the imagination

anyone can change the world.
each person is a part of the world.
how large a portion? that is a matter of perspective.
whose perspective? do certain persons' perspectives matter more?
that too is a matter of perspective.

i don't think it matters - every perspective matters.
these especially matter to the person from whom they originated.
a scholar or professor may say a certain thing, in how ever many words.
but the individual who listens only receives what s/he digests.
that is the perspective that matters to her/im.
that is the only perspective that matters.

so are we a fragmented hodge-podge of discrete realities?
are we really just a bunch of vaguely connected but ultimately separate bodies?
far from it.
so long as we can understand, empathise, and synthesise...
so long as we can interpret, intuit, and appreciate...
we are helplessly and utterly one.
it matters not the material matter that is discrete - not that much!
it matters that what this material matter carries can communicate.
and thus, we are all -
from the ones with least self-esteem or have lost all sense of dignity
to the ones towering above in awesome stature or full of pride -
an equivalent part of the world.

we make up reality.
we live in this reality.
we affect each other's reality.
and so we all have power - some seem more powerful, others seem less so.
but that is all merely seemingly so, for all of us are equivalent after all!
she who can change the lives of 1 billion may seem relatively influential,
yet she may not be able to change the heart of one daughter.
he who could barely love another person wholeheartedly
might have most deeply touched that person and most truly loved her without knowing.
we could all try our very best, thinking that the everyday is our responsibility;
that what we seem most capable of doing is what we should - or even must - do.
yet despite the immense planning and consolidated effort,
it is often that which is simplest which is most powerful.
we can be complex...
but we don't have to be so.

and with such a perspective...
can i change the world?
most definitely.
will i change the world?
i certainly hope so.
how will i change the world?
you tell me.

emotion and reason

i have a theory, and most may agree, that we humans generally appeal to emotion before reason. in any given situation, the heart asks, "do i feel like it?" before consulting the mind, "does it make sense to do this?" this sequence usually functions quite well, since ultimately the person does appeal to both faculties. my theory here is that while emotions are appealed to first, it does not always follow that it decides the final choice.

yet given this simple sequence, it is already likely that many are won out by their emotion before they reach reason: "i don't feel like it" is as good as a stopping point in any train of deliberation.

emotion has a crucial purpose. it allows us to "empathise intuitively" - i use the terms loosely, echoing lay perceptions. when a person feels like doing something, driven by any of a plethora of "categorised" emotions (fear, anger, hate, love, joy, etc.), that person tends to be driven towards said activity for some implicit purpose. further deconstruction may make this little exercise excruciatingly detailed, so i'll suffice for now to leave this as a brief assumption thusly: emotions imply purpose, which may be empathic for self or others.

yet therein already lies the possibility that emotion is "abused" - not all empathic intuition necessarily ties in to its assumed purpose directly. sometimes, feeling like doing something may not necessarily mean the action attains what it was intuitively supposed to attain. this is especially true when the drive is an extreme emotion - thus, abuse of emotion. alternatively, such extreme emotion can be said to purify the purpose (or motive) of the action to the point where all other considerations are ignored.

this is why reason is of utmost importance. in fact, humans who function solely on emotion (i.e. make most decision on a whim) are not likely to do very well, all things considered. intuition may make a good leap from assumption to proposition sometimes, but otherwise, its reliability is not grounded. tempering that emotion with reason helps to avoid absurd extreme reactions rather effectively. reason challenges the person to prove the assumptions, to demonstrate veracity, and most importantly, to judge the plausibility of causality in any given situation.

reason thus grants analysis to intuition - a rather potent combination for self-aware creatures to find their way around any environment. unfortunately, there exists a third case: that of reason without emotion. in many situations, emotion allows the person to skip a few steps of analysis, substituting trust, courage, or determination as "proof" of causality/motive/purpose. in such cases, emotions help individuals to gauge other individuals without the need to deconstruct them on the spot. it also allows us to believe firmly in induction (unlike a certain Hume). overanalysis leads to a state of rationality which would appear "irrational" to those who use emotion as a placeholder. hence, bureaucracies and bureaucrats may seem inhuman at times.

