There seems to be an intrinsic duality in nature. Dark-Light; Male-Female; Life-Death. Perhaps that is part of the reason why we have so much trouble conceiving the nature of the Trinity. But that is not what I purpose to discuss in this entry. Rather, that our perception often is equally binary as well (and perhaps more so in men). E.g. You are either friend or foe. After a pursued relationship, a girl can only either be a girlfriend or of no relation at all.
And it is in this vein of thought in which I first ideated the following contents of this post. How many of us have an idea of whom we'd like to be with? How many criterions do we have clearly defined for our Lady Love or Prince Charming? How many of us have a very good idea what would be the "perfect" guy/girl for ourselves?
But therein lies the problem. We're so busy looking outwards, dreaming in imaginary worlds that we often forget to stop and look at ourselves. If you have such a clear image of the perfect mate, and let us be generous and surmise that it is indeed perfection for this purpose, why would they pick you to be their partner?
(And apparently this concept is very abstract, as a certain incorrigible, obtuse, obstinate individual had great difficulty grasping at the basic concept I've outlined here.)
Simply stated, the question, then, is thus: If that perfect person exists (and let us assume that s/he both exists and matches your definition of perfection in a mate), why would they pick an imperfect you?
The basic idea is this: we, imperfect and full of flaws yearn for something "better", a sort of "perfection", a higher standard. But while all slow-witted slobs would love to marry a certain type of woman, I think it is fairly safe to say that very few intelligent beauty pageant winners would even feign to consider such an aforementioned slob.
Am I saying that you should give up on your dreams of the perfect woman because it's hopeless? Maybe, but that's not entirely my point either.
Perhaps instead of whittling the days away deranged and depraved on some desperate dream of stastistic improbability, one should instead focus on oneself. (And no, I don't mean to say that you should be more selfish.)
If one has a goal in mind (in this case, this elusive, quite possibly ethereal perfect mate), what does one plan to do about it in order to work towards its success? Yes, stereotypes are bad, nerds also have feelings, blah, blah, blah, but when it really boils down to it, are you so attractive to those to whom you are attracted?
Ah, one might argue, but part of his/her perfection would be his ability to look beneath the superficial and love me for whom I am. And while that may be true, what's stopping this perfect prince from finding someone better? And between you and someone better, why should they pick you?
So really, what have you got at the end of your useless and ultimately unproductive fantasising? minutes (or hours, or days, or eras, whatever unit of time applicable) wasted, and nothing gained. ..Except, perhaps, the temporary, false euphoria induced by indulging in such silly dreams, only to wake up to the bitter taste of reality.
(Given my tangents and my side notes, you can tell I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about the structure of my arguments.)
If it's ok for you to be so superficial to want the ideal mate to be this and that, isn't it only natural for him or her to be equally superficial in her quest for her ideal mate? If it's ok to want a girl who's gorgeous, why can she not demand that same physical perfection? (Or is that why the head cheerleader always ends up with the star quarterback?)
All of us have opinions about others and society, the outside world, philosophy, all these things which are wonderfully removed from us, however related they are to us. But how many of us actually bother to wonder about how we figure into these oceans of personalities, our place in these societies, our significance in our philosophies?
If you're so free to fantasise about your dream girl, or dream job, or dream residence, then stop dreaming and WORK! (practical examples follow)
E.g. if you are attracted to the sort of girl who is shy and proper, do you really think wiping your mouth with your sleeve is really the best way to win her over?
If you're a japanophile who only lives under antiquated and over-stereotyped views of japanese society and worship japanese animation as if it were a pantheon of gods, then you could either wake up and realise it's never happening, or learn to wash your face a little more often, learn the art of subtlety that your conceived master race is supposedly so adept at, and learn the language!
Yes, I realise that some of this is highly superficial and that the greater half of the past three decades have been spent dispelling just that. But really, some of it is an excuse for laziness. While it may be base and superficial to judge someone on his physical appearance, personal hygiene is both an attractive quality and good for your own health. "Don't judge people by appearances" and suddenly both the number of anorexic and obsese people rise up at unnatural rates (both considitions of which, aside from being equally unsightly, are problematic andd equally dangerous to one's health)."Perfection is an impossible goal" they say, and suddenly national literacy plummets. People can't spell anymore and we marvel at the 19th century citizens for seemingly having this higher mental faculty which now seems to be lacking in the modern population. "If it can't be applied, it's useless", and suddenly with the expulsion of classical languages from the classroom, diction falls into disarray; the loss of literature for law and people fail to understand simple phrases and concepts.
And I think it is due to this modern attitude, at least in part, which we have to thank for our current population of decadence, laziness and general degeneration.
So in summary, and as reinforced by the title of this post, if you've such a clear image of who you want to be with, you should also have a pretty clear image of who that person would want to be with. Don't hold people up to such a high standard if you're not willing to be held by the same (or equivalent) standard.
Yes, I realise that this all sounds awfully preachy, and definitely not one of my more politically correct posts, but it's late, I'm tired and emotionally charged about the topic as I think more and more about certain associations I've been cursed with. (Not that I'm going to name any names, but you may rest assured in knowing that some come from Waterloo.)
2005/07/07
2005/06/09
五十歩笑百歩
In Chinese, this phrase is literally translated to, "he at 50-paces ridicules him at 100-paces". A fair approximation in English is, "the pot calling the kettle black". Why do I bother mentioning this? Well, aside from enriching your Chinese vocab by a picometre, I think it aptly describes a variety of people.
