Taken From: The Straits Times, 24/2/07
Title: New Media: A Case of Jekyll and Hyde
With the rise of the new age of technology, so too, follows the new age of crime.
Before, the crime was done in person, and belonged solely to those bold enough to do so in person, but today, improvements in cyber technology has given rise to a new breed of lawbreakers: Those emboldened and uninhibited by the supposed anonymity on the internet, and driven by peer pressure and/or the misguided belief that things on the internet are "free".
They think they aren't seen. They think they won't be caught. They think it's alright. Better, they actually don't mind going on like this. Best of all, they can be anyone.
There have already been many examples of such people, even here in Singapore, who have been caught on the wrong side of prosecutions for law infringements on the net. But yet, there are many who persist in such practices, and there are even those who have a “till the last thing is mine” attitude.
While the rise of technology has provided us many new benefits, as always, there are ways to misuse these benefits, and there are those who would exploit such opportunities.
For example, the email can be used to send emails, to share vital information, and even just to talk. Cameras are now installed in hand-phones, and there are now even tiny cameras available, for security and for convenience. But yet, the good aspects of these things, could, too be used for evil purposes, such as online scams, and to promote the notorious art of voyeurism, both now made so easy by technology.
Why then, is this happening? Why is there this rise of a morality of “It’s alright, it’s all free anyway, and it’s not that serious, I won’t get into trouble, so long as I’m not hurting anyone”? Why are people who are the average person normally, the criminal on the internet?
It has a lot to do with two things: Dishonesty, and Greed. It’s whether we have enough integrity as we think we do when no one is around to stop you. It’s whether we will settle for the things we already have, or if we want to succumb to the temptation of getting something we want but don’t have, and get it free.
In the eyes of these people, they think that when no one is watching, they can do whatever they want, and get whatever they want.
But “Code Blue is Watching Them”. In order to counter the rise of these “cybercrimes”, many IT consultancies are now working double time as cyber sleuths, seeking out and reporting these “cyber criminals” to the police. In addition, private music industries and even the MOE have been roped in to stem the Red Tide of cybercrime, through talks educating students, the most high-risk age group for cybercrime, about the dangers of illegal acts on the internet.
And as I said before, many here in Singapore (I shall not name them here) have already been arrested and sentenced to various punishments, for various crimes, such as stealing wireless signals, illegal downloading, cyber-voyeurism and the like, thus displaying, albeit in a very limited way, the effectiveness of the enforcement of the legislation
Alas, forbidden fruit tastes all the sweeter because it is forbidden.
Will these “preventive measures be successful, or will they all just go down the drain as wasted resources, or as the Chinese say it, be “taken as wind around the ears”?
In my opinion, it’s the people who are on the receiving end of these legislations, and their mindsets that matters. It really boils down to whether people will be willing to listen to these warnings, and refrain thereafter from these illegal acts.
Even if the legislature were to ban illegal downloading altogether, if the people’s hearts are not turned to the law, then it will either be rule by force, or just an empty shell of a law, with the occasional “example of what happens” cyber-martyr that makes ripples everywhere but where it would really bang a nail into the coffin of cybercrime: The minds of the people.
Only if there is a change of mindset, can there be a real change in the situation.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Saturday, February 17, 2007
The Illusionary Idea of the Illusionary World
The idea that the world is illusionary is rather strange, at least the way I see it.
Given Set Theory, if the world is an illusion, then if you are within the parameters of the world, you are an illusion yourself, and therefore do not exist.
What on earth does anything matter to something that doesn't exist, and what on earth does something that doesn't exist matter to anything else?
Taking an example of escaping a situation of being under threat, you would require a self, a threat, and a freewill to escape. If any one or more of the three were an illusion, or if all were an illusion, it wouldn't make any sense anymore.
For example, if the threat were illusionary, there would be no logical need to escape it, and if you and the freewill were illusionary, it wouldn't matter if the real threat hit you anyway.
Best of all: How about the existent illusionary self, using an existent illusionary freewill to escape the existent illusionary threat.
You need existence to breed an existing freewill, and then again you need something existent to run from. There's no point in running if your freewill is illusionary, there's no point in running if you were, and there's no point running if the threat was an illusion too. And the argument would break down in itself if all of them were illusions. Ha, ha.
