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
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