so, are emotions rational? given a social context, where webs of meaning intertwine, it would be an excessively laborious task to analyse certain human intricacies (cf. private investigators, investigative journalism, the uncertainty of social sciences), hence substituting the intuitive judgement would not only be rational, but even necessary, for society to continue functioning. doubtless, the desired mix of emotion/reason in any given scenario may not be attained by the present actors - especially if stress levels are excessive (i.e. wars, deadlines, modern capitalist families) - and so many emotion-reason-deliberated outcomes may seem utterly irrational or unpredictable. this lack of calculability, counter-intuitively, should be anticipated, because of the given contexts. there are few ceteris paribus situations (or they are highly improbable) in human agency.

i initially intended just to explore how a mainly emotionally-driven person differs from a mainly reason-driven person, and then to suggest that a balanced application of emotion-reason may be the most efficient - especially in the earlier suggested sequence. however, it seems that the many terms i've skimmed have turned out to be key assumptions which need to be inquired. here is a list of blatant assumptions employed thus far:

• the link between emotion and intuition: are they necessarily tied together? could they be different in practice?
• different types of emotions: these lead to vastly different outcomes. should they still be considered under one header? should there be various classes?
• emotion implying purpose: this is the most unsatisfying claim of all - yet very central. do emotions necessarily imply "purpose"?
• definition of purpose: i use this word as a clear equal to motive and cause. is there a need to fine-tune this usage? should distinctions be drawn?
• the link between reason and "being analytical": is that the only way of using reason? iow, are non-analytical persons less reasonable? what is the precise connection?
  
• similarly for "proof", "demonstration", "veracity", etc. do these words merely sound rational, as opposed to being sui generis aspects of reason?
• reason and rationality: are these two necessarily paired? which causes/leads to which? are they necessary for each other?
• the use of examples need to be more thoroughly thought out, of course. especially "social" examples in lieu of their presumed complexities.
• can emotion or reason be used parsimoniously as categories? can this topic be inquired in a satisfying manner approaching from top to bottom?

kwik kwoth

it's easy to teach - it's difficult to teach with humility.

life is short. and then you die. THANK GOD! (and do it quickly.)

making decisions:
when choosing between 2 bad choices, be a realist.
when choosing between 2 good choices, be an idealist.

if you're lamenting that your life has no meaning,
if you're feeling trapped and everyone's out to get you,
if you're jaded by everything around you,
if you've lost faith in your own country and its people,
if you've given up your dreams...
try migrating.
to a third world country.

(p.s.: just a bunch of random thoughts coming to me during my moment in the bathroom. of course, they're lessons for me, above all. epiphany toilets rule!)

on glory

the promise of glory!
the lure of eternity!
the meaning of purpose!

it swells the little man, until he bursts at his seams.
it consumes the proud man, finishing his existence.
it worries the humble man, upsetting his balance.

glory is only one vanity away from pride.
and i call that danger!

glory is only fitting for the prideless.
to godly beings who have no need for pride.

glory is only a vague shadow in the world of man.
for our language only does it injustice.

but what is glory?

it is that which accrues to the person one serves.
therefore, a master of many may seem glorious;
but only the Master of all truly deserves glory.

it is that which accrues to the person who has achieved perfection.
therefore, many men are subjects of poems and epics,
but only the Son of Man is the Good News.

it is that which accrues to the person radiating inspiration.
therefore, great men crowd the books of history;
but only the Holy Spirit fills Creation.

o humankind!
you who are confounded with limitation!
you who seek revelation with imperfect vigour!
you who are attracted to the masquerading glories of vanity!
will you see yourself with brutal honesty?
will you look upon your utter nakedness?
will you yield to the One who is Glory?

o sons of man!
look no longer in the clouds of confusion
look no longer in the crowds of endless chatter
look no further than your own hearts
and you will find that glory is to be given
to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be -
and then you may finally have a foretaste
of the real glory in heaven.