And another thing funny, is that people bother to think about such things, all the while assuming that they have existent, non-illusionary knowledge to illuminate the existent illusionary people of the world in an existent illusionary world.
Or, they make some cheapskate, non-provable, non-disprovable, intellectually dishonest idea concerning the absolute truth of their premise, which usually has no rational grounds whatsoever.
Checkmate.
Given Set Theory, if the world is an illusion, then if you are within the parameters of the world, you are an illusion yourself, and therefore do not exist.
What on earth does anything matter to something that doesn't exist, and what on earth does something that doesn't exist matter to anything else?
Taking an example of escaping a situation of being under threat, you would require a self, a threat, and a freewill to escape. If any one or more of the three were an illusion, or if all were an illusion, it wouldn't make any sense anymore.
For example, if the threat were illusionary, there would be no logical need to escape it, and if you and the freewill were illusionary, it wouldn't matter if the real threat hit you anyway.
Best of all: How about the existent illusionary self, using an existent illusionary freewill to escape the existent illusionary threat.
You need existence to breed an existing freewill, and then again you need something existent to run from. There's no point in running if your freewill is illusionary, there's no point in running if you were, and there's no point running if the threat was an illusion too. And the argument would break down in itself if all of them were illusions. Ha, ha.
And another thing funny, is that people bother to think about such things, all the while assuming that they have existent, non-illusionary knowledge to illuminate the existent illusionary people of the world in an existent illusionary world.
Or, they make some cheapskate, non-provable, non-disprovable, intellectually dishonest idea concerning the absolute truth of their premise, which usually has no rational grounds whatsoever.
Checkmate.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The Foolishness of the Week III
A rather angry woman was sitting in on a sermon on the Meaning of Life. Rather angry with the pastor's statements about coherence and incoherency, she stood up and railed at him, "WHO TOLD YOU THINGS IN LIFE HAD TO BE COHERENT?"
The pastor looked at her in an amused fashion, but said rather seriously, "Ma'am, I have an answer for you, but would you like it coherent or incoherent?"
Oopsie Daisies.
The pastor looked at her in an amused fashion, but said rather seriously, "Ma'am, I have an answer for you, but would you like it coherent or incoherent?"
Oopsie Daisies.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Checkmate: Nirvana Lost

"Can one not need, and be free of all desire?"
At times, we may think life is so burdensome, that we want to quit, and we wish we needed nothing, and desired nothing.
It happened to me before, and I thought I could do it. Pity it was an illusion, a chasing after the wind.
Why? Why the end to such a desire?
Because it was a desire. I realised it was impossible for me to not need, or be free of desire, because I needed the desire to desire nothing as a premise, and then have the need to believe I need nothing as another premise, and also as the conclusion.
I couldn't do that without making a walking fallacy out of my life, so I gave up.
The Foolishness of the Week II

"There is no such thing as an exclusivistic truth, in terms of religion. Anything else would be epistomological arrogance."
Very funny.
One, truth by definition is exclusive. I can't say "I am me" and the next "No, absolutely not, I am my grandfather" and think that it is logical, that is ridiculous.
Two, they are assuming that "pluralism is the way to go in terms of religion" is the exclusivistic truth in terms of religion. Interesting, but a self-contained fallacy.
------NEXT FOOLISHNESS-----
Student: "Sir, How do I know I exist?"
Teacher: "And whom, shall I say, is asking?"
Even funnier.
For one thing, the student, if he didn't exist, couldn't have asked the question, and the teacher wouldn't have answered it, because he would never even have heard it.
For two, the teacher was purposely assuming he could hear the question from a non-existent person, but gave such an answer to inform the student of the fallacious nature of his question.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Strange Quotes People Made:
Napoleon : "What is History but a fable agreed upon?" (A strange quote, taking into account that Napoleon made history himself.)
Voltaire: "All sects are different, because they come from men, but morality everywhere is the same, because it comes from God." (That really depends if you woud accept God or reject him.)
Isaac Asimov: "Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." (Uh...hold on, unless he's talking about a warped sense of morals, this statement is a bit...weird.)
Aldous Huxley: "An intellectual is one who has discovered something more interesting than sex." (It really doesn't take an Einstein to find out something more interesting than sex, just that Aldous was a hedonist, and his only doubts about it were expressed in Brave New World, and nowhere else.)
