live in the present or for the future?
no matter, happiness seems to come from simplicity. and yet, you cannot deny yourself if you happen to ask a few questions. it's not that you're smarter or more aware. you're just simply asking a question. and if you don't have that question resolved, and if you think there is an answer, maybe you can't rest. and so you pursue your questions. not all. just whatever you feel like. and then, maybe you find no really important question. no question that can rule over all others, as if it is the master lock. or you find no important answers.
so many things. but we really are quite separate from our surroundings. almost even from our own body. is there a soul? why should there be? do we all need to be equal based on being a person? i mean, maybe there really is no wrong in discriminating. maybe we should not judge a book by its cover because we might find ourselves in unprepared and unfavorable scenarios if we had done so, but an ugly face is an ugly face.
i am not advocating discrimination. but life will pass. so many thoughts but unable to be fully expressed because of limited vocabulary or grammatical skills. but everyone has thoughts. it is all nothing anyway. and i think that's where some happiness can be found. it's like as if happiness is a glimmering side of every rock where each rock represents a thought, an idea, a thing, a way of seeing things, anything. and happiness can be found when the rock is approached or seen from the right angle. and sometimes maybe it feels like we can manipulate that rock and see the glimmering side. sometimes it is like we must move ourselves to the right position to see the glimmering side of that rock. a time for everything.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
"...characters are not born like people, of woman; they are born of a situation, a metaphot containing in a nutshell a basic human possibility the author thinks no one else has discovered or said something essential about."
"Sometimes we forget how difficult that is for some people and how valuable that makes us. Lots of people would give anything to be able to say what they mean. But they can’t. So, they turn to songs, books, and art that communicate for them."
"Sometimes we forget how difficult that is for some people and how valuable that makes us. Lots of people would give anything to be able to say what they mean. But they can’t. So, they turn to songs, books, and art that communicate for them."
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
the Monty Hall problem. heard of that? You would have if you watched the movie "21" regarding some MIT students' beating the odds in Vegas casinos. It's really counter intuitive, and I couldn't understand it. So while my professor was explaining using mathematical signs and symbols for probability, I scribbled on my own paper what I'm more comfortable with - pictures and simple numbers and fractions. My mind isn't built for abstract formulas. I need to see things like I see them in real life. A box. No box. 1. 2. One-third. Maybe I can deal with negative numbers.
What I don't understand is "does it matter what the host knows?"
Does it matter what his method of choosing the door with the goat to reveal is? If he has a rule that says "open the first possible door to the right of the selected door whereby the immediate right of the rightmost one is the leftmost one" or if his rule is more complicated, maybe he looks at the hands of the clock when the contestant selects the door, and then proceeds with mathematical rules before concluding according to the rules which door to open (assuming he has 2 to choose from, cos otherwise there is no choice). What if he doesn't know which door to open...he walks into a veiled booth and presses a button to open one door. If it contains the prize, the door doesn't open and he presses the other option, so that unless a door refuses to open, the host himself never knows where the prize is.
Do these things change the probability?
I can't understand. It seems to tie in with the quantum chemistry stuff in class. Something about "observing", or "measuring" changing the result. Like that test to see if light was a wave or particle...and when it was observed, or when "shots" were fired one by one, one result turned up, and when left alone to do its "thing", another result appeared. Like how when we apparently "observe" some property of a particle, its originally random properties are now defined. Some complicated thing like that. How come KNOWING, SEEING, somehow...observing....changes things?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_paradox_(probability)
under Classical Solution it seems to give some answers although to a different problem but one of similar nature. So, "random" really isn't random? The method of "randomizing" matters? WHAT!?
Now if you're going to explain the Monty Hall solution, I've already understood that...well somewhat. I just cannot understand if the host "knowing" certain things changes the probability. Check Wiki under Monty Hall, under "other host behavior" and it says that if the host didn't know, the chance is 1/2. otherwise, 2/3. WA~~~
Also, what's appalling are the consequences. It means...this. Can you calculate probability? If the probability of something happening now is the conditional probability that it happens after all that has happened in the world has happened, then without knowing all that has happened in the world before, how do we computer probability?
i.e if flipping a coin 1/2 chance goes heads, 1/2 tails, BY RIGHT. But maybe chances of getting heads today is conditional that WW1 happened, that i ate an apple on a certain date...etc...that a stone fragmented into 24 parts, not 23...etc
What I don't understand is "does it matter what the host knows?"
Does it matter what his method of choosing the door with the goat to reveal is? If he has a rule that says "open the first possible door to the right of the selected door whereby the immediate right of the rightmost one is the leftmost one" or if his rule is more complicated, maybe he looks at the hands of the clock when the contestant selects the door, and then proceeds with mathematical rules before concluding according to the rules which door to open (assuming he has 2 to choose from, cos otherwise there is no choice). What if he doesn't know which door to open...he walks into a veiled booth and presses a button to open one door. If it contains the prize, the door doesn't open and he presses the other option, so that unless a door refuses to open, the host himself never knows where the prize is.
Do these things change the probability?
I can't understand. It seems to tie in with the quantum chemistry stuff in class. Something about "observing", or "measuring" changing the result. Like that test to see if light was a wave or particle...and when it was observed, or when "shots" were fired one by one, one result turned up, and when left alone to do its "thing", another result appeared. Like how when we apparently "observe" some property of a particle, its originally random properties are now defined. Some complicated thing like that. How come KNOWING, SEEING, somehow...observing....changes things?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_paradox_(probability)
under Classical Solution it seems to give some answers although to a different problem but one of similar nature. So, "random" really isn't random? The method of "randomizing" matters? WHAT!?
Now if you're going to explain the Monty Hall solution, I've already understood that...well somewhat. I just cannot understand if the host "knowing" certain things changes the probability. Check Wiki under Monty Hall, under "other host behavior" and it says that if the host didn't know, the chance is 1/2. otherwise, 2/3. WA~~~
Also, what's appalling are the consequences. It means...this. Can you calculate probability? If the probability of something happening now is the conditional probability that it happens after all that has happened in the world has happened, then without knowing all that has happened in the world before, how do we computer probability?
i.e if flipping a coin 1/2 chance goes heads, 1/2 tails, BY RIGHT. But maybe chances of getting heads today is conditional that WW1 happened, that i ate an apple on a certain date...etc...that a stone fragmented into 24 parts, not 23...etc
back to books.
The book of laughter and forgetting
Lost letters:
main point revolves around how we try to change the past. When we look for change, for a better future, we may actually be trying to change the past. We try to attain power to change our past which we may be ashamed of or which may be a barrier to our "future".
He wanted to efface her from the photograph of his life not because he had not loved her but because he had. He had erased her, her and his love for her, he had scratched out her image until he had made it disappear as the party propaganda section had made Clementis disappear from the balcony where Gottwald had given his historic speech. Mirek rewrote history just like the Communist Party, like all political parties, like all peoples, like mankind. They shout that they want to shape a better future, but it's not true. The future is only an indifferent void no one cares about, but the past is filled with life, and its counternance is irritating, repellent, wounding, to the point that we want to destroy or repaint it. We want to be masters of the future only for the power to change the past.
And I liked the touch of...meaninglessness that follows his above thoughts. Having stopped in his car for a moment as he was thinking on this, he woke from his thoughts and wondered how long he had been in thought. And what did this stop mean? It meant nothing.
But earlier, he (Mirek) had wanted to end his twenty-over year affair with this woman, seeking freedom. For he had made love to an ugly woman because he didn't dare approach pretty ones. He thought himself unworthy of anyone better...that weakness, that deprivation, was the secret he was hiding. And yet later he had been evenly ashamed because he did love her - someone he was ashamed of.
What is this? Pride? It seems much more complex than that. Shame of his past, but why? Was he expecting himself to have had a better past? Did he think we was better than to deserve an affair with an ugly woman in his youth, in the supposed prime of his life? He did later have proper marriages and affairs with other women that can be inferred to be not-ugly. Why was he still haunted by his past? By some insecurity and some apparent failing? And yet he loved her then. How does love come about? Do two people spend time together and form a bond? Is it impossible to love someone really when you never really fell for them? Was that love for her, somehow, tainted by this shame of her. Perhaps he was just using her. But can you not love someone you use? How does this all work?
But we forget.
The assassination of Allende quickly covered the memory of the Russian invasion of Bohemia, the bloody massacre in Bangladesh caused Allende to be forgotten, the din of war in the Sinai Desert drowned out the groans of Bangladesh, the massacres in Cambodia...until everyone has completely forgotten everything.
In recent times, some time ago people thought about Tibet. People suddenly dug out its past to discuss issues. Moral issues, historical claiming, human rights...etc. Then as the Olympics started, Tibet was forgotten. Some then "remembered" Georgia. And soon Georgia is forgotten. The American elections. No more.
And sometimes we forget what we started out to do. We can distracted, we fall out of track...ever so common. I have noticed it firstly with myself. I found that I was unable, years back, to get into a proper discussion especially in group work. Partly because of that and self-righteousness, I stopped serious participation in group work. I couldn't keep on track. I would deviate, and I wasn't the only one. Others would too, and eventually I wouldn't know what we were talking about. I only remembered I was a guilty of straying. And discussions with friends strayed too. Suddenly perhaps a statement that was not agreed upon would be scrutinized. It would open up into a bigger discussion. Ideas that altered relative to the new discussion. Sometimes they didn't seem complementary with my earlier idea of the subject. I was fickle.
But I wasn't just trying to defend myself at all costs, though it may have happened at times. It was be false humility to say that I always got distracted off-course because I took the agruments personally. No, I tried to be objective. I tried to separate myself from the discussion. The result was me changing sides frequently (if sides even existed in distinct forms which I felt was the more imposing belief of the people around me). No I don't profess to be a genius; everyone has had private thoughts. Nonetheless I feel embarrassed to talk about it without a disclaimer such as the previous sentence.
The result was I changed sides. And then I found that my credibilty fell as I changed sides, naturally. And the discussion started to matter less and less in those circles. Instead, victory was that of the one with most credibility. If you didn't change sides, you would be more substantial. It makes sense, except that I believed a lot of people were busy defending their stance and appearing substantial. I was not substantial, but I couldn't see others as substantial either. They were stubborn. And when they flaunted a victory, I thought how stupid my company was. I became arrogant. It was a start to my discovery that I too was stupid, except in moments of indulgence, even when suppressed to some extent for whatever my reasons might have been, that I felt smart relative to the other stupid people about me. Sometimes I kept quiet because I thought I was better than that. Sometimes I spoke because I thought keeping quiet was arrogance. Later I just didn't know what I was thinking anymore. Everything and nothing.
I stumbled across a word - "dialectical" - and I chose to define it as a form of...contradiction. A contradiction that more closely describes the world I saw than a world of no contradictions which I found only a fantasy. I loved that word. I loved it maybe for it's appearnace in English, for it's sound - no i think not - but mainly for the meaning it meant to me, not in some sentimental sense but rather its semantic value to me. Most things seemed contradictary to me. A bundle of facts could mean everything, and nothing. The table is measured 30cm across and yet has almost infinite surface length on a micro scale, but we create from the measurement of 30 whatever we need. Maybe we build structures based on that calculation. We can love and hate something at the same time.
I rationalized that someone who does not change his sides must either know everything, or does not know everything. If he doesn't know everything, then in the light of new information, one should have to re-think his position. He should have the privilege to change his mind. If he doesn't change his mind, then the new information had not compelled him into changing his mind whether because the info was just not convincing or he didn't understand it the way it would have convinced, or should have made him change his mind but was decided to be downplayed or ignored.
So it's good to change your mind. But how can that be good? How can you trust someone who changes his mind all the time, trying to be "true" to himself? It's too unpredictable. And a whole bunch of people like that is fickle and probably is what the civilian population is made up of. And they are easily swayed and manipulated. Maybe credibility is more important than a "right" stance. Maybe everything is inherently stupid anyway.
And when we don't forget, we get tormented by our past, if perhaps we haven't resolved it, as in Mirek's case? But why think so much about something? Why take it so seriously? Maybe it IS a serious matter and we should dedicate our lives to it. Just as maybe the destruction of our envirnoment and its ability to provide for us a living future is a serious issue! If it's so serious, we should all be very very serious about this. Do all we can. What you want? Change to this kind of bulb? Ok! Change all! don't use this too much? Ok! I won't even use it at all; I can live without it. It's a serious matter, we must be serious. Maybe too serious. Can we be too serious on a serious matter?
Forgetting is a great thing.
I think that there's too much burden in trying to do everything. We are not Gods. We aren't meant to be. Being a God would be such a tiresome job...knowing everything.
The book of laughter and forgetting
Lost letters:
main point revolves around how we try to change the past. When we look for change, for a better future, we may actually be trying to change the past. We try to attain power to change our past which we may be ashamed of or which may be a barrier to our "future".
