A Path to Eudaimonia (Fulfilling Life)

(Today, I discussed with a simulation of the philosopher Zizek, in ChatGPT, and came to these conclusions.)

The Path to Eudaimonia: Navigating the Labyrinth of Fulfillment

Authenticity: Embrace Your True Self. Authenticity beckons us to peel away the layers of societal expectations and confront the discomfort of facing our true desires. It's about unmasking the performer within us and embracing the person we are beneath the roles we play. By pursuing our passions and interests without pretense, we align our lives with our inherent authenticity.

Engagement: Immerse Yourself in the Moment. Engagement is the art of being fully present in every endeavor. It's about embracing challenges and responsibilities with vigor, transcending the mundane routines that often numb our experiences. By immersing ourselves in tasks, we infuse life with meaning and vitality.

Meaning: Discovering Purpose Beyond the Self. Meaning lies in transcending our individual needs and aligning with a larger narrative. It's about seeking causes, relationships, and pursuits that resonate deeply with our values. By connecting to something beyond ourselves, we infuse our lives with a sense of purpose that transcends the ordinary.

Connection: Forging Bonds of Humanity. Connection underscores the essence of our shared existence. It's about building relationships that extend beyond superficial interactions. By engaging in empathetic conversations and fostering genuine connections, we remind ourselves of our shared humanity and create a support network that enriches our lives.

Reflection: Delving into Self-Awareness. Reflection invites us to venture into the recesses of our minds. It's the practice of questioning our thoughts, emotions, and motivations, fostering self-awareness. By regularly contemplating our goals, achievements, and desires, we gain clarity and direction on our journey.

Acceptance of Contradictions: Embracing Life's Complexity. Acceptance of contradictions recognizes the intricate dance of life's tensions. It's about understanding that life is a tapestry woven from opposing threads. By acknowledging these complexities and learning to find harmony in the discord, we navigate challenges with grace and resilience.

***

Dealing with Challenges: A Mindset for Eudaimonia

In the face of challenges, this mindset serves as a compass, guiding us towards eudaimonia:

Integrate Authenticity and Meaning: When challenges arise, anchor yourself in your authentic desires and values. By connecting difficulties to what truly matters to you, you infuse them with purpose and make them stepping stones rather than stumbling blocks.

Engage and Reflect: In moments of adversity, engage actively and reflect on your responses. Immerse yourself fully in the challenge while maintaining a balanced perspective. Reflect on how the experience aligns with your journey toward eudaimonia.

Embrace Complexity and Connection: Challenges often come with contradictions and uncertainties. Embrace these complexities, for they are inherent in the human experience. Seek connection with others during difficult times, for shared experiences can provide solace and perspective.

In this way, by weaving together authenticity, engagement, meaning, connection, reflection, and acceptance of contradictions, you craft a roadmap for both the pursuit of eudaimonia and the navigation of life's challenges. Remember, this journey is a dynamic process unique to each individual, and it's through this very journey that we uncover the essence of a fulfilling existence.

The Burden of Responsibility

As the nation enters a New Age, in an epic turn of events that was the 14th General Election, many are quick to congratulate the 92-year old Tun Dr. Mahathir on his victory, and subsequently, on his appointment as the 7th Prime Minister.

Congratulations are of course due for the winning political parties and their supporters. But Tun Dr. Mahathir deserves much more. I believe when he rejoined the political arena a few years ago, after a brief retirement period, he never intended to become the Prime Minister again.

In fact - as evident by the tears of Tun Dr. Siti Hasmah on hearing the appointment of her husband as the PM candidate of the opposition parties before the recent election - leading the nation again in the ninth decade of life is no cause for celebration. It is a burden of responsibility - a gargantuan weight to carry on one's shoulders.

But at this period, shameful as it is to admit, there seems to be no one else equally capable to carry out the duties of Malaysia's 7th PM. This time is different, because the 7th PM carries the hopes of many who (were dissatisfied and mostly distrustful of the government, but with the fall of the party who ruled for over 60 years) dream of a better nation - of high income, championing freedom, peace, and rid of corruption. 

