some thoughts on rhyme and metre

well i've been reading All the Fun's in How You Say a Thing by Timothy Steele... and it's really a neat piece of work. not too over the top like Rhythms of English Poetry, but not exactly aimed at a complete stranger to poetry. It targets "beginners". i guess i'm abt there. so, well. there hv been some interesting ideas thrown around. i dont agree with everything, obviously, but then again, i think its quite stupid to raise those grouses here. well i'm abt halfway thru it, meaning that ive jus finished the half of the bk dedicated to iambic verse. so obviously things like examining the pattern of the iambic line and stuff like substitutions come up. and caesuras and enjambment. i kinda liked the chapter on elision though. elision doesnt really get covered normally this much in depth. then again, i guess there are studies that cover it more extensively. but for an entry level book on metre and versification or prosody, it's not half bad. 

well the first few chapters, and a considerable part of the first half, deal with the idea of metre as a paradigm, and of its realization in speech as rhythm. so there will be lines whose rhythms more closely express the pattern by means of very strong and very weak speech stresses, and of course those that fall in the gray, so to speak. ok, all tts cool. then there was a section on rhythmical modulation, and about how it is not distorting the iambic line, or departing from it, but on modulating it while keeping to its structure by means of avoiding maximal- minimal feet and to some extent substitutions and hypermetric syllables or hypometric (?) syllables (well generally acephalous lines in iambic pentameter, though you have broken backed lines, too). hm in a nutshell i guess tts it. and then there was sum stuff abt rhythmical variation by means of caesura and enjambment, our happy couple, and grammar, which i thought was really cool, like syntax and syllable count (ok i know i dont do it justice by expressing it so poorly like this). anw... i cld go on all day wif a summary, so i guess heres where i'll jus put in what struck me.

its really very trivial, but: "Johnson raises here several interesting points. For one thing, as far as we can tell, it was easier to hear ancient Greek and Latin poetry, unaccompained by rhyme, than it is to hear rhymeless verse in Modern English (ie. meter comes across more strongly). All the available testimony (eg. Cicero, De Oratore 3.195-96 (hes quoted in full by Attridge, if i remember correctly, and i shld hv posted smth abt it earlier on in the year)) indicateds that even unschooled audiences, with no text before them and with no previous knowledge of what they were listening to, grapsed metrical patterns and objected to violations or slips in their use. (ok fine, but heres the really impt part..) And as Paul Maas has commented in comparing the verse of ancient Greece to that of modern Europe, "[W]ithout the aid of rhyme one cannot achieve that impression of closely knit discourse which Greek poetry, even in the loosest metres and in the least elevated style, never fails to give. "" 

ok maybe i was just ignorant the first time i read it, but im sure the quote was used wrongly. here its quite obvious that it had nothing to do with the ear of the people of those times (though it might very well be, too, hm...), but that the very language of ancient Greece and thereby their verse, lent itself more suitably to perceiving a consistent rhythm and subsequently structure that English seems to be unable to emulate as well. and then rhyme comes in to lend a hand (though that can be easily disputed till no end).

so yea. cool stuff. maybe the nex post will be more critical haha.

length

here are some interesting numbers to crunch:

the epic of gilgamesh: over 3000 lines

beowulf: over 3000 lines

paradise lost: over 10000 lines

the aeneid: over 10000 lines (incomplete)

metamorphoses: over 12000 lines

the odyssey: over 12000 lines

divina commedia: over 14000 lines

the iliad: over 15000 lines

the canterbury tales: over 17000 lines (theres prose inside, though. no idea how they count that. incomplete)

ok theres relli no basis for comparison, especially for the translated works. but owell, if you've ever wondered how epic the epics are.. here are... some interesting numbers!

as a sidenote, maybe i should go read the nibelungenlied...

sophistication on translation

well, maybe that's an exaggeration. but in any case, its better than my take on it i think. i quote from All the Fun's in How You Say a Thing by Timothy Steele: 

"In chapter 62 of part 2 of Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote, the hero falls into converstaion with a bookseller and remarks of translation:

[I]t appears to me that translating from one language to another, unless it be from one of those two queenly tongues, Greek and Latin, is like gazing at a Flemish tapestry with the wrong side out: even though the figures are visible, they are full of threads that obscure the view and are not bright and smooth as when seen from the other side. 

We call a literary work a "text", and Cervantes' simile about translations may remind us that "text" comes from the Latin texere, meaning "to weave". Lovers of verse will find this etymology appropriate, because excellent poetry has a texture as palpable as that of beautifully woven cloth. Poets do not literally interlace lines warp-and-woof fashion, but they do draw them together into a single verbal fabric. And this process contributes, no less than does the modulation of individual lines, to the distinctive rhythms of a poem."

well ok, pretty cool stuff. well that's still better than "translation is betrayal" so... 

anyway i wonder why only Greek and Latin are "queenly tongues". and for that matter, why "queenly"? hm. and i maybe im just ignorant, but y Flemish tapestry? they're the best in the world? or is it jus don quixote being... don quixote. uh. 

well the metaphor of poetry as fabric, or tapestry, rather, is interesting. i'm not sure if it fully encapsulates it, but its an interesting comparison to draw. and of course, i think that the analogy for translation is quite well expressed. well, better than my attempts earlier on in the year... hm. mebbe there'll be better still.

hospitals

hm, i seem to be coming into contact with hospitals quite abit recently. and no, not as a patient. well tt observation is probably just a pretext for me to um, talk about them some.

the etymology of "hospital" probably comes from something to the effect of "hospice" rather than "hospitable" (although "hospice" does also have something of "hospitable" in its own etymology). "patient" on the other hand, comes from a word meaning "to suffer". in that sense, the patient in the hospital is a more accurate use of the word's root than say the virtue "patience". i suppose "patience" is the figurative use of it, since "patience" is often replaced by "longsuffering", which makes perfect sense. 

several contemplative (? thought? logic?) experiments later (or maybe the word is just "musings" which is amusing, admittedly..) and there r several things of interest (well at least to me). 1- a patient goes to a hospitable hospital. 2- a patient goes for hospice care in a hospital. 3- a patient patient goes to hospital. now i guess consider all the inverse situations, and all the possible permutations and combinations and... u get something very trivial! ah well, i thought it was funny to think about the etymologies...

lets see, on the figurative level, what does a hospital represent/ symbolize? a caring institution of healing and convalescence? a hell hole of sickness and disease? a warm, sensitive environment? or a cold, sterile corporation only thinking of turning a profit? is a hospital a refuge of hope or a stockade of despair (well, an exaggeration unless u hv a terminal illness or something i guess..) 

well sensibly, u dun go to a hospital for superficial problems. for that a visit to the clinic would suffice. so i guess the hospital in a sense is a weightier institution. but i guess u can still be a patient anywhere, and theres very little to identify u; perhaps u'd identify yourself as either a hospital patient or a clinic patient. heh. owell..

well i guess for most part, the operation (ahahahaha) of a hospital isnt particularly fascinating, but its interesting how it finds its way into art as a symbol or a setting. well ok, i dont think this consideration is complete, but, ive kinda run out of the obvious ideas. another time then.

serendipity

heh i find it interesting that as far as intellectual pursuit goes, ideas i form independently of any living breathing human being telling me what to think gets confirmed by just that. that is to say: the unexpected confirmation of my own little thoughts that i mull over now and then in school.

