is an opportunity. 

There will be repercussions- just not now. You just wait and see

Get Real

Love, hatred when one mixed into the pot is really one potent concoction. It often turns to vengeance, rage, envy and jealousy. 

At this current moment, for everyone whom have any of these emotions towards me, I have no idea what to say but why?

What really am I to you that stir these emotions towards me? If these feelings are fleeting, comes and goes- why then harbor these stinging feelings underneath the skin? In reality, it does more harm to yourself than it does to me.

If I so defined you so much, then who are you? Have no one ask this really basic question?

If I can motivate actions- be it benign or malign- who then is control of your life, you or me? In reality, you need me more than than I need you.

You need an igniter quickly, and you desperately search for one but in reality, you have no idea why you are igniting the flame for in the first place. 

The only thing that quenches your thirst for these emotions is ironically the only thing that lights you up. The actions do not quench your thirst, you have none to start with but rather what you have is a placid life of which only these fleeting moments of transcendence that allows you to go beyond your "self". You used me only to fire that humdrum life that you've called one.

You feel trapped and am trapped but you used this as compass as a beacon for the pathetic life onlyto realize   that all these is ephemeral. You don't hate me, you hate your life and yourself, and how you have turned out eventually.

I do not quench your thirst, I am the blip on the plateau on which one has to remember: I don't owe a fucking thing to you.

Really, I do hope that you get on with your life- no matter how sad and pathetic it is- because think about it, it has absolutely nothing to do with me. 

Get a mirror or therapist. Better, get a real life and stay out of my way.

Eugene

Clueless Star

There are some whom want to brag and thrash talk before they have anything to shout about. There are quite a number who really means: "Empty vessel makes the most noise."

There are some whom believed that by looking good means being good. There is a saying that goes: "Face is more important than life." And it is therefore their belief to be popular at all cost.

And in order to maintain their popularity, they will do anything to maintain their face.

It is not that I don't care about face, but quite a number of people think that nobody cannot see their ruse and their act. And they think they are extremely well-liked and maintain a delusional self-image that it is almost cruel to tell them the truth.

Sometimes, it doesn't occur to them that they are well-like and popular among their peers only and anybody outside of this circle just think that they are in outer space. The only reason that they are well-liked by their peers is because they are just like that person. So therefore you would see a bunch like-minded people hanging around gaining confidence in a group when they are really nuisance to everyone around them.

And when a stranger comes up and talk to them, they freeze and they suddenly turns into mush in the most critical period.

And so everyone thinks that I am a star or "special" just because perhaps maybe I am not like them and I am just trying to be different. I am not sure whether one have considered that maybe other's can smell insecurity and desperation from the way one acts and it can really makes another person very uncomfortable just being around that person.

I am not sure whether anyone have considered that I am ignoring that person just so that one will not make a further fool of themselves by attracting a lot of unnecessary attention.

People can and will see what one does and they will react if they don't like what you are doing. Even if I don't react, somebody will, and appreciate my goodwill when you are being nuisance to everyone around you. When I ignore you, I am already helping you. When I making fun of you, I am already making things easy for you to move away.

The air we breath is the same so don't make it anymore difficult it is for yourself and everyone around you. There is no difference in the water that we drink.

If you want to be a star, start with people around you. Not with people, you don't even know.

Take Care

Eugene

Life

The only thing that will motivate people is the push. People are in itself condemned to be led because they are quite incapable beyond responding to external stimuli.

I have never confessed to know everything but I have never said that I would have to follow if I don't know. These are two different things altogether.

It is for this reason many are condemned to be ignorant. They believe in being a master/slave, they believe in a yes/no, strong/weak, rich/poor. In reality, they lived in a world of black and white more than people believed I am calculative and rational.

If you can't be smart, then you must be stupid. If you can't be successful, then you must be a failure. If you can't be strong than you must be weak. The funniest thing is that when they are in a disadvantaged position, they readily start themselves from behind. Then they move themselves from behind- why do that?

On what basis, do you admit your weaker position?

If you don't even know why, why make other's weaker than yourself? Have you see your own reflection that there is a plane of comparison in the first place. If you better, what do you gain by making other's worse, if you are worst, what do you gain by making other's worse- in both instances nothing.

I have never once said that you should do this and you should do that- it is for the very reason that one thinks you are better than me that I will ask you, why did you ask me to do something? There is no ego, and if you can't give me an explanation or at least show to me- than on what basis would one have to start from a weaker position.