So let us not just congratulate Tun on his success in leading the opposition parties to win the election in unison. We must show Tun our heartfelt gratitude, by proving ourselves worthy of better living conditions - honouring our own duties and responsibilities, as enlightened citizens of this blessed country we call home.

Hypnotised by Coldplay

The Unconscious

Much has been written about the influence of the unconscious in our daily lives - Freud, etc. On first reading one would disregard the unconscious as nonsense; but as one reads further, one almost immediately falls into the temptation of trying to read more into the subject, in hopes of understanding and controlling one's own unconscious forces (or subconscious, if you prefer) to one's own will.

But the unconscious is, after all, unconscious. Any attempts at short circuiting this energy will inevitably fail. There are no 10-simple-rules to improve our lives that will actually work, because the unconscious does not follow our conscious rule.

What if instead of trying to rule over the unconscious, one puts more effort at controlling one's conscious mind. This is what any religious person will tell us to do. The important word here is tell. They can only preach to do this - limit our desires, etc. - even if this will also inevitably fail. Aren't desires also the stuff of the unconscious? Although one can be aware (that is, conscious) of his desire for wealth, fame, etc; one is blissfully ignorant and powerless towards the origin of his desires - that is because they are unconscious.

This is why the divine experience of religious awareness can quickly turn into destructive religious fundamentalism. The fuzzy feeling of cleansing one's own sins (of conscious desires) will come back in the form of other unconscious urges, that may very well be destructive. This fact is obvious even to the religious people themselves, but for them this only happens in other religions. The reason for their blissful ignorance of their own possibility of destructive practices should be obvious now - the unconscious (origin of desires) is unconscious.

There is still great virtue in restraining our desires, urges and appetite. Impatience brings folly, restraint prevents it. However, there must not be an impatience for restraint - as this is where destructive believes and practices come from. For example, it may be enough to keep ourselves away (that is, restrain) from the urge to steal from others. Impatience for restraint will instead impose strict rules such as, "all thieves must be sent to the gallows".  

In biology, there is a theory of homeostasis. It is a system of checks and balances involving many different biochemical structures and substances, only to keep a biological system in equilibrium. Pathology tips this balance one way or another, and result in diseases. Medicine seeks to restore the balance. Reflecting on our own experience as a biological system, it makes sense to maintain the equilibrium to stay in health. The yearn for better lives - more wealth, fame, etc. - should be seen as a natural urge. We must not stay away, or, give in completely to these desires. Rather, we should seek a moderation of the two (a balance of give and take) - seeking wealth and fame, in ways that may also benefit others - only to keep the equilibrium and reach an everlasting peace of our existence. 

Our Culture Is Not For Sale

1.

As I drove on the highway today, I began to realize something. I realized that billboards are lining the highway almost all the way through. Most of these billboards are ugly, although they advertise beauty products. Some are offensive (with terrible innuendos). But what all of them did is to obstruct the scenic view of the countryside, distant trees, clouds and mountains. How awful! Aren't we disgusted with such gross commercialization of our public space? 

This is not a new problem for this country - regardless if anyone ever saw it as one. The intrusion of our public space by the private (sectors, companies, invested persons such as celebrities or politicians) by propping up advertisements almost everywhere now is only going further everyday. 

It wasn't enough that the train stations are full of posters, the train themselves are completely covered with advertisement - inside and out - and (sadly for some time already) we also hear passenger announcement for the arrival at almost every station accompanied by a jingle of an advertisement. 

Our radio stations too are choked with commercials for almost every song played. 

Some may say that those ads are there for a reason. They occupy space where there's potential that the public can see them and hear them. And their private sponsors often pay a hefty amount to occupy those spaces, or rather to keep other private entities from occupying those spaces. 

