place

he only moves into places that we vacate for him. that is why he was born in a manger

persuasion

persuasion is an art of reason.

on parallel lines intersecting with reality

how do we know that parallel lines do not intersect? the perpendicular distances between them at any point on either line are equal in all cases..but how can we be sure that the ends of the lines do not meet at infinity? yes, surely a physically drawn line can never be perfectly straight, just as any object existing in three-dimensional reality is not perfect. but consider simply the idea of a straight line, and then the idea of two such lines satisfying the colinear property...then those lines will never intersect--not now, not later, never even at infinity.

so then here lies the point of the issue--it is not possible for reality to match up to ideality, much like how the best execution of an idea will never truly fulfill it: that the truest form of reality, is not real.

everything we act upon with our human bodies, are but projections of perfect ideas existing in our human minds. with better methods, one can at best produce a favourable estimate, but never the realisation of what we think. when we think of triangles, we know they exist, because we can draw triangles. but few of us know that no one can truly draw a triangle, only a triangle simulade. yet because we have been drawing triangles for thousands of years, we have deluded ourselves into thinking we have achieved such an idea. the corresponding delusion is that triangles do exist. in the fundamental sense...triangles do not exist--at least not in reality.

yet we are able to define what a triangle means: three straight lines, with each line intersecting the other two. we are able to form this definition of a triangle, only because we already possess knowledge of the idea of a straight line. continuing, we are able to form this definition of a line because we possess the knowledge of the idea of an interconnected series of dimensionless points..even though it is impossible to line up dots if each dot has no dimensions. straight lines cannot exist. yet we accept the idea of it, because it is useful (we can make triangles outta those! spiffy!).

therein lies the next point: we humans are really not concerned with what is real or unreal, but instead we accept anything that works. it has become a property of humanity that we define reality according to what is useful to us, not whether reality is real or not. this is the real reason for the existence of philosophers: we need them, because without them, we humans warp reality to our own faulty understanding of it. we need the philosphers to remind us that we are subjects of reality, not vice versa, as our repeated successes with controlling our environment has given us false confidence in.

yes, i think it is bad that we define reality as things that work for us. but there is one greater sin: defining unreality as things which do not work for us. this would be a fallacy of denying the antecedent. eg, a particular fruit not being an apple is not grounds for claiming that an apple is not a fruit.

we have accepted the definition of a dimensionless point, even though we know they cannot exist. we have accepted the definition of a straight line, even though we know they cannot exist. we have also accepted the definition of the triangle, even though we know they cannot exist. we have done all this because the point, the line and the triangle are useful ideas. they exist, because we have defined them to exist.

so when the question arrives, "Does God exist?" we cannot prove the answer; we can only define it's usefullness. the debate on it is fruitless abandon to all participants not educated on their own delusions of what reality actually is. these men and women should not lie on the bed of truth thinking they can define reality simply because they can make definitions.

traffic haiku

busy roads

what is on the mind

is also inside the heart

bring it out tonight

when insomnia comes

a familiar voice is king

comfortable pillow

the roads are busy

wee hours of the morning

an excitation

~

yeah!

+1 for progressivism

weird

i dreamt that barack obama gave me a missed call...

he must have found out that i was photoshopping one of his pictures!

on privilege

so this wise guy once said, 

When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests.

and i thought wow, thats a reeeeally smart tactic. by volunteering to be in a humiliatory position, the only way...is up! after all, if one enjoys hardship, then there is no hardship...all the more glorious is that the possibility for change will never result in disappointment. its no wonder that this philosophy of no disappointment was reiterated by yet another smart guy some 900 years later..

Do not put yourself forward in the king’s presence or stand in the place of the great, for it is better to be told, "Come up here," than to be put lower in the presence of a noble.

and so is the nature of human pride, a cyclical beast bound by the laws of nature still...those who expect more are eventually disappointed while those who are happy with less are always overflowing. pride pedals the wheels of a stationary bicycle.

these parables teach of the futility of the chase of fame, power and comfort--futility in a sense that these things do not last, due to the fact that they are taken away as soon as they are achieved. whether by nature or by men, neither is as significant as the phrase we have all come to hear and admire, albeit without full appreciation, "And this, too, shall pass away".

in these times i have often wondered if these old words could still apply. in fact they do. it is quite valid to assume that the philosophy of zero expectation could lead to a very contented and happy life. the expectations do not just include material posessions like food, water, shelter and mates. im not talking about job security, nor even friends, nor quality of sex life. no, this philosophy also applies to the things higher up the Maslow hierarchy: psychosocial dynamics affecting our value of selves...

sooner or later down the road of life some of us become more demanding (more expecting of things, put into context), and pride somehow convinces us that we have a right to demand what others are not getting. the false conclusion involving something that is specially given, with the idea that we are special people who deserve them--to put it simply...it is the principle of privilege gone nuts.

not everyone can get special things, because not everyone is special. but problems still arise...because pride has a funny way of convincing the man that he is special and so thinks he deserves what he actually doesnt. to avoid the risk of such a humiliating mistake, i guess the best move is just to not expect privileges. after all privileges are not rights, and rights only guarantee that all men are equal (women, you are equal to men too).

if Jesus and Solomon are right, then the humble will receive their privileges, while the proud will have theirs stripped away leaving behind a bitterness on their tongue for life, man and God. their loss.

opinions

one would assume that a normal conversation entails an unspoken agreement to the mutual exchange of opinions. this is not so. if theres one thing ive learnt, its that the assumption is usually taken for granted.

it would be good practice instead to restate or at least surface this agreement before the actual opinion exchange, lest the hearer becomes offended by the speaker. such an agreement would shift social liability to the hearer who is willing to receive valuable opinions that might otherwise become ammunition against the speaker, and so lend itself to become the agent of dissolution of an otherwise amicable social exchange.

in other words, keep your opinions to yourself, unless asked. in bold letters. and in no uncertain terms. sign contract if necessary.

oh..i can feel my eq rising already!

love aircon love it

"aiyooooh so cold, don't know how you sleep in the fridge!"

time

it is precisely because we are given enough time to do everything that we end up spending time on everything and not enough on the few things, the few things that if all that time were suddenly taken away we would spend what little time we had on, such that though it would feel like there wasn't enough time, every moment of it would still be sweet.

hopefully maybe someone

one day ill just sit and be quiet, and i wont even have open my eyes, yet someone out there will know what im thinking. that someone will know what is about to come out of my mouth, what im about to do next. most importantly that someone will know why i will do what i will do.

i dont need that someone to believe, nor understand, nor even agree. at one point i might even be happy with just not being misunderstood...

shhh...someone's coming.

immortality

given the option of immortality most would jump at the opportunity, whereas im much akin to see such alleged freedom as the ultimate entrapment. the gift of time is undoubtedly the greatest gift to the practical mind: imagine the offerings of learning all the languages, playing all the instruments, visiting all the mountains and walking all the streets of the world, tasting every cuisine and experiencing every culture.

the amount of wisdom and knowledge acquirable in a seemingly infinite lifespan, i would imagine, is great to the extent of being able to raise the consciousness to an unprecedented level. an immortal in a sea of mortals is a God among men...and the troubles start here..

agelessness comes with it inevitable loneliness...the surety of death for all family, friends and acquaintances. immortality for the self would definitely become a curse, as nothing else around the self is nearly as constant.

a God is like a bird in the wind, with no legs for which to land. nothing stays...everything passes. the universe passes by and the heaven and earth too pass away but the God remains. all enjoyment amounts to but a speck of time in his age of timelessness.

to become immortal is to become like God. i would venture to say that the sure price of Godlessless is personal happiness. ie, once we have obtained eternal life on earth we would have forfeited our own happinesses as nothing would last long enough to satisfy us, except:

the satisfaction of making the lives of mortals happy.

yet we do not need to be immortal to accomplish this. under this finding it follows naturally that any higher being can only experience lasting purpose by lifting up those who are lower than he as the higher one climbs, the more there are who are below him. this metric of vertical distance is applicable to intelligence, wealth, awareness, power, fame, wisdom...

the higher we rise, the lonelier we become; the power of exclusivity is a delusion that ultimately begs for death.

narcissism

it is better to listen to the rebuke of the wise and humbly accede to it, no matter how disagreeable it may be to the mind, as the ego resists criticism and by reflex glances all negative words aside. unfairly it only accepts the songs of flattery so that no improvements are made, and all flaws and weaknesses become drowned in the celebration of fools who flock together. such is the danger of the conglomeration of the likeminded, no matter how wise.

so it is always better to set the ego aside and let all words come through, and be glorious for a moment in praise, yet similarly solemn in the presence of all comment lest one be superior, so that he who receives the word of wise may appear wise as he who gave it.

guilty kimchi

fresh and hot

a little aged here and crunchy there

funky red lace on a pale green underlay

a bite 

lips a'smackin

teeth chatter to the tang no better

than the smell of a leaf with a fragrant fester

how wrong it feels to indulge in this

with nimble hands we taste this bliss

"Pab! Hana! De!"

one more time just one more time

how do we take without wanting more

for the wrongness of it all in every nibble

tastes only right--quit this petty rabble

i say hand me another serving

forget the tummyache for tomorrow

as the days ahead sure quickly follow

i live for now and now im itchy

woe to him who withholds my Kimchi.