the mind can doubt

the mind can doubt everything... except itself.

before the mind invokes any form of logic to dispute the validity of any argument, it needs to believe it is capable of doing so - i.e. it must assume it may invoke logic.

before the mind phrases its proposed method of disputing the imagined argument, it needs to believe it is capable of doing so - i.e. it must assume it may phrase sentences.

before the mind considers its ability to coin sequences of meaning for any imagined purpose, it needs to believe it is capable of doing so - i.e. it must assume it may consider.

albeit seemingly a mere paraphrase of Descartes, this negative postulation - that "i cannot be if i do not think i can be" - is so much more absolute and compelling. it illuminates an ineluctable precursor to human reasoning: that of Belief in Thought. how can one think if one does not believe it possible? and yet, that very thought is, in itself, remarkably self-contradictory! even if i do not believe it possible that i am thinking, another part of me squirms in protest: are you not caught in the very act of "thinking" there and then? it thus seems that the only way to nullify this strident statement is to deceive oneself.

thusly, the entire statement seems to cave in on itself - declaring its self-contained argument rather moot by any standard of scrutiny. yet, one cannot help but revisit this quaint declaration and note that faint scent of Truth: can the non-believer execute that which he does not believe in? can the mind operate if it were to doubt its very existence? would any of this messy collective of verbs and nouns persuade you should you doubt they could?

... could you say "there is a spoon", when you are empty-handed?

form, essence, cause.

i like complaining when people seem fixated on the exterior. perhaps because it makes me seem slightly wiser, a less skin-deep person interested in what lies underneath. perhaps this is the impression i'm attempting to create for myself, so that my own exterior becomes more attractive.

therein lies a certain question, very primal in nature: why is there an exterior? what makes up the form? does this "exterior form" have anything to do with what lies beneath?

this is one reason why those who are concerned about appearances find it hard to swallow when someone like me tries to ignore the exterior - while i may geniunely be trying to "go deeper", i have also managed to ignore the link between the exterior and the interior.

no form is completely without essence - indeed, some kind of essence must exist in advance to cause the form to appear at the surface. just like every bubble that pops on the surface of a pond tends to have some underlying source, be it biological, chemical or geological.

of course, this does not mean that all types of concern for the exterior is legitimate or acceptable - there may be many different causes for those concerns. some are more acceptable: i want to satisfy my spouse, i want my appearance to bring joy to others, i want to look presentable. others are less acceptable: i want others to think well of me, i want to seduce someone, i want all eyes on me. there may be no straightforward manner of grading the "level of acceptability" these various concern-causes; it seems largely quite a subjective matter at first glance. one would need to apply some manner of moral system to begin such comparisons.

evidently, not all these causes may represent the very essence of a person yet - causal chains can go quite long before the essence is reached. how can one tell if a certain stated reason is the root cause? well, without proper contextual clues, it's probably quite difficult, if not impossible, to be certain.

hence we learn that passing judgement is not good practice. the reason is very simple: we can't be sure most of the time, what someone's causal chain is for connecting a certain form to part of that person's essence. if one can't be sure, then will not the judgement be unfair? if it is unfair, then why judge?

one possible exception does exist. for your own person, it is much more possible to understand the causal chains - you set them up, after all. of course, there are times when even our own reasons have become fuzzy, and that is when we need to sit down and reflect - to clarify our own internal moral systems which we want to subscribe to. ultimately, you're usually still the best person to judge yourself, precluding supernatural powers.

yet, a few conclusions can still be made. for one, most exterior forms have a proper causal chain connecting it to a certain essence - though sometimes what appears to be some "essence" really may be a further front that conceals some other deeper essence. therefore, it is not fair for me to completely discount the validity of forms in general, since some may firmly be connected to real essences.

a cynical disenchantment with appearances is also an unfair judgement.

how knowledge works

just wanna type this down before i forget (again). my recent ruminations considering the slippery subject of 'knowledge'.

knowledge, often casually defined as true beliefs, can be purely psychological, but is also undeniably impactful on social relations. hence, there is a sociology of knowledge, built upon some fundamental philosophical understanding of the definition of knowledge.