the first example wld be smth abt solipsism. well simply put, its an idea tt kinda extends "cogito ergo sum". i think therefore i am. but what can i be sure of sensory experience about the world around me? and by extension, if i am the only thing that i can be sure of, then greatest utility for me wld be to do selfish things tt benefit only me. heh. then arises the question tt if i sumhow find helping others to be the best thing to benefit myself, what then? lol. well ok. cool. well i guess resorting to pragmatism, it doesnt relli matter even if everything around u is mist and shadows. i mean if u can see shapes in the fog and interact wif em, it doesnt matter if they're relli non- existent or anything right? when it comes down to it, so long as u can get utility, sure anythings fine. heh.

well then theres "translation is betrayal". haha my thoughts exactly, but the elaboration was abit too hardlined for me =/. guess it looks like i hv to learn some new languages. but the point here is that i wasnt looking for confirmation of my views (considering my random thoughts r kinda random and dun usually find themselves into the classroom), and yet somehow they found me. hm.

ah the biggest one might probably the concept of binary. well we did this in lit, tt instead of opposition, there r these binary pairs. not necessarily diametrically opposite, but still contrasting with regard to each other. and in every piece of literature u can see binaries. hm yea i mean, parellelism, thesis and antithesis, these are essentially pairs striking off against each other for a revealing effect. well i guess its a confirmation in a way that u can look at the world in terms of ones and zeroes, on's and off's, light and dark, hot and cold, alpha and omega, etcwdv. now i wonder if the universal theory tt scientists are looking for shld not be expressed in words but in numbers. now tt wld be interesting. oh yea sum stuff abt math as a universal language also came up in a convo in sch. mm. 

i think its relli great tt such ideas manage to find themselves into what i see as a meshing web of thoughts and ideas. well i did see somewhere tt ur brain apparently makes another furrow (knot? convolution?) when u make a connection. so i guess the conceit is pretty accurate. hm joy.

more binary

no actually, the world IS binary. just that there are plenty of numbers.

sense of the epic

wat is the epic? length? magnitude? revelation? 

ah well, sometimes it just feels like it. 

(this must be an epic short post tho)

adaptation

ok.. i guess now i hv a bone to pick wif the adaptation of material. like in the world of multifarious media today, i guess its inevitable that a work makes a transition from one medium to another. and this would be adaptation (?). 

well to some extent i guess id relli love to see ppl keep to the original. but then again u cant get anywhere without someone making changes to suit the new medium. or just cos they feel important enough to tweak it in what they see as a better direction. well specifically and personally, im always pretty interested when a bk ive read makes it to the silver screen. or vice versa. or other stuff, like songs quoting works of literature, etc. but i guess adaptation is rather relative. and subjective. like if the new product is better than the original, then i guess ur "faulty" adaptation is justified. problem is that more often than not, u hv an inherent bias whichever u r exposed to first (usually its the original). i guess this has got to do wif novelty only being experienced once anw. well ive kinda discussed that previously... and i tink it still holds more or less.

but more often than not, this phenomenon of adaptation jus leads to the bastardization of things i appreciate and sometimes its jus painful ><. im sure everyone agrees to some extent. owell. then again, there hv been several pleasant surprises. 

ho hum.

all the fun's in how you say a thing

ah well, im reading another "textbook" again. so... theres interesting things to think about. well ok i'll quote: "a formally experienced poet would not require a book on meter to learn his trade." well once again ><. i find it kinda painful sometimes that im not a "formally experienced poet". actually i find it kinda painful that im not a poet in any sense, but, owell. moving on..

"Indeed, some metrists have theorized that iambic is a sort of universal meter" - !!! ok that's cool, and the substantiation is "Iambic meters appear in the poetries of a number of Indo- European languages."

"The brain itself, according to this theory, relishes binary patterns and finds iambic rhythm congenial." wow funky stuff. and the qualification is "Many prosodic systems, including those of French, Persian, and Chinese, do not involve iambic measures." now i think this deserves more study, but since this is not at all the focus of the book (that would be the study of the rhythms of poetry in various languages), i guess i'll hv to look elsewhere. but hey, the whole binary idea is relli quite interesting, as i had been thinking abt the capacity for everything to be described in binary. uh well ok, i shan't spend too much time to go in depth cos theres smth else, too.

"It may also be easier for us to hear the tetrameter, on account of the residual influence of the old four- beat alliterative line of the Germanic tradition. If there is such a thing as a collective memory, it may contain that line's thumping pattern." ok apart from "thumping pattern" its pretty well expressed. too bad i hv almost absolutely no knowledge of "collective memory", but from what i do know, hey its really cool.

well considering that these two very interesting asides came up in the introduction, i guess the actual content should be rather more stimulating, ceteris paribus. happy times.

lost in translation

ok some while ago i wrote this essay abt the importance of learning languages other than english. for some intra- sch competition. dunno wat happened to it. anw... some thoughts tt i put down then hv recurred to me arnd now. i had written smth abt the sapir-whorf theory (tho i hear its been disproved, but its still interesting... and id like to believe that some of it makes sense), and now is the time to extend the idea and examine other permutations. if we take understanding of various languages to enable one to better represent the world (if we do disbelieve that it doesnt help our understanding of it at all..) at least, then wat happens if we do not have so many languages at our disposal? well i suppose the opposite would happen. u wld hv a world view, well and gd. but i suppose it wldnt be as flexible, and ur ability to express ur perspectives wld be less malleable than if u had multiple languages at hand. an intuitive example wld be when u cant express urself in one language (or at least not as accurately as u wld like), when another just fits. of course this probably can be overcome by widening ur vocabulary, or in the worse case, inventing ur own words to signify what is lacking in the existing lexicon (but then it wld hv to adhere to the rules of ur language, otherwise ud arguably be making a dialect; then again, wats the difference?) 

so well, assuming that u only know one language, and u still (obviously) dont want to miss out on works in other languages in whatever media, ur only option is to translate. now therein i feel is a problem which is worthy of contemplation.

ok the idea here revolves around languages and their conversion into other languages. and, of course, as in how data inevitably gets lost during transfer, syntax and obviously sense (and mebbe style and other stuff) get lost during this process, too. (oh i hvnt read the bk or watched the movie of this title. its just apt for the discussion and im not relli alluding to them cos i hvnt read/watched them)

well translations are rampant these days, what with the improved technology and hence efficiency of translating media. the fact that more people are receiving better educations probably also contributes to a (i hypothesize) increase in translations. we cld also argue tt languages r constantly being invented [(as in totally different languages, not dialects or slangs, or watever derivations.) though u can argue tt languages are dying somewhere in africa or china...] and so more translation is needed. anw, the bottom line is that, with translation comes loss of material, and this is (definitely?) a bad thing. 

the purpose of translation is to allow the work to reach a wider audience. we've seen this with the Bible, and we now see it with things like anime and korean soap operas. would the world (or at least the people not versed in the means of communication) be worse off without a processing body to change unintelligible words into meaningful ones? i think so. however, we must be conscious of the fact that these works often (if not always?) become worse off themselves, even as they extend their reach to more people. ok this is not going to become a discussion whether expansion of target audience justifies or even promotes translation which comes with its corruption of original material. rather, this is just interested in examining the nature of the corruption. 

