it's a life devoid of life. oh, the pain of existence is simply intolerable. mumble mumble moan moan why-don't-i-stop-whining-now-so-you-can-get-back-to-your-life. yup, i've sorta gotten sick of undulating about how i still can't seem to get over myself despite myself. i'm a christian, so i should simply leave that to god.
it is easy to do an essay. all you gotta do is start. get an outline. do some lit review. make a spanking cover page. play dota. watch youtube. hmm... and all this while don't forget to reassure yourself how much you detest the current "education" system you are stuck in and how all this muckjacking secretly amounts to a silent marxist revolution against an oppressive society bent at bending you to its sick demented will. well, the essay should be done by tomorrow tho. i may keep doing all these schizophrenic manic-depressive bitching in my head, but the lifeless heap of flesh it's attached to will still get on with it. at least i hope so.
but of course, the problem is whether my head actually does control that body! psychologists would have you believe that some of us actually have an external locus of control. sniggering about grasshoppers aside, some of us magically submit to external influences, while others are strangely independent. sounds a bit like freud's ego vs superego thing. even rousseau and the other social contract theorists allude to this when they say we surrender some power to a government so that we can achieve collective insecurity. perhaps that's why some us so-called christians kinda leave it to god eh?
on the other hand, in control or out, the more important issue is probably responsibility. i remember this silly pun on the word (which may well be its etymology) that a responsible person reponds. indeed, i guess i haven't been responding much to challenges such as fulfilling the requirements of a certain overly demanding yet underly rewarding undergraduate programme. netto says i may have an external locus of responsibility, where i conjure semantically aesthetic hypotheses to explain away my inability to follow norms. i had to immediately interject with some pseudo-academicism regarding falsifiability - like what's the difference between a person responsible to an exploitative institution and a person lamenting for him? they could both be responsible - to different ideals. on the other leg, i may just be meandering around the foregone conclusion of how irresponsible i really am.
from here i fall into a rabbit hole. control and responsibility both seem to assume an irrefutably reality experienced by multiple entities, right? i mean, why would you bother with control or responsibility if you found out you were merely plugged into the matrix? in other words, if your life were a lie, would you be game enough to play along? as for me, just reaching this point has already pretty much exhausted my enthusiasm for the day. it's the question of 'what for' again: it's not like the outcome of this question is going to make me do a Columbine, become John the Baptist II, or fling my guitar out of my window. but i might just decide to read Alice's Adventures In Wonderland before Through The Looking Glass just to horrify myself.
the underworked mind overworks with unproductive blabber. i might as well pray for Abdul Rahman. and my four ulcers.
Showing posts with label idea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label idea. Show all posts
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
out of focus
sometimes i wonder if my eyes still see the world as it is... especially when tears well up uninvited and unanticipated, am i still perceiving the same images? what is it that i observe when i try to look? am i able to tell when my faculties have failed somewhat and i am no longer truly in focus?
and that's just vision. imagine the mind imagining. how do you conjure images in your head? how do you make sense of reality? when i piece images together in some form of flowing thread, do i truly grasp any of these sequences to any significant standard? do i even understand when i think i do? or is reality merely a figment of belief, that there can be no standard of understanding, that everything which i consider to exist can only do so insofar as i choose not to doubt it? and when i do doubt to some insatiable standard, then belief fades to obscurity, while objective existence theoretically ceases?
this can't be... it must be absurd. and yet i am infecund to protest this argument. when one tries to grasp something greater than himself, attempting to dissolve some semblance of self so as to experience a larger whole, one would seem to necessitate losing focus. losing belief. losing the firmness of ground upon which he used to stand. when attempting to qualify the totality of reality, how can one keep focus? or is the human mind doomed to losing it?
sometimes... i no longer understand what it is i think i am trying to understand.
and that's just vision. imagine the mind imagining. how do you conjure images in your head? how do you make sense of reality? when i piece images together in some form of flowing thread, do i truly grasp any of these sequences to any significant standard? do i even understand when i think i do? or is reality merely a figment of belief, that there can be no standard of understanding, that everything which i consider to exist can only do so insofar as i choose not to doubt it? and when i do doubt to some insatiable standard, then belief fades to obscurity, while objective existence theoretically ceases?
this can't be... it must be absurd. and yet i am infecund to protest this argument. when one tries to grasp something greater than himself, attempting to dissolve some semblance of self so as to experience a larger whole, one would seem to necessitate losing focus. losing belief. losing the firmness of ground upon which he used to stand. when attempting to qualify the totality of reality, how can one keep focus? or is the human mind doomed to losing it?
sometimes... i no longer understand what it is i think i am trying to understand.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
the anthropomorphic reality
Genesis 1:27 states:
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם.