I'm hesitant to call them hypocrites, because it implies that they don't do it at all, which isn't really the case here. Nay, what I'm talking about here are those who are only half-way and yet look down on those who aren't. Case in point are the many students I've had the misfortune of meeting in the course of my education. English, being a rather common language spoken around here, manages to garner a reasonable amount of attention. And as all people discover at one point or another, not everyone speaks quite the same way. Some people use fancier words, some people speak more directly, others are very taciturn, etc, etc.
I don't think there is a "wrong" way to speak (except grammatically), but even then, it's a bit of a lost cause, since conversation is all about compressing information instead of elocution. But there are some, more often of foreign birth (like myself), who wish to rise above their birth and find for themselves a seat in society, instead of just one that is expected of them. These people will wish and want to better and improve their English, to be more natural, more intelligent and loquacious.
And that's not wrong. I myself am one such a person who was dissatisfied with what I was simply given, and decided to better my language through the efforts of reading a very large number of books. I encourage those who would seek to improve themselves and better those parts of themselves which they *can* change [naturally]. (Plastic surgery is something else, and something I don't want to get into.)
BUT, I do have a problem with people who are only halfway there and not only think that they're already all the way there, and who look down on others who aren't even halfway there. In this specific case of English and communication, it would be those who have perhaps expanded their vocabulary, maybe as much as 50%, but who have no concept of literature, or what it means to be literary. They condescend those whom cannot even bother with the few precious necessary seconds to look up the definition of a word when yet they themselves are no literati.
Words are only the beginning, my friend. It is how they are used in conjuction with each other, that they start to matter. Do not use a larger word just because it is sesquipedalian. I personally use a word because it fits and sometimes does the job of many words. It's a bit of an irony, but the more words one knows, the less words one needs to write. Consider:
"She threw her homework out the window"
vs.
"She defenestrated her homework"
Two whole words were saved, out of an original six. But I would still use a small word if it fit just as well. Promulgate may be a "good" word, but the phrase still remains as "spread the Gospel". Nobody says "Promulgate the Gospel".
I'm sure some of you can see a recurring theme here in my thoughts. It basically boils down to fractals, if I may be so bold as to make that analogy. We have an opinion of something or someone, which we may call our relation. And they in turn may have a similar relation with another person. But how many of us consider whether we are in someone else's relation? Visually, it's a self-repeating pattern, like two mirrors which are face-to-face. We are but one small reflection, seeing many smaller reflections, but yet not considering whether we ourselves are a relfection in a larger mirror.
But it's all the same! I know I'm not perfect and that's precisely why I prefer not to confront people about their flaws because I know I have mine too. But, one thing that I cannot abide by is people who look down on people for having flaws or characteristics which they themselves have (even if it's just a smaller degree).
I think Emily Post says it best when she wrote, "when you see a woman in silks and sables and diamonds speak to a little errand girl or a footman or a scullery maid as though they were the dirt under her feet, you may be sure of one thing; she hasn’t come a very long way from the ground herself," in her book Etiquette, published 1922.
In summary, it's good to strive to better oneself, and self-improvement is certainly no vice. But those who would look upon others with contempt shouldn't be so sure that they aren't so contemptuous themselves.
I'm hesitant to call them hypocrites, because it implies that they don't do it at all, which isn't really the case here. Nay, what I'm talking about here are those who are only half-way and yet look down on those who aren't. Case in point are the many students I've had the misfortune of meeting in the course of my education. English, being a rather common language spoken around here, manages to garner a reasonable amount of attention. And as all people discover at one point or another, not everyone speaks quite the same way. Some people use fancier words, some people speak more directly, others are very taciturn, etc, etc.
I don't think there is a "wrong" way to speak (except grammatically), but even then, it's a bit of a lost cause, since conversation is all about compressing information instead of elocution. But there are some, more often of foreign birth (like myself), who wish to rise above their birth and find for themselves a seat in society, instead of just one that is expected of them. These people will wish and want to better and improve their English, to be more natural, more intelligent and loquacious.
And that's not wrong. I myself am one such a person who was dissatisfied with what I was simply given, and decided to better my language through the efforts of reading a very large number of books. I encourage those who would seek to improve themselves and better those parts of themselves which they *can* change [naturally]. (Plastic surgery is something else, and something I don't want to get into.)
BUT, I do have a problem with people who are only halfway there and not only think that they're already all the way there, and who look down on others who aren't even halfway there. In this specific case of English and communication, it would be those who have perhaps expanded their vocabulary, maybe as much as 50%, but who have no concept of literature, or what it means to be literary. They condescend those whom cannot even bother with the few precious necessary seconds to look up the definition of a word when yet they themselves are no literati.
Words are only the beginning, my friend. It is how they are used in conjuction with each other, that they start to matter. Do not use a larger word just because it is sesquipedalian. I personally use a word because it fits and sometimes does the job of many words. It's a bit of an irony, but the more words one knows, the less words one needs to write. Consider:
"She threw her homework out the window"
vs.
"She defenestrated her homework"
Two whole words were saved, out of an original six. But I would still use a small word if it fit just as well. Promulgate may be a "good" word, but the phrase still remains as "spread the Gospel". Nobody says "Promulgate the Gospel".
I'm sure some of you can see a recurring theme here in my thoughts. It basically boils down to fractals, if I may be so bold as to make that analogy. We have an opinion of something or someone, which we may call our relation. And they in turn may have a similar relation with another person. But how many of us consider whether we are in someone else's relation? Visually, it's a self-repeating pattern, like two mirrors which are face-to-face. We are but one small reflection, seeing many smaller reflections, but yet not considering whether we ourselves are a relfection in a larger mirror.
But it's all the same! I know I'm not perfect and that's precisely why I prefer not to confront people about their flaws because I know I have mine too. But, one thing that I cannot abide by is people who look down on people for having flaws or characteristics which they themselves have (even if it's just a smaller degree).