ok, i suppose everyone can figure this out for themselves, but im jus gonna list the probable cases and some examples. firstly, translation affects the meaning of the words of the language. we are all aware of connotations and associations. these are the word's own relationship to fellow members of its lexicon. replace it with another word from a different language and u distort meaning by failing to fully copy its relationship. while some words are relatively easier to translate being more common and of (perhaps) a simpler idea in both languages, many are not. we are all aware of the dangers in mistranslating wat someone says. like in tennis recently, venus and serena got into the finals and a fellow russian competitor said it was a "family decision" or smth along those lines tt hinted at a conspiracy of not playing fairly but deciding on the result before hand. this was later corrected. ok i noe there r better examples, but this will suffice. i guess this result of translation has obvious dangers. u can incite riots and even wars with the right mistranslation (haha). things also get sticky in the religious sense. as if holy writs were not ambiguous enough, u hv to translate them frm their original language and, furthermore, translate them in many different versions. now interpretation of agreed texts are complicated enough, differentiating them probably doesnt make things any easier. though i dun see much immediate problem in this. though it should be said that u cant get the most of out smth u read if u cannot fully understand what its implying. religion, if nothing else, shld be the place u dun wanna go wrong, and where more knowledge is obviously a good thing (u noe, theres a saying that goes smth like: half knowledge is more dangerous than none.. or smth. u noe wat, its probably translated...) 

here i shall digress and make an aside abt the Bible. its the world's bestseller, so it shld be mentioned, if not being the most relevant to this topic. i suppose everybody's aware of how preachers sometimes throw greek words at u frm the Bible and make themselves sound impt and how their subsequent explanations of the text seem so obvious - after making the necessary connotations and associations with the alternative translations or the etymology of wdv word they illuminated. heh. well heres an interesting idea. some say the Bible was written in English. which means to say, it doesnt matter tt it was written in greek or hebrew or whatnot, because ultimately its being most widely read in English. which i find an interesting idea really...

anyway, translation also hinders the appreciation of a text. i suppose this affects verse more than prose as verse seems to be more interested in craftsmanship. u noe, stuff like rhyme, alliteration, wordplay (which imo, is one of the hardest to translate. u noe how cry in english can mean to shout or to weep? yea its the same in jap wif the word nake apparently.. but how many language can u keep this consistent. and if u use phrases, or less common words... well good luck), rhythm, texture (consonance, assonance), syllable count, line length, stanzas.... the list goes on. u cant possibly manage to recapture the brilliance of the original language wif translation. and i dunno if the people who try to should be commended or pitied and laughed at. if u read translations of literary texts, and they hv notes (which they shld, if not ur pretty much losing out on alot), u tend to see alot of comments "resists translation". well heres an example, aura in greek means breeze, and is also a female name. the translation given was zephyr, which can arguably be a girl's name too. but u kinda lose the "a" sounds... uhh. ya stuff liddat. frm what i have read tho, i tink its highly commendable of translators to still keep to the syllable count (often) and to even try to recreate the effects of the original meter. ah well. i wld bring up the examples, but im lazy. haha guess i didnt do too great a job substantiating my arguments. 

anw the conclusion of this matter is that u lose much in translation. so wat can be done? well.. go learn the original language! sure, easier said than done. in parting, i'll jus leave an anecdote of this guy called Joseph Needham. i read an article abt him in the papers quite some time ago. anw hes this british guy who went to china and lived there and wrote a bk on its development of civilisation. well not relli a bk. a massive 15 volume collection or smth. anw i guess tts cool in itself. but i quote "A polymath in the best British tradition, Needham was a talented linguist who could mentally translate his manuscripts from English to French and back" um actually he supposedly translated, edited, translated back, and etc. mentally in an armchair. hm. ok my aspirations..

hedgehog's dilemma

well u might hv heard of this, but theres this snazzy analogy called the hedgehog's dilemma, or porcupine's dilemma. of course, wikipedia will provide a much more comprehensive description of just what this is, but, hey, i'll jus provide some cursory information.

i suppose everyone noes wat hedgehogs r. they r pigs u find in bushes. or those things that stay in ur hedge all day long and wun get out. uh. ok this is jus being stupid. hedgehogs or porcupines r those little rodent- like things tt hv spines on their backs. kinda like quillboars in the warcraft universe. or like sea urchins. and come to think of it, street urchins r kinda spiky and all. like their hair, or their knives when they stick u up... uh no i jest. 

so anyway, hedgehogs hv quills/spines for self- defence. and this proposition is that it also prevents them from getting close to one another. which is completely ridiculous seeing as they dun reproduce asexually. 

in any case, it is quite an interesting scenario. taking it for what its meant to imply, it suggests tt people (well obviously, who's seriously interested in hedgehogs anw?) dun get too close to each other cos they're scared of hurting each other. evangelion kinda explored this idea. in fact, its the name of one of the episodes. hm.

i guess this is based on the assumption tt our model hedgehogs want to get close to each other in the first place. and by extension i guess it also means tt this is so important tt they'll withstand the pain of being arnd each other. now, why wld anyone wanna do that? and this is the explanation for isolationism and basically emo-ing at home. 

well, wow. a dilemma. dun u jus hate it when things turn out like this? ur damned either way. the saying goes, choose the lesser of 2 evils. uh well, i wonder what that would be here. 

just another example of how we all suffer from existential dread, and since we're all gonna die someday anyway, who cares =)

some thoughts on fiction

i actually do pay attention at school, and every now and then, my teachers say something interesting that jus sticks in my mind (well there r the times where they request tt it sticks, too, but tt doesnt always happen unfortunately). well one said: you are what you read. another said: until u do ur PhD, no one really cares about what you think (ceteris paribus). 

well, i'd really agree tt u r influenced by experience, and while sense experience seems to do a considerable amount to ur development as a person, i guess uh.. wdv u call processing of information (i dun tink u can call it sensory eh?) does also shape ur thoughts, ur perceptions, ur world view. and despite the advancement of technology seeming to promote the proliferation of videos and whatever that may entail, reading still (imo) will continue to be a force of trading of information to be reckoned with. 

in the more specific sense, reading as in reading things that are meant to be read for some time and not in passing ie books, should also be likely to continue (and that said, the physical book as well, and not ebooks, or audiobooks, or wdv). and this is where the second point comes in. obviously with insufficient exposure and experience in the rather complex fields that i try my rather poor task of engaging in, i am (once again) in no position to give my critique. but heck, it helps me, it might help u, and its jus makes me feel better. so here goes.

how is this related to fiction. well the scope of this discussion is books; the printed word. it is specifically fictitious. or imaginary. so here we're dealing with novels, scripts for plays, even poetry. whatever is, as aristotle commented on tragedy (which i think can be applied here) "an imitation of an action that is real" of course, this goes beyond the "serious and of a certain magnitude". and so, we are interested in the impact that stories have on the individual. 

well i hv long wondered the extent of the imagination. well from my limited knowledge of works of fantasy and fiction out there, i feel that some are really far off from reality, while others clearly have some basis or inspiration in the contemporary, or the past - or to any extent, to events that occured. thus "imitation of an action that is real" really applies rather directly. then, what with "futuristic" fiction like sci- fi, cyber(and whatever derviation thereof)punk, etc, and with works of epic fantasy, i really do wonder to what extent do the writers of these works draw their inspiration from the real world. well tt said, i guess we could all comment on certain metaphors or comparisons in poetry that seem "out of this world", perhaps for their perfectness of representation or wdv. but tts slightly different. 

