The Second (Long Ago) Coming: Celine Dion

Presentation video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PFgbLnUcZE

Ever wanted to know how you can demonstrate *passion* in professional presentation, you'd first ought to learn from one of the best sopranos on earth. Unlike other pretender nancies, this woman can *truly* sing because she makes all the *passion* in her non-verbals: the darting eyes, the incredulous emotions, prophetic hand gestures, even her black number transpires compelling intensity, of course she has messianic voice to match, or perhaps she really is the second coming because she simply sets your soul free with her passion.

Ella se deseo!
La pasion de fuerza, a mi me gusta!

Be MY tender lady

The Chicago Tribune
Author: Mark G
April 27th

This article talks about the sublimal rendition of The Power Of Love by Celion Dion in her live Boston gig. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbO3dfF9uuE

What makes the legend of Celine is that nothing seems to faze her. What I really meant was she has either got no nerves, or nerves of steel. Right at the beginning of her show, the look of pure confidence in her smile, expression, and especially in her bearing, you could unmistakably tell she embodies a model WINNING attitude!

It’s as if she'd already succeeded and won over the crowd, and wouldn't have to sing a word given a choice. This magnet is what I’m most attracted to in Celine, who also unsurprisingly commands a following in the billions.

With that one of a kind charisma, it spills over into her vocal chords and tones and infects it powerfully beyond compare. Whitney doesn’t come within a yard!

Sure it takes a certain natural physical talent, but that isn’t worth a cent without meticulous nurturing of her psyche---attitudes, perspectives about herself and her relationship with the song she composes, sings, presents, and those with her audiences and how she affects them emotionally, spiritually. In short, Celine and music are one in the same!! That is the only way you observe the mercurial manner she exudes, and what sets her apart from the jockeying pack of singers.

If you'd closely examine Celine's disposition, you'd further find a certain too ATTRACTIVE feminine vivacity, that is IMPOSSIBLE for most of today's striving female singers or simply everyday women to replicate, while equally impossible for me, a masculine, to resist!

This bestowed trump card is seen beside her external voice in her whole internal package, for which her gift of voice stemmed of the gift of a truly marvellous feminine soul! The gift of Bolt speed had stemmed equally of the gift of a hardcore internal drive to constantly challenge the physical frontiers of what is possible.

It had to turn out that all physical gifts are those of some kind of mind-sets, spirit-sets, needed to propel mercuriality, or so called ‘genius’.

If only Celine had my age or thereabouts, now, lived just across the street, events might have developed much more differently, matrimonially to be precise, as I imagine I'd be more than spellbound spectator to delightful romantic companion!

Take me away Celine!

THE CHRONICLES OF MARK: THE HIMALAYAN, THE WISEMAN, AND THE SERPENT'S POTION

This article hopes to be next-in-line for development of C.S Lewis' epic tales. Contact my profile if you want me to write the instalment.

During the last ES2007s lesson today, my paid tact team of Greg and Ahmed silently worked their deception on students and teacher of Group 10, while I role-played the overtly vocal master illusionist, to everyone's complete oblivion, and of course amusement. I was glad to have planned and worked out with Greg and Ahmed some time in the semester on this particular act; it was the culmination of verbal and especially nonverbal skills they and I learned all this while, and what better way than to put it to the test by literally deceiving our ES2007s friends and teacher.

They say that no success comes without planning and teamwork, my relative success in spell-binding students and teacher today hung on the thread of Greg's and Ahmed's oaths to never reveal their identities to ES2007s students and teacher before now, as I write this post in revelation. Due to such allegiance to the art of deception, every ES2007s student and teacher today were given a great display of theatre, and, street magic, and due in whole to their lack of foreknowledge of my tact team's wile. My heartfelt thanks again to my tact team-mates Greg and Ahmed. Next time, if I give another performance, I will enlist your help again, cool?

Some of the highlights of today's magic act included Susan's incredulity at watching two black playing cards changing into red ones right in her hands, Luqman's insistence I always had a 'ghost' whenever I flipped over and displayed a playing card, which might or might not have always been true, and Chuan Ting's and Hwee Teng's mouths agaped, whenever I grabbed a silver coin out of thin air. Even our teacher was unbelieving every time I pulled a silver out of nowhere from out of Jake's skin or Luqman's sleeve, not knowing that Greg and Ahmed were the backstage linchpins making the magic, and the deception work, by making all the 'professional' distraction and side-track, which to our relief nobody found amissed, which was good because that showed that we three are probably now profound masters of nonverbal and verbal communication!

When I pulled a spectator's chosen card out of our teacher's back trouser pocket in just over 3 seconds, out of a boxed, completely shuffled deck, without having seen the card at all, and without even making any effort to search for it, that was the ultimate reinforcement to how well myself, Ahmed, Greg, learned about professional communication this semester.

In my final act, with Greg and Ahmed lurking behind the scenes teleporting (invisible) props from a distance of five to six tables across, I disappeared a silver in my left palm right under the noses of Hwee Teng and Susan, which had of course been teleported back invisibly to Greg and Ahmed. When it was relayed back to me again to prepare for the revelation, the two girls were quick enough to chance upon its silver sparkle in hidden transit beneath my concealing fingers and palm, running from behind to in front of my other fingers, palm and wrist at breakneck speed and back trying to show my hands were clean, as if they had also some magnetic ability to hold the silver against gravity!

The truth of the silver sparkle: either Hwee Teng and Susan had one pizza too many each, causing much blood to be drawn away to their gut, leaving none for their corneas, which then resulted in monkey-vision and an inability to perceive reality accurately; the other possibility would be that I had innate and superb anti-gravity infrastructure installed in my somatosensory system, a gift of touch, and that made the silver adhered so obediently to my hands whichever way I swung it, turned it and twisted.

Whichever the explanations were, Hwee Teng and Susan, as well as the rest of my classmates who saw various other confounding acts, will at least be stuck in eternal wonder, the way I intended for it to be, while I try to understand what is wrong with why the silvers seemed to know how to conceal and adhere themselves so ingeniously, and don't seem to get rid of me no matter how hard I try to get it to.