I think Emily Post says it best when she wrote, "when you see a woman in silks and sables and diamonds speak to a little errand girl or a footman or a scullery maid as though they were the dirt under her feet, you may be sure of one thing; she hasn’t come a very long way from the ground herself," in her book Etiquette, published 1922.
In summary, it's good to strive to better oneself, and self-improvement is certainly no vice. But those who would look upon others with contempt shouldn't be so sure that they aren't so contemptuous themselves.
2005/06/06
Social Relativity (Part II)
As promised, however late, hier ist mein Wortschwall der soziale relativität. Any relationship (used here to describe any rapport between two persons, whether it be familial, friendly, or romantic) is always in three states: the state in which it "is", the state in which party A thinks it is, and the state in which party B thinks it is. And in any relationship, since one's perspective is the only one that one has, it is the only one one cares about.
Therein, tragically, lies the difficulty. A relationship may actually be a tremendous success, but one party might tend to think negatively and see it as only doomed to go downhill. Or both parties could be delusioned with failure, when the relationship could have been a success.
In considering this, imagine how different things would be if one could know "the" truth about one's relationships with others. How many people would be freed from their burdens, and how many more would find happiness? (Although I do realize that knowing something and acting on that knowledge are two different things. Prime example being me; I *know* it's healthy to exercise, but I'm still the skinny, sedentary, senescent sesquipedalianist.)
Although I do have certain very specific relationships in mind (some of which directly include me, others which have me included), I shan't specify them here, for fear of discovery. (I've found that anonymity seems to be a popular practice on the internet.)
But here basically are the facts: with varying personalities, there are also varying abilities. People have different compatibility rates, and people also have varying degrees of observation. One can therefore easily speculate how a relationship could hypothetically contain two persons with a relatively low compatibility rate (given their personalities), where one of the two parties has a particularly low level of observation, therefore being more prone to delusions of emotions, elongating the duration of the relationship, and only further torturing and tormenting the poor soul on the other end. Let this sort of relationship be called the "Blind" relationship (because as humans, we all have an obsession for naming things).
One ought also to easily be able to conceive of a relationship in which the two parties have a reasonably high compatibility rate (for their personalities), but one of the two parties is particularly sensitive and tends to dwell on the negative, thereby concluding the relationship to be in decline. This relationship we shall name the "hypochondrial" relationship.
It is easy for us (or perhaps some of us) to think of relationships in our own lives which fit the description of the blind and the hypochrondrial. But imagine every friendship in which you were the one who tended to initiate contact, propell the conversation forward, advocate get-togethers. What if you were the blind one in a blind relationship?
Think of all the relationships in which you think you easily get along, but too much history has happened and there's simply too much "past" for things to go back to the way they used to be. What if you were the hypochondriac in a hypochondrial relationship?
In the same way that you would wish to instantly break all ties with the blind in blind relationships, would you appreciate it if your "friends" instantly broke all ties with you for being equally blind?
In the same way that you would wish to end all relationships that simply had too much history, would you appreciate it if your friends ended their relationships with you for their hypochondria?
It's easy to answer those questions when we only think about ourselves, but how many of us bother to consider if we've ever been on the receiving end of our own actions?
Of course, there are less destructive relationships which also illustrate this relativity (or imbalance). Between the pair AB, A may consider B to be A's best friend, but B may only see A as a good friend. Reasons are innumerable. A might have fewer friends, or B might have more criteria, &c, etc.
How, then, are we to proceed? In every one of our relationships, the other person is certain to think differently of you than you of him/her. Communication, obviously. But there is one small problem about language. A lawyer put it best when he said, "years in the legal service have only taught me to distrust language".
Then perhaps in actions? After all, actions speak louder than words, right? With our acts of respect and affection, surely we would be able to convey what we wish? Ah, but there is one small problem -- the loophole, as it were, of the Golden Rule. (The Golden Rule being "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".) Say, for example, that one respects another by not looking at his watch -- he feels that it implies he is bored and finds more excitement in knowing the time than continue conversing with his partner. Suppose the partner is meticulous about punctuality and is also incidentally eternally busy with meetings. Then they are eternally offending each other while still observing the golden rule because while the one is willing to be a little late for the sake of a good conversation, the latter is always obsessing over time, subtlely insulting the one. The latter is also perpetually insulted at the lack of one's punctuality and untimely partings, which often are the cause of his tardiness at his following meetings. And this isn't even an extreme example (because it would be easily resolved through the imprecision of words). But other times it cannot be remedied, if the faults are integral to the personality. (If, for example, one were considerably more contact-based, and the other not touchy-feely.)
The purpose of this rant is not to say that we're all doomed, or to give some sort of clever solution to this problem (is there a solution to the egocentric predicament? I don't remember..), but rather, to just make aware the possibility that the relationships you are in may not quite be the same condition as you think of them.
So remember kids, if I take a long time to respond to your MSN messages, and come up with half-baked excuses, you can depend upon it that I probably think of you as being in a blind relationship.
Or more seriously, don't be too quick to dismiss people, especially if you're unsure of your own faults. Nobody's perfect, and nobody should be. But do you really want to be the sort of idiot who would break off relationships with people for the same faults that your other friends have been forgiving you for for a long time? Hrmm...
Therein, tragically, lies the difficulty. A relationship may actually be a tremendous success, but one party might tend to think negatively and see it as only doomed to go downhill. Or both parties could be delusioned with failure, when the relationship could have been a success.
In considering this, imagine how different things would be if one could know "the" truth about one's relationships with others. How many people would be freed from their burdens, and how many more would find happiness? (Although I do realize that knowing something and acting on that knowledge are two different things. Prime example being me; I *know* it's healthy to exercise, but I'm still the skinny, sedentary, senescent sesquipedalianist.)