And of course, a lot of these public spaces - highway, passenger trains, radio - are privately owned anyway. So of course there isn't anything illegal about putting commercials at these places - or even putting so much of them. 

2.

But I believe as a society, we have the power to change this for the better. The intrusion of the private into our public space is only a small part of a larger crisis in our society - that of our lost national identity. The problem is that our society has never come to a satisfactory consensus of what makes us a nation in the year 2016.

And please spare us the group pose of multi-ethnic Malaysians in traditional clothing as a guise for our national identity in this day and age. Yes, our traditional clothing, dances, music and architecture are our cultural heritage, and we must preserve them by all means. But to portray the Malaysian society today as a group of dancers in traditional clothing is not enough. 

Then who are we? An image comes to mind. That of the Teh Tarik sipping, Roti Canai chewing, football and badminton junkie hanging out under the night sky at a local food stall. But is this the ideal image we would like to portray ourselves?

How about portraying our society with the most exemplary morals, best working and living environment, most ideal cities, roads, and countryside that best suit us in this day and age? 

3.

This is the definition of culture - of having a shared meaning in a symbol. Our 21st century cultural crisis is that we don't have any meaningful shared symbols. And it's a shame. Our multiculturalism should not prevent us from having a shared meaningful experience together. In fact we have more things in common experience that should become the anchors of our unity.

For example, our geography exposes us to plenty of sun, and drenches us with sweat from the heat and humidity of our tropical weather. We must acknowledge this, and encourage our people to find a cost effective and most environmental friendly way of keeping bodies cool. This of course may include a simple solution such as preserving the trees in our cities to act as shades.

Food is another favourite thing of ours - and commonly cited as an example of what all of us can be proud of. But let's go further, and find ways to improve the national diet. Are we aware that our current dietary habit is not healthy? Perhaps enough has been said about the "epidemics" of diabetes and obesity in our society. 

Instead of being satisfied with the tastiest dishes we can make, let us also find out what could be the healthiest of all. A healthier national diet is in fact a desperately needed innovation that would be a leap forward in the right direction for our well being.

4.

To conclude let us go back to our highways - a common experience we all share is to drive through these roads that cut through hills, cross rivers, and bring us from one city to another. Isn't it a great shame that all those scenic view of the countryside, tropical forest, and hills are obstructed by large billboards that sell beauty products? 

Is this what we've become? For the sake of selling the appearance of natural beauty, we've sacrificed the true beauty of our nature.

If we can shape our identity, let's shape it for the better.

Happy Merdeka 2016.

The Private Reader

I.

I read a book last year called "Inventing the Individual"(1). It was about the origins of Individualism
as a movement, or a way of thinking. The book approached this topic from a historical point of view, beginning from early civilization to medieval times. The question of "How did we break away from traditional family values and become individualistic" was explored in the book by studying history through the written works of people in the past and trying to understand where individualism came from.

According to that book, it didn't start with the Renaissance, at least not originally, as was usually thought. The seeds of individualism were planted even further back than the Renaissance, and that was during early Christianity. It was during the early Christian age, that people were told that all were born equal. Before this period, it was generally accepted that we were not equal - some born to a higher status and others to a lesser degree. In this sense, the book argued, the people began to strive for equality and individual rights.

I think what the author have not stressed enough, was the role of technology in creating the Individual, especially with the invention of the printing press. What was revolutionary about the Gutenberg technology in the mid 15th century, the printing press, was that it allowed the mass production books. Before this technology, books used to be hand-drafted and copied. The mass production of books made them cheaper, more readily available, and hence books had a wider audience among the population than ever before.

II.

The way that books affect our mode of thinking and how it indirectly influence our way of life was extensively explored by another author, Marshall McLuhan(2). He found that books made people more private. Before books became popular, McLuhan suggested that the people lived in an oral world - knowledge and other information were passed around through the oral mode, that is by being spoken aloud or recited. Books changed that by allowing private reading, in contrast to public recitation.