Voltaire: "All sects are different, because they come from men, but morality everywhere is the same, because it comes from God." (That really depends if you woud accept God or reject him.)
Isaac Asimov: "Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." (Uh...hold on, unless he's talking about a warped sense of morals, this statement is a bit...weird.)
Aldous Huxley: "An intellectual is one who has discovered something more interesting than sex." (It really doesn't take an Einstein to find out something more interesting than sex, just that Aldous was a hedonist, and his only doubts about it were expressed in Brave New World, and nowhere else.)
Monday, February 5, 2007
A flash in the pan

This man, who defeated the worst enemy of his nation's empire, was thinking of very transient things in his moment of glory. On the burning of Carthage, he said talked about the mortality of nations, even Rome. And on his mounmental victory which crowned him in glory, he had this to say: "It too will pass."
Sunday, February 4, 2007
A Nation's Regress
In a recent poll, it appears that this generation of Americans have a new view about religion, Christianity in particular. They now believe that it is good for them, that America is a Christian nation, but that it should play only a small role in the running of the nation.
America is the only nation in the world to have been formed by Christian men, with Christian foundations for a Christian nation. That it has fallen to only giving their nation's premise a sense of lip service is nothing short of a joke, if not the laughingstock of the world, that a nation could so flatly push off the forces that created it, let it survive, and give it power. For it was this unity that allowed it to pull through many tribulations, from a revolution to civil war.
A look at the annals by Polybius, The Histories, brings us a valuable insight into why Rome, and many other republics, fell: The eponymous "corruption of customs". Rome fell because of the corruption of its constitution.
The problem was similar for America. Its founders knew that a brilliant constitution would not save them from corruption. Rome was one of the greatest constitutions ever known, but it fell. So how could they keep America from falling similarly?
Was it the concept of democracy? Definitely not. Even the great American founder John Adams said that "there was never a democracy that did not commit suicide". Definitely not a nice way of putting democracy's chances of saving a nation.
Was it humanism and the efforts of man and the constitution? Most certainly not, as it was already proven then, and even more so now, that man left to his own devices would subvert his own system.
Those who created America, however, had a solution to it: They would combine 3 aspects that they believed would save them: Liberty, Virtue and Religion/Faith, three interdependent, interlocking values.
For liberty had to be paired with virtue, so it would not be subverted by the lack thereof, virtue needed faith, for they believed that God was the giver of the absolute moral law, as recorded in the Bible. Also, faith needed liberty. After all, you must be at liberty to do anything, to do anything.
Also, they believed in an unimposed Christianity that would flourish by their faith, and go form strength to strength. They knew all too well that once a religion like theirs became established and imposed, it could all too easily repeat the tragedy of the Crusades, through which, counter-posed to the actual nature of Christianity, was used for conquest, furthering of ambition, and the spilling of enough blood to fill the sea.
Another irony is that this point is sorely missed by skeptics who would question the Christian on such a basis. Possibly because if they argued from a standpoint of historicity it would be tantamount to climbing a steep slope under heavy fire.
It has been said that it is after war that people become disillusioned, that it is during peace time that people become complacent, and that it is when conflicts begin brewing again when these same people will no longer have any more answers, let alone know what to do.
And lo and behold, America has indeed changed. Far from being a nation in which God was fundamental, and the state government is marginal, now the government and the people are fundamental, and God is made second fiddle, or else not included.
And now, the God that the founding fathers believed in is being made to play second fiddle once again, to something a lot more like that of the French during their anarchic revolution: God aside, Power to the People!
And what was the result of the French Revolution? A godless bloodbath, nothing less.
The idea that "we must save ourselves", and the suggestion that there is a better idea, is nothing but a valiant attempt to block out the facts, if modern society reflects anything about our current state.
The world without any moral law (save what we give ourselves), if not fallen enough already, is on a downward spiral towards insanity.
All kinds of sexual inclinations, so long blocked out in America by its Christ-based constitution, are now rampant, accepted, and worst of all, promoted.
The media and pop culture have also been infused with so much secularised thought that it is almost inevitable that even pop groups go on a downspiral (look at the Black Eyed Peas, and see how much "Don't Phunk with My Heart" is such a far cry from "Where is the Love?"