Although I do have certain very specific relationships in mind (some of which directly include me, others which have me included), I shan't specify them here, for fear of discovery. (I've found that anonymity seems to be a popular practice on the internet.)
But here basically are the facts: with varying personalities, there are also varying abilities. People have different compatibility rates, and people also have varying degrees of observation. One can therefore easily speculate how a relationship could hypothetically contain two persons with a relatively low compatibility rate (given their personalities), where one of the two parties has a particularly low level of observation, therefore being more prone to delusions of emotions, elongating the duration of the relationship, and only further torturing and tormenting the poor soul on the other end. Let this sort of relationship be called the "Blind" relationship (because as humans, we all have an obsession for naming things).
One ought also to easily be able to conceive of a relationship in which the two parties have a reasonably high compatibility rate (for their personalities), but one of the two parties is particularly sensitive and tends to dwell on the negative, thereby concluding the relationship to be in decline. This relationship we shall name the "hypochondrial" relationship.
It is easy for us (or perhaps some of us) to think of relationships in our own lives which fit the description of the blind and the hypochrondrial. But imagine every friendship in which you were the one who tended to initiate contact, propell the conversation forward, advocate get-togethers. What if you were the blind one in a blind relationship?
Think of all the relationships in which you think you easily get along, but too much history has happened and there's simply too much "past" for things to go back to the way they used to be. What if you were the hypochondriac in a hypochondrial relationship?
In the same way that you would wish to instantly break all ties with the blind in blind relationships, would you appreciate it if your "friends" instantly broke all ties with you for being equally blind?
In the same way that you would wish to end all relationships that simply had too much history, would you appreciate it if your friends ended their relationships with you for their hypochondria?
It's easy to answer those questions when we only think about ourselves, but how many of us bother to consider if we've ever been on the receiving end of our own actions?
Of course, there are less destructive relationships which also illustrate this relativity (or imbalance). Between the pair AB, A may consider B to be A's best friend, but B may only see A as a good friend. Reasons are innumerable. A might have fewer friends, or B might have more criteria, &c, etc.
How, then, are we to proceed? In every one of our relationships, the other person is certain to think differently of you than you of him/her. Communication, obviously. But there is one small problem about language. A lawyer put it best when he said, "years in the legal service have only taught me to distrust language".
Then perhaps in actions? After all, actions speak louder than words, right? With our acts of respect and affection, surely we would be able to convey what we wish? Ah, but there is one small problem -- the loophole, as it were, of the Golden Rule. (The Golden Rule being "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".) Say, for example, that one respects another by not looking at his watch -- he feels that it implies he is bored and finds more excitement in knowing the time than continue conversing with his partner. Suppose the partner is meticulous about punctuality and is also incidentally eternally busy with meetings. Then they are eternally offending each other while still observing the golden rule because while the one is willing to be a little late for the sake of a good conversation, the latter is always obsessing over time, subtlely insulting the one. The latter is also perpetually insulted at the lack of one's punctuality and untimely partings, which often are the cause of his tardiness at his following meetings. And this isn't even an extreme example (because it would be easily resolved through the imprecision of words). But other times it cannot be remedied, if the faults are integral to the personality. (If, for example, one were considerably more contact-based, and the other not touchy-feely.)
The purpose of this rant is not to say that we're all doomed, or to give some sort of clever solution to this problem (is there a solution to the egocentric predicament? I don't remember..), but rather, to just make aware the possibility that the relationships you are in may not quite be the same condition as you think of them.
So remember kids, if I take a long time to respond to your MSN messages, and come up with half-baked excuses, you can depend upon it that I probably think of you as being in a blind relationship.
Or more seriously, don't be too quick to dismiss people, especially if you're unsure of your own faults. Nobody's perfect, and nobody should be. But do you really want to be the sort of idiot who would break off relationships with people for the same faults that your other friends have been forgiving you for for a long time? Hrmm...
Nomenclature
In the words of our irrepressible pride of the English language, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
That just serves as an intro; I'm not going to get into the linguistic side of things. But there certainly is something to think about in our own lives; how closely do we identify with our own names, and/or how actively do we seek to change them? That distinction is sometimes made between one's birth-name, and nicknames, nuances that denote varying levels of familiarity.
And before we continue, I just have to add this because it's been bothering me of late: when introducing two people, no matter which order you do it in, always say the person's birth-name first, then followed by any prefered nicknames. Someone, and I won't say whom, made the grevious error of reversing the order, thereby thoroughly confusing me and consequently, retarded my eagerness to better acquaint myself with him.
Anyways, back to names. I, for example, am very sensitive to names. I may not know the meaning of most names, but I do err on the side of propreity than presumption. "Joseph" is the most commonly accepted form to address me, while "Joey" requires a few more stipulations. "JT" is also acceptable, but only to appease incorrigible parties to whom presumed familiarity is a way of life. Imagine the fun I would have if I actually had a title... (e.g. Doktor, Sir, Marquis, Duke, etc.)
How is it with you? Or rather, how aware are you with your own name(s)? Or more importantly, how careful are you when you use another's name? Whether subconscious or not of the speaker, would you as the listener find it more intimate and personal if addressed with your name in addition to a salutation? How much more personal is "good night, Joseph" than "g'night~"?
I realize that such precise etiquette is quite antiquated, but is its current disuse a sign of evanescence, or rather, that it is becoming progressively internalized and subconscious? Would that we had patronymics as in Russian!
That just serves as an intro; I'm not going to get into the linguistic side of things. But there certainly is something to think about in our own lives; how closely do we identify with our own names, and/or how actively do we seek to change them? That distinction is sometimes made between one's birth-name, and nicknames, nuances that denote varying levels of familiarity.