Could magic be in fact real? You bet one kind of magic commands all the rest of other magic, and is truly real, sovereign, and always will be! Me and my tact team haven't really tested those boundaries of fact and fiction, yet, and if we never do, it is because that sovereign good that exists that overcame evil at long last, and we three thankfully lost our guile!


One deception, one tact team!
Greg (Serpent's Potion), Ahmed (Himalayan), Mark (Wiseman)


Estoy el mago, para magia a mi me gusta para siempre. Entonces, ustedes encuentran vida de belleza en magia, espero!!

ACING THE FOREBODING PRESENTATION

This article hopes to make the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or Harvard Business Review. Contact me with the email in the profile if you would like to express a deal or contract.

Address: Below are my final comments universal to every single local and international teacher and student in communication skills, originally intended for a groupmate Vanessa, and given in the comments section of her blogpost as well. For that, the post is styled in letter correspondance.

 

Hey Vanessa,

I would like to give you more specific feedback on your oral presentation right here!

Volume and Inflection

Volume is no issue with you! Variation of volume is! This is key to making your audiences attracted to you and your ideas, to their persuasion and finally their full marriage!!!

Loud, soft, loud, soft. When it comes to important points you want to emphasize, lower your volume, slow down your speed, and furrow your brow and strain your eyes!!! That's how expert presenters exude persuasion and grip your attention, because you are an emotional being and you will be star-strucked and affected by subtle variations of facial and voice appearances.

When it comes to not so important points, speak in a little louder volume and faster with a straight face.

Also, as I was teaching Greg and Ahmed the other day, it's not so much that the problem of your voice is soft and weak, because personally it's your inherent ADVANTAGE as a feminine, to make voicetones of a soprano nature, as compared to alto for men; instead it's the way in which you articulate and enunciate your words.

Elocution

The best place to learn professional world class articulation and enunciation is from standup comedy acts by famous comedians. Though comedians are no presenters like those in the professional workplace, their ability to expressly enunciate and articulate words is first class!!! Youtube has many American and British comedy acts, so study them and then mimic. Dont't worry if you find male comedians too different, there are female ones as well.

In addition, when you learn to expressly articulate and enunciate, you will also naturally sound more ENERGETIC and POWERFUL. Don't ask me how it happens, it just is the case, look at Simon Sinek and the video I showed you and Greg the other day, look at the way their teeth show and their jawlines bounce about so violently----that is what I want for you and everyone else. Articulation and enunciation! With these comes POWER, ENERGY, STRENGTH, PERSUASION!!!

Of course you will need equally powerful and loaded gestures whenever it's required in your presentation, at important points you want to emphasize. Again, looking at the video I showed you and Greg the other day, try to show your fist to the audience when you want to make marriage with them, tilt your head and point your finger at some wall away from your audience when you want to make reference to a group of people or things, wink your eyes when you want to express some witty idea, nod your head up and down when you want to express agreement with what you say, shake your head left and right when you want to express otherwise, by all means show even your middle finger if the presentation environment, situation, topic, content calls for it.

I've seen countless presenters (not only comedians) make what would be considered rude gestures all in the name of showmanship, because these gestures precisely grip your EMOTIONAL senses so strongly by virtue of your every socialization.

Two things only ever make greater persuasion or more compelling presentation: articulation and gesture, NOTHING ELSE!

All persuasion, energy, confidence, eye contact, passion, creativity, power, strength, attraction, blown-away and even relaxation, comes from these 2 values only, supposing you have taken care of the content, organization and structure and all of its 7Cs, and you know your stuff at the tip of your fingers, tongue, and cranium!

Relaxation and Gut Power

A note about staying relax goes like this: channel your Self ---suicidal doubts and tendencies, stress, nervousness, fear, anxiety, tremble, into the POWER AND VARIANCE OF YOUR ARTICULATION AND GESTURE!!! If you have to 'lose it', lose to powerful articulation and gesture, not gut worm!  But you must WANT inside you to have this power and variance, because you want in your heart so absolutely to be heard, want to make a severe but positive change on your audience. In that way, you wouldn't lose your energy to excessive stress, anxiety or nerves, you would instead feel a useful and energy-efficient honor, sort of altruistic feeling, something that you are doing something for somebody else in need, not yourself and not selfish, and that is when you are most effective because you are energy-efficient, when you are so convicted of heart that your destinies are intertwined with that of others, and you couldn't just let them down, so you would convincingly, because FEARLESSLY, STRESSLESSLY, and therefore powerfully also, engage your audiences!

The group of people from whom you can learn fearless, relaxation, stressless is PASTORS!!! Yes pastors, you heard me right, or other religious teachers with similar tenacity.

If you've seen how really good pastors are, they have how much power, persuasion, energy, for their congregation and the Word of God, which is they display such strong conviction of purpose and exhortation for their Godly beliefs. That grave need to do something for their congregation (and for God), almost to rescue them, is that which makes persuasive, effective presenters, speakers. Pastors have great content, organization and structure too, they learnt all that in seminary! But of course it can be argued that pastors have that divine inspiration (or help from God) which made the persuasive and effective way they are. That's a touchy issue, and I won't go into that, but the main point was to learn from pastor's mien!

With all these carrots, you will sway your audience with the organic ease and natural of turn tides!

Take control of your audiences today, take (lose) control of your Self first!

Un amorito :}

Nuevo York, ahorita me aparezco!

THE FOREBODING ORAL PRESENTATION: A CLOSER REFLECTION

This article hopes to make the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or Harvard Business Review. Contact me with the email in my blog profile if you express interest in a deal.

As I thought and evaluated deeper about my presentation, I felt I looked like somebody selling cupcakes and sherbets on some wary pavement street in Gaylang---and that was how terrible I thought I persuaded my audiences. Really, I was thoroughly undone with my performance.:[

It seemed I lacked bodily testosterone, my gestures seemed unmanly and lacked deciding or winning strength, power, energy, like that of Simon Sinek's. I wondered if it's anything got to do with me not having ate breakfast or lunch up till that point of the day, and only had apple and lots of water all day, as I always do. My voice told it all----that I lost all my testosterone to lack of fuel, with the result that I made sounds that were frankly deathly! That is to me so shocking and disappointing! But I'm not about to change my eating habits just now, or maybe the sounds I make are innate, in which case I am even more disappointed with myself.

