You know, sometimes things happen in life and inspires, nay, that's too mild.... compels you to express yourself.
Sometimes that means bad poetry. Bear with me, will you, loyal reader (i.e. one who is addicted to abuse of the literary kind)? :)
On the Mountaintop
I stand alone on the mountaintop; My soul weary, my feet calloused. The mist up here is thick, I cannot see more than a few feet ahead of me, my eyes are veiled. I perceive only myself.
I stand alone on the mountaintop; My heart is starting to stir. The mist is clearing, I see the rocks beneath me, a hint of blue punctures the ethereal veil of white. I sense the grandeur of the world around me.
I stand alone on the mountaintop; I cry out “My Lord and my God!”. The mist has cleared, I see the miracle of creation before me, beauty springs forth from every angle. Yet, I am alone.
I stand on the mountaintop; I sense that am not alone, The mist in my heart has cleared, I see with my soul, the spirits of the sages of times passed are with me. I am one with all.
On the mountaintop, there is no I; I am the mountain, I am the world, I am the mist, I am everything in between. I perceive nothing because I perceive not; I perceive nothing, there is no perceiver. A voice cries out “Look around you”.
I stand on the mountaintop; I must be here. I must be here. The mountaintop, now unveiled, presents itself to me. I hear the sages tell me tales of their journeys up here; Yet, I did not climb. My castle in the air crashed, and I am mired here.
I stand on the mountaintop; I look at the rubble around me. The castle, once proud, now shattered. I am alone with sages, and my scattered solace. I am, truly alone.
On the mountaintop, I fall to my knees; What of the world? What of beauty? I am alone, what else matters? I look beneath me, I look around me; I see beauty, I see life; A voice soothes me, “The miracle matters”.
I climb down from the mountaintop; My pace quickens, I do not look around. The miracle is below. The miracle awaits. I am the miracle, the miracle is life. “It’s going to get better now, you can sort of tell these things.”
------------------------------------------------
Lest I get sued for copyright infringement, I'll have to state that I've borrowed the very last line. It's from Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence. Go read the book if you have the time. It's a worthwhile journey to take.
This wisdom tooth nonsense had better be worth it....
Pain... pain... pain...
Can't do anything but whine about it....
Pain...
So it's true: pain is a prerequisite of expressionistic art... if what's above can be called art. In which case I'll just be in pain and dishing out crap
I love the new year. It's like the formating C: drive and reinstalling your OS. All the past complexities involving corrupted registry entries and fragmented disk clusters have been wiped clean. Things just feel fresh. There's this new clarity in viewing the world. There's a similar clarity in viewing yourself.
Happy New Year folks, I leave you with a suggestion for a better year ahead...
For the, like, gazillionth time yesterday, I’ve had people remarking how gay Frodo and Sam are. I think they’ve entirely missed the point of what it is to be gay.
I think I would be undisputed in saying that the mark of a gay person is that they want to shag someone of the same gender. There, I said it… SHAG. The whole idea about homosexuality is a SEXUAL one. Like, du-uh, just look at the work homoSEXUAL, right?
Of course the sophisticates among you would cry “bloody murder”, “whoa nelly”, “hold your horses”, “stop the presses”. Sexuality isn’t simply about sexual intercourse is it? I recall a first year psychology lecture stating that there are six marks of sexuality. I.e, according to that theory, there are six, yes, count ‘em… six factors that make each one of us male or female. I can’t recall all six right now (and I’m too lazy to dig out my course notes). At least two of them are biological. One is the possession of the proper chromosomes (XX for females and XY for males), and the other biological factor is the possession of the proper genitalia. To be fair, I do recall non-biological factors such as how you feel about yourself, etc. Trickier stuff that.
However, we’re not here to debate about whether them Hobbits (wow.. my word processor recognizes the word “hobbit”) are male or female, we’re here to talk about whether they’re gay. Let’s assume that they are happily male. To be gay is to be a male homosexual, so they’ve fulfilled half the requirement. But, what about the other requirement? More importantly, WHAT IS the other requirement? My limited cogniscience can only postulate what I’ve already postulated… the desire to shag someone of the same gender. In other words, to the sophisticates among you, yes, to be gay is essentially one concerning sexual intercourse. Hell, I could even weaken my stance a little by saying it’s just the desire for a sexual relationship with one of the same gender. It makes no difference the way you look at it.
Essentially, if you look at it from said hobbits points of view, can you truthfully say that they perceive their relationship to be something more than platonic? One of simple friendship? More strongly put, can you say that either hobbit desires a sexual relationship with the other? Not me. I don’t think they’re gay.
Yes, maybe they do ACT in a way that seems gay to most of us. Personally I think it’s a sad reflection of our diminished view of love. In a relationship, where simple, platonic love ends, sexual desire begins. The problem is that most of us these days cannot frame the way Sam and Frodo speak and behave without framing them as sexual acts. “I love you” is not a sexual act. Sure, most of us guys invoke that as a sexual act when we say it in the hope of getting laid. But the way said hobbits acted was motivated by love, not the desire to make the other feel good and secure and blah blah blah so that they can eventually get laid.
It’s sad that we automatically judge(consciously or subconsciously) many acts of love to be “maneuvers to get laid eventually”. We have been so conditioned that we forget that the essence of relationships and sexual orientation isn’t one of BEHAVIOUR, but one of DISPOSITION. We can’t fathom someone behaving in a loving manner without the stereotypical dispositions that come with it. I’m not saying that the inability to fathom something like that is sad, because succumbing to stereotypes is a human trait (unfortunate, though, it is). What’s sad is what those stereotypes (which, I believe, are unique to our day and age) are a sad reflection of an impoverished conception of love.
So, for Tolkien’s sake, have a broader view of love: Sam and Frodo aren’t gay!
Attended the opening ceremony of my Aikido club’s Hombu Dojo. They invited Seijuro Masuda Shihan, an 8th Dan from Tokyo to conduct a training at the new Dojo. It was quite an eye opener.
