Forecasting
When someone tells me that James is wealthier than I by 2050, I should probably ask him to tell me what would happen to me in 2 days. If he cannot even tell what I shall be like in the coming 48 hours, it seems reasonable to doubt his forecast of what I shall be like in or before 2050, 42 years from now. However, if this person (or entity) who tells me what happens by 2050 is Goldman Sachs, an investment bank, I think I cannot simply ignore it. Goldman Sachs, needless to say, qualifies its work with verbiage such as "if things go right" (p.3, paragraph 4 in its Global Economics Paper No: 99), and it also declares "Our projections are optimistic," and "economically sensible, internally consistent" (p. 3, paragraph 5), which I think is a responsible act. The forecast by itself is sensible and all significant factors are taken into consideration. I think it is a very useful paper for us to visualise what will happen if the global economy trods the path and does not derail in the coming decades. I take the liberty add that it will become even more useful if certain alternative scenarios are added, built upon by using not only change in the scale in the parameters, but also the frame of reference on which certain economic developments are constructed. These scenarios are meant to develop the options to tackle certain issues that are of concern to a party. The scenarios Certain factors that pop out in my mind right now are: a full-blown war triggered by ideology or energy shortage; regional0 natural disasters or change in the mindset of G7 citizens against the rise of the emerging economies. These are by no means exhaustive and probably hundreds or more of these variables can come up on the whiteboard and the picture of the future will become entirely different if a line is drawn from a present situation which is twisted and reformulated by these other factors.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Well, well, well, the Better Things in Life of course exclude such disgraceful manner as shown in populism, which is demonstrated in the behaviour of the uncivilised people, who believed that they had been the victim of a conspiracy that was aimed to hinder their regaining their once but long gone brilliance, well, well, well, perchance civilisation, to a certain degree. But I am always a doubter of civilisation past. Christopher Hitchen, well known as an atheist with an eloquent tongue, correctly writes (idea) that at the time of those "brilliant philosophers" such as Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Cardinal Newmann, et al, not a single person of wisdom knew of the germ theory, let alone dream of such small organisms as bacteria and viruses. So how intelligent their works on our world, on how the universe began, on how plants and animals evolved, and on how people will be in terms of shedding light that can lead us to fully appreciate these questions for sure? However, civilisation of the past does have attributes that are functional as much as beneficial to us modern people as the works of those ancient philosphers. European civilisation, the cradle of Christianity, served to be a repository of brilliant art and literatures. Without Christianity, European civilsiation would have been entirely different, if it ever exists, to put it more radically. In the Orient, the situation is more or less than the same. But instead of the Rennaissance, there was backward looking in most of the socities, and as a consequence, the Western civisilation becomes Civilisation.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Ravishment of Art
When the Brainless begin to fall in love with allegory or metaphor, regardless of what they want to call it, the world becomes immersed with cliches. A cliche by itself is of no harm. It only demonstrates to those of us who have a brain that even truism can one day be degraded to the extent that it becomes nonsense. One of the terms that the Brainless love to use is "rape" or in verb form "to rape". I am not sure of why, but they just love to use it in a very broad sense. They like to say, "you are raping the [result of the] poll." Or they say, "you are raping the will of the people." Even worse, perhaps, they say, "you are raping your own dignity." But what they do not know is that they are raping the word 'rape'. They would feel surprised that the term 'rape' can now be raped. The use of the term "rape" or the verb "to rape", like some chanting of life, provides the Brainless with some sense of meaningfulness in their unworthy life.
Just read an article from a local newspaper that says Mona Lisa, the painting Leonardo created, is being spiritually raped by a bunch of dudes who come from a country called China. How can civilisation like China rape another civilisation that flourished because of the Renaissance? Perhaps there is some misunderstanding of this civilisation or that civilisation. China boasts herself that she has a civilisation of 5,000 years or more if those who domiciled in where now China is and looked more like their kins the chimpanzee than us homo sapiens, are included. But the civilisation of the West is quite different from China's. I would tend to believe that civilisation of China is no longer existent. It perished after Tang Dynasty as civilisation had met its pinnacle then. Afterwards, civilisation headed downward and when Qing Dynasty became corrupted that even a newly developed Japan could beat it, civilisation was no longer civilisation, but the situation only represented a current being of the 5,000-year history. Call it a snap-shot? I would prefer the term snap-shot to Zeitgeist, for the spirit of time is nothing of what we have now is nothing but antiquity. After many years weakness and travesty, a new China re-emerged in the early 1980s. What we saw was, in fact, merely a billion people who were completely outmoded after years of backward alienation. Then another 2 decades have gone, what we now see is 100 million people who can afford to go out of China, buying some good stuffs like Louis Vuitton - for them it is a two-letter word LV, for Louis Vuitton proves as too difficult for them as philosophy is to the monkeys. But they have money -- they have been given plenty of monies by the Japanese, the US and Europe, for the people there are cheap. They have 300 million workers who are willing to make a shirt at 5 pence. The advantage of China is they have people and those people can work. 1/100 th of their population can collapse Louvre! Now they know civilisation, again, and they rush to see civilisation of the West. Lord Clark asks "what is civilisation?" and he answers in the meantime, facing the Notre Dame of Paris, "I don't know .... but I shall know it when seeing it, and I am seeing it now." But what they do is the complete contrary of civilisation - a property of Chinese people. Even in "a bit more developed place" such as Hong Kong, the situation does not much deviate from the old backward China. People there like "to be there". They have things to talk to their relatives or friends and boast, in such a shallow, obnoxious tone, that they have been there - seeing Mona Lisa, the real one, very much like a small kid tells his peers that he has been to a zoo and has watched an elephant as told derisively in this newspaper article. Wow, hail civilisation! In fact, for the civilised, I have to agree, this is a ravishment of art, which civilisation in fact forbids. Where is an old civilisation placed, when the re-emerged one is so in lack of the elements of a civilisation? Should it still be called a civilisation. Lord Clark opines that civilisation declines and falls as it becomes exhausted. I take the liberty to add, after imagining 100 million people look at Mona Lisa in such an obscene manner, that civilisation is suffocated to death.
When the Brainless begin to fall in love with allegory or metaphor, regardless of what they want to call it, the world becomes immersed with cliches. A cliche by itself is of no harm. It only demonstrates to those of us who have a brain that even truism can one day be degraded to the extent that it becomes nonsense. One of the terms that the Brainless love to use is "rape" or in verb form "to rape". I am not sure of why, but they just love to use it in a very broad sense. They like to say, "you are raping the [result of the] poll." Or they say, "you are raping the will of the people." Even worse, perhaps, they say, "you are raping your own dignity." But what they do not know is that they are raping the word 'rape'. They would feel surprised that the term 'rape' can now be raped. The use of the term "rape" or the verb "to rape", like some chanting of life, provides the Brainless with some sense of meaningfulness in their unworthy life.
Just read an article from a local newspaper that says Mona Lisa, the painting Leonardo created, is being spiritually raped by a bunch of dudes who come from a country called China. How can civilisation like China rape another civilisation that flourished because of the Renaissance? Perhaps there is some misunderstanding of this civilisation or that civilisation. China boasts herself that she has a civilisation of 5,000 years or more if those who domiciled in where now China is and looked more like their kins the chimpanzee than us homo sapiens, are included. But the civilisation of the West is quite different from China's. I would tend to believe that civilisation of China is no longer existent. It perished after Tang Dynasty as civilisation had met its pinnacle then. Afterwards, civilisation headed downward and when Qing Dynasty became corrupted that even a newly developed Japan could beat it, civilisation was no longer civilisation, but the situation only represented a current being of the 5,000-year history. Call it a snap-shot? I would prefer the term snap-shot to Zeitgeist, for the spirit of time is nothing of what we have now is nothing but antiquity. After many years weakness and travesty, a new China re-emerged in the early 1980s. What we saw was, in fact, merely a billion people who were completely outmoded after years of backward alienation. Then another 2 decades have gone, what we now see is 100 million people who can afford to go out of China, buying some good stuffs like Louis Vuitton - for them it is a two-letter word LV, for Louis Vuitton proves as too difficult for them as philosophy is to the monkeys. But they have money -- they have been given plenty of monies by the Japanese, the US and Europe, for the people there are cheap. They have 300 million workers who are willing to make a shirt at 5 pence. The advantage of China is they have people and those people can work. 1/100 th of their population can collapse Louvre! Now they know civilisation, again, and they rush to see civilisation of the West. Lord Clark asks "what is civilisation?" and he answers in the meantime, facing the Notre Dame of Paris, "I don't know .... but I shall know it when seeing it, and I am seeing it now." But what they do is the complete contrary of civilisation - a property of Chinese people. Even in "a bit more developed place" such as Hong Kong, the situation does not much deviate from the old backward China. People there like "to be there". They have things to talk to their relatives or friends and boast, in such a shallow, obnoxious tone, that they have been there - seeing Mona Lisa, the real one, very much like a small kid tells his peers that he has been to a zoo and has watched an elephant as told derisively in this newspaper article. Wow, hail civilisation! In fact, for the civilised, I have to agree, this is a ravishment of art, which civilisation in fact forbids. Where is an old civilisation placed, when the re-emerged one is so in lack of the elements of a civilisation? Should it still be called a civilisation. Lord Clark opines that civilisation declines and falls as it becomes exhausted. I take the liberty to add, after imagining 100 million people look at Mona Lisa in such an obscene manner, that civilisation is suffocated to death.
