New Year's Resolution

   To have everything would make us thankful for nothing,
   To have nothing would make us thankful for everything.


There's always pleasure in achieving whatever it is that we have always wanted - or is there? Let's say we resolve to lose some weight this year. Would it really make us happier to have lost some weight by the end of the year? Or would it be more likely that we get the false reassurance that we could probably lose more weight - so that however much weight that has been lost does not count anymore.

It's good to have a new year's resolution, especially healthy ones, like losing weight, working harder, being nicer to others, etc. However, on reflection, I think it may be wiser to resolve on getting nothing - or to lose everything. Let me explain why.

At first, I thought my resolution is to be grateful for everything in the new year - saying thanks every morning, for every meal and every little achievement. Fortunately I quickly realize how futile this effort would be. Not only will I eventually forget to do it, I also imagine myself forgetting why I wanted to do it in the first place.

In other words, saying thanks - or rather, forcing ourselves to say thanks to every little thing - can turn into an empty ritual. This noble practice would eventually become an insincere habit. So, that's why I think I ought to do the opposite.

Instead of reminding myself to be thankful for everything, it's more practical to do whatever that would make a person do it naturally. And that is, by resolving to have nothing. A poor man's penny is worth much more than that of the rich man.

Of course, I don't expect to lose it all this new year. But that is precisely why I resolve to do so - my failure (to lose everything) would make me happier for another year (as I'll have much more than I ever wanted). However, if fate will be unkind to me, at least I can still be happy that I have achieved my new year resolution.

Happy New Year 2013!

Art as a Mirror

1. The analogy

What makes art? What makes music? 

When we speak, we produce sound waves that can have varying pitch and rhythm, and yet our speech is not considered music. So why do we consider Beethoven's fifth to be a piece of music, when it is also essentially made of sound waves produced by an orchestra? Also, if we can write an essay, or draw a picture, both using pen and paper, why must we distinguish one scribbling from the other?

I think the reason we discriminate speech from music, written passage from drawing, lies in the analogy of the mirror. And the analogy is, that art (which includes music as one of its forms) is anything that can act as a mirror to our soul.  


2. The mirror

A mirror, as we learn at school, works by reflecting light. We can say that it is usually made of two layers. It has a transparent layer made of glass. And behind the glass there is an opaque layer of coating, that can be made of substances such as silver or aluminum.

The glass in itself will not reflect much light, although it can act as a two way mirror if we place it between two rooms with different lighting levels. The glass between the two rooms will reflect images of people in the brighter room, whilst making them visible to those people in the dark room.

Of course, when a glass is coated with an opaque substance, including shiny ones like silver or aluminum, the coating layer acts as a dark room. When we look into this glass mirror, we stand in the brighter room, so to speak, and so we can see our reflection in the mirror.


3. The music

Speech is simply a tool for communication. No one would argue otherwise. But who can tell what is music?

If music is simply an art form, then we can probably test our analogy and compare it to a mirror. Like a mirror, a musical piece must also be composed of two layers. It must have a 'transparent' component, and an 'opaque' layer. 

Its 'transparent' component is made of the features that music share with speech, or the features that make music easily understood. These include the explicit information that a piece of music may carry, such as its mood, and the literal interpretation of the lyrics that may accompany the music. Just like when we listen to somebody speak, we can immediately get the tone of his speech (happy, angry, formal, playful) and the information the speaker is trying to convey to us; so in music, when we listen to a song, we can tell whether it is a happy, or sad song, and what the lyrics may literally mean. (Thus, music can be transparent)

However, by being merely 'transparent', a piece of music can only carry a certain meaning, or rigid interpretation, and so we can no longer appreciate it as an art form. This is how we perceive our national anthem and ringtone, to give some examples. These have a direct and literal meaning to them - a national identity, or a call alert.

Therefore, music must also have a 'deeper layer of opacity', to act as a mirror. This is the incomprehensible, obscured part of music. It can be compared to the dark room on the other side of a two way mirror, or the silver coating of a glass mirror. This is the part of music that makes it a mystery to us, and distinguishes it from speech. To illustrate, imagine you calling a friend and then reading him a paragraph from a news website. Then, you suddenly start singing the next paragraph to him.

At first when you read the news to your friend, he would listen and immediately understand what you are talking about. However, when you start singing to him from the same news website, you will almost certainly confuse him, and he may also begin doubting your sanity. Of course, if you can sing well, that paragraph from the news which was originally only a piece of information, can be turned into music quite easily, by the peculiar way you read it aloud.

In other words, singing starts when we cannot be sure why the singer speaks in a certain way. Ironically, even though we could not fully 'understand' his song, we can still very well enjoy it. This is only because music, like a mirror, can show us our reflection. 


4. The reflection

Even after comparing it to a mirror, we may still wonder how music can produce our reflection. The answer lies in how we try to make sense of the peculiarities of music. This is similar to the way we try to make sense of the strangeness and obscurity of other forms of art, including painting, poetry or sculpture.

What we may not have realized is that our interpretation, or the way we make sense of the strangeness of a piece of art is unique to each of us. This is not just about how we differ in our preference of one art over another. In fact, just like how a good mirror can show us a clear reflection, a good piece of art will reveal our reflection clearly.

As mentioned before, our reflection is produced in art when we attempt at an interpretation. This is because our interpretation is inextricably linked to our past experience, knowledge and personality - all of which are unique to each of us. For example, Beethoven's fifth symphony may sound the same to all our ears, but we inevitably will all perceive it differently. Some may say, "It's the sound of Fate". While others may agree with a Youtube commenter who thought, "Star Wars sounds like this". 