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
and thus began the indiscriminate personification of objectivity to suit the human experience. if we were created in god's image, does it follow that he is "like unto us"? take for example, dolls which we humans create in our image: are they "like unto us"? indeed they may resemble us in the attributes which we willingly ascribe to them for the sole purpose of humanising these creations. and thus we have an infinitely differentiated realm for creativity and diversity when creating dolls. but is it fair to parallel this creation process with gen1:27? is it true that god has willingly ascribed various godly attributes unto us such that we resemble him? the problem here is that we, as the created, cannot tell with certainty, just as dolls probably have no idea how alike they are to their creators. yet our creator has given us the ability to think, to feel, and to reason, which to our best efforts have not been replicated genuinely in our creations thus far. thus, i contend that a proper parallel cannot be drawn as yet between human-doll creationism and god-human creationism. an extrapolation made from an incomplete presumption cannot stand as truth.
unfortunately, much of this prudence is lost in human history. we have attributed human characteristics to almost anything we come across. indeed, such is our limitation that our minds can only be creative insofar as that creativity lies within the finite realms of human experience - i.e. we simply can't imagine a god that is far from human likeness. and so our explanations for occurences in reality are constricted, tied to the leash of human-ness which we can't seem to escape. we are self-made prisoners of our language, mental schemata, cultural influence, and individual personalities. anthropomorhism is very much the de facto modus operandi of humanity, much like how materialism forms the superstructure of capitalist society.
yet these "human characteristics" are themselves crudely defined. philosophers have ruminated for centuries and are still unable to decide what makes us human. we can only grope around with a vague understanding of these ideals, consciously and subconsciously reinforcing each others' beliefs that to be "humane" is to be benevolent, welcoming, disciplined, etc - the proverbial "all things good". yet truthfully, the assertion that humanity tends towards goodness is deeply unorganised and lacking in parsimony or falsifiability, and so are any other exotic contentions for a generalised etiology of human characteristics. can there ever be a scientific evaluation of this human-ness?
and therefore i propose a new objectivity - one that brings an intention to reject anthropomorphic interpretations of reality. for reality and existence is not a human creation, and indeed until we can call our understanding of such phenomena "sufficient", we ought only tread with prudence when creating theoretical frameworks to "make sense of things". the scientific method stands as a rudimentary form of anti-anthropomorphic objectivity, yet i must admonish that careless treatment can still allow anthropomorphic elements to seep through - whether it is forming a hypothesis, designing an experiment, or interpreting data.
but some doubts linger. is it possible to maintain such a level of objectivity when it seems to take superhuman consciousness in every step of deliberation? could such an attempt be considered an exercise in "dehumanising" the inquirer? ultimately, would the removal of our anthropomorphic veil truly and uncompromisingly allow us to see reality with more clarity?
if we can't settle some of the questions raised here, we may permanently be unable to escape from the anthropomorphic prison that we have constructed for ourselves. but why would anyone want to escape it?
for a more contemporary discussion of anthropomorphism (free from gerg-thropomorphic contamination), simply wikipedia for it.
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם.
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
and thus began the indiscriminate personification of objectivity to suit the human experience. if we were created in god's image, does it follow that he is "like unto us"? take for example, dolls which we humans create in our image: are they "like unto us"? indeed they may resemble us in the attributes which we willingly ascribe to them for the sole purpose of humanising these creations. and thus we have an infinitely differentiated realm for creativity and diversity when creating dolls. but is it fair to parallel this creation process with gen1:27? is it true that god has willingly ascribed various godly attributes unto us such that we resemble him? the problem here is that we, as the created, cannot tell with certainty, just as dolls probably have no idea how alike they are to their creators. yet our creator has given us the ability to think, to feel, and to reason, which to our best efforts have not been replicated genuinely in our creations thus far. thus, i contend that a proper parallel cannot be drawn as yet between human-doll creationism and god-human creationism. an extrapolation made from an incomplete presumption cannot stand as truth.