~

korea haiku

alive in allive

a little clock ticks

cosy walls hum through the night

my heart sound asleep

~

oh my God

don't need no food, don't need no sleep, just a couple sips of water once in awhile.

i dont know i just want to be happy

i think what i was trying to say was that happiness is more or less a construct...

and of its greatest constructors lie ignorance, the grandmaster of happiness-making. i would rather face the dirty, messy truth. and as in part two, if this means i can never be truly happy in the popular sense of the word, then i must prepare to live through this decision.

i want things to stay the same

even though the nature of things is to change. this means that as people we must adapt to keep our results in order. stubborn rigidity is the trade of personal security against long-term happiness. willing change is whereas the highest abstract form of sacrifice and it is an investment into any relational bond. in a way, a relationship with no sacrifice is a fund with no investors. likewise, as there is no commitment, there is always a fast route out; where there is no risk, there is no payout.

the dividends are good, and i plan to reinvest.

on happiness part deux

some say that the best kind of excitement, the best type of enjoyment, is the kind that comes from getting completely lost in the environment--willfully letting go and letting the environment take over. but it seems to me that this way of living happy is usually the surest and fastest way for one to feel empty soon after the ambience dies down. when the lights come back on and the mr dj puts the record off, the same some people can almost always report of the sudden feeling of loss and afterward either the urge to chase a louder music in the future or the slightly unshakeable suspicion that all of it is just a drug that they dont want to take any longer. sometimes, weirdly both.

we are all suckers for security. yet strangely enough we enjoy losing control, and like a pendulum we yearn for stability as soon as we lose it. we are definitely a contradictory bunch. so it seems to be the best move that we choose the right thing or things to let control us. one caveat: that those things be more reliable than ourselves--that those things be worth more to us than ourselves. from off the top of my head i cannot really find more than one thing to which i am willing to submit control. and to everything else, when i enjoy it, i also enjoy without losing much of myself.

im quite prepared to accept that this means i will never experience the best kind of excitement, the best kind of enjoyment. after all, everything has a price. my satisfaction is in complete awareness.

mooncake overload

"aiyoh! look at the moon, what happened to it? today is 8-15 the moon should be big and round...why is it so small?!"

cos you ate all of it already.

on happiness

The ways of this world are but paths of and toward hunger; the pursuits of earthly origins do not satiate but instead grow emptiness and the unstoppable drive to fill it. But the pursuit of contentment is within reach for us all--the reach itself is its result--happiness inherent.

This truth is a reminder: happiness is not something to be chased and captured; it is something to be observed in quiescence amidst the tympanic chaos of this distracting world.

Let the implication be that we are by nature and ourselves alone bound from happiness as long as we remain as beings enchanted by the offerings of this earth.

Happiness is not of this world; that which will show us happiness is of the same characteristic.

world record

today, after a kit-kat, a sip of water and whilst sitting down, with a heart rate of about 60, i held my breath for 3 min flat. i think i could have gone another 5 or 6 sec but i was already starting to spasm and didnt want to die yet. i still have tutorials to do.

and theres still a place i need to visit before i die =^.^=

meaning of life p huit, unhypocrites p trois, morality p deux

let us not be quick to devalue those who perform actions we consider to be distasteful. the judgment itself is not wrong, but the advice to steer clear from it is usually in the rationale that people discriminate according to flawed criteria--in this case men and women are devalued according to their actions, regarding which not everyone considers to be distasteful in the first place...

we are often brought up with societal imprints of normalcy and mores; the very criteria with which we assess our surroundings are the same criteria our fathers and grandfathers used. if history has taught us anything, let it be that it has repeatedly shown us the error of our ways in terms of racial, sexual, political and social inequalities--the kind of atrocities that only the descendants of the very perpetrators can acknowledge and repent for. why dont we take a minute, or even a second to ascertain for ourselves the adequacy of following patterns of our forefathers and their criteria for judging people. this way of blind reception of instruction is inhibitive in all its connotations--it is a parasitic regressor of the long-term social fabric (as ironic as it this be). after all, time-honored practices are supposedly keepers of the peace.

rw emerson said that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. the message is harsh, and for some who cling fiercely to their views this very quotation can incite a counterproductive defensive psychological barricade against subsequent attempts to enlighten; yes emerson claims that all who disagree with him are diminutive in many ways. however let us be reminded that it takes a huge mind, an exceptionally magnanimous and mature individual to overcome the defense mechanism erected by his own primal self, and with no further help attain an awareness lucid enough to penetrate his latent denial. it is a true feat of strength for a warrior hardened by battle to drop his sword and cast aside his shield and trust that not every one he meets on the bloody fields is his enemy. an acceptance of emerson's words as truth is the first step in proving that he is wrong (again ironic but no less true).

now once we have established for ourselves the criteria that we can safely and fairly use to assess the people around us, we quickly find that most if not all of these men and women who we would have been appalled by in the past, we now find no quarrel with. in effect, in trying to make our criteria more useful, we have made it useless. irony for the third time..however, note that in simply stepping back and taking a look at the things we have been thinking, saying and doing all these years without question, in looking at the big picture, our perception of all that exists changes...our priorities change.

yes our fathers and grandfathers might look at our generation and say that we are doing things that they in their time would never have dared to, that "these are a lost people." no i am not going to say that they are wrong, and definitely not that "we the supposed lost people are in fact more focused than you could ever be", but rather i say there will come a day when our children and their children will think, say and do things we consider to be appalling and we will chide them for "losing" their way, and i can only hope then they will not deride us for being square little minds.

instead let us earn the respect of our forefathers by breaking free of their will and at the same time make our own way and so be able to deserve the same respect from our children. the day will come when they earn our respect by breaking free of our wills. but let us be mindful of our own stresses of today and not impose it on them in the first place.

fighting for freedom from false fixtures (alliteration zomg) marks only the first chapters of my freedom manifesto; the second and more important half underscores the importance of making it available to everyone else as well. it is imperative that all who are free fight to make free those who are not.

1. stop judging others against our deluded ideals
2. break denial and exit from delusion
3. assist others in abandoning their delusions

the unhypocrites part deux

the unhyprocrites, part deux, written 2-3months ago:

its so easy to point fingers isnt it? when  i was 7 my chinese teacher said something in class about how pointing your finger at someone also meant having three of your own pointed at yourself. it seemed like a pretty cool discovery at the time, and i think i got the message. and then i forgot about it because i kept receiving the same visualisation from so-called wise people that i met along the next decade or so.

we people like to point our fingers at things unknown to us, things that make us uncomfortable. and if theres one thing ive observed in humans, its our aggressive requirement for security and reliability in our perceived reality. anything or anyone who threatened our bubble world would be pointed at and struck down by words, if not sticks and stones.

discrimination is a powerful tool--it is powerful not because of its efficacy but for its accessibility and widespread use. when two different groups are put together, their first impressions of each other are formed from firstly the gathering of similarities in appearance, behaviour, ideology. if none is found, then the notion of imminent mutual threat is quickly reconciled. i note that this threat is merely perceived at this point--not that it is cannot exist, rather that it is believed to be at this moment; whether the threat is real or not is inconsequential because a perceived threat is no more unreal  than a truly existent one to a mind that is easily threatened. and people do all sorts of things when they are afraid. granted, in the civilised societies that earthlings have made for themselves, they no longer murder each other out of mass fear and hysteria. think kkk, nazi, salem, etc. how embarrassing it would be for all of them if i were an alien who came to this world and observed them and told them that they are just as barbaric as they were a century or two ago. if not in action, then in words, if not in words then in thought.