By showing us our reflection, art can be a useful way for us to find out more about ourselves. But we must also be careful, as our obsession with art, like an obsession with looking at mirrors, can only be a further proof of our vanity (read: narcissism).

***

The top image is that of Narcissus, by Caravaggio (source: Wikipedia)

A Simple Philosophy

The Presenter

1. A better world without them?

Talk show and reality TV hosts, newscasters, radio DJs, museum and art gallery educators, all share a common role: to present to us certain interesting persons, topics or objects.

Can we imagine a world without TV and radio presenters? Yes, but we often get it wrong. We may think this imaginary world without hosts would be a better place than where we are now. After all, aren't most TV or radio hosts plain annoying? Even the good ones just keep us away from understanding the real deal, as we may be mislead by their interpretation of the subject anyway. Would it really be better for a show to run without a host? Maybe not.

In fact, a programme without a presenter won't be as good as a hosted one. It would be boring. And this is not necessarily because presenters are entertaining by themselves. What makes a programme so much better when it's hosted is all to do with our natural indolence (read: laziness).  We just cannot afford (or just too lazy) to do everything by ourselves, so these presenters are there to help us get to know a certain subject. But why are they so good at this? Let me explain.


2. Greek chorus

The ancient Greek used to stage plays in theatres, some of which are still standing, although now in ruins. From what we understand through records and traditions, these plays were not only popular in their time, but they also had some features that may at first puzzle us today. One of their features was to have a small group of people, called the chorus, who would stand in a place between the stage and the audience, essentially to host the drama enacted on the stage.

The chorus would narrate the story, and at times, even interrupt the actors on the stage with their commentaries. They would even have some dialogues with those actors. Their explanation may help the audience to understand the story, and this might have been done through singing. (This may be the origin of choral speaking and why it may also involve some singing..)

When I first learned about the Greek chorus I thought it was absurd. Wouldn't it disrupt the play on the stage? After all, we certainly don't see people standing between us and the stage who would talk to actors during the show and singing away the plot in modern theatres . But I was wrong. The chorus have climbed the stage and finally joined the actors in the spotlight. They are now called extras, or background actors.


3. Youtube comments and fake laughs

What's more satisfying than to watch a good Youtube video? To read the viewers' comments, of course. But have we ever wondered why?

Well, Zizek might have the answer. Slavoj Zizek is a modern day philosopher and I enjoy watching his videos on Youtube for his wacky comments on mundane things. In fact, my previous post on Diet Coke and decaff coffee was inspired by his talk.

Anyway, Zizek once described why comedy shows on TV would use fake recorded audience laughs and what makes them so effective in making us enjoy these shows. It's not simply a trick that tries to make us, the viewers at home, laugh, everytime we hear those fake laughs in a scene.

In fact, those fake laughs allow us to enjoy these programmes even without us laughing. Zizek thinks that this is because the recording has already laughed for us. So we only need to sit back and relax in front of the screen, and without even forcing a laugh we can feel good after watching the comedy programme.

Back to Youtube video comments, we find reading them actually gives us more pleasure than watching the video. Well, why not? Other viewers have already shared their thoughts on the video, and so we really don't even have to bother judging the video anymore. Just read the comment section and you could still enjoy Youtube without even watching the videos.


4. Film and reality

So why do we prefer hosted TV shows and radio programmes? Well first off they can do something which we'd like to do but can't be bothered to - talk to famous people, ask embarrassing questions and gossip about others, choose the right songs to play, etc. Of course we don't always agree with the host on her conversation with the celebrity, or her taste in music.

But to have someone do something for us is always convenient, and so unsurprisingly, Greek chorus, Youtube commenters, fake audience, along with museum educators, DJs and TV hosts can entertain us with their presence. By explaining to us the story in the play, judging a video, laughing on a funny scene, telling us the history of an art work, making a song playlist and talking to famous people, these presenters have allowed us to effortlessly enjoy these things. Isn't that amazing?

What's more amazing is to realize how 'presenters' can also play a role in films. Think of any famous films, there's always a character that narrates the whole plot for us, or explain the significance of events in the story. (Avatar: Jack's video blog, Titanic: Rose's interview). Without a narrator, audience can easily get confused - like what happened at the end of Inception.

Even a film with practically one character, like Castaway, needed a narration. Otherwise, we just don't see the point of the film - or rather, we can't be bothered to find out for ourselves why Tom Hank's character had to suffer from his isolation. 




Talking about isolation, we can easily imagine why it can hurt so much. When you live alone, you need to do everything on your own. Everything. Every little thing that you used to take for granted, when they are crucial for your survival, you'd have to work hard to keep it. And do this without any help from others. That's not easy.

In other words, the miserable experience of isolation can make us realize how dependent we are on others. Try not to watch any hosted TV programmes, stop listening to the radio, don't read the comments on Youtube, watch standups with no audience, and watch Castaway without that scene above.

Of course, it's not easy to get to know famous people, discover new music, watch the whole length of Youtube videos, laugh at comedy and putting together the plot - all by ourselves. So thank goodness we have each other!

Our Bucket of Memory

1. The container

If we were to put all the things that we remember into a bucket, we would call that container our memory. The word memory can mean both: the things we remember, and the faculty of remembering itself. This faculty of remembering things can be compared to a bucket of water.

Of course this imaginary bucket can only hold a certain amount of content, and this depends on its size. If we pour too much into a small bucket, the content will overflow.

Like a bucket, our memory is also limited by its capacity . The things we forget are like the overflowing content of an overfilled bucket. Forgetfulness, like an overfilled bucket, can either be due to things being put in too quickly, or worse, having a small bucket.