so in any case and at any rate, im not going to explore the purpose or function of fiction, but rather look at how certain works might either add or detract from the formation of a world view that is appropriate for life in the 21st century (uh? yea.. smth liddat) 

ok this works off the axiom that "you are what you read", or rather, that works of fiction (or substitute it for "media" as u so wish) influence the individual (of course, if we're talking about the media and causation and acts of violence, then things get abit hazy. if we simply talk about "outlook on life" or something rather hazy to begin with, then we're probably fine.) so then, is it better to appreciate a work interested in recreating a real- life scenario, but idealistically, or one tt chooses to represent it as accurately as possible? of course, one wld immediately realize tt u cant jus compare these two like that without setting the relevant parameters. uh. but ok lets jus assume tt there is no inherent purpose in the consumption of either (like u appreciate either cos it makes u feel happy, or want a cathartic experience, or wdv. tho clearly, it doesnt help learning about the "real" action, since its clearly an "imitation", and thus putting any weight into its representation and evaluation of the action is rather highly dangerous.) 

well to try to make this more understandable, lets jus take a topic like friendship and explore it. well representations of this relationship in fiction is unlikely to severely alter ur world view for better or for worse. because in all likelihood, any kind of friendship tt the writer presents can and should fall within the realms of the possible; it is an imitation that is similar to the real, and perhaps in most cases, does not hv any significant differences that shld be taken note of. however, once the subjects become rather more intense, such as love, or hate, or some other big "emo" idea, then the situation changes. i tink tt it is fair to say that if u spent all ur time reading (or watching or wdv) the kind of "thrashy romance novels" like the maid did in Gulliver's Travels when the palace caught fire, then ur whole view on love is probably going to change. similarly if u continually read betrayal stories or wdv. well this is of course neglecting the impact tt ur real life business does have on ur perception at the end of the day, but still i tink some consideration shld be given to the whole information- gathering- via- work- of- fiction thing. 

thus the question is, is it better, in such cases, to appreciate an idealistic representation, or a "realistic" representation, knowing that both are equally far from reality? 

heh at the end of the day, i tink the answer probably is: get out more, so ur ideas r based off experience in reality, rather than works of fiction, inasmuch as fiction is supposed to be escapism in some sense, anyway.

hi

merriam- webster:

Hi. a. tus

Function: noun

1 a: a break in or as if in a material object : gap b: a gap or passage in an anatomical part or organ

2 a: an interruption in time or continuity : break; especially : a period when something (as a program or activity) is suspended or interrupted b: the occurrence of two vowel sounds without pause or intervening consonantal sound

ok personally i didnt noe the last definition. yea tts pretty cool. new things to learn everyday... speaking of vowel sounds and consonantal sounds... today was the last of the first CTs we all had to take. and it was lit... and there was poetry analysis. and i wld hv liked more time... haha i chose a question tt asked for examples of "lyricism" and "sensuousness" (among other things) in Wilfred Owen's poetry. ah well.

so anyway, after one and a half months, im back to "blogging". cos in all senses of the meme, this aint much of a blog. anw its not like i didnt think about ANYTHING at all during the june hols, its jus tt i didnt want to think too hard. but still i  wasted pretty much of my time away in front of this screen. and didnt relli study... so i can safely say tt im not rdy for the new term ><

tt aside i suppose now i'll try to think abt the rationale behind going to sch. its prob gonna be the most practical and relevant issue i have and will be addressing... tho its also pretty late and its not tt interesting a topic so i prob wont be doing it justice.

y go to sch? well, before the plague of public (read: compulsory) education forever doomed young lives as we know it today, only rich kids used to hv any kind of education. and they were home schooled. did they necessarily turn out any better than those who did not? no, not relli, we're all aware of the geniuses tt failed sch and later went on to invent the lightbulb. or calculus. or the theory of relativity. or wdv. and i tink the point is tt u go to sch for an education. of course, this education is structured and catered to a large target group. how do u make sure it suits everyone's needs? well frankly, u can try to "stream" ppl, but u'll be called elitist. u can teach according to the "weakest" student, but then the more capable ones will not be challenged. the other way round, and the less capable ones fall behind. it seems that no matter which way u choose, "schooling" as we know it today, is doing huge injustices to just about every young life in developed countries. this is not so much to say tt ppl without schooling r better off, just tt even ppl gg to sch rnt relli making the (arguably) best use of their time. 

oft asked is also the question of whether wat taught in sch is relevant to life. after all, ppl consume education in the hopes tt it will get them better jobs in the market economy as we know it today. knowledge has been and is, and probably will always be the currency of this digital and information- technology dominated age. so by extension, the more u hv of it, the better off u r. well, yes, but schooling is more of a "jack of all trades, master of none" kind of business. the justification for learning so many different disciplines is tt someone has to expose u to all of them b4 u can make a rational decision as to which area of study u wish to specialize in. and of course if everyone just started taking and dropping courses, then the whole system wld fall to pieces. so sadly (i tink) it goes back and compounds the fact that sch wastes time. 

aside from this somewhat asinine argument, theres the rather more practical conclusion that, if sch relli is such a waste, y pay so much for it? education goes up, and it is highly likely that there is an increasing marginal cost for "useful" knowledge u acquire in sch. and financial burden aside, theres also emotional trauma and all in a highly competitive environment. heh.

so wat is gd abt sch. well the bright side of the coin is tt u prob learn more than if u sat arnd at home idling. and well, it prob costs less than u hire u a private tutor. and i guess theres the whole "microcosm of society" argument - that going to sch is gd for ur social development and all. tho obviously, this is only true to some extent as different schs hv different cultures, and in the world, ur not gonna meet everyone frm the same sch as u. er. 

frankly i envy the ppl who r "2 cool for skool" abit. at least the ones who hv sum purpose and direction. in all fairness i tink everyone'd get more things done out of sch. but of course, everything is not equal, as i've clearly demonstrated to myself tt, out of sch, u jus dun wanna study much. or at least study examinable subjects... >< 

ok this has been a rather uninspired and insipid post, and i relli do blame it on not thinking critically at all for some time, and the fact tt i pretty much drained wdv brain juice i had left on the tests (which i didnt study for) recently.. so yea. mebbe next time will find me more intelligent. anw, i do believe tt thinking is gd, and more thinking is better, and u cant relli think too much. so yea (Y)

music (and art)

heres an interesting idea that i uncovered a little later on in Art Theory by Robert Williams.

quote Wassily Kandinsky: the various arts are in the process of drawing together, and are finding music, the most non- material of the arts, to be their best teacher.

this is interesting enough on its own. and deserves plenty of contemplation. but... i'll jus go for the breadth and relinquish the depth. ho hum. so now... relation to art! the visual one.. ahaha.

furthermore: music leads us into a realm where musical experience is a matter not of the ear but of the soul alone.

painting is related to music most evidently in the workings of color. like musical sound (oh ok, so theres unmusical sound. i guess there must be unpainterly pictures. cool.), color directly influences the soul. color is the keyboard, the eyes are the hammers, the soul is the piano with many strings. the artist is the hand which plays, touching one key or another, to cause vibrations in the soul. 