discrimination is a powerful tool, but its use is flooded by abuse. this tool is but a defense mechanism to increase the sense of security of life and limb of its user, who never knows the ugly side of it: this tool is a selfish tool. it increases our quality of life at the expense of another party. if my theory is right, then such use of this tool would lead to null progress for all mankind in general. i suspect if people were mature and selfcongnitive enough, they should realise this on their own eventually, that low-level defense mechanisms are animal in nature (kill or be killed). whosoever debases a person to increase his security does inadvertently makes himself into an animal which will always be lower than the lowest person.

people they think thoughts, say words, and do actions and they do all of it for self-preservation. they dont know this, so i cant really blame them anyway. but some really try and go out of their way to push people down and make them stay down. those i cannot forgive; those who take this terrible tool and use it, and claim divine instruction from religion--my religion, and so taint it with their human imperfections: who are they, with their own lacking human wisdom, to take from some 700 listed sins a few chosen ones and place them prominently against the rest, as if some sins are worse than others. who are they to then proceed to condemn their neighbours who are guilty of one of their chosen sins, when they themselves, the pointer of fingers, are guility of the other 699? is not the divine wage of any of those 700 the same? i know the punishment is the same, and that the penance for forgiveness is also the same for any and all of them.

like i said in part one, it takes one to know one, and until we find similarity with discomfort, we can never accept it as part of life, and by unfortunate virtue of our humanity, we will blindly try to eliminate that discomfort at the cost of our neighbours comfort, and because we are blind, also at the cost of our very humanity.


if by pointing a finger at someone makes all of us realise that we dont really like strange people, then i hope we also realise the second truth--that we are only doing it to regain lost security. and the third truth if possible, that both the danger and gained security are likely false, and that the discrimination was a result of personal hypocrisy. hopefully some will grasp the fourth, that as sentient beings we are capable of transcending animal instinct and so resist them just because we can--because there should be more meaning to life; to discover and exercise the reason for our sentience--raison d'etre.

if only mr loh told me this instead of his selfpointing idea, i would have believed him. but i was 7. and that age, anyone is likely to stop pointing if someone said to them that they were also pointing at themselves--after all, nobody likes to point at themselves. they only stop doing it because they realise they are also hurting themselves. seven year olds cant achieve a level three clarity. hey, cant blame them. but most forty seven year olds still dont. what gives?

there is happiness outside of the bubble world too.

on comfort and contentment

that's my job.

the rational

je regrette part cinq

Count Coulomb, Emperor Economics, Grandfather Gravity, Kaiser Karma, Lady Libra, Lord Luck, Tycoon Thermodynamics i can spend forever and a day coming up with alliterations of things in life which ebb and flow in the now but level out in the end; this universe is one built upon the laws of conservation, and to obtain all of one thing, then all of another must be sacrificed.

there is no free everything.

garden of Hades

the frog lay between walls so high even ceilings would be unnecessary. every route split into two ways, each choice diverging into more forks than the previous. it imagined the way out, but each option only appeared to lead to yet another option with no conceivable mark of progress. every dilemma was passed with a decision to turn right, with the vain notion that consistency would result well. then it was as if the maze had become a labyrinth--but even a labyrinth has a way out.

this spiral was more of a black hole made of quicksand. every step out of the centre made the hole bigger and the more the frog thought the further it became from the edge. it was a swamp of black with currents rushing in, yet even the rising waterline could not seem to catch the head of the walls; they too were ascending as if in blatant response to the frog's so-called efforts.

the trap was like a prison cell made of dreams, that even desire could not touch, nor hope smell. even if the whole universe was plunged into darkness, the predicament could not grow worse. so the frog sat...and sat... and sat, until a worm crawled by and even the worm was happy. it went about its day, looking forward to the ground and all it had to offer. even the white-spotted black cat pierced the gloom with its fine green eyes. one purr it made and it was content for the day. the porcupine was busy pawing out the shrubbery eager for something interesting, something new. the black bear roared, the eels darted up and down the stream like ribbons in the wind. all the critters of the wilderness had something to live for.

but the frog only had the vision of a wide-eyed vagabond. and to it the topiary of the garden was only a temporary means to an unknown end.

principia fundamentalis

we are always in the running to define and characterise ourselves, regardless of our intention for or against; people perceive and evaluate one another according to their choice of words and actions. if we do not live by doctrine, we are undefined, erratic, oft confused beings tugged around by the vicissitudes of a chaotic world and its fancies. to gain true stability we become first enthralled by the tempting image of false security usually masked by what are known as Morals. it is a matter of time that a moral person is broken by shocking events of his life, yet if that person so chooses, as we have been given the Godsent power of conscious choice, to live by a certain set of principles instead, no event on earth can shake him, as his doctrine is as fundamental as the ground beneath him.

now, a man is defined by his doctrine, and to fail to live up to so is to be a lesser man. we are always in the running to define and characterise ourselves; in a world where it is impossible to escape earthly judgment, the last bastion of stability is our own personal doctrine. and we will be judged according to it regardless of our preference. yet not all is beyond control, for we can shape the very objects of such scrutiny--ourselves. if we do not define ourselves, then in effect we leave that inevitability into the hands of the eyes that observe us. unfortunately the public views an undefined person without much respect, and so the words of such a person is rarely accorded much weight; if we do not take ourselves seriously, then all the less would others do so and even lesser should we expect such a thing of them.

a foreman can tell his labourers where to lay the bricks and where to place the nails and where to drop the floorboards and say "this is how a house is made," when in fact if he simply taught his men the ideas of walls, of floors and of roofs, how amazed would he be if the men were to start building all kinds of houses no one foreman could ever conceive of on his own?

principles. we humans need them. in the early years each one of us may convince ourselves or become comfortable in the delusion that there is only one way to build a house. but when we learn of the fundamentals of morality--principles--we become individual builders of a myriad new abodes. it is important to become free of blind instruction, and to choose to learn principles over their respective constructs. there is nothing more fundamental than principles; anything simpler would be nothing--yet it is dangerous to flirt with the concept of becoming free of principles; we humans need to live by doctrine, if not by primal hunger, then by necessity of its utility.

umbilical chord progression

stage one: rock metal
it almost always starts out with rock or heavy metal. the sound is brutal and the beat, conspicuous. the entire structure is rigid, and the intentions, exceptionally clear. there is little doubt why youngsters are attracted to this genre, while the oldbies might also find it hard to shake off after piling on the years; this type of music is a sensory barrage--an auditory onslaught, if you will (and you will, cause i say so :)). in this indulgent age, its not surprising that this loud genre is the most popular of all.

the less hardcore would instead begin at gangster rap, if they did not transition from the overbearing noise coming from the amplifiers. here the music takes a diminished role, and the lyrical substance is brought to the forefront and becomes emphasised. here, the language is crass, and the content, primitive. all of it is still loud, but there is definitive storytelling, albeit of stories which have no more than fantastical value. stage one music is easily appreciated but hardly understood, as there is little to understand.

stage two: alternative
such music presents itself as a polished form of stage one: melody triumphs beat, and the lyrics take on a less serious tone, with lighter subject matters. one might observe a more conservative aura around stage two music, which does not provoke physical involvement, which is always paramount to stage one music success.

because there is a transference of priorities from physical to mental attention, there is a clear distinction between the first two stages.

stage three: lyrical abstraction
in a world of sensuality, the first two stages supply the demand of the five senses, but once in a while there are songs authored with lyrics so abstract that they became substrates for the imagination of the listener. such musical pieces are not plainly blank slates, as there is instrumental accompaniment and the lyrics themselves not nebulous.

more often than not, we may observe stage two-three hybrids with indulgent music coupled with ingenious prose. these are usually stage-three-creditable, as there is an unambiguous mental participation from the listener.

stage four: auditory abstraction
if it is possible to create multiple meanings from words, then it must therefore also be possible to create multiple meanings from sound. it is not difficult to write ambiguously, but to design music in such a manner as to be substantive yet freely interpretable is a feat known only to legends. it is with little doubt that most classicals fall into stage four. it is also with little uncertainty that this genre is not popular due to its lack of definitive structure; classical music rarely imposes. humanistic reasons easily account for the larger preference against it. because of its flexibility, it can only give to the listener what is asked of it, and an unfortunate rule of normal behaviour precludes the average person from the appreciation of music that does not tell him what should be heard or felt throughout the piece(a-la stage one).

stage five: intuition
this area is so abstract that its not even there (so philosopical!). in this area, any piece cannot really be called a symphony, neither can it be called a song. yet it is called music, and might even be akin to an artistic performance. it is apparent that at stage five, we no longer dwell on what the first four stages of music dwelt with. stage five is...beyond music. it is a dimension where even thoughts and dreams exist, and such existence is contingent upon the level of intuition to which we apply to anything we experience as creatures of the five senses.