Then there is this question of good/bad and right/wrong. Only the self-righteous accuse the other's of being wrong. The right never said that they are right because they know they would get wrong someday. The funny thing is that they cover one "right" with another "right" until they believe that they are "entitled" to be right.

Nobody has a monopoly on "rightness". If you ever look yourself in the mirror and said something in self-defence, that is not "right" either. Because, you knew it was wrong and yet you did it. You will forever compensate for these internal conflict- nobody did it to you, you did it to yourself.

You cannot get over yourself precisely because you have build a mountain of inconsistencies in one's stance that you poke holes into your own psyche- thinking that building higher walls who prevent an incursion.

Some have said that I do not care for other's- the best part is that I don't even who are these people who said that. And if one have sincere intentions in highlighting the flaws- how come I don't even know are they and what basis did they say so. Are you trying to say everyone who criticize me is altruistic- and if so, the world will be a wonderful place to lived in.

I don't think that I am superior to other's but I really do pity those that continue only to chase my shadows- and it is not because I am afraid of competition, but why are you competing with me? Why do you keep on chasing your own tail when you have better things to do?

I have never liked the number 7, but sometimes people make me laugh and cry at the same time. And to stop myself from getting sad, I make fun of them but sometimes they don't get the joke and they just keep on coming.

I have no idols but I do have favourites. But I don't mixed them up together. Just because it is my favourite, doesn't mean this person can do no wrong or always do the right thing. Just because there are some admirable qualities, doesn't mean that this person is perfect.

If someone do admire me, I am doing this person a favour by distancing myself from him/her. The only way one can improve is question your weakness and not emulate or copy. The more questions being posed, the better one gets. Even if the answer is imperfect, it is almost always better than the last one.

Do not get me wrong that I dislike you or don't care about you, only by removing the idol worship quality, can one ask yourself: what is so good about this person and what should I follow and what should I not follow. That being said, don't hate me.

The more you hate me, the worst it gets for your life- when you can spend your time on more productive things.

What would you do if you were in my shoes- and if you don't enjoy that, then you have serious case of jealousy and not positive self-improvement.

One can't stop other's from doing what they do, but by doing so, you are destroying your own life and not that of other's. I have nothing to do with it, you did it to yourself. It's your life to destroy, not mine.

The world's biggest loser

One day, a boy walked up to the mirror and look at himself. Why do I look like this and why am I in this state? He walked out sunken.

So later that day, he walked out trying to cheer himself up and then he found a smaller boy who had fell down on the road. He kicked him in his and laughed at him. And now he felt much better about himself.

When he went to school and he got the final grades for his exam. He failed and he felt even more miserable. He went back and lied to his parents that he had score very high marks just that the teacher had not distributed the papers back yet.

He felt very terrible about he himself and when he stepped out of his house, he saw a little kitten whom was stranded. He poured some oil on the little cat and lit it on fire. He was laughing as the little kitten squeaked in pain.

Lastly, what he did was to walk into his little brother's - whom was doing much better- room and poured glued into his school bag. The brother's school and home work was ruined and he had to start all over again his school work.

One day, he walked past the same mirror again. And he saw the reflection of what he did. The reflection told quite different story. In the reflection, what he did was smashing the reflection on the mirror and did nothing of the sort. What he did was smash all his own reflections and nothing else. Everything else remained intact.

What he did was to smash all the mirrors that has his own image. The people were on the other side of the road.

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

In truth, you hate yourself more than you hate other's. The biggest loser is your reflection.

  

On fight or flight.

There are some people whom believed that they are entitled to do whatever they want just because there is an opportunity to do so. There are some whom will persevere and protect themselves just to avoid being on the firing line.

Let me just tell you when you stare death at it's face, death will stare back at you. This is not a who blinks first game, there is nothing there, so why would anyone want to blink. It is how you react when nothing stares back at you.

There are no such things as resurrection, there are no such things as revival and there are are definitely no such things as coming back from the dead. You create your own death because you think of it. You creates the death of other's because you are afraid of it. You create it because you want it not because it is the right time. There is no right time.

This is not a matter of willpower, strength, strategy or intelligence or resources- this is a matter of you thinking a siege just so you can justify you can create death in your own head. It is like envisioning your own death when it have not even happen. If I break it down for you now, don't you realise how stupid and preposterous your thinking and mind is now.

The fear gets in your brain, and your brain envision your death and therefore you either run away, defend, or push it away. Everyone grows old, and there are always younger people coming along- why then are so afraid of death when the odds of you dying from lung cancer because of smoking is higher than you actually being struck by lightning or other events you cannot control. Ironically, who chooses to speed up death while being afraid of it [ since tobacco is emotional stabilizer of some sorts].

