There was a farm where all the animals lived in bliss. Basically there were only 2 types of animals and the farmers which control them. One is the crowned dogs which listen to the command of the farmers and then there were the sheep. The dog had an occasional mutton to eat and the farmer had milk and sold the sheep to the nearby market for money.
Everyone was relatively happy. Insofar that the farmer had a source of income, the dog had what it needed and the sheep was living in blissful ignorance with all the grass to eat.
But the farmer decided to expand it's repertoire of farm animals and introduced cows in as well- the cows were extremely useful- they could be milked, they could be sold for meat or be used to till the ground. But they needed more manpower and horses as well to round them up. Hence the lead farmer introduced the a second farmer well-versed in cow rearing to hire cowboys and buy horses to manage the cow herd.
Now the farm was getting a little crowded. The sheep whom have had all the meadows to themselves now had to contend with a smaller but bigger group of cows for the grass. But both are relatively domesticated animals and hence did not caused much trouble for the farmers. The only thing they ever did, was to kick the crowned dogs- hence injuring some of those handsome dogs. The cows were more than happy as they were bigger and could moved around to eat around the fields whom are relatively untouched as the sheep had a much smaller appetite. Moreover, they had come from downstream and hence the grass taste a little better due to the water. They didn't caused much trouble for the cowboys or horses. They knew a good grass from a bad one that is.
And now at the farmer's house, the two lead farmers had decided to bring their family together to lived together on a bigger premises so they could watch over the farm. Hence in time to come, the son and daughters eventually did get married to each other and making the farm house ever closer.
The cowboys and the crowned dogs began to get a little restless. As their simple way of life became even more complicated. The dogs lost the attention of their owners somewhat and had to work harder to the increased population of navigation. The cowboys on the other had wanted to be closer to the family but often relegated to the nearby town bar or street diner. And having work so hard while, the farmer's son married the daughter and became part owner of the farm at about the same age. They didn't feel that it was fair. From time to time, they would plunged a hole in the young man's car tyres but overall, they kept to their jobs. But their boisterousness was getting louder but the two lead farmers kept them in check as they knew their parents from the nearby church.
As the two farmers got closer, they decided to try to introduce both set of animals rather than keep them separated. They wanted to put them together as they had a vision of running farm where the animals ran a factory via them their energy. In other words, they wanted them to work together to produce goods for the town. And in such a environment, they would have to be kept in close proximity together hence they wanted to blood them in, so that they can run on the treadmills to power the factory.
While in the meadows with the barriers up, the bigger male cows were attracted by the pheromones emitted by the female sheep and would try to proposition them as they would with their own kind. The smaller but much larger male sheep population- sensing a testosterone came together and prevented the bigger cows from even coming a whisker of the female sheep. And in time to come, they even grew horns to fend off the attack. Such an occurrence did not ever happen before the introduction as they are largely similar.
The closer they get, the fiercer the territorial dispute. And they both sets spend more time posturing than eating the grass to produce better fur or stronger muscles to work the fields. In fact, the bigger bulls began to grow different form of spots to attract the sheep, while the smaller sheep to compensate for their smaller size grew ever larger horns. The dogs were disheartened and the cowboys decided to let loose to let the farmers know their worth and said nothing about the developments. They allow the tension to grow without allowing for any lost sheep or cow. The farmers knew none the better about the tension. All they see from afar was cows and sheep grazing on the fields and the dogs and cowboys were there to take care of things.
Meanwhile as they were preparing the blueprint of the new factory, one of the cows who were stepping too close to another sheep- and from the blind spot it appears that the cow was inside the safe distance from each other was chased and fell into the river. The cow drowned but the cowboy told the farmers that it was near evening hence the cow might not be able to see the water.
But seeing this development, the farmer felt something amiss and decided to blood the two animals together by way of carrot and stick and incentives. They decided to put each of their favourite foods around the opposite ends herd. And in order to earn the reward each animal must exchanged it for their fur and this can only be done by going through the opposite herd. The cow on other had would have to exchange for their favourite food by carrying milk for the sheep to drink while going through the herd. Both set of animals complied unerringly as the sight of their favourite food appears to be too big an incentive to miss.
But once the task was done, they went largely back to their own herd and barn to rest hardly ever communicating with the other side.
Meanwhile, while walking through the herd, one of the female sheep was attracted by the musk of one male cows and walked over instead. The rest of the sheep- even the male ones said or did nothing- because they did not want to jeopardized their turn as the farmers were watching. And soon more of these occurrences begin to happen so much so that the female cows also began to show affection towards the ever growing presence of the male sheep. The same happened for the male cows who did nothing as both sides were doing the same thing anyway and they did not want to get into the farmer's bad books.
And even in so doing, these occurrences only happened during this period, and they largely stayed in each other quarter's after this daily exercise. As they need to work together in the long run, they need to do more than that.
Hence the farmer decided to do something radical. They decided to an hybrid animal. An animal where everyone must and should adhere to. They decided to fatten the sheep and starved the cows and dyed their fur to the same colour of the cows. In this case, the cows and sheep looked almost similar. Hence, in time to come the cow grew smaller and almost looked like an enlarged sheep while, the sheep grew fatter and larger and had artificially coloured fur. But the animals know the cows from the cows and the sheep from the sheep even though from time to time they to be more comfortable in each other presence. Some even to stay at each other's quarters and there wasn't even a need for any incentive.
And soon the bahmoo population- the new animal's name- were called began to grew so large such the sheep left the cows more food to eat and the cows cleaned the dyes off the sheep. They began to asked themselves: why should they made to feel or do something that they are not. One day, one of the female sheep stole a white flag and took the dye from it's fur and created a symbol: a bahmoo symbol.
In the dead of the night, all the animals charged at the farmhouse and destroyed everything. The cowboys and dogs did nothing as they felt neglected and disgruntled that things changed so much.
The farm was destroyed, the farmers were gone. The cowboys left as there was no work and the dogs went to a farm downstream. The bahmoos were triumphant.
But now with no one to water the grass and ensure it's fertility. They grazed as if there was no tomorrow and soon the entire fields have run barren. They now turned to each other- blaming each other for chasing the farmers away and having nothing to eat. And since they had such a close relationship, suddenly the old wounds begin to resurface, where the territorial rights begin to assert itself. What was ok, suddenly was bad as they had nothing better to do. They began to fight and with no cowboys and farmers to watched over them, casualties mounted. And everything was back to square one.
A new batch of owners, now with guns and trucks came in and round them up. And the cycle starts all over again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are unprepared for consequence, don't even try it. If you want to play god, don't even try it.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
On life
Shopping malls and cinemas exist only because lush fields with sweeping meadows doesn't. Cheap flights exist only because internet exist. A hypermarket exist because we don't we grow our own food.
We keep animals as pets because we have no use for them. We buy expensive clothes to wear to office because comfort is not the most important criteria.
We are relieve from these not by choice but by circumstances.
Paint a scenario where life is computer game and you could always restart all over again when you"die". Would you live the life that you are living now?
When if you are not living the life that you want to life, why are you still sticking with it? Are you afraid- what are you afraid of? How likely is that going happen- and what if I tell, you can always press the "restart" at any point in time, would you do what you want to do?
So why do you visit the shopping malls so often when it is always the same old brands- just in another location? Why do you travel so often if you are genuinely happy- because you can. Why do it- just because you can? But, can doesn't mean you should or you must- hence why do it, when you visit the same old stores all the time? If life is computer game, would you be visiting the malls all the time in your "sim-city"? Then why are you doing it?
What are you afraid of really- living?
And if one day, someone open up your heart and ask you- what does it contain: how would you answer? And if your life is a computer game with a "restart" button anytime: would your heart be different from reality? And if I tell you that this computer game is going to dictate your life forever after playing your game: how would you play your game- would you regret doing what you did?
And now I tell you, you cannot play the game anymore: you have made your choice and this is what you have chosen- how then would you live your life: forever pining for the playing the computer game or you just moved on; or do you play life's real games.
Life is a computer game and a life and death game at the same time: you play and then lived by it. You have a choice or you don't at all. Your choice.
We keep animals as pets because we have no use for them. We buy expensive clothes to wear to office because comfort is not the most important criteria.
We are relieve from these not by choice but by circumstances.
Paint a scenario where life is computer game and you could always restart all over again when you"die". Would you live the life that you are living now?
When if you are not living the life that you want to life, why are you still sticking with it? Are you afraid- what are you afraid of? How likely is that going happen- and what if I tell, you can always press the "restart" at any point in time, would you do what you want to do?
So why do you visit the shopping malls so often when it is always the same old brands- just in another location? Why do you travel so often if you are genuinely happy- because you can. Why do it- just because you can? But, can doesn't mean you should or you must- hence why do it, when you visit the same old stores all the time? If life is computer game, would you be visiting the malls all the time in your "sim-city"? Then why are you doing it?
What are you afraid of really- living?
And if one day, someone open up your heart and ask you- what does it contain: how would you answer? And if your life is a computer game with a "restart" button anytime: would your heart be different from reality? And if I tell you that this computer game is going to dictate your life forever after playing your game: how would you play your game- would you regret doing what you did?
And now I tell you, you cannot play the game anymore: you have made your choice and this is what you have chosen- how then would you live your life: forever pining for the playing the computer game or you just moved on; or do you play life's real games.
Life is a computer game and a life and death game at the same time: you play and then lived by it. You have a choice or you don't at all. Your choice.
On Life
There was a puppet master whose only dream was to create a puppet as life-like as possible. Hence he studied the movements of real persons and tried to mimic the actions to make it as realistic as possible. At the same time, he made puppets of his own and attempted to make them to it's own vision but to make the audience feel that performance resonates with them.
And in time to come, his audience was taken by the performance and how vivid his performances were. His dedication to his craft meant that he wanted it to make as "real" as possible hence he decided to input artificial intelligence into his puppets. Hence he could more and make his performance more colourful with more characters and making even more realistic to actual life.
The advancement in technology meant that the AI only got better so much to the point that he could do nothing and the puppets would act by themselves- all it needed was a general guidelines, statements and scenarios.
And beknown to him was the advancement of the microchips of the artificial intelligence of which it included an ability to seek his own best interest. And in the process, the puppet master was bringing in more audience while bringing in more characters and making the performance even more vivid.
The audience was stunned by the life-like nature of the performance but soon, the puppets begin to talk even among themselves and could switch on it's battery even without human intervention. At this current moment, there were 50 puppets now acting concurrently with each other in a play: all they needed was a script.
