Go With a Bang or Whimper Sunday, Apr 27 2008

Generally speaking, all human relations may break down in one of two ways.

Either with a bang, or with a whimper.

A bang is that. An explosion, boom. Nothing is left.

A whimper is the drifting away, the eventual mutual ignoring. An MSN contact you never bother clicking again.

Well, I suppose a bang is more fun than a whimper. Haha. More dramatic, I guess.

But I just realized why a whimper is usually better.

A bang takes away your memories. All past memories become tainted with new understanding, or new perceptions.

At least with a whimper, you can try to believe in some long lost past. You enter the relation into your record book of wonderful memories of old.

Thank goodness, that most of the people that exit our lives go with a whimper.

It allows us to keep our good memories.

But on the odd day that one experiences a bang…

Well, memories spanning possibly hundreds of hours can be destroyed just like that.

Indeed, it is those who have good memories who have more at stake. A bang would destroy more than the present. It takes away the past, and hence history and identity as well.

So whimper along, just whimper along.

3 Responses »

 

Not Thinking Friday, Apr 25 2008

Once you tell yourself, don’t think about this, you often end up just not thinking at all.

I’ve been feeling rather brain dead this week. For some reason, I can’t really seem to focus on anything.

Kept trying to do all the things that I had planned, and yet could not accomplish them.

I read somewhere that willpower is like a muscle. You have to exercise it to make it stronger.

I suppose I’ve been rather afraid of letting my mind think this week, which has put me into a more dreamy mood of quiet isolation.

Which is a rather good change from last week, I think. The height of bizarre restlessness and this feeling of boiling from inside.

But this week, it’s almost as though things has just stopped. Obviously, I know that time is racing on. But internally, I just stopped. Did not want to think ahead, at least for now.

And I think I kinda know why I have lapsed into this, actually.

Traditionally, the few weeks before my birthday are my most hated weeks.

Really, I hate the run up to my birthday, when I have all these constant reminders of age, and of success indicators, and of measuring up.

And I don’t want to even think about it.

I really wonder, though, how is it that every year during this run off period, my life is so different from the previous year. Yet this same feeling persists.

Well, I suppose this week has been one of just going with it. Not thinking, just moving along, being bobbed along by whatever waves that come.

I don’t know if I regret, or will regret. I don’t know if I’m angry, or will be angry.

I’m not thinking.

Perhaps I fear my birthday approaching because it’s the obvious day to do some self evaluation.

And I am afraid that I am embittered by recent events.

Well, I suppose not. I am not really feeling anything at this point.

I suppose that for me, I need to think before I can feel. I must process circumstances in my head, before my guttural emotional response comes along.

But I want to think!

Thinking is good, thinking is rational. Introspection, investigation, conclusions.

I suppose I sound rather flippant.

Well, I can only foresee this mood of mine continuing for the short term.

At least until the dreaded self evaluation day.

I guess I don’t expect anything for now, after all, how to expect when I’m not thinking about it.

And keeping my mind off people has also taken its toll. If toll is the right word.

Curl up and die, I said last week. Haha, how emo and silly I was being.

But curling up is good fun. It is about being with yourself, by yourself, ignoring everyone and everything else.

Which of course, I’m not supposed to be doing but is what I really really want to do.

But maybe, more than just curling up, I want to blaze with strength.

Ah, maybe it’s just that anarchic streak in me showing up after watching Das Experiment.

Haha what an incoherent post today; one of those where I just rant about whatever comes to my mind.

You know what, I think I am ultimately a simple person. Haha, or at least, I have simple wants which are easy to understand.

And I am direct: I treat most people exactly how I truly want to treat them.

Which probably is why I am utterly angry when I feel deceived.

Ah well, but after the anger there is obviously going to be the grief.

Which is why it’s better to not think, for now.

In this volatile situation, I must maintain stability.

Bleh, I actually don’t really like posting such posts.

How drab, and how adolescent.