2. The content

Now let's talk about the content: the stuff of memory, or what actually fill up this imaginary bucket. What do we remember?

Here, we can assume there to be two types of content: (1) facts, and (2) understanding. Although both facts and understanding are stored in the memory, they can have different effects on the container.

Facts will only fill up the space in the bucket, whereas understanding can also expand the capacity of the bucket. So if we only fill our bucket with facts, it will get overfilled very quickly. Fortunately, we also fill our bucket with some understanding, which will increase its capacity, and so our bucket will not overflow too easily.


3. The capacity

So why do we need a big bucket of memory? Surely we can survive with retaining very little bits of information in our memory - only those vital ones such as where to find food and shelter. Would there be any advantage to a bigger store of memory?

I think there is. A bigger bucket can hold a greater amount of content. This greater amount of stored memory will allow a richer experience of life overall, and this would naturally bring us greater joy and pleasure. For instance, we can compare newborns, who have very little store of memory, with older children - and we can imagine how their life experiences would differ.

Of course we see babies smile and laugh with every good feed and stimulation, and so they appear to enjoy their lives. Their enjoyment, however, is small compared to, say, an older child's joy of celebrating his birthday. And in turn, this boy's joy of his birthday celebration is actually insignificant, when compared to the experience of love in adulthood.

It's not difficult to imagine the richness of experience giving us more pleasure, and so it is why we strive to increase our 'memory capacity' even further with technology.


4. Technology and Civilization

Thankfully we have developed tools that can help us store information - like a simple pen and paper; or a more sophisticated machinery such as the computer. However, technology has also overloaded us with information, thanks to fast connections and high processing speed. It's simply mind-boggling how much information is thrown at us everyday, that there are a lot of trivial facts that must be forgotten (otherwise they will overfill our bucket).

But let's also not overlook the gift of language that we humans are endowed with. It is such a useful tool that allows us to share our 'memory capacity' with each other, hence enriching our life experiences. Language can do this by allowing information to be transferred efficiently between its users, whether it is spoken or written.

So if you have reached this paragraph and have begun to understand what I am blabbering about here, I hope you will also share my joy of being understood. We can both rejoice that my understanding has now been transferred to you, which means that we have effectively increased the size of our buckets!

Sunday Love Song

Culture

What Makes Greatness

1. Corded vs Smartphones

Have you ever wondered why we judge something to be better than just 'good'? Consider this: If the telephone on our office desk is working well, we never think of it any better than just being good. But with the iPhone, or any other smartphone(s) in our pocket, we never stop admiring it when it's in order; even valuing it as much as - or maybe more than - what we have been willing to pay for it; that is until the next new version comes out.

In fact - and correct me if I'm wrong - when the 'old school' telephones were first used in offices and homes around the country, they must have received as much admiration as we give smartphones today. So why don't corded phones seem so cool to us now? Is it simply because it is old technology? Maybe not.

If something is valuable only because it is new, there would be no market for antiques. Despite what we might have thought in our naïve younger days, not all new things are good.  Neither are all old things in general. So if being new  (or old) does not necessarily make something seem great in our eyes, what actually does?


2. Of what use

Obviously no good comes from a useless thing. Although precious stones and metals, like diamonds and gold are practically useless, they at least serve as symbols of value - just like money. We value them only because they serve as symbols of value itself. When they lose this quality, for example in inflation or in certain situations, they can very quickly lose all their value (e.g diamonds and gold won't feed you in the jungle).

For other valuable things, we can easily imagine why being useful is important to make them seem good to us. But use is obviously not the only reason why we value something. If we compare old telephones with smartphones again, we can see why this is so. Both can make calls (smartphones can do much more than that, but they are phones after all), and yet we value smartphones much more.

So why don't we, just like previous generations, think corded phones are cool, and yet we value smartphones much higher and would pay more to get them - when both have the same primary use: to make calls!


3. Hard work & The Price Illusion

The missing ingredient to what makes something great apart from being useful, I think, is hard work. That is, something is great only when it requires hard work. This is because we would naturally value our own effort and the resulting product of that effort, more than other people would do. Therefore, when something demands hard work in order to achieve it, we tend to value it more than those that are easily achievable. 

Let's look at smartphones again. If we ignore what the production companies (e.g Apple, HTC, Samsung) tell us, there can be no great differences between the smartphone models, in their actual use - calls, messaging, Facebook, etc.  And yet, some models are much more expensive than others.

As we may eventually realize, cheaper models can do virtually all the tasks that we would expect from the more expensive ones. And yet we genuinely find the high-end phones to be much more valuable than their cheaper alternatives. Are we really that gullible?

Or maybe we feel that the extra effort to pay for the higher price tag can only be justified by a higher intrinsic value. "I worked hard for that cash to pay for this phone, so it must be great." The only danger is when our logic is turned backwards, and we start thinking, "It's awesome, so I must work hard for enough cash to buy that phone."


4. What makes greatness

So there are two criteria for something to be better than good (i.e to be awesome, great, wonderful, excellent, etc.), that it must be both: useful; and demanding. Without one or the other, it can never be great.

From sports cars; to the portrait of Mona Lisa hanging on the wall of Musee du Louvre; to our favourite song from an obscure album; our idea of greatness in these things comes not only in their proper use (as transport, decoration, and entertainment accordingly), but also from the great difficulty in obtaining each of them (by being expensive, unique, or obscure).

Then we may say, our life can only be 'great' by being both useful and demanding. And in order to be useful, we must be responsible - and the only way to survive a demanding life is to be hardworking. Only then, will greatness ensue.

