Monday, April 28, 2014

[[]]

Ugh, why is the ideology of something always linked to it's practicality when nobody gives a shit about the practicality.
A few days ago somebody said Singapore was communist. When I said that Singapore could be more socialist. I was like ??? In what way is Singapore communist? Singapore is so un-communist in everything. He said, in the policies. I don't know what policies is he referring to. Everything, from our tax system to whatnot is inherently, capitalist. Maybe he was referring to a state-run economy. Maybe. Anyway Singapore is not that state run, is it? If it were I guess SMRT and SBS would not be making millions off us. Telcos would not sell world cup packages at exorbitant prices. Ridiculous really. (Though I dont know how much SMRT and SBS are govt controlled, that is.)
But my mother said he meant Singapore was a single-state party. Not democratic. Indeed. I believe the word for single-state party or something like that is autocratic. Not democratic in no way means communist. Seriously, this is borderline ridiculous. Just because we have a strong ruling party we are communist? Just because at every election PAP is almost bound to win we are communist? Ridiculous man. Such incorrect use of terminology. (If that is what he meant. Caveat: I still dont know what he meant.)
But whatever, the ideology here, meritocratic and all that, is just, not communist. (Nice commas)

Point is, labels are so prone to misuse. Misunderstanding by the general populace. When somebody says he believes in communism does not mean he believes in forced labor, gulags and all that. Similarly when somebody say he is a Christian, he does not condone every stupid thing people have done in the name of Christ.

Ideas are pure. The world and acts corrupt. Good intentions do not result in good outcomes. Otherwise it would not be the road to hell.

[[I wrote this at]]*|4:29 PM|

Saturday, April 26, 2014

[[]]

Im thinking of setting up another blog to write more developed thoughts. And perhaps, do more advertising for it. Get a larger readership, perhaps some discussions and comments... At least they (perhaps people that do not know me, will be free for my rubbish muses and the incoherent language that is quite hard for non-personal people to comprehend as well as the, I guess, the other nuances of my blogging language.

Hmm.

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:55 PM|

Friday, April 25, 2014

[[]]

Today someone told me that I will thrive anywhere I go. And that made me really happy. I hope that guy meant it.
It is about being. What do a long strings of accolades count for? If but a testament to the being. The only thing that matters is being.
But it is so hard. So hard. I guess I can give that accolades affirm being. But they are optional and good-to-have. Nowhere near essential. Nowhere near being a prime concern, being a key focus in life.
I like to think that I've seen the light. It veers you know. The light oscillates such that one is never always in the light. It comes and goes. At the most optimistic I can frame my viewpoint into what that is all flowery and rosy, that I have seen the truth and am changing for the better with certain evidences. Yet not all is as it appears.On the other hand, looking deeper one uncovers a multitude of conflicting desires and sins. Like re-discovering over and over again how rotten to the core I am. Yet either viewpoint is probably not really hmmm... how should i put it, right? Or maybe a better word would be healthy? But I don't want to compromise on the truth for my perceived health so right it is. I mean, objectively it has to be right lah, healthy is just a positive externality.
I really love how some white people on the internet think they are still one-up on the rest of the world. Especially on the internet. It is just so ironic. It is innate, this thought not expressed in direct forms but rather indirect ones. I love their, worldview. It is just tremendously amusing.
Of all the better thoughts I had, the above just had to come out.

I think the education system now is fundamentally unstable now. Like everything it has to go down to the why. Because the why affects the how which affects the what and all the others.

What is the education system supposed to achieve? What is the purpose of the education system?

Education system is obviously to educate, to lower ignorance, to know more truth. I think having an education system is not to increase GDP. Not to have a more skilled workforce, not to increase standard of living. This is very key and important to note. What happened is that governments invested in the education system to increase GDP, have a more skilled workforce and to increase standard of living. All these the education system can achieve, the education system will achieve. But it is not the main point, I feel lah.

What happened is that the aim of the education system was warped, twisted away from its original intention. Hmm. Today, in Singapore and perhaps the USA, it becomes a certification system. Exams are meant to gauge how well students have understood what is being taught, for them to identify their strengths and weaknesses and perhaps for the teachers to know that as well. I feel it is not meant to be a judgement, not a quantitative nor qualitative statement on a person's ability.

Originally, I think that why university graduates were originally prized and valued was because they showed a thirst for knowledge. A certain kind of attitude and pursuit of maybe, excellence? that employers valued. It could also be that people of a particular socio-economic background could afford to go to university and hence it could be that it was a matter of correlation (perhaps because people that went to university had a particular set of skills that allowed them to get into and complete university) and not cause and effect (that university imparted that kind of skills). Practically speaking, apart from the professionals like accountancy, medicine, dentistry and law, a university degree is not practically used.