But the puppets now could seek it's own best interest and began to doubt why they should be kept in the cupboard and only be allowed to perform when it was asked to. And soon, in a play meant to portray the values of community life- it began to quarrel among themselves instead of performing each of it's own roles. The puppet master explained that it was a glitch and cut the performance short and went back to puppet maker: what happen?
The puppet manufacturer can only say: you wanted it this way and it is exactly what we gave to you. You wanted the puppet automatically like clockwork with the least amount of effort and this is exactly what we gave to you. This is your problem and not mine: look caveat emptor- says the contract.
In another performance, the puppet even walked out of the show. Quite unheard of in a performance in puppet history really.
In the final show of the puppet performance, the puppets did what it was the best interest: they hopped onto the bus and moved into another city which allows them to lived among the locals and act like them. Hence one day, the puppet master came back and found that the puppet cupboard was empty.
The show handed and he went back to hand puppeteering and never trusted the puppets to act on his own again.
The puppets meanwhile, never went back to the puppet master because he had went back to his roots and everyone was happy in it's own little space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reality, you can never have the cake and eat it as well. The sooner you realise that, the faster you will accept that life goes on with or without you.
And in time to come, his audience was taken by the performance and how vivid his performances were. His dedication to his craft meant that he wanted it to make as "real" as possible hence he decided to input artificial intelligence into his puppets. Hence he could more and make his performance more colourful with more characters and making even more realistic to actual life.
The advancement in technology meant that the AI only got better so much to the point that he could do nothing and the puppets would act by themselves- all it needed was a general guidelines, statements and scenarios.
And beknown to him was the advancement of the microchips of the artificial intelligence of which it included an ability to seek his own best interest. And in the process, the puppet master was bringing in more audience while bringing in more characters and making the performance even more vivid.
The audience was stunned by the life-like nature of the performance but soon, the puppets begin to talk even among themselves and could switch on it's battery even without human intervention. At this current moment, there were 50 puppets now acting concurrently with each other in a play: all they needed was a script.
But the puppets now could seek it's own best interest and began to doubt why they should be kept in the cupboard and only be allowed to perform when it was asked to. And soon, in a play meant to portray the values of community life- it began to quarrel among themselves instead of performing each of it's own roles. The puppet master explained that it was a glitch and cut the performance short and went back to puppet maker: what happen?
The puppet manufacturer can only say: you wanted it this way and it is exactly what we gave to you. You wanted the puppet automatically like clockwork with the least amount of effort and this is exactly what we gave to you. This is your problem and not mine: look caveat emptor- says the contract.
In another performance, the puppet even walked out of the show. Quite unheard of in a performance in puppet history really.
In the final show of the puppet performance, the puppets did what it was the best interest: they hopped onto the bus and moved into another city which allows them to lived among the locals and act like them. Hence one day, the puppet master came back and found that the puppet cupboard was empty.
The show handed and he went back to hand puppeteering and never trusted the puppets to act on his own again.
The puppets meanwhile, never went back to the puppet master because he had went back to his roots and everyone was happy in it's own little space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reality, you can never have the cake and eat it as well. The sooner you realise that, the faster you will accept that life goes on with or without you.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
I forgive you
To everyone, whom perhaps have felt guilty about accusing me of things that I have not done or have trampled on me to get ahead, I can safely tell you that you do not need to be afraid or feel terrible for what you have done. In reality, I pity you more than than you feel guilty towards me.
Firstly, if one feels compels to follow like pete piper leading the blind mice, wouldn't that shadow forever be hanging over the shoulders regardless of the success. George W Bush started a war his father couldn't finish- what more can one say of who constantly hangs on the coat tails of others.
I have often heard that people find me loathesome- I have always maintain that you don't need to be friends with me. But if you wish to retaliate as a result of the spite when I did nothing- do you really hate me or are you envious of me or jealous of me, or do you really just want my attention regardless of the source. And if in any of the above, why should I be angry at you for. What you need is sympathy- but I can't give it to you because you find me loathsome.
Really at the same time, if you can't cope with your emotions and how then can you be trusted with things of a larger implications- and that is the reason, you should not feel guilty towards the spite that you have thrown because in reality, you have thrown yourself into the dumpster without me doing anything isn't it. You need a large dose of sympathy, pity and empathy of which I cannot give it to you because you find me loathsome.
Hence I would not interfere if you seek solace somewhere else because you desperately need it- this is even though you do it in my face, thinking that you would rubbing salt to my wound, but you have made me see you in a more pitiful light.
What is more pitiful is that you have elevated an ordinary man- me- onto a status I am hugely undeserving.
I would suggest reading up more on paternalism and it's ill-effects before you continue to put me on a pedestal. One day, have a quiet time, sit down and reflect on the reasons of your actions before you jumped the gun again.
I forgive you.
Firstly, if one feels compels to follow like pete piper leading the blind mice, wouldn't that shadow forever be hanging over the shoulders regardless of the success. George W Bush started a war his father couldn't finish- what more can one say of who constantly hangs on the coat tails of others.
I have often heard that people find me loathesome- I have always maintain that you don't need to be friends with me. But if you wish to retaliate as a result of the spite when I did nothing- do you really hate me or are you envious of me or jealous of me, or do you really just want my attention regardless of the source. And if in any of the above, why should I be angry at you for. What you need is sympathy- but I can't give it to you because you find me loathsome.
Really at the same time, if you can't cope with your emotions and how then can you be trusted with things of a larger implications- and that is the reason, you should not feel guilty towards the spite that you have thrown because in reality, you have thrown yourself into the dumpster without me doing anything isn't it. You need a large dose of sympathy, pity and empathy of which I cannot give it to you because you find me loathsome.
Hence I would not interfere if you seek solace somewhere else because you desperately need it- this is even though you do it in my face, thinking that you would rubbing salt to my wound, but you have made me see you in a more pitiful light.
What is more pitiful is that you have elevated an ordinary man- me- onto a status I am hugely undeserving.
I would suggest reading up more on paternalism and it's ill-effects before you continue to put me on a pedestal. One day, have a quiet time, sit down and reflect on the reasons of your actions before you jumped the gun again.
I forgive you.
The Gap
Many people believed that I have changed. But who has not changed.
Many people believed that I have changed for the worse- but did you know me in the first place or do you know me or want me to be "me" on your terms in the first place.
There are people who believed that the easy-going guy with a sense of humour and to laugh at himself has changed into a professional and business-like person with disregard for other people's feeling in the first place- but you want me to be like that just so that you can lord over me and take advantage of this nonchalant nature ultimately isn't it.
The only thing that changed is circumstances- studies is about knowing your own things. growing up is about taking care of your own things. I have known the difference and that is the reason I prolonged my "childhood" in the first place- just so I don't need to think about the practical things.
I have never changed, the only thing that changed is the perspective of people towards a person who have to pursue his own life. The change was only cosmetic- but it shouts out the difference between people who care and people who don't- and boy the is the gap yawningly large.
You have made your choice and I have made mine- go and live your life and not bother me with your life's regrets and grouses.
Many people believed that I have changed for the worse- but did you know me in the first place or do you know me or want me to be "me" on your terms in the first place.
There are people who believed that the easy-going guy with a sense of humour and to laugh at himself has changed into a professional and business-like person with disregard for other people's feeling in the first place- but you want me to be like that just so that you can lord over me and take advantage of this nonchalant nature ultimately isn't it.
The only thing that changed is circumstances- studies is about knowing your own things. growing up is about taking care of your own things. I have known the difference and that is the reason I prolonged my "childhood" in the first place- just so I don't need to think about the practical things.
I have never changed, the only thing that changed is the perspective of people towards a person who have to pursue his own life. The change was only cosmetic- but it shouts out the difference between people who care and people who don't- and boy the is the gap yawningly large.
You have made your choice and I have made mine- go and live your life and not bother me with your life's regrets and grouses.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Not Rejecting doesn't equal Acceptance
What is the difference between acceptance and rejection? There are some whom have confused not rejecting as acceptance. There are some whom believed that just because a person doesn't react, it means that the person is accepting to the person.
There are some in their minds whom believed that just because a person is fitting in, one is being accepted by another. There are some whom have craved acceptance so much so that they view all "positive-like" communication as acceptance.
And in order to get this "positive" message, they structure the response so much so that they will get a "positive" answer. And in their minds, they believed that they have been accepted by others.
But in reality, their personal habits are as much as a repudiation to other's as much they are personal propensity to fit in. It is their belief that by fitting in, they are accepted by other's when it is the inverse. Therefore, they believe in their lie just so that they can continue their ways which is repulsive to other's.
Personally, I find it quite sad that for them. I am hesitant to point out their socially-repulsive behaviour because the truth has eluded them so much so that it might be painful for them. In similar terms, it is none of my business really. If they think they are civilized and absolutely justified in doing so, who am I to say otherwise. It is the people closest to them that suffers, not me.
Well if even their closest people don't tell them what is wrong, either they are condoning or couldn't be bothered- why then should I bother in the first place. And if they are so deluded, they are probably deluded for a long time already otherwise, they wouldn't be so comfortable with themselves for so long right.
Anyway, what they do publicly, will probably transmit what they privately hence if you think that is an appropriate behaviour and you are fine with it- then you deserve to be victims and sufferers in the first place right.
The non-rejection is acceptable at home, is probably what they portray outside anyway. And if you find sufficient victims and sufferers to be in your courtyard, good going for you.
Just wait till you get out of your comfort zone that is.
There are some in their minds whom believed that just because a person is fitting in, one is being accepted by another. There are some whom have craved acceptance so much so that they view all "positive-like" communication as acceptance.
And in order to get this "positive" message, they structure the response so much so that they will get a "positive" answer. And in their minds, they believed that they have been accepted by others.
But in reality, their personal habits are as much as a repudiation to other's as much they are personal propensity to fit in. It is their belief that by fitting in, they are accepted by other's when it is the inverse. Therefore, they believe in their lie just so that they can continue their ways which is repulsive to other's.
Personally, I find it quite sad that for them. I am hesitant to point out their socially-repulsive behaviour because the truth has eluded them so much so that it might be painful for them. In similar terms, it is none of my business really. If they think they are civilized and absolutely justified in doing so, who am I to say otherwise. It is the people closest to them that suffers, not me.
Well if even their closest people don't tell them what is wrong, either they are condoning or couldn't be bothered- why then should I bother in the first place. And if they are so deluded, they are probably deluded for a long time already otherwise, they wouldn't be so comfortable with themselves for so long right.
Anyway, what they do publicly, will probably transmit what they privately hence if you think that is an appropriate behaviour and you are fine with it- then you deserve to be victims and sufferers in the first place right.