let's charter the course of knowledge across a social structure. knowledge almost always comes from the particular; i.e. it is created and first encountered at the individual (or agent) level. here, it already has immense potential to shape that individual's reality (and consequently the social reality of those around him/er) even before it is transmitted. within the agent, knowledge can produce manifold psychological impacts - justifying one's actions, inciting one to act, igniting various passions and emotions, impeding an ongoing action, or even just creating interest. of course, trivia (as a form of knowledge) can be of near-zero impact, but generally speaking, the agent's contact with knowledge preempts, and is causative of, action and change.

here, we also already have a layer of interpretation. when any raw data is first imputed to any individual, there may be some knee-jerk responses (especially sense-data of particular jarring nature). these would tend to be labelled information rather than knowledge. the key difference being that knowledge requires some "personal consideration" or interpretation of that information's significance, some level of decoding so that the data is useful rather than "noise". at this level of interpretation, it is already apparent that how a person interprets depends much on his/er prior socialisation and disposition. depending on which cipher one uses, information can decode into vastly different knowledge, and thus lead to drastically different action. yet, this layer of socially-assisted decoding is not purely undirected - the agent is capable of moulding both the cipher he learns and the cipher he wishes to use; apart from choosing what action to take subsequently. the agent thus is an active (and creative) moulder of knowledge.

nextly, things get exciting: the agent is never alone. knowledge gets passed on from agent to agent, both actively and passively. one may choose to transmit one's honest interpretation of some knowledge, or choose to embellish it, or choose to omit/distort parts of knowledge. he may do this in full knowledge of the receiving end's cipher (hence actively shaping the receiver's interpretation) or he may do this hoping to shape the receiver. there may be any number of other intentions for the transmitter at this point - it only depends on one's creativity.

the receiver, of course, is far from unfiltered. she has her own layer of interpretation, her own ciphers to choose from, and her own moulding to participate in. subsequently, she has her own psychological space within which to react to this received knowledge - which may result in further interpretations or tranmissions.

individuals are up till now, assumed to function independently. however, that may of course, not be the case. groups of individuals may choose to interpret knowledge together, consolidating everyone's ciphers and resulting in greater permutations of interpretation. however, the net interpretation may not be completely received by all in that group - the subsequent absorption is more than often differentiated. these groups may also disseminate knowledge as one - both allowing a new entity to assume various responsibilities while allowing the composite individuals to diffuse theirs. as a loose affiliation, dissemination may often be less detailed than transmission, and such knowledge may also contain more interpretations.

these loose affiliations may be coordinated in hierarchies - thus becoming an organisation. here, we can talk about information flowing through various branches of said organisation - but what is often neglected is the grouped interpretation and individual interpretation concurrently going on when information reaches any subordinate entity. depending on how the ciphers are socialised throughout this hierarchy, decoding may be selective and uncontrolled - the net interpretation of such a structure is almost always greater than that allowed for by a single cipher, owing to the individual creativity of each agent and group. there may be both apparent interpretations and (perhaps multiple) latent interpretations of the same knowledge disseminated across such hierarchical organisations. control of information flow is never a guarantee of control over interpretation; hence subsequent actions may vary widely.

not all organisations are coordinated through hierarchies, however. some do not attempt to control information or interpretation, perhaps tacitly admitting to the ability of creativity to thwart these efforts. such networks may spontaneously generate ever increasing amounts of knowledge, often in uncontrolled amounts, yet still encapsulated in a form acceptable for interpretation. here, even though the mode of transmission is uncontrolled, standards of interpretation may spring up, either from a need for mutual understanding (which requires some standardisation, and thus control, of interpretation). of course, standardised interpretation is still not guaranteed to spontaneously emerge from such loose networks, although it generally has to happen if the network is to continue functioning as a disseminator and interpretor of knowledge.