As to the democracy, it was also written by Polybius that,
"When a commonwealth, after warding off many great dangers, has arrived at a high pitch of prosperity and undisputed power ... the manner of life of its citizens will become more extravagant; and that the rivalry for office, and in other spheres of activity, will become fiercer than it ought to be. And as this state of things goes on more and more ... this will prove the beginning of a deterioration."
Sounds like America? It sounds like the world anyway. Worse, Polybius didn't say it all.
The average person does not have to look hard for depravity. Just a quick look on the internet, or a look around his or her school campus would speak volumes already.
Ironically enough, people such as the founding fathers of America such as John Adams, American presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. Even more amusing to note is that we don't see so much of this talk anymore.
People like CS Lewis (Men Without Chests) and Muggeridge, and from Russia, more recently, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, also warned us of the dangers of godlessness and the lack of moral fibre.
And now can America, weakened as it is by the influences of secularisation, pluralisation, among other things, say with confidence: In God We Trust?
Even now, they put their faith instead on the people, a highly volatile authority, and easily swayed by current events, national illusion or disillusionment and by the charisma of men and women who have the proverbial "three inches of immortal tongue", and on secular authority.
The issue of religion however, is left at this : "Yes, religion and God is rather good to change people's moral values, and we think it has been pushed away too much, but we don't want it imposed on us either. And yes, America is a Christian nation...but oh no, no thanks, we don't want God in our politics and our laws, thanks."
It really leaves one to think "What God?"
And why America? Why did I pick them to hit all of a sudden? Because it is the greater tragedy when something at the height of its power falls.
I'm not carthartic though.
Source: http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=153
America is the only nation in the world to have been formed by Christian men, with Christian foundations for a Christian nation. That it has fallen to only giving their nation's premise a sense of lip service is nothing short of a joke, if not the laughingstock of the world, that a nation could so flatly push off the forces that created it, let it survive, and give it power. For it was this unity that allowed it to pull through many tribulations, from a revolution to civil war.
A look at the annals by Polybius, The Histories, brings us a valuable insight into why Rome, and many other republics, fell: The eponymous "corruption of customs". Rome fell because of the corruption of its constitution.
The problem was similar for America. Its founders knew that a brilliant constitution would not save them from corruption. Rome was one of the greatest constitutions ever known, but it fell. So how could they keep America from falling similarly?
Was it the concept of democracy? Definitely not. Even the great American founder John Adams said that "there was never a democracy that did not commit suicide". Definitely not a nice way of putting democracy's chances of saving a nation.
Was it humanism and the efforts of man and the constitution? Most certainly not, as it was already proven then, and even more so now, that man left to his own devices would subvert his own system.
Those who created America, however, had a solution to it: They would combine 3 aspects that they believed would save them: Liberty, Virtue and Religion/Faith, three interdependent, interlocking values.
For liberty had to be paired with virtue, so it would not be subverted by the lack thereof, virtue needed faith, for they believed that God was the giver of the absolute moral law, as recorded in the Bible. Also, faith needed liberty. After all, you must be at liberty to do anything, to do anything.
Also, they believed in an unimposed Christianity that would flourish by their faith, and go form strength to strength. They knew all too well that once a religion like theirs became established and imposed, it could all too easily repeat the tragedy of the Crusades, through which, counter-posed to the actual nature of Christianity, was used for conquest, furthering of ambition, and the spilling of enough blood to fill the sea.
Another irony is that this point is sorely missed by skeptics who would question the Christian on such a basis. Possibly because if they argued from a standpoint of historicity it would be tantamount to climbing a steep slope under heavy fire.
It has been said that it is after war that people become disillusioned, that it is during peace time that people become complacent, and that it is when conflicts begin brewing again when these same people will no longer have any more answers, let alone know what to do.
And lo and behold, America has indeed changed. Far from being a nation in which God was fundamental, and the state government is marginal, now the government and the people are fundamental, and God is made second fiddle, or else not included.
And now, the God that the founding fathers believed in is being made to play second fiddle once again, to something a lot more like that of the French during their anarchic revolution: God aside, Power to the People!
And what was the result of the French Revolution? A godless bloodbath, nothing less.
The idea that "we must save ourselves", and the suggestion that there is a better idea, is nothing but a valiant attempt to block out the facts, if modern society reflects anything about our current state.
The world without any moral law (save what we give ourselves), if not fallen enough already, is on a downward spiral towards insanity.
All kinds of sexual inclinations, so long blocked out in America by its Christ-based constitution, are now rampant, accepted, and worst of all, promoted.