And before we continue, I just have to add this because it's been bothering me of late: when introducing two people, no matter which order you do it in, always say the person's birth-name first, then followed by any prefered nicknames. Someone, and I won't say whom, made the grevious error of reversing the order, thereby thoroughly confusing me and consequently, retarded my eagerness to better acquaint myself with him.
Anyways, back to names. I, for example, am very sensitive to names. I may not know the meaning of most names, but I do err on the side of propreity than presumption. "Joseph" is the most commonly accepted form to address me, while "Joey" requires a few more stipulations. "JT" is also acceptable, but only to appease incorrigible parties to whom presumed familiarity is a way of life. Imagine the fun I would have if I actually had a title... (e.g. Doktor, Sir, Marquis, Duke, etc.)
How is it with you? Or rather, how aware are you with your own name(s)? Or more importantly, how careful are you when you use another's name? Whether subconscious or not of the speaker, would you as the listener find it more intimate and personal if addressed with your name in addition to a salutation? How much more personal is "good night, Joseph" than "g'night~"?
I realize that such precise etiquette is quite antiquated, but is its current disuse a sign of evanescence, or rather, that it is becoming progressively internalized and subconscious? Would that we had patronymics as in Russian!
2005/06/03
2005/05/30
Social Relativity
Too tired to blog now, but I'll come back to it tonight... or tomorrow.
But in short, however close you feel to someone isn't necessarily how close they feel to you. I've certainly seen my share of that in the past month, and I'm sure I'll be seeing more of it soon. Friendships are often like relationships in the sense that most of it is build on feelings. The problem is, it's harder to "break up" with a friend. But man, do I ever want to do that right now. I just can't stand the sort of person who's all feeling and no head. It's great if they can feel the sorrow of a million hearts, but if there's not intellect to help stabilize their condition, it's sheer lunacy. Such people are often blind to the truth and create a dream-world in order to function properly. They often think that they're special because they're convinced that they're able to get along with that much more many people than most others (when really, they're just equally bad at getting along with any specific group).
As a person, I'm sick and tired of enduring the askance insults, but the most damning part of it all is that I don't think that person realises that he's being offensive. And then he gets mad at his "friends" when they "abandon" him. Go figure.
And although it is true that idiocy is no vice, it is certainly something I'd rather not have to try my patience with.
But here's the best part: they think they're so special that they think the side of you they see is really all you are. They feel concern for you as a person because they wonder how you get by in life. But I wonder if they've ever considered the fact that just maybe, the dynamics are different with different people? Just because I'm not open with person X doesn't necessarily mean that I won't be open with person Y.
I could try to be fair and make this an intellectual exploration on the general imbalance within a friendship, but instead I think I'm gonna go with my emotions and just vent about why I don't want to be friends anymore with that certain someone.
So no comments. Well, unless you're just dying to say something in which case you probably already know me and would therefore have me on your MSN or something. Rant to be continued/revised tomorrow, after I get some sleep.
But in short, however close you feel to someone isn't necessarily how close they feel to you. I've certainly seen my share of that in the past month, and I'm sure I'll be seeing more of it soon. Friendships are often like relationships in the sense that most of it is build on feelings. The problem is, it's harder to "break up" with a friend. But man, do I ever want to do that right now. I just can't stand the sort of person who's all feeling and no head. It's great if they can feel the sorrow of a million hearts, but if there's not intellect to help stabilize their condition, it's sheer lunacy. Such people are often blind to the truth and create a dream-world in order to function properly. They often think that they're special because they're convinced that they're able to get along with that much more many people than most others (when really, they're just equally bad at getting along with any specific group).
As a person, I'm sick and tired of enduring the askance insults, but the most damning part of it all is that I don't think that person realises that he's being offensive. And then he gets mad at his "friends" when they "abandon" him. Go figure.
And although it is true that idiocy is no vice, it is certainly something I'd rather not have to try my patience with.
But here's the best part: they think they're so special that they think the side of you they see is really all you are. They feel concern for you as a person because they wonder how you get by in life. But I wonder if they've ever considered the fact that just maybe, the dynamics are different with different people? Just because I'm not open with person X doesn't necessarily mean that I won't be open with person Y.
I could try to be fair and make this an intellectual exploration on the general imbalance within a friendship, but instead I think I'm gonna go with my emotions and just vent about why I don't want to be friends anymore with that certain someone.
So no comments. Well, unless you're just dying to say something in which case you probably already know me and would therefore have me on your MSN or something. Rant to be continued/revised tomorrow, after I get some sleep.
2005/05/25
Once upon a time, ...
On the most random trip to the local library with a friend, I ended up borrowing 4 books from the Foreign Languages section. Two in German and two in Japanese. Of the two in German, one is called Deutsche Volksmärchen (German folk tales), and the other is called Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben (A Time to Live and a Time to Die). The Japanese titles are 《雲ながれゆく》 (Clouds Flow by), and 《海外からみた日本》 (Japan Perceived Overseas).
One thing I noticed is that Germans don't seem to be very big on table of contents (at least in the two books I managed to borrow). I guess it's good in the sense that it forces the reader to go in a linear fashion, but on the other hand, it's harder to gauge what exactly the book is about. I'm interested in fairytales, so Deutsche Volksmärchen automatically intrigued me, but Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben only had an interesting title (consider Ecclesiastes 3:2).
A quick google search reveals that Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben is a reaaaaally deep book. And the language isn't easy either. I wonder how far I'll get. Of course I'm going to start on the Fairytales book first. ^^
After the long months of studying German, I think my [lack of] effort are finally paying off. I pick up a book and recognise how much more I'm supposed to be able to understand, but can't because of my own idiocy (in time management/study habits).