The non-rejection is acceptable at home, is probably what they portray outside anyway. And if you find sufficient victims and sufferers to be in your courtyard, good going for you.
Just wait till you get out of your comfort zone that is.
On Rainbows and Judgement Days
A rainbow appeared on the sky and the kid asked the teacher why every time we see the rainbow, we feel extremely happy.
The teacher replied that because it means that life is colourful and is something we should be happy about.
The boy asked: why don't people wear the colourful shirts everyday then?
The teacher replied: Because if one wears a rainbow-coloured clothes, it means that one cannot be trusted.
The boy asked: "isn't life about being happy then? Why do people insist of wearing the same boring shirt everyday then?"
The teacher replied that: it is because adults have to work and do other boring things- just so you can be happy and think rainbows are wonderful.
The boy asked:Why does my mom and my dad looks so happy when wear black then- the rainbow doesn't have black right- especially after they have a dinner outside? I am not happy when I see a rainy or dark sky, I am happy when I see the blue sky and rainbow.
The teacher replied: well, they are used to the colour i supposed.
The boy replied: you are wearing black today- but you are cheerful and does all adults like black or dark colours.
The teacher: well,... talk to your mom and dad on this.
Sometimes, we confused the cup or plate from the things that we drink or eat. We forget that we eat or drink the food or liquid and not the cup. The substance could be odourless, colourless and might even taste good even but we wouldn't know the effects until much later.
What we drink or eat from doesn't say whether you are a good, bad or hardworking person- it is what we do, and how we do that says so. Morals is an absolute- good or bad- does not derive from categories. What is permissible is not necessarily right as well. What is permissible gives you nothing more than popular approval. Choice is not a right but an entitlement- the choices that one makes makes you, it makes you free-er but it doesn't make you necessarily better.
There are no absolute power now only because the fallibility of man but the fallibility is not just on the absolute but on the individual, on the people and on everyone now. The freedom is therefore not a right but an entitlement. If you want it, you have to earn it.
And if you don't earn it, religion don't judge you, the state won't judge you, the law won't judge you. Someone will- that I can reassure you- just not now.
The teacher replied that because it means that life is colourful and is something we should be happy about.
The boy asked: why don't people wear the colourful shirts everyday then?
The teacher replied: Because if one wears a rainbow-coloured clothes, it means that one cannot be trusted.
The boy asked: "isn't life about being happy then? Why do people insist of wearing the same boring shirt everyday then?"
The teacher replied that: it is because adults have to work and do other boring things- just so you can be happy and think rainbows are wonderful.
The boy asked:Why does my mom and my dad looks so happy when wear black then- the rainbow doesn't have black right- especially after they have a dinner outside? I am not happy when I see a rainy or dark sky, I am happy when I see the blue sky and rainbow.
The teacher replied: well, they are used to the colour i supposed.
The boy replied: you are wearing black today- but you are cheerful and does all adults like black or dark colours.
The teacher: well,... talk to your mom and dad on this.
Sometimes, we confused the cup or plate from the things that we drink or eat. We forget that we eat or drink the food or liquid and not the cup. The substance could be odourless, colourless and might even taste good even but we wouldn't know the effects until much later.
What we drink or eat from doesn't say whether you are a good, bad or hardworking person- it is what we do, and how we do that says so. Morals is an absolute- good or bad- does not derive from categories. What is permissible is not necessarily right as well. What is permissible gives you nothing more than popular approval. Choice is not a right but an entitlement- the choices that one makes makes you, it makes you free-er but it doesn't make you necessarily better.
There are no absolute power now only because the fallibility of man but the fallibility is not just on the absolute but on the individual, on the people and on everyone now. The freedom is therefore not a right but an entitlement. If you want it, you have to earn it.
And if you don't earn it, religion don't judge you, the state won't judge you, the law won't judge you. Someone will- that I can reassure you- just not now.
A pair of glasses and a rug
There are some whom have walked on carpets all their life, they have never knew the feeling of walking off it. So what happens when one decides to pull the rug off their feet- they fall so terribly, they are incapable of getting up.
Hence what happens when you have always walk on a rug and wore a pair of glasses which is weightless, invisible and impairs your vision in one way or another all your life. What if one day someone decides to remove your pair of glasses, you put on another pair of a varying degree to smooth out the distortions.
What if someone tells you that you have been walking on a rug, but your pair of glasses smoothens out the creases on the floor so much so that what you see is what believe- and what you believe is how you act. You would say, my eyes sees nothing and therefore I must be right.
And what if someone pulls the rug from right under your floor because your glasses restricts your sight, you blame the person for performing black magic.
And what if someone takes away your glasses and you are forced to see the rug on the floor, you blame the person for being negative- for removing the smooth texture of the world around us and taking away the lie that have made them who they they are in the first place. Their personality.
What if you are being forced to remove the glasses and to take the rug off your feet, you would have to die or be enslaved because you were blinded in the first place- in such situations, that is war, no glasses will save you. You are incapable of even thinking for yourself.
Hence what happens when you have always walk on a rug and wore a pair of glasses which is weightless, invisible and impairs your vision in one way or another all your life. What if one day someone decides to remove your pair of glasses, you put on another pair of a varying degree to smooth out the distortions.
What if someone tells you that you have been walking on a rug, but your pair of glasses smoothens out the creases on the floor so much so that what you see is what believe- and what you believe is how you act. You would say, my eyes sees nothing and therefore I must be right.
And what if someone pulls the rug from right under your floor because your glasses restricts your sight, you blame the person for performing black magic.
And what if someone takes away your glasses and you are forced to see the rug on the floor, you blame the person for being negative- for removing the smooth texture of the world around us and taking away the lie that have made them who they they are in the first place. Their personality.
What if you are being forced to remove the glasses and to take the rug off your feet, you would have to die or be enslaved because you were blinded in the first place- in such situations, that is war, no glasses will save you. You are incapable of even thinking for yourself.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
On Numbers, Equations and Love
Let me try to put an equation onto love. There are two ways perhaps we can see from this perspective- 1) we are sum of all our parts 2) We are more than sum of of all parts. In the former: 1+1= 2 and in the latter, 1+1= mx+c. In other words, the first is the belief that we separate and therefore when we add up, we get a finite number and the latter, it is the belief that when we add up, there is an unknown factor which generates more than the actual sum of the parts.
And it is often simple to assume the former because of it's rather simplistic understanding but in reality, a person is more than an addition and subtraction. It then can be said when two people get married, it is often under the assumption that we would often get a finite number- and therefore we must produce children and therefore we must have a house, and yes we too must have common friends. That is almost patently quite remove from the truth. It is in this rather ridiculous mathematical allegory and metaphor that we lay the plans often for the rest of our lives.
Let us then put an example to you. For example, we can never have an union with a dog because insofar that we are quite really incapable of producing a finite number. And neither can we have an union with a friend insofar that we are not mutually exclusive and therefore are quite incapable of producing a definitive mathematical family unit. The only ever reason for this particular phenomenon is that a number is elusive. And since we cannot tell that my family is y=mx+ c but rather, i have so and so siblings and I DEFINITELY have one spouse and this probably settles are any other forms of social awkwardness.
Indeed, it would be quite difficult to tell another a person in social gathering that oh yeah, he/she is a friend and maybe we are together, I don't know. It would really be more comfortable to tell someone that this my bf/gf or husband/wife. And the common reaction would be:oh...
And hence this is then the tyranny of math even on even our love life. We must have a number otherwise, it is not counted and if it is not counted then likely a story would have to ensue and in most social situations, that is the last thing one wants to hear as the cocktail and liquor is better than your sob story.
Hence, it is for this reason that, we are always in constant battle to find another mutually exclusive individual- just so that we can find that elusive number and NOT variable equation.
What is your equation, I am sorry what is your number again.
And it is often simple to assume the former because of it's rather simplistic understanding but in reality, a person is more than an addition and subtraction. It then can be said when two people get married, it is often under the assumption that we would often get a finite number- and therefore we must produce children and therefore we must have a house, and yes we too must have common friends. That is almost patently quite remove from the truth. It is in this rather ridiculous mathematical allegory and metaphor that we lay the plans often for the rest of our lives.
Let us then put an example to you. For example, we can never have an union with a dog because insofar that we are quite really incapable of producing a finite number. And neither can we have an union with a friend insofar that we are not mutually exclusive and therefore are quite incapable of producing a definitive mathematical family unit. The only ever reason for this particular phenomenon is that a number is elusive. And since we cannot tell that my family is y=mx+ c but rather, i have so and so siblings and I DEFINITELY have one spouse and this probably settles are any other forms of social awkwardness.
Indeed, it would be quite difficult to tell another a person in social gathering that oh yeah, he/she is a friend and maybe we are together, I don't know. It would really be more comfortable to tell someone that this my bf/gf or husband/wife. And the common reaction would be:oh...
And hence this is then the tyranny of math even on even our love life. We must have a number otherwise, it is not counted and if it is not counted then likely a story would have to ensue and in most social situations, that is the last thing one wants to hear as the cocktail and liquor is better than your sob story.
Hence, it is for this reason that, we are always in constant battle to find another mutually exclusive individual- just so that we can find that elusive number and NOT variable equation.
What is your equation, I am sorry what is your number again.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The East/West Debate
In the previous article, I have written about globalization and the East/West ideological debate. I would in this article therefore attempt to delineate the characteristics of which is linked to East and West. And in so doing, proved that each "essential" characteristic is no more particularised to former as much as it is to the latter.
The common denominator of which we can go down is to the skin colour. Unless we are models, selling whitening products or in tanning products, the colour of our skin should have no bearings on the future of success in the economies or societies. Westerners are therefore fairer and are commonly associated with being white, and in similar terms- the rest of us are therefore in variation and degrees of whiteness, with black being the other end of the continuum. Hence seen from this perspective, we have set of benchmark of "whiteness" of which we constant seek to obtain- moreover seen from the perspective of cultural biases towards being white- of being associated to purity and altruism. We have then condemned ourselves into reaching an unreachable benchmark, that of whiteness- think of Micheal Jackson's botched pigmentation surgery and you get the picture.
Hence in so doing, we have essentialized quite covertly and sub-consciously, the racial colour and the associative qualities of particular races, and even condemned ourselves- unwittingly as well- into quite disadvantageous places. Of which such actions often elude their rationale towards me- and in certain cases, celebrate their colour quite different from theirs. Hence in evoking an East/West debate is already framing the action of one's interest groups- in being East, means change and revolutionary and reactionary- and in being West, privileged, pure and cultured, and therefore conservative and elitist. And in so doing, we have surrendered the value of being elitist and cultured without even giving a fight and in so doing, always condemning ourselves into an underdog position.