The media and pop culture have also been infused with so much secularised thought that it is almost inevitable that even pop groups go on a downspiral (look at the Black Eyed Peas, and see how much "Don't Phunk with My Heart" is such a far cry from "Where is the Love?"
As to the democracy, it was also written by Polybius that,
"When a commonwealth, after warding off many great dangers, has arrived at a high pitch of prosperity and undisputed power ... the manner of life of its citizens will become more extravagant; and that the rivalry for office, and in other spheres of activity, will become fiercer than it ought to be. And as this state of things goes on more and more ... this will prove the beginning of a deterioration."
Sounds like America? It sounds like the world anyway. Worse, Polybius didn't say it all.
The average person does not have to look hard for depravity. Just a quick look on the internet, or a look around his or her school campus would speak volumes already.
Ironically enough, people such as the founding fathers of America such as John Adams, American presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. Even more amusing to note is that we don't see so much of this talk anymore.
People like CS Lewis (Men Without Chests) and Muggeridge, and from Russia, more recently, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, also warned us of the dangers of godlessness and the lack of moral fibre.
And now can America, weakened as it is by the influences of secularisation, pluralisation, among other things, say with confidence: In God We Trust?
Even now, they put their faith instead on the people, a highly volatile authority, and easily swayed by current events, national illusion or disillusionment and by the charisma of men and women who have the proverbial "three inches of immortal tongue", and on secular authority.
The issue of religion however, is left at this : "Yes, religion and God is rather good to change people's moral values, and we think it has been pushed away too much, but we don't want it imposed on us either. And yes, America is a Christian nation...but oh no, no thanks, we don't want God in our politics and our laws, thanks."
It really leaves one to think "What God?"
And why America? Why did I pick them to hit all of a sudden? Because it is the greater tragedy when something at the height of its power falls.
I'm not carthartic though.
Source: http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=153
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Fool's Mate

The Fool's Mates in Life:
Thinking that the world is getting better and better.
Thinking that the world is getting better and better.
Thinking that you have to look hard to find depraved people. Just go on the NET.
Missing out on the good things in life just because you think it's meaningless.
Missing out on manga on the basis that it doesn't teach you anything. That's silly.
Playing pallbearer to someone who is somehow or rather, irreplacable.
Playing 2 pawns leaving your king open to a bishop move.
Having no purpose in life.
Having no person of the opposite gender to court in your life.
The Foolishness of the Week I

"We have yet to grow out of the infantile disorder of God and belief in some almighty deity. Yet in our own wisdom, all we can find to replace such a being, would either be just as or more ludicrous, or would have more negative implications than the crutch we call God. Would it then be wiser to believe nothing, and instead, question everything? Seemingly so, but it is, admittedly, difficult to go through life with no leg to stand on."
How amusing indeed. I made this line up on the fly. It's interesting to play with.
How amusing indeed. I made this line up on the fly. It's interesting to play with.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Surviving in Singapore: Riding the Lightning
We went to watch "Survivor Singapore" on Thursday.
They took a lot of cheap shots. It was very funny. They fired off a lot of pop-culture references and sexual innuendo. There was a lot of Singlish and the usual mish-mash "rojak" result of cross-cultural assimilation.
Was there anything deeper? Oh, plenty.
It was all about 1 thing: Dysfunctions
The dysfunctional teenager: devoid of all survival abilities, self-centred, self-indulging, self doubting and pampered or (alternatively) suppressed beyond belief. Many ideas they make are innovative but superficially ridiculous, and are thereafter subjected to the suppression fire of the school and the society, but only after the plan goes wrong. Have a desire to speak out but have no voice.
The dysfunctional parents: Outwardly believing that they want the best for their children, instead they either pamper or oppress their children, giving them only what they need materially, and neglecting the emotional needs and the psyche of their chidren. And when the children go wrong, they push the blame on the children for not having accepted their well meaning actions, and call their children "rebellious", hypocritically sidelining their own hand in the alienation they now receive from their childern.
The dysfunctional school: Expouses innovative thinking and the classic "thinking out of the box", but yet they do not do anything to guide this innovative thinking, regarding the ideas given as "ludicrous" and "dangerous", and then, instead of helping them to formulate their ideas into workable ones, they dismiss them, ignore, and then, once trouble brews, they condemn them and like authority does when misused, dismiss their own part in their own problem.