__

Image source: http://www.iclarified.com/entry/index.php?enid=1454

Live with strangers

"Are you in adversity? Do not mourn in the darkness of solitude, do not regulate your sorrow according to the indulgent sympathy of your intimate friends; return, as soon as possible, to the day-light of the world and of society. Live with strangers, with those who know nothing, or care nothing about your misfortune; do not even shun the company of enemies.

Are you in prosperity? Do not confine the enjoyment of your good fortune to your own house, to the company of your own friends, perhaps of your flatterers, of those who build upon your fortune the hopes of mending their own; frequent those who are independent of you, who can value you only for your character and conduct, and not for your fortune"

Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)

Adieu

What joy it is to learn a new piece of music. :)

Brahms in B

Futility of Motion

Oh the animals,
they run and seek shelter,
when it rains;
to drink and bathe,
they jump into the water.

The trees,
they stood still,
no matter how wet the weather,
they stood still,
no matter how dry the weather,
they live longer,
and grow ever still.

Of News and History

Should we keep ourselves updated with the latest news? Why not, this would make us informed citizens, right? Well, I doubt it now.

How much information can daily news give us? Plenty, of course. But most of the information they feed us is trivial, on further reflection. As we can be fooled by first impressions, the shallow depth of information that we gather from news may also fool us. Let me explain.

If today we read about an important news - the result of a general election for example. How can this information help us, if we still cannot be sure how this new government would perform? Are they going to be responsible, generous, or corrupt? So we read the news again tomorrow, and many days to come - until eventually we get a certain impression of the elected government.

So far, news seem to be useful - to judge governments, for example - until we realize that we only need a summary of events between the previous and future elections, in order to decide wisely on whom to support. All that time wasted on reading daily news could have been used to read our history.

But what is the purpose of learning history? "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Obviously. 

There is actually nothing new in the news (if you pardon the pun). News events are nothing but repetition of the same mistakes - done by different people, at different times, in different places. I think we'd be better of reading history.

On Loneliness

from Picasso's Blue Period

Loneliness is not the lack of company, or friends - as one can also feel lonely amidst a group of people. Loneliness, instead, is simply being tired of one own self. Let me explain why I think this must be so.

Having friends, does not actually depend on other people's interest in us. In fact, we are all egoists to a certain extent - that is, we care more about ourselves than about others. Even when we think we genuinely have interest in another person, it is only because we see (part of) ourself in that other person.

So to have any friends at all, one must first take interest in oneself. In doing so, we would then easily find this 'interesting' part of us reflected in other people around us. And as this happens, we would be more motivated to approach that other person, spark a conversation, and genuinely connect with that person. This all starts to happen only because, ironically, we began to take an interest in ourselves.

You might ask, what do I mean by saying that we can 'see parts of us' in other people? These parts may include our character, occupation, and fortunate or even unfortunate circumstances. When we notice them in other people, we get an urge to confirm this, as nothing can be more satisfying than to discover the familiar (parts of us) in unfamiliar places (other people) - like finding cash under your pillow.

Friendship, then, is actually a bond of mutually 'reflected self' - oneself reflected in others. Therefore, as time passes, and as the view of oneself changes with time, one may no longer see oneself again in one's old friend, and eventually the friendship may die away.

Returning to our discussion on loneliness; when one is feeling sad or depressed, then he may lose interest in himself. So that when he attends a social event, or, stays in his bedroom - either surrounded by people, or alone in his room - he feels lonely. And indeed, he would feel that way, as he is not interested even in the closest person he knows and lives with every second of everyday, himself.

Borodin's String Quartet

What is Homesickness

At Eternity's Gate (Van Gogh)

Can we recall those moments, when we are reminded of home, in our time away? Though it doesn't happen at all time - neither do these thoughts come to us most of the time - when they do come to mind, we are filled with a feeling, which we call homesickness. But let's go further than this superficial view of homesickness, and delve deeper into an understanding of this feeling of longing and nostalgia.

The easiest way to start is to recall exactly when do we often feel homesick. Let me give a suggestion: it is more than often that we feel homesick when we face an uncertain future, in our time away from home. This is why homesickness comes at around the beginning, and the end of our 'travels', although it doesn't necessarily have to do so. 

In the beginnings of our 'journeys', we can feel homesick, if we are not sure how things will unfold for us in a foreign environment, when our routine at home is broken. However, as we familiarize with this new environment, we quickly 'settle down', and would soon forget to miss home.

Whereas at the ends of our 'journeys', as we become more and more aware of a definite ending to our time away from home, we can also feel homesick. These are the times when our current routine, the one we have gotten used to while being away from home, will again be broken, and although at these times we are about to go home, we can feel even more homesick.

But why must these be so? Well, let's first examine our idea of home. We usually define it as the physical place where we spent our childhood. We also regard those who live there, our parents, grandparents, siblings, pets as part of home. However, home can also be thought of as the mere idea of our past, that time and place from where we came from. 

So no wonder then that we feel homesick when our future is uncertain, as the idea of home, which is actually a thought about our past, can be more comforting, as it is more certain.

***

Taking this further, we can think about how to remedy the sadness that often comes with homesickness. We can try calling home, or even make plans to return home. However, these are temporary fixes to the real problem that we may be facing, i.e an uncertain future. One way out may be to turn our anxiety into excitement, by actively making realistic plans for the future, and not to underestimate our ability to adapt to new environments, as we have been doing so, for many times already. 