unfortunately, much of this prudence is lost in human history. we have attributed human characteristics to almost anything we come across. indeed, such is our limitation that our minds can only be creative insofar as that creativity lies within the finite realms of human experience - i.e. we simply can't imagine a god that is far from human likeness. and so our explanations for occurences in reality are constricted, tied to the leash of human-ness which we can't seem to escape. we are self-made prisoners of our language, mental schemata, cultural influence, and individual personalities. anthropomorhism is very much the de facto modus operandi of humanity, much like how materialism forms the superstructure of capitalist society.
yet these "human characteristics" are themselves crudely defined. philosophers have ruminated for centuries and are still unable to decide what makes us human. we can only grope around with a vague understanding of these ideals, consciously and subconsciously reinforcing each others' beliefs that to be "humane" is to be benevolent, welcoming, disciplined, etc - the proverbial "all things good". yet truthfully, the assertion that humanity tends towards goodness is deeply unorganised and lacking in parsimony or falsifiability, and so are any other exotic contentions for a generalised etiology of human characteristics. can there ever be a scientific evaluation of this human-ness?
and therefore i propose a new objectivity - one that brings an intention to reject anthropomorphic interpretations of reality. for reality and existence is not a human creation, and indeed until we can call our understanding of such phenomena "sufficient", we ought only tread with prudence when creating theoretical frameworks to "make sense of things". the scientific method stands as a rudimentary form of anti-anthropomorphic objectivity, yet i must admonish that careless treatment can still allow anthropomorphic elements to seep through - whether it is forming a hypothesis, designing an experiment, or interpreting data.
but some doubts linger. is it possible to maintain such a level of objectivity when it seems to take superhuman consciousness in every step of deliberation? could such an attempt be considered an exercise in "dehumanising" the inquirer? ultimately, would the removal of our anthropomorphic veil truly and uncompromisingly allow us to see reality with more clarity?
if we can't settle some of the questions raised here, we may permanently be unable to escape from the anthropomorphic prison that we have constructed for ourselves. but why would anyone want to escape it?
for a more contemporary discussion of anthropomorphism (free from gerg-thropomorphic contamination), simply wikipedia for it.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
status quo vs progress
there are always two ways to deal with a tiring job: accepting it as part of your life, learning how to get used to it, and taking it on as a challenging responsibility; or rejecting it altogether, finding out how to get out of this prison, and claiming your own freedom from oppression. the first resembles confucian philosophy a lot - adapting to the situation and conforming to order and rules. the second is revolutionary, left-wing, and often the inspiration for such things as terrorism.
yet we always go thru both strategies when faced with life. every responsibility we get can be interpreted as a form of exploitation (regardless of its relevance to capitalism, really), such that even serving in church becomes committing yourself to slaving for the slackers in church. once the motion has been started, you start gaining a form of 'class consciousness', separating yourself from those who are different from you and classing them as oppressors of your reality. this 'revolutionary' mindset would start to get you interested in rebellion and the eventual inversion of the prevalent order itself. of course, many do not go all the way to this stage, but many do dream of changing the world.
however, why can't we simply accept that reality is harsh and demanding? that our destiny is little more than to be mindless robots perpetuating an exploitative society? why can't we be willing and obedient slaves, selfless bearers of their own crosses, rushing to die once given the order? is it pride that holds us back? is it a sense of greater purpose? but when we look at christ who gave up his life for the worthless millions who craved his death... do we see that order as having a meaning? christ obviously believed that his death was not for the worthless, or that these worthless ppl will no longer be worthless in his death. will this ever apply for us? when we give of all that we have to supplicate this oppressive reality, are we actually giving it worth or meaning? will this passive gentleness be sufficient to impress society with our hopes and dreams?
why should i work with the status quo? why should i attempt to kickstart progressivism? existentialism continues to plague my belaboured mind. this third way of tackling life's challenges which i hardly approve of has unfortunately become my favourite path. the way of escapism and delaying response. debating in my head won't solve things or move me forward... but i can't snap out of it...
yet we always go thru both strategies when faced with life. every responsibility we get can be interpreted as a form of exploitation (regardless of its relevance to capitalism, really), such that even serving in church becomes committing yourself to slaving for the slackers in church. once the motion has been started, you start gaining a form of 'class consciousness', separating yourself from those who are different from you and classing them as oppressors of your reality. this 'revolutionary' mindset would start to get you interested in rebellion and the eventual inversion of the prevalent order itself. of course, many do not go all the way to this stage, but many do dream of changing the world.