And in being Westernized meant therefore, cultured, elitist, conservative- in blue- while anything else, is just a step down from it. Just for your information, there are poor people in Western countries, much as there are rich people in the East. Similarly there are many well-groomed people in the Orient- as much as there are backwater people in the West. Hence in so doing then, we have stupidly aspire to a benchmark of which we willingly have accepted we can never change- our skin colour.
On second note, is that of a hierarchical societies and therefore the association of paternalism associated with the East as compared with the more liberal attitudes of the West. And once again, the media has once again attempt to divide the two up and split them neatly insofar that each can controlled socially.
Just for your information, paternalism has western origins and is not the exclusive domain of the East. And just in similar terms, there are no similar words in Chinese lexicon as far as I am concerned and "family" in Mandarin which is "Jia Ting" is a mixture of "Ting" which is the operative word of "Fa Ting" which is the courts or legal system and "Jia" which is home- there isn't even gender bias in the word itself. Hence anyone who associate paternalism and hierarchy as the essential attributes of the Eastern cultures is therefore mixing myth/ideology with popular portrayal.
And insofar that, anyone who attempts to evoke this particular debate of which to deny or justify parochial interest in the name of general one is once again using race as an instrumental device in achieving one's personal gains.
The common denominator of which we can go down is to the skin colour. Unless we are models, selling whitening products or in tanning products, the colour of our skin should have no bearings on the future of success in the economies or societies. Westerners are therefore fairer and are commonly associated with being white, and in similar terms- the rest of us are therefore in variation and degrees of whiteness, with black being the other end of the continuum. Hence seen from this perspective, we have set of benchmark of "whiteness" of which we constant seek to obtain- moreover seen from the perspective of cultural biases towards being white- of being associated to purity and altruism. We have then condemned ourselves into reaching an unreachable benchmark, that of whiteness- think of Micheal Jackson's botched pigmentation surgery and you get the picture.
Hence in so doing, we have essentialized quite covertly and sub-consciously, the racial colour and the associative qualities of particular races, and even condemned ourselves- unwittingly as well- into quite disadvantageous places. Of which such actions often elude their rationale towards me- and in certain cases, celebrate their colour quite different from theirs. Hence in evoking an East/West debate is already framing the action of one's interest groups- in being East, means change and revolutionary and reactionary- and in being West, privileged, pure and cultured, and therefore conservative and elitist. And in so doing, we have surrendered the value of being elitist and cultured without even giving a fight and in so doing, always condemning ourselves into an underdog position.
And in being Westernized meant therefore, cultured, elitist, conservative- in blue- while anything else, is just a step down from it. Just for your information, there are poor people in Western countries, much as there are rich people in the East. Similarly there are many well-groomed people in the Orient- as much as there are backwater people in the West. Hence in so doing then, we have stupidly aspire to a benchmark of which we willingly have accepted we can never change- our skin colour.
On second note, is that of a hierarchical societies and therefore the association of paternalism associated with the East as compared with the more liberal attitudes of the West. And once again, the media has once again attempt to divide the two up and split them neatly insofar that each can controlled socially.
Just for your information, paternalism has western origins and is not the exclusive domain of the East. And just in similar terms, there are no similar words in Chinese lexicon as far as I am concerned and "family" in Mandarin which is "Jia Ting" is a mixture of "Ting" which is the operative word of "Fa Ting" which is the courts or legal system and "Jia" which is home- there isn't even gender bias in the word itself. Hence anyone who associate paternalism and hierarchy as the essential attributes of the Eastern cultures is therefore mixing myth/ideology with popular portrayal.
And insofar that, anyone who attempts to evoke this particular debate of which to deny or justify parochial interest in the name of general one is once again using race as an instrumental device in achieving one's personal gains.
Globalization and Parochialism
Globalization has largely been a depressed literature in these days. Just a few years ago, globalization was a beacon of hope and the symbol of human progress and technological advancement. It is touted as the phenomenon which would bring about everyone together. The means of which to do so is via social media, reducing cost of travel, cultural understanding, trade linkages and memberships into various supra-national organizations. The wave of literature at this current moment appears to be depressed and parochial, fear mongering and almost trivial in nature and yawn-inducing.
The biggest surprise and news this year perhaps is the sending of a blind activist to US from China and the constant bickering over a small group of islands by a few countries, the sovereign bond tragedy and the never-ending saga in Syria. All these seem to have overshadowed the positive aspects of globalization. And all these have further sharpen-latently- the divide between the East and the West, when in reality, we are more interlinked than we have ever been. The very fact that there were no nuclear threats, no threat of oil conflicts, means that economic interdepencies have overshadowed ideological wars. I have not seen the word terrorism in a long time.
Hence the news above is in reality hiding the fact that we are more similar than we are different and when anyone whom attempts therefore to flame an ideological war often hides a material interest behind this attempt. Even North Korea, the global bad boy has opened up and allowed a film crew to film their nuclear proceedings, Libya, Egypt and Tunisia all have their authoritative strong man replaced and moved into more conventional forms of capitalism.
Our financial markets are inextricably-linked with each other, our commodities and supply chain are linked globally, we can fly to a myriad of destinations with a clicked of a mouse and yet we bicker over who should get what and when and how based on nothing more than symbolic gestures and communications- are we not hypocritical insofar that we have profited from this market-driven economy.
And therefore I have noticed a constant reminder of people constantly attempting to flamed a racial-based form of politics. It would appear that they have a parochial interest masquerading as a general interest that in the form ideological battles which in reality is that their material interest have driven their actions more than a spontaneous one. And in doing so, they have always put a Catch 22 situation- of east and west- when the very currency, they used, the language they speak, the political and legal system they lived in, the commodities and products they have consumed are nothing more than the product of a market driven economy. They lived in a western capitalistic world and yet they deny the existence while yet leveraging on it. The attempt therefore to stir the most likely ideological fervour would almost most likely faced a demise- insofar that they are able to found a system of which is not part of global markets. And likewise, anyone who attempts therefore to stir likewise pluralistic tendencies is in reality dangerous and really is trying to stir action based on on an fluid and empty node of reference.
I would therefore dare these people who attempt to flame these politics again to move onto an island of which is able to supply themselves sans the help of global markets. I wait with bated breath the ability of these people to do likewise. And in so doing, please help the global economies in creating a similar standard of living of which one has so brilliantly re-created independently. That is indeed a work of genius similarly.
The biggest surprise and news this year perhaps is the sending of a blind activist to US from China and the constant bickering over a small group of islands by a few countries, the sovereign bond tragedy and the never-ending saga in Syria. All these seem to have overshadowed the positive aspects of globalization. And all these have further sharpen-latently- the divide between the East and the West, when in reality, we are more interlinked than we have ever been. The very fact that there were no nuclear threats, no threat of oil conflicts, means that economic interdepencies have overshadowed ideological wars. I have not seen the word terrorism in a long time.
Hence the news above is in reality hiding the fact that we are more similar than we are different and when anyone whom attempts therefore to flame an ideological war often hides a material interest behind this attempt. Even North Korea, the global bad boy has opened up and allowed a film crew to film their nuclear proceedings, Libya, Egypt and Tunisia all have their authoritative strong man replaced and moved into more conventional forms of capitalism.
Our financial markets are inextricably-linked with each other, our commodities and supply chain are linked globally, we can fly to a myriad of destinations with a clicked of a mouse and yet we bicker over who should get what and when and how based on nothing more than symbolic gestures and communications- are we not hypocritical insofar that we have profited from this market-driven economy.
And therefore I have noticed a constant reminder of people constantly attempting to flamed a racial-based form of politics. It would appear that they have a parochial interest masquerading as a general interest that in the form ideological battles which in reality is that their material interest have driven their actions more than a spontaneous one. And in doing so, they have always put a Catch 22 situation- of east and west- when the very currency, they used, the language they speak, the political and legal system they lived in, the commodities and products they have consumed are nothing more than the product of a market driven economy. They lived in a western capitalistic world and yet they deny the existence while yet leveraging on it. The attempt therefore to stir the most likely ideological fervour would almost most likely faced a demise- insofar that they are able to found a system of which is not part of global markets. And likewise, anyone who attempts therefore to stir likewise pluralistic tendencies is in reality dangerous and really is trying to stir action based on on an fluid and empty node of reference.
I would therefore dare these people who attempt to flame these politics again to move onto an island of which is able to supply themselves sans the help of global markets. I wait with bated breath the ability of these people to do likewise. And in so doing, please help the global economies in creating a similar standard of living of which one has so brilliantly re-created independently. That is indeed a work of genius similarly.
Productive Value and Real Wage, and Labour Demand
Very often, I have asked myself why did I quit several jobs in spite of being far ahead of other's- what did it speak to me. I used to say that, I took a risk and wanted to see how far I can go. But it was inadequate- because in spite of taking risk and seemingly reducing market value, I continued to refuse accept something that I deemed is appropriate. Therefore since risk does not commensurate rewards, therefore, I should relent right- but I did not.
Keynesian Economics which critiques much of classical economic of which a large part of world's economies has one critical comment 1) negotiation between worker's and entrepreneurs is open and the only reason that the worker refuse to supply labour is that one refused to accept the wage at a given marginal product [ or productive value] as the economy is assumed to be at full employment of resources and the only reason for unemployment is frictional- which is adjustment of resources rather than structural. The second of which he did highlighted is one that the reason that one does not supply labour is because 2) the demand for the labour at a given marginal product at a particular real wage for outstrips the supply.
Therefore in this second insight, I have realised intuitively the reason for my unhappiness. I know my value and the value of labour- and I know I have artificially been denied the ability to utilize my resources insofar that the wage does not commensurate with the demand. Assuming that there are 10 Eugene's in this world and all are paid the same wage, they are all effectively underpaid insofar that there were say 20 labour demander's for this particular characteristics
Therefore I knew then at this point, I knew that I had reputation, I knew I had the skills, the only reason that demand is not reaching is insofar that it has artificially been pushed down. Therefore intuitively, I knew I was why I felt disgruntled and felt constantly shortchanged. Demand outstrips the supply at a given real wage even if the marginal product- or effort- remains. I am what people perceived that I am- and if I am artificially pushed down, insofar by non-market driven means, it means that I should not accept my wage; hence I felt constantly short-changed.
Therefore I feel constantly defensive when people accused me for being arrogant or a prima donna- I would normally concentrate on my job and really does not speak unless I have something to say. It is therefore, I understood that intuitively that the actions of other's seeks only to artificially devalue the perceived value and therefore the frustration.