Friday, March 02, 2007
The Divinity of Humanity
This is a grand title. In the sense that it is a statement subject to verification, this title appears to be nonsensical. However, the Principle of Verification has long been scrapped and made way for the Principle of Confirmation, Principle of Credulity, etc. No principle per se suffices to describe what I mean to say here. The Divinity of Humanity belongs to human beings - not human forms of sub-humans or non-humans, defined as so not by biological means or, if you will, principles, but by observation against a set of non-exhaustive behaviour standards that we see out of true human beings.
Let's talk about hypocrisy. You may want to subdivide this into hypocrisy of the clever and hypocrisy of the ignorant. The former is hypocrisy; the latter is not. It is so called because such behaviour bears the apparent forms of hypocrisy, but the underlying elements that lead to such behaviour and the rationale behind the elements and the behaviour itself are not the same. George W. Bush is hypocritical, and no-one would disagree. And as President of the United States, he possesses such hypocrisy which we are safe to say as hypocrisy (I don't need to add such redundancy as true hypocrisy). Some non-descript A, who shows extra care to a pregnant woman, though, possesses such "hypocrisy" which is not hypocrisy. Although A shows the same hypocritical behaviour as George W. Bush has shown to the tortured prisoners of war in Iraq, A has a profound belief that he shows such extra care as he truly believes such extra care does the woman good, while in fact, though not in itself bad, such extra care spoils the woman to the extent that she will exploit such extra care as much as she believes she is inborn to be entitled to such extra care that everyone else should make way for her, if something does not go her way.
Living things do not live in such pathetic manner as these sub-humans, such lowlives. Living itself is precious and elegant; perhaps quoting Hemingway who though refers to our world but should bear the same sense, is worth fighting for. "Fighting for" is the key word. We need to fight for life. For us, it need not mean that we need to kill or hurt others to survive. Instead we live by ourselves as much as we can rather than receiving such extra care only to suggest that we are fragile, but as we are sacred, we are more entitled to live than other living organisms. As we are created by God and know how to worship God, we are much higher than other living organisms. We deserve the extra care in the same manner as the pregnant woman receives from non-descript, totally spoiled A, who now irresponsibly attempts to spoil others as he has been spoiled since childhood.
Let me tell me, Gentlemen, life is not like that. Life is not as pathetic as that, which is why I hereby write the Divinity of Humanity as our Humanity is at the brink of extinction as such irresponsible behaviour as we now know as the hypocrisy of the ignorant are infesting. The Divinity of Humanity is not we can pretend to be good by irresponsibly showing the extra care to someone who can absolutely take care of herself when she was born with the genes being capable of teaching her to survive; not we can speak some language and praise God, wrongfully presuming that we are different from the rest of the living planet and exploiting the world. I have to say, we need to stand on our own feet - we have been given so much advantage to live in this world. But I see how the Emperor Penguins live their life. I see the Great Tortoise strive to crawl to the sea. I see how a frozen frog can resume to life after thwarting. When I see all these, I see the Divinity of Humanity as we stand up before Nature and live.
This is a grand title. In the sense that it is a statement subject to verification, this title appears to be nonsensical. However, the Principle of Verification has long been scrapped and made way for the Principle of Confirmation, Principle of Credulity, etc. No principle per se suffices to describe what I mean to say here. The Divinity of Humanity belongs to human beings - not human forms of sub-humans or non-humans, defined as so not by biological means or, if you will, principles, but by observation against a set of non-exhaustive behaviour standards that we see out of true human beings.
Let's talk about hypocrisy. You may want to subdivide this into hypocrisy of the clever and hypocrisy of the ignorant. The former is hypocrisy; the latter is not. It is so called because such behaviour bears the apparent forms of hypocrisy, but the underlying elements that lead to such behaviour and the rationale behind the elements and the behaviour itself are not the same. George W. Bush is hypocritical, and no-one would disagree. And as President of the United States, he possesses such hypocrisy which we are safe to say as hypocrisy (I don't need to add such redundancy as true hypocrisy). Some non-descript A, who shows extra care to a pregnant woman, though, possesses such "hypocrisy" which is not hypocrisy. Although A shows the same hypocritical behaviour as George W. Bush has shown to the tortured prisoners of war in Iraq, A has a profound belief that he shows such extra care as he truly believes such extra care does the woman good, while in fact, though not in itself bad, such extra care spoils the woman to the extent that she will exploit such extra care as much as she believes she is inborn to be entitled to such extra care that everyone else should make way for her, if something does not go her way.
Living things do not live in such pathetic manner as these sub-humans, such lowlives. Living itself is precious and elegant; perhaps quoting Hemingway who though refers to our world but should bear the same sense, is worth fighting for. "Fighting for" is the key word. We need to fight for life. For us, it need not mean that we need to kill or hurt others to survive. Instead we live by ourselves as much as we can rather than receiving such extra care only to suggest that we are fragile, but as we are sacred, we are more entitled to live than other living organisms. As we are created by God and know how to worship God, we are much higher than other living organisms. We deserve the extra care in the same manner as the pregnant woman receives from non-descript, totally spoiled A, who now irresponsibly attempts to spoil others as he has been spoiled since childhood.
Let me tell me, Gentlemen, life is not like that. Life is not as pathetic as that, which is why I hereby write the Divinity of Humanity as our Humanity is at the brink of extinction as such irresponsible behaviour as we now know as the hypocrisy of the ignorant are infesting. The Divinity of Humanity is not we can pretend to be good by irresponsibly showing the extra care to someone who can absolutely take care of herself when she was born with the genes being capable of teaching her to survive; not we can speak some language and praise God, wrongfully presuming that we are different from the rest of the living planet and exploiting the world. I have to say, we need to stand on our own feet - we have been given so much advantage to live in this world. But I see how the Emperor Penguins live their life. I see the Great Tortoise strive to crawl to the sea. I see how a frozen frog can resume to life after thwarting. When I see all these, I see the Divinity of Humanity as we stand up before Nature and live.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Lacrimosa
It has been quite a long time since I seriously listened to Lacrimosa's music. Just now I finished Hohelied Der Liebe. I was so greatly interrupted by the music that I visualised pictures of a world materialised by such substantive musicality. You may think it a bit hard to understand this statement. Let me use an example. In a vacant opera house, a clown stands on the stage all alone, playing the violin, with the company of a few torches behind him, the smoke of which dances gracefully and only gracefully without the currents of wind. Who is he playing for? Why does he need to play the violin alone without audience? What such music could have visualised such desolate scene, such desolate beauty, such desolate bereavement which still is more worth than the realities expressed in our world?
Our world, if you call it a reality, is so in lack of beauty per se that there is no reason to appreciate it. But with some of us, the true musicians of our world, our world is recreated, by means of music, in such a way that it is no longer what it is, but another world materialised by the vision of the artists. The stories they tell of and in this world mimick our world's incidents but have become the stories beyond our world's appreciation. So what are these stories and the pictures this music creates? I should perhaps call them the Idea of beauty. Appreciate the Idea of beauty and then our world begins to show its worth of being, for it holds us, who create and appreciate the music that turns the non-descript and unworthy world to one that is mysterious but adorable.
It has been quite a long time since I seriously listened to Lacrimosa's music. Just now I finished Hohelied Der Liebe. I was so greatly interrupted by the music that I visualised pictures of a world materialised by such substantive musicality. You may think it a bit hard to understand this statement. Let me use an example. In a vacant opera house, a clown stands on the stage all alone, playing the violin, with the company of a few torches behind him, the smoke of which dances gracefully and only gracefully without the currents of wind. Who is he playing for? Why does he need to play the violin alone without audience? What such music could have visualised such desolate scene, such desolate beauty, such desolate bereavement which still is more worth than the realities expressed in our world?