Masuda Shihan was a short, stout man of 67, although with almost a full head of white hair, he looked no more than 50. Masuda Shihan’s training was enjoyable; meaning that the atmosphere was light, certainly a change from the no-nonsense, businesslike, air that pervaded this very same dojo exactly one week ago during my grading. Masuda Shihan cracked many jokes in Japanese (although I suppose a lot had been lost in translation) while making some very important technical, and philosophical points about the fine art of Aikido. I shall refrain from commenting about his technique, as I am sure that whatever I say here will only serve to frame what had transpired in my own limited perspective, thereby serving only to diminish.
Masuda Shihan brought some of his “students” along for the trip. I use quote marks because students usually conjure up the image of young people, who had just recently embarked on the Aikido experience. It turned out that said students were mostly middle aged men, who had been practicing Aikido for at least twenty years of their lives, and were probably at least Sandans.
I called them (Shihan and his students, collectively) the Dangerous Old Buggers.
Training was educational in that it brought new perspectives. I usually train in a small dojo that has about 10 people, so training with new partners gave me the opportunity to witness a wider spectrum of interpretations of the art.
There was a buffet dinner following the training. I suppose it would be dishonest for me to fail to mention that there was also an open bar with free flowing red wine and lager.
I’ll just mention some short notes about the people I met over dinner:
Matt: An American (Long Island native) navy man who’s been everywhere. Speaks smatterings of Japanese. He’s the same grade as me in Aikido, which is to say a beginner, but he’s been at it for 10 years. It’s just that he’s moved around a lot, and he starts over everytime he gets to a new country. He’s been practicing Aikido in Singapore for the past 4 months.
Clarence: 27 year old unemployed Singaporean who’s just graduated from the University of Western Ontario. A computing major just like me. And did I already mention unemployed, just like me? He was pretty nice to talk to, being in the same sort of rut that I am in right now. He’s a 3rd Kyu who I had the opportunity to train with earlier this week when I did additional training at another dojo.
Yamamoto-San: One of the few (possibly the only) young Japanese. 23 year old civil servant who majored in Korean Studies at the Tokyo University for Foreign Studies. His English, although accented, was quite impeccable. Apparently the situation in Japan isn’t all that great either, he told me he graduated last year and had to wait 4 months before landing his current job.
Seiki-san: Middle-aged (fifties) bald guy. I was observing his technique on the mat earlier in the day. Pretty powerful stuff. I think he’s probably a rokudan or something, although he was quite humble about it. He commutes to Tokyo to work everyday, and it takes him 2 and a half hours each way. I’m pretty impressed that he could spend 5 hours commuting everyday. He used to live in Tokyo, but moved back 16 years ago to his hometown (I forget the name) because it was customary for children to take care of their parents when need be (his father was just widowed then). There was also a video of some aikido demonstrations being played on the televisions in the bar where we were having dinner. Seiki-san was in one of the demonstrations (as the victim).
XXX-san: That’s just my way of saying I forgot his name. Another middle aged Japanese guy, full head of black hair and a matching moustache. Told me he used to live in Jakarta many years ago. His bahasa was still pretty good, as we managed a short conversation in bahasa. At the end of the night, I bid him “Selamat Jalan” (farewell) and “Sampai Jumpa” (till we meet again).
First things first, for the benefit of non-logicians and philosophers (and other people who aren’t familiar with the term); definitions:
Ad Hominem:- Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason (in an argument).
Source: Dictionary.com
Basically, “ad hominem” is used in logic and philosophy to pertain to arguments that appeal to the person instead of logic or reason. The term “ad hominem” literally means “to the person”, hence to “argue ad hominem” is to argue to the person.
Now that we have that sorted out.
Generally, ad hominem arguments are held to lower esteem (or not at all) as compared to logical and reasonable ones, or ones that appeal purely to reason and logic.
But, what’s really wrong with ad hominem arguments? I suppose one answer is that ad hominem arguments aren’t general arguments. For example, if a friend of mine were to argue that I shouldn’t be spouting colourful four-lettered “f” words, and she says something like “It doesn’t sound nice when you swear; therefore you shouldn’t swear”, it’s somewhat of an ad hominem argument (excuse the fact that it’s a malformed argument in the first place) because she is appealing to the way it sounds coming out of my mouth. In other words, an ad hominem argument isn’t a general argument; rather it is a general argument that only pertains to me, and my situation. Such an argument does not help increase the body of philosophical propositions, which need to be propositions that are somewhat general in nature (the more general the better) to be of use. After all, what has an argument pertaining to my situation have to do with someone who swears, say, in the middle of a war?
Personally, I am starting to doubt the value of general statements. This isn’t a new idea (refer to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus for a more sophisticated argument). If we say that the philosophical endeavour is to increase our body of knowledge (by generating conclusions with truth values that we can be reasonably confident in), or if it is to increase the domain of propositions for consideration (by forming new, valid conclusions), then I suppose my argument in favour of ad hominem arguments stop right here.
However, I believe that the philosophical endeavour must also strive to improve the quality of life for people. If this is the case, then a bridge must be built to relate the cold, logically derived general propositions to our own unique situations. That bridge, I believe is the ad hominem argument. The argument that shows how your personal situation is related to a general statement. In other words, in the view of philosophy as a life-changing and (hopefully) life-improving endeavour, a specific ad hominem proposition is probably of higher value than a purely logical one. Furthermore, just because an argument is ad hominem does not necessarily mean that it fails to be a logical one. Rather, an ad hominem argument can also be a logical one if it takes into consideration the unique situation of the person as relevant premises and derives a logical (valid) conclusion from them.
Another case for ad hominem arguments comes from the doubt that truly non-ad hominem arguments can exist. The idea of objectivity in observation (in science and other truth-seeking disciplines that claim to be objective) has come under attack. In other words, what is it for a proposition to be truly general and objective as opposed to generally being “someone’s point of view”? For any object in the universe, there are an infinite number of true hypotheses that can be made about it. Our choice of which hypotheses to use is a personal one. Therefore, our premises (which are the relevant hypotheses that are chosen) aren’t “objective premises”, but ones that arise from our personal, subjective choices. In other words, if premises, which are the building blocks of arguments, cannot be objective, then arguments themselves cannot be objective. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that arguments cannot be true, or that our logic is in itself subjective. I’m saying that our logic, which could possibly be objective, invariably works with non-objective premises. Therefore, pretty much all arguments are to a degree “ad hominem”.