McLuhan went further. He discovered that books also changed the way we process information, as they encouraged more systematic thinking. Books, through the written language, forced people to read word by word, paragraph by paragraph, and go from chapter to chapter, the way they were originally written by their authors. This is in contrast to the spoken language, which is more dynamic, as speakers may naturally vary their presentation even when they were presenting the same idea.

McLuhan also found that books changed language and literature itself. The printed word demanded more accuracy in terms of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Compared to the spoken language which put less emphasis on these constraints, books made language itself more systematic. Authors would discover that books have the potential to replicate errors in great proportion - as terribly exemplified by the mistake in the Wicked Bible that read, "Thou shall commit adultery"(3).

III.

Where do we stand today? Naturally we feel that we are at the frontiers of progress in the history of mankind. As technology get increasingly sophisticated from the 20th into the 21st century - from radio to television, computers to smartphones, internet search engines to social media - one may be forgiven to believe that we have progressed further than our predecessors. But not all of us would agree on this.

An easy challenge to the delusion of our progress, is to study and compare the effects of books (as we have discussed above), and the effects of the modern technology like the television and the internet. This task was done at least twice before, firstly when McLuhan compared books to radio and television (4), and more recently when Nick Carr compared the effects of books and the internet (5). What they have both discovered paid more homage towards books, than the rest.

Although radio, television and the internet are faster, more readily adapted, easier to use and much more updated compared to books, they fall behind on other aspects. Books may be slower to read, more cumbersome to carry around and take longer time to write and publish. But books, as we discussed before, demand more accuracy, more systematic thinking, and allow for deeper understanding in a subject. While having references, books are complete in themselves - they are devoid of hyperlinks and advertisements that serve only to distract us from the main content.

IV.

We must not forget these virtues of reading, as we readily embrace the latest gadgetry and fashion. As we lose the habit of reading, we lose along with it our connection to the past. The history, folly and wisdom of our predecessors are forgotten. We would also lose the virtues of reading itself, that would have made us not only wiser and learned, but also aid our critical thinking and reasoning.

Some may claim that we have not lost the habit of reading - it is only that we are reading on a different medium nowadays. Granted that, I suggest that he picks up a book now and then. I would also add that he should choose a good book, one that was written in earnest from the heart of the author. Then he can judge the difference between reading on a screen and on a printed page.

History has come a long way in creating the Individual out of the general public, but we are today quickly dissolving into the masses again. Public opinion takes a stronger hold on us today, as news spread like wildfire on social media. Gossip, slander and biased views also travel further than ever before, only to corrupt our minds. So let us not dismiss the Gutenberg technology that once produced the private reader. Every book stands quietly independent in itself, and in this way every individual must follow suit.

...


References / Recommended Reading 

(1) Inventing the Individual (2014) by Larry Siedentop

(2) Gutenberg Galaxy (1962) by Marshall McLuhan

(3) The Wicked Bible (1631) published by Barker & Lucas

(4) Understanding Media (1964) by Marshall McLuhan

(5) The Shallows (2010) by Nick Carr

* Image: The Astronomer (1668) by Johannes Vermeer

Living In the Dark Ages

Enlightenment. A wonderful term to mean the use of our own understanding "without another's guidance", as Immanuel Kant put it two and a half centuries ago. But are we today enlightened? Or are we ourselves guilty of still depending on another's guidance in this day and age? I argue that we Easterners, especially my fellow countrymen, until today, are sadly, still not enlightened.

I think we simply lack the philosophy that would allow us to become enlightened. We are still drowned deep in the ocean of our dogmatic beliefs. We still believe for example, in supernatural powers, and it is no rare sight to see our people invoking supernatural causes to solve real world problems. No matter how highly sophisticated the technology that surrounds us (e.g smartphones, wifi, gps) we still believe that our troubles and ailments are caused by witchcraft or supernatural beings, and we cannot accept the possibility that we may be at fault for causing them. We somehow refuse to accept responsibility.