Our world, if you call it a reality, is so in lack of beauty per se that there is no reason to appreciate it. But with some of us, the true musicians of our world, our world is recreated, by means of music, in such a way that it is no longer what it is, but another world materialised by the vision of the artists. The stories they tell of and in this world mimick our world's incidents but have become the stories beyond our world's appreciation. So what are these stories and the pictures this music creates? I should perhaps call them the Idea of beauty. Appreciate the Idea of beauty and then our world begins to show its worth of being, for it holds us, who create and appreciate the music that turns the non-descript and unworthy world to one that is mysterious but adorable.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Emotion In Motion
By Ric Ocasek of the Cars.
There are a number of things I wish to talk about in the 1980s. Music is one of them. Why the 1980s? Part of it, I believe, is the 1980s was where my childhood was. With more painstaking thought, I have to say, it is more to do with the flourishing music industry and the flourishing musical styles in the 1980s that impressed me so much that even now I can not forget it. If I say it is a grace that technology brings all that happiness back to us, it is not something sentimental, but fundamentally true. Without someone who created Youtube.com, you would not be able to watch a great video such as Ric Ocasek's Emotion in Motion again. I had not ever thought that I could watch it again. I watched it once in the 1980s, but when you had no expectation, you would not have a sense of loss. But now I just watched it on Youtube.com, I felt a sense of grace, which is more thaan the antiquated religious feeling that immersed in ancient people, but a somewhat refreshing moment for a much well-informed, advanced person.
By Ric Ocasek of the Cars.
There are a number of things I wish to talk about in the 1980s. Music is one of them. Why the 1980s? Part of it, I believe, is the 1980s was where my childhood was. With more painstaking thought, I have to say, it is more to do with the flourishing music industry and the flourishing musical styles in the 1980s that impressed me so much that even now I can not forget it. If I say it is a grace that technology brings all that happiness back to us, it is not something sentimental, but fundamentally true. Without someone who created Youtube.com, you would not be able to watch a great video such as Ric Ocasek's Emotion in Motion again. I had not ever thought that I could watch it again. I watched it once in the 1980s, but when you had no expectation, you would not have a sense of loss. But now I just watched it on Youtube.com, I felt a sense of grace, which is more thaan the antiquated religious feeling that immersed in ancient people, but a somewhat refreshing moment for a much well-informed, advanced person.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Maria Theresia
Listening to Hadyn's Symphony No. 48 in C Major "Maria Theresia".
I was wondering who Maria Theresia was, after whom such a beautiful symphony was named. Perhaps this is worth some efforts of digging in the library:
Maria Theresa (1717-1780), the eldest daughter of Charles VI, who promulgated the Pragmatic Sanction to permit her to suceed to the Habsburg monarchy and Elisabether Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbuettel, was Archduchess of Austria and Queen of Hungary and Bohemia and, through her marriage, Holy Roman Empress.
Listening to Hadyn's Symphony No. 48 in C Major "Maria Theresia".
I was wondering who Maria Theresia was, after whom such a beautiful symphony was named. Perhaps this is worth some efforts of digging in the library:
Maria Theresa (1717-1780), the eldest daughter of Charles VI, who promulgated the Pragmatic Sanction to permit her to suceed to the Habsburg monarchy and Elisabether Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbuettel, was Archduchess of Austria and Queen of Hungary and Bohemia and, through her marriage, Holy Roman Empress.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Ignorance and Sentimentality
Why, you may ask, does the Brainless cause harm to us and our society in such a way as I described? It is perhaps a book-length writing in order to keep people (I mean the good people) convinced that I am right. However, it can still be briefly described here. Take an example of a response to a dying baby girl who had lived 9 days, which says, the girl has lived a life of great significance and meaningfulness, and life should not be measured in terms of its length. This message consists of two elements - ignorance and sentimentality. Ignorance is very obvious. First of all, the phrase "life should not be measured in terms of its length" may be correct, it is a matter of value and a judgement of value is not easily absolutely established though it can be established. So I shall presume it correct. But how would "life is short but meaningful" be applicable to this incident in which a diseased girl was brought to our world and let die? The answer is absolute and unquestioned. It is nothing. The diseased girl was not unconscious. How do you know she was not conscious? The answer lies on the answer of this question. What happened to you when you were just born? If she was not even conscious of what was happening to her, then where is such great significance and meaningfuless placed? The answer is again absolute and unquestionable. It is nowhere. As a result, I should say, this person has no idea of what he commented. He just said something other people (including great people) said of a truly moving story, but if this idiot believed what he said was equally applicable to the dead girl incident as any other moving stories of the great people, then obviously he is ignorant. And ignorance is an important element of the Brainless. Now the question comes, why does ignorance harm? We may say, quoting Mill, that as long as one's action does not harm others, the actor should not be restricted from so doing. Yes, I would accept this principle. What if he does, and does to a considerable extent? Sometimes he is harmful indirectly and chronically. Then, I have to say, regardless of Mill and the rationale behind his rationale, he must be controlled and that he is controlled must be known to others, the Brainless or otherwise. If such harm is being done indirectly and chronically, how can we prove it? It sounds tricky. But when a person is ignorant and says ignorant things in such idiotic manner as the "life is short" person, it would not be that difficult to prove the harm this kind of saying would inflict on us (or some of us).
Before we are mature enough to be able to differentiate right from wrong, the intelligent from the stupid, we are prone to ignorant things and have a fair chance accepting ignorant things as intelligent. Especially those things are said and done under the guise of intelligence. "Life should not be measured in terms of its length" and "life may be short but is meaningful". How right these statements per se are! The correctness of those statements in themselves, which may be universal by human standard, despite the fact that this is still arguable, does not guarantee that the matter such statements refer to is by itself correct, and it does not immediately warrant that a correct reference is made between the matter referred to and the correct statements. Obviously, a wrong association is there in the case that the meaningfulness is applied to the new-born baby girl who had not gained the consciousness that enabled her to appreciate meaning and who died subsequently. If such wrong is distributed and those of us who are not capable of differentiating the right from the wrong, for whatever reason, then they will be misled to believe that bringing a child to our world and seeing her die is (a) a meaningful thing to do; and (b) the child has lived a short (really very short!) yet meaningful life by being dragged to the intensive care unit and seen to be dying. Such harm is done by propagating the wrong message that creates such great travesty of humanity that unnecessary suffering is now refurbished to become martyrdom and a cowardly act of failure to face the reality that a child has no chance of living on has turned a heroic act and we should pay our tribute to the hero who faces the adversity and are standing against the darkness of Fate. The consequence is very, very serious. The humanity is now degraded to the extent that cowardice is now heroic, a milquetoast is now a hero. The society would in due course be doomed to be held by cowards and submissiveness, which is not acceptable.
Secondly, when something as grand as "life is short but meaningful" is from the mouth of such an idiot, such a Brainless as this "life is short" person, then the Brainless believe that they are grand and great, for they know what the grand and great know, and behave what the grand and great behave, and are moved by what moves the grand and great. Are they truly moved by a story of a dying girl who in fact was brought to the world and all of us saw her die? Has she lived a full life? Has she gone to Heaven? Is she living a blissful life after suffering the 9 days (though she may not really suffer the pain to the same extent as a grown up, for, as I said, she was not even conscious of herself and her sufferings)? If she was not let out after being diagnosed as having the disease while in the womb, would she not be brought to Heaven and be living as blissful a life as she had been seen to live through the 9 days, fully logged and commented on and sighed for? I am not entirely sure, even I am a Christian, a Catholic, an intellectual, a person who has striven to learn about our world. The parents, irresponsible and ignorant, believe it is their responsibility to bring her out so that they can go through some "great" moments as heros who face their adversity. As a result of their faith in God, the dead girl is now an angel, living happily and eternally beside God. And only these parents who had self-proclaimed, though indirectly but wilfully, themselves as heros and God's servants, then this girl could become angel. Otherwise, no, she might be condemned, for she had not been a human and been blessed with God's grace, such Grace being given by such distributors of grace as her parents. What the world has become? This is not entirely an appropriate answer, for the world has always been as brutal and ignorant as before, and we should be not surprised that distributors of God's Grace are always around as we see insurance agents, financial planners and cosmetic sales every day every where. The Brainless turned themselves to heros, the grand and great, and perhaps even thought of leaving a mark in their worthless history, being servant of God, being such salesman of Heaven, being the crooks of Grace, being undeserved acceptors of knowledge and information. They created such sentimentality that only the Brainless would buy. The hypocrisy that this story tells us is very obscene - to those who truly appreciate life and have lived a truly good life. But let me tell you, the Brainless, the parents of a dead girl, you are worthless, regardless of how many tears you have shed by creating a pseudo-moving story. You have squandered your life and if there be Heaven, you should return the ticket to it, for there are more people who strive to create a better, to make a difference to this Another Heaven, our Human World, deserving this ticket than you do. So please admit to yourself and your God, if there is one, that you are the Brainless. You created such stupid stories and made yourself a hero. Then, you let the other Brainless feel they were heros too. Sentimentality has paved the way to hell; but in fact I do not care when and how you go to Hell, but I do care you bring those worthy of Heaven with you.