In closing, I would like to state that I’m not supporting illogical arguments that attack the character of the person. Rather, I would like to bring to attention the possibility that ad hominem arguments, when coupled with the logical rules of deduction and inference, can, and should be held to the same degree of esteem as non-ad hominem ones.
I received my letter of acceptance from the University of Sydney today. I must say, the Australians are certainly a money-grubbing bunch; moreso than the Brits. Basically there’s no way for me to secure a place with the University until I pay a deposit. And this isn’t a “few hundred dollar” deposit I’m talking about. It’s in the order of thousands here. It really leaves quite a bad taste in my mouth, this kind of attitude.
In other news, caroling season has begun. We’ve been practicing since September and I have to say that we sound pretty decent. So far we’ve sung at Orchard Road twice and once at a hospital. You really do feel quite appreciated when singing along Orchard Road and people stop to listen to your singing (some people stay for the full repertoire!) and applaud after each carol. It makes it feel like all that hard work has somehow paid off.
On the flipside though, tensions seem to be mounting in the choir. I think it’s just the season rearing it’s ugly side. Christmas, even for Christians (dare I say, sometimes even more so), can be a really stressful time. I’m not even talking about the physical buying of gifts and writing cards and all (don’t really do all that crap anyway). It’s just that Christmas season seems to exert all sorts of pressures on you. You’re supposed to feel jolly, and happy, and merry, and have fun, and what have you, that you feel like there’s something wrong if you just feel… normal.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, happy holidays y’all.
Don’t bother looking for an excuse for my lack of updates cos I’m not gonna give one.
Haven’t really been doing much with my life these days. Just the usual bumming around, sitting on my hands, that kinda stuff.
Other than the inactivity, I’ve been doing my usual thinking about everything and anything worthless to this world. I was thinking about my recent ideas about “frame of reference and framework of ideas”. I suppose if I ever get down to pursuing a PhD, I could write about it for my thesis. However, as it stands, there’s lots of work to be done on it; formalizing and all that jazz that’s involved with actually making it a worthwhile and gradable thesis. Furthermore, I don’t really know if my “frame theory”, as I like to call it (which incidentally, ties in nicely with Wittgenstein’s “Picture Theory”, which, I believe has strongly influenced my world view), is really a philosophy theory per se. It sounds to my like more of a psychology or anthropology theory.
Silly me, I haven’t stated what my frame theory is. I won’t really bore you with the full details, mostly because I haven’t really worked them out fully yet. Briefly though, my frame theory just says that all our knowledge is framed, and that this frame is finite, and cannot really capture all of reality. It affects our picture of reality, just like a frame affects the painting it frames (sic.). Picture of reality is borrowed from Wittgenstein in that our language and atomic propositions form a picture of reality. They’re based on reality, they depict reality, but they aren’t reality itself. Anyway, the frame that I talk about so much is simply (might not be so simple once after I work out all the details and such) our underlying framework of knowledge, consisting of our language, basic beliefs, cultural influences, etc.
Not really groundbreaking, I guess, sounds suspiciously like Kant, after all, but I do think I have something there, I guess I’ll just have to read a little more and see what can be developed.
I did, however, manage to sort of use that to answer one of the classic questions in philosophy. “If a tree fell down in the forest and no one was there to hear it fall, did it make a sound?”
I would say “yes”, pretty confidently. Because, with our current notion of sounds and noises and the like, and our current physics, we’d expect that a tree that fell down in a forest, would indeed make a noise. Given, the shape of the tree, the density of it, the leaves, the branches, the ground, the mass, the law of gravity, perturbations of air molecules, and so on, the tree would indeed hit the ground with a loud “thud”, a loud noise – a sound.
In other words, our current framework of knowledge surrounding trees and falling down compels us to say that a sound would be produced. That is the frame that surrounds our picture of falling trees.
However, even trees and falling are notions, that are really pictures in their own right and have frames of their own. The thing is, why do we assume that the tree fell down if we didn’t see it going in a certain trajectory, existing continuously in time and space, from standing erect to lying prone on the ground. I mean, if I went to the forest yesterday and saw a tree standing erect, and then returned today to see it on the ground, why would I assume that it had to fall down? Why can’t I say that a giant uprooted it and laid it on the ground gently? Or something even more outrageous? Probably because of our frame surrounding our notions of how trees must hit the ground and that giants don’t exist, and all the like.
So, actually, the question isn’t really “if a tree fell on the ground and no one was there to observe it, did it make a sound?”, because, like I have said, due to our frames of knowledge about falling and trees and all, it has to be yes. The question really is, “if a tree fell in the forest and no one was there to observe it, did it fall down?”. The answer to that is simple. It did, simply because the scenario says it fell down.
Easy as pie.
Ok, maybe I might be missing some of the points of the question. Especially the metaphysical ones, the ones concerning the true nature of sound and trees and all that funny stuff. But I do think that the frame theory way to go is a viable alternative.
I've always wondered why the milo I made at home tasted kinda different and less.... full-bodied... then the kind of iced milo they sold in the stores. I've tried everything... condensed milk, sugar, varying the amounts of powder and all... they were small steps... but the key thing was that the texture was wrong. The milo in stores tasted more full... not like water with milo powder in it.
Tonight I stumbled on the secret.
Let it settle.
Yup... that's the simple secret... don't drink the milo straightaway. After you've dissolved everything in hot water and stirred and all... put it in the fridge and let it settle a while. About an hour should be enough. Then take it out and top it of with cold water (assuming you didn't fill it with hot water totally before).
The texture should be there.
Yup... deep philosophy indeed.
Tomorrow... back to the more mundane business of thinking about the meaning of life.
Guess what? I actually watched “Crossroads” today.
Yes, THAT “Crossroads”, with Britney Spears in it.
It was on cable, I was bored, I watched it.
