[[How has been]]

Monday, July 31, 2017

[[On environmentalism (creation care)]]

This is just me being annoyed at some things certain people who claim to be environmentalist or creation care people do. I am not saying that their cause is inherently problematic. Though I do think it is not the most important, it perhaps still has some significance. Now, I am going to just condense both into one phrase- environment care.

It seems to me that the best way to be environment care-y is to be frugal. Basically, not be a consummerist. Buy only the things that one needs, spend as little money as possible. From the Christian pov, i think it ties in with the whole pursuit of Christ and the other things being secondary. Of course, frugal comes to different degrees, some people deem some things as necessities that other people can do without .etc .etc. However, it seems to me that lowering the bar of necessity is the more sensible way forward than purchasing environmentally friendly versions of the same thing.

There are so many things that can be done without. Yet no, the movement focuses on selling more things, "environmental" things. The underlying consumerist attitude is not dealt with. It is still a satisfaction of wants rather than, say, willing to accept some inconvenience for the sake of the cause. So for instance, rather than gulping your drink down like some "uncivilised" person, you take out a metal straw. Lmao. Metal straw. And presumably proclaim to your bewildered friends that you care for creation. Same with, like, rather than not using air-con, you raise the temperature to uh, 24!! bravo you!!! Same with bathing. Same with cars. Same with whatever else. Bubble tea? takeaway boxes?

Ok la, there is some value, if you really want it (and cannot do without), that you do it in a more environmentally friendly way. But I think the point is that it is showy and, while I can't discern your innermost intentions, it seems that this is not the best way to do it.

Bottom line is i really dislike it when environment care takes on marketing flavors and becomes more of a boast than actually trying to achieve an impact.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:19 AM|

Monday, July 24, 2017

[[]]

Ok finally army book in has happened and I didn't book in. *huge sigh of relief*, though, i kinda start dreading the next one. It's in a year (or so, i presume).

Anyway, since im not going into army, i have quite some time. Which is the last week of holidays (because EARC next week).

Anyway, I have this beautiful lovely piece of free time, redeemed from the clutches of the state. Btw, I would like to live in a libertarian state, though... I don't think it is the best way to govern. Of course me liking to is coming from a selfish viewpoint and I assume some "niceness" in other human beings.

And I kinda wanna spend it with other people. Hmm. But most people are working and/or overseas. Or too lazy e.g one particular chubby person.

MAAAAN.

Isn't pining for something fun.

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:59 PM|

[[On the fall of the university]]

Maybe corruption is a better word than fall.

But whatever, this post is gonna be a whining post. Lots of broad generalisations but... Idk, it is hard to write anything without generalising. I think it should be accurate, generally speaking. Most of my experiences are shaped by uhh, the unis ive been exposed to so mostly NUS and Durham I guess, and those that my friends go to.

Main point: University is not (or no longer) a place of learning, of seeking knowledge for itself. Im not very sure about the no longer, perhaps it never was, though i kinda doubt it.

What it is now -
For undergraduates: A place to earn a educational qualification. It is akin to a step in career progression, a prerequisite, if you like. Secondarily, it is a place you meet people, fall in love, try out new activities .etc .etc. But it seems to me that most people take it to just be mostly for c.v be it official or unofficial e.g having a "network". (of course, from "networking", and calling each other bro. lmao.)

For post graduates: A place to do specialised research in your field. Hopefully with the aim of getting results that are publishable. Doing that will allow them to get their postgraduate degree. The more prestigious the university and the journal published in, the higher chance of them joining the ranks of academia.

To faculty: A place to do research, publish stuff to secure the coveted tenure. Occasionally teach and like, help other people learn. After securing tenure, it seems as if you have more freedom to dabble in whatever you want even though publishing stuff still seems to be quite a high priority.

To the board? (and here I am presuming): Keep university ranking up, attract foreign students or whatever policy aim the govt is imposing (e.g more work experience???), keep the university profitable (generating income for shareholders??).