Now that's it! We just don't want to take any responsibility. And that's why we are still living in the dark ages. In fact, the characteristic feature of the Dark Ages, if we remember from history, was the witch-hunt. Back then, innocent women, charged with the accusation of using witchcraft to cause harm to their community, were burned at the stake. And all that happened because the people in the dark age society refused to accept any responsibility. They blamed witchcraft and the supernatural for what happened to them. More importantly, they did not use their own understanding, and instead drew hasty conclusions, guided by their dogmatic leaders. And so do we today.

Enlightenment is not the arrogant use of Reason to replace Beliefs. It takes a lot of effort and courage to use Reason. So we cannot say that the use of it is arrogant. Perhaps we say that, because we ourselves lack the effort or the courage to use our Reason. We prefer other people telling us what to do, when to do it and how to do it. That way, we cannot be blamed if something bad happens. We cannot bear the "dizziness of freedom", as Kierkegaard put it.

And so here we are today, trapped in the darkness of our false beliefs. We entrust certain people to guide us along the shortsighted exploration of our lives. We see history only through the lens of our guides and let them tell us the laws that are already set in stone. Of course, we still benefit from the outside world that lends us their scientific knowledge and technology. And we fool ourselves into thinking that our society have progressed because we possessed these technology. In fact we make it our aim, as a country, that one day one of us will win the Nobel Prize.

But we will never win the Nobel Prize if our aim is to win it for its own sake. It will never happen that way. But we cannot see this, because we let others tell us that winning the Nobel Prize should be our aim, when in fact, winning the Nobel Prize is only a by-product of becoming an enlightened society.

Serenity

"Such is this steep ascent,

That it is ever difficult at first.

But more a man proceeds, less evil grows.

When pleasant it shall seem to thee, so much

That upward going shall be easy to thee

As in a vessel to go down the tide,

Then of this path thou wilt have reach'd the end.

There hope to rest thee from thy toil."

                                          Dante, in Divine Comedy

The Beginning of a New Chapter

Serving the People.

When Not To Trust Strangers

I had an interesting talk with my father about the case of con men. He mentioned one about a motorcyclist who offered to help a driver find direction using the driver's phone, only to speed away with the phone moments later. 

In our discussion, we agreed that as a rule, the friendliest strangers on the streets are those least to be trusted. This is because, normal people treat strangers like strangers. It is acceptable to smile and greet politely at strangers, but it is not normal to let them use our phone. It is fine to talk about the weather, traffic, or home-town, but it is not normal to share our home address. 

But it's not that strangers should be treated poorly. It also doesn't mean that, as a rule, we should never let strangers use our phone or tell them our full address. Obviously, there are exceptions to such rules - when someone desperately needs our help. And the trick to remain safe - while being helpful to strangers - is actually to trust them. 

The problem is not that we trust strangers too easily. The problem is that we don't trust them enough. 

Yes, we should learn to trust those we've never met before. If we really trusted the man on the street, we would be less vulnerable to those who try to cheat us. This is because by trusting the man on the street, we will find it normal to be awkward at first meeting. And so if somebody is getting too comfortable with us at the first meeting, we would be careful with him.

If a stranger asks for help or offers one, but hesitantly or shyly so, then he is the one we can trust. He is hesitant and shy because he is a stranger to you, and you are a stranger to him, and it is normal to be hesitant and shy to strangers. And because we trust strangers we can trust him. 

On the other hand, if somebody asks for help or offers one, all-too-readily as if he is our friend (when he is not), then we cannot trust him. He is neither a stranger (as he acts all-too-friendly), nor is he a friend of ours. We don't trust him because we only trust our friends and strangers - and he is neither of them(!)

***

So to answer the question in the title, when not to trust strangers? Never. Although, apart from our friends and (real) strangers, we should trust no one else. That is, we can trust our friends and strangers; but we cannot trust friends who act like strangers, or strangers who act as if they are our friends.  