Why, you may ask, does the Brainless cause harm to us and our society in such a way as I described? It is perhaps a book-length writing in order to keep people (I mean the good people) convinced that I am right. However, it can still be briefly described here. Take an example of a response to a dying baby girl who had lived 9 days, which says, the girl has lived a life of great significance and meaningfulness, and life should not be measured in terms of its length. This message consists of two elements - ignorance and sentimentality. Ignorance is very obvious. First of all, the phrase "life should not be measured in terms of its length" may be correct, it is a matter of value and a judgement of value is not easily absolutely established though it can be established. So I shall presume it correct. But how would "life is short but meaningful" be applicable to this incident in which a diseased girl was brought to our world and let die? The answer is absolute and unquestioned. It is nothing. The diseased girl was not unconscious. How do you know she was not conscious? The answer lies on the answer of this question. What happened to you when you were just born? If she was not even conscious of what was happening to her, then where is such great significance and meaningfuless placed? The answer is again absolute and unquestionable. It is nowhere. As a result, I should say, this person has no idea of what he commented. He just said something other people (including great people) said of a truly moving story, but if this idiot believed what he said was equally applicable to the dead girl incident as any other moving stories of the great people, then obviously he is ignorant. And ignorance is an important element of the Brainless. Now the question comes, why does ignorance harm? We may say, quoting Mill, that as long as one's action does not harm others, the actor should not be restricted from so doing. Yes, I would accept this principle. What if he does, and does to a considerable extent? Sometimes he is harmful indirectly and chronically. Then, I have to say, regardless of Mill and the rationale behind his rationale, he must be controlled and that he is controlled must be known to others, the Brainless or otherwise. If such harm is being done indirectly and chronically, how can we prove it? It sounds tricky. But when a person is ignorant and says ignorant things in such idiotic manner as the "life is short" person, it would not be that difficult to prove the harm this kind of saying would inflict on us (or some of us).
Before we are mature enough to be able to differentiate right from wrong, the intelligent from the stupid, we are prone to ignorant things and have a fair chance accepting ignorant things as intelligent. Especially those things are said and done under the guise of intelligence. "Life should not be measured in terms of its length" and "life may be short but is meaningful". How right these statements per se are! The correctness of those statements in themselves, which may be universal by human standard, despite the fact that this is still arguable, does not guarantee that the matter such statements refer to is by itself correct, and it does not immediately warrant that a correct reference is made between the matter referred to and the correct statements. Obviously, a wrong association is there in the case that the meaningfulness is applied to the new-born baby girl who had not gained the consciousness that enabled her to appreciate meaning and who died subsequently. If such wrong is distributed and those of us who are not capable of differentiating the right from the wrong, for whatever reason, then they will be misled to believe that bringing a child to our world and seeing her die is (a) a meaningful thing to do; and (b) the child has lived a short (really very short!) yet meaningful life by being dragged to the intensive care unit and seen to be dying. Such harm is done by propagating the wrong message that creates such great travesty of humanity that unnecessary suffering is now refurbished to become martyrdom and a cowardly act of failure to face the reality that a child has no chance of living on has turned a heroic act and we should pay our tribute to the hero who faces the adversity and are standing against the darkness of Fate. The consequence is very, very serious. The humanity is now degraded to the extent that cowardice is now heroic, a milquetoast is now a hero. The society would in due course be doomed to be held by cowards and submissiveness, which is not acceptable.
Secondly, when something as grand as "life is short but meaningful" is from the mouth of such an idiot, such a Brainless as this "life is short" person, then the Brainless believe that they are grand and great, for they know what the grand and great know, and behave what the grand and great behave, and are moved by what moves the grand and great. Are they truly moved by a story of a dying girl who in fact was brought to the world and all of us saw her die? Has she lived a full life? Has she gone to Heaven? Is she living a blissful life after suffering the 9 days (though she may not really suffer the pain to the same extent as a grown up, for, as I said, she was not even conscious of herself and her sufferings)? If she was not let out after being diagnosed as having the disease while in the womb, would she not be brought to Heaven and be living as blissful a life as she had been seen to live through the 9 days, fully logged and commented on and sighed for? I am not entirely sure, even I am a Christian, a Catholic, an intellectual, a person who has striven to learn about our world. The parents, irresponsible and ignorant, believe it is their responsibility to bring her out so that they can go through some "great" moments as heros who face their adversity. As a result of their faith in God, the dead girl is now an angel, living happily and eternally beside God. And only these parents who had self-proclaimed, though indirectly but wilfully, themselves as heros and God's servants, then this girl could become angel. Otherwise, no, she might be condemned, for she had not been a human and been blessed with God's grace, such Grace being given by such distributors of grace as her parents. What the world has become? This is not entirely an appropriate answer, for the world has always been as brutal and ignorant as before, and we should be not surprised that distributors of God's Grace are always around as we see insurance agents, financial planners and cosmetic sales every day every where. The Brainless turned themselves to heros, the grand and great, and perhaps even thought of leaving a mark in their worthless history, being servant of God, being such salesman of Heaven, being the crooks of Grace, being undeserved acceptors of knowledge and information. They created such sentimentality that only the Brainless would buy. The hypocrisy that this story tells us is very obscene - to those who truly appreciate life and have lived a truly good life. But let me tell you, the Brainless, the parents of a dead girl, you are worthless, regardless of how many tears you have shed by creating a pseudo-moving story. You have squandered your life and if there be Heaven, you should return the ticket to it, for there are more people who strive to create a better, to make a difference to this Another Heaven, our Human World, deserving this ticket than you do. So please admit to yourself and your God, if there is one, that you are the Brainless. You created such stupid stories and made yourself a hero. Then, you let the other Brainless feel they were heros too. Sentimentality has paved the way to hell; but in fact I do not care when and how you go to Hell, but I do care you bring those worthy of Heaven with you.
Friday, January 26, 2007
The Storied Suppression; The Benevolent Despots remembered
The unwarranted arrogance that comes with the Brainlessness gives the Brainless such excess that the world, our brave new world, has been damaged to the extent that it is irreparable. The human world that we were once proud of and wondered has turned into a confusion immersed in excess, condemned by eternally spiralling confusion. The true people, who may be called the elite for ease of reference, are confused, but remain mute to what has been happening, for they still have the advantage, or believe they do, being the elite. In spite of the fact that the elite enjoy the privilege that the Brainless cannot imagine, the latter are so noisy and enormous in terms of absolute number that it is they who somewhat exert influence they deserve not, and the elite, in a democratic world, have to bear the price of freedom, the freedom that has been granted to the undeserved. At some point, enough is enough, the elite will yell, and when they fight back, they fight back fiercely. They swing the pendulum back to the other extreme, for they need to swing it back to such a magnitude that the equilibrium will ever been set right. How would this happen? In history, I have so far seen many cases resembling the scenario I have just mentioned, although I cannot for sure ascertain these cases mean exactly the status of my description. I have to say, regardless of what triggers such action which aims to counter uncontrolled liberalisation, eradicate the Brainless and cleanse the arrogrance of the Brainless which is unjustifiable, there are moments which must be looked upon with care, the moments of blemishes in human history that many were, so to speak, persecuted and killed; many had their dignity deprived, the kinships torn apart. These moments must be carefully recognised, thought about and understood. The figures who stood on top of these moments, those despots in history, those who handed down bestial cruelty that brought blood on the parchment of history, should be remembered in such a way that, with a balance of what evil has done to counter another evil, we shall recognise what harm the hypocrisy, arrogance and naivety of the Brainless have done to our world. Only by such thought, we give the world what others have overlooked or dared not look at, but it should be case.