The frustration is therefore in being underpaid in view of a particular skill set rather than in asking for something more than the market demands. And even impeded by structural and organizational constraints- the only reason that I felt that the value insofar does not commensurate if what the market demands is such that the there was no effort insofar to compensate for these material factors in other forms. And therefore lies the frustration rather than that of being unwilling to accept prevailing market conditions and environment.
P/S: however anyone attempts to deny the plagiaristic value of my work and the amount of trickle down effect it generates- the more frustration it would generate. The plagiarism only serves as a reminder of the demand of which outstripping the supply. And it is for this reason, intuitively, I have not accepted the existing conditions. Any label of which to placed other's on a moral high ground is to me, highly unjustified.
Keynesian Economics which critiques much of classical economic of which a large part of world's economies has one critical comment 1) negotiation between worker's and entrepreneurs is open and the only reason that the worker refuse to supply labour is that one refused to accept the wage at a given marginal product [ or productive value] as the economy is assumed to be at full employment of resources and the only reason for unemployment is frictional- which is adjustment of resources rather than structural. The second of which he did highlighted is one that the reason that one does not supply labour is because 2) the demand for the labour at a given marginal product at a particular real wage for outstrips the supply.
Therefore in this second insight, I have realised intuitively the reason for my unhappiness. I know my value and the value of labour- and I know I have artificially been denied the ability to utilize my resources insofar that the wage does not commensurate with the demand. Assuming that there are 10 Eugene's in this world and all are paid the same wage, they are all effectively underpaid insofar that there were say 20 labour demander's for this particular characteristics
Therefore I knew then at this point, I knew that I had reputation, I knew I had the skills, the only reason that demand is not reaching is insofar that it has artificially been pushed down. Therefore intuitively, I knew I was why I felt disgruntled and felt constantly shortchanged. Demand outstrips the supply at a given real wage even if the marginal product- or effort- remains. I am what people perceived that I am- and if I am artificially pushed down, insofar by non-market driven means, it means that I should not accept my wage; hence I felt constantly short-changed.
Therefore I feel constantly defensive when people accused me for being arrogant or a prima donna- I would normally concentrate on my job and really does not speak unless I have something to say. It is therefore, I understood that intuitively that the actions of other's seeks only to artificially devalue the perceived value and therefore the frustration.
The frustration is therefore in being underpaid in view of a particular skill set rather than in asking for something more than the market demands. And even impeded by structural and organizational constraints- the only reason that I felt that the value insofar does not commensurate if what the market demands is such that the there was no effort insofar to compensate for these material factors in other forms. And therefore lies the frustration rather than that of being unwilling to accept prevailing market conditions and environment.
P/S: however anyone attempts to deny the plagiaristic value of my work and the amount of trickle down effect it generates- the more frustration it would generate. The plagiarism only serves as a reminder of the demand of which outstripping the supply. And it is for this reason, intuitively, I have not accepted the existing conditions. Any label of which to placed other's on a moral high ground is to me, highly unjustified.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Symbols
Semiotics is the study of symbols. Semiotics has a triangular relationship. The signifier, the signified and the relationship between the signifier and the signified. People have placed tremendous value on the associative value as opposed to the relationship. Of particular importance is the relationship rather than the symbolic meaning. How the symbolic meanings arises is patently more important than what it signifies.
The signified is fluid in it's meaning. For example, dragon in western cultures is malevolent creature while in the Chinese culture- it is an auspicious one- in fact the Chinese are seen as children of the dragon. Similarly, in Russian culture, smiling is frown upon- and is seen as an insult to the host- but on the other hand, in most other cultures, it is a sign of friendship.
Therefore, the use of visual communication to deliver messages is not immutable and the signified should not be place with particular importance. Of particular importance is that of the rising of the symbol in the first place.
Take for example, political symbols. A local one perhaps highlight better. The use of a ligthning symbol in red an encircled in blue while with a white background is of particular importance in the arising of the imcumbent party in the first place. In the pre-independence days of the departure of the British, a wave of cold war, rampant unemployment and poor social environment. These symbols communicate a practical value of which speaks to the common citizen who wanted action- seen in lightning symbols coloured in red, a relatively conservative outlook- seen in blue- and with a relatively pure and non reactive ideology seen in white. This is in contrast with the red base- of reactive and revolutionary basis- and with a ideological appeal, it had a similar effect who wanted to effect change in prevailing status quo.
Hence seen in this context, with the general retreat of communism and it's ideological clarion call- it is therefore no wonder the former party had won through. Similarly, seen in the light of the general demise of East Germany, the modernisniation of China and Vietnam, Russia, it is therefore seen from the general wave that the colour of choice in Singapore and many places around the region are therefore conservative and non-revolutionary in nature.
Therefore, a further step must be highlighted to see the importance in the relationship rather than the signified. As mentioned before, the revolutionary character of red has somewhat been doused- the association with abrupt change and disruptive character has been diluted to the point that it has been circumscribed within the existing capitalist system.
Take for example, a recent publishing manifesto of an aspiring opposition party with an worker agenda. The origins and history is fought on basis of worker's rights advancement- which is diametric opposite to the elites and capitalist within the market driven economy, but it's manifesto was based on achieving a First World Parliament. It really does not sound exactly revolutionary nor seem to allude to fighting for proletarian rights.
But it then must seen in the context of the advancement of Singapore society. Singapore is a advanced economy now and it can be considered as one of capitalist success stories with two sovereign wealth funds with equity ownership in many western capitalist companies and properties even. Hence to fight desperately against the capitalist and elites would then, be destroying the rice bowl of the very people they are fighting for- whom are practical in nature rather than doused in ideological fervour. Hence seen from this particular context, the relationship, the cultural context and power relationships can be seen therefore of particular importance than what it really signifies. Therefore seen from a strict linear relationship, the red is no longer a game changer but rather been circumscribed within a system- and the signified as shifted, insofar that the underlying context has changed.
Therefore very often, we act as Pavlov's dog- and thinking that voting or deciding based on a associative value is acting in one's interest. But we have disregard therefore the underlying interest, often materially in the instrumental use of symbols. Therefore I rest my case, in the use of symbols as a short hand for correct decision but rather an understanding of relationship between the signified and the signifier than it's simplistic associative value.
[ P/S: refer to the Boxer Rebellion which used symbols to trick it's adherents into thinking " knife and gun cannot penetrate it's body" - that is therefore the instrumental use of symbols to mobilize it's people]
The signified is fluid in it's meaning. For example, dragon in western cultures is malevolent creature while in the Chinese culture- it is an auspicious one- in fact the Chinese are seen as children of the dragon. Similarly, in Russian culture, smiling is frown upon- and is seen as an insult to the host- but on the other hand, in most other cultures, it is a sign of friendship.
Therefore, the use of visual communication to deliver messages is not immutable and the signified should not be place with particular importance. Of particular importance is that of the rising of the symbol in the first place.
Take for example, political symbols. A local one perhaps highlight better. The use of a ligthning symbol in red an encircled in blue while with a white background is of particular importance in the arising of the imcumbent party in the first place. In the pre-independence days of the departure of the British, a wave of cold war, rampant unemployment and poor social environment. These symbols communicate a practical value of which speaks to the common citizen who wanted action- seen in lightning symbols coloured in red, a relatively conservative outlook- seen in blue- and with a relatively pure and non reactive ideology seen in white. This is in contrast with the red base- of reactive and revolutionary basis- and with a ideological appeal, it had a similar effect who wanted to effect change in prevailing status quo.
Hence seen in this context, with the general retreat of communism and it's ideological clarion call- it is therefore no wonder the former party had won through. Similarly, seen in the light of the general demise of East Germany, the modernisniation of China and Vietnam, Russia, it is therefore seen from the general wave that the colour of choice in Singapore and many places around the region are therefore conservative and non-revolutionary in nature.
Therefore, a further step must be highlighted to see the importance in the relationship rather than the signified. As mentioned before, the revolutionary character of red has somewhat been doused- the association with abrupt change and disruptive character has been diluted to the point that it has been circumscribed within the existing capitalist system.
Take for example, a recent publishing manifesto of an aspiring opposition party with an worker agenda. The origins and history is fought on basis of worker's rights advancement- which is diametric opposite to the elites and capitalist within the market driven economy, but it's manifesto was based on achieving a First World Parliament. It really does not sound exactly revolutionary nor seem to allude to fighting for proletarian rights.
But it then must seen in the context of the advancement of Singapore society. Singapore is a advanced economy now and it can be considered as one of capitalist success stories with two sovereign wealth funds with equity ownership in many western capitalist companies and properties even. Hence to fight desperately against the capitalist and elites would then, be destroying the rice bowl of the very people they are fighting for- whom are practical in nature rather than doused in ideological fervour. Hence seen from this particular context, the relationship, the cultural context and power relationships can be seen therefore of particular importance than what it really signifies. Therefore seen from a strict linear relationship, the red is no longer a game changer but rather been circumscribed within a system- and the signified as shifted, insofar that the underlying context has changed.
Therefore very often, we act as Pavlov's dog- and thinking that voting or deciding based on a associative value is acting in one's interest. But we have disregard therefore the underlying interest, often materially in the instrumental use of symbols. Therefore I rest my case, in the use of symbols as a short hand for correct decision but rather an understanding of relationship between the signified and the signifier than it's simplistic associative value.
[ P/S: refer to the Boxer Rebellion which used symbols to trick it's adherents into thinking " knife and gun cannot penetrate it's body" - that is therefore the instrumental use of symbols to mobilize it's people]
Friday, October 19, 2012
C'est la vie
This year is an important year. There are 2 major leadership changes in two major countries and the contemplation of a patching or break up of a political and economic union. I cannot remember the last time such occurrences happening in a single year and that is the reason that I believed for the extremely thin market volume, economic activities and incremental changes.
This year is almost a yawn. there were nothing spectacular and most people are adopting a wait-and-see attitude. Many companies are on a cost-cutting mode or conservative trajectory and this has trickle down to many everyday happenings.
The United States are holding their elections next month, and the incumbent is not prepared to rock to boat and lose it's consolidated base- this explains for a lack of any interesting legislation- which has been the hallmark of Barack Obama. His challenger is not fiery politician- and suffers from being a Conservative upsetting a Democrat- which means, it is not in it's interest to appear to far left. Therefore, this makes for an extremely dull Presidential election. Therefore, the likely effect is that the election result is not quite going to be spectacular or inspirational which is quite unlikely from American politics or anything for that matter.