He wanted to efface her from the photograph of his life not because he had not loved her but because he had. He had erased her, her and his love for her, he had scratched out her image until he had made it disappear as the party propaganda section had made Clementis disappear from the balcony where Gottwald had given his historic speech. Mirek rewrote history just like the Communist Party, like all political parties, like all peoples, like mankind. They shout that they want to shape a better future, but it's not true. The future is only an indifferent void no one cares about, but the past is filled with life, and its counternance is irritating, repellent, wounding, to the point that we want to destroy or repaint it. We want to be masters of the future only for the power to change the past.
And I liked the touch of...meaninglessness that follows his above thoughts. Having stopped in his car for a moment as he was thinking on this, he woke from his thoughts and wondered how long he had been in thought. And what did this stop mean? It meant nothing.
But earlier, he (Mirek) had wanted to end his twenty-over year affair with this woman, seeking freedom. For he had made love to an ugly woman because he didn't dare approach pretty ones. He thought himself unworthy of anyone better...that weakness, that deprivation, was the secret he was hiding. And yet later he had been evenly ashamed because he did love her - someone he was ashamed of.
What is this? Pride? It seems much more complex than that. Shame of his past, but why? Was he expecting himself to have had a better past? Did he think we was better than to deserve an affair with an ugly woman in his youth, in the supposed prime of his life? He did later have proper marriages and affairs with other women that can be inferred to be not-ugly. Why was he still haunted by his past? By some insecurity and some apparent failing? And yet he loved her then. How does love come about? Do two people spend time together and form a bond? Is it impossible to love someone really when you never really fell for them? Was that love for her, somehow, tainted by this shame of her. Perhaps he was just using her. But can you not love someone you use? How does this all work?
But we forget.
The assassination of Allende quickly covered the memory of the Russian invasion of Bohemia, the bloody massacre in Bangladesh caused Allende to be forgotten, the din of war in the Sinai Desert drowned out the groans of Bangladesh, the massacres in Cambodia...until everyone has completely forgotten everything.
In recent times, some time ago people thought about Tibet. People suddenly dug out its past to discuss issues. Moral issues, historical claiming, human rights...etc. Then as the Olympics started, Tibet was forgotten. Some then "remembered" Georgia. And soon Georgia is forgotten. The American elections. No more.
And sometimes we forget what we started out to do. We can distracted, we fall out of track...ever so common. I have noticed it firstly with myself. I found that I was unable, years back, to get into a proper discussion especially in group work. Partly because of that and self-righteousness, I stopped serious participation in group work. I couldn't keep on track. I would deviate, and I wasn't the only one. Others would too, and eventually I wouldn't know what we were talking about. I only remembered I was a guilty of straying. And discussions with friends strayed too. Suddenly perhaps a statement that was not agreed upon would be scrutinized. It would open up into a bigger discussion. Ideas that altered relative to the new discussion. Sometimes they didn't seem complementary with my earlier idea of the subject. I was fickle.
But I wasn't just trying to defend myself at all costs, though it may have happened at times. It was be false humility to say that I always got distracted off-course because I took the agruments personally. No, I tried to be objective. I tried to separate myself from the discussion. The result was me changing sides frequently (if sides even existed in distinct forms which I felt was the more imposing belief of the people around me). No I don't profess to be a genius; everyone has had private thoughts. Nonetheless I feel embarrassed to talk about it without a disclaimer such as the previous sentence.
The result was I changed sides. And then I found that my credibilty fell as I changed sides, naturally. And the discussion started to matter less and less in those circles. Instead, victory was that of the one with most credibility. If you didn't change sides, you would be more substantial. It makes sense, except that I believed a lot of people were busy defending their stance and appearing substantial. I was not substantial, but I couldn't see others as substantial either. They were stubborn. And when they flaunted a victory, I thought how stupid my company was. I became arrogant. It was a start to my discovery that I too was stupid, except in moments of indulgence, even when suppressed to some extent for whatever my reasons might have been, that I felt smart relative to the other stupid people about me. Sometimes I kept quiet because I thought I was better than that. Sometimes I spoke because I thought keeping quiet was arrogance. Later I just didn't know what I was thinking anymore. Everything and nothing.
I stumbled across a word - "dialectical" - and I chose to define it as a form of...contradiction. A contradiction that more closely describes the world I saw than a world of no contradictions which I found only a fantasy. I loved that word. I loved it maybe for it's appearnace in English, for it's sound - no i think not - but mainly for the meaning it meant to me, not in some sentimental sense but rather its semantic value to me. Most things seemed contradictary to me. A bundle of facts could mean everything, and nothing. The table is measured 30cm across and yet has almost infinite surface length on a micro scale, but we create from the measurement of 30 whatever we need. Maybe we build structures based on that calculation. We can love and hate something at the same time.
I rationalized that someone who does not change his sides must either know everything, or does not know everything. If he doesn't know everything, then in the light of new information, one should have to re-think his position. He should have the privilege to change his mind. If he doesn't change his mind, then the new information had not compelled him into changing his mind whether because the info was just not convincing or he didn't understand it the way it would have convinced, or should have made him change his mind but was decided to be downplayed or ignored.
So it's good to change your mind. But how can that be good? How can you trust someone who changes his mind all the time, trying to be "true" to himself? It's too unpredictable. And a whole bunch of people like that is fickle and probably is what the civilian population is made up of. And they are easily swayed and manipulated. Maybe credibility is more important than a "right" stance. Maybe everything is inherently stupid anyway.
And when we don't forget, we get tormented by our past, if perhaps we haven't resolved it, as in Mirek's case? But why think so much about something? Why take it so seriously? Maybe it IS a serious matter and we should dedicate our lives to it. Just as maybe the destruction of our envirnoment and its ability to provide for us a living future is a serious issue! If it's so serious, we should all be very very serious about this. Do all we can. What you want? Change to this kind of bulb? Ok! Change all! don't use this too much? Ok! I won't even use it at all; I can live without it. It's a serious matter, we must be serious. Maybe too serious. Can we be too serious on a serious matter?
Forgetting is a great thing.
I think that there's too much burden in trying to do everything. We are not Gods. We aren't meant to be. Being a God would be such a tiresome job...knowing everything.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
perhaps we laugh because we know certain things are absurd. And we do not want to challenge them on the surface, so they have remained underlying all this time. Perhaps it is intuitive, or just learned as language is somehow picked up, assuming it were not innate in us to learn language, and we laugh because we know something's really hitting the truth now. Or not.
If we didn't know about a certain absurdity, would we laugh? If I considered Socrates to be the wisest person of some sort, or perhaps I treat him as a symbol, and he is mocked, made fun of in ways that I find just absolutely unfitting for someone I place in that category of dignity and respect, would I laugh? Would I be troubled? Or would I be unaffected? Perhaps blind to being affected?
Maybe laughter isn't the problem. But if I feel troubled, why would I? Perhaps there is some...inconsistencies that I find annoying. It disrupts my view on a certain someone or something. It makes me doubt. And if I don't doubt, does that necessarily mean I am stubborn or have I known enough to know that it is not worth doubting. Is there such a thing? Can one know everything? If not, then he cannot be absolutely sure about the topic or the item in question, and is it right to doubt at opportunity in order, perhaps rationalized, to learn more about it, though with a certain, maybe blind, faith that ultimately my doubt will be resolved? Will I worry that my doubt will consume me and destroy every thing I had known until then? Will I be afraid of the truth? And if I choose not to doubt, is that fear? Is that faith?
What if the unsettling image makes logical sense to me. What if a wretched image, or perhaps a hero going down in agony and flames, to be revealed as ultimately nothing, is logical and although something I prefer not to think about, is as close to the truth as everything could be but isn't always in that state? Why are they called wretched by me? Because it's unsettling. To what? To a certain image I have in mind. An image of what? Order? Security? Good over Evil? Do we laugh? Perhaps if I care about the subject, I would not laugh as the insult is more imposing on me. Or I am simply more troubled than willing to embrace the ridicule of my notions until then. But if I didn't care, if this was some kind of order I knew existed, and now it is ridiculed, maybe then I laugh? But why laugh? Why not just ignore? Maybe I laugh for other reasons. Maybe I just wanted to laugh. Maybe, sometimes laughing keeps further thoughts.
There is a phrase, "don't take yourself too seriously."
But why? If something is serious, and you are serious about it, then it must be taken seriously. If it is mocked, can I laugh at it under the notion that "i shouldn't take things so seriously"? Is that implying something...wrong...with my...image of the subject? Well, let's say the satire isn't personal, and I could ignore it...then perhaps I would. Would I laugh? What for? But what if the mockery shakes certain foundations of mine....perhaps foundations that I am reluctant to give up because I like them, or am afraid or how things are like without them...or something else? Then, maybe as above I will be unsettled. Or maybe I will laugh. Maybe I will be the one who cracks jokes about it all the time? Maybe it's because I need to laugh at it to fulfill my inner thoughts that the subject is ridiculous. And maybe by laughing I can set my mind as ease. After all, we forget. I may be able to forget about it's ridiculousness. Maybe, I will tell myself "don't take the joke so seriously" and get back to work. "Don't take yourself too seriously".
Wait. What am I taking seriously?
I don't know why we laugh at mockeries. I don't remember why I thought we did, although I remember the scene from "Andrei Rublev". But they were bored anyway...didn't have anything to do with the upper class, and were maybe even drunk. Or maybe the jester's actions were ust funny....somehow funny...inducing laughter, for who knows why but not so much related to the fact that it is a mockery of a system.
So laughter is a concession? We smile, and laugh, when we concede something. Or we don't want to take a stand on something. I read that primates like monkeys smile to avoid challenges. Yeah we do smile to people to appear friendly. Look like we're not challenging anyone. So is that why we laugh? We concede something. We say, oh yeah that's right. Ha ha ha.
If we didn't know about a certain absurdity, would we laugh? If I considered Socrates to be the wisest person of some sort, or perhaps I treat him as a symbol, and he is mocked, made fun of in ways that I find just absolutely unfitting for someone I place in that category of dignity and respect, would I laugh? Would I be troubled? Or would I be unaffected? Perhaps blind to being affected?
Maybe laughter isn't the problem. But if I feel troubled, why would I? Perhaps there is some...inconsistencies that I find annoying. It disrupts my view on a certain someone or something. It makes me doubt. And if I don't doubt, does that necessarily mean I am stubborn or have I known enough to know that it is not worth doubting. Is there such a thing? Can one know everything? If not, then he cannot be absolutely sure about the topic or the item in question, and is it right to doubt at opportunity in order, perhaps rationalized, to learn more about it, though with a certain, maybe blind, faith that ultimately my doubt will be resolved? Will I worry that my doubt will consume me and destroy every thing I had known until then? Will I be afraid of the truth? And if I choose not to doubt, is that fear? Is that faith?
What if the unsettling image makes logical sense to me. What if a wretched image, or perhaps a hero going down in agony and flames, to be revealed as ultimately nothing, is logical and although something I prefer not to think about, is as close to the truth as everything could be but isn't always in that state? Why are they called wretched by me? Because it's unsettling. To what? To a certain image I have in mind. An image of what? Order? Security? Good over Evil? Do we laugh? Perhaps if I care about the subject, I would not laugh as the insult is more imposing on me. Or I am simply more troubled than willing to embrace the ridicule of my notions until then. But if I didn't care, if this was some kind of order I knew existed, and now it is ridiculed, maybe then I laugh? But why laugh? Why not just ignore? Maybe I laugh for other reasons. Maybe I just wanted to laugh. Maybe, sometimes laughing keeps further thoughts.
There is a phrase, "don't take yourself too seriously."
But why? If something is serious, and you are serious about it, then it must be taken seriously. If it is mocked, can I laugh at it under the notion that "i shouldn't take things so seriously"? Is that implying something...wrong...with my...image of the subject? Well, let's say the satire isn't personal, and I could ignore it...then perhaps I would. Would I laugh? What for? But what if the mockery shakes certain foundations of mine....perhaps foundations that I am reluctant to give up because I like them, or am afraid or how things are like without them...or something else? Then, maybe as above I will be unsettled. Or maybe I will laugh. Maybe I will be the one who cracks jokes about it all the time? Maybe it's because I need to laugh at it to fulfill my inner thoughts that the subject is ridiculous. And maybe by laughing I can set my mind as ease. After all, we forget. I may be able to forget about it's ridiculousness. Maybe, I will tell myself "don't take the joke so seriously" and get back to work. "Don't take yourself too seriously".
Wait. What am I taking seriously?
I don't know why we laugh at mockeries. I don't remember why I thought we did, although I remember the scene from "Andrei Rublev". But they were bored anyway...didn't have anything to do with the upper class, and were maybe even drunk. Or maybe the jester's actions were ust funny....somehow funny...inducing laughter, for who knows why but not so much related to the fact that it is a mockery of a system.