You worry about being down with all kinds of ailments at 50-70 when the average mortality rate is 83 -86 locally. Either you are really dumb or your mind is playing tricks on you. Either way, I cannot help you because this visualization technique is way stronger than you can imagine. This is your own self-fulfilling prophecy.

What you believe, you act. What you see, you act. What you afraid, you dart. Therefore when you are afraid- which is your very own expiry- how would you react: Fight or flight.

Nobody can create your destiny except those that you believe and if you are so scared of death, very often you are always the first to go. Cowards always lose- one way or another.

Ignorance is bliss

I have spend one entire year trying to understand the actions of other's and their motivations. The only thing that I can tell you is that I was tricked for some time, and I allowed myself to be tricked just so I can find out the extent, the motivations of the actions of other's.

I was a fool for one year just so I can know how people make a fool out of other's. I am happy to report that I was a fool for one year but I am no closer to motivations of other's. Because in reality, they are as clueless as why they even do the things that they do.

They don't know because they are scared and clueless. They want things quick and easy. They believed in form over functions. They are happy while remaining bestially ignorant of themselves. They believe in themselves because they want people to believe in them without even knowing what they believe and know in the first place. They believe that every action leads to some form of reaction but without really knowing why so and how so. Their habits permeate so deep that to unravel them would mean unravelling why there are male and female in the first place.

They want to know without even knowing what is want and know in the first place. They want to buy without knowing how and why it is being made. They put on a brave front without even knowing why in the first place. They want to balance things without even knowing the quantities and the reason in the first place. They want harmony without even knowing the cost. They want to be successful, rich and smart and everything without ever knowing even knowing why. And even if you are, what good would it do for you. What good would it do for you if someone even gave you all these for free. You squander everything away because you don't even know how you get there in the first place.

They want to believe but yet are too lazy to understand why. They want to travel without even knowing what they are searching for. They look without searching. They search without digging. They dig without searching. Ultimately, they go back one very simple rule: they want to survive. And that's when the degeneration begins because you have all but given up.

Everybody don't know. It is fine. If we did, we would live in utopia, but we don't and so deal with it.
Utopia is a dream for a reason. Heaven cannot be seen for a reason. You just don't need to speed it up nor bring it down.

I am the biggest fool to think I can understand it all. I was wrong. I don't need to understand you, you need to understand you. It all starts with you. I am the biggest fool and it all starts with you.






  

The world's biggest loser

Have you looked another person in the eye and asked yourself "why is this person so different from me?" why since I find this person particularly irksome, why do we still want to bother about this person.

Have you looked yourself in the mirror and asked yourself, what makes you any less irksome than this person? And when you pray to your god, ancestors or something beyond yourself- what do you pray for- for more money, for more promotion or did you sincerely believed that having more money will make your family happier? And put yourself in god's shoes- aren't you anymore irksome than a person asking for a handout? On what right, do you have to ask for things?

There are some whom particularly in their prayers wants to get rid of people or things for their convenience but what's makes you think that the god you are talking to, doesn't want to get rid of you for this particular request? Piety, loyalty and integrity doesn't beget kindness in real life and makes you think that this would be given to you just because you asked for it without demonstrating any of these qualities.

If you are incapable of getting what you want, what makes you think that any other person can do any better than you. And if so, why condemn a loser when you are "loser" yourself- just because you didn't know about it. Hiding a sour face behind a brave front would makes an even bigger loser for a distinct lack of ability to faced up to reality- and if so, what makes you think any supernatural being would help you. If a human could tell piety from flattery, what makes you think that any "supernatural" being is incapable of seeing that.

An 'otherworldly" deliverance only gives you a "after-life" guarantee but it doesn't mean that the experience will be that good. It's a clarion call, not unqualified guarantee. When someone tells you that it is certified 100% healthy, it doesn't mean that after drinking it will make you into a man of steel. Being healthy is quite different from being strong.

When someone tells you that lowest price guarantee, did you really believed that every item is the lowest price and if so, why do you readily believed that, no commitment will give you a committed guarantee for something so important. Someone must have screwed your head or you only get part of the story- only listen the parts that you like.

Therefore, look yourself in mirror: asked yourself whether are you irksome? And if let's say you were to face your maker or anyone whom you revered, can you say that I am good and therefore I should be rewarded or do you say that I visit you everyday so I must be rewarded. This is one and two different things.

Who is the biggest "loser"?

Face yourself in the mirror and ask yourself: are you irksome- and if you feel ashamed, there is still a shred of hope for you.