The unwarranted arrogance that comes with the Brainlessness gives the Brainless such excess that the world, our brave new world, has been damaged to the extent that it is irreparable. The human world that we were once proud of and wondered has turned into a confusion immersed in excess, condemned by eternally spiralling confusion. The true people, who may be called the elite for ease of reference, are confused, but remain mute to what has been happening, for they still have the advantage, or believe they do, being the elite. In spite of the fact that the elite enjoy the privilege that the Brainless cannot imagine, the latter are so noisy and enormous in terms of absolute number that it is they who somewhat exert influence they deserve not, and the elite, in a democratic world, have to bear the price of freedom, the freedom that has been granted to the undeserved. At some point, enough is enough, the elite will yell, and when they fight back, they fight back fiercely. They swing the pendulum back to the other extreme, for they need to swing it back to such a magnitude that the equilibrium will ever been set right. How would this happen? In history, I have so far seen many cases resembling the scenario I have just mentioned, although I cannot for sure ascertain these cases mean exactly the status of my description. I have to say, regardless of what triggers such action which aims to counter uncontrolled liberalisation, eradicate the Brainless and cleanse the arrogrance of the Brainless which is unjustifiable, there are moments which must be looked upon with care, the moments of blemishes in human history that many were, so to speak, persecuted and killed; many had their dignity deprived, the kinships torn apart. These moments must be carefully recognised, thought about and understood. The figures who stood on top of these moments, those despots in history, those who handed down bestial cruelty that brought blood on the parchment of history, should be remembered in such a way that, with a balance of what evil has done to counter another evil, we shall recognise what harm the hypocrisy, arrogance and naivety of the Brainless have done to our world. Only by such thought, we give the world what others have overlooked or dared not look at, but it should be case.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
The Brainless
After all those festivities, it is the right time to continue the Brainless series. I do not want to be vague about that. The Brainless is harmful and detrimental to us, to our health and to our mentality. The fact that a moving story is being made at the expense of a dying baby is nothing more sentimental than such sentimentality you can find in a soap opera, where a melodramatic kind of lack of intelligence immerses and spreads. We should be very fortunate to be living in a world that we live in, for the knowledge and information we can get access to everyday is unprecedented - not a single intelligent man in the 19th century could every imagine the way we acquire knowledge and grasp and digest information. I have to say, people are cleverer. But statistically, I still can say, people are idiots. The reason is simple, only 5% of people are clever and there are more people than any point in time previously. We meet more people than our ancestors and we meet even more idiots in terms of absolute number. So the statement that people are idiots is statistically correct. And it extends to the fact that these idiots are very much in lack of intelligence, despite knowledge and information being available around them. They cannot think properly, understand properly and deduce properly. They believe this dying baby has lived a life "of great significance" and "meaningfulness", regardless of the life being short. What is this all about? The baby had not even developed the consciousness that she would know she ever existed in the few days she lived. An unconscious infant talks about such meaningfulness and life being long or short? This is nonsense. I have choked with such nonsense by many people - some are cunning and lie to their own benefit. Some are stupid and talk without a brain. Some are naive and propagate the good but pave the way to hell. I would admonish you that the Brainless are as harmful and detrimental as those cunning folks, for the latter who lie and set you up, whereas the former preach the good and lead you to hell. Pray believe me.
After all those festivities, it is the right time to continue the Brainless series. I do not want to be vague about that. The Brainless is harmful and detrimental to us, to our health and to our mentality. The fact that a moving story is being made at the expense of a dying baby is nothing more sentimental than such sentimentality you can find in a soap opera, where a melodramatic kind of lack of intelligence immerses and spreads. We should be very fortunate to be living in a world that we live in, for the knowledge and information we can get access to everyday is unprecedented - not a single intelligent man in the 19th century could every imagine the way we acquire knowledge and grasp and digest information. I have to say, people are cleverer. But statistically, I still can say, people are idiots. The reason is simple, only 5% of people are clever and there are more people than any point in time previously. We meet more people than our ancestors and we meet even more idiots in terms of absolute number. So the statement that people are idiots is statistically correct. And it extends to the fact that these idiots are very much in lack of intelligence, despite knowledge and information being available around them. They cannot think properly, understand properly and deduce properly. They believe this dying baby has lived a life "of great significance" and "meaningfulness", regardless of the life being short. What is this all about? The baby had not even developed the consciousness that she would know she ever existed in the few days she lived. An unconscious infant talks about such meaningfulness and life being long or short? This is nonsense. I have choked with such nonsense by many people - some are cunning and lie to their own benefit. Some are stupid and talk without a brain. Some are naive and propagate the good but pave the way to hell. I would admonish you that the Brainless are as harmful and detrimental as those cunning folks, for the latter who lie and set you up, whereas the former preach the good and lead you to hell. Pray believe me.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Gerald Ford
'There were many times in his long life when Gerald Ford felt he had reached the top of the tree.' The orbituary in The Economist says. And it continues, 'Mr Ford, after 13 terms as a congressman, had risen to become a popular minority leader in the House, with no ambitions but to be speaker one day if control swung back to the Republicans. Still, as he told Betty [Warren, his wife], the vice-presidency would make a “nice conclusion” to his career.' But '[I]t is not the conclusion.' He became the President of the United States on 9th August 1974 when Richard Nixon stepped down in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
Mr. Ford is described as disliking fuss and he worked like hell. 'As he made his inaugural speech in the East Room of the White House—“just a little straight talk among friends”—the very flatness of his Michigan vowels, his stumbles over words, his mistiness whenever he talked about prayers, seemed like a gale of fresh air.'
In fact, I say, the writing of the orbituary is also like a gale of fresh air.
'There were many times in his long life when Gerald Ford felt he had reached the top of the tree.' The orbituary in The Economist says. And it continues, 'Mr Ford, after 13 terms as a congressman, had risen to become a popular minority leader in the House, with no ambitions but to be speaker one day if control swung back to the Republicans. Still, as he told Betty [Warren, his wife], the vice-presidency would make a “nice conclusion” to his career.' But '[I]t is not the conclusion.' He became the President of the United States on 9th August 1974 when Richard Nixon stepped down in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
Mr. Ford is described as disliking fuss and he worked like hell. 'As he made his inaugural speech in the East Room of the White House—“just a little straight talk among friends”—the very flatness of his Michigan vowels, his stumbles over words, his mistiness whenever he talked about prayers, seemed like a gale of fresh air.'
In fact, I say, the writing of the orbituary is also like a gale of fresh air.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
2007
Theodor Mommsen's A History of Rome describes Roman life as follows:
Life in the case of Roman was spent under conditions of austere restraint, and, the nobler he was, the less he was a free man. All-powerful custom restricted him to a narrow range of thought and action; and to have led a serious and strict or, to use the characteristic Latin expressions, a grave and severe life, was his glory.
"Austere restraint" was required of a noble man in Rome. Truly the custom put the restraint on him and led him to live a "grave and severe life". With deeper thought, I do not entirely object to a grave and severe life (the term is generally defined in this statement, whereas, I have to say, it can be strictly defined if the audience requires me to do so).
In The Name of The Rose, the venerable Jorge says, without fear people will lose faith to God (idea). Hence, he forbides the reading of Aristotle's Comedy (which is in fact lost) by applying poison to the pages.
You may want to ask why it is necessary to exert fear on people and why we are afraid to lose faith to God and what the benefits are living a grave and severe life and abstaining from worldly pleasures. The answer is not easy, but not impossible. On the whole, a grave and severe life is much satisfying than that full of worldly pleasures and fully liberal. I do not forsee a trappist life totally detaching from worldly pleasures, but instead would like to see one lead a life in the balance in the sense that the enjoyment of worldly pleasures comes the understanding of the higher satisfaction of abstaining them (or minimising them). A nobleman is noble only when his mindset dictates what he chooses to do in a noble manner. Some of us can do it at ease, perhaps physically more superior with his brain, as neuroscientist likes to promote - well probably correctly. A lot or most of us have to go through a painful process, but I admit, with my own experience, that through it I see the truth of a simpler, graver and more severe life.
Theodor Mommsen's A History of Rome describes Roman life as follows:
Life in the case of Roman was spent under conditions of austere restraint, and, the nobler he was, the less he was a free man. All-powerful custom restricted him to a narrow range of thought and action; and to have led a serious and strict or, to use the characteristic Latin expressions, a grave and severe life, was his glory.
"Austere restraint" was required of a noble man in Rome. Truly the custom put the restraint on him and led him to live a "grave and severe life". With deeper thought, I do not entirely object to a grave and severe life (the term is generally defined in this statement, whereas, I have to say, it can be strictly defined if the audience requires me to do so).