It wasn’t half bad really. It’s no Shakespeare (no pun intended there… really) but it was quite a meaningful coming-of-age chick flick. If anything, I got to see Britney in a variety of revealing outfits and plenty of opportunities to admire Britney’s beauty and body of work (which is mighty impressive).
There, I said it, I think Britney’s hot… it’s just unfortunate that she’s going through this phase where she thinks she has to dress/act like a skank to sell records.
Anyway, decent fluff of a movie, but two scenes stood out in my mind. Both involved sex.
The first scene had her with Justin Long (Warren Cheswick in “Ed”), who was her lab partner for 3 years. They were about to have sex at the post-graduation party because, in their words, they were “willing”, “able to trust each other”, and “curious about it”. Additionally, in Justin’s case, it was also because “any guy who went to college a virgin would be given a hard time”. In the end, Britney’s character couldn’t go through with it because she wanted her first time to be more memorable and meaningful. Justin was disappointed, no doubt, but being the decent guy he was, he didn’t force the issue.
It sorta clued me into the idea that guys and gals view sex quite differently.
Whoa nelly… I just uttered a big truth there huh? No? Big deal? You knew that already? Drats.
Anyway, the second scene had Britney with another guy who’s character’s name was Ben (can’t remember the actor’s name). Anyway, this Ben guy was more cool than Justin’s character. Ben went to jail, Justin’s character was a nerd. Ben had a tattoo. Ben had facial hair. Ben was older than Britney. You get the idea. This time, they went all the way. Before it all started however, Ben asked “Are you sure?”, and got “I want to do this” as a response. I guess Ben is the sorta guy most gals want to remember their first time to be with huh?
Why the difference? I think it goes back again to a fundamental difference in the perceptions. For guys, the first time is sorta an initiation ceremony, a sign that they’ve entered into manhood. For girls? I dunno, maybe it’s the same, but with a slightly different take on it. A few weeks ago, I came across the idea in some ethics papers that sex can be viewed as a form of body language. Maybe that’s the additional thing in the girl’s perception, that they seem to be more acutely aware of the communicative aspect of sex. Sex isn’t just an act which you enter into, go through the motions and get done with. Sex, like any sort of language, MEANS something.
I guess it kinda fits. Hugs and kisses are physical acts on one level, but on another level, we know that they mean something, that they have a certain power that other acts like kicking a ball or eating an apple do not. That “power” seems to be the communicative aspect. Just like we don’t hug or kiss just anyone, we won’t really want to have sex with just anyone. It’s the same for our verbal language. We select the language acts we wish to partake with others. We are far less inclined to joke around with our teachers/bosses (maybe more so here in the conservative east) and don’t really like to talk shop with our drinking buddies.
So, if sex is just another form of body language, what’s all this talk about not doing it before you get married? If it’s just language, then the key thing is NOT the timing of it, but with whom you do it with. And we can even view prostitution as a sort of psychotherapy session. You pay someone so that they are willing to “listen and talk” to you, sexually.
The sex-as-body language view seems to be the prevalent view these days, and as I hope to have shown above, it seems to capture quite a lot of aspects of sex itself. Because of technology, sex is no longer identical to procreation. Procreation can now be a choice, one that is still dependant of sex, but it no longer is tied to sex, if we make the choice to employ contraceptive means.
So, seriously, what is the motivation behind sex within marriage anymore? The only valid motivations seem to be religious ones, but these are dependant upon religious world views, which not everyone shares.
Can we still maintain a secular argument for sex within the institution of marriage? The only viable argument was one of practicality, but like I said, technology has done away with that.
I’ll think about it for a bit. There seems to be a promising lead in the fact that people want to feel that they’re “ready” for sex. This seems to be a shortcoming of the language view. No one really needs to feel “ready” before they tell a joke or talk about something.
Met up with Zhu An just now for dinner and show. Apparently it’s that time of term for NUS these past few weeks, and everyone’s busy rushing deadlines and what have yous, but he’s gone quite some ways in clearing his assignment and decided to take this week a little more slowly.
Anyway, he asked me a pretty interesting question after dinner.
“Do you think you are materialistic?”
Loaded question, isn’t it?
First of all, how do we define materialism today? Is it simply a disposition to place undue emphasis on material goods and the externals? But then again, what counts as “undue emphasis” these days? What does “undue” really mean? After all, if we can come up with a rational, reasonable reason for said disposition, then can we call it “undue” any more?
Here’s the framework from which I look at it: Materialism is a means to an end, a necessary evil. Consider the average modern person who lives in a fairly metropolitan city. When we look at someone, we almost automatically make ascriptions to that person, we make certain guesses and assumptions about the person’s education, social views, social status, economic status, etc. And based on what? Based on externalities like the hairdo, the clothes, the shoes, the car, the house… the material things.
I’ll say it again, we make assumptions about a person’s internal qualities based on what we see externally, which is, more often than not (though not entirely), made up of material things.
I don’t think I have muttered any great truth that hasn’t already been revealed to us. We know, and we can see, that throughout history, objects can hold certain power over our perceptions of people and/or groups of people. Uniforms, statues, effigies, cars, houses, etc. are all symbols of societies, a quick and easy indicator of who people are and where they stand.
Given the power such material things hold over they way we perceive and are perceived, doesn’t it suddenly seem reasonable, rational, to place some sort of emphasis on them?
So what counts as “undue emphasis” anymore?
Let’s shift gears for a moment and look at this from a different level. Two of the biggest philosophical question that most people would encounter upon introspection would be “Who am I?” and “What do I want?”.
It seems to me like all this materialism and justification for materialism seems to buy into the “What do I want?” question. I try to look good and give off a certain external impression so that I can give a good impression to others, who are essential in helping me achieve something in life; to achieve a WANT.
I’ve also read that the order in which we answer the 2 questions are very important. Most literature state that it is usually better to answer “Who am I?” before going on to “What do I want?”. The support for such a stance is essentially that once you know who you are and have defined the boundaries of what you are willing to do, your wants will come naturally. On the other hand, if one were to define oneself primarily in terms of wants, without first drawing boundaries, certain “dignities” might be sacrificed.