Ah well, I suppose I don’t have much time left before no longer having the right to legitimately act like an adolescent.

And hence, for now, savoring my last few days as an adolescent, I shall just simply not think.

And not feel, not anything.

Ah, except do work, duh. Or at least try my darnedest to.

2 Responses »

 

What it Means to be Castrated Tuesday, Apr 22 2008

(Written mostly last week but added the last part today)

Hahaha, I know I’m so gonna get whacked for this, but I really can’t help myself.

So, let’s recap.

Today, after PE, we were randomly talking about dogs. And then, someone asked whether dogs menstruate. And someone said all female mammals do. (Do they? What about whales? Ewww)

And then, Kristi said, yeah that’s why we need to sterilize them.

And that struck me as rather odd. To me, sterilization is just a euphemism for castration. And Kristi, the resident environmentalist and animal-rights-person, seemed to accept the practice fully.

And so, I asked the question:

What is the difference between castrating a dog, and removing its salivary glands?

If one is wrong, isn’t the other wrong as well? If one is right, what about the other? What separates the two?

And of course, there was heartfelt outrage from various quarters when I posed this question.

So let’s look at things more carefully.

Why might one say that castrating a dog and removing its salivary glands are similar?

In both cases, one is performing an operation on a dog, without its consent, for some personal, selfish reason.

Perhaps you don’t like cleaning up after your dog menstruates. Perhaps you don’t want to risk it getting pregnant, which might be costly in terms of time and money. And perhaps, you don’t like cleaning up after your dog licks you with its saliva. Or perhaps, the dog’s saliva is gross and makes you feel disgusted at an otherwise very fun to play with dog.

I would now like to say something about analogies:

Obviously there are differences in the two situations. Duh. Haha. That’s the reason why they’re called analogies: they are non identical, but share an important, relevant similarity.

Of course, in order to dispute an analogy, one can point out relevant differences. However, the key word is “relevant”, and that relevance has to be shown and explained. Usually, people attack the posited “similarities” and show why they’re not so similar after all. In any case, the similarity has to be dealt with. Either it is shown to be untrue, or that it is overwritten by other factors.

So, back to the story.

Here’s what I think:

There is no difference in principle between castrating a dog’s reproductive organs, and castrating some other organ when doing either is not for the benefit of the dog, but for the benefit of the owner. This is because in both cases, no one gives a hoot about the dog. All that is relevant is its impact on the owner. This is not animal rights! (or at least the righteous kind of animal rights) This is a human’s right to do whatever he likes to his “property”.

Faced with this, one can only do either one of these things:

1. Accept the position that both of them are wrong.

2. Accept the position that it is okay to do either of them.

3. Attempt to reconcile and justify why one might be wrong and the other is right.

Now, I would now like to say something about the so called “slippery slope”.

Yvonne pointed out, that I might be embarking on a slippery slope argument. Just because castration is okay, therefore this thing is okay, therefore this thing is okay, so on and so forth.

Hearing this, and others seemingly agreeing, made me a little dismayed.

Whatever else I was doing, I was not employing a slippery slope argument.

A slippery slope argument typically makes use of a causal relationship. Or at least, it assumes a causal relationship. It says, “If A happens, then B will happen, then C will happen.” In real terms, “If we allow gay marriages, then we will allow incest, then we will allow pedophilia, so on and so forth. That is a slippery slope argument, and a very bad one at that.

But I was not mounting a slippery slope argument. I was saying, “If we accept that the principle underlying this practice is acceptable/non-acceptable, then we logically have to accept that this other practice is acceptable/non-acceptable because the principle underlying them is the same.

A suitable analogy for what I was saying is this: If we accept it is wrong to steal in general, then, in particular, it is wrong to steal Cheryl’s water bottle and it is also wrong to steal Yvonne’s pencil box.

So yes, not slippery slope.

So back to the three options.