In The Name of The Rose, the venerable Jorge says, without fear people will lose faith to God (idea). Hence, he forbides the reading of Aristotle's Comedy (which is in fact lost) by applying poison to the pages.
You may want to ask why it is necessary to exert fear on people and why we are afraid to lose faith to God and what the benefits are living a grave and severe life and abstaining from worldly pleasures. The answer is not easy, but not impossible. On the whole, a grave and severe life is much satisfying than that full of worldly pleasures and fully liberal. I do not forsee a trappist life totally detaching from worldly pleasures, but instead would like to see one lead a life in the balance in the sense that the enjoyment of worldly pleasures comes the understanding of the higher satisfaction of abstaining them (or minimising them). A nobleman is noble only when his mindset dictates what he chooses to do in a noble manner. Some of us can do it at ease, perhaps physically more superior with his brain, as neuroscientist likes to promote - well probably correctly. A lot or most of us have to go through a painful process, but I admit, with my own experience, that through it I see the truth of a simpler, graver and more severe life.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Christmas Special
I wish you all a very Merry Christmas.
The mixed signals and information that our world gives us sometimes make us hard to believe in a world that Christianity depicts and the way in which the same religion shows us the world is going to be. But there is in fact no better time than Christmas to introspectively think of how our world has developed if it is not created, maintained and evolving as the Holy Bible suggests. Even it is true that the world comes purposelessly, we confer the meaning to it and make it a place worth remembering, preserving and making it more habitable. As I always say, it is the Humanity Hypothesis. Many of the issues that ascribe to God or the lacking of Him may be tackled without the involvement of Him. It is still not an implausible idea or hypothesis to suggest a conscious, all-good divine being looking at us and taking care of what is beyond our living such as the stability of our universe.
In this moment, I refrain, temporarily, from attacking the idiots or the Brainless. All I would like to do is to think about our world, and read Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion.
I wish you all a very Merry Christmas.
The mixed signals and information that our world gives us sometimes make us hard to believe in a world that Christianity depicts and the way in which the same religion shows us the world is going to be. But there is in fact no better time than Christmas to introspectively think of how our world has developed if it is not created, maintained and evolving as the Holy Bible suggests. Even it is true that the world comes purposelessly, we confer the meaning to it and make it a place worth remembering, preserving and making it more habitable. As I always say, it is the Humanity Hypothesis. Many of the issues that ascribe to God or the lacking of Him may be tackled without the involvement of Him. It is still not an implausible idea or hypothesis to suggest a conscious, all-good divine being looking at us and taking care of what is beyond our living such as the stability of our universe.
In this moment, I refrain, temporarily, from attacking the idiots or the Brainless. All I would like to do is to think about our world, and read Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Christianity or Humanity
The title of this post illustrates the author's idea but not the subjects the author talks about. In simple terms, the subjects the author talks about are not concerned with Christianity or Humanity, or what Christianity or Humanity is all about, or whether Christianity and Humanity may be in conflict with one another. All they know is what they believe they know and disastrously what they believe they know is true, the only truth and nothing but the truth.
I am about to show you how the Brainless in the Rubbish work. Although they are brainless, they are equipped with the senses and they are able to understand in some way, for example, they should have learnt the letter "B" is placed after the letter "A" when they are required to write, "A, B, C, D,......, X, Y and Z". I have to add, though, the Brainless may get confused when counting to G, and then they will ask themselves, vainly, what next. Is it H or J. After some struggle (well this does not take them much time, if any at all, to give up), they will do any other thing than writing down A to Z.
The above example shows how pathetic a Brainless is in terms of basic knowledge - the building block of rationality and other higher level knowledge. Then, I should demonstrate a second example in order to show you the lack of basic knowledge is not very detrimental to all of us who have a brain. It is the consequence of the lack of basic knowledge which annoys us.
Whan Brainless A finished high school, in old times (or good old times), he will come out of the society and taste what they deserve - a low life. But our great world gives the excessive resources and Brainless A now is in college, learning what once the elite and the best can enjoy - knowledge. The consequence is grave. Brainless A will become a college graduate and equal himself to the elite and the best. He comes out of the society as a self-proclaimed elite and demands the society to give him what the elite and the best has been given. But of course, the society is not a charity that feeds the imbeciles. It refuses and Brainless A jumps and moans and yells. A lot of them become noise. A few of them are more troublesome. They become institutional terrorists. You may argue, not all of these people I dub as Brainless are those idiots who cannot write A to Z. They may know well that Y is before Z, and X is before Y. And they have learnt quite well in college and got a decent job. They may be so called a professional or a middleclassman or even mistakenly respected as an elite. Why these people are still brainless is that they fail the second test. They fail knowledge. They fail badly to contribute after obtaining some much knowledge. They owe knowledge a great deal. They are morons who cannot think properly, act properly, act as an example to the other idiots or respond to the worsening world in a way that would contribute to the whole humanity. They live in vain, despite the fact that they have consumed so much of our precious resources (remember resources are precious, not scarce.)
I am not describing a dark picture. Just statistically you have a fair chance to bump into someone like Brainless A, either as some noise or a terrorist.
The one or two that relate to this post are not terrorist, but perhaps propagandists. If something is done unwilfully, they are Condemned progagandists. If wilfuly, they are unforgivable. Not quite recently I read some newspaper reporting a couple whose little baby was dead 9 days after birth. The couple blogged the whole incident and many responded. I am sure of it as a case in contrary to Humanity in a way as I have also defined it. Before she was born, the baby had been diagnosed as having inborn diseases that significantly reduced the chance of prolonged survival after birth. There would be two possibilities. First, let the baby come out and die. Second, let her go before she comes out. At this point comes the conflict if Christianity is in store. The baby girl passed away on the nineth day of her birthday. While a bunch of people claim they know they are right about what they have done in the name of Christianity, they in reality distract their inability under the guise of Christianity. I call these people the Brainless. Let me continue in the next posts.
In the meanime, I wish you all a very Merry Christmas. I would hope the real spirit of Jesus Christ will prevail.
The title of this post illustrates the author's idea but not the subjects the author talks about. In simple terms, the subjects the author talks about are not concerned with Christianity or Humanity, or what Christianity or Humanity is all about, or whether Christianity and Humanity may be in conflict with one another. All they know is what they believe they know and disastrously what they believe they know is true, the only truth and nothing but the truth.
I am about to show you how the Brainless in the Rubbish work. Although they are brainless, they are equipped with the senses and they are able to understand in some way, for example, they should have learnt the letter "B" is placed after the letter "A" when they are required to write, "A, B, C, D,......, X, Y and Z". I have to add, though, the Brainless may get confused when counting to G, and then they will ask themselves, vainly, what next. Is it H or J. After some struggle (well this does not take them much time, if any at all, to give up), they will do any other thing than writing down A to Z.
The above example shows how pathetic a Brainless is in terms of basic knowledge - the building block of rationality and other higher level knowledge. Then, I should demonstrate a second example in order to show you the lack of basic knowledge is not very detrimental to all of us who have a brain. It is the consequence of the lack of basic knowledge which annoys us.
Whan Brainless A finished high school, in old times (or good old times), he will come out of the society and taste what they deserve - a low life. But our great world gives the excessive resources and Brainless A now is in college, learning what once the elite and the best can enjoy - knowledge. The consequence is grave. Brainless A will become a college graduate and equal himself to the elite and the best. He comes out of the society as a self-proclaimed elite and demands the society to give him what the elite and the best has been given. But of course, the society is not a charity that feeds the imbeciles. It refuses and Brainless A jumps and moans and yells. A lot of them become noise. A few of them are more troublesome. They become institutional terrorists. You may argue, not all of these people I dub as Brainless are those idiots who cannot write A to Z. They may know well that Y is before Z, and X is before Y. And they have learnt quite well in college and got a decent job. They may be so called a professional or a middleclassman or even mistakenly respected as an elite. Why these people are still brainless is that they fail the second test. They fail knowledge. They fail badly to contribute after obtaining some much knowledge. They owe knowledge a great deal. They are morons who cannot think properly, act properly, act as an example to the other idiots or respond to the worsening world in a way that would contribute to the whole humanity. They live in vain, despite the fact that they have consumed so much of our precious resources (remember resources are precious, not scarce.)
I am not describing a dark picture. Just statistically you have a fair chance to bump into someone like Brainless A, either as some noise or a terrorist.