But all is not lost for me I feel, I think I can still learn to intentionally make the sounds I want more emphatically, I still habor hope I can sound as powerfully good and persuasive as Simon Sinek, my demi-god in world class presentation propriety, right now!!!


If anyone felt persuaded by my soft, effeminate presentation, you still have time to change your minds. I didn't sell you URA, I sold you cupcakes and sherbets, and too affordable ones, you were hoodwinked by a choiceless fraud, a Simon disguise, wanna-be, failed terribly.


Go to Simon instead, he has the real cupcakes and sherbets; learn from Simon instead, he has all the keys to the art of presentation. As for female fellow coursemates, you might need a female 'model' of presentation, and I can't seem to think of anyone striking, but if I find, and like, one, I'll tell all of you girls from my blog here!


Hey I'm not sexist, male chauvinist or any of their aliases, I only feel that feminine has her own set of 'proper', 'correct', and 'world-class' presentation rules, which must not get mixed up with largely male-driven ones in our world, but still the underlying and fundamental presentation principles stay the same regardless of gender house. Feminine needs to learn to use her feminine strengths and traits to her advantage, just as masculine has his own, and these advantages are exactly advantages because they are mutually exclusive to gender.

By standout feminine strength or trait, I don't mean anywhere close to femme fatale or distorted views of bionic woman single-handedly overcome the world, rather, she finds her rest in liveliness, gentleness, delicacy, anticipation, mindfulness, quick-thinking, the same uplifting values that generally work for male subjects, and for anywhere from presenting to broking.


"Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power.”

Knowing the general fundamentals of presentation is intelligent acting; knowing your gender fundamentals of presentation is good wisdom. Mastering the general fundamentals of presentation takes some strength; mastering the gender fundamentals of presentation is true POWER!!!

Do you want power, do you want persuasion, do you want convincing, do you want complete control of your audiences inside out, themselves gender culturalized? If so, you must master into the microscope of presentation---its gender!

The only problem, scant literature on female presentation grooming besides superficial dressing style exist, actually, few literature on male presentation grooming exist either, with the result that we are made to do with nothing more than a one size fits all, monolithic, tight and sometimes uncomfy, ideology, that isn't always watertight.

Boys and girls ideally learn grooming by mimic, of expert boys and girls, but by specializing, creating, growing your own small personal haven of references on gendered presentation grooming, I like to think you couldn't be for the worst!


Un amorito
Nuevo York que si!

THE FOREBODING CONSCRIPT IN ES2007S

The following responds to an article by the teacher on the state of conscript toughness in Singapore, and discussions of its journalism and beyond.

This is precisely what I don’t want to be embroiled in, teacher.


Journalism, and the media nowadays, are becoming a scourge of our time. Every once in a short while, they have to find perverse amusement in needless chastisement. It all started in 18th century Renaissance England, and even earlier; instead of finding more creative means of self-expression through journalism, those voyeurs got into the creative business of finding the richest, quickest and most shattering means of exposing bad behavior. Oh, I didn’t know Singapore’s journalism sank to such dreadful standards huh!? Of sex, betrayal, murder, deceit, gossip, God knows how many more.

Not to say journalism (as pertaining to every country in this world) is completely swallowed up in frivolity, but you have the aristocrats, bourgeoise, and the haggards, just as you would find in any order of society. The aristocrat raises your moral, intellectual strength, the bourgeoise is undecided for what values to support and promote, and is becoming more susceptible to the agency of the third as he becomes disillusioned with the material wealth of the aristocrats, who mostly are high-ranking government proxies; and as for the haggard, his columns dominate front pages of the Telegraph and New York Times everywhere, his graphics grip your carnal attention as good as those in ‘No Pants Day’, or better.

Martin Luther King had a dream that until all men’s laws were consistent with laws of a higher order, will we live in a just world: I, Mark, have a dream that until all subordinate classes of reporting uphold the fraternity of all humankind will we live in a proactive, non-zero-sum world.

Frankly, the teacher is asking the non-verbal obvious here, which netizens have already deemed as ‘soft’ and ‘weak’, making the military just as ‘soft’ and ‘weak’. How else is a small island-nation going to have any political, economic, social muscle, not to say military, if it doesn’t try to appear to have one. While that is warped logic, the fact is our world is obsessed with putting a face on every thing and body.

Buenas

THE FOREBODING RETROSPECTION ASSESSMENT 6

*P.S. For the information of teacher and students who are going to comment on this post, take note that part of the content in this final post correlates very closely with content and comments in the first 3 posts on your right drop down menu for the month of April; so if you are lost as to what, or who, why, where, how I am making reference to anything; or suddenly have this feeling I’m out of my mind, you should read and try to get a grip of those 3 posts first, if you haven't already done so, despite your time constraints.

The most worthy communication principle I gained from the semester was not concise itself, as much as self-interested people want other people to be concise, so much that they will go to foreboding blackmail extents to make it a reality!! In which case, there is truth to that obscure axiom in the back of my mind, which says people tend to behave in all sorts of ‘funny’ ways when stressed, by the concise in this case; and then have that stupidity unknowingly projected on others. Now I have great understanding for such a propensity under duress; which is why I can plainly analogize as such, because I know how badly I can be reduced to too. For that, there are takeaway lessons three-ways for course-mates, teacher and individual; but I’ll discover just one meaningful point in the last one.

Certainly concise has no value other than the people in authority or otherwise make sense of, which happened to be 250 words to an assessment; and that is very much like how professional communication only takes on value when its spiritual leader is the emotional rather than analytical domain of people, and becomes valuable only when it has been interpersonally, inter-culturally, identified with the needs of human emotions culture-wide.

As it turns out, the foreboding concise issue had been disguised for a people one, for whom insist those other self-interests over mine must always win the day: but without equity of settlement of these disputes (moderation), no people bias is possible!!!