I think I personally adopt option 2. I don’t think they are particularly deplorable practices. I also can see how option 1 might be valid. It is quite a reasonable position, though I do have my problems with it.

The option that I don’t think is valid is option 3, simply because I don’t see how one can attempt to justify and reconcile the two situations, and say one is wrong and one is right. The suggests offered today, were, in my opinion not convincing enough.

Haha, I’ll have to interject here and say, that I am always very happy to be proven wrong. I’m sure there are many examples of cases where I said something that turned out to be invalid, and unsound, and I was happy to accept that.

Can anyone try to offer a defense of option 3? As I remember, the arguments were not particularly convincing because people seemed to not want to understand the point I was making.

3 Responses »

 

Nature is Not Bountiful Wednesday, Apr 16 2008

You guys should go visit Cafe Hayek. There are many posts there that are short, but beautifully articulates a perhaps counter-intuitive point that just makes a lot of sense once you think about it.

I just read a post there, where one of the blog’s authors, Mr Donald Boudreaux, posted on his blog a letter he had sent in response to some other guy’s letter to the New York Times. The blog actually has quite a few of his letters to various newspapers. Oh, and he’s an economist, by the way. Haha.

Here’s what Mr Boudreaux said:

Robert Kennedy, Jr., might be correct that electricity is best provided in Chile by means other than hydroelectric dams (Letters, April 8). His presumption, however, about the source of prosperity casts doubt on the quality of his argument.

Mr. Kennedy opposes dams because he wants to protect “nature’s bounty.” But nature is not bountiful. If it were, human history would be one of prosperity and long, healthy lives rather than one of oppressive poverty and short, miserable lives. Nature is miserly. The bounty that Mr. Kennedy presumes comes from nature is, in fact, the relatively recent product of human creativity and industry unleashed by free markets – and now threatened by the mindless worship of nature.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Whether or not you agree with hydroelectric power or not, is one thing. What is particularly powerful about this letter is that it questions the basic assumption that “nature”, otherwise known as “Mother Earth” is this wonderful being who provides us with such great stuff.

But really, what’s even more amazing is how we have managed to maximizes the ultimately scarce resource that this “Mother Earth” has provided.

I don’t like mindless worship of nature. There’s a name for that: it’s paganism. As irrational as any other religion. Hence, I will soon finish up a post that I wrote halfway on a discussion I had with some A11-ers on animal rights. Haha.

One Response »

 

Clarification on KI Comment Monday, Apr 14 2008

Well, I’m all for one using one’s personal space to say what one truly wants to say. Haha, I know I do it all the time, so no hard feelings at all there.

And I hope nobody feels too sad about things too.

However, recently, I have been quoted, and I think, misunderstood. Hence, I feel a need to clarify myself here, on my own personal space.

Here’s what happened.

During KI, we discussed a short argument on first class, business class and economy class in airlines. Basically, one main part of the argument was saying that in the airline industry, there is a need to find all sorts of ways to differentiate their products. Hence, airlines have an incentive to lower the standard/quality in economy class.

Eventually, the discussion led to the idea of maybe airlines in the future would have entire flights of a “lower class”, and have alot of stopovers. Whereas direct flights would be more expensive.

Here, somehow the tone of discussion in the class sounded bitter that the scenario in the above paragraph was taking place. To me, bashing the airline industry for such a development would be misguided.

Hence, I made the comment, “Well, that would be like the difference between taking the bus, and taking the car. You take the car so that you can get to places faster.”

Now, I’m not sure how misunderstood I was but I feel a need to clarify on this comment.

Here are the reasons why I drew the analogy between airlines company having more expensive direct flights, compared to cheaper flights where you stop over at several airports before reaching your desired destination:

1. You pay more to get to places quicker, period.

There is no difference between paying more for direct flights, and paying more to get to use a car. There is nothing inherently “evil” about either activities or behavior. I was pointing out that one cannot jump to the conclusion that just because one is paying more, the airlines MUST be cheating us of our money, somehow. Higher prices for direct flights is probably due to a higher demand for such direct flights.