So laughter is a concession? We smile, and laugh, when we concede something. Or we don't want to take a stand on something. I read that primates like monkeys smile to avoid challenges. Yeah we do smile to people to appear friendly. Look like we're not challenging anyone. So is that why we laugh? We concede something. We say, oh yeah that's right. Ha ha ha.
Long distance relationship - with God.
How is man supposed to live on earth? With his breathen? With other people? In constant prayer? Like a monk? In seclusion? With people, and when alone with God?
If there is a planet Earth, and we are all human beings on it, and we are near to one another, and have a community in physical presence, then surely we should communicate with one another and not go about ignoring one another. But how much do we want or need each other?
If God also placed us on Earth, let's say because he wanted us to have life and communicate with God, because he loves when we talk to him, then how much of our time should we give to people and God?
God surely isn't as physically present as the person sitting next to you. God and me can have a long distance relationship. He is somewhere, I am here. Through prayer, or what it may be, we can communicate. He may have his other special ways of letting me "feel" his presence. With modern technology, it is also possible to have a long distance relationship with a friend or someone closer than mere friends. We can talk through the telephone, we can send messages, we can even see each other on computer screens these days. Is that person on the other side, on the other line, real? Yes, I've met them before. Or if it's a penpal we're talking about, we still assume the person is real, not a robot or some other form. What's "wrong" if there is any "right" with having a long distance relationship? One that isn't really....there.
A relationship with God is also long distance in so many ways. You don't do things together. Well, actually you could in certain ways, such as doing something "for God" or "because you're living for God"...etc. I suppose you could do that with friends and spouses that you are having a long distance relationship with as well. But when does this long distance relationship with people become a fantasy. When does it become...wrong, strange, perverted, escapism, living in the past, or any other thing that seems inferior to actually being with people who are around you instead of spending more time with people who aren't.
What is a person who goes to work and then goes home and spends time with...God. I can imagine in the past, if I were a shepard, I'd tend the sheep...move them around...go back to my house...and maybe along the way I might meet a person or two I know, and get into short conversation or simply exchange greetings from a distance, maybe even from a distance of one hill to another, and at home if I were not yet married, or if I were married but somehow in my culture husband and wife don't spend all the time together, but women are constantly tending to things like food, and I'm back from work, maybe go into my room, and if I were such a person as would, I would start praying, spending time with God. In this scenario, it seems that God placed people on earth to have a relationship with God. Not exclusively, but God isn't just a minor routine.
And if in the modern world, one does that in the city, let's say not because he or she has no friends, but because this is the life he or she chose, just as we assume the shepard was not somehow condemned to that fate against an inner will of his, then what do we have? A crazy person? A normal person? What changes? Is a long distance intimate relationship, one that consumes lot of time and energy, with someone healthy? After all, there are many people around you can talk to, why are you spending your time and energy, and affection, with someone that's not really there, someone so based on memories perhaps...or a kind of...symbol? What about a long distance relationship that takes time and energy and affection, that affects the way you live, the way you think, with...God? Is that...healthy? When does it cross the line? Could it ever?
If there is a planet Earth, and we are all human beings on it, and we are near to one another, and have a community in physical presence, then surely we should communicate with one another and not go about ignoring one another. But how much do we want or need each other?
If God also placed us on Earth, let's say because he wanted us to have life and communicate with God, because he loves when we talk to him, then how much of our time should we give to people and God?
God surely isn't as physically present as the person sitting next to you. God and me can have a long distance relationship. He is somewhere, I am here. Through prayer, or what it may be, we can communicate. He may have his other special ways of letting me "feel" his presence. With modern technology, it is also possible to have a long distance relationship with a friend or someone closer than mere friends. We can talk through the telephone, we can send messages, we can even see each other on computer screens these days. Is that person on the other side, on the other line, real? Yes, I've met them before. Or if it's a penpal we're talking about, we still assume the person is real, not a robot or some other form. What's "wrong" if there is any "right" with having a long distance relationship? One that isn't really....there.
A relationship with God is also long distance in so many ways. You don't do things together. Well, actually you could in certain ways, such as doing something "for God" or "because you're living for God"...etc. I suppose you could do that with friends and spouses that you are having a long distance relationship with as well. But when does this long distance relationship with people become a fantasy. When does it become...wrong, strange, perverted, escapism, living in the past, or any other thing that seems inferior to actually being with people who are around you instead of spending more time with people who aren't.
What is a person who goes to work and then goes home and spends time with...God. I can imagine in the past, if I were a shepard, I'd tend the sheep...move them around...go back to my house...and maybe along the way I might meet a person or two I know, and get into short conversation or simply exchange greetings from a distance, maybe even from a distance of one hill to another, and at home if I were not yet married, or if I were married but somehow in my culture husband and wife don't spend all the time together, but women are constantly tending to things like food, and I'm back from work, maybe go into my room, and if I were such a person as would, I would start praying, spending time with God. In this scenario, it seems that God placed people on earth to have a relationship with God. Not exclusively, but God isn't just a minor routine.
And if in the modern world, one does that in the city, let's say not because he or she has no friends, but because this is the life he or she chose, just as we assume the shepard was not somehow condemned to that fate against an inner will of his, then what do we have? A crazy person? A normal person? What changes? Is a long distance intimate relationship, one that consumes lot of time and energy, with someone healthy? After all, there are many people around you can talk to, why are you spending your time and energy, and affection, with someone that's not really there, someone so based on memories perhaps...or a kind of...symbol? What about a long distance relationship that takes time and energy and affection, that affects the way you live, the way you think, with...God? Is that...healthy? When does it cross the line? Could it ever?
symbol. fear. laughter. mockery.
Today let's discuss the meaning of a symbol.
A symbol is not of the same quality as the things we touch, the things we know. It has the power to unite and unify people, to converge interpretations onto a single thought if one authoritative interpretation is present. A symbol keeps people tamed. It should not be questioned, but I believe that we are reluctant to question the authority of a symbol because we are afraid that it will collapse. We are afraid that it is fragile in reality. Perhaps, we already know it is fragile and yet we hold on to it and try to keep it standing in order to avoid a collapse and uncertain disorder that we are not used to.
The jester in Andrei Rublev makes fun of the upper classes. He creates a story of a man in those upper classes who loses his beard, and with it is shamed even by his wife. It topples the order that we had that those people are respectable and should not be seen in such a despicable light, of having lost what is seen as a symbol of status, his beard. How he runs back home just like any creature, and how he is insulted by his wife...when the order is that a wife should not be disrespectful to a husband. And more so for people of that class. More so for the man of that class. It is mockery, and on one hand we laugh. The audience laughed. Why do we laugh at mockery? Why do we laugh? I remember one position vaguely, it being that we laugh at what we are afraid of. Perhaps we laugh at that because we are afraid of that happening in reality. It will shatter so much order that we feel comfortable in.
Women are not allowed to watch certain events. Should they see fear and pain in a man's eyes, will they still, and I'm refering to women of centuries ago, respect their men whom they have been brought up to see as a symbol. They have had little real contact. They don't know men, as men don't know women. They only know that they are the ones they look up to.
If God were mocked, we would laugh at God. Can you imagine if he had to go through the wretchedness of the world. If we personified God and imagined a scenario where he had insecurities or fallings. We shouldn't mock God. But firstly, we do not understand much of God enough to actually make a mockery. Whereas the mockery of a pope, should one tell the story of perhaps how he sat on a thumbnail and jumped up and for a moment lost dignity, we can actually think it true because we know the pope is a human.
A symbol seems to build artificial walls. But how artificial are they? And how good, or necessary are they? Good here is a very ambiguious term. Can we disrespect our parents? Can we be so liberal to consider ourselves equal human beings that our parents do not deserve a certain right over us? Or perhaps only up to a certain age? How do we determine the age? How wretched it would be to see a father as a symbol of love and strength, and to witness by chance or not a situation where he is getting scolded by his boss, or being fired, or finding himself helpless...etc. How wretched this world really is. That symbols are built and crushed. That apparently disorderliness seems to rule, and that acceptance of disorder is a defence mechanism against disappointment.
A symbol is not of the same quality as the things we touch, the things we know. It has the power to unite and unify people, to converge interpretations onto a single thought if one authoritative interpretation is present. A symbol keeps people tamed. It should not be questioned, but I believe that we are reluctant to question the authority of a symbol because we are afraid that it will collapse. We are afraid that it is fragile in reality. Perhaps, we already know it is fragile and yet we hold on to it and try to keep it standing in order to avoid a collapse and uncertain disorder that we are not used to.
The jester in Andrei Rublev makes fun of the upper classes. He creates a story of a man in those upper classes who loses his beard, and with it is shamed even by his wife. It topples the order that we had that those people are respectable and should not be seen in such a despicable light, of having lost what is seen as a symbol of status, his beard. How he runs back home just like any creature, and how he is insulted by his wife...when the order is that a wife should not be disrespectful to a husband. And more so for people of that class. More so for the man of that class. It is mockery, and on one hand we laugh. The audience laughed. Why do we laugh at mockery? Why do we laugh? I remember one position vaguely, it being that we laugh at what we are afraid of. Perhaps we laugh at that because we are afraid of that happening in reality. It will shatter so much order that we feel comfortable in.
Women are not allowed to watch certain events. Should they see fear and pain in a man's eyes, will they still, and I'm refering to women of centuries ago, respect their men whom they have been brought up to see as a symbol. They have had little real contact. They don't know men, as men don't know women. They only know that they are the ones they look up to.
If God were mocked, we would laugh at God. Can you imagine if he had to go through the wretchedness of the world. If we personified God and imagined a scenario where he had insecurities or fallings. We shouldn't mock God. But firstly, we do not understand much of God enough to actually make a mockery. Whereas the mockery of a pope, should one tell the story of perhaps how he sat on a thumbnail and jumped up and for a moment lost dignity, we can actually think it true because we know the pope is a human.
A symbol seems to build artificial walls. But how artificial are they? And how good, or necessary are they? Good here is a very ambiguious term. Can we disrespect our parents? Can we be so liberal to consider ourselves equal human beings that our parents do not deserve a certain right over us? Or perhaps only up to a certain age? How do we determine the age? How wretched it would be to see a father as a symbol of love and strength, and to witness by chance or not a situation where he is getting scolded by his boss, or being fired, or finding himself helpless...etc. How wretched this world really is. That symbols are built and crushed. That apparently disorderliness seems to rule, and that acceptance of disorder is a defence mechanism against disappointment.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Batman and the Joker.
Who is really delusional?
The one who believes that...well, what does Batman believe in anyway? Justice? Revenge? Maybe nothing? To have rules...to not kill his enemies? Belief that there is good in this world...in people? Belief in a deeper and greater something among people? Whatever it is, it's reflected in his behavior to some extent. Delusional?
Or...the Joker? who believes in chaos in the world, that underlying the brittle social structure set up by people or other living things, there is no real meaning? No real justification for anything? If that's what he believes...or perhaps he doesn't believe in that....maybe believes in nothing...or just doesn't believe in some particular thing that makes society tick.
Batman vs the Joker...and with guys like 2-face who apparently even becomes this other alter-ego called, i think, the Judge, walking around with a judge-like hammer but in sledgehammer form....is really a interesting look into...what would this be...philosophy?
Is courage noble but stupid? If you calculate and odds are in your favor to the degree that you are comfortable, are you still brave for going ahead? If odds aren't good enough and you still go ahead for perhaps the ideal of a greater purposes or something...is that just stupidity, pure risk-taking? Or does that moment of bravery actually cause your odds to go up?
Is hope also just a drug? Is religion a drug? I'm not saying that religion(s) are false or that the particular God in a religion does not exist. But religion, as far as we know it and practice it...especially when it pivots mainly on "faith" ant that point where we cannot further explain according to our observations, rules and laws (which by themselves could already be utterly misguided and formulated according to all sorts of things, like public opinion, like the words of someone hundreds of years back and upon this history is taken as an authority...etc)...is it also not justified according to...say science or logic? And if one follows science or logic, then do we reach contradictions? Can we take both sides of the fence? Is it good to "not take ourselves too seriously" in such affairs? Or is taking both sides of the fence perfectly fine except it has gotten a bad name?
Who is really delusional?
The one who believes that...well, what does Batman believe in anyway? Justice? Revenge? Maybe nothing? To have rules...to not kill his enemies? Belief that there is good in this world...in people? Belief in a deeper and greater something among people? Whatever it is, it's reflected in his behavior to some extent. Delusional?
Or...the Joker? who believes in chaos in the world, that underlying the brittle social structure set up by people or other living things, there is no real meaning? No real justification for anything? If that's what he believes...or perhaps he doesn't believe in that....maybe believes in nothing...or just doesn't believe in some particular thing that makes society tick.