the two (ideal) types of meta-groups described above are of course by no means exhaustive. but both demonstrate the ability of larger social groups with varying levels of coordination to further interpret and disseminate knowledge. thus, at the societal level, knowledge may be interpreted any multitude of times before the next entity encounters it - and adds her own interpretation to the mix.

questions:
- can society spontaneously create knowledge above and beyond its composite agents?
- could such creative non-human entities thus be said to have a conscious will?
- which steps should the process of 'translation' encompass?
- what other types of processes can be described? how useful are these ideal types?

notes:
- need to differentiate raw information from processed knowledge
- account for integrity of information/knowledge within great multiplicities of interpretation.
- account for different intentions and their effects on transmission.
- relate this mapping to creation of reality.

there. just a rough draft. for sc4209.

quoteses!

found a nice page with some great quotes (while searching for that first one on the list)... just share a few with you:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."

- H. G. Wells (1866-1946)

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."

- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

"Don't be so humble - you are not that great."

- Golda Meir (1898-1978) to a visiting diplomat

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners."

- Charlton Heston (1924-)

"Give me chastity and continence, but not yet."

- Saint Augustine (354-430)

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

- Galileo Galilei

"The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing without work."

- Emile Zola (1840-1902)

"The full use of your powers along lines of excellence."

- definition of "happiness" by John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is."

- Yogi Berra

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have."

- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

"Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right."

- Henry Ford (1863-1947)

"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."

- Yoda ('The Empire Strikes Back')

"I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."

- Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)

"There are no facts, only interpretations."

- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

"Dancing is silent poetry."

- Simonides (556-468bc)

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."

- Plato (427-347 B.C.)

"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it."

- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

"Whenever I climb I am followed by a dog called 'Ego'."

- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe."

- H. G. Wells (1866-1946)

"Talent does what it can; genius does what it must."

- Edward George Bulwer-Lytton (1803-1873)

"The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'."

- unknown

"Women might be able to fake orgasms. But men can fake a whole relationship."

- Sharon Stone

"If you are going through hell, keep going."

- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

"He who has a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'."

- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

"Many wealthy people are little more than janitors of their possessions."

- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)

"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."

- Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

- Voltaire (1694-1778)

"I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them."

- Ian L. Fleming (1908-1964)

"Facts are the enemy of truth."

- Don Quixote - "Man of La Mancha"

"When you do the common things in life in an uncommon way, you will command the attention of the world."

- George Washington Carver (1864-1943)

"How wrong it is for a woman to expect the man to build the world she wants, rather than to create it herself."

- Anais Nin (1903-1977)

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

- Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

"There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it."

- Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."

- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

whoops. that's quite a long list huh? well the whole page is way longer... go read if u have the time =) btw, i also have some of my own quotes somewhere on this page...

i am powerful

did you know that...

every thought expressed in discernible means is the beginning of influence?

every spoken/written word represents an exercise of power?

every name called upon signifies the caller's right to summon the name?

every sentence constructed alludes to the constructor's grammatical and semantic competence?

every social being is an interlocutor of varying combinations of hegemonic forces?

every individual's existence contains myriad repercussions for society?

every communicated meme, every interpreted meaning, every fragment of knowledge, combines in unaccounted manners to form reality?

every attempt to appraise/encounter reality distorts truth?

... and now you regret, for i've screwed with your head. told ya i'm powerful!!!

how to disappear completely

you know, life is really quite fun. you meet people, you laugh, you discuss deep far-out philosophical ripostes as if you understood them just for the heck of it. then of course, there's also the not-so-fun parts, where the challenge is really to just get thru with them as though they were fun too.

now, back to living my life.

no so long ago, when i was in secondary school, i had a thought experiment. instead of spending all that effort trying to enjoy life, making sense of things, looking for a reason to wake up tmr, why not find a way to disappear?