The dysfunctional media: While the media should stand impartially on the sidelines and report the news as it really is, it has now been corrupted and thoroughly intermingled with the corporate world, and posts the news that will bring the most people to the screen or to the sheets of newspaper before them. This has given rise to sensationalism, the race for sponsors, viewership, subscription and ultimately to the popularity of the tabloid.
The dysfunctional society: Best of all, the society works like that too, and condones such things to happen. We take our racial equality for granted. We think that money is everything, and even if we don't, we sometimes act as though we do. The worst thing: NO ONE OWES US A LIVING.
(If you don't know that yet, or don't want to know, I'd sooner take a Blutsauger and shove it between your shoulderblades than acknowledge your existence.)
This, I already knew. At least, people would express it in their plays, but ah, that is probably just part of the reflective nature of the society looking back on its fallen nature. The anegnorisis sets in, and regret follows inadvertently. Will there be a carthartic purging? Ah, I say, not while this world lasts. Not while this world lasts.
"We will soon forget the innocence of the now, and be immersed in the deluge, drowned in the tumult of the real world and its stark realities. Only too soon will we know that we are all sufferers in a suffering world, mourners in a mourning world, and the dying in a dying one. Whence will we turn? How shall we question? And who will answer? Who will answer? Who will answer?"
(Perhaps I love making up my own lines too much. This one I took from a popular song of some decades back, and took an idea from one of Voltaire's writings. It has always amused me to think about the pallbearers of God, and how miserably they have failed, and how deeply they despaired in their pride and in their wisdom. O confounded men!)
"For the weakness of God is stronger than man, and the foolishness of God is wiser than man...May the light prevail."
(A lonely amen)
They took a lot of cheap shots. It was very funny. They fired off a lot of pop-culture references and sexual innuendo. There was a lot of Singlish and the usual mish-mash "rojak" result of cross-cultural assimilation.
Was there anything deeper? Oh, plenty.
It was all about 1 thing: Dysfunctions
The dysfunctional teenager: devoid of all survival abilities, self-centred, self-indulging, self doubting and pampered or (alternatively) suppressed beyond belief. Many ideas they make are innovative but superficially ridiculous, and are thereafter subjected to the suppression fire of the school and the society, but only after the plan goes wrong. Have a desire to speak out but have no voice.
The dysfunctional parents: Outwardly believing that they want the best for their children, instead they either pamper or oppress their children, giving them only what they need materially, and neglecting the emotional needs and the psyche of their chidren. And when the children go wrong, they push the blame on the children for not having accepted their well meaning actions, and call their children "rebellious", hypocritically sidelining their own hand in the alienation they now receive from their childern.
The dysfunctional school: Expouses innovative thinking and the classic "thinking out of the box", but yet they do not do anything to guide this innovative thinking, regarding the ideas given as "ludicrous" and "dangerous", and then, instead of helping them to formulate their ideas into workable ones, they dismiss them, ignore, and then, once trouble brews, they condemn them and like authority does when misused, dismiss their own part in their own problem.
The dysfunctional media: While the media should stand impartially on the sidelines and report the news as it really is, it has now been corrupted and thoroughly intermingled with the corporate world, and posts the news that will bring the most people to the screen or to the sheets of newspaper before them. This has given rise to sensationalism, the race for sponsors, viewership, subscription and ultimately to the popularity of the tabloid.
The dysfunctional society: Best of all, the society works like that too, and condones such things to happen. We take our racial equality for granted. We think that money is everything, and even if we don't, we sometimes act as though we do. The worst thing: NO ONE OWES US A LIVING.
(If you don't know that yet, or don't want to know, I'd sooner take a Blutsauger and shove it between your shoulderblades than acknowledge your existence.)
This, I already knew. At least, people would express it in their plays, but ah, that is probably just part of the reflective nature of the society looking back on its fallen nature. The anegnorisis sets in, and regret follows inadvertently. Will there be a carthartic purging? Ah, I say, not while this world lasts. Not while this world lasts.
"We will soon forget the innocence of the now, and be immersed in the deluge, drowned in the tumult of the real world and its stark realities. Only too soon will we know that we are all sufferers in a suffering world, mourners in a mourning world, and the dying in a dying one. Whence will we turn? How shall we question? And who will answer? Who will answer? Who will answer?"