quite a few years before, J. A. M. (i tink its funny his initials spell JAM when he's been accused of "flinging a pot of pain the public's face" with his um.. aesthetic painting? tink in context of Wilde- art for art's sake.

well in context, "Nature contains the elements, in color and form, of all pictures, as the keyboard contains the notes of all music. But the artist is born to pick and choose... as the musician gathers his notes and forms his chords until he brings forth from chaos some glorious harmony. to say to the painter that Nature is to be taken as she is, is to say to the palyer that he may sit on the piano." of course in this case, he's trying to say that Nature is useless, too. maybe like Baudelaire. wow.

well the bk itself is pretty heavy. so if i even understand half of it, and retain half of tt, i tink im pretty well off. and of course organizing thoughts is useful... on a sidenote, i cant say im gd at either music nor painting. sad.

discipline

haha i feel like a hypocrite writing abt discipline. wonder y.

anw there discipline has several meanings. it can be a noun. first like.. the discipline of art. or an adjective, he is very disciplined. or a verb, like, u need to be disciplined!

well frankly, discipline is something difficult. if not everyone wld be disciplined in their discipline and not need disciplining (er.) likewise, the benefits of being disciplined is tt it makes u better than others. and i guess u get the benefits too. like u hv a more efficient allocation of resources by being disciplined; u do things with more economy and save things like time. 

of course we all read abt this or that person who has, after a lifetime of dedication, perfected an art or something. well i suppose when alot of ppl do it it becomes a discipline. so u can recreate the path and achieve the desired result by disciplining yourself accordingly. but something like individual discipline in a pioneering discipline is relli quite cool. or rather, the results r quite cool. er.

so wats the point talking abt all this? hm. mebbe its a crystallization of my desire to be more disciplined..

yea right.

this side of heaven

ok after a relatively long interval between posts (the longest since this excuse for a blog started), ive once again decided to write abt things i only half know abt with an especially presumptous title.

i'll try to explore ideals here. so before i begin, i guess its best to invoke a much more learned person to give his views. this wld be Plato. Plato believed that the true knowledge of anything is a knowledge of its ideal form. By that he means the objective existence of something in a realm apart from this world. furthermore, our mental representations of things may bear some resemblance to the ideal, but this is completely inconsequential and insignificant; ideals are elevated far above real- life objects. even abstracts.

ok go figure. so this means that the computer u r on now... is not the "ideal" computer. it subscribes to the ideal of the Computer. it is only a partial and imperfect representation of the ideal. the fact that we recognize different computers as computers is because they participate somehow in a single idea or form of computer. hm. ok, it sounds absurd for physical objects but it kinda makes sense when talking abt concepts.

Plato illustrates this by referring to things like "justice", "goodness" and "beauty". these things cant be said to be wholly present in this world; they are incomplete and lacking in some ways or other. but the fact that we find them meaningful and important implies that somewhere, their perfect forms exist. when we say something is good for example, we acknowledge that we have come into contact with a higher, invisible reality, that we have somehow transcended this world of sense experience to something purer and more perfect. our ability to recognize these abstract qualities comes from our existence before birth, when our immortal souls lived in the heavenly realm of ideals and knew them directly, in their pure form. when we see them in our earthly life, our memory is jogged, and we remember, or rather "unforget" our previous, more perfect life.

sounds like spiritual mumbo- jumbo, but try to leave aside the modern creation of religion and jus take this as a world view.

so, in order to transcend reality, and elevate oneself in this life, one should see "through" or rather, past things, events, wdv of this world, to the Ideal.

well and good, but this is despite the knowledge that, try as we might, there is no way to achieve the ideal in this world, in this lifetime. thus, should ideals be pursued? is there really any point in pursuing an unachievable goal, an unattainable dream? is temporarily perceiving the essence of anything worth the delusion upon returning to reality? knowing that we stand on this side of heaven, should we really try to partake of a part of it, or would that be arrogance? in some ways, a little is better than nothing, but i cant help but feel that that little leaves a void when it is gone that makes it even more insignificant. so, putting this into context: should abstract things we know have an absolute truth be pursued in this lifetime? and should we indulge in their opposites so as to make comtemplation of them in a future (and interestingly, also past) lifetime even more palpable due to contrast? i tink it wld be quite a gd course of action, assuming tt u can go back to that heaven when ur done here, removing all connotations of heaven as a place that u can only go to if ur a good boy (or girl (or anything besides)). and how is this different from delayed gratification really? haha...

well i dun tink its gonna change the fact that there r gonna be idealistic ppl pursuing ideals here and now and in the future, cos we dun noe wat the afterlife is like. or if there even is an afterlife at all. but i just think tt its relli quite sad that ideals are ideals for the sole reason that they'll nvr be achieved and that ppl r gonna be disappointed in chasing them down.

innocence and experience

i tink one of my teachers once told me that innocence is lost with experience. i guess that makes sense. i mean innocence is freedom from guilt (or sin, wdv u take tt to mean), or simply ignorance (in the neutral sense). and well the only way u get rid of either is through sense experience.

building on that thought, ive kinda wondered if its only um. logical. and efficient, if u can somehow organize ur experiences such that u lose ur 
innocence little by little. ok for example, if u read a kiddy bk now tt u didnt 
read when u were young, u'd probably find it relli stupid, cos obviously ur experiencing it against the uh.. template? that is ur life so far. and obviously u've grown alot since u were a kid. however, this cld be some great kiddy bk, but u'll nvr fully experience it for all its greatness, because u've lost that kiddy innocence. ok in context, lets say u R still a kid, and u hv the option of reading 2 equally gd bks tailored for u, however, they hv a content tt reveals new things abt life. ok u can only choose to read one, knowing tt when u read either one first, the second isnt gonna make tt big an
impact on u cos the first one has revealed the same thing tt was new to u then, but not anymore?

expanding on the idea tt u'r shortchanging urself if u deny urself like... experiences suited for ur age right now (like b4 u "outgrow" em later), is the converse. what happens if ur not rdy for smth, but u force it (or in most cases hv it inadvertantly fed) on urself? in one sense, this is "maturity", but i tink its also kinda sad when u see someone "grown up beyond his/her years". then again, there are those tt can go through life, as Wilde puts it, "unspotted by the world". once again, the two r mutually exclusive. and here u cant hv both worlds; but the question is, is there relli a balance?

music and language

Kant says music "plays merely with sensations".

ok i'm no expert on music or music theory... so the most i can do is theorycraft.

well i tink intuitively, music does more than just play with sensations. well some ppl claim that music is sensations. like this guy called 
Schopenhauer: "Music does not express this or that particular and definite pleasure, this or that afflictionk pain, sorrow, horror, gaiety, merriment, or peace of mind, but joy, pain, sorrow, horror, gaiety, merriment, peace of mind themselves, to a certain extent in their abstract nature." and i guess music with all its movements etc etc does present some kind of argument. like thesis, antithesis, synthesis... yea and the fact that it has the power to 
change moods arguably more so than any other art form should be worth noting (of course, i hv no evidence, but it sounds right ya). and i guess that to some extent, music is a language in itself. ive always wondered
how everyone seems to hv some kind of music scale built into them. like u
can tell music from noise. ok i dun tink this extends to tone deaf ppl, but by
virtue of the fact tt tone deaf ppl exist, it implies that the majority is NOT tone deaf.