Muchas gracias senoras y senores,

Muchos Besitos tambien!

With this final post, I don’t, and know I don’t need to prove a point; I don’t even need a point, but I will still show you for your sake that I can do the concise to the bull's eye, by virtue I'm going to act in the manner I urged, as a good example to follow, that is most like equity of settlement; I don’t think my point has 250 words and extras; count the words not in yellow and green will you!

THE FOREBODING PRESENTATION ASSESSMENT 5

Gosh, can anybody feel and show any sympathy at all? I'm at the test of the devil, of one foreboding after another; first the emotional blackmail, then the profaned sex, then the implicit disaffectation of my teacher and classmates, and now the oral presentation. Could I really, on my own, engineer my own demise? No man is an island, so as surely I had the help of Brad and fellow course-mates!!!

Even for the worst part, I can proudly say I was the least understood out of the 4 speakers, or so I think, because not one person could find good words to, what would ordinarily to baronial audiences have been a crystal clear, and poignant analogy, between the rescue mission in the tsunami and the one in the sea of problem gamblers. In a word, their tears at the close would be token evidence of sure understanding of the problem’s context.

Again the only bad that materialized about my concluding role: it didn't draw the sort of epiphanic emotions from the audiences; while in the good I made sure I stuck, do or die, beg, steal or borrow, with the aristocratic ambience, in locution and moderation, of the likes of National Broadcasting Company and British Broadcasting Corporation, because theirs is of good patronage. I’m happy for these things I did to reasonable extents thus!

But Brad found no part in the presentation asking ‘how’ and ‘what’ to do with the proposal. If it wasn’t clear in the 3 other speakers, I might not have been able to do anything about it, but if it wasn’t in my part, that is unpardonable when I made three explicit statements all starting with “I want you to do this”.


Salud
Un Abrazito

THE SIPHONING FOREBODING IN ES2007S

Heaven knows what happened to me this last few weeks of the semester.

Coming to the end of semester, I cannot quite believe ES2007s class' proceedings and emotions are become more ominous. If you had read the previous 2 articles this month: first I suffered the foreboding of an emotional blackmail by coursemates, then I suffered, though not as much, the foreboding of profaned sex, and now (can you believe it?) I'm whipped with this other foreboding of disaffectation with what and how I write about on blogs and social media platforms. Fact is my ES2007s coursemates and even Professor Brad  (recent word of mouth), are getting ill with the way I express my ideas (ie. language expression, excluding prose-like blog-posts) on facebook, and its length.

The single most important cause why that has happened was because I have all this 3 months sought to treat professional communication from the ‘why’ standpoint of view, while the rest might have thought it more appropriate to talk about the ‘how’ and ‘what’. The ‘why’ necessarily correlates closely with the philosophy of professional communication, which is why I give all my ‘whys’ in the linguistic style AND LENGTH of that philosophy, because doing otherwise will distort both the fundamental content of the ‘whys’ as well as its edifying value. When classmates claim such linguistic styles are pretentious, I simply don’t get it.(recent word of mouth).

The ‘why’ also happened incidentally to correlate with Simon Sinek’s admonition to engage your audiences, social circle of friends, and everybody you will ever meet in terms of the ‘why’, and what you belief, because he says that is only way the interpersonal, intercultural, interview, oral presentation will achieve conviction, substance and therefore excellence. Well he is right, and if I have been trying to achieve his vision of a successful professional communication through its ‘whys’ rather than ‘hows’ and ‘whats’, I couldn’t be that far away from being right too. It might be simply nobody can see virtue in the ‘whys’ of professional communication and its linguistic styles, which would  frame the ‘hows’ and the ‘whats’.

Consider this angle: there are 2 types of people, the first type follows blindly, the second follows wisely. The kind of people in the former are only interested in ‘how’ and ‘what’, in other words their minds operate completely in the automatic/limbic mode, devoid of critical thinking. Of course modern human beings are generally a mixture of ‘why’, and ‘how’ and ‘what’ types of people. The kind of people in the second type like to have their minds operate more critically and questionably, and the likelihood they will find conviction, value, excellence whether in professional communication or otherwise is higher, because these people will not be accepting wholesale, without differentiation and order, the lessons and values learn in ES2007s; in other words they are voluntarily, not naturally, selective of information they will admit into their basket of skills and know-hows. It is hopefully the second type of people can raise the standards of the people closer to the first type, both in terms of linguistic styles, and their knowledge or ‘why’ cores.

Again there is nothing wrong with treating professional communication or any other subject from the superficial ‘how’ and ‘what’ points of view, and there is nothing wrong if Brad or my fellow classmates have absolutely no interest when I go into a sermon on the ‘whys’ or when I use the linguistic styles and even punctuation norms, such as having a colon before the word ‘but’ and ‘so’ when explaining something, of such academic philosophies: but that is good for a great diversity of views; and nobody should feel disaffected with all my written work because I go into all my writing with the lowest expectations in terms of replies and comments, and I don’t coerce anyone in terms of  these: in fact I don’t expect anyone would read either, because I write for charity and not for self-esteem.

This is the SIMPLEST style of writing, grammatically and structurally sound, I can ever manage, and if anybody still thinks I used bombast words, I’m probably just too daft to write any simpler!

Salud 
I cannot wait for the semester to end sooner, for all the foreboding reasons, and I'm embarrassed to say it came to such a closing..............

THE SEXUAL FOREBODING IN ES2007S

I just finished watching Black Swan (2011)---the movie Brad briefly mentioned about in ES2007s class the other day, and somebody else (quite a few) in class pitching the movie as great and must-watch of the year. Thinking the movie taught noble lessons of life and therefore persuaded, I downloaded an online version of the movie free of charge and to my horror discovered a sordid mess of graphic emotional and sexual blackmail!! Some of you have seen it, there’s no removing the brain degenerating sludge-fest, for those who haven’t, you don’t ever, ever want to commit blind martyrdom with your set of eyes, gifted and sacred.