(Perhaps I love making up my own lines too much. This one I took from a popular song of some decades back, and took an idea from one of Voltaire's writings. It has always amused me to think about the pallbearers of God, and how miserably they have failed, and how deeply they despaired in their pride and in their wisdom. O confounded men!)
"For the weakness of God is stronger than man, and the foolishness of God is wiser than man...May the light prevail."
(A lonely amen)
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Blogging about Blogs
Some time at the end of last year, I went to a website called Global Voices online, and there I saw firsthand how under the mask of polite speech and the smother of netiquette can lurk the most venomous hatred and prejudice, as well as pride.
It was over the matter of Japan/China/Korea (AGAIN), and it was, once again about the War (AGAIN). This time, the flashpoint was a certain blog about a manga of which the main topic was the kenkanryu (hate korea wave) comic that got slammed like crazy. My first though was "They've been at it for more than 61 years now. MAN, bunch of arrogant jokers."
For some inexplicable reason, the topic hoisted up a lot of emotions about the whole affair, even reaching back towards the 1930s and 1940s. Then I wondered "Why on earth are they digressing all the way back down those 60 odd years? It's totally off topic."
I was to be surprised at how deep and confounding the "digression" was. Looking back, perhaps the digression was the main point after all. It could only have been the bad blood between 3 countries that could have caused such an online furore.
But what drew me in was the anger against Japan, and sometimes, back. I felt it was extremely repulsive that while the nettiquette of most of the people was legal, but the emotions brought out were seriously, terrible. they used a lot of vivid analogy: One rather angry blogger even asked me if I would forgive the man who raped my wife. I told him yes, and I'm sure he thought I was crazy.
(He is currently avoiding me on GBO, and I don't want to go after him anyway)
So I joined the line, on Japan's end of it. It was, ironic, I must say, that those defending Japan should come from places like Singapore and China, and the United States. We had to fight a lot of outright challengers, one of which I shall call J.
J was also the one who asked me if I would forgive the man who raped my wife. He was the most emotional of my opponents, and he loved to give, if not outright spam, historicity about Japan's atrocities, and asking how we could possibly forgive them for it. It was rather ugly. Most of the comments was "your information is biased" this, and "the information there has broken links and its outdated" that, and that was perplexing. I read some of the documents, and to the best of my knowledge, they were accurate enough. It got to a point when I was almost tempted to flame all my opponents, asking "How many of you have a Sony product in your house? how many of you read manga? How many of you use Japanese stuff? If you would take that from them, and not this history, SCREW YOU! It's not as if China never invaded anyone, it's not as if Korea never invaded anyone!" Of course, I wouldn't say that, and I didn't (It would have gotten me a slap on the wrist, or somewhere worse.). It would have been too emotional, anyway.
Essentially we crossed swords, I with the foil, he with a claymore. Add in a lot of other people wielding their own online debating material, and we have a rather major melee.
The foil, while weak in terms of the hurt it deals to the opponent, finds many holes in his defences, while on the other hand, the claymore, while heavy and deadly both as an impact and as a slicing weapon, is hard to handle, and easier to dodge and counter.
But it wasn't as easy as I made it sound with that analogy. It was still difficult to deal with someone who had been clouded by prejudice so much. I can't really blame him, from his point of view, the Japanese really must look bad, unlike us in Singapore, many of us no longer even think about such things. Perhaps that has a lot to do with our countries' philosophies and our pride, and our way of treating and perceiving history
The ending was inconclusive, as the forum thread got closed. Anyone with a brain would have seen that coming, and all the same, emotions shouldn't have been let to run amok as they did on that thread.
It was over the matter of Japan/China/Korea (AGAIN), and it was, once again about the War (AGAIN). This time, the flashpoint was a certain blog about a manga of which the main topic was the kenkanryu (hate korea wave) comic that got slammed like crazy. My first though was "They've been at it for more than 61 years now. MAN, bunch of arrogant jokers."
For some inexplicable reason, the topic hoisted up a lot of emotions about the whole affair, even reaching back towards the 1930s and 1940s. Then I wondered "Why on earth are they digressing all the way back down those 60 odd years? It's totally off topic."
I was to be surprised at how deep and confounding the "digression" was. Looking back, perhaps the digression was the main point after all. It could only have been the bad blood between 3 countries that could have caused such an online furore.