Meanwhile, job interview today at 1:00pm. I had three hours of sleep; woke up this morning at 3:30am. Tried to go back to sleep but gave up at 4:45am. Now that it's 7:35am, I'm tired. Typical. Well, wish me luck!
One thing I noticed is that Germans don't seem to be very big on table of contents (at least in the two books I managed to borrow). I guess it's good in the sense that it forces the reader to go in a linear fashion, but on the other hand, it's harder to gauge what exactly the book is about. I'm interested in fairytales, so Deutsche Volksmärchen automatically intrigued me, but Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben only had an interesting title (consider Ecclesiastes 3:2).
A quick google search reveals that Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben is a reaaaaally deep book. And the language isn't easy either. I wonder how far I'll get. Of course I'm going to start on the Fairytales book first. ^^
After the long months of studying German, I think my [lack of] effort are finally paying off. I pick up a book and recognise how much more I'm supposed to be able to understand, but can't because of my own idiocy (in time management/study habits).
Meanwhile, job interview today at 1:00pm. I had three hours of sleep; woke up this morning at 3:30am. Tried to go back to sleep but gave up at 4:45am. Now that it's 7:35am, I'm tired. Typical. Well, wish me luck!
2005/05/23
Flutter
Bah. Just when I think I'm getting over a crush, that person has to come back and act really sweet again. Let's just hope that this relationship blossoms into a beautiful flower.
Other random thoughts:
It feels good to deposit large amounts of money into the bank.
This is something I experienced recently, as I deposited some stuff that I didn't know I had lying around. And I only did it out of necessity. But on Wednesday I have an interview. Which will hopefully lead to a job. Which would then lead to large sums of money at the end of the month, which in turn would once again satisfy this good feeling of going to the bank.
Love isn't everything.
Too often, and certainly in the media, there is this concept that love is all one needs, that it's the ultimate in life, etc, etc, blah blah blah. Well, it isn't. Especially if we're going with the contemporary definition of love. That sort of love is more like a sort of viscous psychic sludge that numbs the mind and renders one senseless. (So really, it's more like a toxin.) I'm not saying it's nothing, but it's just stupid to give up everything for this natural narcotic. And the side effects are worse. (Brave New World, anyone?)
Self-Image vs. Self-Conscious
We all have an idea of what or who we are, and we also have an idea of how others see us. (These two images are usually slightly different, but relatively close.) There is, however, yet another image: how we *want* to be, or how we want others to see us. Which leads to my personally twisted sense of beauty and list of "to be accomplished" things.
Eternal vs. Ephermeral Beauty
As mortals I guess we're in love with the idea of infinity, and as God, I guess he's kinda perked by the finite. And if a being as infinite as God is interested in something as short-lived and finite as us humans, there's gotta be something worth looking at in ourselves. We should stop obsessing over things that will last throughout the ages and try to appreciate the things that happen in our lives, especially the things that happen only once. The old cherish their youth because it was so long ago. Some brief relationships(whether they're friendships, kinships, etc) are beautiful for their brevity.
Pears Aren't Filling
If you're hungry at midnight, pears aren't the way to go. They fill your stomach and leave you still hungry, which is a nasty feeling to have. I now feel bloated and hungry at the moment, a most unnatural and uncomfortable combination.
Never Play Word Games When You're Tired/Jetlagged
I lost so many times because my brain wasn't working properly. At its high, I couldn't even read. I thought "carpenting" wasn't a word, and figured the person meant "carpeting". Yah, I'm so smart. S-M-R-T.
Other random thoughts:
It feels good to deposit large amounts of money into the bank.
This is something I experienced recently, as I deposited some stuff that I didn't know I had lying around. And I only did it out of necessity. But on Wednesday I have an interview. Which will hopefully lead to a job. Which would then lead to large sums of money at the end of the month, which in turn would once again satisfy this good feeling of going to the bank.
Love isn't everything.
Too often, and certainly in the media, there is this concept that love is all one needs, that it's the ultimate in life, etc, etc, blah blah blah. Well, it isn't. Especially if we're going with the contemporary definition of love. That sort of love is more like a sort of viscous psychic sludge that numbs the mind and renders one senseless. (So really, it's more like a toxin.) I'm not saying it's nothing, but it's just stupid to give up everything for this natural narcotic. And the side effects are worse. (Brave New World, anyone?)
Self-Image vs. Self-Conscious
We all have an idea of what or who we are, and we also have an idea of how others see us. (These two images are usually slightly different, but relatively close.) There is, however, yet another image: how we *want* to be, or how we want others to see us. Which leads to my personally twisted sense of beauty and list of "to be accomplished" things.
Eternal vs. Ephermeral Beauty
As mortals I guess we're in love with the idea of infinity, and as God, I guess he's kinda perked by the finite. And if a being as infinite as God is interested in something as short-lived and finite as us humans, there's gotta be something worth looking at in ourselves. We should stop obsessing over things that will last throughout the ages and try to appreciate the things that happen in our lives, especially the things that happen only once. The old cherish their youth because it was so long ago. Some brief relationships(whether they're friendships, kinships, etc) are beautiful for their brevity.
Pears Aren't Filling
If you're hungry at midnight, pears aren't the way to go. They fill your stomach and leave you still hungry, which is a nasty feeling to have. I now feel bloated and hungry at the moment, a most unnatural and uncomfortable combination.
Never Play Word Games When You're Tired/Jetlagged
I lost so many times because my brain wasn't working properly. At its high, I couldn't even read. I thought "carpenting" wasn't a word, and figured the person meant "carpeting". Yah, I'm so smart. S-M-R-T.