The one or two that relate to this post are not terrorist, but perhaps propagandists. If something is done unwilfully, they are Condemned progagandists. If wilfuly, they are unforgivable. Not quite recently I read some newspaper reporting a couple whose little baby was dead 9 days after birth. The couple blogged the whole incident and many responded. I am sure of it as a case in contrary to Humanity in a way as I have also defined it. Before she was born, the baby had been diagnosed as having inborn diseases that significantly reduced the chance of prolonged survival after birth. There would be two possibilities. First, let the baby come out and die. Second, let her go before she comes out. At this point comes the conflict if Christianity is in store. The baby girl passed away on the nineth day of her birthday. While a bunch of people claim they know they are right about what they have done in the name of Christianity, they in reality distract their inability under the guise of Christianity. I call these people the Brainless. Let me continue in the next posts.
In the meanime, I wish you all a very Merry Christmas. I would hope the real spirit of Jesus Christ will prevail.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
The Brainless - An Introduction
One important element of the Rubbish is the Brainless.
A lot of brainless humans (apparently the term is in contradiction with homo sapiens, but let's see what this writing develops if this term is consistently being used) love thinking or love the end-result of thinking (expression of ideas). But they have never thought about the key point, which is, a brain is required in order to think and bring the result of thinking forth for discussion or critique.
Don't worry! Life has become easier. Brianless humans can say whatever they want. Thanks to the blogs and other media that make their identity anonymous. So they can say brainlessly and still will not be criticised, derided or burnt at the stake. Most unfortunately, because of availability of these media, they are heard, and sometimes by a disproportionate number of others! But overall I have to admit that the benefit of these media to all of those who are equipped with a brain far outweighs the shortcoming that we have to tolerate the brainless contaminating the world with their fruitless words.
One thing that particularly annoys me is the way those people believe and the way they act accordingly, and the other brainless follows. In my forthcoming post, I shall describe what I mean in details.
One important element of the Rubbish is the Brainless.
A lot of brainless humans (apparently the term is in contradiction with homo sapiens, but let's see what this writing develops if this term is consistently being used) love thinking or love the end-result of thinking (expression of ideas). But they have never thought about the key point, which is, a brain is required in order to think and bring the result of thinking forth for discussion or critique.
Don't worry! Life has become easier. Brianless humans can say whatever they want. Thanks to the blogs and other media that make their identity anonymous. So they can say brainlessly and still will not be criticised, derided or burnt at the stake. Most unfortunately, because of availability of these media, they are heard, and sometimes by a disproportionate number of others! But overall I have to admit that the benefit of these media to all of those who are equipped with a brain far outweighs the shortcoming that we have to tolerate the brainless contaminating the world with their fruitless words.
One thing that particularly annoys me is the way those people believe and the way they act accordingly, and the other brainless follows. In my forthcoming post, I shall describe what I mean in details.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Pseudo-educated Society (Or Rubbish) - A Prelogue
I need to explain this title. It means that Pseudo-educated Society may also be called Rubbish. Yes, Rubbish. I do not even bother calling the bunch of people in this Society such good names as Rubbish Society or Rubbish Community. No, they are not. They are just rubbish. The single, concrete word as plain as the word Rubbish.
Blogs are very popular and responses to blogs are even more popular. There are a lot of people, including my humble self, who publish blogs. Naturally there are a hell lot reading the blogs and writing in response to those blogs. From those blogs and those responses, I have to say that I can confirm that the majority is brainless, belonging to the category of rubbish whose existence is not in any sense worthier than the sum of the organic compounds that comprise their whole body, namely they are just fertilisers.
I once commented some circulating writings on the web regarding the forecast of tsunamis. I said, Konstantin Dmitrievich, the protagonist in Anna Karenina, makes a comment on the aristocrats fancying the "table-rapping and spirits", "[this table-rapping proves that] educated society - so-called - is no higher than the peasants. They believe in the evil eye, and in witchcraft and omens." The reference to the educated society is made rightly and is still equally applicable in our time as in Leo Tolstoy's.
Seeing those people these days, if I classified them in our time as members of the educated society, I classified them too highly. So I decided to use a term I coined. It is the Pseudo-educated society to which they belong. But still this is not satisfactory. People in the Pseudo-educated Society, I would believe, still consider being educated a virtue. In fact, from what I have learnt of these writings on the blogs, they do not see it a virtue. They do not see it at all inasmuch as they are blind. Though in reality they may be deemed just above illiterate, they are literally blind and they are mentally blind as well -- as such they cannot think properly, cannot write properly and obviously do not have any idea about definitions of our world. As a consequence they say what others said and collage what those others said and hope they can compose something expressive, meaningful and touching. They write, as a matter of fact, rubbish. Thus they should be called Rubblish, if we wish to add brutality in the description. I shall continue my elaboration how those people act in our world.
I need to explain this title. It means that Pseudo-educated Society may also be called Rubbish. Yes, Rubbish. I do not even bother calling the bunch of people in this Society such good names as Rubbish Society or Rubbish Community. No, they are not. They are just rubbish. The single, concrete word as plain as the word Rubbish.
Blogs are very popular and responses to blogs are even more popular. There are a lot of people, including my humble self, who publish blogs. Naturally there are a hell lot reading the blogs and writing in response to those blogs. From those blogs and those responses, I have to say that I can confirm that the majority is brainless, belonging to the category of rubbish whose existence is not in any sense worthier than the sum of the organic compounds that comprise their whole body, namely they are just fertilisers.
I once commented some circulating writings on the web regarding the forecast of tsunamis. I said, Konstantin Dmitrievich, the protagonist in Anna Karenina, makes a comment on the aristocrats fancying the "table-rapping and spirits", "[this table-rapping proves that] educated society - so-called - is no higher than the peasants. They believe in the evil eye, and in witchcraft and omens." The reference to the educated society is made rightly and is still equally applicable in our time as in Leo Tolstoy's.
Seeing those people these days, if I classified them in our time as members of the educated society, I classified them too highly. So I decided to use a term I coined. It is the Pseudo-educated society to which they belong. But still this is not satisfactory. People in the Pseudo-educated Society, I would believe, still consider being educated a virtue. In fact, from what I have learnt of these writings on the blogs, they do not see it a virtue. They do not see it at all inasmuch as they are blind. Though in reality they may be deemed just above illiterate, they are literally blind and they are mentally blind as well -- as such they cannot think properly, cannot write properly and obviously do not have any idea about definitions of our world. As a consequence they say what others said and collage what those others said and hope they can compose something expressive, meaningful and touching. They write, as a matter of fact, rubbish. Thus they should be called Rubblish, if we wish to add brutality in the description. I shall continue my elaboration how those people act in our world.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Spectrum, A Scenario of The Future
‘Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History suggests that as all human societies are becoming homogenous or being homogenised, regardless of their historical origins or cultural inheritances, literal democracy that these societies have moved or are moving to might be the ultimate form of human society where history ceases to further evolve. But in fact, while the process globalisation continues unabated; liberalisation of the market continues unabated, or I should say, markets are being forced open by superpowers, hardly has there ever been any evidence supporting that an equal liberal democracy prevails, supporting the Western, or presently, the United States’ vision that the world is stepping towards an equal, open society where poverty could eventually be eradicated and people live in complete freedom – social, political and freedom of thought, and where conflicts would be effectively and peacefully resolved. On the contrary, the skewed or even polarised pluralistic world appears to be less stable and vulnerable than ever. The weaklings, permit me to say so, are in such despair that desperate measures are usually taken to get their ends met (or perhaps to have their despair heard), in front of an enemy that there exists not the faintest hope to defeat. I believe that the world in such situation becomes the source of instability. Can your scenarios describe this reality or an alternative future that meets the ideal vision? Can they also give thoughts to the options available with various stakeholders involved? Those, whose country own the nuclear warheads and absolute military advantage, have the common decency, I personally have no doubt of it; but most are simply too naïve to believe that some of their peers have done the world irreparable bad, economically or environmentally, and they are still too ignorant of knowing that their good intentions have been made use of in a distorted manner to do others harm and mischief.’ Miss Aya continued her topic rather enthusiastically. She took a deep breath and continued, ‘you know, Noam Chomsky believes that the victim of 9/11 is in fact the major practitioner of terrorism, that is to say, the use of violence for political ends. In fact, the US, according to him, is the only nation condemned in this regard. In Central America, and in the Middle East where the US has done violence on people and countries, Noam Chomsky quotes a number of examples. What are the options available in such absurd realities? We prefer, though necessarily, a world resembling a painting, as described by Edward Burne-Jones, of a beautiful romantic dream of something that never was and never will be; in better light than has ever shone; in a country that one cannot define nor remember, but only for; with divinely beautiful form.’