Batman vs the Joker...and with guys like 2-face who apparently even becomes this other alter-ego called, i think, the Judge, walking around with a judge-like hammer but in sledgehammer form....is really a interesting look into...what would this be...philosophy?
Is courage noble but stupid? If you calculate and odds are in your favor to the degree that you are comfortable, are you still brave for going ahead? If odds aren't good enough and you still go ahead for perhaps the ideal of a greater purposes or something...is that just stupidity, pure risk-taking? Or does that moment of bravery actually cause your odds to go up?
Is hope also just a drug? Is religion a drug? I'm not saying that religion(s) are false or that the particular God in a religion does not exist. But religion, as far as we know it and practice it...especially when it pivots mainly on "faith" ant that point where we cannot further explain according to our observations, rules and laws (which by themselves could already be utterly misguided and formulated according to all sorts of things, like public opinion, like the words of someone hundreds of years back and upon this history is taken as an authority...etc)...is it also not justified according to...say science or logic? And if one follows science or logic, then do we reach contradictions? Can we take both sides of the fence? Is it good to "not take ourselves too seriously" in such affairs? Or is taking both sides of the fence perfectly fine except it has gotten a bad name?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Presidential victory for Obama.
Yesterday, Barack Obama became the president elect of the United States of America.
For many, this is hailed as a milestone in the history of America, a landmark in the country's progression. But for some like myself, the impact did not really hit until I was flooded with news that talk about this being a historic day. Perhaps I am not an American. Perhaps, I am not African-American, or black for that matter. Perhaps, I am not a Democrat. I am only a bystander living in the United States at the moment.
The important lesson reinforced yesterday to me was that at the point of change, change may not be obvious. At a grand and historic moment in history, the people living in it may feel nothing special or nothing comparable to what history lessons of the future may portray it to be. Unless perhaps you are in the actual heat of it all be it a trader in Wall Street when the economic crisis hits, a mid-range supervisor in a prestigious bank when it collapses, or an African American who has lived through the times when they were not given equal rights as whites up to the time when an African America takes office in arguably the same and most powerful and influential nation in the world.
In the future, with the benefit of hindsight and lacking the benefit of actual experiencing of the moment, causes will undoubtedly be assigned to explain the unfolding of certain events. Analysis of some sort will reveal why the economy took a downturn. Sometimes, these occurrences will then be said to have been inevitable, or obvious in the coming. But who can really foresee the future. The fog of war is the same fog of the future. When you are living in a moment, nothing really is apparent. The linking of causes to effects are not so casual. Perhaps we are blinded and unable to see the big picture at the time. Or perhaps, the causes and effects being linked together is a far more complicated thing, maybe even one out of a hundred possible and equally credible cause and effect relationship, and that in hindsight a specific cause and effect gains popularity for any form of reasons and also undergoes simplification.
For classification is simplification. And we need to classify. When I say "Boston Terrier", one can imagine a Boston Terrier probably not by the words itself or the sound, but the image it brings to one's mind. Depending on one's exposure thus far, one will see a Boston Terrier in many ways. Language is a code and accuracy of transmission from one mental image of one person to another requires both parties to have the same version of encrypting and decrypting tools. And, even in elementary school, we learn Classification. The world is classified. Jeans and shirts...they are clothings. Cars and Computers....Hmm....well, shall we classify them as things that start with C? No, probably we will prefer to classify them as Machinery. But classification is only useful for some times and should not be overemphasized. Cars and computers are quite different things. Classification nonetheless helps us speed up our thoughts for useful purposes in the world. Similar for stereotypes. And Obama's presidency will be seen along side other winnings of the presidency. Causes are needed. Direct links are needed. We need to explain our world. And rightly so, though it will blur out finer details. Different offee may appear all the same to many of us but to an expert, they are very very different.
It is like the "scaling" properties of things. A rock looks like a rock. A bunch of rocks together making a big rock, like one in the badlands, from far looks just like that first rock. Take that first rock, look at it under a microscope, and it is made of tiny similar rocks. To see the big picture is to flatten things out.
What does Obama's winning (assuming the electoral college voting goes as expected without more than 70 or so faithless electors), mean? Let's hope he really means change, and that he really brings about change, in a good way...good for those who want change and good for those who don't need change. The next two years, I hope, will be an exciting time for me to watch from Boston.
For many, this is hailed as a milestone in the history of America, a landmark in the country's progression. But for some like myself, the impact did not really hit until I was flooded with news that talk about this being a historic day. Perhaps I am not an American. Perhaps, I am not African-American, or black for that matter. Perhaps, I am not a Democrat. I am only a bystander living in the United States at the moment.
The important lesson reinforced yesterday to me was that at the point of change, change may not be obvious. At a grand and historic moment in history, the people living in it may feel nothing special or nothing comparable to what history lessons of the future may portray it to be. Unless perhaps you are in the actual heat of it all be it a trader in Wall Street when the economic crisis hits, a mid-range supervisor in a prestigious bank when it collapses, or an African American who has lived through the times when they were not given equal rights as whites up to the time when an African America takes office in arguably the same and most powerful and influential nation in the world.
In the future, with the benefit of hindsight and lacking the benefit of actual experiencing of the moment, causes will undoubtedly be assigned to explain the unfolding of certain events. Analysis of some sort will reveal why the economy took a downturn. Sometimes, these occurrences will then be said to have been inevitable, or obvious in the coming. But who can really foresee the future. The fog of war is the same fog of the future. When you are living in a moment, nothing really is apparent. The linking of causes to effects are not so casual. Perhaps we are blinded and unable to see the big picture at the time. Or perhaps, the causes and effects being linked together is a far more complicated thing, maybe even one out of a hundred possible and equally credible cause and effect relationship, and that in hindsight a specific cause and effect gains popularity for any form of reasons and also undergoes simplification.
For classification is simplification. And we need to classify. When I say "Boston Terrier", one can imagine a Boston Terrier probably not by the words itself or the sound, but the image it brings to one's mind. Depending on one's exposure thus far, one will see a Boston Terrier in many ways. Language is a code and accuracy of transmission from one mental image of one person to another requires both parties to have the same version of encrypting and decrypting tools. And, even in elementary school, we learn Classification. The world is classified. Jeans and shirts...they are clothings. Cars and Computers....Hmm....well, shall we classify them as things that start with C? No, probably we will prefer to classify them as Machinery. But classification is only useful for some times and should not be overemphasized. Cars and computers are quite different things. Classification nonetheless helps us speed up our thoughts for useful purposes in the world. Similar for stereotypes. And Obama's presidency will be seen along side other winnings of the presidency. Causes are needed. Direct links are needed. We need to explain our world. And rightly so, though it will blur out finer details. Different offee may appear all the same to many of us but to an expert, they are very very different.
It is like the "scaling" properties of things. A rock looks like a rock. A bunch of rocks together making a big rock, like one in the badlands, from far looks just like that first rock. Take that first rock, look at it under a microscope, and it is made of tiny similar rocks. To see the big picture is to flatten things out.
What does Obama's winning (assuming the electoral college voting goes as expected without more than 70 or so faithless electors), mean? Let's hope he really means change, and that he really brings about change, in a good way...good for those who want change and good for those who don't need change. The next two years, I hope, will be an exciting time for me to watch from Boston.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
perrytong.blogspot.com
http://parlerment.blogspot.com/2006/07/language-cleansing-evils-of-speak.html
ahh! so late!
Read the blogs, read the books (ah, books are insufficient now. to keep up with modern and ever changing views of casual people, blogs and newspaper forums will come in handy), and you know what? You should talk to people about these issues. Have a discussion.
Of course, A Sleepwalking Land is getting very boring. It is written in such a strange format, all allegorical. But perhaps in such a book, the content is less important than the language and descriptions that portray a set of mentalities - in this case African mentality, though not generalized. For Russian mentalities of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Dostoevsky is always available for reading. *wink wink*
Unless you've got the time, perhaps that should wrap up "African studies" for now, having Things Fall Apart completed as well. For further readings in the future, search for the "12 best African novels" online and add Arrow of God.
For "Economic studies", there is an insane amount to be done. Moreover, it is constantly on-going and evolving. Start with Hot, Flat & Crowded to level the playing field. To know what other business oriented people might be influenced by and therefore are more inclined to think, reading the top books based on sales may be a good start. Freakanomics seemed popular, although it may not be my taste. I think it would be useful to learn the history behind the modern system of money and banking and a book from the Mises Institute may be fitting for this. I also suggest reading The Post American World.
"Linguistic studies" will be definitely useful and interesting as I continue my university education in this field. Its concepts can be applied to any language being learned to make it much more interesting. There is also a treasure in my possession and that is Singlish. Studies have surely been made on this creole language and it will serve well for a Singaporean interested in linguistics to analyze Singlish.
"International Relations", "Political studies" and "History" will also account for a wealth of knowledge. Knowledge about Singapore in every aspect is essential to becoming a good commentator of the country and its policies. Areas like its "Speak Mandarin, No Speak Dialect" or equivalent campaign can be scrutinized, observing "social engineering" and attempted "linguicide" as quoted from other sources. Its education system and policies will be a very interesting area for critical analysis.
Night makes a great book to be read not only because of its international fame but also because its author is a professor at my university.
Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann.
http://parlerment.blogspot.com/2006/07/language-cleansing-evils-of-speak.html
ahh! so late!
Read the blogs, read the books (ah, books are insufficient now. to keep up with modern and ever changing views of casual people, blogs and newspaper forums will come in handy), and you know what? You should talk to people about these issues. Have a discussion.
Of course, A Sleepwalking Land is getting very boring. It is written in such a strange format, all allegorical. But perhaps in such a book, the content is less important than the language and descriptions that portray a set of mentalities - in this case African mentality, though not generalized. For Russian mentalities of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Dostoevsky is always available for reading. *wink wink*
Unless you've got the time, perhaps that should wrap up "African studies" for now, having Things Fall Apart completed as well. For further readings in the future, search for the "12 best African novels" online and add Arrow of God.
For "Economic studies", there is an insane amount to be done. Moreover, it is constantly on-going and evolving. Start with Hot, Flat & Crowded to level the playing field. To know what other business oriented people might be influenced by and therefore are more inclined to think, reading the top books based on sales may be a good start. Freakanomics seemed popular, although it may not be my taste. I think it would be useful to learn the history behind the modern system of money and banking and a book from the Mises Institute may be fitting for this. I also suggest reading The Post American World.
"Linguistic studies" will be definitely useful and interesting as I continue my university education in this field. Its concepts can be applied to any language being learned to make it much more interesting. There is also a treasure in my possession and that is Singlish. Studies have surely been made on this creole language and it will serve well for a Singaporean interested in linguistics to analyze Singlish.
"International Relations", "Political studies" and "History" will also account for a wealth of knowledge. Knowledge about Singapore in every aspect is essential to becoming a good commentator of the country and its policies. Areas like its "Speak Mandarin, No Speak Dialect" or equivalent campaign can be scrutinized, observing "social engineering" and attempted "linguicide" as quoted from other sources. Its education system and policies will be a very interesting area for critical analysis.
Night makes a great book to be read not only because of its international fame but also because its author is a professor at my university.
Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Cops...
Newlywed shot dead by cops in his yard
A story on CNN's website today. Can you imagine, the wife of this man, having her beloved killed on her wedding day? Her biggest day, her new life...she is widowed on the day she leaves her family to start a new life. And the shooter...cops....COPS....
You think it would be better if the groom had been killed by a thug instead?
Or if he was injured and left crippled on this day instead?
Of course, surely being mistaken shot in your yard by COPS 20 years after your marriage probably should be as big a deal. It's just more musical to die and be widowed on your wedding day. Which is why I lied so far...he didn't die on his wedding day. But he got married just a few days ago. Shot...bang bang...
By COPS...
Cops who were chasing burglar suspects...looks like the groom was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Cops shot without verifying his identity. But then, could they without risking their lives?
who are these cops anyway? Brings the question, how good are these cops? Are they men of highest virtue selected to police the country and enforce the law? Or are they just people who have few other job options. And what's going through their heads? Are they seeking action...do they love holding a gun...do they have fantasies of being in a battle...have 80s and 90s cop vs thug movies as their vision of their job? Can they be trusted and given a gun?
Are they neutral in matters such as race...?
What is their idea of justice...?
If cops can be armed...perhaps that's the best justification I have had so far of why owning a gun should be legal in the country. Because you don't know when you'll meet some idiot with a gun, and if guns are only available to cops, then that idiot might just be a cop. Except...you can't shoot a cop, so idiot cops are granted immunity from the bullets of righteous citizens. Bet most of you don't remember that Rambo was a idiot-cop shooter.