But seriously? What’s the problem with that? “Dignities” cannot be sacrificed unless one is aware of them, right? Sure, there is probably an element of regret later on when one realizes what the real cost of attaining those wants are, but at least you have attained something.
In other words, “What’s so wrong about trying to attain certain material wants first, and then going on to figuring out who you are?” Especially if those wants are pretty innocuous and didn’t lead you to commit gross immoralities? Seriously, isn’t the average Joe at least smart enough to draw the line when his wants come at too high a cost, either to himself (let’s assume he knows enough about who he is to draw such rough boundaries) or to someone else?
I had no real answer to that question when it was raised just now.
I might have an answer now, but give me a few days to suss it out.
Can't say for certain how long I'll keep this up, but after 2 months of non-activity, I've decided to try to start logging again.
Lots of stuff has happened in the 2 months. The biggest of the lot is that I'm not going to law school anymore. There was a major problem with my student visa, so I had to give up my place in law school. Am I pissed? Damn straight. But, that's life for you, so I move on.
I'm possibly going to start work soon. I had my first interview yesterday and was given a one month probation period before I'll be offered a contract. It's with the a research lab in SGH. I'm suppposed to go in next week again to sit in and observe at the lab. Fingers crossed, I'll land the job. It seems like a pretty interesting thing to be involved with, although I've never really dreamt that I'll be a part of something like that.
Write back again when I have something meaningful to report.
My parents arrived in Leeds on Sunday evening and I've been taking them around for the past few days. It feels really weird to have them around me so much. Apart from not being used to the nagging, I start to see how different my views are to theirs. I used to think that whatever my parents thought was right. Now I find myself occasionally irked by their myopic and out of date views. At one point I was wondering how my parents could have transformed into such a pair of "auntie and uncle" in the span of 3 years, then it dawned on me that it's probably me that's changed. I've changed my views and my values so drastically, but have failed to notice it since I'm so caught up in this new life I have here.
Anyway, graduation on wednesday. It's so hot these days, I'm gonna melt in my gown, with my suit underneath.
My housemate had a few items stolen off his room. I did not suffer any loss since I was asleep in my room when it happened.
While I do empathise with the material loss, I am more freaked out by the fact that someone could enter the house, walk around, take stuff, and then leave, and we were all totally oblivious to this despite my housemates being downstairs in the living room while it all happened.
Four people, one (I assume it was just one) trespasser. No one knew till it was too late.
Kind of makes you wonder how secure the home is now.
I'm just glad I have only a week left in this house before I leave it for good.
I've just finished a little bit of tidying up of my room, taking out all my old cheque books and paying slips and all them financial stuff because I'm going to close my bank account here in a few days.
Discovered that I have some leftover cash lying around here and there in Pounds, Sing. Dollars and a few American Dollars as well.
I was recently reminded, through a conversation with a friend, of my trouble with religion... well, particularly my own.
The problem is a conceptual difficulty, a common problem that is has probably plagued many who lack in faith since antiquity.
Quite simply, how do I know that my religion is correct?
A more complicated variant of the question would probably be, how do I know the interpretation of my religion which I am exposed to within my community/through teachings is the correct interpretations. I was watching a documentary about religious extremists the other day, and there was some footage of young (6-7 years old) children. I was quite horrified at some of the sentiments that they expressed. They have hate and rascism ingrained in them from such a young age. The truly scary thing is that there was nothing personal in their sentiments, no bitterness whatsoever. They way that they spoke, it seemed like they accepted that certain races are inferior, or that waging war and killing people, in the name of religion is correct, and good, and that they accepted these as FACTS, to be taken for granted, much like we take Newton's Laws or the notion of basic Human Rights as a given FACT.
To me, this is the most insidious of all, for lack of a better term, indoctrination. It is the acceptance of certain statements as facts, without even the slightest realisation that it could be wrong that truly scares me.
I've always held the view that science and religion are complementary endeavours. Science allows us to appreciate our beliefs with greater depth, while religion gives an overall perspective to our beliefs. The question I posed above was.. "how do I know that my religion is correct?". My answer: science. Tales of creation can be falsified with cosmology, theoretical physics, and anthropology; accounts of human nature can be investigated by psychology, neurology and biology; recommendations for organising society through economics and political science. The central idea here is lies within the meaning of the word "science". "Science" comes from the latin "scientia" meaning "knowledge" or "to know". My belief is that we should build up a body of knowledge, a structure of investigated, falsifiable FACTS.
Yet, the verification and falsification of facts is only the surface battle. At its heart, religion (any one, pick one) is about TRUTH. How can we verify and falsify truth? What is truth (small "t") and what is "Truth" (capital "T")?
If we are taught to believe truths and accept the Truth, then sure we must be able to recognise them when we encounter them. But, isn't recognition all about having a set of facts? I recognise that this thing in front of me is a table because it fulfills a certain set of facts that I have come to expect all tables to satisfy. As Wittgenstein says it (albeit in a different context, which I believe, is applicable here), "The world is everything that is the case. What is the case, the fact, is the existence of atomic facts". The pursuit of facts is science.
But, we do not have a Science of Truth.
So this leaves is in some sort of a bind, does it not?
The immediate response of many faithful, I believe, would be to say that Truth is not about science or facts, but about faith. But, what is faith, really? I turn to some of our basic, secular "faiths" that we have for everyday things: for example, the faith that my friend will not kick me in the head when I turn around; or the faith that the bus will arrive at a certain time (based on the "holy text" that is the bus schedule). What are these "faiths" based upon besides that of personal experience (in the latter case, the faith in the TRUTH of the bus schedule). Indeed, when we talk about religion, most people say that it is a personal journey between you and whatever name you choose to call the Supreme Being.
So faith is a matter of personal experience. However, that would raise another problem, since everyone's personal experience is different, how do we ever know that we share the same faith? Ok, if we all worship within the same community, then our religious experience could more or less be said to be the same. Yet, this does not ensure the truth about the Truth. Those religious extremist kids in the documentary came to the belief of those extremist truths based on their personal (albeit limited) experience.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not blasting personal experience as a basis for faith. I truly believe that it is all that we have to go upon, but this would bring us to a somewhat paradoxical conclusion: that while personal experience lead to a faith of belief, it can just as well lead us to a faith of disbelief and doubt.