if at each stage we progress as listeners by applying greater intuition to what we hear, or as songwriters, by creating pieces that are increasingly more accessible to the intuiting ear, then the highest level within reason, is stage five. the quest for a higher level would not only be nigh on impossible, but also virtually meaningless--

and we are back to stage one.

a tribute to the misunderstood

country and western

 wave come cry fly wry lie die

oh bring me back my wife go blind

do you see this life of mine

ching chong china wine, my you look fine

now would you be so kind today

brick break tally whack sing it if you may

sing it if you may

sing it if you may

~

hello, goodbye

today at harbourfront a woman walked by and i thought it was Chloé. i turned to look but i couldnt recognise her. it wasnt exactly the same.

meaning of life part sept

people might behave in certain ways, appearing to have a myriad of different wants and preferences, disguising the fact that they are in need of security in all aspects. but it is only after they have attained security that this artificial cloud is blown away, and they realise that they are still not happy.

i have thought about it for a while and have come to the conclusion that what people really want, under security, is actually to be useful. i find it difficult to believe that all the security and reliability in the world could satiate anyone's life. even the delusion of security is not enough. it is only through knowing that my existence is for some reason that i can really be happy.

i have found my reason for being. i can only hope that i can hold on to that reason long enough so that i die before i let go or it is taken from me.

on being a good son

lets go korea end of the year.

"korea? i thought you say go holiday dont want to go anywhere in asia?"

korea can.

"you know i dont like all those cold places--why you want to go korea? skiiing ah. want to go skiing ah.?"

among other things.

"dont want la skiiing. so dangerous. i dont want to go holiday then have to worry about you all. holiday is to relax not worry."

dont worry la. die then die lor.

"talk nonsense. what? i give birth to you so difficult then you just die ah."

difficult meh i thought caesarean.

"talk nonsense. so easy then you go cut your stomach. how can you die before me. that is very unfilial. dont you dare."

so in order to be a good boy i must die after you...

"yes."

ok.

dream a little dream of me

sometimes i dream of a familiar sound, and i spend minutes trying to find the source of it, and i awake to the alarm clock. i look at the time and i know for a fact that it could not have been ringing for that long.

what is instantaneous or momentary in the real world, the dream world can stretch and interpret generously with respect to time. a man can lie in bed and in one second of sleep somehow enact what must be several minutes of dream. this may appear to be an acceleration of the mind in its dream state. but this does not explain the sudden loss in processing power when we finally awake. to me it sounds counterintuitive that the brain speeds up when it is supposed to be resting.

i believe that the brain can write and retrieve a bajillion tons of information in an instant; it is its processing speed that limits our ability to experience all of it in the same amount of time. in order to explain time dilation in the dream state, i posit that the brain can architect an entire dream world in an instant(the rules of which it does not need to create since those rules already exist our memory); the actual happenings in this world, occurs at a much slower rate--a bottlenecked speed which we call real time. seemingly impossible things like teleportation, morphing, flight, and lightning-fast object creation occur in dreams because the brain can create ideas faster than we can perceive them.

i believe dreams are not alternate realities but ideas that we end up living out in the dream state. and because our minds are so accustomed to the slow pace of time, we end up trying to experience these ideas as life on a timeline; eg. i appear in a dark alley. a large brown furry monster materialises. it chases me. i run. it catches up to me and grabs onto my leg. i brace myself. i appear in a quiet forest.

unfortunately we cannot prevent this or have it any other way, after all in real life, everything happens on a timeline. what this implies is that dreams are created as ideas, and that creation no matter how big, can be written to the mind in no time at all. however for it to have meaning we as humans are bound by the limit of processing it, and we can only do so by experiencing that idea on a timeline. so then our dreams are set and fixed by the unconscious; we should not discount the relevance of looking at our dreams as ideas we already have rather than as events that are continuously occuring in an external world (dream world) in which we are merely an observer.

in a dream, we are the observer and the observed. and when we awake, the dream itself becomes apparent for what it is--an idea.

this is what i believe creates weight and legitimacy for dream interpretation. what i do not believe is that dreams are an open and active channel for external influence(read active mind control, realtime exchange with the cosmos etc). if there is a possibility for prophetic dreams, those visions must have already been created prior to sleep, and only self-revealed to the subject during the idea-processing activity called dreaming. upon awakening, the dream experience is further intuited upon to reproduce the same idea but in concrete form; dreaming facilitates communication between the conscious and unconscious.

people lie to themselves in real life, but the unconscious does not lie--it is the ultimate truth to self. it speaks to us in dreams and show us in no uncertain terms the ideas, people and objects that preoccupy our conscious minds in waking life. it is reinforces to you your greatest fears, your highest ambitions, your warmest loves, your coldest hates, your most irksome frustrations, your greatest wants, your strongest needs, and by virtue of only showing you what has frequently been on your mind, it is necessarily honest to you regardless of your pathological need to lie to yourself in consciousness. unconscious ideas hold within them the list of things which actually mean everything or nothing to you; a hierarchy of priorities if you will.

so when people say, "Listen to your dreams :)" i somehow feel that they dont know half of what they are even suggesting, even though they are right.

intj part trois

wars. nobody fights to lose. those who dont believe they can win will surrender. the smarter ones avoid conflict. the stronger ones fight on; those who believe they can win are able to dump all their resources into this war. this eagerness to win is a speck that threatens to deplete its possessor--the bloodlust, so to speak, alienates the aggressive one from the other nations.

sometimes the drive to conquer is strong enough to overcome the perception of reality, a dangerous effect especially if that delusion is with respect to a military's assessment of its own warring abilities. this inevitably leads to the demise of such an organisation. through our marches of blood we are justified in power until we ourselves are overpowered. the problem is that a lack of powerful enemies willing to face the aggressor only leads to further growth of said aggressor.

we all fight wars, and we fight them to win. whether or not the country is weak or the country is strong, or if the country underestimates itself or the country overestimates itself, when countries fight, they fight to win.

my country doesnt win all the time. but every time it sends out its army, the army goes out believing it has already won. it doesnt come come home victorious all the time. but this army has long realised that by picking its battles, the wins have all been easy and the losses, trivial.

this army fulfills its own prophecy.

any country that manages to incite this army to war, is a country that has already lost ab initio.

ps 10th. fuck off and dont come back to this website

pps 10th. sigh

on cheap words and meaningless actions

i do what i will do. let my answer be solely my answer and my intentions, solely my intentions. should trouble befall, i shall be taken to full account--nothing shall share take my blame; should happiness arrive, i shall be afforded all credit--nothing shall share my glory. so come what come may, know that all was meant. all is meant. all will be meant by my choice.

i do what i will do according to my choice alone. not by my friend's. not by my clock's. not by my calendar's. not by my earthly responsibilities'. not by my financial situation's. not by my personality's. not by my mother's. not by the choice of anything that i am free of, as all that i do, i do because i meant to do it.

there will be no credit-claiming as there will be no blame-shirking. most importantly there will be no delusions as to why i say the things i say or do the things i do. i chose to. if i could not choose what to say, then what i say to you means nothing to you; if i could not choose what to do, then what i do for you means nothing to you.

i choose to give my words and actions meaning. i choose.

for dust thou art

anything that is reactive has the ability to release energy. if not in light or sound, then in the form of heat. the reactivity of substances can be correlated to their ability to produce heat. coal, oil, fat, paper. there will come a time when even our earth will be completely exhausted of reactive material. elements on the left will be combined with elements on the right, and they will remain that way because no other way would result in the net release of energy. in effect, earth itself would be completely devoid of the ability to release energy. it would be a finished world. it would be chemically dead.

from a nuclear point of view it would still be alive though. consider the sun, which does not technically burn hydrogen but fuses it. it is a process which creates heavier and heavier elements until iron is formed, and fusion can no longer sustain itself. these heavy elements float across time and space, and consolidate elsewhere, forming planets and other objects like earth.

upon this earth the heavy elements chemically combine, and yet more energy is released. it would appear that even on the infinitesimal scale, things naturally complicate themselves, and in the destiny of it, release energy. most of this heat is trapped to create a comfortable environment in which to propel the reactions of the world around, and this--this i would call a chemical chain reaction. this would be life itself.

when life ends, it would be at a time when this chain reaction can no longer sustain itself, whether due to a lack of heat to self-activate, or a lack of reactive chemicals to act as the source. when reactivity ends, life ends. it would be a finished world. it would be chemically dead.

a visitor to this dead world we see the most complex compounds possible; nothing more complex could be made without the input of energy from an external source. where would this energy come from? even the sun itself is no more.