2005/05/15
SAR
"Special Administrative Region" of China. I.e., Hong Kong. I'm there right now for a few days, buy a few things, see a few family members, suffer a few more degrees of heat...
It's supposed to be 27~32°C all week... How shall I ever survive...
I was supposed to blog about people who argue about things they know nothing about, but I think I'm gonna have to wait 'til I get bk to civilization and group that blog with another rant I have about ppl who form opinions about things without seeing it to completion. (e.g. movies, books, blog entries, etc.) Maybe, just maybe, some of your questions and reservations are addressed later in the work. Surprising, eh? That ideas have to be presented in some order? Shocking, I know.
One more person has discovered my blog. Luckily they don't leave comments, because sometimes I just would prefer them not to. I write because I want to share my thoughts in the world, not because I'm trying to prove I'm right or anything. If it makes you think, kudos. If not, just move on; don't waste all our times by posting meaningless drivel that will only further confuse and infuriate other parties.
Meanwhile... Flight to HK was pretty good. Accured quite a lot of sleep debt which helped me survive the flight, and also sleep off the jetlag. (Slept from 5-10pm, local time, just to sleep some more from 11pm-7:30am.)
Yah, that's pretty much it. It'd be nice to take some pictures since we never do, but we'll see...
It's supposed to be 27~32°C all week... How shall I ever survive...
I was supposed to blog about people who argue about things they know nothing about, but I think I'm gonna have to wait 'til I get bk to civilization and group that blog with another rant I have about ppl who form opinions about things without seeing it to completion. (e.g. movies, books, blog entries, etc.) Maybe, just maybe, some of your questions and reservations are addressed later in the work. Surprising, eh? That ideas have to be presented in some order? Shocking, I know.
One more person has discovered my blog. Luckily they don't leave comments, because sometimes I just would prefer them not to. I write because I want to share my thoughts in the world, not because I'm trying to prove I'm right or anything. If it makes you think, kudos. If not, just move on; don't waste all our times by posting meaningless drivel that will only further confuse and infuriate other parties.
Meanwhile... Flight to HK was pretty good. Accured quite a lot of sleep debt which helped me survive the flight, and also sleep off the jetlag. (Slept from 5-10pm, local time, just to sleep some more from 11pm-7:30am.)
Yah, that's pretty much it. It'd be nice to take some pictures since we never do, but we'll see...
2005/05/08
Apologetics
Apparently, the meaning of that word is the study of the fidelity of the Bible. A best seller, the leading authority on christianity, it is not only famous but still the centre of hot debate. I am no scholar, and definitely not a leading authority on matters spiritual, historical, anthropological nor scientific, but I do enjoy entertaining the thought that my neurons are stimulated every once in a while.
Having said that, don't expect a long or scholarly discourse on the history of the bible. I'm just here to lay some very rudimentary facts I've discovered along my investigation about why the bible is accepted with as much authority as it does have in religious circles.
The history of the bible is a pretty good place to start. I personally tend to work chronologically, even if that means learning Hellenic before learning Modern Greek. (Which, btw, is NOT gonna happen... Biblical Hebrew is more than enough for me.)
As a lengthy sidenote, a common misconception people seem to have is that Latin is one of the oldest languages in the world. While I'm not saying that it isn't old, it certainly is far from being oldest. It had been brought to my attention that certain people carry the misguided notion that Latin, being "very ancient" precedes even Ancient Greek.
However, just consider two very simple facts. Plato, Aristotle and Socrates were and are still considered to be *Greek*, the latest who died in 322BC. Some of you may enjoy tossing these sorts of speculation as being "guesswork", but I think that a philosopher of an unambiguous nationality would arise from an unestablished nation. Suffice it to say, I think it's entirely reasonable to surmise (as well may be easily varified with historical documents) that the Greeks were already a nation around 500BC (Especially given the fact that Socrates was born around 470BC). The Roman Empire started around 27B.C., a whopping half-millenium later.
A quick look into any decent encyclopedia will show that the early makings of the greek nation (or then, "hellenic" nation) were already settled in the 800's BC. The Roman Republic (which preceeded the Roman Empire) started around 500BC.
So while the two didn't share a mother-daughter relationship (linguistically), we can see that the two were very much alive at the time and that Greek is not a consequence of the disassembly of the Roman Empire.
Going back to the core of the matter, is the assembly of the Bible. here are the facts, as I know them, in their most basic form. The reader is encouraged to verify and search for evidence of these on their own.
1. The various books of the bible were written by various men, of different nationalities and generations (nay, centuries).
2. The bible has more original sources than any other work (Socrates or Confucius, for example)
3. When the bible was assembled (by a group of *scholars*, not just rabid fanatics), the books of the bible went under a process of inclusion rather than exclusion. That is to say, a book had to pass all five tests before it was admitted into the bible, rather than the notion that books were later excluded for inconsistency or invalidity.
3.b) Of these five tests, one was the test of whether or not it was "God-breathed". For anyone religious, this is a pretty infallible test, the idea being that God doesn't lie about his works. But for those of less religious inclinations, there were still four other tests of solid academic work, (of which I'm not knowledgable enough to explain in detail).
It is point two that I would like to expand on. It's just a small tidbit, but one that really got me thinking, and one that I hope will spark the same excitement in the reader. Consider, for example, the works of Confucius. He lived a while ago, and like some other brilliant minds at the time (Socrates, for example, who was only born a century later, or so) didn't write anything down. All his teachings (conversations, really) were recorded by his students, years after his death. That the closest original 2nd-hand sources are decades or even centuries after his death? Why does nobody question how "true" it is? We all concede that "Confucius said, 'blahblahblah'," and we agree with it. Yet, the bible, which has so many more 1st-hand sources, on top of being cross-refernced with historical accuracy from outside sources, is constantly called into question.