But then Rambo was fine...because after his psychotic jihad against the idiot cops, he was either living peacefully in another country or serving in the military. He wasn't gonna be around civilians or our streets posing a threat. Nah, he was killing those justified to be killed by his commanders, in battlefields. Idiot cops, should be promoted to the military...away from peaceful settlements...
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
things fall apart
interesting book. didn't know where it was leading, which caused me not to have any pre-conceived endings. Though at times, I anticipate that a certain part is the turning point of the book and that the main novel revolves about that event and its consequences, with the hint coming only from its title...it turns out not to be so. In fact, it is great because it is like life. just going though, and yet not boring. and yet all the parts of the novel served a purpose. skillfully done, with all the previous parts turning out to be a good foundation for the last part and last events, which aren't too heavily harped upon either. it is like taking gathering information about many things over time, and one day encountering a period when all those u gathered became useful the understand one momentful week of your life. good book.
spoilers ahead. i recommend reading the book without wiki-ing it or anything. it is short after all. and preferable without reading the summary if any on your book back cover. :)
how ignorant and arrogant are we when we don't actually fully understand a type of people and make judgments on them...more so when we have power over them. shows ignorance and arrogance of the westerners colonizing africa. like how different classes may look down on the lower classes. personal experience for me was in the military when i mingled with people different from those i was more naturally meeting in school.
also, religion...terrible...won't argue about the validity of the religion. but the way it is used...abused....the initial aims of the missionaries may be good.....i expect the things they belief and talk about to be what i experience in church when i was young...sounds all good and all that...like going out to convert ppl...to the one true God....face difficulties....must reach the lost....oh the devil has strong hold over the lost....etc. but from the other point of view, especially since missionaries tend to be imperfect, and in the book even had their own government set up according to their rules...which they deem fair. they think throwing away twin babies is evil....fair enough i can undestand. but the igbo people have long believed they were evil babies of some sort. they had their rituals. religion is powerful....gets into the minds of people...crusades, islamic terrorists...etc but maybe not merely abused by misinterpreted...or just interpretated differently and is realized differently. First pastor in missionaries had gentle approach. peaceful. 2nd was more radical. both probably have their justifications. district commissioner doesn't understand the people. concerned with his career and thinks he knows enough to write what he was going to call "The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of the Lower Niger". What an insult to the africans. pacification? primitive? moreover, a man had hung himself. and they were more peaceful and forgiving that the missionaries in the book whose company beat and hanged people.
spoilers ahead. i recommend reading the book without wiki-ing it or anything. it is short after all. and preferable without reading the summary if any on your book back cover. :)
how ignorant and arrogant are we when we don't actually fully understand a type of people and make judgments on them...more so when we have power over them. shows ignorance and arrogance of the westerners colonizing africa. like how different classes may look down on the lower classes. personal experience for me was in the military when i mingled with people different from those i was more naturally meeting in school.
also, religion...terrible...won't argue about the validity of the religion. but the way it is used...abused....the initial aims of the missionaries may be good.....i expect the things they belief and talk about to be what i experience in church when i was young...sounds all good and all that...like going out to convert ppl...to the one true God....face difficulties....must reach the lost....oh the devil has strong hold over the lost....etc. but from the other point of view, especially since missionaries tend to be imperfect, and in the book even had their own government set up according to their rules...which they deem fair. they think throwing away twin babies is evil....fair enough i can undestand. but the igbo people have long believed they were evil babies of some sort. they had their rituals. religion is powerful....gets into the minds of people...crusades, islamic terrorists...etc but maybe not merely abused by misinterpreted...or just interpretated differently and is realized differently. First pastor in missionaries had gentle approach. peaceful. 2nd was more radical. both probably have their justifications. district commissioner doesn't understand the people. concerned with his career and thinks he knows enough to write what he was going to call "The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of the Lower Niger". What an insult to the africans. pacification? primitive? moreover, a man had hung himself. and they were more peaceful and forgiving that the missionaries in the book whose company beat and hanged people.
the kite runner
not much to comment on this. just a short glimpse of afghanistan...some cultural aspects...and the change from peace to troubles...
most striking thing, perhaps what the whole novel leads up to, was when it talks about how forgiveness just crept in.
"I slipped the picture back where I had found it. Then I realized something: That last thought iI had brought no sting with it. Closing Sohrab's door, I wondered if that was how forgiveness budded, not with the fanfare of epiphany, but with pain gathering its things, packing up, and slipping away unannounced in the middle of the night."
i guess many things are like that. not just bitterness. but even sadness....it harps on you so much, u feel desperate....but suddenly, u're fine and u never worry. though it may not last, the sadness did not go away with a boom. neither does glory always come with fanfare. something you achieve something, and it's just that. maybe scoring a winning goal in the world cup finals would be different.
most striking thing, perhaps what the whole novel leads up to, was when it talks about how forgiveness just crept in.
"I slipped the picture back where I had found it. Then I realized something: That last thought iI had brought no sting with it. Closing Sohrab's door, I wondered if that was how forgiveness budded, not with the fanfare of epiphany, but with pain gathering its things, packing up, and slipping away unannounced in the middle of the night."
i guess many things are like that. not just bitterness. but even sadness....it harps on you so much, u feel desperate....but suddenly, u're fine and u never worry. though it may not last, the sadness did not go away with a boom. neither does glory always come with fanfare. something you achieve something, and it's just that. maybe scoring a winning goal in the world cup finals would be different.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
future.
ah! where is my future now? It all started when I became 21. Suddenly, without me feeling the real impact it would have on me, I left Singapore for an education in America. How long would I be there? What was the system like there? I didn't know. What was I going to be after I graduate? Where was my future headed toward? Ohhh...such questions...terrible questions. The future is so uncertain. Yes there is the common phrase that people often don't end up doing what they studied in university, or that university is when you discover yourself. But I don't like the uncertainty. I wish I had just gone into a vocational concentration like engineering, medicine, law, or architecture in Singapore. Why was I in America? I could study the same things back home if it were these vocational fields of education. As it turns out, university is a time of discovering about myself. But probably every period in time is a time of discovery anyway.
What am I going to do with a degree in Linguistics? A science. I think of it more as a social science. I like to slap the word "pseudoscience" on it. Oh, people are going to say "Oh! How many languages do you speak?" as if Linguistics was the acquiring of as many languages as needed for graduation. I'd have to answer "Oh, just two. English, half of Mandarin (I'm already being generous), and half of Russian (likely more generous here)."
They'd probably go, "Ooooh, that's nice."
As if speaking 2 or even 3 languages these days is anything special. I'd need to know Arabic, Spanish and Hindi to command some respect.
Well, I'd learned what I didn't want to do. Or at least I had more doubts about more things that before and more openness to others that I had shut out at first glance. I know I didn't want to study business because I thought that what corresponded to success in business, even in the educational aspect of it, was not intelligence in the kind of knowledge a school or classroom education can give but height and public relational skills. I took science courses and university halted there. I was transported and floated in a period of Junior College and Secondary School. Eventually I decided that a liberal arts education did not seem worth the money paid for the university education. I could probably read it elsewhere myself anyway. I should be studying something that gives me a job when I graduate! Ah!! But in the liberal arts, where does that lead? Everywhere and nowhere. That's the thing. Economics looked promising if not for some influences on my life that has made me doubtful of economics especially in its prescriptive-ness, but the bigger problem with economics was that there were just too many people doing it. The competition would be high. Too many people within my school, or from the people I had met to constitute my sample group, and too many other smart people in nearby Harvard and probably even M.I.T. to compete with.
But Linguistics is not the source of my troubles. I am happy with it. The stress comes from expectation.
My parents want me to become a doctor. a doctor? Oh my gosh. It is prestigious, it pays well, the working hours aren't my main problem with being a doctor. In fact, I don't mind being a doctor. But wait, really? Well, I discovered America only two years ago and man is it different from Singapore. Back home, we're a small place. Now, studying to be a doctor in America might, who knows, lead me to become a doctor in America. Stay in America?? Ah. Well, it's not too bad I suppose. But wait, which part? What if the job is not in the city? It's horrible! I can't spend the next decades of my life in Indiana driving to the 5-storied and tallest building in the nearby region to work with blood and coughing, sad looking, grumpy people amongst the smell of antiseptic. Life is not like "Scrubs". Oh my gosh! Moreover, blood and naked tissues, physical pain and mental numbness...these aren't my fortes. I'm not a true Spartan! And I'm not a masochist. I don't want to deal with light but intensely bright blood, viscous fluids like puss or mucus, or slice up a person and sew him back like a toy! Well, people can get used to anything. But I'm not exactly inclined to want that. It would be so much easier if I didn't have a choice. It even took me long seconds before I was able to pierce the prawns I caught straight from the water and hold them as they struggle, their life essence almost transferring with sick and innocent cries from their inanimate shells to my fingers, and then laying them up orderly like soldiers on my BBQ grill. The only thing short of making me a monster that moment was my ironic allergy to prawns. Wait, maybe that makes it more monstrous. But I don't have an allergy to humans, sickness or blood. So I theoretically could be a doctor. Oh No! But there are people who aren't allergic to prawns and don't want to eat it!
I'd rather go to do law. Law is prestigious. Maybe looked upon in a different light nonetheless. But it is more appealing to wear shirts and suits, hold briefcases, attend boring meetings in classy buildings, spend hours working on a computer and having none of it actually used, never having the fun of court moments as in "Boston Legal" et cetera, than it is to be a doctor. The pay is good. And I would be closer to the world - more meaningless than the doctor's world though it might be. I can picture having a drink after work nearby in the city. I picture doctors sipping coffee in the eatery.
And the MCAT. Oh my gosh. I'd rather sit for the LSAT. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but the MCAT means a lot of studying of science and things that I have no more love for. LSAT on the other hand is about logical arguments and critical breaking down of things or creating effective categorizations. Well well...that sounds more fun for the nerd I try to be! I don't want to know about chiral molecules, or about benzene, or have every boy's childhood fantasy "physics" degraded to a enemy of my future holding a spear that is the short time I have to neutralize it, or about the frickin' animal anatomy, or the names and processes of the cells. Plants are okay; I developed a recent fascination for them, especially for fungi and its mycelium.
But I want to do my family proud. This is my life. But life is so fragile. Life is so...meaningless, in the grand scheme of things (if any). And so, living for myself is also so futile. Maybe I should live to do my parents proud. After all, people can adapt to anything and I'm not being in denial here. I just have too much choice. The choices that give me something to regret. Damn you choice! I am only a sheep-like human. I am no God. I cannot cope with excess choice! Give me back my innocence. Send me back to the matrix. Give me back my humanity!
Ahhh.......so I sit here on my bed, in this wonderful hotel, with fresh city wind coming in through my window opening slit, a night view of the city and a river that does not let this place become still and stale....and I do not know where I am going. And as long as I do not know, I am happy. When I think I am going where I want, I am alright. But when I hear those words on the phone and the joyful tones that are covered over and in it, my heart sinks....and I don't know what to do. I must, begin on my preparations. And I must go one way. One way or the highway. One way or into the river (metaphorically, don't worry).
What am I going to do with a degree in Linguistics? A science. I think of it more as a social science. I like to slap the word "pseudoscience" on it. Oh, people are going to say "Oh! How many languages do you speak?" as if Linguistics was the acquiring of as many languages as needed for graduation. I'd have to answer "Oh, just two. English, half of Mandarin (I'm already being generous), and half of Russian (likely more generous here)."
They'd probably go, "Ooooh, that's nice."
As if speaking 2 or even 3 languages these days is anything special. I'd need to know Arabic, Spanish and Hindi to command some respect.
Well, I'd learned what I didn't want to do. Or at least I had more doubts about more things that before and more openness to others that I had shut out at first glance. I know I didn't want to study business because I thought that what corresponded to success in business, even in the educational aspect of it, was not intelligence in the kind of knowledge a school or classroom education can give but height and public relational skills. I took science courses and university halted there. I was transported and floated in a period of Junior College and Secondary School. Eventually I decided that a liberal arts education did not seem worth the money paid for the university education. I could probably read it elsewhere myself anyway. I should be studying something that gives me a job when I graduate! Ah!! But in the liberal arts, where does that lead? Everywhere and nowhere. That's the thing. Economics looked promising if not for some influences on my life that has made me doubtful of economics especially in its prescriptive-ness, but the bigger problem with economics was that there were just too many people doing it. The competition would be high. Too many people within my school, or from the people I had met to constitute my sample group, and too many other smart people in nearby Harvard and probably even M.I.T. to compete with.
But Linguistics is not the source of my troubles. I am happy with it. The stress comes from expectation.