now we exit the small stage of the solar system, and consider the yet untapped resources of the entire universe which still contains pockets of galaxies and systems with the potential for energy release. and these energy sources will continue to heat the universe and cause change even at the farthest reaches.

but what happens when even the universe can no longer sustain itself? everything contained in what we call the universe would be filled with complex substances and waste heat of incredulous quantity yet insufficient to initiate further progress.

the answer must be gravity. it is the only concept which can create change without the input of useful energy which we no longer have at the end of the universe. the universe itself must come back to itself eventually because of gravitation. it would take back all that heat. and everything--everything will come back as the singularity. we all know what happens next.

i am so excited

with this new gift

on intelligence

okay so theres this type of crow called the New Caledonian. it is presented with a bucket of little pieces of pig heart. thing is, that bucket is inside a cylindrical beaker. this crow is a given a piece of stiff straight wire. this isnt a single smart, trained crow. apparently 90% of all new caledonian crows can perform this feat of tool use.

finding a never-before-seen material and manipulating it into a tool is a complex feat they say even a chimp cant figure out on its own. this crow on the other hand, has also been documented using tools to obtain tools to obtain food. in one experiment a crow, in a similar situation as above, used a provided small stick to retrieve a larger stick, which it then used to retrieve hidden food.

now if material manipulation is seen as advanced pattern recognition and application, then the mentioned meta-tool processe (using a tool on another tool) must be a serious display of the capacity for delayed gratification. i myself have not commonly observed this behaviour in humans, let alone considered the possibility of this occurring in the primate realm. but tweet tweet birdies are doing it now? incredible!

what do i mean by delayed gratification? well for example if an animal could not suppress its immediate desire for a food reward, it would not create for itself a job first. this is why most animals cannot fathom creating a hook from a short wire. forget about creativity (most critters couldnt even keep their eyes off the prize for a period long enough to entertain the idea of tool creation). and if an animal could not suppress its desire for its current tool to work on retrieving the food which is still too far away for that short hook, it would not create for itself yet another job, such as using that tool it made to retrieve a longer piece of wire. but the new caledonian crow can do this. i must say, this bird must possess extreme amounts of intuitive ability in order to entertain multiple intentions in a chronological fashion.

i am almost prepared to believe that these crows are intelligent because of their ability for idea creation and scenario conception. why else would such an animal bend a wire into a hook if it did not believe that a curved wire would work better after experiencing that a straight wire would never do? why else would such an animal use a tool to obtain another tool which it cannot eat, if the bird didnt believe that the other tool would definitely work where the older tool failed to retrieve effectively the food reward (which it can eat).

i would be most impressed if we discovered yet another animal that exhibits similar intelligent displays of delayed gratification. no. i would be more impressed if this hypothetical animal would do something like this not for food or for survival reasons. i would be impressed if this animal did something like this just because it can--more importantly because it knows it can, and does it because it is interested to see just how far its own innovation can reach.

ahh. i guess i can only be impressed by intelligence that is also coupled with a competent curiosity for knowledge itself--an intelligence with potential, so to speak. am i asking for too much? nah. i could ask for more, such as for these clever crows to starting asking themselves why instead of how; "why do i make hooks? why do i have wings? why is the sky blue? why am i asking myself so many questions?"

but then even birds would become philosophers, and they would sit on huge rocks and rub their chins, and they would say cogito ergo sum, and they would start using computers, and then millions of new blogs would pop up on the internet written by clever crows, and then i would be out of a job.

true faith

it seems like the selfish ones are the same ones who can never have enough for themselves, so they can never seem to scrounge up much of anything to give away. conversely it would appear that the generous ones are the same ones who know they have too much, so they feel guilty if they didnt give anything away.

but the ones who are content are not swayed by their current predicaments or windfalls. they give away irregardless of being in need nor in excess, because they know that they themselves will always have enough. do they continue giving because of some faith that assures them unlimited and constant provision?

rather the better message here is that they more we give, the more we realise how little we need. and given, on one hand a diminishing resource due to extravagant generosity and the other, an equally diminishing hunger for resources--the net outcome is null; though we end up with less, we also need less, and therefore remain content.

isnt it better to be content, as opposed to being in want, or need?

we are always encouraged to ask, for the one who asks is rarely ignored. yet, is it so inconceivable that we have inside us a switch waiting to be turned on and make us realise that request or no request, receipt or no receipt,  we really have no need to ask? are not our requirements already met? are not further requests only due to greed? why are we even then encouraged to ask for me when we already owe so much?

morality part une

yesterday i went for a run and i looked up to the sky and ran into a fly and it died in my eye. i know it all rhymes but its true, and it was the highlight of my week. that probably speaks volumes about my uselessness and aimlessness as of late; i know i can do better--but i also know that the things that people prefer to chase after do not interest me. the things they prefer for themselves and for me, i do not prefer--those things cannot make me happy. i know i can do better, but it wouldnt be better for me.

what would make me happy is a house in the countryside with a garden with vegetables that i grow myself. maybe a couple of pigs and a roost of chickens for meat and eggs. ill never get this in this country. a country that stands so high in all the international rankings, a country that is obviously so well-managed and efficient and orderly and consistent and stable but completely immoral.

everyone has been schooled into thinking a stable job and an hdb flat and 2.1 children would make them happy. they have been guided to believe or strongarmed to accept that father government knows best, and while they are encouraged to grow they are restricted to Stage 4 moral reasoning, a notion that right and wrong is a question of benefit and disadvantage respectively to society as one system. such mentality creates stability and security and progress, socially, economically, but not morally. today the system in my country is a swill of stage 4 morality and asian conservatism; a corrupted mutation of an otherwise blameless stage 3 moral system like original Confucianism.

for perspective, stage 3 mentality reasons that right and wrong are derived from respectively the well-being or animosity created by moral action between interpersonal relationships. eg. "stealing from another is morally wrong as it would offend, harm or trouble that person."

stage 2 reasoning understands rightness or wrongness as a concept of social exchange, eg wrongness: "i should not steal from him because i dont want him to steal from me," or  rightness: "im nice to everyone because you never know when you might need a favour!"

stage 1 reasoning, like stage 2, is egocentric and is the first cognitive structure of morality that children grasp. here, rightness or wrongness is weighed according to consequence of action. eg "stealing is wrong because we will go to jail," or "i follow the ways of my religion because i dont want to go to hell,"

as children grow, they are continually tested by real life situations that challenge their existing understanding of life in general, and their curiosities impel them to revise these understandings to become more comprehensive, more adequate in a sense--and as any reasonable person would see now, any person of a lower stage in moral development would encounter grave difficulty and confusion should he be suddenly placed into living his life in a sea of higher moral reasoning. what is comforting to note though, for that person, this confusion is not permanent, for these troubles and hardship compel him to grow up--in effect his moral growth is supported and encouraged by the average higher moral mentality that surrounds him. eg, upon realising that the world does not exist to serve him, the child begins to abandon the egocentric stages 1 & 2, and upon realising the value of social relationships subscribes to 3, and upon seeing the bigger picture, moves on to 4.

but to what end does this growth move to? it is my belief that moral development is, by nature of its virtue (system above self; all > one), limited to Stage 4, which, together with stage 3, are known as the conventional stages of moral development--owing to the fact that stage 4 mentality is the most commonly observed thought system. it is of no surprise to me that my country has already reached this glass ceiling. and the reason that moral development stagnates at stage 4 is a function of this stage's ability to maintain security and stability.

after all, stage 5 begins to challenge the inadequacy of systematic order or (let me coin this word) mass-produced morality. a stage 5 moralist realises that any reasoning powerful enough to move an entire population with one vision is also powerful enough to overwhelm and wipe out the many constituting individual visions. in effect, stage 5 sees stage 4 as trying to visualise too much of the big picture, and worst of all, using it to replace the individual small pictures of each and every person within it; thinking as a system breeds systematic thinking--brainwashing if you will. it is my belief that this inbuilt security system of stage 4 morality automatically weeds out from itself the stage 5 individuals that crop up around here and there. ultimately a stage 5 person believes that society can improve, while stage 4 societies reject him as they have come to believe that they have already attained the plateau of perfection and have become comfortable with sacrificing much for the sake of stability. stable, but therefore also rigid and unchangeable. inflexible.

reluctance to change cannot be justified if one knows that such change is progressive. the fact is that stage 4 societies know what they are giving up for their security and stability--namely the human rights of political prisoners, lgbts, people on death row--leads me to believe that my country, no matter how high on the HDI rankings or whatever list that makes it sound awesome, is really a country built upon principles that my God wouldnt be proud of.