Scherzo

Yes, but No

We can observe that generally there are 4 attitudes to life:

   1. Yes and Yes

   2. No and No

   3. Yes, but No

   4. No, but Yes

Allow me to elaborate: The first Yes in 'Yes and Yes' is when we think we believe in something; whereas the second Yes in 'Yes and Yes' means that we really do believe in it. 

For example, a person who has an attitude of 'Yes and Yes' about himself, will believe in himself. In fact, he is too confident in himself that he completely ignores any criticisms directed at him. In contrast, a person who has the attitude of 'No and No', will completely deny having any abilities, and despite what others praise him for, he will continue to not believe in himself.

Another person, on the other hand, who has the attitude of 'Yes, but No' in himself, will at first believe in his own abilities. In reality, he actually does not believe in himself, and so he listens to criticisms from others. Finally, there's also a type of person who has the 'No, but Yes' attitude about himself. This person will at first deny having any abilities, but in reality he is only too confident in himself that he doesn't accept any criticisms.

...

There are many other examples to give for these differing attitudes; and they are not necessarily to do with the individual self. One example is of Science. 

Real progress in science, I think, can only be made when the 'Yes, but No' attitude is cultivated towards scientific knowledge. We can make a comparison to what would happen if the other attitudes are used towards science, instead of 'Yes, but No'.

Obviously the 'Yes and Yes' attitude would not bring any progress in science, since everyone will accept current scientific theories as if 'written in stone' and therefore they will suppress any rogue attempts to challenge the accepted theories. On the other hand, the 'No and No' attitude would of course deny science itself and therefore it would throw us back to the pre-scientific age.

Interestingly, it would be easy to discover how 'Yes, but No' can be the most productive attitude towards scientific knowledge. The first step, of course, is to believe in a certain scientific theory. However, this theory can only be improved if it's tested and challenged, as if it is actually false.

But what about having a 'No, but Yes' attitude to science? In this scenario, we would have to first deny all scientific theories as false, and then devise new ones. The reason why this attitude could be counter-productive is that, new theories would then be highly revered as incontestable, and further progress is prevented as these new theories are now being accepted as indisputable facts.

...

It is probably obvious that 'Yes, but No' can be the most productive attitude, compared to the other three. Or is it?

Tortor & Si Tanggang

It's rather intriguing to read from the news that many Indonesians are angered by Malaysia's claim that Tortor dance is a Malaysian cultural heritage. As Indonesians and Malaysians are increasingly becoming westernised, we would think that there would not be any more issues between us about our Eastern cultures.  So let's look at what these people are angry about as this may lead us to interesting conclusions.

This brings me to the legend of Si Tanggang, popular in Malaysia and Indonesia. As a short summary of this legend: 

Si Tanggang, who was brought up by a fisherman and his wife, became a successful sea captain. Later he disowned his true parents and consequently got cursed by his mother, which turned him into stone. 

Tanggang is usually portrayed as an ungrateful son - which is undeniable - and deserved to be cursed for his ingratitude. That's all very fine, but why on earth would a mother curse her (only) son? 

In fact, a similar question is asked by a lot of people regarding the tortor dispute: why are many Indonesians protesting against Malaysians - their blood relatives -  for claiming the cultural heritage to their traditional dance? Shouldn't they feel proud that their culture extends to a wider geographical area?

Of course the reply to these doubts would be to highlight the fact that Tanggang is guilty of ungratefulness - and similarly, that Malaysia is not the country origin of Tortor dance. However, we should not forget the other facts as well: that the curse came from his own mother, but not from an independent judge - and that the protest came from closely-related Easterners, but not from indifferent Westerners.

I don't deny the right of a mother to feel angry with her ungrateful son - but I think we can also question the sincerity of the mother's love to her son if she really did curse him into stone out of anger. Indeed, Tanggang would be retrospectively justified to disown his mother, if the only way she reacts to his behaviour is to disown him in return. 

Where is the love? *Sigh*

I am not a new man, 

not very different 

from you; 

the people and cities 

of coastal ports 

thought me not to brood 

over a foreign world, 

suffer difficulties 

or fear possibilities. 

I am you, 

freed from the village, 

its soils and ways, 

independent, because 

I have found myself.

from Si Tenggang's Homecoming 

by Muhammad Haji Salleh 

A Short Composition

by yours truly ;)

Self-Doubt and Consumerism

1. Healthy Self-Doubt

We all need to doubt ourselves at times. Without self-doubt, we may refuse to seek help when we really need one, or we may become complacent with our situation and may overlook our risk of failure. This must already be obvious to us - if not and if we don't doubt ourselves now, something will eventually happen and it would (painfully) remind us of our own limitations. Pray that it won't be too harsh on us.

2. Pathological Self-Doubt 

What really interest me is when there is too much self-doubt. Unfortunately, I cannot give any advice on how to overcome this - you may know better than I do. Here I'm only interested in discussing how we can be exploited when we doubt ourselves too much. 


3. Buying Promises

I think Nike really got it when they came up with their tagline: "Just Do It". Yes, we get inspired by this adage by Nike that when we face a difficult task, we can remind ourselves to "just do it". On the other hand, behind this simple branding slogan we find the true nature of big brands: what we really buy from them are not their products (e.g shoes, bags, phones, etc), but promises of better chances in life.

It's not that Nike is telling us to 'Just Do It' - "It" being "Buy our products". Instead, by having this phrase associated with their brand, I think they really are saying that we can 'Just Do It' - 'It' being 'even the most impossible things' - if we own Nike products. This may seem more obvious when we look at other brands and products.