China is holding their decade-long leadership transition roughly about the same time. Politics in comparison with the U.S appears even more dramatic with the assassination of a foreign businessman, the ouster of political hot favourite and the trial of the star and his wife. But otherwise, where power structures often remain relatively stable and rarely reach a climax except in times of extreme duress, Chinese politics are really a matter of foregone conclusion except where mistakes are exposed or are found out. Hence I would not expect anything to upset the apple cart unless there are some behind-the-scenes brinkmanship which is really quite atypical of their political culture. Hence many people, businesses and organizations are expected to stand by the sideline, major projects are delayed until clarity is confirmed and anything which upset the status quo at this current moment is being delayed even from the protesters standpoint- as they would a expect a stronger coercive force in such sensitive times. Therefore it is not surprising these countries has for some reason stayed behind headlines and not wanting to be too public- barring some skirmishes with some neighbouring countries- as it allow for a smooth transition.
Perhaps the most drama can be found in Europe, where periphery countries dominate the headlines, as they attempt to restructure their finances to keep themselves afloat. The funny thing is that the numbers being pandered around is like a drop in the ocean of even some global banks, let alone major countries- and it is a cause for concern for many fearing a domino effect. And even so, the implication is departure of periphery countries of which might have wider implications remains to be seem. Hence the year has been an uninspiring one looking for great new ideas, a leap of faith or revolutionary changes. It almost seem like this is a year of heightened tension of which is being distracted by the finances and troubles of relatively smaller smaller countries. Perhaps bearing this in mind, most are playing ball by not being antagonistic against the big boys and allow themselves perhaps some air time and take the heat and spotlight away from them in these sensitive and potentially explosive times.
Therefore, I do not expect any big surprises at least for next half a year or so, as the changes and transitions begin to sink in and warm their seats. And once the seat is warmed, the people briefed and the ideals outlined, we shall see a clearer picture for a foreseeable future and from which then we can see then the new people stamping their signature on their respective countries and areas of influence.
Meanwhile I would suggest sitting back and singing to the tune of : C'est la vie
This year is almost a yawn. there were nothing spectacular and most people are adopting a wait-and-see attitude. Many companies are on a cost-cutting mode or conservative trajectory and this has trickle down to many everyday happenings.
The United States are holding their elections next month, and the incumbent is not prepared to rock to boat and lose it's consolidated base- this explains for a lack of any interesting legislation- which has been the hallmark of Barack Obama. His challenger is not fiery politician- and suffers from being a Conservative upsetting a Democrat- which means, it is not in it's interest to appear to far left. Therefore, this makes for an extremely dull Presidential election. Therefore, the likely effect is that the election result is not quite going to be spectacular or inspirational which is quite unlikely from American politics or anything for that matter.
China is holding their decade-long leadership transition roughly about the same time. Politics in comparison with the U.S appears even more dramatic with the assassination of a foreign businessman, the ouster of political hot favourite and the trial of the star and his wife. But otherwise, where power structures often remain relatively stable and rarely reach a climax except in times of extreme duress, Chinese politics are really a matter of foregone conclusion except where mistakes are exposed or are found out. Hence I would not expect anything to upset the apple cart unless there are some behind-the-scenes brinkmanship which is really quite atypical of their political culture. Hence many people, businesses and organizations are expected to stand by the sideline, major projects are delayed until clarity is confirmed and anything which upset the status quo at this current moment is being delayed even from the protesters standpoint- as they would a expect a stronger coercive force in such sensitive times. Therefore it is not surprising these countries has for some reason stayed behind headlines and not wanting to be too public- barring some skirmishes with some neighbouring countries- as it allow for a smooth transition.
Perhaps the most drama can be found in Europe, where periphery countries dominate the headlines, as they attempt to restructure their finances to keep themselves afloat. The funny thing is that the numbers being pandered around is like a drop in the ocean of even some global banks, let alone major countries- and it is a cause for concern for many fearing a domino effect. And even so, the implication is departure of periphery countries of which might have wider implications remains to be seem. Hence the year has been an uninspiring one looking for great new ideas, a leap of faith or revolutionary changes. It almost seem like this is a year of heightened tension of which is being distracted by the finances and troubles of relatively smaller smaller countries. Perhaps bearing this in mind, most are playing ball by not being antagonistic against the big boys and allow themselves perhaps some air time and take the heat and spotlight away from them in these sensitive and potentially explosive times.
Therefore, I do not expect any big surprises at least for next half a year or so, as the changes and transitions begin to sink in and warm their seats. And once the seat is warmed, the people briefed and the ideals outlined, we shall see a clearer picture for a foreseeable future and from which then we can see then the new people stamping their signature on their respective countries and areas of influence.
Meanwhile I would suggest sitting back and singing to the tune of : C'est la vie
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Tired
I am sitting down in front of my computer.
It is really amazing how one year can change things in a flash. I have went from one with at least middle class aspirations to one of which just scrapping by. I sit down here and the worst thing is that I cannot even pinpoint the very mistake that I make.
The only ever mistake I have ever make is being too straightforward, expect alot from others and thought that everyone will act decently at the very least.
Much as I have not expected is the discovery of the extend of which people really want me to fail.
Sometimes, it is not that I have given up on doing anything of note. But the very fact that, the amount of dissent from other's of which is really just innocuous comments and opinions really surprises me.
What I do, as I have always maintained, is really what I think is right- I do not expect other's to follow. Much as even with one don't like my actions and of which have no bearings on your life directly at all, I am really surprised the amount of unhappiness generated. Perhaps the thing that shocks me the most is the amount of effort invested in ensuring that I don't succeed.
I am okay with not being like the biggest star or being the highlight of everything but I am still perplexed at the amount of effort in discouraging my every endeavours. It is like there is a personal investment on everybody's part of my failure. I don't really feel discouraged by this particular situation but rather I am extremely curious about this situation. Why me and why the amount of energy in ensuring so?
I have from the very start never court fame, fortune, approval or anything material. The only thing that I wanted was that I be left alone and allowed to grow and be myself. I am just wondering why is that so difficult?
Why does everyone have an opinion on my action is what really surprises me.
The siege mentality makes me nervous not because like I am afraid of competition. This siege mentality gives me the feeling that it is almost stupid to engage someone quite unrelated to me. Why should I expend energy on someone whom I don't even know or have any engagement with.
I am not related to you neither are you are related with you- the world is always big enough for everyone, why is this concerted effort to make life so damn difficult for one single person?
I am no Qin Shihuang nor am I Magneto, I am all of Eugene and nothing more.
Sometimes, I am just tired of all these posturing- where nothing is ever done. I just want to get back to doing real things. I just wonder when can I get back in doing so.
Sometimes, I am really tired.
It is really amazing how one year can change things in a flash. I have went from one with at least middle class aspirations to one of which just scrapping by. I sit down here and the worst thing is that I cannot even pinpoint the very mistake that I make.
The only ever mistake I have ever make is being too straightforward, expect alot from others and thought that everyone will act decently at the very least.
Much as I have not expected is the discovery of the extend of which people really want me to fail.
Sometimes, it is not that I have given up on doing anything of note. But the very fact that, the amount of dissent from other's of which is really just innocuous comments and opinions really surprises me.
What I do, as I have always maintained, is really what I think is right- I do not expect other's to follow. Much as even with one don't like my actions and of which have no bearings on your life directly at all, I am really surprised the amount of unhappiness generated. Perhaps the thing that shocks me the most is the amount of effort invested in ensuring that I don't succeed.
I am okay with not being like the biggest star or being the highlight of everything but I am still perplexed at the amount of effort in discouraging my every endeavours. It is like there is a personal investment on everybody's part of my failure. I don't really feel discouraged by this particular situation but rather I am extremely curious about this situation. Why me and why the amount of energy in ensuring so?
I have from the very start never court fame, fortune, approval or anything material. The only thing that I wanted was that I be left alone and allowed to grow and be myself. I am just wondering why is that so difficult?
Why does everyone have an opinion on my action is what really surprises me.
The siege mentality makes me nervous not because like I am afraid of competition. This siege mentality gives me the feeling that it is almost stupid to engage someone quite unrelated to me. Why should I expend energy on someone whom I don't even know or have any engagement with.
I am not related to you neither are you are related with you- the world is always big enough for everyone, why is this concerted effort to make life so damn difficult for one single person?
I am no Qin Shihuang nor am I Magneto, I am all of Eugene and nothing more.
Sometimes, I am just tired of all these posturing- where nothing is ever done. I just want to get back to doing real things. I just wonder when can I get back in doing so.
Sometimes, I am really tired.
Saturday, October 06, 2012
Trust
A couple of years back, I met this lady who was selling tissue at 50cents a pack- I gave to her without thinking much as she seems to need it. The next day, while at Boat Quay- a drinking place- I saw her hawking the same thing- and giving the same forlorn look. This time round, I refused to give it to her. Can you be forever forlorn all the time- and if charity doesn't cheer you up- what else will then.
It is the very same way that I run many things in my life. "Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me." You can only earn my trust once, and the moment you lose it, you lose it forever. I make no concessions for anyone close to me. The only difference is that I give them the benefit of doubt more often than most- and once you are proven beyond reasonable doubt your character, I will erect walls even if it means closing off every single person.
The speed of trust- of which I ask no questions- and taking a hand's off approach is off the table. Now at this current moment is trying to negotiate to get the best outcome. Your interest is no longer my interest, my interest is now my interest, your interest is now your interest, unless our interest are mutual, you will get nothing from me as far as I am concern.
Therefore I subscribe to this idea of maintaining trust and harmony up till a certain age. And the moment, you hit that age, you are on your own. You can say that I have no interest in you anymore but trust would have to be maintained- otherwise broken, I would take the above approach.
Therefore, alot of people have accused of being selfish, self-centred and not caring about anyone but myself- I don't really care. Before you want to accused me of doing so, you better ask yourself what have you done to deserve this treatment in the first place. As far as I am concern, I have made sufficient concessions, you just blew it for yourself.
If being difficult means maintaining a certain level of trust and human decency, then you can accused me of being the most difficult person. And if you cannot even maintain it while I gave you an easy ride, how then can I ever trust you with even bigger things.
The speed of trust is a wonderful thing, the moment you lose it: it can be the most difficult thing in the whole world.
It is the very same way that I run many things in my life. "Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me." You can only earn my trust once, and the moment you lose it, you lose it forever. I make no concessions for anyone close to me. The only difference is that I give them the benefit of doubt more often than most- and once you are proven beyond reasonable doubt your character, I will erect walls even if it means closing off every single person.