My parents want me to become a doctor. a doctor? Oh my gosh. It is prestigious, it pays well, the working hours aren't my main problem with being a doctor. In fact, I don't mind being a doctor. But wait, really? Well, I discovered America only two years ago and man is it different from Singapore. Back home, we're a small place. Now, studying to be a doctor in America might, who knows, lead me to become a doctor in America. Stay in America?? Ah. Well, it's not too bad I suppose. But wait, which part? What if the job is not in the city? It's horrible! I can't spend the next decades of my life in Indiana driving to the 5-storied and tallest building in the nearby region to work with blood and coughing, sad looking, grumpy people amongst the smell of antiseptic. Life is not like "Scrubs". Oh my gosh! Moreover, blood and naked tissues, physical pain and mental numbness...these aren't my fortes. I'm not a true Spartan! And I'm not a masochist. I don't want to deal with light but intensely bright blood, viscous fluids like puss or mucus, or slice up a person and sew him back like a toy! Well, people can get used to anything. But I'm not exactly inclined to want that. It would be so much easier if I didn't have a choice. It even took me long seconds before I was able to pierce the prawns I caught straight from the water and hold them as they struggle, their life essence almost transferring with sick and innocent cries from their inanimate shells to my fingers, and then laying them up orderly like soldiers on my BBQ grill. The only thing short of making me a monster that moment was my ironic allergy to prawns. Wait, maybe that makes it more monstrous. But I don't have an allergy to humans, sickness or blood. So I theoretically could be a doctor. Oh No! But there are people who aren't allergic to prawns and don't want to eat it!
I'd rather go to do law. Law is prestigious. Maybe looked upon in a different light nonetheless. But it is more appealing to wear shirts and suits, hold briefcases, attend boring meetings in classy buildings, spend hours working on a computer and having none of it actually used, never having the fun of court moments as in "Boston Legal" et cetera, than it is to be a doctor. The pay is good. And I would be closer to the world - more meaningless than the doctor's world though it might be. I can picture having a drink after work nearby in the city. I picture doctors sipping coffee in the eatery.
And the MCAT. Oh my gosh. I'd rather sit for the LSAT. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but the MCAT means a lot of studying of science and things that I have no more love for. LSAT on the other hand is about logical arguments and critical breaking down of things or creating effective categorizations. Well well...that sounds more fun for the nerd I try to be! I don't want to know about chiral molecules, or about benzene, or have every boy's childhood fantasy "physics" degraded to a enemy of my future holding a spear that is the short time I have to neutralize it, or about the frickin' animal anatomy, or the names and processes of the cells. Plants are okay; I developed a recent fascination for them, especially for fungi and its mycelium.
But I want to do my family proud. This is my life. But life is so fragile. Life is so...meaningless, in the grand scheme of things (if any). And so, living for myself is also so futile. Maybe I should live to do my parents proud. After all, people can adapt to anything and I'm not being in denial here. I just have too much choice. The choices that give me something to regret. Damn you choice! I am only a sheep-like human. I am no God. I cannot cope with excess choice! Give me back my innocence. Send me back to the matrix. Give me back my humanity!
Ahhh.......so I sit here on my bed, in this wonderful hotel, with fresh city wind coming in through my window opening slit, a night view of the city and a river that does not let this place become still and stale....and I do not know where I am going. And as long as I do not know, I am happy. When I think I am going where I want, I am alright. But when I hear those words on the phone and the joyful tones that are covered over and in it, my heart sinks....and I don't know what to do. I must, begin on my preparations. And I must go one way. One way or the highway. One way or into the river (metaphorically, don't worry).
Monday, October 6, 2008
evolution of written language.
languages probably started as speech, maybe first to grammar, but eventually for many to the written. maybe even before it became written, the concept of the breakdown of a word was already created in our heads.
how do we classify english as alphabet based and japanese as syllabary based if not for the written forms (or even the adoption of alphabets to explain the sounds of a japanese minimal sound, as we also do so when we written the pin yin of mandarin)?
today i am thinking about English, since it is the language i use most. it seems that the written form of it was transcribed phonetically. we assigned "a" to a certain sound (as it turns out, we have more than one sound assigned to "a" as we have "air" for the first "a" in "Africa", and "ahh" for the last "a". In "Goldman", it is "err" and there wil be many more). So maybe i just contradicted myself. Did we derive "a" phonetically? if we did, we jumped too far ahead, because later we would break it down using tools like the International Phonetic Alphabet. those alphabets are greatly reduced in ambiguity.
so, why don't we spell phonetically and write with IPA alphabets? it it just because we have already a strong writing system in place? Where did this alphabet system come from?
What is more concerning is this. What if we did create the alphabets phonetically? What if we has decided "rock" would be spelt "rock" because we managed to break down the word we spoke into 4 sounds (r, o, c, k) and we created the spelling? maybe we were not smart enough as we seem to be now then and did not realize that we had ambiguity in our pronunciation of our primitive alphabets. why does IPA use 3 alphabets? was "ck" considered one sound then and now considered one under a new symbol used in the IPA?
english surely isn't a great example because it's derived from older roots like latin right? or greek? or both and more probably. why, in english and other languages (for now i can only think on alphabet based ones and not others like Chinese) do we have a spelling that does not immediately show the pronunciation? I had learnt to read from those alphabets. why do we have silent alphabets? perhaps we simplified languages over the centuries too much (which makes it less complex though, surely?). how do we relate spelling and pronunciation now?
maybe...the alphabet isn't as strong an influence as the smaller words we had come to learn through the alphabets and then adjusted in terms of sounds. Like "work", pronounced (by me at least, i am quite sure same for most others to consider this the 'right' version) "werk". so maybe we used the 4 alphabets at first to make "werrr...orrr....rrrr....kkhh"..."woorrrkh"..."workh" and then we decided it would be "werk". and so now, "working" is "werking", "workplace" is "werkplace".....then...."world" extracted "wor" as "wer" and made "world" into "werld".....or do you say it some other way? maybe..."werl"? and so a big bunch of strange rules appearing almost with some and no logic took over everything.
anyway, since this is just academic....i can find more info online when i have the time.
how do we classify english as alphabet based and japanese as syllabary based if not for the written forms (or even the adoption of alphabets to explain the sounds of a japanese minimal sound, as we also do so when we written the pin yin of mandarin)?
today i am thinking about English, since it is the language i use most. it seems that the written form of it was transcribed phonetically. we assigned "a" to a certain sound (as it turns out, we have more than one sound assigned to "a" as we have "air" for the first "a" in "Africa", and "ahh" for the last "a". In "Goldman", it is "err" and there wil be many more). So maybe i just contradicted myself. Did we derive "a" phonetically? if we did, we jumped too far ahead, because later we would break it down using tools like the International Phonetic Alphabet. those alphabets are greatly reduced in ambiguity.
so, why don't we spell phonetically and write with IPA alphabets? it it just because we have already a strong writing system in place? Where did this alphabet system come from?
What is more concerning is this. What if we did create the alphabets phonetically? What if we has decided "rock" would be spelt "rock" because we managed to break down the word we spoke into 4 sounds (r, o, c, k) and we created the spelling? maybe we were not smart enough as we seem to be now then and did not realize that we had ambiguity in our pronunciation of our primitive alphabets. why does IPA use 3 alphabets? was "ck" considered one sound then and now considered one under a new symbol used in the IPA?
english surely isn't a great example because it's derived from older roots like latin right? or greek? or both and more probably. why, in english and other languages (for now i can only think on alphabet based ones and not others like Chinese) do we have a spelling that does not immediately show the pronunciation? I had learnt to read from those alphabets. why do we have silent alphabets? perhaps we simplified languages over the centuries too much (which makes it less complex though, surely?). how do we relate spelling and pronunciation now?
maybe...the alphabet isn't as strong an influence as the smaller words we had come to learn through the alphabets and then adjusted in terms of sounds. Like "work", pronounced (by me at least, i am quite sure same for most others to consider this the 'right' version) "werk". so maybe we used the 4 alphabets at first to make "werrr...orrr....rrrr....kkhh"..."woorrrkh"..."workh" and then we decided it would be "werk". and so now, "working" is "werking", "workplace" is "werkplace".....then...."world" extracted "wor" as "wer" and made "world" into "werld".....or do you say it some other way? maybe..."werl"? and so a big bunch of strange rules appearing almost with some and no logic took over everything.
anyway, since this is just academic....i can find more info online when i have the time.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Bailout, without a fight.
263-171 from 228-205.
Apparently, the bailout has become more receptive with the added 100 billion dollars worth of tax breaks in various matters such as movie production, wooden arrows of some sort for children, racetrack ownership, and in perhaps the more useful field of alternate energy. But what has all these got to do with the subprime crisis? Apparently $17b in tax incentives for alternate energy, but $700b elsewhere. Which part of the bailout or rescue plan is a rescue, and who is being rescued?
What will happen with $700b pumped into the economy? Unless basic monetary policy is not sufficient here due to the complexities of the real world, more money of such high quantities will create inflation. Higher prices on goods. Lower purchasing power of the American dollar. Prices of bread may rise and the same will follow for milk, eggs, candies, soda, clothing, gadgets, and even oil. After all, taxes on oil and gas production is set to be raised to fund the bill's incentives for green energy. In the big picture, that may encourage companies to move toward a more environmental source of energy production and expedite the move to eco-friendly fuel. Thomas Friedman may be getting the results of his arguments. However, I suspect that a switch to green energy is not going to be swift and easy and the average American is still running his or her vehicle on oil. Oil prices have gone up from about $2 per gallon to over $4 per gallon in two years. Can we expect oil prices to fall in the future? No. Firstly, people are so dependent on oil in america and the producers have so much more power than the consumers that they would not consider dropping prices for the welfare of the people at the expense of their revenue or profit. Secondly, oil production has gone up and so this cost, in this oligopoly, will be reflected back onto the consumers. Surely, oil prices will jump. With an increase in prices of commodities, the bailout has yet to address the common person. Will any of the $700 billion of the bailout or the $100 billion in tax breaks go toward subsidising the commodities that the average person considers a neccessary good? I don't know. But as of yet, I have heard nothing about that. If there is indeed subsidising on these products, does it cover the negative impacts the bill would have financially cost? Will solar powered sedans be available at competitive prices to the public soon? Will they be subsidized so the less affluent people in the country can trade their oil-dependent vehicles for something that runs cheaper?
Here, Thomas Friedman will be disappointed with the truth of his analogy of nobody wanting to pay extra to have his lamp powered by green technology when he already has light from his lamp. Perhaps he would if he knew that a non-green technology driven lamp will not be available during his time due to decreasing natural resources. But oil is not exactly running out in the lifetimes of the leaders of the nation. Will the goverment spend money to subsidise the people and help usher an era where funding will no longer be available from the taxation of oil? When J.P. Morgan found out that Nikola Tesla's free power Wardenclyffe Tower would conflict with the idea of a meter to charge for electricity or for the need to construct cables for the transmission of electricity, both ways through which a business was possible, investing came to a halt and was advised against by Morgan himself. Unlimited and free electrical and related power in the world, were it truly possible by Tesla's tower, was denied to the world in place for monetary profit. Surely the national government must have known of Tesla's project, if for no other reason but national secutiry. Surely, it could have provided the funds if it so desired as it would later fund space exploration. And surely the priorities of the governments and the nature of men have not changed considerably to warrant trust over distrust that one should expect government support toward free energy.
Tax breaks are instead directed into movie production. While some may consider movies a neccessary good, the vast abundance of entertainment available for free on the internet should not make it as important a product as basic groceries or oil. When Merill Lynch is being bought over and other financial institutions are collapsing at the benefit to the surviving players, the cost of making a movie is getting cheaper. The government is claiming less money from the movie production industry for its budget and probably going to claim it instead from somewhere else, possibly the households. Racing car tracks will be taxed less. Who will be taxed in its place? After all, $700 billion dollars and more is being transferred out to save the financial institutions troubled by the subprime crisis. Will the money come from withdrawing military prescence in the Middle East? The tax breaks for those industries are irrelevant.
A saving of the companies that have until now been financial giants will surely save a lot of jobs. It will keep employees with a salary. With retrenching or retiring of some employees or with a company deciding to hire more people, this also means jobs for people seeking to be employed in the relevant field. But if the purchasing power of the average person's salary in that field of business and that of someone in a totally different industry declines due to increased cost of living, then even among the small players of the world's money, the share of the pie is being redistributed. Those in the business sector may get a slice but also a considerable amount taken back in the form of a higher cost of living. Those in other sectors that have no benefit from the bailout will have more of their pie taken away too. Some will have less money so that more people have some money. But then of course, surely people employed in the area of business could get a job outside of those firms that are saved by the bailout whether in another business sector or in an entirely different field altogether. Without the sustaining of these financial giants, workers in this financial sector may be laid off and the high earners in the field will stop, temporarily or not, getting thier large salaries. In that respect, less people will have some money (in terms of a regular pay) so that more people will not have less money.
The first case sounds rather socialist - taking money from some and having more people have money. But it becomes capitalistic if the new people make more money than those who paid the sacrifice.