Gravity

1. Sole Survivor

Gravity is a film about two astronauts, stranded in space by an accident, struggling to make a safe return to Earth. It's visually stunning, and its simple plot belies its vivid and realistic depiction of the story.

We can compare it to that Tom Hanks movie, Castaway. In both stories, [spoilers!] there were really no plot surprises: we knew very well that the lead characters will survive the fatal accidents, albeit barely.


2. Isolation

Although both Gravity and Castaway are about surviving tragedies, there is a subtle difference between these two films. If in Castaway, Chuck (Tom Hanks) was left in solitude by the accident (stranded on an island and abandoned by his longtime partner); in Gravity, Dr Stone (Sandra Bullock) was already living in solitude before the accident (traumatized by her daughter's death), and the tragedy (space accident) actually brought her back to society (to tell a most interesting story).

In other words, in Castaway, the crash made the survivor lonely; whereas in Gravity - the crash saved the survivor from her loneliness.


3. Don't just stay alive

This difference can also be seen in another way. By the end of Castaway, Chuck retells his misadventures and how he plans to "keep breathing, because tomorrow the sun will rise..". Isn't this scene similar to the one in Gravity, when Dr. Stone confides the loss of her daughter to the other astronaut, Kowalski (George Clooney)? 

So Chuck's attitude to "keep 

So Chuck's attitude to "keep breathing" (or just stay alive) despite his predicaments is similar to Dr. Stone's attitude for the most part of the movie. Dr. Stone started where Chuck left off. However, she soon realizes that her attitude has to change. She couldn't just stay alive, but to actually fight to stay alive.


4. From Blind Optimism to Idealistic Pessimism

What if Chuck's blind optimism - "tomorrow the sun will rise, who knows what the tide will bring" - is also a recipe for future disappointment? Of course "the tide" can bring miracles; but it can very well bring more disasters. To hope for a miracle is to give up on our own effort, and so, make us more vulnerable to disaster. 

That was how Dr. Stone reacted to her daughter's loss. She would have not survived the space accident if she persisted in this attitude - only hoping for a miracle to happen. And it was not a miracle that saved her, but her own wit (projected to Kowalski in the form of a hallucination).

By quoting Kowalski, "Houston, I have a bad feeling about this mission", Dr. Stone signaled her new found attitude: 'I don't think this will go well, but I'd do anything to make sure it will.'

Romance sans Paroles

National Ideals and the War on Corruption

What we lack today in Malaysia are our national ideals. What are we working towards? Whom do we want to become? What do we want to achieve as a nation? 

Whilst only a decade ago we had some belief in our ideals such as Vision 2020, now that we are approaching the deadline we seem to have lost that vision. Could it be something so bright that it blinds us when it's nearer? Or perhaps like a visual illusion, could it have disappeared as we approached it?   

... 

The only national ideal Malaysians may think of nowadays is for us to become a country free from corruption. Most, if not all of our complaints today we would blame on corruption as the root cause. But let me discuss here, why 'War on Corruption' is futile - not unlike 'War on Terror' or 'War on Drugs'.  

The main reason why it is impossible to win these 'wars' is because in these battles, we are our own worst enemies!  

For example, what is really the 'War on Terror', if not Terror itself? And how can we really eliminate heroin addiction, if we only substitute it with just another drug, methadone? 

Those points may be easier for us to accept, when a harder case to make is to say that corruption is fought with, well, more corruption!  

... 

How can this be? If government officials do not accept bribery or abuse their power surely there'll be no corruption. So there is no need for more corruption to fight corruption.  

But this is like saying if people stop doing drugs there will be no drug addiction, or, if all terrorists..  

It is the waged 'war' against corruption that is actually the problem - the war that most of us would think is most needed today. It is a problem because the way this war is fought is by using the enemies' weapon against them - only that (in this war) we are our own enemies! 