I have a strong faith in my disbelief and doubt, and until a personal experience, or, better yet, a certain set of facts, comes along and gives me reason to have faith in something else, I should be true to my faith, no?
By the way, what I've written kinda undermines itself. If the above is true, then you have no reason to believe that it is true. Of course, I leave it on faith for you to accept the truth of what has written (as a whole, or at least in part).
(And yes, I do realise that Human Rights, at least in their current incarnation, aren't really, indisputably fact. Nothing like throwing a little curve ball to keep you readers awake. *wink)
Auf Weidersein for now.
P.S: This was originally supposed to be a post expressing my thoughts on Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, but I might put up my review another day. *shurg
This just in... hot off the press (well... off the email which came in a few minutes ago...)
I've gotten a place in hall!
I'm staying in Prince George's Park!
I know a lot of you NUS students will probably tell me that's a sucky hall cos it's boring and all... but that's what I want... a quiet environment to stay in. I don't think I'm really very on about hall activities... too old at heart... heh.
I got the cardboard boxes for packing the stuff I wanted to ship on Monday (23rd), and have been cleaning up my room, organising my notes (haven't properly filed in my notes since the finishing the first sem. in my 2nd yr.).
I always say, there's nothing like clearing up your room and throwing stuff away to make you feel nostalgic. Looking at all my old notes, disposing of the clothes that aren't "me" anymore, it's really an unofficial map of your progress, no?
Anyway, my room is in a bit of a mess now, because I still have one box to pack before I'm done, and clothes and other items I want to put in that box are strewn all over. I'll be done tomorrow, so I can vacuum my room and admire the unprecedented neatness (or bareness) of my room. On the bright (?) side, my bookshelf, which was once home to my textbooks and notes is now almost totally bare, save for a few documents, mostly from NUS, which I might need to get through customs in Singapore.
I received my official degree classification yesterday, although I managed to work it out by calculating the average of all my modules about two weeks back. It's confirmed that I've got a 2:1. I guess I should be pleased, but I can't help but feel a little sore, since I know that it is definitely within my abilities to get a 1st. Furthermore, one of my coursemates won a department prize. I know he deserves it, 'cos he totally caned his degree and project, and even did some brief research over the summer last year. Still, can help but want to at least get a 1st class. Oh well, it's all over now.
It's really over now. I know I've said it many times already, starting with the submission of my project and thesis, but this time it's really over. No more possible surprises, no more waiting for official results, just walk the stage, smile a little and bugger off.
I also started reading up on law in a serious way yesterday. I had some false starts before on this, but couldn't really get into the material (probably had something to do with the fact that I was reading the book in bed, before I turned in). Anyway, the plan is to read a chapter from the Contract Law text everyday, and if I keep to the programme, I would have finished the book by the time I walk the stage and get my papers, just before I start my pursuit of a Law degree.
Contract Law has been pretty interesting. So far I've read about the crucial issue of how to determine whether and agreement, which is the basis of a contract, has taken place. I might be posting some thoughts on it later in the week. And if anyone is going to accuse me of being a chao mugger, my defense is that I'll still be busy reading the cases during the actual term. I figure I'd better get myself at least acquainted with the central concepts and issues. Besides, Contract Law is only one module of many that I'll have to take, it's not as if I'm trying to pia the whole first year now.
In other news, I think I'm going to visit Bogene in Southampton this week. I was supposed to go to Amsterdam this week, but couldn't get a visa in time (yes THAT again), so I figured I could take up Bogene's offer to visit her instead of being home alone since pretty much everyone else I know is going. Besides, I don't think I've seen her since Mr Tan's wedding.
Talking about our dear Ms. Ang, was surfing the NUS Law Dept. home page the other day and looked at the Dean's List, and found that her sister was on the List. Damn.
Bumming around is quite hard work in the lack of concentration it requires. Heh
Anyway, next week is packing up week. Need to get my stuff in boxes, and I should also clean up my room as well. Plus there's a massive pile of clothes that's been washed but require ironing. I should probably change my sheets while I'm at it.
Too many details? I thought so.
I want to go back to Singapore and build my super-powerful gaming computer!!!
Another month of waking up, playing inappropriately huge amounts of PS2, slumping on my couch and watching TV. Sigh, bumming is hard work.
I'm still stunned. I got 75 for both my exams. I have no idea how I got that. Please understand that I started revision the night before both the exams.
Damn, I'm good. Or could just be the grace of God.
Either way, doesn't matter. Going to NUS to get another degree. Better make that one a First class honours.
It's probably God tho... I ain't that good.
For those of you keeping score, I got a 2:1 for the current degree.
BSc. Hons (2:1) Artificial Intelligence with Philosophy.
Damn. Sounds a lot cooler than Bachelors in Law.
Ah well, the boring degree's gonna be the one that gets me a high paying job.
Now it is all well and truly over. Just have to walk the stage.
A week of totally having nothing to do. Finished the final exams, technically finished the degree, all that's left is to walk the stage and receive my papers while wearing a silly gown.
The whole excitement of finishing is starting to wane, and the anxiety of truly ending this part of my life in England is starting to set in. Amidst all this is also the mounting anticipation of a new beginning in Singapore and NUS. I don't really feel like talking about my seperation anxieties with this place, I think I'll have plenty of that soon enough, when I actually have to leave.
I've been thinking more about the end and the beginning. They say every end is a new beginning. I guess it's mostly true. But I can't help but wonder about all those people who are left jobless after graduation because of the state of the world economy these days. What about them? What kind of beginning are they going to meet after their ends? To be left in limbo for a few months can really throw you off your stride. I still remember the long 9 months of waiting for University to start after my A levels. Thank goodness my new term in NUS starts soon after I step off the plane in Singapore.