Lately I have noticed that smartphone ads before the screening of a film in the cinema have been more and more to do with people using the phone for the most trivial things. One of these adverts has a 'photography student' using a smartphone to do a fashion shoot while sky-diving! "Oh, nice. If I get that phone I can do that too". Maybe that wasn't the point of that advert. Its subtle message is that I can do even the most impossible things when I own that smartphone. Nice.

In fact, this advertising trick is not new. Think about all those alcohol ads with seemingly unrelated contents and old cigarette ads with healthy macho cowboys. "You drink and you can do the trivial things in life". "You smoke and you can live a free life and ride a horse all day". And of course, this also applies to lottery tickets, like what I read from this article.


4. Wants and Needs

When we advise children about spending money we like to tell them to keep their wants and needs apart. We advise them to prioritise spending more on their needs and not waste too much on fulfilling their desires. Is this advice good enough for them?

Maybe we should also advise them on the balance of having self-confidence and self-doubt. "Too much confidence will eventually land you into trouble. But if you have too much self-doubt, you can be exploited by empty promises." And yes, tell them, "Owning the latest gadget won't guarantee to make you more creative. Trust your own intelligence, and you can be creative and produce a masterpiece even with just pen and paper".

Behind the Politics of The Dictator

Anyone who goes to watch 'The Dictator' knows full well before watching it that it is just a parody of dictators in general, as we can easily relate it to actual political uprisings and recent events like the Arab Spring (the fall of Ben Ali, Gaddafi and Mubarak). In fact, [spoiler alert] those who have actually seen it would also realise that this film also mocks western democracy, especially in a surprising 'Occupy Wall Street' speech by the dictator, General Aladeen in a late scene. But let's go beyond its politics.

Fortunately, there's enough material in 'The Dictator' for us to see it as more than a political parody, as we can observe the adventures of General Aladeen in New York as an allegory to an individual's coming of age (i.e transition from childhood to adulthood). 

***

 In fact it is easy to draw parallels between dictatorship and childhood. At what other times in our lives that we think ourselves to be the centre of the universe - bestowed with all the rights to rule the world  - while mixing our desires and our needs. Ignorant of other people's needs and desires, the child enforces his own morality on others and assumes a royal treatment from his environment, especially from his parents. Interestingly, the role of parents in taking care of their 'special' child is also reflected in this film by the tireless effort of General Aladeen's uncle, Tamir, to fulfil the childlike desires ("I need hugs") of the dictator and ultimately enforcing his rule on the people of Wadiya. 

What the Dictator would soon realise is that he may not be so special after all - and this he would discover in two tragic facts [another spoiler alert]:

Replaceable. In a pretence to fool his enemies, Aladeen's uncle finds a body double of General Aladeen to replace him temporarily. However, Aladeen comes to realise that the real intention of his uncle is to replace him altogether with someone who looks exactly like Aladeen but who would obey all orders from the uncle. In other words, the dictator realises that the world is indifferent to his individuality. He could be killed and replaced by a body double - and the truth is - no one would really care!

Object of Hatred. Another reality check for Aladeen is when he accidentally walked into a gathering place of all the people he sent to be killed. What surprised him was that all these people were still alive and also filled with vengeance. This is an important lesson for the dictator, that every action begets a reaction, and that one must be ready to face the consequences of his actions. A child's naive assumption of the unfailing love and forgiveness from everyone around him is shattered once he discovers that he can also be hated by the people he loves.

***

Maybe as he has unknowingly mocked democracy and reverted back to his dictatorial ways, we can question whether the Dictator has really reached 'adulthood'. In fact, the guise of democracy in Wadiya at the end could also be seen as the guise of maturity in someone who is only really a grown-up child.


* Perhaps the giveaway clue to the allegory of 'The Dictator' to the coming of age is the scene he learns for the first time how to 'pleasure himself'. As in pubertal development, the moment one tastes this 'forbidden fruit', one would have also acquired the independence of the individual over biology (i.e one can fulfil his own biological urges). While this, in a way, may be good for the individual, it is bad for the species. No wonder it is morally abhorred.

Madamina!

What's Left to Explore?

Are we approaching the end of new discoveries? We can now locate almost everything on this planet on Google Maps; string theory, which may be the theory of everything, has already been proposed; touch screens and electric automobiles are being mass produced; and almost all species of living organisms have already been documented. But if one were to ask me, so what's there left to explore? My answer: Everything, again. 

I think we would only deceive ourselves by mixing access to knowledge, with knowing itself. Even with the fastest and easiest access to a wealth of knowledge (on websites like Wikipedia), without reading and understanding these resources we would be no more enlightened than our grandparents who've never had such conveniences. The fact is that your grandmother is a better cook than you - yes, because she has more experience in cooking. But she would have learned how to cook from her mother, or peers, who would have limited knowledge on cooking than what we have access to today: Youtube cooking videos.

Nevertheless, thousands of Youtube videos and websites on cooking won't make you a better cook. Only after you have seen, read and practised those cooking techniques and recipes, then only you'd be a good cook. This is why it is important to distinguish access to knowledge, with knowing itself. The fact is, we have so many things to explore for ourselves today that it's just mind-boggling even to think about simple things like how does our computer screen work?

Of course, we can't all be expected to learn nuclear physics, or study genetics - we all have other things to do. We would assign the task of exploration to explorers: researchers in their respective fields. And we may admit any new discovery to be an achievement for all mankind. 

Mankind may have already made many great discoveries, but are these the ultimate truths?* That's something for each of us to explore. 




*What? It's easy to imagine questioning the truths of scientific theories, etc. But how do we question the 'ultimate truths' of modern technology? Isn't the fact that these machines can function is enough to make us believe that they are 'true'? Actually there is another important question to ask about modern technology, that is if they are so good, why do they tend to break down so easily? And what would be the solution to this problem?