As a result of fighting in these wars - against terror, drugs, and corruption - the weapons (bombs, drugs, bribes) are used twice as much: once by the enemy, and again by the heroes. Regardless of who wins the war, it is the people - who may not be the enemy or hero - who would suffer the most: twice bombed, doubly drugged, and robbed again for the second time. 

… 

While stricter laws and stronger law enforcement may help catch corrupt officials, it is not difficult to observe how these measures may actually worsen corruption by causing higher bribes, as it becomes harder for the corrupt to cover up their tracks and so they would pay more.   

Also, in plain view, aren't fines and prison sentences served by convicted corrupt officials only a form of 'bribery to the public'? That is, they may be forgiven for their corruption as long as they can also pay to the public a certain amount of money and time in prison. 

So long as we, members of the public, accept 'bribery from the corrupt', we also have to accept that there will always be corruption.  

... 

All of this is not to deny the reality of corruption, any more than we can deny terrorism and drug addiction. The point is that we cannot eradicate these problems by their own elements - it would be as lighting fire to fight fire, or pouring water to reduce the flood.  

To fight fire we need the fire extinguisher, and to reduce the flood, proper drainage.  

The root cause of corruption is greed, so changing the people in power is irrelevant - because greed comes with power. But if we all strive for some national ideals, then anyone in power would stay away from corruption - not because then they are afraid that they can get caught (they can pay to escape that), but because, striving for the national ideals, the people in power would choose to be honest.  

  

This is why today, as ever, we need our national ideals! 

Here are some suggestions:

1. Environmental - Keep Malaysia Clean & Green
2. Cultural - 'Berbudi bahasa amalan kita', Our Arts Our Heritage, 'Malaysia Boleh'
3. Scientific/Technological -  Malaysia Space Program, Malaysia Medical Project
4. Social/ Health - Make Our Streets Safe, Healthy Is Easy
5. Education - Future Leaders Project,  Read Malaysia 
6. Economy/Business - Local Products with Global Quality

*** 1Malaysia fails as an ideal because it is not one - we are already one Malaysia - and so it is merely a statement of a fact, not an ideal. A vocalist's ideal is not just to be a singer (that is already who she is), but to be famous, win awards, etc.  

Some may claim that we are still racially divided in this country, so he wants unity, and that is his ideal. The irony is that he'd be the same person who claims that the slogan 1Malaysia is redundant. 

Perhaps he is like someone who wants to be a vocalist but refuses the title of a singer. Maybe he doesn't really want to sing, or what is more possible, deep down he knows that in fact he cannot sing. Then perhaps he may rightly refuse to be called a singer, if after all, his singing is poor.

Act First, Plan Later

We must act before we plan. But wouldn't this lead us to recklessness?  

In fact, to plan first leads us to recklessness easier than to act first - as one could either make a reckless plan and adhere to it religiously, or one can break his plan through recklessness. 

... 

To have to act first, makes one responsible for his actions, and makes him conscientious from the very beginning, as no plans can be blamed for any disastrous outcome.  

Whereas to plan first before any action is taken, takes the consequences of each action away from their causes - because only the goals of the plan are considered - and this can make the person less responsible for his actions, especially if he follows a misleading plan too closely. 

... 

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't make plans at all. Instead, we should only make plans after we have taken some action - i.e plans should be made to change the direction of our actions, and not to tell us, from the beginning to the end, all the specific actions that we must take in order to reach our goals.  

Impromptu

Moving, Fast and Slow

When I went out for a walk recently, this thought occurred to me:

Roads take up a lot more space than pavements. Of course, this is only because vehicles are bigger than the humans driving them. Therefore roads must be wider than pavements. But perhaps this also makes roads a lot less efficient in the utility of space - that is, they allow less people to be on them to function well, compared to pavements.

Of course, we can travel a lot faster and further by road, but we often spend more time on the road to get to our destination than we do by walking on a pavement - as we will get tired if we walk too far.  