It’s hard to feel proud for Miss Portman of Harvard once upon a time; it’s hard to be moved into solidarity now with the Oscar-deserving benchmarks she set herself; it’s even harder for me to reconcile her time in clean-cut Victorian gentility scripts, which doesn’t seem all that long ago in the Star-based series, to the present prima donna struck comatose by the witch spell of carnal Hollywood.

Question was did the cash-stocked ledgers and promises of middle-rags to riches by Hollywood highway do so well to cajole her underwriting the contract for the role? Or was she, in still a young career trying to perhaps make the totem pole of the likes of the sensational Licole Kidman, titillating Pate Winslet, and sensuous Daomi Watts, been a victim of blackmail herself, of underside favors and drawer cash.

Why of all scripts Miss Portman chose to rocket her Oscar stardom, she picked; had to be coerced, or otherwise, the unconstitutional blackmail part, for which I played victim to a few days back recently, and suffered sutured emotional scars. As if blackmail ordinarily hadn’t caused her enough mental, moral ill, she probably found more dignity and honor, or more fulfillment of self in enacting the blackmail of a profane sexual nature.

In the film, one senses her gift of feminine sexuality debased, dismantled, suffused with, commodified in carnal cross-cuts, which falsely herald her sexual violability as essential femininity, when it is really both SEXUAL BLACKMAIL and mistaken power.

To grab the Oscar with such a prurient subject is not too proud headliner, except if it is one for your negated sensual tastes.

The lyric that went God Save the Queen is compelling enough today for God Save our Portman!

Oscar now goes to……….

Cheers

THE FOREBODING IN ES2007S

The devil has revealed itself. The fraternity of ES2007s' students had a devious turn of ideas. Yesterday, they conspired a blackmail attempt on me, a fraternity member, for the rambling blasphemous texts they thought I wrote on the ES2007s portal. These are ES2007s' darkest times yet. Below is a cry of utter distress:

Gosh, can any game be called a game we intuitively know it to be if it is so depressive?!!?!? Few games live up to such a billing as the Game Of Death (2010); and I can't believe I'm roped into one? But knowing myself very well, I cannot write what I need to say in fewer sentences until I'm completely sure I've said it how it needs to be said?

This is not a test of conciseness so much as it is a test of your reasoning faculties, because if it is then all of the best New York Time's and The Telegraph's editors need to take classes in conciseness? NO, that couldn’t be the case?? Rather, there is a concise for every genre of writing; and as you would see I’m writing closer to academic genre or style, not the facebook one, it is pretty concise when academic texts are upwards of 50 pages??

Wasn’t the intention of setting up such a portal of professional communication in the very beginning to facilitate academic discussion? If replies can be as simple as 3 lines, we could just exchange phone numbers and start a texting revolution??

Again I think this is not a test of conciseness so much as it is a test of logic and reason, which needs writing to be content rather than rule-based for there to be any useful exchange of knowledge and learning?? This is not to say too I haven’t learnt how to be concise at all?

Honestly, ignoring me might be good, but knowing about myself in this respect, would not be good enough at all?? Very frankly, somebody, maybe Brad, needs to manually remove or block me from the portal???

Salud

Ladies and Gentlemen........

Ladies and gentlemen, the 2011 Bioconference saw a significant turn out from public as well as NUS faculty, staff, and students. Below are a few of my thoughts on the conference which contain many scientific implications for organizational interactions and behaviors.


I was rudely surprised Brad didn't show up when the well-known scholars from famous American and British faculties of genetic engineering, anthropology, sociology, psychology, neurobiology, evolution science, were sharing and discussing their expert knowledge on organizational interactions and behaviors; and at no cost with NUS students, staff, and the public! Guess what? I was seated in the back row of the lecture hall and being filled up with rarefied information on interactions including but NOT LIMITED TO----both interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships in the workplace, which the scholars say have an evolutionary social, economic, anthropological, political and EVEN BIOLOGICAL (NEURO AND PHYSICAL) basis that was first seen outside the workplace in more personal spaces of life.




To be honest, the ORAL PRESENTATIONS they gave to share their knowledge were breathtakingly high level, in terms of not only the content and structure, but also in eloquence, composure, confidence; and especially the high degree of language expression and vocabulary used that as I observed are so frequently associated with native English speakers from those superpower ‘Western’ countries.(you should know what I mean by western do you?). You could never get any minister of Singapore, or even the Singaporean with the best English language proficiency in spoken and written language expression and vocabulary, to express (speak ideas) as NATURAL and UNINHIBITED, without thinking twice ever what next few words to string in a rhetoric; simply because they, and you and I Singaporeans aren’t native enough to written AND ESPECIALLY SPOKEN English of the linguistics, style, enunciation, ways of expression of those superpower states.

For instance I remembered so clearly one of the ‘western’ panel experts, who became my overall favorite speaker of the day, for speaking smooth as silk (not fast mind you, but smooth is something different, something to do with style of expression). And I observed his smoothness lay in his perfect locution in which he expressed just like the way I have seen most academia or work professionals of native ‘Western’ origin.

Let me give an example of a few such expressions, which Singaporean subjects like you and I will deem unfit for formal speech and therefore not even dare to say it out in a formal presentation for only being appropriate in an expository or argumentative essay: but the native English speakers would speak the way they write, not as in word for word, but more in the form of the language expression----the creative ways they beautifully string words in a speech in many different kinds of orders that would obviously sound very good (good expert first, then only you can feel good smooth) to the untrained ears of non-native speakers like us Singaporeans. Ok without further ado, here go a few examples of superb language (speech) expression on a range of issues from anthropology to neurobiology and evolutionary biology and genetic engineering. Phrases are mostly word for word based on sharp memorization, unless otherwise stated.


1. “The problem with management in today’s organizations is their obsession with the bottomline, they want to increase productivity yet not be willing to give nap times for their workers in the afternoon who are the ones to help them achieve that productivity by being well-rested and ready to go. Well can’t they see the workers productivity is the extent to which they achieve the productivity?” (Only I and a few ‘Western’ visiting academics managed a chuckle for having captured this final pithy statement made here, while the rest of the Singaporean audience comprising of supposedly more rhetorically adjusted business and arts and social science students remained NONCHALENT to my shock. At first I had thought I was the person out of his mind for being the odd one finding the statement mirthful; but now I know about the ones who were inexcusably found wanting.)