of course, music also soothes the savage beast..

yea, anw we cant say that the genius of like mozart, beethoven, chopin, and others both playing the piano and not are simply "playing with sensations". but heres an interesting question. i tink its kinda been implied thus far
that music referred to instrumental music, and not like mainstream music as we know it today. music nowadays has lyrics. is it still music? 
or is it poetry? i tink the line blurs sumwhere. obviously we'd have to call
it music or those emo kids wld emo more.. but i guess its actually closer to lyric poetry. which was poetry set to music, and not like the other way round. the problem with this is that it raises alot more questions. what is 
a capella? is it music or poetry or neither? 

uh well, i tink i'd like to show another side of it and kinda cop out of this whole issue. how bout music (in the modern, conventional sense) in a foreign language? well its not jus like, vocal music with oohs and aahs, because the latter doesnt mean anything. arguably, music with lyrics in a foreign language doesnt mean anything to you either. however, the very fact that it has a syntax that it must obey, and semantic laws and what not, means that there has been a system imposed on it, so even if u dun understand what it means, u arguably understand what its trying to get at. well aside from being able to discern the meaning of the lyrics from the tone of the piece, i'd like to believe that even individual words carry meaning. what are words? arbitrary signs that signify something real, even something abstract. how are how these words felt determined by what they are signifying? well, leaving aside pictorial languages (i noe theres a proper term ok, i jus cant rmb wat) like chinese and ancient egyptian, languages like english, french, german, malay, whatnot, make use of an alphabet, with arugably each letter requiring a specific pronunciation. ok so well and good. well we also kinda see that the sounds of words are in a way affected
by what they are signifying. like "kill" is alot more forceful than "heal".. 
etc etc. the point is that the phonological texture of words carry meaning in 
themselves. how does this tie in to music? well, it means that even if you 
dont understand it, u can definitely appreciate it. perhaps its also better when
you dont understand it, because u arguably get to the soul of it, rather than 
being distracted by the words. arguably this doesnt work if like, emo lyrics r put into classical music, but thats just weird.its making modern music into 
classical (if i maybe so bold to call it so) music. hm. well obviously this needs 
much more thought,but i tink the idea of music, the importance of music, how
language is involved in music, and the exact relation of the two should be 
considered.... uh. when u hv insomnia or smth. cheers ^^ 

42

i really wonder whether everything is binary. like how the world could be described in ones and zeros - kinda like the matrix. or like on and off switchs in sum funny atomic theory. once again this is the yes and no, positive and negative, dark and light, and whatnot. dichotomy. and i wonder if life can be similarly classified.

well i guess the fundamental question is why am i (it cld well be what am i, but lets ignore that for another time). so... i guess we either have for self or for other(s). and for self we have utility vs... uselessness. uhh lets go for utility which seems easier. so its satisfaction/worth/value by... sensation vs reason i guess. its rather interesting here. i mean shld u live for feelings or thoughts. and i guess they kinda meld, like how thinking cld be like feeling logic and feeling cld be rationalizing stimuli or wdv. hm obviously rational thought seems to have more use since u can actually communicate it with others... uh.. well empirically that is. but since we've already chosen 'self' in the dichotomy of existence, i guess going for sensation which seems to be quite an individualistic experience cld be justified.

so ok, now we have sensation which cld roughly be categorized into 
pleasure and pain. like hedonism and sadism/masochism (or both, i dunn0, they're pretty close). though arguably, the latter
is kinda strange in that for some people, pain actually causes pleasure. pretty cool stuff relli.. tt of course answers y anyone wld want to hurt themselves in the first place, but i dunno, go ask an emokid or smth.  in any case it seems that life seems to be for pleasure... and then the next question is how to attain it. bearing in mind that due to acclimatization, desensitization and whatnot, the body tires of sensations pretty quick, it does seem that life is a pursuit of new sensations..

at this point i acknowledge that theres prob alot of problems in my reasoning... and like its not logical, and theres no syllogism and wdv. sometimes i wonder whether im obfuscating these relli very simple subjects and making it into an unnecessarily recondite matter. but hey, i guess it helps whoever's reading this' vocabulary..

yea im quite aware tt thinking, or rather contemplation of matters of universal significance is largely regarded as elevated above the primal pursuits of base sensations.. but its kinda elitist if u tink abt it; its more 
utilitarian to have feelings be ur yardstick for a meaningful existence cos everyone can do it (well, obviously not everyone, but i figure more than for ppl who hv to think abt "important philosophical subjects". like u hv five senses but only one mind... haha.) ok im starting to digress and make no sense here. and its kinda an irony that even though i like advocate a sensory existence, i actually bother to type this all out. heh, mebbe theres more utility from pressing the keys than there is from trying to reason this logically.. go figure.

beauty

oscar wilde: beauty is a form of genius- is higher, indeed, than genius, as it needs no explanation.

Plato: Absolute beauty stands with the absolutely true and the absolutely good as a supreme value, and partakes of their nature. This beauty is first of all eternal; it neither comes into being nor passes away, neither waxes nor wanes; next, it is not beautiful in part and ugly in part, nor beautiful at one time and ugly at another, nor beautiful in this relation and ugly in that, nor beautiful here and ugly there, as varying according to its beholders; nor again will this beauty appear to him like the beauty of a face or hands or anything corporeal, or like the beauty of a thought or a science,
or like the beauty which has its seat in something other than itself, 
be it a living thing or the earth or the sky or anything else whatever; he will see it as absolute, existing alone with itself, unique, eternal, and all other beautiful things as partaking of it, yet in such a manner that, while they come into being and pass away, it neither undergoes any increase or diminuition nor suffers any change.

also:

Beauty is understood as that which inspires love: love is the desire to possess the beautiful, though the beautiful is then identified with the good. While desire is a longing for what we do not have, it is also an expression of that which is self- sufficient and eternal - as well as beautiful - in ourselves: at the lowest level, it is hte desire to procreate, to reproduce oneself, thus to give oneself a kind of eternal life. Creating progeny is as close as animals and simple people come to realizing the eternal in themselves, but, for the finer spirit, the kindling of love is the first step in a long spiritual journey, a journey which, if properly pursued, leads toweard the understanding of absolute beauty, goodness, and truth. Love, the desire for the beautiful, is thus the sustaining and guiding impulse of philosophy. The process begins when the lover starts to see the beauty of his beloved in everything around him. He recognizes from this experience that "the beauty of one form is akin to the beauty of another" and will relize that "the beauty in every form is one and the same." As a result, his desire for any particular instance, or individual, is tempered. Next he will come to appreciate how the beauty of the mind is more beautiful than that of the body. This recognition leads, in turn, to an understanding of the beauty of moral principles and laws, and beyond these, of the beauty of abstract though, especially philosophy. The appreciation of these exalted things results in a further independence from the need for lower ones. For those who persevere in this journey, the true philosophers, the final step 
is the revelation of true beauty.