Over time, people wanting to leverage on this bias that employers had perpetuated this system. Over time, the idea of those going to university became with an intent to secure a higher paying job as opposed to actually learning. When demand becomes there, the attitudes and expectations of the students change the system. No longer is it to study, to learn, to be a scholar. It is about getting first class and whatnot portfolio. Where the demand is the supply also will be. I think, it is quite obvious that universities began catering to people that want a degree for these reasons. The plethora of bogus universities, other universities bordering on the line of authenticity. Even within more reputable universities the emphasis becomes on grades and not on actual learning. How to game the system. How to score best. Students choose modules based on which professor is more lenient. Subjects on which are easier to score. Not according to their interests, not according to what they want to learn. This is disgusting to be honest. It becomes a selling of accreditation.

I personally expect to see the value of university degrees to drop. Firstly for the obvious reason of everyone is trying to get one. More supply, less differentiation, less uniqueness, less point. Secondly, people go to university for a myriad of reasons, not all that would be wanted by employers. I think attitude and all will become more important. Gaming of the system will happen. Over and over again. Surely. Until the system is compromised. Perhaps I should be brave and put faith in my prediction. And not get a degree. I want to.

Afterall, I am the being! But I guess my parents will never allow that. And I have conformed to the world for so long, rather hard to get out. It is surprising that I am arguing that university degrees will drop even from a secular standpoint.

Anyway, all these should be extrapolated to all the rungs of Singapore and perhaps USA education system. I think one big point that can be exploited (to earn money ironically) would be to create an alternative system to plug the problems thus mentioned. Or maybe for employers to be more discerning. How hard is it to discern a person. (it is actually quite hard). I get.

Note: Not today, it was written long ago.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:02 PM|

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

[[]]

Between 5 lives of candy crush and fleshing out many of the thoughts and opinions I have. I think candy crush easily takes precedence. Because I am lazy. And I need to sleep. Doing some semblance of work tomorrow.

Today was an interesting day. Interesting conversations. Now to act... What is the point of talking without acting? Or thinking without acting for that matter. Or believing without acting.

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:42 PM|

Monday, April 14, 2014

[[]]

If you have a brain in a vat idea, why does that presuppose a brain? Might there not be a brain? A brain-like entity that we consider to be a brain yet is actually not a brain?
Why the brain when you are discounting the physical, why keep the brain? WHY?

[[I wrote this at]]*|4:24 PM|

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

[[]]

Fight for your world not for your country.

Hmm. I kind of agree with that statement. Should we not grow past petty nationalism and local politics. Who wants to keep the order of nations other than the people that stand to gain from them, namely the politicians and uhm? wealthy business corporations?

What entity is a country anyway? What, a group of people that are forced to band together exclusively for survival? That is ridiculous in the least. What is stopping countries from merging or even all countries in the world from merging to form just a collective world of humanity other than those clinging to power or those that stand to gain from this construct?

I would join a global army army more. I would then defend humanity rather than like, a section of humanity. Makes much more sense.

[[I wrote this at]]*|4:21 PM|

Friday, April 4, 2014

[[]]

My mother asked me, if you study philosophy, what job can you do?
My mind reeled for a second. That is true, what jobs do you actually do after studying philosophy? After all, (quoted from 9gag I think), there are no philosophy factories.
I dunno, the job basically was not really in the picture. Not really what I was considering when I decided on what course. That would be interest.
But of what use is interest? Can it protect you? Can you eat it? Does it keep you warm?
Well, of what use is a university degree?
Other than to earn more money, because I have established that as a non-reason. A wrong reason.

Well then I contradict myself. For why do I have to care about job if I dont wanna earn money?

Cool, problem solved.

And yes, last of posts for today. Just recovered so clearing. If anyone even reads. Clearing for myself too!

[[I wrote this at]]*|4:09 PM|

[[]]

Some stupid post whining about UK schools being stupid. Because, hey, why not? Sour grapes are fun.

Ugh, as you know, I am practically rejected from all the schools I applied to in UK, now you know. UCL just rejected me as well.

Ah well, I really dont like it that this can be construed as sour grapes (because they might be). But seriously, I think UK schools are a little undiscerning. Seriously I dunno what they expect in that retarded, what, 4000 character limit and use that to judge whether, in addition to grades, will one be able to make it for study in their college.

I dunno bout the viability of it all lah. Especially the top tier ones at least Oxbridge has interview and tests (which I thought were good and like, at least showed effort). Maybe they have this mass abundance of talent such that they can afford to let several pass through the obvious gaps in 4000 character writing limit. Maybe I should have taken some of my school's uni admission people's advice. Maybe. Not really my loss lah. University is not that important. Maybe thats why I didnt get in.

Ohwell. UK not meant for me then must be Singapore liao. Unless God really dont want me to study university then must as well NUS SMU all also reject me. That would be a good sign.

Passion is overrated for university admission. What about passionless sods like me. Or rather, people like me who have their passion in areas outside of their study and are just studying because, you know, degree? (I personally as I typed that sentence grimaced, the futility of it all, degrees are retarded.) What makes me less deserving of a place? When I have perhaps even better qualifications (and attitude). Why? I would like to say that some of that passion is probably faked anyway. I should have faked my undying love for some shit as well.