which brings me to radiohead's obscure song, "how to disappear completely". i don't even remember much about the song, other than rating it 4 stars in my mediamonkey, most likely for the title. in one decade, i have yet to think of a way to disappear completely, without a trace, without affecting anyone else who still wants to continue existing. i mean, if you just 一走了之, many ppl would be quite affected lar. how irresponsible! wanna disappear, should at least do it in such a way which minimally impacts others, especially those who love you. the effort would most likely involve one of those dystopian erase-all-traces kinda thing, but that is unfortunately unachievable for most of us. "eternal sunshine of the spotless mind" gave me a glimmer of hope too, but making everybody forget about me is just as tough eh? not like the mind-tampering technique even exists.

so now i realise one thing: there's no way (at least with our current technology) to disappear completely. which leaves us with either continue living or dying (which is excessively messy). to conclude, it is because of this mildly coerced choice which leaves most of us living, attempting to find some value in taking the next breath, commissioning the next thought with some grand meaning.

is this the root of all anthropic perspectives? the dilemma of being stuck with an easy choice which requires a lot of effort and constant exposure to insecurity, and a difficult choice with no security at all. thus, we force some sensibility out of this absurd reality. we invent logic. we create science. we worship gods. if not... what would we do? either way, you're stuck with life.

with reality already created and so strongly in place, "how to disappear completely" becomes a dream, a mere song for commercial profit. why bother fighting established principles of life? why, life is already full of difficulties as is - leave it alone. let go. let someone else do the thinking. feeling indignant about choicelessness is little more than being brash and emotional. you may not agree, but everyone thinks you should have better things to do.

and without so much as a sigh, i go back to living the life imposed.

another (old) theory

this is the theory: most people spend much of their personal life (i.e. alone time) dealing with one very general topic: managing their addictions and obsessions.

these may come under the larger schema of 'dealing with weaknesses' but then again, one could be said to be obsessed with that same 'dealing with weaknesses'. the management of these virulent attributes may range from attempting to stop biting nails, overcoming some phobia, improving grammar/vocab/inflection, disciplined time usage, or the proverbial "being more positive" about things.

perhaps they can be summed up as that perfectionist streak in most of us to brand certain less -than-savoury patterns of behaviour we have as 'bad habits', 'afflictions', or 'weaknesses' so there'd be an odd assurance that we can become 'better'. could all these bitter accusations and self-deprecation actually point to some deep-seated hope for improvement? or are these labels a remnant of oppressive activity once rendered by authoritative figures in our childhood? maybe they are just idle processes which keep our minds working and sane when we're alone!

but one thing is for certain, whatever the reason for one to obsess with addictions, they never seem to go away. one could substitute addiction A for addiction B, but inadvertently an addiction remains after an entire chain of substitutions. and that is if addiction A was truly substituted in the first place, lest it resurfaces! yet substitution is a sensible strategy, assuming addiction B to contain less undesirability than its predecessor. perhaps eliminating addiction A in one fell swoop is too large a step to take and hence the strategy to go step-by-step down.

the tough-minded may prefer the bold approach of going it all at one go anyway. perhaps by smoking less cigarettes a day or administering self-punishment for each alcohol sipped, or by attending self-help groups, or simply going cold turkey. yet these bold-sounding tactics risk becoming a new "addiction" in itself... the penchant for catching oneself in the act again so as to dispense admonition. or worse... failure may result in damage to self-esteem and even social relations - guilt and remorse may lead to anti-social/isolationist behaviour and downward spiraling depression? indeed, self-help groups or voluteer watchdogs could turn into victims as well... in a number of ways.

so with all that random rumination out of the way, i believe that in order to successfully drive out any addiction or obsession one must know why that behaviour is there in the first place. a deeply rooted behaviour may require tackling the root cause before it is truly uprooted for good - roots have the uncanny ability to spawn new shoots. then again, when do we know if we've identified that root or not? it is largely guesswork... trial and error until something hits the spot. that is assuming this whole 'trial and error' business does not itself degenerate into a new addiction...

or maybe... we have addictions to simply remind us of God's great love for us? that even in our unwavering weaknesses, he still loves us for that... sappy eh?