Plotinus: We recognize beauty chiefly in the emotion it calls up in us, which is a profound perturbation, a "delicious trouble". that "remoter principle" which bestows beauty on material things is "something percieved at first glance, something the soul names as if from an ancient knowledge and, recognizing, welcomes it, and enters union with it. From an understanding of the diversity of human character, the lover comes to achieve a perception of the unity of human nature: the "world soul". The sure grasp of this unity, in turn, leads to the awareness of the power of higher intuition, "mind". Practice in intuition then leads to the recognition of mind as a single principle, "world-mind": this is the highest point that 
human thought can reach, but it is still one step beneath the ultimate reality, the One. As our thoughts ascend, they retrace the path of our own origin. The One is the source of all being; it is not static but superabundant: its nature is to spill over, to emanate. From its own perfect unity it spills over into diversity, into a less perfect form of existence in which knowing is distinct from being, knower from thing known: this is the realm of mind. From mind, being spills over into soul, a still less perfect realm, in which diversity is governed, that is, structured, by the principles of time and sapce. At the bottom of this hierarchial scheme is matter. In its pure emanations, uninformed by any unifying principle or form. The individual human being is composed of matter and soul. The soul, having descended from teh One, feels itself to be in exile. In experiencing beauty, it recognizes another part of that unity from which it came and is stimulated by a desire to return to it again - at first through union with the beautiful particular; finally, by virtue of proper intellectual training, in the single principle of mind. the ultimate step, direct union with the One, is beyond the power of the mind to achieve, for mind still requires a distinction between knower and know. In the final leap, so to speak, this distinction would have to dissolve: it can occur only in ectstasy, an inspired, super- rational state, by a direct emanation from above, when absolute being accepts us - if only for a moment - into itself.

Heh. am i the only one thinking that this "absolute beauty" is jus another name for "god"? well, certainly it pertains to any perceptions and conceptions of a supernatural being.

in any case, i kinda like all the rational thought floating around of what beauty is. though i doubt i'll be able to attain any said (note: concept of) nirvana (?).

truly, this is a beautiful world; but beauty transcends the senses: sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing - even superseding mediums which are cornucopias, phantasmagorias, smorgasbords of the senses. but is this necessarily intellectual thought? is comprehension of the beautiful, the perfect, and therefore the perfectly beautiful an intellectual, cerebral affair? in the first place, i dun think that there's any way possible in 
which to comprehend such ideals with the terriblyincompetent processor we call the brain. and hasnt anyone heard of epiphanies?

worse still, is when one has understood something to be beautiful (though comprehending to what extent it is is probably likewise limited), and then seeks to destroy it, like dear Iago says of Cassio in Othello: If Cassio do remain he hath a daily beauty in his life that makes me look ugly.

i guess thats pretty duh; the questions then are: is everything beautiful? are some things more beautiful than others? and can and should one find beauty?

ugh

hm im sick (again). perhaps i'll jus take this chance to reflect on how relevant it is to postulate that ur physical state relli does hv anyth to do wif ur mental/spiritual/ non- physical... self. uh. it seems intuitive that it would.. somehow. and vice- versa actually. but yea i didnt do any experiments. hm. so i'll jus somehow draw a link to the theory of four humours and... mebbe bloodletting!. which in this day and age would = emo-ness. mm well actually there was gonna be more to this... basically all these
measures are taken to (once again) revert back to an optimal equilibrium, a harmony of elements, which is in itself short of um.. perfection? well its got to do with aristotle's state of being and becoming... or perhaps even Plotinus who seems to be kinda more relaxed
in the whole aspiring for "perfection" - "One-ness".. thing. so in a nutshell there is an ideal, we shld all aim for this ideal, and if we fail in ultimately recreating/acheiving symmetry, balance, harmony, whatnot we... fall sick?!
heh it wasnt/doesnt relli make sense, but then again.. i uh, claim physical illness for the lack of coherence, make what sense of it as you will. =)

?

well they say that the question is more important than the answer. and this is quite a relevant question; tho i tink its a cop out that i dun answer it..

ok so theres verse and theres prose right. and all prose seems to be prose. but is all verse poetry?

to what extent

hm ive been wondering to what extent is man a pneumatic or hydraulic creature (creation?). well the latter is pretty self explanatory. blood, lymph, uh.. brain juice? but (and i dun tink im wrong) pneuma is like greek for spirit, and like the second verse of the bible has it. hm.. what an interesting idea.. esp if u extend the metaphor to being 'powered' like hydraulically or pneumatically. i wonder if this is sufficient wit for a sonnet..

more metre

St Augustine: So it is that a metrical line is beautiful in its own kind although two syllables of that line cannot be pronounced simultaneously. The second is pronounced only after the first has passed, and such is the order of procedure to the end of the line, so that when the last syllable sounds, alone, unaccompanied by the sound of the previous syllables, it yet, as being part of the whole metrical fabric, perfects the form and metrical beauty of the whole.

basement

WoW has a Naaru in the basement. Evangelion has an Angel in the basement. I'm starting to see a trend here... I wonder where else and what else is down there...

the closer...

the closer i get to the light...

Love, we are in God's hand.

How strange now, looks the life he makes us lead;

How free we seem, how fettered fast we are!

There is a time for

everything, and a season for every

activity under heaven: a
time to be born and a time to

die, a time to plant and

a time to uproot, a time to kill

and a time to heal, a time to tear

down and

a time to build,

a time to weep and a time to laugh,

a time to mourn and a time to

dance, a time to scatter stones and a time to gather

them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain, a time to search

and a time to give up,

a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to tear

and a time to mend, a time to be silent

and a time to speak, a time to love

and a time to hate,
a time for war

and a time for peace. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?

Meaningless! Meaningless! Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless!

all the things that are done under the sun; all

of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Reach many a time a heaven that's shut to me... My works

are nearer heaven, but i sit here.

Einsamkeit - Schön und traurig zugleich
We all have a dark side.. But i can feel mine creeping over the corners.

Was it for this the clay grew tall?

Dies Irae
... the longer my shadow becomes.

mercy

hm i wanted to write abt smth else, but this newspaper article caught my eye. its 'The Politics of Regret: Saying 'sorry' is just the first part' in the Straits Times by Andy Ho 3 april.

it leads off wif politics in malaysia, abt one mr zaid making apologies for the government's sacking of top judges in 1988 (wonder y..), then goes into a list of examples of leaders who have apologized on behalf of their country for their country's past transgressions. and it puts forth an interesting idea that some leaders do not apologize because they feel themselves elevated on a moral high- ground above their predecessors; apologizing implies that they, too in some way, either share responsibility for, or could have been guilty of the same actions had they been in such a situation. hm.. well this brings up the question whether the acknowledgement of a country's leader of their collective past wrongs is going to change anything. seems to be a rather ineffective anodyne relli. and whether it is representative of the populace's sentiment. and of course, whether theres any reason to dig up the past?y cant they just bury the hatchet and walk away. i suppose im being insensitive if i say that apologies r hollow and dun do anyone any good other than care-bearing; which makes the whole business seem like a country- scale emo session. because ultimately, when the old generation passes on, is it fair to put the burden on the next to recompensate. seems to be a bad excuse for demanding favours actually. hey, we're only human right, and to be human is to err. this is jus a larger scale affair.

anyway i digress, what was interesting is this: the apologiser must also throw himself at the mercy of the victim, who becomes morally obligated to respond mercifully, forswear revenge and thus break the cycle of tit- for -tat."