however, why can't we simply accept that reality is harsh and demanding? that our destiny is little more than to be mindless robots perpetuating an exploitative society? why can't we be willing and obedient slaves, selfless bearers of their own crosses, rushing to die once given the order? is it pride that holds us back? is it a sense of greater purpose? but when we look at christ who gave up his life for the worthless millions who craved his death... do we see that order as having a meaning? christ obviously believed that his death was not for the worthless, or that these worthless ppl will no longer be worthless in his death. will this ever apply for us? when we give of all that we have to supplicate this oppressive reality, are we actually giving it worth or meaning? will this passive gentleness be sufficient to impress society with our hopes and dreams?
why should i work with the status quo? why should i attempt to kickstart progressivism? existentialism continues to plague my belaboured mind. this third way of tackling life's challenges which i hardly approve of has unfortunately become my favourite path. the way of escapism and delaying response. debating in my head won't solve things or move me forward... but i can't snap out of it...
Thursday, December 29, 2005
just imaginary
~~~ i m a g i n e . . .
...if i had gotten a guitar when i was 5, would i have practiced still my fingers bled and set my eyes on turning into a guitar virtuoso? would i have quit school, spent half my time with the guitar everyday and neglected everything else? what if i was simply classically trained in, say piano or violin (like the rest of bourgeois singapore)? would i have skipped NS like a certain someone? would i be even more megalomaniacal than i already am right now?
...if my parents had divorced when i was in sec sch, would i be better off? would i be more matured? would i have had such a dramatically different experience in life that my entire personality would have been something else altogether? would my mum be happier? would my bro be happier? would my dad be happier? would i be happier? would it have mattered?
...if i never doubted anything, prefering to simply leave it in the hands of some higher authority, shrewdly sidestepping occasions which would draw me to ask unnecessary philosophical questions, would i still be serving in church? could i have become a slipshod atheist? or worse still - a clueless "believer"? will i end up closer to heaven or hell? will i make more friends or lose them all? would i be happier not attempting to understand what "happy" meant?
...if the entire universe were to say "fuck it" to the current laws of physics, would our souls be affected? if we found some way to warp dimensional rigidity, would it be universally catastrophic? what if physics discovers God in this peculiar fashion? what if the future of the entire known universe depended on that one scientist's decision to take that "leap" and go beyond understanding/obeying the rules? if that decision were up to me, would i have said "hell yeah" nonchalantly without thought?
...if every individual on the planet were to suddenly be awakened to the reality that social rules are not necessarily obligatory unless consequentially implied, would there be chaos or peace? what if each soldier realised that they weren't fighting for their "country" but some political/diplomatic blunder? what if we realised that most laws and the entire modern judiciary system only serve to protect the rich bullies who didn't need the protection in the first place? what if the popes, dalai lamas, and mullahs where to say that most religious doctrines only tell you to accept your fate in order to keep you docile and manageable? what if you found out that most cultural norms and taboos are no more than transient fads destined to be superseded in some manner by people who dare to do so? what if society isn't god and never was... but we've all been blind slaves to an imaginary one in our minds?
...if i were to cease existing tmr, would it matter in any metaphysical sense? how about socio-evolutionarily? parapsychologically? i know it'd matter to quite a few people in some plausible manner, but above and beyond that... would i get to see God if i ceased to exist? if i ceased to exist, then what? how about if my entire existence prior to that were to be wiped off in some mythical way? what if i don't cease to exist physically, but all instances of my existence are to be erased? what if i became an undetectable ghost? what would that be like?
and that's why i'm human - i can imagine. can you?
...if i had gotten a guitar when i was 5, would i have practiced still my fingers bled and set my eyes on turning into a guitar virtuoso? would i have quit school, spent half my time with the guitar everyday and neglected everything else? what if i was simply classically trained in, say piano or violin (like the rest of bourgeois singapore)? would i have skipped NS like a certain someone? would i be even more megalomaniacal than i already am right now?
...if my parents had divorced when i was in sec sch, would i be better off? would i be more matured? would i have had such a dramatically different experience in life that my entire personality would have been something else altogether? would my mum be happier? would my bro be happier? would my dad be happier? would i be happier? would it have mattered?