I was amazed at her comments again, and said with some surprise, holding my last piece of Omi beef on the fork, ‘Miss Aya, it seems that your knowledge and ideas are well beyond that which is required of an actress.’ After a brief pause, I continued, ‘Toynbee mentions in his Civilisation on Trial that in Victorian time, when Great Britain’s power reached its pinnacle, the English people believed history had become a constant. But of course, we now know how wrong such naivety is! I am sure the same applies to the belief of liberal democracy. In the US, there are people who believe the same. I haven’t read Fukuyama, and thus don’t know if he is one of those naïve. But before I systematically answer your concerns, I must qualify my work that I am only an analyst at an oil company, and with my humble power, cannot provide answers to the travesties of our world and turn it like who, the one you just said.’
Aya said, ‘Edward Burne-Jones.’ She smiled and continued, knowing that I was perplexed, ‘he is a British painter of symbolism in the 19th century.’
Perhaps just leap forward to explain how my team and myself came up with a scenario of the future called the “Spectrum”. It is one of the 4 possible futures that we made.’ Then I finished my appetiser.
‘Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History suggests that as all human societies are becoming homogenous or being homogenised, regardless of their historical origins or cultural inheritances, literal democracy that these societies have moved or are moving to might be the ultimate form of human society where history ceases to further evolve. But in fact, while the process globalisation continues unabated; liberalisation of the market continues unabated, or I should say, markets are being forced open by superpowers, hardly has there ever been any evidence supporting that an equal liberal democracy prevails, supporting the Western, or presently, the United States’ vision that the world is stepping towards an equal, open society where poverty could eventually be eradicated and people live in complete freedom – social, political and freedom of thought, and where conflicts would be effectively and peacefully resolved. On the contrary, the skewed or even polarised pluralistic world appears to be less stable and vulnerable than ever. The weaklings, permit me to say so, are in such despair that desperate measures are usually taken to get their ends met (or perhaps to have their despair heard), in front of an enemy that there exists not the faintest hope to defeat. I believe that the world in such situation becomes the source of instability. Can your scenarios describe this reality or an alternative future that meets the ideal vision? Can they also give thoughts to the options available with various stakeholders involved? Those, whose country own the nuclear warheads and absolute military advantage, have the common decency, I personally have no doubt of it; but most are simply too naïve to believe that some of their peers have done the world irreparable bad, economically or environmentally, and they are still too ignorant of knowing that their good intentions have been made use of in a distorted manner to do others harm and mischief.’ Miss Aya continued her topic rather enthusiastically. She took a deep breath and continued, ‘you know, Noam Chomsky believes that the victim of 9/11 is in fact the major practitioner of terrorism, that is to say, the use of violence for political ends. In fact, the US, according to him, is the only nation condemned in this regard. In Central America, and in the Middle East where the US has done violence on people and countries, Noam Chomsky quotes a number of examples. What are the options available in such absurd realities? We prefer, though necessarily, a world resembling a painting, as described by Edward Burne-Jones, of a beautiful romantic dream of something that never was and never will be; in better light than has ever shone; in a country that one cannot define nor remember, but only for; with divinely beautiful form.’
I was amazed at her comments again, and said with some surprise, holding my last piece of Omi beef on the fork, ‘Miss Aya, it seems that your knowledge and ideas are well beyond that which is required of an actress.’ After a brief pause, I continued, ‘Toynbee mentions in his Civilisation on Trial that in Victorian time, when Great Britain’s power reached its pinnacle, the English people believed history had become a constant. But of course, we now know how wrong such naivety is! I am sure the same applies to the belief of liberal democracy. In the US, there are people who believe the same. I haven’t read Fukuyama, and thus don’t know if he is one of those naïve. But before I systematically answer your concerns, I must qualify my work that I am only an analyst at an oil company, and with my humble power, cannot provide answers to the travesties of our world and turn it like who, the one you just said.’
Aya said, ‘Edward Burne-Jones.’ She smiled and continued, knowing that I was perplexed, ‘he is a British painter of symbolism in the 19th century.’
Perhaps just leap forward to explain how my team and myself came up with a scenario of the future called the “Spectrum”. It is one of the 4 possible futures that we made.’ Then I finished my appetiser.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
The Economist - "A severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress"
This newspaper always makes me feel happy in such a way in which philosophers define happiness. The obituary in the latest copy on Ta Mok, "the surviving leader of the Khmers Rouges", who died on 21st July, is very interesting. Ta Mok commented on his comrade Pol Pot that he had fallen like "a ripe papaya" and was now no more than "cow shit". In fact, Ta Mok added, Pol Pot was less than that. Cow shit was useful.
Perhaps now with the same peasant's brutality, one may say to Ta Mok, "ditto".
I take the liberty to say, very humbly, that Ta Mok's usefulness does not lie in the instrumentality as cow shit, which provides the necessary nutrients to plants. It reminds us that we have to be intelligent and brave in order to not let the evil take charge of our lives, regardless of whether the evil is as necessary in essence to make humans more enlightened as cow shit to make plants more robust.
Friday, May 27, 2005
A Scenario of the Future (continued from the last writing)
‘Pretty boring stuff.’ I sighed. She shook her head, delicately putting down the spoon in the Noritake bowl, and smiled mysteriously, ‘since then I began to pay more attention to political news, particularly those of Asia Minor. The carnage in New York engendered from misunderstanding and conflicts between values. Perhaps to a more extent it was attributable to a conflict of interest. Do you believe in prophecies?’ She continued with an answer on my behalf, ‘I don’t think you do.’ She smiled again, and continued, ‘but you act like a prophet. You analyse the facts in the present and predict the future.’
I said, ‘the most distinguishable fact between a prophet and myself is that I do not predict futures. The results of my works are not predictions or projections. Rather they are coherent and credible alternative futures. I use them to challenge one’s assumptions and status quo, and test our plans. Such alternative future and the events occurring there can be understood very clearly before an event it says of happens and is falsifiable if it’s not turned out to be what it means. And I don’t say I predict the future so basically I am not a prophet. I just put forward a number of possibilities and options to deal with a particular possibility when it turns out. This works as well on a business basis as on an individual basis.’
‘Things fall apart: The Centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.’ Miss Aya smiled, ‘this is what Yeats said. Of course, he was not prophesising the WTC. But you know how events could be vaguely implied and how easy quasi-prophets can be verified and made believable. A lot of serious people predict futures of the place, but simply from a different starting point, for example, a full-scale nuclear attack.’
I guessed Miss Aya had brought along with her a pocket watch, which was manufactured more than 100 years ago.
‘Is this from Yamagata?’ I asked her, eying on the small slivers of beef in front of me.
Miss Aya looked at my plate, and smiled, ‘I ordered Omi for you. It’s tenderer, and of more distinguishable taste.’
‘No wonder.’ A spark just came onto me. ‘The meat is so tender.’
‘Pretty boring stuff.’ I sighed. She shook her head, delicately putting down the spoon in the Noritake bowl, and smiled mysteriously, ‘since then I began to pay more attention to political news, particularly those of Asia Minor. The carnage in New York engendered from misunderstanding and conflicts between values. Perhaps to a more extent it was attributable to a conflict of interest. Do you believe in prophecies?’ She continued with an answer on my behalf, ‘I don’t think you do.’ She smiled again, and continued, ‘but you act like a prophet. You analyse the facts in the present and predict the future.’
I said, ‘the most distinguishable fact between a prophet and myself is that I do not predict futures. The results of my works are not predictions or projections. Rather they are coherent and credible alternative futures. I use them to challenge one’s assumptions and status quo, and test our plans. Such alternative future and the events occurring there can be understood very clearly before an event it says of happens and is falsifiable if it’s not turned out to be what it means. And I don’t say I predict the future so basically I am not a prophet. I just put forward a number of possibilities and options to deal with a particular possibility when it turns out. This works as well on a business basis as on an individual basis.’
‘Things fall apart: The Centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.’ Miss Aya smiled, ‘this is what Yeats said. Of course, he was not prophesising the WTC. But you know how events could be vaguely implied and how easy quasi-prophets can be verified and made believable. A lot of serious people predict futures of the place, but simply from a different starting point, for example, a full-scale nuclear attack.’
I guessed Miss Aya had brought along with her a pocket watch, which was manufactured more than 100 years ago.
‘Is this from Yamagata?’ I asked her, eying on the small slivers of beef in front of me.
Miss Aya looked at my plate, and smiled, ‘I ordered Omi for you. It’s tenderer, and of more distinguishable taste.’
‘No wonder.’ A spark just came onto me. ‘The meat is so tender.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)