oh ya before that theres an interesting international policy note: "in his 2000 book, the guilt of nations, elazar barkan argued that the politics of regret was born in the collapse of communism. there had been very little
space, he argued, during the Cold War to address issues such as colonialism, apartheid, human rights and so on. With the end of the Cold War, the obsession with realpolitik was supplanted by questions of morality in politics. in particular, justice and human rights came to be seen as universal, the addressing of which became the raison d'etre of global diplomacy. / and with the demise of millenarian visions, the future was no longer the focus, so perhaps the past could be looked at proplerly. perhaps righting past wrongs might help us to live better in the present."

so anw, and oh ya, i cant rmb who was it tt said tt there were disputing views over human nature - but the whole social contract thing, and man's state in nature and in war should come into play here; the question is whether kissing and making up is really good. we should also find some way to draw the line, or perhaps invent a spectrum for violations of others' rights: is subjecting yourself to the mercy of the victim something you should really be doing? well mebbe in a utopian society, but i tink theres a high incentive for the victim to do smth worse and wrong u 2. well i tink this is descending into one big conumdrum in, i dunno, a moral quandary? uhh.. i tink i'll jus quote 
shakespeare ^^

portia:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.

on a side note, i wonder why theres elision of "strained" in the first line... is it really necessary? ppl dun relli wrench the um, pronunciation, and if they do they put an accent. uhh.. wonders.

as an aside, mebbe all these newspaper reviews has smth to do wif all the similar hw i did in primary sch.. habits huh.

lol..

heh im feeling lame so...

peace
proposition, conclusion
thesis, anti- thesis, synthesis
genesis, nemesis, (anagnoresis), crisis, metamorphosis, apotheosis... uh.. stasis?

wtf lol

all's right with the world

The year’s at the spring,
And day’s at the morn;
Morning’s at seven;
The hill-side’s dew-pearled;
The lark’s on the wing;
The snail’s on the thorn;
God’s in His heaven—
All’s right with the world!

- Robert Browning

hm wif global warming this might soon change..

balance

they say that everything in life should be done in moderation. ive also heard that everything tries to find its own equilibrium; that is, in nature, things seem to regress towards to the mean. yin and yang, light and dark, this and that - there are just so many opposing pairs out there which manifest themselves in the average, the in between, the neutral. well the point is that in many things, we are also encouraged to practice such balance in our lives. the question is, is the middle truly harmony? how much should we be tending to this model?

well for things like health, moderation is supposedly good. take a bit of everything and you cant really go wrong. i suppose the same can be said of almost every endeavour. they say too much of a good thing is... well a bad thing. but ultimately, is such restraint actually constraint? perhaps instead of trying to find the centre, the focal point, we should be indulging in both extremes? doesnt this also create a neutrality due to the mutual negation of polar opposites?

heh, personally i think its an interesting idea - to dab excessively in both light and dark - to get the best of both worlds perhaps?and a more thorough understanding of either? of course i guess this could be harmful in more ways than one. firstly from a moral standpoint, one should focus on doing jus the good, and ignoring the bad altogether. perhaps psychologists or whatnot wld say that such behaviour leads to the polarization of self as well - a split personality perhaps.

i guess at the end of the day, the question is moot, but life wld be so boring then, wldnt it. heh. after all, what is life but a search for new sensations?and how much of this can be achieved by 
constricting oneself? i say, why go for the mean, when you can go for the extremes and still reach the same product.

understanding

'It is usually only when we are faced with a foreign language or verse form that we have to rely on the mechanical use of explicit formulations; and we then find ourselves envying those who have never expereienced the need to learn them as rules. Renaissance scholars who were able to scan Latin verse only by dint of long labour marvelled at Cicero's description of the uneducated Roman populace jeering at an actor who committed a metrical blunder.' Derek Attridge, The Rhythms of English Poetry.

QQ. i do it for english too

i read the newspapers!

ok in the review section 2 days ago on the 25th, theres this 2007 Oxbridge Letter- Writing Competition winning letter by a Teng Ya Wen from HCI. but its a she. so im guessing its hcjc. but oh wait.. they're hcinstitution now.. anw. i quote:
"singapore cannot afford to have students who feel they have been rejected by the education system to become disillusioned with the country. people seek affirmation in their citizenship. if one were to hazard a guess, the "stayers" of the next generation would be those who have been convinced enough by the country's commitment towards developing her 
most valuable asset - her people - to reciprocate in kind." ok i know im quoting out 
of context here, but jus this short passage itself is... illuminating. 

writing

Anais Nin: we write to taste life twice, in the moment and in retrospection.

arguably >3 times. well this is jus picky cos i guess the 2 r encompassed under retrospection. so anw its in the moment, in retrospection (during writing) and in retrospection (reading ur writing). so that makes it in retrospection and hindsight? lol.

blogging

hm. i always find tt a good way to start smth is to lay down an agenda. well tt and to question the whole purpose of doing said act. so obviously, this begs the question of why i am blogging. well heres some background first. i first made a blog in sec1. it died. i made another one in sec4. and here it is. revived after a 9 mth coma o.0. heh ok.

so... blogging.. well sum1 once told me that blogging is a stupid thing, cos u'r putting ur life up on the web for ppl to um. read abt. as wilde puts it "something sensational", tho he was referring to a diary, and not this frankenstein of the 21st century that we know as a weBLOG. well i tink if u take it tt way, blogging is jus blurring the line between the individual and the community, where the walls between private and public life are somewhat broken down. well ok ima bit tired so im not gonna write too much. well anw, there is a need for disclosure in this type of enterprise. and this goes hand in hand wif the fact that there is alr a target audience. i mean, u make a blog and keep it updated cos u noe/want a readership. its kinda vain relli. mebbe blogging is actually sum act of self deception as to ur whole self worth. gasp. and i guess another reason for blogging is simply tt u need a medium to air ur views. and u feel somewhat justified in sharing em wif the whole wide world that is the world wide web. wow.

well on my part, i guess there r many reasons for me wanting to blog again. firstly is tt i've always wanted to write stuff, like essays, jus for fun. and typing is a whole lot easier than writing. and i figure putting it on a blog is useful as i'll prob get some criticism. secondly, putting ur thots online is useful to some extent, i guess, so all the kaypoh individuals who google ur name can find what they're looking for: information on/of/abt u. me. but it'd be hubris if i said tt i knew i was gonna hv a viewership anw, so i might as well write. lol. and lastly i guess, there is smth cathartic in the whole experience abt writing yet another chapter in ur
ife story online for ppl to read (note wilde). and its also a gd way to organize/ synthesize ur thots.

well ok so tt done, heres the agenda. ima use this blog to write as alr mentioned, essays. i figure ima use it as some funny pages 2 at times (yea bet u didnt think tt was possible). and lastly i guess i'll share the especially interesting bits of my life. but obviously not evrything, cos tts wat a diary's for and this is a blog. i guess i might as well tell myself and the whole world now tt it dun matter if theres an audience anot cos i suppose the raison d'etre of this whole enterprise is constituted arnd the axiom that im wholely and solely interested in intellectual pursuit and not a frivolous cross examination of my life. tt said, beware the emo post(s). and ho hum. heres looking forward to, if anyth, an online legacy. lol. and oh how cheesy this feels.

resurrection

hey look! its Good Friday! wat a great time to bring my blog back frm the dead. well at least temporarily. i dunno y im bothering tho, but i guess i might jus hv stuff to put up. cos i generally prefer typing to writing. heh. so anw. gg softball 1 night camp tmr. iz relli stupid, but wth. ^^ bb.