cursory concern

"hey."
"sup."
"life sux man... my girlfriend is giving me trouble."
"geez... poor you."
"it was only making eyes at some babe across the street. what's the big deal really?"
"yeah."
"she does that with cute guys, so i'm entitled!"
"mm hmm."
"not like i'm gonna go pick that girl up or something, you know."
"nah."
"ogling is perfectly normal practice among guys."
"i guess."
"i'm just being a normal guy."
"of course."
"so it's her being oversensitive! girls..."
"tsk tsk."
"dude, thanks so much for clarifying with me!"
"sure, anytime."

and so girlfriend-trouble guy goes on ogling. what do you think will happen to his relationship?

there is a socially imposed requirement to "care for others", even when one does not really feel like it. when someone requests for small acts of concern, it is duly given out of obligation, and the requestor is thus placated patronisingly. what then, is the point of such cursory concern?

to the cursor's benefit, not everyone is in the right mood or mode to give advice or listen. it's a tough life and everyone is busy dealing with their private sorrows. isn't it good enough that i bother to listen? unfortunately, it may result in further sorrow, where concern turns sour. what if you received cursory concern? the cursor, so long as such response is doled out consistently with no explanation or disclaimer, is not in benefit but ought review such lack of responsibility.

to the requestor's deficit, most problems ought to be dealt with personally. or should they? why are we a society if we are supposed to feel so alone? if we are capable of social relations, why not make the most of it? the requestor, so long as the requesting is genuine, is not in deficit although greater caution should be taken when approaching others for advice. yet, such stability of thought may not be present, so greater onus rests on the acceptor to be attentive.

are you guilty of cursory concern? or have you been a victim?

the paranoia of the narrow viewpoint

no one likes to be squeezed... and the only thing worse than being squeezed is the strange feeling that you are being squeezed when all your senses tell you that you are not. insecurity and lack of control are two potent emotions with hardly any warning signs - until it is too late.

when one is incapable of seeing (or meta-seeing!) that one's view is reduced, paranoia sets in with relative ease. with paranoia, nothing seems what they are meant to be. everyone seems to be staring at you. the baby in a pram is judging you. the pillars are mocking you in unison. the tiles are passing beneath your feet disgusted. nobody is on your side; the world was created to torture you. suddenly, all is but loneliness, and everything is wrong. you either sink into panic, delusion, depression, or you become a fanatic for non-existent causes, maniacal. paranoia is the prelude to many clinical definitions of madness.

and paranoia may already have you. how would you know? when was the last time you took stock? perhaps the new bag you bought is a wrong colour. you're not standing straight enough. you feel the bus driver's glare when you tap your ezlink. there's always a cockroach hiding behind the cupboard door.

we have narrowed our senses. things no longer seem what they are not because we are trying to understand them at a deeper level, but because we don't understand what "a deeper level" means. we second guess ourselves at every opportunity, undermining our very concept of order, simply to escape the feeling that our senses are narrow. it is at once an impetus for proactivity while stifling rational progress.

so far so good... except... that i myself may be paranoid.

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?

wake me up when december ends

cheesy? no, really... december has been tough. i truly wish i could sleep thru the rest of it... but i can't, and i won't. i don't know whether to call it my stubborn streak, that adamant pride reluctant to groan in defeat as the gruelling schedule keeps up, or just simply denial.

what am i working my ass off for?

the retreat refreshed all the doubts that haunted me for the past few months. i had counted on the retreat being a refreshing experience alright, but not in this sense! here's a list of questions i thought i'd need to answer before being capable of contributing as a proper catholic:

The Tract of Doubts
Who is God? Jesus? Love? Reason? Society?
What is Humanity? Experience? Emotion?
Submission - what does it take?
Ego-centrism? Pride? Who else is involved?
Leap of Faith - why leap? What do we abandon?
The question of intent... for what purpose?
Why ask? Why question? What does the doubter gain?
Pursuit of Truth? What is Truth? Is there Truth?
Knowledge vs Wisdom: is it wise to know?
Desire... Thirst... Hunger... Craving...
Human paradigms? To be abandoned?
Defiance, Arrogance; where's the line?
Scepticism, Incredulity; what's the aim?
The Search for Answers: Magisterium?
Where doubts remain unaddressed, what do i believe?
Expectation, Satisfaction; primality of self?
Deconstruction: an end unto itself?
Objectivity/Subjectivity, why one or the other?
Priority? Focus? What deserves my attention?
Choose: is there Choice?