Diet, Decaf & Non-Fat

1. Lucky Us

Shouldn't we feel fortunate that we can walk into a local superstore and choose from a variety of products that can feed, clean and groom us? Imagine for a moment living in the past, before the advent of supermarkets and shopping complexes. I don't think back then there were quite as many choices of toothpaste, shampoo, cereal, or chicken nuggets, as we have them today. Ah, but does this mean that we have more freedom than our grandparents, since we have more choice of consumer products and conveniences than they did in their time? 

2. Diet Coke, Decaf Coffee & Non-fat Milk

If we quickly answer, "Yes: we are more free than our grandparents because we have more choices of food, drinks and shampoos than our forebears", then perhaps these three modern beverages (Diet Coke, Decaff coffee and non-fat milk) should make us reconsider our answer. It's not even a joke anymore - as we would be laughing at ourselves, essentially - if one were to ask: 'What's the point of drinking Coke without sugar, coffee without caffeine, or milk without taste? If we want to stay healthy, why don't we just drink plain water?' 

In fact that's what other animals and plants do: consume plain water. Of course, they also require other nutrients to survive - but tasteless H20 (water) is all they need and what they drink to rehydrate themselves. Maybe some clever animals have found ways to extract fruit nectar or steal honey from hives, but most of the other living organisms depend on much simpler, plainer source of water. So why do we spend our money on these beverages that are actually no better than cheap plain water?


3. The Limits of Choice

I think we buy these drinks simply because they are available as alternatives to normal Coke, normal coffee and full-fat milk. In other words, our minds are clouded by these 'healthy' alternatives, that we tend to overlook the default option for a healthy drink, i.e plain water!  So if we ask ourselves again, compared to our grandparents, do we still think that we have more freedom because we have more choices than they did in their lifetime?

In fact, our freedom are limited by having too many choices. Instead of being able to freely choose plain water as the cheapest, healthiest way to quench our thirst, we are more and more influenced to spend money to buy 'healthy alternative' beverages (e.g Diet Coke).  This would not have been an issue before there was Diet Coke, as our decision would simply be to either spend on sugary Coke, or healthy plain water. 

Of course, we can still opt for plain water - no one can force us to drink Diet, decaf or non-fat beverages. But doesn't it make us shudder that our decision making faculty is getting more and more clouded and compromised by these redundant choices? My point here is not to campaign against those alternative beverages - I buy and enjoy Diet Coke as well. Rather, there is a broader issue in this discussion, that is to question our apparent sense of freedom, especially with greater number of choices. 


4. Freedom to Live

Freedom can be defined in many ways. Here, the freedom I'm thinking of is about being able to achieve something - e.g to get what we want, to have what we need. Our basic needs are simple: food, shelter & 'reproduction'. We may lament over hungry Somalian children who are not able to fulfil even these basic needs. But let's also lament our own predicament that by having too many choices of food, shelter and 'reproduction', we find ourselves trapped in a rat race.

Neurotic Avengers

(Image source)

It's not hard to detect neuroses in all those "superheroes" in  The Avengers. In this film, we meet with the narcissistic Iron Man, angry Hulk, megalomaniac half-brothers Thor and Loki, and PTSD-stricken Captain America. And of course, there's also Black Widow and Hawkeye. 

In their own comic book or film, the plot is usually about the superhero's own journey to overcome or accept his own neuroses, perhaps more than about fighting evil forces. Whereas in The Avengers, it gets more complicated, when all of them come together not just to fight evil, but more importantly, to face their own issues and those of others. This is perhaps why a child's logic of "why can't heroes just work together and defeat evil once and for all" is hard to materialise. Only adults can understand this.

Let's make some analysis of these superheroes.

Iron Man, with his self-absorbed personality, characterises the self-made modern man who uses his intellectual capabilities to develop high-tech solutions to his problems. However, just like our modern society, Iron Man would later discover that the greatest threat to our existence is no longer Nature, but it is human technology itself. In the climax of this film, Iron Man had to sacrifice his life not to fight against alien invaders, but in order to save human race against the destructive force of its own making - nuclear weapons.

Hulk, I think can also be seen as another archetype of the modern man. Behind a nerdy harmless scientist, we find his repressed anger manifesting itself as an uncontrollable destructive alter ego. We may assume that we are less aggressive than our ancestors, when our aggression has only been channelled to non-physical actions  - e.g violence in video games. The resolution for Hulk was simply to accept that destructive alter ego as part of his whole being - as he remarked, "That's my secret Cap, I'm always angry".

Thor and Loki, really suffer from what is known as the God Complex - believing themselves to be infallible, immortal and almighty. In fact, they really were born as gods. However, they would soon discover that there are bigger forces working beyond their control. Their plans go awry, and even their godly powers could not save them. Eventually, they have to learn that they are not gods after all, at least not in this reality. 

Captain America, for me, may be the least interesting character in The Avengers. He is not only misplaced in time, he is also the only one still troubled by the past. His lesson would be to leave the past and live the present - as he does so eventually, by cooperating with other "real superheroes" who have more skills, powers and intellect than him. The fact that he still fancies himself a Captain not just showcases his leadership charisma, but also his desperate constant need of approval. 

The Avengers is surely entertaining and great fun to watch in the cinema. But I find even more satisfaction in watching it as there are so many superheroes in this film for me to analyse and to understand why we enjoy watching them at all! 

The Feminine Struggle

'Twilight' vs. 'Hunger Games': 

Why Do So Many Grown-Ups Hate Bella?