...if i never doubted anything, prefering to simply leave it in the hands of some higher authority, shrewdly sidestepping occasions which would draw me to ask unnecessary philosophical questions, would i still be serving in church? could i have become a slipshod atheist? or worse still - a clueless "believer"? will i end up closer to heaven or hell? will i make more friends or lose them all? would i be happier not attempting to understand what "happy" meant?
...if the entire universe were to say "fuck it" to the current laws of physics, would our souls be affected? if we found some way to warp dimensional rigidity, would it be universally catastrophic? what if physics discovers God in this peculiar fashion? what if the future of the entire known universe depended on that one scientist's decision to take that "leap" and go beyond understanding/obeying the rules? if that decision were up to me, would i have said "hell yeah" nonchalantly without thought?
...if every individual on the planet were to suddenly be awakened to the reality that social rules are not necessarily obligatory unless consequentially implied, would there be chaos or peace? what if each soldier realised that they weren't fighting for their "country" but some political/diplomatic blunder? what if we realised that most laws and the entire modern judiciary system only serve to protect the rich bullies who didn't need the protection in the first place? what if the popes, dalai lamas, and mullahs where to say that most religious doctrines only tell you to accept your fate in order to keep you docile and manageable? what if you found out that most cultural norms and taboos are no more than transient fads destined to be superseded in some manner by people who dare to do so? what if society isn't god and never was... but we've all been blind slaves to an imaginary one in our minds?
...if i were to cease existing tmr, would it matter in any metaphysical sense? how about socio-evolutionarily? parapsychologically? i know it'd matter to quite a few people in some plausible manner, but above and beyond that... would i get to see God if i ceased to exist? if i ceased to exist, then what? how about if my entire existence prior to that were to be wiped off in some mythical way? what if i don't cease to exist physically, but all instances of my existence are to be erased? what if i became an undetectable ghost? what would that be like?
and that's why i'm human - i can imagine. can you?
Thursday, December 08, 2005
le contrôleur grand
what if society is god... and god is merely a puppet?
what if this god of a puppet is slave to something sinister?
who, then, would the Grand Comptroller be?
peace... order... rules... laws... restraints... constraints... control... power...
time... priority... occupation... rationalisation... dehumanisation... alienation...
religion... belief... faith... reason... doubt...
culture... propaganda... ideology... lies...
morality... teleology... purpose... existence...
life... humanity... psychology... conditions... emotions...
emotion.
a small word, and yet so powerful... amongst the multiplicity of our masters, is she not the one to whom we're most intimately and inextricably bound? for all our achievements as human beings, can any of us claim freedom from the sweetest dominatrix of all? even as we conquer mundane obstacles... could we claim superordination over her and yet remain human?
worry.
by virtue of the rational faculties each mind assumes it possesses, we keep ourselves perpetually worrying... worrying about what-ifs, what-nots; worrying about uncertainties, confidence; worrying about minute details, the big picture. there exists not a situation for anyone to truly exist with no worries save for death, and yet we formulated society simply to escape such a brutish existence!
embarassment.
beyond the formal rules and cultural norms, something "automatic" within each of us attempts to rein us in - the blush and self-criticism. we endlessly, needlessly, lambast ourselves when, in a moment of courageous folly, we may have flaunted behavioural prescriptions. and so a self-restraining device casts a spell of inordinate fear imprisoning our every action from our firm control.
so you thought you were in control... but are you really? when was the last time you truly made a choice? when was the last time you even had one? if le contrôleur grand gives you a list of choices, are you then less of a puppet in any way?
society is god, and god is a puppet
the strong remain in control
but the weak may never know
leaning precariously over the parapet
will i let go and fly
off the show and the lies
and knowingly die without regret?
yet here are my feet
shuffling in defeat
i'm still firmly rooted to this carpet
what if this god of a puppet is slave to something sinister?
who, then, would the Grand Comptroller be?
peace... order... rules... laws... restraints... constraints... control... power...
time... priority... occupation... rationalisation... dehumanisation... alienation...
religion... belief... faith... reason... doubt...
culture... propaganda... ideology... lies...
morality... teleology... purpose... existence...
life... humanity... psychology... conditions... emotions...
emotion.
a small word, and yet so powerful... amongst the multiplicity of our masters, is she not the one to whom we're most intimately and inextricably bound? for all our achievements as human beings, can any of us claim freedom from the sweetest dominatrix of all? even as we conquer mundane obstacles... could we claim superordination over her and yet remain human?