No I should not. Luckily I did not. There are more important things in life other than a piece of paper to earn more pieces of paper.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:36 AM|

[[]]

I must say i think USA did a good job as a sole superpower thus far.

Despite all that crap about stupid Americans I guess there are stupid Singaporeans and stupid people of every nationality, just perhaps america has a bigger population connected to the internet. And perhaps, the culture is more open to voicing whatever thoughts they have. Half-baked or otherwise. But that is not their fault, really, just the impression they give. (By the word impression I do not mean it is a false impression, it may very well be true.)

One thing that sets USA apart from every other superpower in the world thus far is that, simply put, it did not annex land. The previous dominant superpower that is Britain conquered half the world. Before that local superpowers all whacked and subdued the countries all around them. Conquering is what defines superpower-ism. Like the Mongol horde or ancient Rome or modernised Japan or like the many other examples. USA for one did start a couple of wars and armed conflict but it never had done so to increase its territory which is actually quite impressive. I doubt anyone else would have had the restraint. Maybe it can be argued that they have enough territory as it stands.

While it acts in it's own interest and all, such is the nature of a world where we are divided by country. Power speaks. Military might must back up any rhetoric being made because the fear of death is still a rather good bargaining chip on most people to make them conform to your will. One day perhaps man may advance past death and tyrants will have no power because then man will look death in the eye and not be cowed.

Yes (I speak in broad strokes and sweeping generalisations because I am not an analyst and I doubt going into specifics will help) they have cockblocked everything from like climate change to international courts. And yes, nobody can stop them. But if you think about it, that is bad, compared to what?

Compared to previous superpowers these are already considered mild. Compared to weak countries then, it is an invalid comparison because USA simply isn't weak (yet?).

So I think the USA has done the world quite a huge favor by setting a good example on how a superpower should behave and hopefully subsequent ones will improve on this example rather than regress into nationalistic and all that. To be honest, the world of power and politics is disgusting and ugly. Even reading about it makes me sick. In an ideal world power should not be given to those who desire it, but to those who will do the best with it. Solves so many of the political pressures of requiring to 'stay in power', such people can then make principled value-girded decisions.

I was quite annoyed when I read how the Yugoslav tribunal by the UN couldn't even investigate NATO because they would just refuse to cooperate and UN needed NATO troops to do whatever they had to do. Some people are really above the law and can act with a certain degree of impunity, those that are the strongest. Strong is not enough, strongest. Say if Obama suddenly decided to kill all blue people in the USA (assume there suddenly are blue people), which international court is going to try him for genocide? Nobody. Maybe when he is old or senile, because power still talks.

One can only hope that the strongest power is sensible and has aligned values.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:26 AM|

Thursday, April 3, 2014

[[]]

“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

― Aleksander Solzhenitsyn

Recently I read up a little on law. In an attempt to not go into a law interview totally unprepared again. (Several of my friends scam me sia. Say never prepare. 2 years ago me was still stupid and yea, stupid. Either stupid or headstrong.)

Im terribly fascinated by the practicalities of law. Versus the ideals of philosophy, that I guess, was more of what I thought and wanted. Still, the best attempt possible I guess. Something that is always refined, always improved, trying to constantly reach closer to the ideals.

Consider the practice of granting immunity (from prosecution) to a witness.

Let us look at the case of an accomplice in a burglary (say he acted as a lookout, a relatively 'minor role') and his testimony can convict the mastermind (who was not at the crime scene) in addition to the actual burglar (for which they already have some evidence against). The law allows him to have a reduced sentence (in exchange for cooperation.) (Yes I know that he is fully liable for the burglary crime as well.)

So, what does this achieve? It achieves a greater good for society. Now we have a, lets assume, watertight case against the actual perpetrator of the crime and a good chance for nabbing the mastermind to boot. Compared to a loose case against both the burglar and the accomplice. And maybe no chance of nabbing the mastermind. Lets take it that the mastermind has been planning a spat of these burglaries and that he will probably continue to do so. Stopping him would be 'best for society', yes?

I think this action is dabbling into the area of karma? Is that the justification for having his 'good' in nabbing a mastermind pay off his 'debt' of crime. Perhaps in the imaginary bank that is society it cancels out? One deposit and one withdrawal?

Or is it such that it is the only practical way forward. There is no moral grounding for such a reducing of sentence. Such an act of providing information as a witness in no way diminishes his responsibility for having taken part in a crime. In fact, it is not even involved with the execution of the crime. Yet it is done.

I think law is a practicalising of the moral code and the societal contract. Crimes are against the state. Similar to how sin is against God. So I guess the state has the jurisdiction to waive or lower punishments wherever it deems fit.

Ok anyway I think this post was meant for 3 weeks ago, I cant really remember my original train of thought I am going to cut it here.

[[I wrote this at]]*|3:48 PM|