The speed of trust- of which I ask no questions- and taking a hand's off approach is off the table. Now at this current moment is trying to negotiate to get the best outcome. Your interest is no longer my interest, my interest is now my interest, your interest is now your interest, unless our interest are mutual, you will get nothing from me as far as I am concern.
Therefore I subscribe to this idea of maintaining trust and harmony up till a certain age. And the moment, you hit that age, you are on your own. You can say that I have no interest in you anymore but trust would have to be maintained- otherwise broken, I would take the above approach.
Therefore, alot of people have accused of being selfish, self-centred and not caring about anyone but myself- I don't really care. Before you want to accused me of doing so, you better ask yourself what have you done to deserve this treatment in the first place. As far as I am concern, I have made sufficient concessions, you just blew it for yourself.
If being difficult means maintaining a certain level of trust and human decency, then you can accused me of being the most difficult person. And if you cannot even maintain it while I gave you an easy ride, how then can I ever trust you with even bigger things.
The speed of trust is a wonderful thing, the moment you lose it: it can be the most difficult thing in the whole world.
Being Mr Market's friend
You know what what when you get too good at certain things, you tend to lose the sense of reality. My job was to make money for clients and I was so damn good at it that a large majority of my clients made money more than they have lost. But the difference between making money in the financial markets and making money from labour is that there is a disconnect between the amount of money you earned from the amount of work you put in. To be quite frank with you, it wasn't that difficult. Had I not screwed up, I would be probably be holding a large portfolio of clients with ready cash.
I had a client who made a 20% return in spite of 5% charge three times in a row within two years. When the market was direction-less, they got an interest higher than they would have anywhere else. When the market was down, some picked up bonds which have appreciated 20% while picking up 5% coupon for the last 3 years. When the Thai market was down relative to regional index, my customer bought in and the fund has doubled in value, in 3 years. When the Australian dollar was down, we picked up the yield at double the normal rate while keeping a strike at 15 cents cheaper than a month ago.
Well, it was fine and dandy but one actually realises that I literally did nothing to make those money. All I ever did was to look at the financial reports, news and analysis and made a prediction- I had literally add no value to society. The only caveat was that it was legal and the market was willing to pay me this amount of money to do that. The market paid me to do something quite literally to talk to it and nothing else. I used to tell some friends that the cleaners add more value to the world than what I did but they get paid way less and are given much lesser respect and status.
I was really good at my job and the market paid me for doing so but it doesn't detract from the fact that in terms of value and labour- what have I done- quite literally nothing.
Since we are measured in terms of financial success in this world, it is quite easy to think that I have deserved everything the world has given me. I did not commit a crime, neither did I even commit even a sin- or even a lie-, and neither did I even tried to hoodwink or shortchange my clients, they just paid me what they think is right. I was doing what society and market tells me is the right thing to do.
By the age of 29- I had an apartment, a fully-paid car, a number of investments, some wads of cash, I had boasted of too quite "fifty-shades of grey experience". I literally had it all but really- what did I really do to deserve it- quite literally nothing. What I did was to talk to Mr Market- and very often he respond quite positively to me.
I was smart, smooth and white as a sheet. To everyone, I earned it through legitimate means, to everyone, I was the success story- the boy who knew it all, the boy who made it good, the boy who was poster boy for everything good about this society-. But really.
Shouldn't you be celebrating people who quite literally make your neighbourhood cleaner, shouldn't you be celebrating the people who put food on the table for you. Shouldn't you be celebrating people who gets you to work in one piece. Shouldn't you be celebrating people who actually makes the things that you use.
Making the market more efficient does not make the world a better place, it is the by-product and not eventual outcome. The financial market allocate capital efficiently and we are suppose to exploit the price arbitrages but to say that I did something good was like putting a crown on a trader.
The ultimate outcome for it is that, I had become a poster boy for something that the society values- financial success- but in reality, it almost feels that I really quite did nothing to help anyone. That remains the simple fact.
I was frugal yes and not frivolous by some of my peer's standards but really, I don't think I deserve to be the benchmark, the model or ideal. I was smart yes, but I definitely was not your shining example. There are many more other's much more deserving than I do- they deserve the limelight much more than I do.
There many more other's who contribute to society much more than I did and they deserve spotlight much more than Mr Market's friend.
I had a client who made a 20% return in spite of 5% charge three times in a row within two years. When the market was direction-less, they got an interest higher than they would have anywhere else. When the market was down, some picked up bonds which have appreciated 20% while picking up 5% coupon for the last 3 years. When the Thai market was down relative to regional index, my customer bought in and the fund has doubled in value, in 3 years. When the Australian dollar was down, we picked up the yield at double the normal rate while keeping a strike at 15 cents cheaper than a month ago.
Well, it was fine and dandy but one actually realises that I literally did nothing to make those money. All I ever did was to look at the financial reports, news and analysis and made a prediction- I had literally add no value to society. The only caveat was that it was legal and the market was willing to pay me this amount of money to do that. The market paid me to do something quite literally to talk to it and nothing else. I used to tell some friends that the cleaners add more value to the world than what I did but they get paid way less and are given much lesser respect and status.
I was really good at my job and the market paid me for doing so but it doesn't detract from the fact that in terms of value and labour- what have I done- quite literally nothing.
Since we are measured in terms of financial success in this world, it is quite easy to think that I have deserved everything the world has given me. I did not commit a crime, neither did I even commit even a sin- or even a lie-, and neither did I even tried to hoodwink or shortchange my clients, they just paid me what they think is right. I was doing what society and market tells me is the right thing to do.
By the age of 29- I had an apartment, a fully-paid car, a number of investments, some wads of cash, I had boasted of too quite "fifty-shades of grey experience". I literally had it all but really- what did I really do to deserve it- quite literally nothing. What I did was to talk to Mr Market- and very often he respond quite positively to me.
I was smart, smooth and white as a sheet. To everyone, I earned it through legitimate means, to everyone, I was the success story- the boy who knew it all, the boy who made it good, the boy who was poster boy for everything good about this society-. But really.
Shouldn't you be celebrating people who quite literally make your neighbourhood cleaner, shouldn't you be celebrating the people who put food on the table for you. Shouldn't you be celebrating people who gets you to work in one piece. Shouldn't you be celebrating people who actually makes the things that you use.
Making the market more efficient does not make the world a better place, it is the by-product and not eventual outcome. The financial market allocate capital efficiently and we are suppose to exploit the price arbitrages but to say that I did something good was like putting a crown on a trader.
The ultimate outcome for it is that, I had become a poster boy for something that the society values- financial success- but in reality, it almost feels that I really quite did nothing to help anyone. That remains the simple fact.
I was frugal yes and not frivolous by some of my peer's standards but really, I don't think I deserve to be the benchmark, the model or ideal. I was smart yes, but I definitely was not your shining example. There are many more other's much more deserving than I do- they deserve the limelight much more than I do.
There many more other's who contribute to society much more than I did and they deserve spotlight much more than Mr Market's friend.
Friday, October 05, 2012
Participatory Ethnography
You know in anthropology, there is a term called participatory ethnography. That means that participate actively with whom the people you are trying to understand so as to create a better biography for them. This active participation gives us direct experience into the culture and worldview of the people one is trying to understand- this is direct contrast with the scientist standing on the side as an disinterested observer passing authoritative judgments.
For a while, my soiree into the world of money was part curiosity, part practicality and part ambition. It was a mixture of getting into a mind of others while trying to stand above them and also that is where the money is-quite literally.
Once I had written an email to my boss about being the CEO- and to many other's, this would just career suicide- but another part of me, wanted to try how these power relations would panned out. It was really at least half of it was just curiosity and the other part of it was just risk-taking. This was by far I think the stupidest thing ever done in causing unnecessary attention to yourself.
On another situation, having earned some badges on my belt- I felt being exploited and oppressed by my supervisor- and I decided to went up to the HR head and made a complain- just 1 month into the job and I wasn't even confirmed yet. Once again, that is by far in most cases, the most foolhardy thing a person can do in managing up.
I am always proud to say that prior to that, bosses loved me because I manage up superbly but really at that point in time, I just wanted to see how the system coped with a fireball and boy was it- inflexible, vicious, swift and far-reaching-. This probably confirmed my suspicion that the world is really small and everybody knows everybody- and you just need to draw some attention to yourself thats all.
All these risk-taking and seemingly hare-brained excursions didn't seem to deter people from hiring me as at that point in time, I have acquired a skill set of which I can utilized as and when I want- the only difference is that very often these exertions often meant too much attention to yourself by quite a number interest meant in maintaining their position and therefore the result often did not culminated into actual outcome. The final straw came that, the world is really way larger than I imagined it to be.
An inside joke turn out to be the biggest payoff in my life. The vastness, the depth, the swiftness and the ferocity in overcoming a fireball suggest it's rather far -reaching consequences.
I have always maintained that what everyone did was an overkill- and I still maintained it to be so. I am all but one man, but in your propensity to protect yourself and interest made me bigger and powerful than I actually am. You created a monster/virus/ foreign entity/ alien because you have no idea who you are. It was never about me destroying your life or your livelihood- it was always about you maintaining your wavering self-identity.
I was never really working per se, I was just taking everyone for a ride and for that very reason- you provided the ride for me.
You were the experiment and you just confirmed quite a number of suspicion thats all.
For a while, my soiree into the world of money was part curiosity, part practicality and part ambition. It was a mixture of getting into a mind of others while trying to stand above them and also that is where the money is-quite literally.
Once I had written an email to my boss about being the CEO- and to many other's, this would just career suicide- but another part of me, wanted to try how these power relations would panned out. It was really at least half of it was just curiosity and the other part of it was just risk-taking. This was by far I think the stupidest thing ever done in causing unnecessary attention to yourself.
On another situation, having earned some badges on my belt- I felt being exploited and oppressed by my supervisor- and I decided to went up to the HR head and made a complain- just 1 month into the job and I wasn't even confirmed yet. Once again, that is by far in most cases, the most foolhardy thing a person can do in managing up.
I am always proud to say that prior to that, bosses loved me because I manage up superbly but really at that point in time, I just wanted to see how the system coped with a fireball and boy was it- inflexible, vicious, swift and far-reaching-. This probably confirmed my suspicion that the world is really small and everybody knows everybody- and you just need to draw some attention to yourself thats all.
All these risk-taking and seemingly hare-brained excursions didn't seem to deter people from hiring me as at that point in time, I have acquired a skill set of which I can utilized as and when I want- the only difference is that very often these exertions often meant too much attention to yourself by quite a number interest meant in maintaining their position and therefore the result often did not culminated into actual outcome. The final straw came that, the world is really way larger than I imagined it to be.