to be continued.

yesterday

yesterday i thought i was a fucking idiot. today...well today i feel less stupid. and tomorrow i will make myself smarter.

i will be different tomorrow.

past versus future

so 80s, so highschool prom, so karaoke, so true.

so nostalgic.

everything that is good already happened for me.

kinda makes me wonder what else is there to look forward to.

i reject your reality and substitute my own!

the unhypocrites part deux

people dont want to hear the truth, only to bathe themselves in the waters that that reinforce their existing beliefs in thought and behaviour. why should they? why accept a negative truth if it disrupts a perception of oneself when one can simply punt it in swift denial and preserve one's self-worth?

ignore ignore ignore. if the truth is too conspicuous, deny deny deny. if the evidence is overwhelming, resist resist resist.

once upon a time humans were shepherds and farmers. either the rain fell and your crops grew or the sun scorched and you endured hunger. that was truth. there was no running away.

reality is so much larger and more complex. we have the youtube, twitter, blackberries and iphones. pubs, bars, clubs. churches, schools, rights organisations. POLITICS. back in the day our neighbour was our friend, be it Bob the Spinach Farmer, or Frank the Cattle Rancher. today, cities are so huge we can choose our friends. nerds hang out with nerds, lesbians hang out with lesbians, christians hang out with christians, alcoholics hang out with alcoholics, homophobes hang out with homophobes, extroverts hang out with extroverts, conservatives hang out with conservatives, atheists hang out with atheists, vegetarians hang out with vegetarians and the same old people hang out with the same old people and all they ever learn is that they cant learn to accept others.

you name it--people do it; we choose our company in ways that allow us to fabricate our own truths. the larger our company, the stronger we feel. if our fragile world was ever threatened, we run back to our gossamer web of self-deceit for safety and security. if one friend gave us a so-called truth that ran counter to our predetermined truth we stop associating with them; we keep our truth, and we discard the so-called truth and the then also, the so-called friend. in our childish zest for worldly security we cling on to incomplete beliefs in choice against real truth, against even family...

"They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

as you fulfill this prophecy, would your steadfastness be described as bullish stubbornness or rock-like confidence? something tells me that the answer depends on the people you surround yourself with. they can be the most trustworthy of peoples, but can they be trusted to tell you the truth? are you even interested in the truth? or do you already have your truth?

:)

watermelon

i dreamt of a family of watermelons, there were five of them. the father melon was the biggest and not as green as the rest--slightly yellow, and his name was Gomez. the mother melon was named Nona and the three children watermelons, one was named Pova and another Gerho!, yes with an exclamation mark, and the third i cannot recall.

i remember waking and keeping my eyes closed while i tried to burn those names, and their order, into my memory. it was an image of two racks of watermelons, and the second rack was an alternate duplicate of the first, and those had different names, with the exception of the mother watermelons--both were named Nona. needless to say, i could only remember, if only partially, the names of the first set of names and i doubt it would have turned out any different if i had a pen and paper next to me the moment i woke.

the watermelon family was substantively linked to a simultaneous dream, in which a father was killed by a robber, and that man's wife held me captive. and because all of this was such a sad sight; this world of a broken family was replaced by a new set from an alternate universe; this is where the second set of watermelons come in.

for reasons unknown, new Gomez was nowhere to be found; this supposedly new family was still incomplete. i neglected to question this, but somehow i was still in a captive situation. oh did i mention that all of this was happening in my house? anyway the gun that was used to subdue me in universe one was now lying unattended in universe two. it was a silver Glock-ish type which rattled like a homemade piece.

i checked the clip--it contained two rounds. i noticed the magazine was similar to one of those hand-held sweet-dispensing thingies you buy at 7-11. the bullets were also shaped like sweets--rather button cell batteries--LR44 to be exact. coincidentally, two of these are precisely what you need to power a Digimon device. i digress.

i load the clip back in and cock the slide. it is worryingly rattly, and i doubt the safety mechanism is safe at all so i point it down at all times. new Nona bursts through my room door and i point the gun at her. she has a knife and she lifts it up, whether to defend herself or attempt at matching my threat, i did not put much thought into at the time. she tells me i dont have to do this, and that my false imprisonment was not her first choice but last resort. she was trying to convince me that if it were up to her she would have let me go, but part of me could not let loose the possibility that she, or anyone for that matter, would say anything to get out of the stare of a loaded barrel. i put two in her chest. suddenly i doubt her no more, but it is too late.

i was free. but then i realised it wasnt what i really wanted anyway--to be free. now i had neither father nor mother. no Gomez, no Nona. and i look down and i see two racks of watermelons, and their names appear and i know i am far too rational at this point to remain in this dream; i start to drift into consciousness and i try in vain to record their names. i know i am awake now but i keep my eyes closed to preserve the image.

Gomez, Nona, Pova, Gerho!, nine names and i only remember four. at this point i am quite certain the other five did not even appear for me to remember; but that is one of the things that will never be proven.

flaw

if there is a chance for my thoughts to be misunderstood i will not consider it
if there is a chance for my words to be misquoted i will not say it
if there is a chance for my intentions to be doubted, i will not do it

and i will forever be nothing because my discipline overwhelms my hopes.

sunday apothecary

potion #18

a little bit of rabbit and a bit of cat,

a dash of sheep and wolf--yes we like it like that

a teaspoon of cumin to put in whats nice;

and to take care of naughty, pepper's the spice

a swig of vodka and a dribble of martell

ice cubes and music to strengthen the spell

prairie dog and mother hen,

a chunk of both then count to ten

now point the flask to canis major

and heat the elixir with a big laser

a slice of snake and a cut of mouse

now enjoy the aroma that fills my house

so borrow a ladle and mix in well,

and while it's hot go steal a smell

for the finishing touch is drawing near,

now into the pot a keg of beer

 

a pinch of paprika to lend it some bite,

oh this table, needle i light

~

meaning of lies

lies can be pretty destructive. a lot of times people lie for personal gain, and a fact of humanity is that gain for one almost always comes at some expense in the form of loss to one other, or God forbid, many others. this loss materialises economically, socially, emotionally etc; whatever the case lies are usually selfish. almost always--though not always. but the fact that they sometimes are is reason enough that lies per se are so frowned upon in the religious context.

but there are true white lies--the ones that are created for selfless reasons. again, they dont always work; sometimes even white lies fail and implode with disastrous consequences, which is reason why there are still some who dont believe in white lies at all. "lies are lies, all of them are sin." but in a philosophical view, nothing is black and white isnt it? after all it is easy to note that the only reasons white lies can fail is that most people are simply bad at lying. whether or not this is a good thing  is a thought beyond what i am interested in right now.

what i am invested in is my belief that selfish lies are unacceptable while selfless lies are the necessary gears in the human sociomachine; the first precept founded upon the truth that selfish thinking reduces the overall quality of a group of lives regardless of the improvement of one life, the second based my observation that not every person is mentally equipped to accept whole truths (about themselves, others, life, God etc). some people must be lied to for their own sake. i can preempt any reader's reaction here, "i know i can handle the truth, so i do not want anyone to lie to me for any reason," and i can also say that no one who has lied in his or her lifetime deserves to think that thought. we have reasons for lying to certain people, and so have certain people reasons for lying to us. yes, i am willing to accept that sometimes some things should be willfully obscured from me, with my only wish being that those lying to me were better at it.

after all, its pretty shitty to discover lies against ourselves. sometimes its so shitty that our primal reactions of hurt, confusion and betrayal obscure our objectivities, and we become mired in a swamp of paranoia that prevents us from asking ourselves why we were lied to in the first place--victims of lies are not always innocent, and they rarely see this while their eyes are clouded with anger. of course, it would be even worse if there was a faulty belief that all lies are evil to begin with...if such were the case, then this perfect storm only spells destruction for their futures: woe to those who found out they were lied to! they would be completely shattered, wouldnt they? and because lies are inevitable and unavoidable, the only way to ensure our emotional survival as potential victims of lies is to break out of primitive instincts and embrace not all lies against us are truly against us.

well there is another way to survive: complete social isolation. my sister once asked me what kind of crazy person i would be if i were truly insane. i said i would be that weird old guy who lived alone and had neighbours who were so afraid to approach him for fear of getting shot at with a shotgun, but i digress.

lies are the cogs that make proper human interaction sustainable. realistically, it is not up to us to eliminate lies forever, but it would be defeatist if i stopped here. au contraire, it could definitely be in our interest to become ethical liars who do so at our own expense for the good of others. but this would be tricky, as we would constantly be in temptation to fall back into the shadow of black lies. thats why your religious leader would say, "better not to lie at all."

but i would say, yes, learn to speak silence only, and after you fail, then learn to channel your inherently sinful nature for the sake of good (white lies), but before that, learn to stop lying to yourself. after all there is no meaning in a life of self destruction.

ps  18 aug 2010 this post was mistakenly named meaning of life part cinq. this is actually part six in the meaning of life series.

world cup fever

so im not really a soccer fan. usually i ask people what their favourite team is, just so i can tell them it sucks, and it makes them go all ape shit and i laugh to myself. thats about it for the fun i get out of football. never really liked it growing up anyway--so much running; i hate running! but the world cup is a little different--its once every four years and its kinda like the olympics, and im hit by the fever. one thing ive learnt from watching about five matches this world cup 2010: i think id make a good football commentator. heres a list of things i observed while watching....