The second sounds capitalistic - less people with money so others can have more money. But it is also socialist if the people paying for the benefit of the others were the richer lot.
What happens now to the free market model? A $700 billion investment into the companies the government deems it wants to uphold, probably paid for by the average taxpayer, blatantly resembles a command economy. What's more is that there was not even a fight. The rejection of the bill 5 days before it was revised with auxillaries and approved surely does not constitute even a decent show of force. The first bill was ridiculous with its request for total control over bailouts in the hands of one man. Yet, the ridiculous only became more ridiculous 5 days later before approval.
Apparently, the bailout has become more receptive with the added 100 billion dollars worth of tax breaks in various matters such as movie production, wooden arrows of some sort for children, racetrack ownership, and in perhaps the more useful field of alternate energy. But what has all these got to do with the subprime crisis? Apparently $17b in tax incentives for alternate energy, but $700b elsewhere. Which part of the bailout or rescue plan is a rescue, and who is being rescued?
What will happen with $700b pumped into the economy? Unless basic monetary policy is not sufficient here due to the complexities of the real world, more money of such high quantities will create inflation. Higher prices on goods. Lower purchasing power of the American dollar. Prices of bread may rise and the same will follow for milk, eggs, candies, soda, clothing, gadgets, and even oil. After all, taxes on oil and gas production is set to be raised to fund the bill's incentives for green energy. In the big picture, that may encourage companies to move toward a more environmental source of energy production and expedite the move to eco-friendly fuel. Thomas Friedman may be getting the results of his arguments. However, I suspect that a switch to green energy is not going to be swift and easy and the average American is still running his or her vehicle on oil. Oil prices have gone up from about $2 per gallon to over $4 per gallon in two years. Can we expect oil prices to fall in the future? No. Firstly, people are so dependent on oil in america and the producers have so much more power than the consumers that they would not consider dropping prices for the welfare of the people at the expense of their revenue or profit. Secondly, oil production has gone up and so this cost, in this oligopoly, will be reflected back onto the consumers. Surely, oil prices will jump. With an increase in prices of commodities, the bailout has yet to address the common person. Will any of the $700 billion of the bailout or the $100 billion in tax breaks go toward subsidising the commodities that the average person considers a neccessary good? I don't know. But as of yet, I have heard nothing about that. If there is indeed subsidising on these products, does it cover the negative impacts the bill would have financially cost? Will solar powered sedans be available at competitive prices to the public soon? Will they be subsidized so the less affluent people in the country can trade their oil-dependent vehicles for something that runs cheaper?
Here, Thomas Friedman will be disappointed with the truth of his analogy of nobody wanting to pay extra to have his lamp powered by green technology when he already has light from his lamp. Perhaps he would if he knew that a non-green technology driven lamp will not be available during his time due to decreasing natural resources. But oil is not exactly running out in the lifetimes of the leaders of the nation. Will the goverment spend money to subsidise the people and help usher an era where funding will no longer be available from the taxation of oil? When J.P. Morgan found out that Nikola Tesla's free power Wardenclyffe Tower would conflict with the idea of a meter to charge for electricity or for the need to construct cables for the transmission of electricity, both ways through which a business was possible, investing came to a halt and was advised against by Morgan himself. Unlimited and free electrical and related power in the world, were it truly possible by Tesla's tower, was denied to the world in place for monetary profit. Surely the national government must have known of Tesla's project, if for no other reason but national secutiry. Surely, it could have provided the funds if it so desired as it would later fund space exploration. And surely the priorities of the governments and the nature of men have not changed considerably to warrant trust over distrust that one should expect government support toward free energy.
Tax breaks are instead directed into movie production. While some may consider movies a neccessary good, the vast abundance of entertainment available for free on the internet should not make it as important a product as basic groceries or oil. When Merill Lynch is being bought over and other financial institutions are collapsing at the benefit to the surviving players, the cost of making a movie is getting cheaper. The government is claiming less money from the movie production industry for its budget and probably going to claim it instead from somewhere else, possibly the households. Racing car tracks will be taxed less. Who will be taxed in its place? After all, $700 billion dollars and more is being transferred out to save the financial institutions troubled by the subprime crisis. Will the money come from withdrawing military prescence in the Middle East? The tax breaks for those industries are irrelevant.
A saving of the companies that have until now been financial giants will surely save a lot of jobs. It will keep employees with a salary. With retrenching or retiring of some employees or with a company deciding to hire more people, this also means jobs for people seeking to be employed in the relevant field. But if the purchasing power of the average person's salary in that field of business and that of someone in a totally different industry declines due to increased cost of living, then even among the small players of the world's money, the share of the pie is being redistributed. Those in the business sector may get a slice but also a considerable amount taken back in the form of a higher cost of living. Those in other sectors that have no benefit from the bailout will have more of their pie taken away too. Some will have less money so that more people have some money. But then of course, surely people employed in the area of business could get a job outside of those firms that are saved by the bailout whether in another business sector or in an entirely different field altogether. Without the sustaining of these financial giants, workers in this financial sector may be laid off and the high earners in the field will stop, temporarily or not, getting thier large salaries. In that respect, less people will have some money (in terms of a regular pay) so that more people will not have less money.
The first case sounds rather socialist - taking money from some and having more people have money. But it becomes capitalistic if the new people make more money than those who paid the sacrifice.
The second sounds capitalistic - less people with money so others can have more money. But it is also socialist if the people paying for the benefit of the others were the richer lot.
What happens now to the free market model? A $700 billion investment into the companies the government deems it wants to uphold, probably paid for by the average taxpayer, blatantly resembles a command economy. What's more is that there was not even a fight. The rejection of the bill 5 days before it was revised with auxillaries and approved surely does not constitute even a decent show of force. The first bill was ridiculous with its request for total control over bailouts in the hands of one man. Yet, the ridiculous only became more ridiculous 5 days later before approval.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
meanings and language as communication
i was watching a talkshow about business, regarding the economic crisis in US, and the guest was chatting about leverage and such. have you wondered how so little words can mean something so deep? by deep, i mean a concept that's not just visible but something more abstract. leverage may not be an abstract idea, but other abstract ideas, especially those not described by mathematics, are often described in language and words. how do we understand these concepts through the usage of words? how do we understand a brand new idea that we have never heard of from the words spoken to us and the associations we have with those words?
do we need a model already somewhat similar to the new idea in order to have words merely mold it in a certain direction and give us a new picture? or can words alone, perhaps the method of phrasing, the chronological order of the words and sentences spoken to us, the pace et cetera all included, transmit a new concept in one person's mind to another person's mind? how accurate is this transmission of the concept? is it possible that after a conversation, two people seem to agree on the nature of a concept...that in their further talks they don't find any inconsistencies or misunderstandings...and yet the concept is different in each person's mind?
art is a way of expression. in various piece of art, the picture has a meaning to the artist and the picture is shown to an audience to convey the idea. there are also art whereby the picture is intended to mean different things to different audiences. perhaps there are pictures that don't even have meaning at all to the artist. for those, an audience might nonetheless derive a meaning either because the picture strikes an idea in them or the audience expects a meaning within it and leads his or her mind down a certain path that eventually force creates an idea to identify with it.
this is interesting. language is like art. it is yet another form of expression, as is music, drama, poetry (what i considered language but merged with a sort of rhythm, tune and rhyme), and all sorts of devices, including new or radical ideas...perhaps like a man jumping in a trash can attempting to convey a message, which for all i know could be "the children is our future, we should invest in them" or something else like " music is the key to the soul". but language is the most used of all. it is, perhaps, the most fundamental. everybody uses it and often effectively. to discuss music, we use words to convey the feelings we feel. we don't discuss how we feel about Chopin's ballades me playing the drums and you replying with tunes on a flute. we don't discuss it by me performing a mine and you conjuring what you can by performing whatever crazy stunts you can. perhaps we could do this to express our ideas, but we don't. language is effective and much less tiring. we have a tongue and mouth. but then again, we have fingers and toes. we have eyes too and although it apparently conveys a lot, how can we initiate and proceed with a conversation on current affairs and how we might be able to solve our economic crisis with our eyes alone. when it comes to something more abstract, the visual isn't enough or precise enough but words, newly conjured words, can somehow bring the idea to life. probably the next best thing is sign language. but then, i guess i have to define "language" in this context more strictly to the spoken or written word, including widely accepted languages like English, Arabic, and Chinese, but not mere symbols written on paper that the reader doesn't know how to decipher.
ah! so the key is this. the secret to effective communication is the synchronization of the encrypting mind and the deciphering mind. the language is but a code. all English speakers have the key to deciphering the words to an idea and the more similar the "version" to the one of the one who spoke or wrote, the closer the accuracy of the communication. if the speaker of writer thinks of a boston terrier and says dog, then the idea is most efficiently gotten across if the receiver pictures "dog" as a boston terrier and not a siberian husky.
do we need a model already somewhat similar to the new idea in order to have words merely mold it in a certain direction and give us a new picture? or can words alone, perhaps the method of phrasing, the chronological order of the words and sentences spoken to us, the pace et cetera all included, transmit a new concept in one person's mind to another person's mind? how accurate is this transmission of the concept? is it possible that after a conversation, two people seem to agree on the nature of a concept...that in their further talks they don't find any inconsistencies or misunderstandings...and yet the concept is different in each person's mind?
art is a way of expression. in various piece of art, the picture has a meaning to the artist and the picture is shown to an audience to convey the idea. there are also art whereby the picture is intended to mean different things to different audiences. perhaps there are pictures that don't even have meaning at all to the artist. for those, an audience might nonetheless derive a meaning either because the picture strikes an idea in them or the audience expects a meaning within it and leads his or her mind down a certain path that eventually force creates an idea to identify with it.
this is interesting. language is like art. it is yet another form of expression, as is music, drama, poetry (what i considered language but merged with a sort of rhythm, tune and rhyme), and all sorts of devices, including new or radical ideas...perhaps like a man jumping in a trash can attempting to convey a message, which for all i know could be "the children is our future, we should invest in them" or something else like " music is the key to the soul". but language is the most used of all. it is, perhaps, the most fundamental. everybody uses it and often effectively. to discuss music, we use words to convey the feelings we feel. we don't discuss how we feel about Chopin's ballades me playing the drums and you replying with tunes on a flute. we don't discuss it by me performing a mine and you conjuring what you can by performing whatever crazy stunts you can. perhaps we could do this to express our ideas, but we don't. language is effective and much less tiring. we have a tongue and mouth. but then again, we have fingers and toes. we have eyes too and although it apparently conveys a lot, how can we initiate and proceed with a conversation on current affairs and how we might be able to solve our economic crisis with our eyes alone. when it comes to something more abstract, the visual isn't enough or precise enough but words, newly conjured words, can somehow bring the idea to life. probably the next best thing is sign language. but then, i guess i have to define "language" in this context more strictly to the spoken or written word, including widely accepted languages like English, Arabic, and Chinese, but not mere symbols written on paper that the reader doesn't know how to decipher.
ah! so the key is this. the secret to effective communication is the synchronization of the encrypting mind and the deciphering mind. the language is but a code. all English speakers have the key to deciphering the words to an idea and the more similar the "version" to the one of the one who spoke or wrote, the closer the accuracy of the communication. if the speaker of writer thinks of a boston terrier and says dog, then the idea is most efficiently gotten across if the receiver pictures "dog" as a boston terrier and not a siberian husky.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
subprime mortgages.
subprimes mortgage loans are given to people with poor credit score or basically someone who cannot get a prime mortgage. in that, i just learnt that normal mortgages are called prime mortgages.
the main difference in the mortgage loan itself to the borrower's concerns is that subprimes offer an introductory period during which interests may be low or the payment only covers interest and not the principal. basically, the required monthly payments during the introductory phase is lower than normal. if that's not the main reason why people get subprime loans, it's because they simply cannot get normal prime loan due to bad credit and no approval.
why so many subprime loans given out? because the system largely used brokers who got a commission from selling one of these loans, i.e. getting someone to get the loan. therefore, the incentive for the broker is maximising sales and he is not concerned with whether the borrower actually is trustworthy or has a decent background for a loan et cetera. to get more commission, some - not all probably - may employ cheating tactics. to cheat the borrower, the house in question may be overvalued. to cheat the lenders, information may be bent, twisted, or omitted in order to qualify the borrower for the loan.
problem arises when the borrower is unable to make his or her payments. one, it could be because the introductory period is over and the interest rates jump up. for example, during the 2 year introductory period of a 2/28 (2 year intro, 28 year remaining) mortgage loan, the interest rate may be 1% [number arbitarily chosen by me]. the monthly payment is lower. though i did not check, it makes sense to think that the monthly payment has not been the same and not that the only effect of a lower interest rate is that during the intro period, less money is allocated to the interest payment and more to the principal. after the intro period, the interest rate may jump up to 5% (or perhaps 5.1% if a normal 30 year prime loan would have a 5% interest rate and because of the subprime discounted intro period, the remaining 28 years require a 5.1% interest rate to balance the figures). the fundamental idea is that the payments increase. the borrower cannot repay and defaults. foreclosure occurs. the lending institution now takes the house.