worry.
by virtue of the rational faculties each mind assumes it possesses, we keep ourselves perpetually worrying... worrying about what-ifs, what-nots; worrying about uncertainties, confidence; worrying about minute details, the big picture. there exists not a situation for anyone to truly exist with no worries save for death, and yet we formulated society simply to escape such a brutish existence!
embarassment.
beyond the formal rules and cultural norms, something "automatic" within each of us attempts to rein us in - the blush and self-criticism. we endlessly, needlessly, lambast ourselves when, in a moment of courageous folly, we may have flaunted behavioural prescriptions. and so a self-restraining device casts a spell of inordinate fear imprisoning our every action from our firm control.
so you thought you were in control... but are you really? when was the last time you truly made a choice? when was the last time you even had one? if le contrôleur grand gives you a list of choices, are you then less of a puppet in any way?
society is god, and god is a puppet
the strong remain in control
but the weak may never know
leaning precariously over the parapet
will i let go and fly
off the show and the lies
and knowingly die without regret?
yet here are my feet
shuffling in defeat
i'm still firmly rooted to this carpet
Friday, November 18, 2005
curve the bell
sick and bored of exams? think you're a goner and feeling a sense of indescribable insecurity? well... there's always something you can do about it! here're some suggestions:
(warning: not all ideas have been practically tested. some may get you kicked.)
...make your presence felt
- dress outrageously. if someone's judging your dressing, that someone's distracted.
- chemical warfare. scent yourself pungently, attack your neighbour's olfactory nerves!
- indigestion. fart to any Mozart piece with impunity. not recommended for music exams.
- sonic booms. flip your papers loudly, click your pens incessantly, drag your chairs, etc.
- clumsiness. keep dropping stuff that you are not gonna use. drop them as far away as possible.
- tuberculosis. no, not cough to cheat; but cough to frustrate... or earn free strepsils.
- exeunt. when leaving, accidentally bump into adjacent folks, then apologise profusely.
...casting doubts unto others
- before it starts, tell your neighbours how you think this paper is easy and that they'll do fine.
- drop your answers once (or more) during the exam into your neighbours field of vision.
- simulate flipping your question paper with demonic speed. (flip forward, then flip back, etc.)
- always ask for more paper. but do not frustrate the same invigilator.
- exhibit extreme calulator dexterity: use it with one hand at 200wpm (audibly, of course).
- look focused, confidently smirk while shaking your head, and laugh softly periodically.
- smile and nod at all passing invigilators who make eye-contact.
...make friends and (mis)use them
- borrow stationery from everyone around you, whether you use it or not.
- tell them to be wary of their neighbour whom you suspect would copy their answers.
- wish them good luck and give an overly-firm handshake designed to crush their spirit.
- leave your phone (with a set alarm) under your neighbour's table. make sure set to full volume.
- invite your neighbours to discuss the answers after the exam.
- share your freaky amulets and ghoulish talismans with them, claiming to bring them luck.
so you see... the bell curve is not necessarily out of your control or a neutral tool. with the "right state of mind" and "keen creativity", anyone can curve the bell even on the last day of exams!
##########
critique of examinations: losers of the system become dissidents
the institution of 2-hour final papers is a subjective and unfair burden to all students, especially final papers which make up a large (make-or-break) percentage and essay questions requiring an impossible outline with no resources for quoting.
- there should be multiple smaller tests each designed to distribute a percentage of the grade.
- open book, multiple choice, and structured questions should be more common.
- where the objective is to distinguish brilliant students, non-stressful methods should be used.
- all methods of grading should be addressed against a backdrop of authoritatively approved aims and objectives for the grading itself. this list of goals for grading should be publicised (at minimum, all students should be made aware) and opened up for criticism and dialogue.
a further injustice is done with institutions that refuse to return the graded papers for fair scrutiny and review, further compounded by charging a fee for regrading.
- if the institution wants to keep any material, they should seek permission and inform us of the reason(s) to do so.
- if the grade is to be decided behind closed doors, the graders should at least detail their standards of marking and show them real examples.
- regrading should not be charged, and where fees are imposed, the reason(s) must be made known and appropriation of such monies justified.
there is a commonly-heard argument: if others can ace it, why can't you? this somewhat misleading and fallacious argument ignores the institutional injustices inscribed into the exams. if you ace an unfair exam, are you truly better? each exam goes some way in defining YOUR FUTURE. do you agree with the way they are defining it for you?
and for christ's sake, mugging is a negative externality generated by this oppressive regime. submit to it at your own peril, or be awakened and fight it.