But what drew me in was the anger against Japan, and sometimes, back. I felt it was extremely repulsive that while the nettiquette of most of the people was legal, but the emotions brought out were seriously, terrible. they used a lot of vivid analogy: One rather angry blogger even asked me if I would forgive the man who raped my wife. I told him yes, and I'm sure he thought I was crazy.
(He is currently avoiding me on GBO, and I don't want to go after him anyway)
So I joined the line, on Japan's end of it. It was, ironic, I must say, that those defending Japan should come from places like Singapore and China, and the United States. We had to fight a lot of outright challengers, one of which I shall call J.
J was also the one who asked me if I would forgive the man who raped my wife. He was the most emotional of my opponents, and he loved to give, if not outright spam, historicity about Japan's atrocities, and asking how we could possibly forgive them for it. It was rather ugly. Most of the comments was "your information is biased" this, and "the information there has broken links and its outdated" that, and that was perplexing. I read some of the documents, and to the best of my knowledge, they were accurate enough. It got to a point when I was almost tempted to flame all my opponents, asking "How many of you have a Sony product in your house? how many of you read manga? How many of you use Japanese stuff? If you would take that from them, and not this history, SCREW YOU! It's not as if China never invaded anyone, it's not as if Korea never invaded anyone!" Of course, I wouldn't say that, and I didn't (It would have gotten me a slap on the wrist, or somewhere worse.). It would have been too emotional, anyway.
Essentially we crossed swords, I with the foil, he with a claymore. Add in a lot of other people wielding their own online debating material, and we have a rather major melee.
The foil, while weak in terms of the hurt it deals to the opponent, finds many holes in his defences, while on the other hand, the claymore, while heavy and deadly both as an impact and as a slicing weapon, is hard to handle, and easier to dodge and counter.
But it wasn't as easy as I made it sound with that analogy. It was still difficult to deal with someone who had been clouded by prejudice so much. I can't really blame him, from his point of view, the Japanese really must look bad, unlike us in Singapore, many of us no longer even think about such things. Perhaps that has a lot to do with our countries' philosophies and our pride, and our way of treating and perceiving history
The ending was inconclusive, as the forum thread got closed. Anyone with a brain would have seen that coming, and all the same, emotions shouldn't have been let to run amok as they did on that thread.
Retrospectus Ipsum: Januarius
Looking back on the last month, it must be admitted that where it was good, it was good, and where it was bad, there was no match to its sorry doldrum.
OBS was good, the finale was however, an anticlimax if not the nightmare day. Compared to the half-day suffering in the row boat, the sufferings my ears faced at the finale forced it to pale into the twilight. At least, the former was fun. We had our teammates to help us and we all went through it together.
Only good thing was, we sang the batch song, and the theme fit the song.
The school term went well, in general, except for minor hiccups. It was uneventful, though, disappointingly. The burden of a senior in my CCA has begun to set in, somewhat. Teaching juniors for 40 minutes is edifying to them, but is mentally tiring.
On the side note of the proverbial silver lining, we now know how to empathise with teachers. Man, they suffer a lot.
Thoughts of the Month:
RI boybands should really get a vocalist from RV next time, and no overly noisy music. The assumption/myth that all people like rock is totally fallacious.
And we should spend more time working on our speed at doing tests, not just at doing them. Teachers seem to be learning well as to how to own us by the length of the test alone.
OBS was good, the finale was however, an anticlimax if not the nightmare day. Compared to the half-day suffering in the row boat, the sufferings my ears faced at the finale forced it to pale into the twilight. At least, the former was fun. We had our teammates to help us and we all went through it together.
Only good thing was, we sang the batch song, and the theme fit the song.
The school term went well, in general, except for minor hiccups. It was uneventful, though, disappointingly. The burden of a senior in my CCA has begun to set in, somewhat. Teaching juniors for 40 minutes is edifying to them, but is mentally tiring.
On the side note of the proverbial silver lining, we now know how to empathise with teachers. Man, they suffer a lot.
Thoughts of the Month:
RI boybands should really get a vocalist from RV next time, and no overly noisy music. The assumption/myth that all people like rock is totally fallacious.
And we should spend more time working on our speed at doing tests, not just at doing them. Teachers seem to be learning well as to how to own us by the length of the test alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)