Perhaps, rather than bemoan university changing, i think university changing is inevitable since the market and most of the students come to university for these purposes which the current system is adapted to suit. Instead, knowledge seekers, perhaps, ought to create something else, something that is really for knowledge in itself (or at least somewhat in itself rather than being subsumed under some other political/social or economic force). Perhaps we ought to call it a temple or something.

Of course, my friend has a point. You can go to your temple, business students will still go to business schools and end up earning more money than you and trying to employ you. Well of course. I really wonder whether this parting of ways away from the university will help protect poor children like me who want to study/learn for learning's sake. We shall see.

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:05 AM|

Friday, July 14, 2017

[[]]

There really is this Christian - non-Christian divide leh.
Is just tragic. If I take the faith seriously and I take my friends seriously... What does it leave me but a tragic sadness that my friends don't belong to my faith?
I guess there is a hope.
But until the hope is fulfilled, there is this tragic sadness. It is really a really deep sadness that seeps all the way within. The sadness that you can almost do nothing about until God acts, if God chooses to. Perhaps I am not seeing things the way God sees them.
Perhaps I have too many non-Christian friends.
But I like my non-Christian friends.
And I'm pretty sure we are not called to be insular.

[[I wrote this at]]*|5:15 PM|

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

[[]]

"Use this tape, it's really good. It holds me together."
"I don't want it, it's sticky and too tight"
"But you'll fall apart, can't you see"
"No I won't, I'm doing fine."
"I was the same as you. I thought I was fine."
"Well, good for you. Besides, I have survived this far without tape, why would i need it now?"

[[I wrote this at]]*|8:39 PM|

Saturday, July 8, 2017

[[]]

A skeleton once went about life. He discovered some tape. The tape held him together well. He thought this was the best thing, period.
He recommended it to another being. This being rejected his recommendation.

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:05 PM|

Thursday, July 6, 2017

[[On exclusivity]]

So, I guess this post can be an exposition on a particular concept within the previous post. Yet not really. Perhaps this is more to do with the difference between relationship and friendship kinda thing (which is 2 posts earlier or something).

Main point here is to support the idea that romantic relationships are friendships (and nothing more) until engagement. How this is done is through a look at the notion of exclusivity. What is exclusivity? Exclusivity is that which excludes. If a relationship is intrinsically exclusive, it occupies a space that prevents any other relationship (of either party) from reaching that level (by virtue of the relationship existing in itself, and this is the working definition of intrinsic).

I think it is fairly uncontested that exclusivity is exclusive to marriage, or at least engagement. And here I guess, I shall have to introduce some God notion (and so, this argument becomes limited to those who accept the Christian faith, as usual if you are not a Christian, feel free to do whatever you want, id suggest polygamy, sounds fun). The fact that you are married makes it wrong (or not possible, but lets use the normative wrong since not possible seems debatable based on what one means by not possible) for you to marry another person (or have someone on the same relational level as your spouse). It also makes it wrong for you to have sex with another person because you can only have sex with your spouse. That is, I guess, the idea of exclusivity.

Since exclusivity is exclusive to marriage, exclusivity is not within the purview of anything outside of marriage (or engagement). Hence it is not within the purview of anything else, i.e romantic relationships. This is the simple argument.

Perhaps some will not accept that. Some might argue that a romantic relationship is towards marriage. But this does not mean that a romantic relationship is somehow a trial marriage or a marriage with "lower exclusivity" that increases the closer one is to marriage. Think this brings it back to the point that marriage is a commitment. That at the point of marriage, singlehood becomes marriage, non-exclusivity becomes exclusivity. Adultery becomes a sin. At any point before marriage, having sex with another person is not adultery because you are not exclusively the mate of another (another form of sin nonetheless).