Another misconception is that our current English bible is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation [ad infinitum], which is totally not true. Given the wonderful and revealing art of linguistics, coupled with originals and copies of the original texts, the bible is actually just a direct translation from the original ancient hebrew or greek or whatever into English. (Remember, only the old stuff was written in hebrew. The New Testament was written several centuries later.)
Having taken a course on Biblical Hebrew, I will admit that translation from a very old language (incidentally, Biblical Hebrew predates both Latin and Greek easily. So for those of you who blindly grasp at Latin, thinking it's a dignified and ancient language, you are sorely mistaken) to a very new and recent language can be difficult. But luckily, the translations were done by some very capable people, unlike students such as myself who have a perverse propensity for procrastination. Translations were done in teams, so it was no individual effort. If some area is ambiguous or called into question, another expert would look at it. The bible is no fan-sub. What you read is pretty much what was originally written. Debating the contents is another matter entirely, but on the subject of its accuracy as an ancient book, I say it's doing pretty good.
How many of your notions of the bible have been changed or challenged? Or more directly, how many people do you know criticise and attack the validity of the bible without having thoroughly researched its history and roots?
Just something to think about...
P.S. I've got a whole other rant about ppl who argue about things they know nothing about coming up...
Having said that, don't expect a long or scholarly discourse on the history of the bible. I'm just here to lay some very rudimentary facts I've discovered along my investigation about why the bible is accepted with as much authority as it does have in religious circles.
The history of the bible is a pretty good place to start. I personally tend to work chronologically, even if that means learning Hellenic before learning Modern Greek. (Which, btw, is NOT gonna happen... Biblical Hebrew is more than enough for me.)
As a lengthy sidenote, a common misconception people seem to have is that Latin is one of the oldest languages in the world. While I'm not saying that it isn't old, it certainly is far from being oldest. It had been brought to my attention that certain people carry the misguided notion that Latin, being "very ancient" precedes even Ancient Greek.
However, just consider two very simple facts. Plato, Aristotle and Socrates were and are still considered to be *Greek*, the latest who died in 322BC. Some of you may enjoy tossing these sorts of speculation as being "guesswork", but I think that a philosopher of an unambiguous nationality would arise from an unestablished nation. Suffice it to say, I think it's entirely reasonable to surmise (as well may be easily varified with historical documents) that the Greeks were already a nation around 500BC (Especially given the fact that Socrates was born around 470BC). The Roman Empire started around 27B.C., a whopping half-millenium later.
A quick look into any decent encyclopedia will show that the early makings of the greek nation (or then, "hellenic" nation) were already settled in the 800's BC. The Roman Republic (which preceeded the Roman Empire) started around 500BC.
So while the two didn't share a mother-daughter relationship (linguistically), we can see that the two were very much alive at the time and that Greek is not a consequence of the disassembly of the Roman Empire.
Going back to the core of the matter, is the assembly of the Bible. here are the facts, as I know them, in their most basic form. The reader is encouraged to verify and search for evidence of these on their own.
1. The various books of the bible were written by various men, of different nationalities and generations (nay, centuries).
2. The bible has more original sources than any other work (Socrates or Confucius, for example)
3. When the bible was assembled (by a group of *scholars*, not just rabid fanatics), the books of the bible went under a process of inclusion rather than exclusion. That is to say, a book had to pass all five tests before it was admitted into the bible, rather than the notion that books were later excluded for inconsistency or invalidity.
3.b) Of these five tests, one was the test of whether or not it was "God-breathed". For anyone religious, this is a pretty infallible test, the idea being that God doesn't lie about his works. But for those of less religious inclinations, there were still four other tests of solid academic work, (of which I'm not knowledgable enough to explain in detail).
It is point two that I would like to expand on. It's just a small tidbit, but one that really got me thinking, and one that I hope will spark the same excitement in the reader. Consider, for example, the works of Confucius. He lived a while ago, and like some other brilliant minds at the time (Socrates, for example, who was only born a century later, or so) didn't write anything down. All his teachings (conversations, really) were recorded by his students, years after his death. That the closest original 2nd-hand sources are decades or even centuries after his death? Why does nobody question how "true" it is? We all concede that "Confucius said, 'blahblahblah'," and we agree with it. Yet, the bible, which has so many more 1st-hand sources, on top of being cross-refernced with historical accuracy from outside sources, is constantly called into question.
Another misconception is that our current English bible is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation [ad infinitum], which is totally not true. Given the wonderful and revealing art of linguistics, coupled with originals and copies of the original texts, the bible is actually just a direct translation from the original ancient hebrew or greek or whatever into English. (Remember, only the old stuff was written in hebrew. The New Testament was written several centuries later.)
Having taken a course on Biblical Hebrew, I will admit that translation from a very old language (incidentally, Biblical Hebrew predates both Latin and Greek easily. So for those of you who blindly grasp at Latin, thinking it's a dignified and ancient language, you are sorely mistaken) to a very new and recent language can be difficult. But luckily, the translations were done by some very capable people, unlike students such as myself who have a perverse propensity for procrastination. Translations were done in teams, so it was no individual effort. If some area is ambiguous or called into question, another expert would look at it. The bible is no fan-sub. What you read is pretty much what was originally written. Debating the contents is another matter entirely, but on the subject of its accuracy as an ancient book, I say it's doing pretty good.
How many of your notions of the bible have been changed or challenged? Or more directly, how many people do you know criticise and attack the validity of the bible without having thoroughly researched its history and roots?
Just something to think about...
P.S. I've got a whole other rant about ppl who argue about things they know nothing about coming up...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)