• man, why are all the teams so defensive score something already damnit
• the cape town stadium looks so cool. singapore will never have something like that. maybe we'll build one in sentosa but then the dumbass govt will charge 100$ entry fee to locals.
• hey howd they make those cool green lines in the football pitch? 
• hey howd they make those cool green squares in the football pitch?
• hey i feel like ordering mac delivery.
• wow the average age of the german team is 25. ill be like 26 during the next world cup. im such a failure!
• eh podolski youre having such a bad day. but your name sounds cool so youre ok, buddy.
• not as cool as what im going to name my son: SCHWEINSTEIGER. omg schweinsteiger i cant stop saying schweinsteiger... SHHHVYYYYNSTYYYY GAHRRRRRR.
• german coach guy has cool mop hair. reminds me of sandy cohen from the oc. you know a team is good if the coach is so dedicated that he doesnt have time to cut his hair.
• my sister says she feels like wearing green socks now. well u know what, world cup is the only place where u can get away with wearing light green socks
• green serbia looks like a bunch of grasshoppers
• too bad germany still cant score goals. howd they get beaten by serbia?
• oh right they were playing 10v11. i did not know that Red Card meant you totally lose one player and get no substitute. i understand now. i know football now. actually no i dont.
• the referee was such a PAP, so many whistleblows and yellow cards. fierce guy.
• i like it when players spit on the grass. cos i know how disgusting it is to have to swallow saliva thats full of bubbles. pui.
• that united states coach looks like a bloody drill sergeant. and everytime the camera cuts to his bench i see him spitting. like ok--youre not even running why do u need to spit. stupid hooligan.
• hey united states your goalkeeper looks like a dummy when he has his hands on his knees and he just follows the ball with his eyes as it flies into the net he's supposed to block. hahaha noob.
• hey united states why do you have a guy in your team called Demerit. does he get a lot of fouls?
• Schweinsteiger, baby. Schweinsteiger.
• i stayed up to 2am lying around doing nothing in bed cos i couldnt sleep. i went to watch england v algeria. my subconscious wanted it so.
• usually teamplayers dont sing their national anthem but the england team was like shouting it. so patriotic. even i stood up and sang GOD SAVE THE QUEEEEEEEN
• what? prince harry and william? no wonder the team is singing so proudly.
• PRINCE WILLIAM YOU WERE SO HANDSOME WHY ARE U BALDING SIR?
• prince harry you were never handsome sorry sir.
• omg david beckham is in the building! holy shit!!
• uh..WHAT WAYNE ROONEY?! omfg you are losing hair too oh the travesty! why do you keep slipping and falling
• AHAHAH PETER CROUCH you alien stick insect guy! wow where are all these oldies coming from. football's so nostalgic this time...
• man, im fucking old.
• schweinsteiger, man. fuckin' schweinsteiger.
• beckham you have sexy eyebrows man. and why are u dressed like that. are you going for GQ photoshoot after the match?
• which reminds me. german coach-sandy cohen-lookalike and your assistant coach..i like your cardigan it looks comfy.
• and your german team jersey is so cool max. the font is awesome.
• england team jersey's font is Helvetica Light?
• my sister says their jersey is so cool, you can wear it to Orchard Road. which makes me wonder about the coolness of Orchard Road.
• walao eh, 0-0 again. sian jit pua. ohnoes channel my ahbengz hokkienz.

see i have so much shit to talk about. i bet id make a good football commentator. well maybe not. fuck it. Schweinsteiger.

crazy guy

went to sleep at 6am, wokeup at what must have been about 8am and started laughing for no reason. its a little foggy but i think it started due to something being said in a dream. the thing is, i dont remember it being funny. i just woke up, and had this overwhelming need to laugh. its like laughing gas or something.

so im lying there thinking  why do i feel like laughing. im not gonna laugh at something which isnt funny, thats just dumb. but after a while i gave up resisting and lol'd for the heck of it. like i had to just get it over with. but it was fun while it lasted, after which i felt i needed some rest.

so i went back to sleep.

butterfree used confusion!

 butterflies

 flutter atop our eyes you see

giving us time to do what we must do

remind me

i don't know how they got to be

trapped within no opportunity

my tummy

rolling around the dome they fly

makin' a sight to hold you know i'm right.

born free

born free

to be with me

~

you know youre old when

• you cant touch your toes like you could 10 years ago
• you get weird cramps when you try to sit cross-legged
• you get piercing knee pains when you kneel down on hard ground
• your hip hurts against the floor when you stop kneeling and try to lie down instead
• you get backaches just from sitting down
• nothing on tv excites you anymore
• nothing on fhm excites you anymore
• you stop listening to rock music or anything with drums in it
• hawker uncles no longer call you xiao di di or shuai ge but lao ban instead
• your face is constantly oily
• you start seeing varicose veins on the back of your leg
• you cant remember the last time you didnt have eyebags
• you cant remember what you ate for breakfast
• you start eating certain foods to help you shit better
• your mother starts bribing you to get a gf 

 "its ok, its an investment--just like your education!"

they say people change part deux

when i was 10, my english teacher, who was also my form teacher, wrote a neat little comment in my report card.

"gregory is an intelligent boy who speaks his mind, and would do well to be more meticulous and put more effort in his mother tongue."

besides that the results were ok. class conduct was Good. i nosed around and found some Very Good's and a few Excellent's. i quickly came to the conclusion that owning a penis automatically limited one's potential to obtaining a Good title. well except for that superquiet dork guy. he got Excellent. what a dork. this was lesson one in gender equality for me. anyway i digress, back to that teacher's comment...

so when people write critiques on you, you tend to see only the things you want to see. well maybe not you. maybe its just a me thing. im weird--no, special that way. o shit, digressing again. stop distracting me. anyways. well my special brain automatically disconnected my eyeballs after the comma--its about mother tongue for pete's sake. who cares about chinese. i dont eat rice; i eat potatoes. well i didnt actually think like that 12 years ago, just that in hindsight, now i realise what my subconscious was telling me: greg, effort and mother tongue does not a meaningful sentence make! and whats with this "meticulous". do you know how hard it is for a ten year old boy to match up to this word? its a stupendous, horrendous, incredulous, not to mention a completely ridiculous feat. now any or all of those four would have been more fair for someone of my gender and age bracket in 1998.

and then, there was this part about me speaking my mind. i didnt really understand that part. but i tried to--

is she trying to say that i spoke whatever came to my mind? or..hold on--maybe shes referring to my great ideas coming from my great mind? after all i am an intelligent boy?