for the borrower, this spells doom because he or she has no house now. but the economy and my academic interest is more concerned with how this affects the market altogether and created the economic crisis. I gather that the main issue now is not just that the lending institutions have a lot of houses, but because the houses are depreciating in value. this happened because of the housing boom following the subprime lending but with it failing, the houses started to be foreclosed and the supply vastly exceeding demand. the lending institution may have gotten some of its loan money back from earlier payments (say 10% until the borrower defaulted) and now claims the house which is however only worth say 60% of the loan. Assuming the house can be sold at that value, the net loss is 30%.
who lent the money. because of the securitization of subprime loans, as it is called when these loans were packaged into an investment vehicle and traded on the market, the money lenders (I believe normal prime loans are also securitized and traded on the market?) turn out to be the regular market trader. the straw through which they lent turn out to be investment corportations such as Merill Lynch and other similar institutions, though not limited to them. With the value of the product, being the house, dropping, it should only follow that the value of the stock is perceived to be lower that what people had imagined it to be. instead of rising, say from $20 a share (or is it stock) to $21 and above (as property was perceived to always appreciate in value), a 60% value of that share would now be $12. Though it may not reflect on the market, confidence drops and people start selling. perhaps that is the power of efficient markets and perfect knowledge, as I somewhat understand it. Selling and selling leads to the stocks losing value. I don't know how, but this causes the company to collapse.
well, apparently the sell of stocks is not directly a cause of the company's failure. a company does not pay when shareholders sell its stocks nor does it earn money when another buys it except for the time when stock is initially issued and sold. the relationship here occurs because the firms involved are investment firms and banks (Merill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros, Washington Mutual...). With them, their existence is dependent on people's confidence and pumping of investments through them. The falling prices of the company's shares signal that something is wrong and confidence drops, decreasing investments and initiating withdrawal of savings and investments from the firm. After all, the former is an investment in the firm itself and the latter investments through the firm into another company.
why did the borrower take the loan when they knew the interest rates would jump after the introductory period. The simple guess is that they needed or wanted a house and the intro rates were easier than going straight for normal rates. Not only that, they may not have been able to get prime mortgage loans because of their credit history. The profile of the borrower is poor and less able to afford housing. Both the borrowers and lendings assumed that the people would become wealthier and would be able to afford the normal interest rates after the intro period. Not all subprime borrowers have defaulted, so subprime lending has worked for some in giving them a home. As for refinancing, it was difficult as the houses had depreciated in value (or they were overvalued in the first place and the loan was too high compared to the real value of the house).
then there are speculators who purchase the house with a loan and low monthly rates with the intent to sell high as the property appreciates in value and covers the initial principal loan, interest paid so far (which is low during the introductory period and therefore appealing for such speculation), the effects of inflations, and the early repayment charges all combined with yet a profit. such speculation widens the gap between the actual demand for the houses and the supply as the housing boom took place.
so the subprime crisis is basically lending to the wrong people (in the sense that they ultimately failed to keep up payments), the devaluation of the houses caused by excess supply and foreclosures (would the problem still happen if the houses were not depreciated but merely vacant and owned by the bank with the value of the house and money received back from the loan so far equal to the principal loan issued? in such a case, the only loss I see is the loss from not getting interest payments from the initial loan. however, if the house continued to appreciate in value as property should have, no net loss would have occured, yes?), and panic and drop in confidence leading to pulling out of investments and savings in and through the financial institutions.
the first reason constitutes a range of factors such as poor rating on the actual risk of the securities, bad regulations perhaps with apparently banks being forced to give subprime loans or be sued, a faulty system of commission for the brokers which led to loans being issued to people who perhaps were very likely to fail to keep up their payments et cetera.
the main difference in the mortgage loan itself to the borrower's concerns is that subprimes offer an introductory period during which interests may be low or the payment only covers interest and not the principal. basically, the required monthly payments during the introductory phase is lower than normal. if that's not the main reason why people get subprime loans, it's because they simply cannot get normal prime loan due to bad credit and no approval.
why so many subprime loans given out? because the system largely used brokers who got a commission from selling one of these loans, i.e. getting someone to get the loan. therefore, the incentive for the broker is maximising sales and he is not concerned with whether the borrower actually is trustworthy or has a decent background for a loan et cetera. to get more commission, some - not all probably - may employ cheating tactics. to cheat the borrower, the house in question may be overvalued. to cheat the lenders, information may be bent, twisted, or omitted in order to qualify the borrower for the loan.
problem arises when the borrower is unable to make his or her payments. one, it could be because the introductory period is over and the interest rates jump up. for example, during the 2 year introductory period of a 2/28 (2 year intro, 28 year remaining) mortgage loan, the interest rate may be 1% [number arbitarily chosen by me]. the monthly payment is lower. though i did not check, it makes sense to think that the monthly payment has not been the same and not that the only effect of a lower interest rate is that during the intro period, less money is allocated to the interest payment and more to the principal. after the intro period, the interest rate may jump up to 5% (or perhaps 5.1% if a normal 30 year prime loan would have a 5% interest rate and because of the subprime discounted intro period, the remaining 28 years require a 5.1% interest rate to balance the figures). the fundamental idea is that the payments increase. the borrower cannot repay and defaults. foreclosure occurs. the lending institution now takes the house.
for the borrower, this spells doom because he or she has no house now. but the economy and my academic interest is more concerned with how this affects the market altogether and created the economic crisis. I gather that the main issue now is not just that the lending institutions have a lot of houses, but because the houses are depreciating in value. this happened because of the housing boom following the subprime lending but with it failing, the houses started to be foreclosed and the supply vastly exceeding demand. the lending institution may have gotten some of its loan money back from earlier payments (say 10% until the borrower defaulted) and now claims the house which is however only worth say 60% of the loan. Assuming the house can be sold at that value, the net loss is 30%.
who lent the money. because of the securitization of subprime loans, as it is called when these loans were packaged into an investment vehicle and traded on the market, the money lenders (I believe normal prime loans are also securitized and traded on the market?) turn out to be the regular market trader. the straw through which they lent turn out to be investment corportations such as Merill Lynch and other similar institutions, though not limited to them. With the value of the product, being the house, dropping, it should only follow that the value of the stock is perceived to be lower that what people had imagined it to be. instead of rising, say from $20 a share (or is it stock) to $21 and above (as property was perceived to always appreciate in value), a 60% value of that share would now be $12. Though it may not reflect on the market, confidence drops and people start selling. perhaps that is the power of efficient markets and perfect knowledge, as I somewhat understand it. Selling and selling leads to the stocks losing value. I don't know how, but this causes the company to collapse.
well, apparently the sell of stocks is not directly a cause of the company's failure. a company does not pay when shareholders sell its stocks nor does it earn money when another buys it except for the time when stock is initially issued and sold. the relationship here occurs because the firms involved are investment firms and banks (Merill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros, Washington Mutual...). With them, their existence is dependent on people's confidence and pumping of investments through them. The falling prices of the company's shares signal that something is wrong and confidence drops, decreasing investments and initiating withdrawal of savings and investments from the firm. After all, the former is an investment in the firm itself and the latter investments through the firm into another company.
why did the borrower take the loan when they knew the interest rates would jump after the introductory period. The simple guess is that they needed or wanted a house and the intro rates were easier than going straight for normal rates. Not only that, they may not have been able to get prime mortgage loans because of their credit history. The profile of the borrower is poor and less able to afford housing. Both the borrowers and lendings assumed that the people would become wealthier and would be able to afford the normal interest rates after the intro period. Not all subprime borrowers have defaulted, so subprime lending has worked for some in giving them a home. As for refinancing, it was difficult as the houses had depreciated in value (or they were overvalued in the first place and the loan was too high compared to the real value of the house).
then there are speculators who purchase the house with a loan and low monthly rates with the intent to sell high as the property appreciates in value and covers the initial principal loan, interest paid so far (which is low during the introductory period and therefore appealing for such speculation), the effects of inflations, and the early repayment charges all combined with yet a profit. such speculation widens the gap between the actual demand for the houses and the supply as the housing boom took place.
so the subprime crisis is basically lending to the wrong people (in the sense that they ultimately failed to keep up payments), the devaluation of the houses caused by excess supply and foreclosures (would the problem still happen if the houses were not depreciated but merely vacant and owned by the bank with the value of the house and money received back from the loan so far equal to the principal loan issued? in such a case, the only loss I see is the loss from not getting interest payments from the initial loan. however, if the house continued to appreciate in value as property should have, no net loss would have occured, yes?), and panic and drop in confidence leading to pulling out of investments and savings in and through the financial institutions.
the first reason constitutes a range of factors such as poor rating on the actual risk of the securities, bad regulations perhaps with apparently banks being forced to give subprime loans or be sued, a faulty system of commission for the brokers which led to loans being issued to people who perhaps were very likely to fail to keep up their payments et cetera.
life of pi
information about animals and their nature.
habitual...animals prefer habit.
[ reflection: same thing can be applied to humans. human to gods, humans to authority, women (traditionally submissive) to men (traditionally leaders) ? ]
ending reveals a more grim actual happening of events, covered up by Pi to cope with the craziness.
which story to believe? either makes sense. the animal one is fantastic but plausible, the other mundane and dark. religion is like that? the canons are like the fantastic?
also, why do people (as the 2 japanese at the end of story) want to believe the mundane one? more predictable? people only believe what they can believe? that's one side. the other side (animals and fantastic) hard to believe so rejected? same for religion? flaws on both sides? one does not want to accept fantastic stories that don't fit in with historical trends or already comfortable data and ideas? other side might be lost in fantasy?
hint that the dark story (without animals but with humans killing one another) is the right one
...forgot what it was.
habitual...animals prefer habit.
[ reflection: same thing can be applied to humans. human to gods, humans to authority, women (traditionally submissive) to men (traditionally leaders) ? ]
ending reveals a more grim actual happening of events, covered up by Pi to cope with the craziness.
which story to believe? either makes sense. the animal one is fantastic but plausible, the other mundane and dark. religion is like that? the canons are like the fantastic?
also, why do people (as the 2 japanese at the end of story) want to believe the mundane one? more predictable? people only believe what they can believe? that's one side. the other side (animals and fantastic) hard to believe so rejected? same for religion? flaws on both sides? one does not want to accept fantastic stories that don't fit in with historical trends or already comfortable data and ideas? other side might be lost in fantasy?
hint that the dark story (without animals but with humans killing one another) is the right one
...forgot what it was.
war and peace
attempt on war and peace, months after failing to complete reading "the idiot" and years after the same fate with "the brothers karamazov". These russian authors...the way the write...it's hard to read on not because it's boring but because the bulk is in the details.
war and peace.
bookI
lady holds a ball. Peter comes around and doesn't quite fit in. lady keeps a watch on him to avoid him making any unfitting remarks but she doesn't succeed entirely.
family does not seem to want peter to visit his father. peter is illegitimate son of a prince who is dying. prince has left all his belongings to peter and other family members are trying to find that will and destroy it. the will, or letter, wants to legitimize peter as son and give him his belongings. peter doesn't know what's going on but lady looks out for him and confrontations occur at the old man's house.
old man finally dies. but no info about wealth yet in story.
another prince and his son. prince sends son to army to find Napoleon's french forces.
bookII
soldiers at a parade. minor confrontation between inappropriately dressed soldier (D...something) and officers. D... was a officer, demoted to ranks. idle chat in office and one makes fun when news of austria's defeat arrives.
battle area. a certain colonel and his regiment are told to burn the bridge. they do so with minor losses which are not even told to higher authorities (not worth mentioning).
war and peace.
bookI
lady holds a ball. Peter comes around and doesn't quite fit in. lady keeps a watch on him to avoid him making any unfitting remarks but she doesn't succeed entirely.
family does not seem to want peter to visit his father. peter is illegitimate son of a prince who is dying. prince has left all his belongings to peter and other family members are trying to find that will and destroy it. the will, or letter, wants to legitimize peter as son and give him his belongings. peter doesn't know what's going on but lady looks out for him and confrontations occur at the old man's house.
old man finally dies. but no info about wealth yet in story.
another prince and his son. prince sends son to army to find Napoleon's french forces.
bookII
soldiers at a parade. minor confrontation between inappropriately dressed soldier (D...something) and officers. D... was a officer, demoted to ranks. idle chat in office and one makes fun when news of austria's defeat arrives.
battle area. a certain colonel and his regiment are told to burn the bridge. they do so with minor losses which are not even told to higher authorities (not worth mentioning).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