(warning: not all ideas have been practically tested. some may get you kicked.)
...make your presence felt
- dress outrageously. if someone's judging your dressing, that someone's distracted.
- chemical warfare. scent yourself pungently, attack your neighbour's olfactory nerves!
- indigestion. fart to any Mozart piece with impunity. not recommended for music exams.
- sonic booms. flip your papers loudly, click your pens incessantly, drag your chairs, etc.
- clumsiness. keep dropping stuff that you are not gonna use. drop them as far away as possible.
- tuberculosis. no, not cough to cheat; but cough to frustrate... or earn free strepsils.
- exeunt. when leaving, accidentally bump into adjacent folks, then apologise profusely.
...casting doubts unto others
- before it starts, tell your neighbours how you think this paper is easy and that they'll do fine.
- drop your answers once (or more) during the exam into your neighbours field of vision.
- simulate flipping your question paper with demonic speed. (flip forward, then flip back, etc.)
- always ask for more paper. but do not frustrate the same invigilator.
- exhibit extreme calulator dexterity: use it with one hand at 200wpm (audibly, of course).
- look focused, confidently smirk while shaking your head, and laugh softly periodically.
- smile and nod at all passing invigilators who make eye-contact.
...make friends and (mis)use them
- borrow stationery from everyone around you, whether you use it or not.
- tell them to be wary of their neighbour whom you suspect would copy their answers.
- wish them good luck and give an overly-firm handshake designed to crush their spirit.
- leave your phone (with a set alarm) under your neighbour's table. make sure set to full volume.
- invite your neighbours to discuss the answers after the exam.
- share your freaky amulets and ghoulish talismans with them, claiming to bring them luck.
so you see... the bell curve is not necessarily out of your control or a neutral tool. with the "right state of mind" and "keen creativity", anyone can curve the bell even on the last day of exams!
##########
critique of examinations: losers of the system become dissidents
the institution of 2-hour final papers is a subjective and unfair burden to all students, especially final papers which make up a large (make-or-break) percentage and essay questions requiring an impossible outline with no resources for quoting.
- there should be multiple smaller tests each designed to distribute a percentage of the grade.
- open book, multiple choice, and structured questions should be more common.
- where the objective is to distinguish brilliant students, non-stressful methods should be used.
- all methods of grading should be addressed against a backdrop of authoritatively approved aims and objectives for the grading itself. this list of goals for grading should be publicised (at minimum, all students should be made aware) and opened up for criticism and dialogue.
a further injustice is done with institutions that refuse to return the graded papers for fair scrutiny and review, further compounded by charging a fee for regrading.
- if the institution wants to keep any material, they should seek permission and inform us of the reason(s) to do so.
- if the grade is to be decided behind closed doors, the graders should at least detail their standards of marking and show them real examples.
- regrading should not be charged, and where fees are imposed, the reason(s) must be made known and appropriation of such monies justified.
there is a commonly-heard argument: if others can ace it, why can't you? this somewhat misleading and fallacious argument ignores the institutional injustices inscribed into the exams. if you ace an unfair exam, are you truly better? each exam goes some way in defining YOUR FUTURE. do you agree with the way they are defining it for you?
and for christ's sake, mugging is a negative externality generated by this oppressive regime. submit to it at your own peril, or be awakened and fight it.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
recycling flyers!
when the thunder of innovation strikes: why not follow those irritating flyer-distributors, take as many from them as possible, and send it for recycling? not exactly a get-rich-quick scheme, but possibly more than all those poor distributors are likely to get. plus we get them off the streets, AND save the trees.
makes me feel like i should walk along orchard more often.
in other news, God freaked me out yet again. He said "greg, why are you persecuting me?" to me while i had a painful dump in the toilet. it seems like not looking after your body (the temple of God now) is kind of a sin too? the CCC gives pertinent advice.
orientation begins soon... and i can't wait!
makes me feel like i should walk along orchard more often.
in other news, God freaked me out yet again. He said "greg, why are you persecuting me?" to me while i had a painful dump in the toilet. it seems like not looking after your body (the temple of God now) is kind of a sin too? the CCC gives pertinent advice.
orientation begins soon... and i can't wait!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