2. “Positive organization behavior------what does that mean? Well the mutual care and trust it creates and helps elevate in organizational environments; the oxytocin, the building bridges and welfare it prompts; for all of these positive organizational behaviors cultivate.” (Again one can see the spoken conventions of fluent native English speakers right here, which become unconvention if spoken by Singaporeans in front of Singaporeans in some formal presentation or otherwise, for coming across as aloof, deviant, and crackpot! Singaporean context would demand Singaporean style of stringing sentences to an expression which I find very odd and hard on my ears these days after having listened to native speakers of English speak so well. It’s all well and fine to speak in Singaporean English style for boys in the army, but if you are speaking in a presentation, you odd to learn from the native masters of English expression both written and spoken, and this is different from asking you to produce all the range of American or British accents!!! NO!!!!! I am talking about the language expression of the words that they speak and create and string in sentences, not so much the voice-tones and accents.

3. This whole paragraph here is PURELY MY OWN STATEMENT and the sense I can achieve after listening to the lectures on workplace interactions.

You need to see that our neurobiology originated from that of hunter-gatherers, and it was a very basic and rudimentary heuristic for a small-knit community of only 40 or 50; perhaps 100; 150 to 200 upwards at most. And so we develop this strong trait of affiliation; we are built, from the evolutionary biological standpoint, to identify strongly with people closest to our ingroups; in other words we take a natural suspicion towards outgroups, and organizational management need to recognize that if they are to create mutually building relationships all-round at all levels of the hierarchy; where each level of the hierarchy is not only one ingroup unto itself, but one more outgroup unto other ingroups in other hierachies, they need to find a way to identify among groups; which is difficult but not outright impossible, or find a more inter-divisional structure and goal of organization and management that fit all groups.


4. “If you were to put a stranger next to some other stranger in an elevator with small confine spaces, he would almost certainly feel a certain level of self-awareness or self-consciousness which is indicative of some discomfort. Now ladies and gentlemen, I’m not saying it’s wrong to feel uncomfortable or is there anything abnormal about your feeling uncomfortable, because by evolutionary and neuro biology, that is the most natural feeling in the world. I just don’t want you to next time feel uncomfortable about feeling uncomfortable!” (The last statement here again demonstrates a very original language (spoken) expression that sets in motion in you the feeling of good confidence, eloquence, smoothness, of the speaker. It is times and statements at strategic positions in an oral presentation like these that really attract the attention of your audience, presuming your audience are themselves very good native English speakers and writers like perhaps Brad, for the half-choked English of the Vietnamese and even Singaporean locals or otherwise can NEVER find any attractive value in the language expression of the native English speakers if they cannot understand or catch the gist of an idea output in its expression. I’m also not saying I have any grievances about my classmates' Singaporean English ways of expression, both speaking and writing, for I once came from such a state of decrepit too. We all grow and learn.


5. This last statement here is mine, again gleaned over and summarize from the lecture in pithy sentences that show the sort of native genius of language expression of ‘Westerners’:

“Rewards and benefits tend to find the wrong kinds of leaders, because real leaders do not seek for the rewards and benefits of their leaderships, or vice versa; which follows if real leaders had any reward or benefit associated with their positions of authority, they deflect them all away so that they become equally redistributed amongst the ruled for their reward and benefit instead.”


Buenas senoras y senores

Eunice revealed!

Agent Eunice talks about the importance of staying open-minded, or sensitive and on guard of stereotypes.

Hi Eunice, you always seem to impress me with all your understanding ways. Yet Eunice, constructive interpersonal/intercultural behaviours are easier said than done. The illusion is extremely powerful, and it isn't all the time you will be ...able to keep an open mind. I mean it depends on your day to day mood, feeling, state of mind, and basically things that are out of your consciousness. Basically we operate in automatic mode you see, because it is energy conserving (ie your brain will tend to work in automatic mode because you are made that way to survive, though different people are automatic to different degrees), and so to keep an open mind all the time requires HERCULEAN ROUND THE CLOCK AWARENESS OR A HEIGHTENED SENSE THAT MIGHT DRIVE YOUR BRAIN CRAZY AND LAND YOU IN AN INSTITUTE FOR THE MENTALLY SICK. Yes, that can happen to you Eunice, given as I observed your huge sensitivity and heart for things and peoples of all kinds; and you might be so sensitive and aware, or emotional and interpersonal, you become un-moderated (lack of justice or moderation philosophy) and your brain or mind breaks down into pieces enough for you to land in a clinic! Rather Eunice, there are times when not keeping an open-mind keeps helps you to survive and keeps you regulated so that you don’t burn yourself and your energy stores and fall ill. Interpersonal and intercultural is good; but an obsession of it IS NOT GOOD! I’m waiting to see, Eunice, one instance where you lash out at or judge me severely, coldly, and non-interpersonally; I’m waiting to see if you can show me disrespect!

Now although things that require your prefrontal cortex to work with can be learned enough to be registered into your automatic mode, but what we are talking about is different individuals who are different every one of them, if not in culture then in person, and you meet them in the hundreds of thousands throughout the course of your work and interpersonal life, and you could never get your prefrontal cortex to learn every single one of them to such an extent it became automatic. It is because 1) you don’t meet them or work with them for enough time (ie quantity; a short time of perhaps 5-10 years I suppose for normal career jobs these days) and enough intensity and privacy (quality) of interaction, for your prefrontal cortex to learn them into automatic mode (ie your prefrontal cortex is always second guessing and on the look-out for changes in a person’s agent because very often people in the workplace are not role-playing and not behaving to their true colours with their families or otherwise, besides they are role-playing under performance stress and duress most times and all these affects people’s interpersonal and intercultural dispositions; it’s not like your husband whom you can be honest with because he is your closest confidante and whom you will have time to memorize into automatic inside out all his personality/interpersonal traits or otherwise because you intend to stay with him for a long, long time, 2) There are too many people for your prefrontal cortex to commit to memory or automatic, and normally, normal cortexes of human beings can process no more than 3-4 logic threads (and hence people) at once, even the brightest ones can at most keenly and effectively analyze and interpersonally/interculturally consider others in an open-minded and non stereotypical way 5-6 logic threads/people.