i don't know why i ask so many questions... is it some queer form of ego-trip? trying to act cheem? trying to go where no man should? challenging the powers that be? where does this perverted lust for tearing concepts apart come from?? why should i cave in to its demands??

it torments me to be unable to accept simple theories which may be flawed due to philosophical nitpicking; yet neither am i able to accept them without claiming a thorough understanding of all the vague terminology they tend to use. but the problem remains that i am not able to thoroughly study all these alleged logical inconsistencies nor investigate the controversies surrounding my faith.

so how? i still gotta go caroling, still gotta go mass, still gotta do what i've been doing. gotta? i don't know... now i don't feel like doing anything... until i understand what feeling means... i might never really feel like doing anything anymore.

this december might just never end... or i could re-read Psalm 119.

questions schmestions

i've come to realise that i am an exceedingly rational person, tempered with "righteous emotion". but what is rationality? what is "righteous emotion"? rationality is based upon logic, induction-proven causality, falsifiability, and solid premises not unlike morality. "righteous emotion" is as far as i would admit i am emotional, to the extent of righteous zeal, a fomenting rage against injustice, a profound compassion of the innocent sufferers. "righteous emotion" is also rightly predicated upon morality.

what then is morality? two threads exist: a) morality is the absolute laws of life as dictated by a supernatural authority, or b) morality are relative laws formulated through informal but extremely binding social contracts within any community.

if morality is absolute, it would make things much easier, since we don't even need to ask questions - the supernatural moral authority reigns supreme, and that authority being benevolent leaves no rational room for questioning. but the problem is that moral dilemmas are almost a daily affair! how can absolute morals reign over grey areas?

this problem does not exist if morality is relatively constructed within societies through the mechanism of social darwinism - the evolution of social action. morality exists in secular humanism insofar as morals have a function in achieving certain goals humanity has deigned of primal importance, for example, survival.

yet, in considering morals to be functional extensions of human goals, one must ask how do humans decide which goals to go for. it may seem like certain goals are simply rational (i.e. eliminating poverty), but philosophically, it is possibly tautological to consider morality predicated on rationality while rationality itself is predicated upon morality, unless rationality is amoral.

yet on the grounds that rationality is amoral, rationality loses its human connection and becomes as abstract as mathematics - a formulaic method of cogitation based within arbitrarily determined boundaries. this makes rationality more of a micro-managing tool suited for small problems rather than a macro-inclusive method suited for large problems such as moral dilemmas.

and so it may be that both types of morality exist - that of religious fundamentalism and secular humanism. some are laws from an as yet unseen authority, while others may be founded upon societal evolution - both higher authorities than the individual, upon which morals impress their influence. the etiology for these dichotomous morals are ever so subtly different, however. supernatural morality is intended (among other interpretations) to free the individual from worldly desires and cast spirituality (and the afterlife) as substantially more important reasons for life. natural morality is simply intended for the survival of the species while making life for the individual "better". note the highly subjective terms i am imposing here.

thus said, rationality may indeed corroborate both forms of morality: one being noumena-based to the extent that the afterlife and spirituality remain, as yet, unproven by scientific method, the other being phenomena-based to the extent that human survival is an observable occurence. some may consider noumena to be irrational, but descartes has also shown phenomena to be probably as frivolous. thus philosophically, both could be construed as rational premises, and thus applicable to rationality.

ergo, narrowness of emotion aside, i am one who accepts both in religious fundamentalism and secular humanism as authorities of morality, simply due to rationality. but what if these premises clash? that is when the appeal of "righteous emotion" steps in, as a "last resort" adjudicator.

but these... are aside from the times i revel in deconstruction. for in deconstruction, it is only rational (and right) to be absolutely neutral. nothing is to be spared deconstruction, not even morality.