Another line of argument is that to be loving to your romantic partner, you would practice some form of exclusivity. Also to secure some idea of security .etc. First is, why is security coming from your partner? Secondly, practicing some form of exclusive behaviour is not the same as the relationship being intrinsically exclusive. One might, take into account the preferences of your friend - e.g that your friend doesn't want you to hang out with this other friend - and act on it. So similarly, it could be that your romantic partner desires that you exclude others from a similar level of relationship i.e not have a similar level of relationship with other people. On this, you could choose to have this exclusive like behaviour for the sake of your partner. (of course, you could also question why your partner has this preference). But there are two key differences. One is not choosing that is not wrong in itself. It is a preference your partner has and you could choose not to prefer it. That is, you could easily "date" or have dating level relationships with other people as well in clear conscience. Of course if you lie to your partner or whatnot that wouldnt be loving. And if you tell your partner your partner might likely decide to break up with you. Point is, choosing to practice exclusive behaviour is not the same as having an exclusive relationship since it is not wrong, from the relationship per se to choose otherwise.

This might sound hard to stomach to some, but perhaps they are thinking of like kissing and stuff for romantic partners so theres this idea that it be weird for you to kiss two people or something like that. But if all relationships are friendships, this is alot less hard to stomach. COS THERE BE NO KISSING ANYWAY.

One straightforward result of this view that romantic relations are not exclusive is that you could, in theory, consider many people for marriage at the same time. It is like buying a house yknow. You only intend to buy a house, but you can consider many houses. Have a look. But dont stay in them.

[[I wrote this at]]*|1:53 AM|

Monday, July 3, 2017

[[Two ways in looking at potential (romantic) partners]]

First off, im using romantic in the most common way society understands it. If you read my earlier post, I rather use that conception but it seems to be confusing for most.
Ok!
So, imagine that you are a person around the dating age. And you are going through life, generally ok. You are not in the extreme 4 percent socially speaking, so, relatively normal (though obviously you are still special). And so, society has given you the luxury of picking people you wanna hang out with. And also the luxury of choosing who you wanna marry, with the caveat that they also wanna marry you.
So bam! you meet like a gazillion people in your social adventures. (actually maybe just about a thousand?). So you are wondering, hmmm, who ought I marry (or date).
Given that you have a limited amount of social confidence and your skin is not infinitely thick, seems like you cannot ask everyone out to a date (or for marriage).
Why is this preamble so long?
Point is, one group of people see people that are generally within date-able range to be in two clear camps. People that they like (are attracted to kinda thing) and people they don't like. I think this is what is culturally acceptable and sort of bred in the love at first sight + other stuff. I guess, in the purpose of being consistent, most people only like 1 person at a time. Sometimes they like more than 1 and they resolve the dispute (internally?). So like they will either only chase this person and/or only accept if this person chases them. Basically the thing here is that there is a very limited amount of persons (at each time) that they would even consider being in a relationship with and it is a strict no to everyone else.
A second group of people view people more loosely. I think I would put my own thinking as being of this group. And perhaps there are more than 2 groups but lets just use 2 groups for simplicity.That there are people that surely fail certain non-negotiables and are clearly off limits. For everyone else, there is potential. Of course there are different degrees of potential. In this sense, you could be potentially interested in 20 people (not that I am la...). In which case, I think the higher the degree of potential, reflects the lower amount of effort (on your part) required to put in to achieve... a desired state of relation.
I feel that how interested the other party makes a significant part of most people in the potential camp. Like if the other party is very interested, the potential becomes much higher, if the other party is less interested, the potential is of course lower.
Of course one might argue that you only look at the person who is easiest to be with (least effort) and you like that person. Alternatively, one could set an arbitrary (high?) standard and have the people across the bar as people one likes while anything else below is not-like because one is not willing to put in effort beyond a certain amount. To the first case, I think, that is very simplistic and if so, then one probably changes who he likes alot. Which... i guess is a possible position to hold, though seems to be very fickle since one does not acknowledge the depth of calculus that lurks below. To the second case, sure, sounds good. Though again the fickle thing might give some pause.

HMMM. actually maybe that is why some people that hold the like/dislike thing change people they like/dislike so easily.

Anyway, point is, I think the second group is a more complete way of thinking about things, that takes into account the different depths and degrees of human relationship and how they lead to/map onto (even non-linearly) onto romantic stuff.

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:07 AM|