If you have seen or read both Twilight and The Hunger Games, you probably have already realised the divergent characterisations of the female leads in these two film adaptations. Whilst in Twilight, Bella finds herself madly in love and becoming so dependent on her lover; Katniss, in The Hunger Games, becomes the object of love herself, and finds others who become increasingly dependent on her. 

However, we should not be too quick to make a moral judgement on which of these two stories is better, before we reflect on why people enjoy watching - or rather, fall in love with - these films in the first place. 

Maybe we can theorise that most - if not, all - people enjoy reading, watching or hearing about a story that they can relate to, that is, that they can identify with the lead character (hero or heroine).  It's no surprise then why a lot of blokes enjoy Fast and Furious, while a lot of chicks dig, well, Twilight or Hunger Games. Of course, this coarse generalisation must not be taken too far (blokes also watch Twilight and chicks do enjoy Fast and Furious).

So should we criticise Meyers for writing Twilight, a tale in which there is an almost absolute surrender of the ego to another superhuman being? And if so, should we then applaud Collins for writing Hunger Games where the ego itself is lifted to a superhuman level? 

I think both films are equally moral - or, you might even say, amoral. Although Bella's apparent weaknesses seem repugnant to many people, therein lies her greatest strength, that is her ability to make her own life choices. Yes, she's vulnerable to the charms of Edward, and also defenceless against the threats of her environment; but we must not forget that despite the superhuman quality of Edward, it is Bella who ultimately has the power to choose between him and Jacob, and even, between life and death (of Bella herself and her unborn child). 

The Hunger Games, we might first assume, is more moral because it empowers the lead female character - unlike Twilight. However, this would seem questionable once we scrutinise the realities of Katniss' life. Yes, she is independent, smart, skilful and very brave. Underneath her apparent bravery however, lies her greatest weakness and tragedy - that is,  her lack of choice. Throughout the film, Katniss is repeatedly forced to choose the lesser evil - from volunteering to join the Hunger Games to replace her sister; to her attempt to please the audience by faking love; and ultimately by having to kill other innocent children who are also trapped in the Hunger Games or otherwise getting herself killed by one of them.

In the end, it's not about who's better, Bella or Katniss. Depending on how you see their story: we can say that both are fated to succeed, or that they are both equally doomed to fail.

Of Happy Endings

A friend once told me that groups of moviegoers in India had once burned down cinemas across the country because they were greatly dissatisfied by an unhappy ending of a certain Hindi film. In that film, the hero died at the end - and perhaps more importantly, he did not come back alive. However shocking what the audience did might seem to us, we must at least understand how those people must have felt - as we often do - after watching films with crappy endings.

So what makes a good ending? Obviously it is when evil perish and the good triumph! And who doesn't get annoyed if it is unclear what happens at the end? (e.g Inception). And so we expect movies to have clear and happy endings.

Unfortunately, as what we might have already realised, this does't always happen in real life. For every news event, there's always another event that follows; and for every story we tell our friends about what happened to us, there's always something that has happened right after. And if we really scrutinise the real endings to our stories, we would realise that these can be both unclear and quite often bad, or depressing.

So in real life there are not always happy endings - or are there? If we look at the natural history of an organism, we can say that its life is nothing but an inevitable journey towards death. On the other hand, we can also say that its story does not end with its death, but continues with its posterity (i.e descendants). Seen in this light, we might say that even at the time of its death, this creature has indeed reached a happy ending.

I just saw The Grey, the survival film with Liam Neeson playing a wolf hunter getting stranded by a plane crash with a few other people in a harsh arctic environment - the hunter then became the hunted. Not unlike The Hunger Games, this survival action film has some philosophical significance to it. But unlike the first Hunger Game film, the audience could not really tell whether the hero, after the death of all the other 'survivors', would himself survive at the end (although clearly he would die not long after). The Grey ended abruptly, obscurely, and depressingly - no one survived. But I think that's the whole point: in the end, everyone dies!

* Maybe having recently finished reading a book written by Schopenhauer, that pessimist philosopher, has got something to do with the tone of this post. But cheer up, it's not the end yet. 

Noise and Music

What's the difference between baby cries and your favourite song? Both are just made up of sound waves - but why do we hate one and love the other?

I reflected on these thoughts when I was watching a live orchestra the other day. It was one of the best orchestral performance I've seen, probably because they played a number of familiar songs that I listen to everyday when I get to work. There were at least three Tchaikovsky's, thank you maestro!

Anyway, we all get high from listening to our favourite songs, don't we? But aren't these songs just noise essentially (except for John Cage's "4'33", of course!), especially to others who don't enjoy them as much as we do.

When a musician says, "Let's agree on this sound, shall we? And let's give this song a name." 

If the responder says, "Yes, I'll accept that." Then, it becomes music to both of them.

However, if the responder says, "No, I don't like that sound." Then, the musician's song becomes noise to the the responder.

When we get annoyed by a certain sound, we call it noise. In reality, noise is no different from music, but our subjective experience perceive one sound wave as noise, while another as music. We make the value judgement to categorise things we hear into noise or music for ourselves, and in turn, we are the ones who would experience these sounds as noise or music based on our own judgement!

"Of course there is a difference to our ears, between noise and music," you might say. But don't you see my point? It is that we are responsible for our own experience of listening. If we can change our subjective evaluation of a certain sound wave, we can turn it from noise into music - and vice versa!

So don't blame the radio for playing the songs you hate most. Turn it off. And accept that it wasn't the radio's or the singer's fault that we hate their song. Blame it on ourselves. 

...

Meanwhile, let's enjoy this beautiful piece of music that the orchestra played that night.