It would be more fair, Eunice, to say that we should be at least 60 percent of the time interpersonal/intercultural and non-stereotypical; alright maybe 70 percent if you are complaining I’m being such an ‘asshole’, for anything more is unjustified and asking too much of an imperfect being. In fact I would say 60 percent is like a miracle already! I think normal people in normal everyday mode are no more than 20-30 percent interpersonal or using their prefrontal cortex to perceive subjects. They are mostly on automatic mode or stereotyping!!

No expert communication author writes this, for nobody would buy their book if they wrote an anti-thesis to their principles of communication, only I would write such stuff, because I don’t need the money for now! Haha!

Cheers to Eunice

Hwee Teng and married life (2)

Continuation from part 1 

Which cultural group in our world demonstrate the most noble kinda marriage and its love? THE TIBETANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why?

Because they have a system of marriage where the men turned 18 are automatically assigned brides chosen by their parents and discussed with the girl’s parents. Neither the girl nor the boy has any part in the decision. The marriage is ‘forced’ automatically when the boy and girl turn 18; AND THEY ARE REQUIRED TO LOVE EACH OTHER EVEN IF THEY DON’T FEEL LIKE THEY LOVE OR ARE ATTRACTED TO EACH OTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is most like agape love or most conducive media for the DEVELOPMENT OF AGAPE LOVE AND CONSEQUENTLY ANY OTHER NOBLE VALUES/VIRTUES/ETHICS OF LIFE THAT CAN FIND TWIN IN IT, and the divorce rates among such marriages?----NOT ONE EVER; OR NEARLY ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How in the world? Simply because the foundations of such ‘forced’ marriages where YOU LEARN TO LIKE SOMEONE OR SOMETHING WITHOUT NATURALLY ALREADY LIKING AND LOVING THAT BODY OR THING, are founded on stronger virtues and values of life (that is most like AGAPE), AS COMPARED TO THE CARTE BLANCHE MARRIAGES IN MOST WESTERN AND ASIAN NATIONS INCLUDING SINGAPORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

QUESTION IS, COULD THERE BE ANYTHING THING WRONG WITH ‘FORCED’ MARRIAGES OF SUCH CULTURAL GROUPS IF THEIR DIVORCE RATES ARE NEARLY NON-EXISTENT, OR HAVE WE SINGAPOREANS/AMERICANS/OTHERWISE BEEN MISTAKEN AND SIMPLY TOO BLIND (ILLUSION) BY OUR WAY OF SOCIALIZATION TO SEE ITS EVERY GOOD, AND THEREFORE PROMOTE IN OUR OWN SOCIETIES!!!!!!

For if Hwee Teng’s parents were to assign her a pre-selected (BUT NON RANDOM OF COURSE, BECAUSE THERE WAS CAREFUL SELECTION) husband not of her own free will, she will be totally disgusted and cry a human rights transgression!!!!!! That is because she was socialized (illusion) to view marriage differently from the Tibetans, and vice versa for the Tibetans. Sadly to say, THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE OF THE MODERN WORLD’S ARE A NECESSARY EVIL, AND ALSO GROUNDS FOR THE REPRODUCTION OF FURTHER EVILS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I were PM, I would revamp the institution of marriage in America and Singapore and wherever, to take a leaf out of Tibetans or otherwise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All this that I have said is similar to saying that YOU SHOULDN’T LEARN WHAT YOU ENJOY DOING MOST; OR YOU SHOULDN’T STUDY THE COURSE IN UNIVERSITY THAT YOU ENJOY AND LOVE MOST, OR THAT YOU SHOULDN'T DO A JOB THAT YOU ENJOY DOING MOST. Why? By virtue of the logic of marriage and divorce derived above, it is safe to say you WILL GAIN MORE SUCCESS DOING, LEARNING, WORKING THE THINGS YOU HATE MOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you see the beauty of philosophy???? Philosophy derives answers to questions that most normal men cannot fathom or admit! Philosophy puts to death the believe that graduates should do the kinda professional work they love best!!!!!!!!!!!!! Instead, philosophy/religion/otherwise says something different: that its good if you can do the job you like best; but its better for the sharpening of your spirit to learn to do, love, enjoy, the work, spouse, course, body, thing that you did not originally first like or love, so that you do not take for granted the things you like best, OR ONE DAY FIND YOURSELF TRAP IN SELF-LOVE BECAUSE YOU HAD TOO MUCH OF YOUR WAY OR COMFORT ZONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These words in bold are the most important reasons why you SHOULDN’T DO WHAT YOU LOVE OR LIKE TO DO; and you SHOULDN’T LOVE (OR ULTIMATELY GET MARRIED TO) THE BOY/GIRL YOU FIRST LOVE OR LIKE AT FIRST SIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I apologize to all the girls and guys of ES2007s for saying something so bold: but that philosophy was meant to be bold!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have no choice and I’m honest; I’m not the one whose bold or crazy: but that philosophy is of that nature.

So therefore, all my fellow ES2007s coursemates, I only have one advice for you, contrary to what Brad, Eunice or Yu Tian(in his blog I think) pupports:

“Don’t do the work you love; don’t study the course you love; don’t ever ever ever stay together or get married to the girl or boy your eyes endear themselves to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I’m not saying you wont gain anything good from doing the things you love: BUT THAT THERE IS INFINITELY MORE TO BE GAINED SPIRITUALLY, MENTALLY, PHYSICALLY, BY DOING THE THINGS YOU HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I cringe and face in my palms at the sight of NUS Career speakers from CDTL and CELC or otherwise, who are so called experts in the field of work-life, and who all of them promote doing what’s best for your short-term and long term satisfaction and enjoyment!!! But I couldn’t blame them if they needed to say WHAT PEOPLE WANTED TO HEAR!!!!!!!!; for if they said otherwise, society and cultural norms will demand they be sack from the job!!! Haha!