2. In fact, having such differentiated service is a good thing.

It allows people who value their time more than the cost of flying (rushing to a business meeting, maybe?) to fly direct flights. That is consumer surplus. It also allows people who value their time less than the cost of flying (taking a leisurely holiday?) to fly indirect flights, which are then cheaper. This is also consumer surplus. Having the choice to choose one option over the other, is a very good thing indeed.

Hence, this was the point of me making my remark. It was nothing about being cruel to the earth (the environment had not even entered my thoughts), nor was it to be crass or arrogant. I was sincerely trying to make this point in a class which I believe valued the thoughts of all individuals.

And, I would like to point out that it was not me who made the (perhaps careless, rather than callous) comment on “Who would want to save the earth anyway”. So anyone who knows what I’m talking about should take note.

Of course, I have my own thoughts on the environment, but I shall leave that for another time.

As for the other matters, I think everyone has the right to think and feel the way they do, and I respect that.

After all, I’m just here to clarify my KI comment. Like the title says. Haha.

2 Responses »

 

As Life Goes On Sunday, Apr 6 2008

Having so much fun writing about my personal views on religion, hearing people respond to them, and responding to those responses, I start to wonder what really is the point of this blog.

Obviously, people are far more interested in what I think than how I feel. Probably because what I think is far more unambiguously articulated. Probably also because it does not sound like cheesy muck that my other posts probably do.

And I do realize that quite a bit of what I write is quite retarded. Things that I will get the chills when I read again in the future.

Unless, of course, I do not, and instead feel a close sense of affinity with my past self, as I do when I go back and read some of my posts.

I can only hope that what I’m thinking now is rational and I will not be horrified at what I’ve written at a later part of my life.

I suppose I do want to record a few of the things that I’m going through now, personally, though it’s probably high time I move away from “emo-ing” but just quiet self reflection. Just to capture this moment in time.

Well, I just want to say that I’m increasingly lazy to go on MSN. It just doesn’t seem worth it to click that sign in button, although that’s all I have to do to sign in.

I guess I don’t really talk much to people on MSN these days, only a few. And that number has dwindled from what it was before.

It does make me wonder sometimes, whether I really am going in the right direction.

Well, doubt is good, I suppose.

For now, I’m still rather surprised at how well I’ve been dealing with recent changes in my life. When I imagined it, I imagined it to be much more terrifying. But the way it has turned out, I’ve surprised myself somewhat.

Think it’s really a matter of focus. I picked up a few books to read, and managed to complete one book within 24 hrs. It’s really a great book, The Undercover Economist by Tim Hartford. Go borrow it from the library, at the new arrivals section! And I’ve more books waiting for me.

Well, I do miss some of the little things I used to enjoy quite a lot before. But when I think about why these things are no longer around, I feel a surge of strength that tells me not to miss those little things. Not too much, anyway.

Ah well, what can I say. Just to focus on the big picture, the long run, my new goals in life.

And to distract myself suitably with alternate realities and rational thought.

I do find it a great stress reliever to blog about why I believe what I believe.

Soon to come, perhaps one more post on religion (on why it is not true, rather than why it is harmful) to finally complete my entire view, and perhaps a post on free trade, or economics in general and why I enjoy it so much.

In the meantime, I will just have to suffice myself with what I have left. A couple of people, a couple of books, a couple of hopes, a couple of games, and a lot of work to be done.

And you know, maybe some people will always have more friends. I do think my new found assertiveness and enthusiasm for rational thought is probably not going to sit well with the overly non-confrontational, everything is nice and sweet kind of person. Which is a lot of people.

It’s a trade-off, I suppose. A trade off that is worth it because at least I can live with myself, rather than feeling disgusted at myself.

So yeah, life goes on, not nearly as usual, but certainly at its usual pace.

Which is, speedily.

Leave a Response »