Still, I can't help but wonder if NUS is truly such a new start. I spent a good part of this week replying to NUS, filling out forms and applying for a Student Pass. It really all seemed so reminiscent of 3 years back. Which really makes me wonder if this is really a new start. When people move on in their lives, they move on to something new. This, for me, seems more like a step back, or retracing my steps at best. I know I make all these promises to myself that it's gonna be different this time around, I'm not gonna be that clueless fresher tossing about for 3 years in Uni., but how true is that? How true will that be? Shouldn't I be going out and really starting my career and life in that wide world out there instead of hiding in the confines of academia?
I've had this discussion with my parents before. I guess, ultimately, Law's the right way to go. I sincerely believe it's something I want to do and am passionate about and can really make good in. Yet, I'm getting no younger, and so are my parents. I guess it's just some sort of jitters. And I guess it's something I have to constantly deal with over the next few years.
I can only pray that God helps me through the next few years. Cos I sure as hell will fall and fail quite a bit.
I was coming back from a dinner out with my friends and we passed by 2 dogs err... *ahem*... getting it on... in the distance, and they spotted us and the male dog proceeded to chase us.
I guess dogs are like humans. They don't like interruptions to their coitus too.
I've been ill for the past few days. Woke up on monday with a massive headache and I pretty much felt like dying. I guess I played a little too hard after the exams. Haven't really slept properly since Thursday night and it finally took it's toll on my body. I hate being ill, it makes you feel all too human, that and it really sucks in general.
In other news, my future plans have materialised! Went back to Singapore in April to attend interviews and written test for my NUS Law application, and I finally got word from them yesterday. Yes, I'm going to Law School! It's gonna be another long three years, but I guess it's gonna be worth it. This time I'd better work hard and get on the dean's list or something, after all, I'm spending another 3 years in university, so I better make my performance this time around more impressive.
In other news, I bought tickets back to Singapore already. SIA's having this promotion where tickets are about 50%-75% off, and I managed to get a really cheap ticket back home for about 240 pounds. Good stuff that. I'll be touching down in Singapore on Tuesday, 22nd July, 5 days after my graduation, and slightly under 2 weeks before matriculation.
I'll stop here... feel like I need to lie down again. Bah.
I was, for some reason, looking at my possessions today, and I came to thinking about how I ended up buying some of these things. It seems to me that a lot of our desires at this day and age is, at least in part, a product of a marketing machinery.
We've come to be told to want the things we want. I look at the designs of some of the newest sneakers in the market today, and I ask myself why these designs are so appealing. Is it because the designs somehow appeal to us on an deep aesthetic level that cannot be sufficiently articulated, even by our best aesthtic theories? Maybe, but it still seems undeniable to me that at least some part of the appeal comes from marketing. We see a car onscreen and think it's cool, and it's cool precisely because we see it on screen and not because it's cool intriniscally. Think about Jame's Bond's Aston Martin. Sure, I have to admit that it's a cool car and all, but isn't part of the whole coolness of that car a result of us seeing all the cool schenanigens that Bond partakes in onscreen? In other words, the "cool factor" has been amplified a millionfold because we see it on screen. And our desire for it seems to stem primarily from the cool factor, over and above everything else.
A lot of our desires today are created from a massive, unseen, system out there. On a very subconcious level, I think it has bothered me all along, and today this malaise has bubbled onto the surface. If desire is created, how do we really know what we want? If we don't know what we want, how do we know when we've gotten it? It's pretty relevant to the whole happiness issue. Our happiness today seems to be based on the attainment of wants. But if we don't really know what we want and as a result, can not know when we've attained that want, how can we be happy?
It's a pretty huge problem, not just about material wants, but pertaining to just about everything in our life. Our jobs- what we WANT to do with our lives; Love- who we WANT to make an emotional investment with; Ideals- the beliefs we WANT to work towards realising. If all these are, at a basic level, all wants, and all wants are in part created, the crucial question becomes, how much of all these personal wants that are so important to us stem from our own inner desire, and how much of it is a result of a system "out there"?
In other words, what part of us really wants our wants? And what part of us have been told to want it?
And, if we've been told to want them, then they're not really real wants, are they?
I think there's something wrong with my home computer. I can't seem to access this blog using my short URL at home, but it's fine with my school computers.
For you readers out there, that means that I'm not gonna move servers. I just have to clean up the junk in my home computer to find out what's wrong.
I watched the Matrix Reloaded yesterday. Not a bad show I must say, most of the people I talked to before watching the movie didn't really like it and told me not to get my hopes up. The overwhelming sentiment was that they felt it wasn't as good as the first one.
I disagree.
The second installment was, in my opinion, definitely better than the first. That is of course, not to say that it did not have its problems. I found the philosophical discussions in the first hour or so to be really heavy handed, and coming from a philosophy background, I could not help but cringe at the way some of the theories have been butchered for simplicity's sake. The main problem was that they broke the one thing that made the first Matrix so great:
"Unfortunately, no one can be told what the matrix is, you have to see it for yourself."
Unfortunately, this time around, they chose to try to tell us all about philosophy, instead of showing it to us so we can see it for ourself. Heavy handedness.
I also felt that some of the fight sequences were a little excessive and had that "it's there for the sake of being there" feel.
That said, I liked the movie tremendously, and like I said, feel that it is better than the first. It moved from a personal tale about Methodological Solipsism (look it up... heh) within Philosophy of the Mind to the far stickier issue of Free Will vs. Determinism. The philosophical stakes are far higher this time around. Possibly why the movie felt like it didn't deal with the issue adequately, cos even our greatest philosophical minds have failed to give an adequate answer (or a meaningful "I don't know", like in the first movie) to the free will/determinism question. Furthermore, I think this issue cuts far deeper into us, since it is a central concern in many religious. This sensitivity could possibly why Reloaded leaves us with a far more unpalatable taste in our mouths.
Yet, I respect them for raising the ante. And for this alone, I think Reloaded is superior.
I think I'll just go crazy (in a good way) if the 3rd movie dealt with Philosophy of Language, especially in the area of truth (yes... truth with a small "t"). What makes something to be true, how our language extends our thoughts in an effort to reach up to reality, and how, in Wittgensteinian (Tractatus) terms, fails miserably. That should allow for a nice twist at the ending. I'll leave you to brush up on the philosophy and think of how the twist could work. :)
Sorry if I'm vague, I can't be specific without ruining the movie for those who haven't seen it.