WOW i was totally loving my teacher at this point, until i went home and showed the report card to the folks and--well if you know what happened to narcissus, you know the ending to my horror story.

the denouement: wow i was totally hating my teacher the next day. thanks alot, ms geetha. i went from intelligent boy with unique vocal confidence to boy with no-mother-tongue-only-glib-tongue. cut my life into pieces why dont you...ohh the tragedy.

okay enough wallowing in the pitiable past--fast-forward a decade. im 22. ahh much has changed hasnt it. lets see...still a fucking smartass, still unrestrained in opinion--ok this isnt looking good--still lazy, still suck at chinese, still only Good but not Very Good. holy crap, nothing has changed hasnt it? man, im horrible at this life thing! oh well look on the bright side--at least i still have my penis.

yeah i just checked.

hows that for meticulous?

imagine my goofy smile

if that doesnt make you smile too, i dont know what will :)

i think people

• i think people are a lot more persuasive when theyre not angry
• i think women are a lot more attractive when theyre not trying to be
• i think men would be a lot more attractive if they smiled more
• i think people would quarrel less if they put themselves in other shoes more often
• i think vegetarians are only justified on the health rhetoric
• i think boys can be a lot nicer
• i think girls can be a lot naughtier
• i think people would be a lot more content with what they have if they really knew what they needed
• i think humble people deserve to be praised
• i think arrogant people deserve to be punished
• i think posers shouldnt be punished, but ignored
• i do not think much of arrogant posers
• excuse the triteness but i think people with great power could do with a little greater responsibility
• i think the better teachers are the ones who make students love what they are learning
• i think time is the best teacher
• i think people in general are a little too busy
• i think middle is more desirable than left or right
• i think the chemistry is in the eyes
• i think the character is in the smile
• i think everything else is just icing
• i think daughters are better than sons
• i think people prefer right & wrong to correct & incorrect
• i think too many people pray only because they need things
• i think not enough people pray only because they already have things
• i think that there would be no suicide bombers and no crusaders and no holy wars if religion did not exist
• i think people would find other ways to kill each other anyway
• i think it is more glorious to be killed than to kill
• i think i would be a happier person if my thoughts didnt always spiral into depressive ideas and loneliness
• i think i think too much sometimes
• maybe most of the time
• ok all the time.

fate part deux

i had finished reading something and i went up to my window that night. it wasnt raining but apparently it was somewhere far out; there was a lot of lightning. and i thought:

when lightning strikes it can take on any unique shape, a shape being drawn by the hand of probability. it can fern out at any point in its travel time, producing a different pattern for every bolt. while seemingly random, one day, man might devise a formula to predict the exact structure of a lightning strike from the very moment a spark crowns from the lining of a cumulonimbus. a far future i surmise--no doubt, but does the fact that a random route can be predicted imply that it is after all not random, ie. the outcome was predetermined from the start?

there is only one thing that i, in my lacking knowledge know that is predetermined: the flash that speeds towards the ground always ends up on the ground, regardless of its route. that doesnt make me sound like much of a fortune teller, yet if i claimed i knew in my mind the exact shape of the next lightning strike yet to come down from the heavens, people would actually take notice. therein lies the mystery of mystery itself--we as a curious species strive to know everything, and that which we do not know, we ascribe high desirability factor to, as do we give great honor to those few who know what is not widely known.

suppose a physicist appears from the future and tells us that he invented a machine which could observe you flipping a coin and from the moment the coin leaves your hand, is able to perfectly compute the fate of that flipped coin--heads or tails. the entire concept of probability would be rendered moot. if i flip a coin a hundred times in an experiment of probability, and each time a physicist is able to calculate its outcome using a formula from the distant future using the variables of the coin's metal composition, atmospheric humidity, down to the skeletal structure of my thumb, then by deduction, i have not performed a set of probabilistic maneuvers. while it appeared to me that i played a hundred games of chance, to a really smart person i was merely placing a coin on its head or on its tail a hundred times in succession.

do i believe that God made the coin land in such and such a way? if i were an ancient egyptian, i would say that horus made the coin land in such and such a way after the coin had left my hand. if i were an all-knowing scientist, i would make a more convincing statement. yet i am neither an ancient egyptian nor an all-knowing scientist. what i do know, as i realise now writing this: the limit of each man's influence on any earthly object's ends at the moment he stops exerting his influence. the moment the coin leaves my hand, i lose my power over it, and its story though started by me, can not and does not end solely by me. there are a myriad variables that continue to exert their influence on the flying coin, and these factors are observable by an all-knowing figure, like the physicist from the future.

this hypothetical physicist does not exist yet. he or she might eventually. is this person God? i would not agree, for it is not sufficient to be all-knowing; this person must also be all-powerful. for the intents and purposes of this writing, any of the aforementioned observable variable that can be observed by an omniscient figure is also a manipulable variable by an omnipotent figure. it seems that by our earthly criteria of what makes God God, my conclusion can only go so far as to say that God can indeed make any coin land in any such way, but as to the questions of whether he does, or would: these are the questions regarding fate.

a man can live his life believing that God is the artist that painted every single unique lightning bolt that comes from the sky, the sculptor that formed every single unique snowflake that ever floated down, the chemist that pieced together by hand every atom and molecule in your bones, the physical source of the wind that drove our ships and the ocean tides that kept our earth warm, the nuclear physicist who regulated the fusion in our sun which makes life possible, the biologist who personally engineered us humans from the primate families millenia ago. a man can believe that fire was given to man from mount olympus, abode of the greek gods.

or he can believe that God is the mastermind who only created the rules of the universe, and within his self-sustaining universe, art, sculpture, chemistry, meteorology, physics, biology and even fire created themselves. he can call the rules of the universe Nature, where anything that creates itself is natural, even mutations, disasters, catastrophes, war, bloodshed, death, floods, fires and earthquakes. i am this man.

i believe in the Nature that God created. i know that nature is real. i believe in the reality of heaven and hell, but not as much as i believe in the reality of dying if i stepped off the parapet of a skyscraper. that is the extent of my incomplete wisdom, insofar as my inability to believe in God as much as i believe in the Nature that he created--the Nature which is so much closer to me than is God himself. i believe that out of the billions who claim to believe in God like i do, only a handful believe in God more than they do Nature, which God created. and somehow i feel that he only created Nature so that man might just at minimum choose to acknowledge his existence.

God is like the hand that flips the coin; each one of us are like coins that are flipped. except that we can choose how we land. he knows how we are going to land from the way we spin in the air, he knows your future, but that in no way determines it: he can describe your future for he is omniscient, or he can prescribe it, for he is omnipotent, but there would be no reason from him to prescribe your outcome--each one of us were given the chance to choose for a reason.

it just so happened that Nature is so good and so believable, that we single-track minded creatures with our imperfect eyes, noses, ears, tongues and skin, trust and rely on it so much and become blind and distrusting to things we cannot see, smell, hear, taste or feel with our hands.

to these unsensable things, we as simple, curious creatures, attribute eerie mystery to. we create fantastic words like probability, fate, and destiny because even when we know we cannot control everything, we have a human need to label the uncontrollable and therefore try to control it. these words are fantastic delusions because out there...there is a perfect physicist from the future, one that not only knows all but can do all. i call this scientist God. to him, there is no probability because everything is predictable to him. there is no fate or destiny for these only obey God's will. but then there is causality. causality obeys the will of God, man and flea.

why would God allow us to determine our own outcomes? because we would be no better than a stone on the hill that wastes away at the mercy of rain and wind otherwise. i seriously doubt that. i am definitely more important than a stone on the hill, because the stone wasnt given the power to deny its Creator.

lend please

i think the most valuable gift i can offer someone is my time if not my words.

it is high insult to see my things thrown away like they did not cost me to give away.

i dont like receiving glory; neither does it mean i dont mind feeling cheap. quite honestly i dont think i am worth fighting for even to myself. i can deliver punishment, but if it is for my benefit, i cannot do it. yet i am worthy enough to be punished--by my own sick rule. who will lift me up?

i want to lift the fallen. i feel useful that way. but who will lift me up when i fall? hypothetical question--im not really asking; dont deserve to ask. i dont like to ask for something which i dont deserve. but if it were someone else, i think i would like to give. who else would want to give to someone who did not deserve to receive? but maybe i am just doing it in the hope that if i can give to those who do not deserve, maybe i, who do not deserve, will someday be lifted up as well. i surmise that it is my subconscious greed. am i deluded?

i keep saying to myself lend, but dont knock on doors on payday, meanwhile hoping that one day someone who thinks like me will chance upon my predicament and lend to me what i have lent away for free but now need, so that i wont suffer empty. sometimes i think there is not enough people around to make this work. what if i run out and theres noone out there to come down and rescue me?

i need to convince myself that if no one out there comes and lends to me for free, then one day when i am in need, God will appear on the appointed time and save me. otherwise i have only one option, that is to stop giving. but if i stop, who will lend for free?

angels

angel of the lord

a finger falls through the fabric of the wisping air;

the gusts cry calm--whispering behind fallen hair

of words of peace and songs of quiet sleep

pulling front and side: the ebb and flow of the firmaments deep

a stroke of the hand sweeps past

and all of the permanent become but of the past

powers and principalities descend upon the footstool,

by sword and stone making done and undone

all that was created and now reclaimed by the sound of a trumpet call

echoing in the valleys entrenching the face of all actions, the tears, the bitter gall

running high but never dry, the pulses of pain

coming once and again without fail, without blame, like sheets of rain

that come and wash away the bile that taints, the acids which spew

but they stand, steadfast guardians, the virtues and dominions they are not few

sent by a voice unheard yet loud like thunder

calling to home from the other side yonder.

~