An inside joke turn out to be the biggest payoff in my life. The vastness, the depth, the swiftness and the ferocity in overcoming a fireball suggest it's rather far -reaching consequences.
I have always maintained that what everyone did was an overkill- and I still maintained it to be so. I am all but one man, but in your propensity to protect yourself and interest made me bigger and powerful than I actually am. You created a monster/virus/ foreign entity/ alien because you have no idea who you are. It was never about me destroying your life or your livelihood- it was always about you maintaining your wavering self-identity.
I was never really working per se, I was just taking everyone for a ride and for that very reason- you provided the ride for me.
You were the experiment and you just confirmed quite a number of suspicion thats all.
Being made a Monkey
In reality, I am in an unusual position. Most people with my background, are either in government service, teachers, lecturers or in background positions. I entered erstwhile into an area of which I had written against rather than for while in school. Called it an irony but I purposefully seek in that direction rather than serendipitously happening.
I had I think had this conviction I think bubbling below that being questioning, doubtful does not make us a liability in an institution; on the other hand, it makes us at an advantageous standpoint of which we can see angles blindsided by most with conventional education- which are mostly instrumental in nature- which means that the ends are mostly implicit and therefore we often are running in circles without really solving the problem itself. My observation is that most people work because it is like a "lifestyle" thing- of which really, the act of solving problems is sometimes quite devoid from the act of working in the first place.
We work because everyone else is working- really the end product is often of no consequence to us. In fact, the end product is of no consequence to us precisely because we are only one cog in entire assembly line of producing the product in the first place- there are therefore no satisfaction nor a sense of fulfillment in seeing the fruits of our labour- quite unlike farmers of another era- where the end products are physical and often tangible. And therefore most of us indulge in mindless consumerism to tell ourselves that we have worked hard and therefore are deserving of our status-enhancing products.
But in entering a field of which are of different orientation from it was extremely difficult. Because the conventional mannerisms and other speak was really in reality quite laughable- I apologize for being condescending here- the pomposity of which certain individuals carry out their chores were at times quite amusing here. Had I not been their colleagues and are of the similar background, I would during coffee had a good laugh with my school mates. I had to restrain myself over social decencies as I know they were acting because it was "right" thing to do for them and it was extremely rude to do so- but in my world, the form was superseding substance really.
I had the gumption to be likewise because I was achieving faster, better and more than them in spite of their apparent worship of their status of which they flaunt like peacocks. And really, in reality, I think I was playing an inside joke with these people of which I think had I not venture out of my comfort zone, I would probably not have any interaction with. I would probably be growing a beard and looking more like a hippie than an executive in reality- not exactly privilege banking or corporate customers material.
Ok, if you look at my C.V- you would know I have been working in the banking and finance line for some time. You might be thinking I was strangely out of my depth and I was-initially that is- that's why I took another course in Finance; of which I did not exactly just to be familiar with the language, the terms and metrics of which to make sense of various reports- that's why I read financial reports like it was poetry, the arguments were really not that difficult truth be told- you just need to cut through the jargon.
I used my deconstructing language 101, coupled with capitalist ideas and mixed it with financial arguments which have economic roots really, and you can tell the quack from the real stuff. That's the reason I dissed technical analysis- in my world, numbers are numbers, it is meaning that we impute into it that makes sense. Hence if you can make a drawing out of seemingly random numbers plucked from a myriad of permutations, so can I make another drawing based on another set of numbers. Who wins- the one where most people believed wins isn't it.
I might have been an asshole for doing this and making a monkey and an inside joke on everyone- but really who ultimately lost. No one really lost and we just get disillusioned that's all and realized that the whole world is a one big damn lie. Hence trust me, you are not angry at me for making monkey out of you, you are angry at yourself being made a monkey by everyone else. We are really just monkeys at the end of the day- fooling ourselves that we are better than everybody else.
I had I think had this conviction I think bubbling below that being questioning, doubtful does not make us a liability in an institution; on the other hand, it makes us at an advantageous standpoint of which we can see angles blindsided by most with conventional education- which are mostly instrumental in nature- which means that the ends are mostly implicit and therefore we often are running in circles without really solving the problem itself. My observation is that most people work because it is like a "lifestyle" thing- of which really, the act of solving problems is sometimes quite devoid from the act of working in the first place.
We work because everyone else is working- really the end product is often of no consequence to us. In fact, the end product is of no consequence to us precisely because we are only one cog in entire assembly line of producing the product in the first place- there are therefore no satisfaction nor a sense of fulfillment in seeing the fruits of our labour- quite unlike farmers of another era- where the end products are physical and often tangible. And therefore most of us indulge in mindless consumerism to tell ourselves that we have worked hard and therefore are deserving of our status-enhancing products.
But in entering a field of which are of different orientation from it was extremely difficult. Because the conventional mannerisms and other speak was really in reality quite laughable- I apologize for being condescending here- the pomposity of which certain individuals carry out their chores were at times quite amusing here. Had I not been their colleagues and are of the similar background, I would during coffee had a good laugh with my school mates. I had to restrain myself over social decencies as I know they were acting because it was "right" thing to do for them and it was extremely rude to do so- but in my world, the form was superseding substance really.
I had the gumption to be likewise because I was achieving faster, better and more than them in spite of their apparent worship of their status of which they flaunt like peacocks. And really, in reality, I think I was playing an inside joke with these people of which I think had I not venture out of my comfort zone, I would probably not have any interaction with. I would probably be growing a beard and looking more like a hippie than an executive in reality- not exactly privilege banking or corporate customers material.
Ok, if you look at my C.V- you would know I have been working in the banking and finance line for some time. You might be thinking I was strangely out of my depth and I was-initially that is- that's why I took another course in Finance; of which I did not exactly just to be familiar with the language, the terms and metrics of which to make sense of various reports- that's why I read financial reports like it was poetry, the arguments were really not that difficult truth be told- you just need to cut through the jargon.
I used my deconstructing language 101, coupled with capitalist ideas and mixed it with financial arguments which have economic roots really, and you can tell the quack from the real stuff. That's the reason I dissed technical analysis- in my world, numbers are numbers, it is meaning that we impute into it that makes sense. Hence if you can make a drawing out of seemingly random numbers plucked from a myriad of permutations, so can I make another drawing based on another set of numbers. Who wins- the one where most people believed wins isn't it.
I might have been an asshole for doing this and making a monkey and an inside joke on everyone- but really who ultimately lost. No one really lost and we just get disillusioned that's all and realized that the whole world is a one big damn lie. Hence trust me, you are not angry at me for making monkey out of you, you are angry at yourself being made a monkey by everyone else. We are really just monkeys at the end of the day- fooling ourselves that we are better than everybody else.
The uncommon Life
I have just read a novel. It has been a long time since I have mentioned to sit down and enjoyed reading a novel- not for any reason other than for the very sake of it.
I remembered previously that I have always enjoyed reading novels. But in recent years, my book list contains mostly on finding the origins of the financial crisis, on power and politics, history and culture of various countries. It seemed rather impressive but to a certain degree, it all seems extremely instrumental in it's nature.All these reading kept my mind focused on being economical and finding insight as opposed to self-discovery. It served me so well that I have turned into a machine- that made me too good at what I did- which made me wholly inaccessible and "effective" to a fault even.
I recalled reading Marxism, watching porn as a academic module, debating on " how making a hole is easier than making a pole" and making Freudian references. It is all too fun and when I started working, I knew that I had to put all these asides and cull my reading such that to capture the essence and be expedient rather than be really cut out all frills- the only thing that surprises me was how successful I was in doing so. That I have managed to strip everything down to it's essence and leave whatever Dionysian inclination out of the window.
The behaviour was utilitarian to a fault that all actions must have pragmatic bend otherwise it was absolute useless. The only difference was that when I marched forward, I left everybody behind. This made me a "one man everything"- and there was not a market for such a thing. The thing that made me so damn good, had also made me so damn ineffective.
Looking back, I must have to admit, I have swung perhaps too far to the pragmatic bend that made almost unpragmatic that made me no different from a machine or an Oracle. It made me quite incapable to respond to otherwise pretty common behaviour without trying to find a leverage or angle on it. I was too economical to a fault that people had to erect barriers just so they can prevent me from knowing them too well. To a certain degree, I am glad that I got distracted earlier otherwise I might not be able to survive to this age even.
Hence this reading of a novel have made me reclaim some part of me that I have lost. The part of which made living my life worthwhile thus far. The part of me where there were still wonder left where not everything can be articulated and compressed into a simple language.
Quite frankly, I am extremely surprised the extend of which I have moved from being student to a economical unit in such a short period of time. My learning curve was uncommonly short and such that I had to unlearned what I learned and learned back what I used to know intuitively.
I had to learn to live again.
I remembered previously that I have always enjoyed reading novels. But in recent years, my book list contains mostly on finding the origins of the financial crisis, on power and politics, history and culture of various countries. It seemed rather impressive but to a certain degree, it all seems extremely instrumental in it's nature.All these reading kept my mind focused on being economical and finding insight as opposed to self-discovery. It served me so well that I have turned into a machine- that made me too good at what I did- which made me wholly inaccessible and "effective" to a fault even.
I recalled reading Marxism, watching porn as a academic module, debating on " how making a hole is easier than making a pole" and making Freudian references. It is all too fun and when I started working, I knew that I had to put all these asides and cull my reading such that to capture the essence and be expedient rather than be really cut out all frills- the only thing that surprises me was how successful I was in doing so. That I have managed to strip everything down to it's essence and leave whatever Dionysian inclination out of the window.
The behaviour was utilitarian to a fault that all actions must have pragmatic bend otherwise it was absolute useless. The only difference was that when I marched forward, I left everybody behind. This made me a "one man everything"- and there was not a market for such a thing. The thing that made me so damn good, had also made me so damn ineffective.
Looking back, I must have to admit, I have swung perhaps too far to the pragmatic bend that made almost unpragmatic that made me no different from a machine or an Oracle. It made me quite incapable to respond to otherwise pretty common behaviour without trying to find a leverage or angle on it. I was too economical to a fault that people had to erect barriers just so they can prevent me from knowing them too well. To a certain degree, I am glad that I got distracted earlier otherwise I might not be able to survive to this age even.
Hence this reading of a novel have made me reclaim some part of me that I have lost. The part of which made living my life worthwhile thus far. The part of me where there were still wonder left where not everything can be articulated and compressed into a simple language.
Quite frankly, I am extremely surprised the extend of which I have moved from being student to a economical unit in such a short period of time. My learning curve was uncommonly short and such that I had to unlearned what I learned and learned back what I used to know intuitively.
I had to learn to live again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