Anyway, just in case you're wondering why I said I'm a little out of sorts at the beginning. The whole free will and determinism issue raised by Reloaded has been bouncing around in my head, especially last night. I'm just feeling a little unsettled, as I usually feel after thinking too much about philosophical problem.
I'll save you the agony of reading about my pain. :)
Inspector David Taylor looked at the corpse that lay in front of him and shook his head. It was a man, white, brunette, in his early 20s. The expensive Italian suit he was wearing was now heavily soiled. Looking past the blood and the mangled face, Taylor recognised him instantly. It was Joe “the Show” Tenholt, a rising young grunt from the Masconi gang. It was the fifth killing of a gang member in this month. That makes it three Masconis and two Forlons. It seemed like a gang war was coming to the city.
“What do you think Dr. Lee?”
Dr. Richard Lee wasn’t a happy man tonight. It was Saturday and he had been out for a nice, romantic and expensive dinner with his wife. This was the first time in weeks that they could have a night out. On top of all that, he had to get an earful from his mother-in-law about how parents should watch their children more before she begrudgingly agreed to watch Nisa for the night. Just as he was about to order dessert, that infernal beeper went off. He was the department’s forensic expert. He was being paid top dollar. He had his obligations. He had to say an early goodbye to Sue.
“He didn’t know what hit him. The blow to the back of his head killed him instantly. It was made by a blunt object, and the assailment must have been very strong to have made that kind of wound.”
‘Wound’ was putting it lightly. Half of the Show’s brains were on the docks, the skull was cracked open like a watermelon. Taylor looked around. ‘Dock 19’ read the acrylic sign on the warehouse behind them.
Taylor took out his notepad and scribbled “Who owns warehouse 19? Were they expecting any shipments here tonight? If so, what?”
“Taylor, check this out”
Lee was pointing at something about a metre away from the body. It was some whitish powder with a turquoise tint to it. Lee scraped some of it up and put it to his nose.
“No odour, looks like we’re gonna have to see what the lab says about this.”
Was that the new drug that the guys from vice were talking about the other day? It doesn’t add up, Neither the Masconis nor the Forlons dealt with drugs.
Or do they now?
I really don't know where this is going, I don't even know if I'm gonna continue writing this story. Just have to wait and see if I can figure out a way to keep this going. In any case, I think I've written every cliche in the book here. heh
Yes... I know it's been more than a week since my last update... I have an excuse...
At various times last week, either angelfire (where my html files are based) or vze.com (which is the short URL referral so that you don't have to remember a super long angelfire URL) was broken. And I couldn't check my blog then... and couldn't update as well.
I am contemplating moving servers... but it's more an issue with vze.com. I happen to like the referral services.
Also, I've been thinking about new things to write about. My life... as you can read... is pretty damn dull, and who really cares if I shat 3 times or 5 times that day right? I'm thinking of better content to write. In any case, the aim of this site (well... page, for now) will still primarily be for me to improve and experiment with my writing... so some weird as nonsense might crop up.
Finally, on the logging side of things, I can't exactly remember how many times I shat over the weekend, but I handed up my last piece of coursework on Friday, and decided to take the weekend and Monday off before starting revision on Tuesday. And guess what I did over the weekend, played Onimusha 2 on my PS2 almost all weekend long. I bought the game on Friday evening and finished it at about 1 am Sunday morning... I think at one point on Saturday I was playing it for 12 hours straight. Haven't gamed that hard for a long time.
Well, beats going to the toilet 5 times a day right?
This kind of writing is exactly why I'm thinking hard for new content!
Hello ppl.... meet Adam, my coursemate. Another friend of mine was mucking about with the webcam in the labs, and he got took this. I thought it'd be nice for memories
Why the hell am I blogging now.. I should be finishing up my bacteria simulations so that I can go home and eat dinner!
Well, the title has said it all, it's almost all over. Just handed in my final year project a few hours ago. As those of you who talk to me fairly often would know, it's been the absolute bane of my existence for the past academic year, and now it's over. I've handed it in. Fingers crossed I'll get a decent grade for it (God knows I'm not gonna get a fabulous grade for it). Anyway, that's a huge load of my mind.
It's almost over, but not quite yet. I've still got 3 more bits of coursework to hand in. 2 essays due next week and a bacterial colony simulation due three hours ago. I think this is the first bit of work I've handed in late in my 3 years in uni. Shit, it don't feel good.
Anyway, for now, enjoy the pretty pictures, this is a result of one of my bacterial simulations, the simplest one. I'm still trying to get the more complicated ones to work, will post them up when I get them working.
In any case, you folks can start reading this here blog again. Will start writing on a regular basis now that that hellacious project is out of my life.
Still not up
and running the way I want it, but I might as well jot some thoughts down
now
If you
actually look at the time on this, you'd see that almost 2 hours have passed
since my first entry. I told myself I was going to get lunch or something, but
trying to get the ideal website can be quite a devilishly obsessive endeavor. In
any case I hate that banner add above. I'll see what I can do to remedy the
situation. Stay tuned.
Anyway, I
think I should actually put some meaningful thoughts here just to set the tone.
I finished
my exams yesterday. Not good. I think I can kiss my first class degree goodbye.
The annoying thing is that I'll probably only miss the mark by 2-3 points. Damn.
To be honest though, I don't think I worked as hard as I could. But I doubt that
working harder would've helped for the exams. Yes it was that kind of an exam.
Ugh. I think I've just totally lost passion in my course.
Hopefully I
can get to do what I want after I graduate. I'm counting on it. I think I will
send in the application tonight even though my friend tells me that applications only open in late February.Fingers crossed.
Well, it's finally done. I messed
around with some blog servers earlier this morning,
but I wasn't able to get the look I wanted, so I decided to go with this angelfire server instead. I don't know how long I will stay
with this though, because I foresee updating this to be an absolute pain if I
can't get any blog software to work with this. We'll
see how it goes. I still suck at html, so maybe I'll find a solution later on.
For now, watch this space.Check back later, hopefully.