So the use of pavements is limited by our energy to walk, whereas there is virtually no such limit for driving on a road (as an engine does all the work to move a vehicle). Maybe this is why people spend a lot of time on the road, and also resources on both the vehicle and road itself. And because of this, the advantages of roads such as further and quicker travels are offset by the huge resources and time spent to travel by road.  

... 

This contrast between roads and pavements can perhaps be used to compare the digital and pre-digital technology (new vs old). For example, the Internet offers faster and wider-sourced information compared to previous technologies, and the limits of those pre-internet resources (e.g books) do not apply to the internet. 

But don't we also spend a lot of time and resources on this limitless information technology - as we do on the roads? Compared to walking on the pavement, the more we use the road - instead of reaching our destination more efficiently - we spend more and more time and energy on the journey itself.   

And so with the Internet compared to pre-internet information technology, instead of arriving at any good understanding of a particular subject, we become more and more caught up in the search for that understanding itself. 

Please Lose It

1.  Sexting App

An interesting development in the arena of digital technology is the release of the new iPhone app, Snapchat. Usually, we take photos in order to keep and share them with our friends - but this new app actually sets a time limit (maximum 10 seconds) to share our photos before they get deleted permanently.

This self-deleting (or self-cleaning) technology is actually not new, as most internet browsers already long have an 'incognito' mode that purposely deletes our browsing history. Of course, some commentators are quick to associate Snapchat with the 'incognito' mode, and speculate on the real use of this new app - to do 'dirty' stuff without getting caught. As 'incognito' mode was nicknamed porn mode, Snapchat is being recognized as a sexting app. 


2. Beyond Us, Agony of Loss

Let's attempt to distinguish two non-exclusive kinds of loss: subjective, and objective. 

Subjective loss is when something is not within our reach. Objective loss is when something is not within the reach of others. In other words, something that is subjectively lost is beyond us; when something is objectively lost it is beyond them. An object can obviously be lost both subjectively and objectively, but it can also be lost only subjectively, or vice versa. 

Let's take a familiar example: when we lose a pen. This is a subjective loss, as the pen is beyond our reach. However, this is not necessarily an objective loss, as we believe the pen must be 'out there' - misplaced, or stolen, either way - the pen is still within the reach of other people. So it's only a subjective loss (the pen is beyond me, not beyond others). The lost object can be a key, remote control (in those good ol' days), or even a certain fact (person's name, a certain topic from a textbook, etc.). 

We can also speculate that a purely subjective loss (like losing a pen) is almost always a painful experience. This agony is experienced, as the effort to retrieve the lost object may also reveal our impotence to keep everything that is within our reach from getting lost. Hence, this realization turns into a frustration.


3. Beyond Them, Please Forget

As there are purely subjective losses, perhaps there could be purely objective losses - things that are lost from others, but not from ourselves (beyond them, not beyond us). One good example of a purely objective loss would be Snapchat, the self-deleting photo sharing app.

Before we talk about Snapchat, we can use the example of a lost pen again to illustrate an objective loss. This time, however, we have not lost a pen, but curiously, another person has lost it. Another way to look at it, is that in a subjective loss, we've lost a pen that must be somewhere in the office; whereas in an objective loss, the office has lost a pen, but we know where it is. Of course, we can suspect mischief in such objective loss (all of you don't know where it is, but I do). 

But isn't this objective loss also useful to cover our shame (as it may hide our guilt in the pen situation)? Perhaps this is where Snapchat, and 'incognito' browsing mode have their roles in our digital age. 

These self-cleaning tools could be a response to the all-too-efficient way the digital world remembers. There are certain things that we'd like others to forget, but the digital world never forgets - unless it's given specific commands to do so. And to make matters worse, more and more memory backups are created precisely to avoid digital memories from getting lost. What a world we live in.


***

Image source: http://www.lolbrary.com/post/37696/snapchat/