Cheers

Hwee Teng and married life

This blog post is given in letter style

 

Agent Hwee Teng responds to the debate notion: a man can marry a woman so long as he sticks with her long enough (ie for eternity). Her response was:

 

"I have to disagree with Mark on this point. I don't think marrying a woman is about sticking with her long enough as in this case, it involves interpersonal communication and relationship. Two people of absolutely conflicting characters will find it hard to fall in love with each other even though they stick around each other for a long time. I believe that two people should only get married if they love each other, and not just because they are used to each other."

 

 

Hey Hwee Teng, how was today? Sorry for misleading you, but my statement automatically includes all the interpersonal stuff!

What I was really referring to, Hwee Teng, was more of the hard times when spouses in a relationship somehow lose their interpersonal touch due to over-familiarity over time and start to stray, and think they need to abruptly terminate the marriage. Now that is when I will demand they stick with each other according to "till death do us apart!!!!!!” Why? Because there is VIRTUE in DOING THE THINGS YOU DON’T LIKE, OR LIKING THE THINGS OR BODIES YOU HAVE GROWN SICK/TIRED OF. You see Hwee Teng, when a marriage relationship that started off so very interpersonal or loving or ROMANTIC deteriorates to something SEEMINGLY (Illusion) less interpersonal or less loving, WE SHOULDN’T BE ALARMED!!!!! Why? Because the kinda interpersonal and the kinda loving or love in the first 2-5 years of a blissful marriage IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE KINDA LOVING AND THE KINDA INTERPERSONAL 7-10 YEARS INTO THE MARRIAGE!!!!! I’ve never been married and I’m not speaking from experience, but from other couples experiences whether Asians or Westerners!

You see Hwee Teng, a young marriage will almost certainly lose the kinda young and hot-blooded, overtrustful, romantic interpersonal nature because PEOPLE CHANGE AND SO DO THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. For instance Hwee Teng, a husband don’t remain in a childless circumstance forever, because very soon he will have children, and then sooner later, he may decide to add to his brood. So his circumstances are changing when every 2 years he decides to have a new baby. More importantly though Hwee Teng, the husband himself who is human is changing himself, even if his circumstances don’t change. Why? Because his agent is constantly shaped by views and expectations of and from society, nation and the world, while he himself is shaping those views and expectations himself. All these changes Hwee Teng, will inevitably have some effect on his family/personal life, no matter how strong he is in these areas. And so therefore the nature of his interpersonal will bound to change as his circumstances change, himself changed, as his wife changes also. CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE is the ONLY CONSTANT!!!!!!! The worst thing that can happen is when the marriage changes for the worst rather than the better!! But you see Hwee Teng, strong marriages MUST ALWAYS CHANGE FOR THE WORST BEFORE IT CHANGES FOR THE BETTER!!!!!!! So do you see my point Hwee Teng, the difficult marriage relationship that has been stricken with poor interpersonal communication/relations IS GAME FOR SPOUSES TO DEVELOP AND BUILD THEIR LOVE (NON ROMANTIC, RATHER IS MORE AGAPE) TO GREATER HEIGHTS!!!!!!!!!

So that is why Hwee Teng, you have to not disagree with me, if I assume you had the right view and value of marriage as I did: but it was fine if it’s otherwise!

Spouses are to STICK WITH EACH OTHER in times of hardship and lack of interpersonal relations if only so that IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO MAKE THE TRANSITION INTO A DIFFERENT KINDA MARRIAGE LOVE that is non-romantic. But alas, spouses CANNOT SEE THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL, and seeing other couples divorce, they themselves consider divorce as the most optimum option after 5 years or maybe 10 years or whatever, because precisely they are SHAPED BY SOCIETY’S HABITS, TENDENCIES, AGENCIES. A premarital man and woman must be in no illusion about the kinda LOVE they think their young relationship will possess forever, because that is totally false and guilty of watching too much Hollywood ‘love’ movies. They must understand that when turmoil strikes in a relationship and interpersonal relations sour, and dislike or lack of attraction occurs, I will demand they make themselves ATTRACTED TO THINGS OR BODIES THEY AREN’T ATTRACTED TO ANYMORE, and I will demand that they BE INTERPERSONAL (NON ROMANTIC INTERPERSONAL) OR BE RE-INTERPERSONAL WITH THINGS OR BODIES THEY NO LONGER SEEM TO WANT TO BE INTERPERSONAL WITH, BECAUSE THAT IS TRUE AND UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, the kinda love that couples really gave their VOWS to, not the young and romantic one. For if couples only needed to stick around as long as their romantic love can endure, what in the whole world is a vow of marriage for?????????!!!?!?! They could just switch lovers or spouses as easily as they would the gears in a motor vehicle!!!!!!!! What virtue is that to be, or that it ceases to be????!!!!!??!!?!!

Alas Hwee Teng, I know you are human, and you would easily divorce a hubby who SEEM to stop being interpersonal with you, and so therefore read that his love has ceased. Why? Because again you are human and will inevitably be emotionally, then mentally and physically affected. But Hwee Teng, that is the NATURAL AND EASY WAY OUT, THE WAY THAT IS FAST, SIMPLY, STRAIGHTFORWARD, ONE WHERE YOU DON’T NEED TO WORK FOR ITS IMPROVEMENT WHATSOEVER, and romantic love is like that, you don’t ever need to work for it because if you feel romance which is very easy to feel (infactuation) you feel it thereof you have it: BUT AGAPE (UNBELIEVABLE AND UNCONDITIONAL) LOVE IS FROM ANOTHER WORLD, IT IS VERY VERY DIFFERENT!!!!! HweeTeng, you would be demonstrating agape love if you did these things: 1) Demonstrate your surreal loyalty both to your stray hubby as well as the marriage vow at the altar, 2) Keep loving and showing your husband acts of nonromantic or even romantic love despite his no longer showing you any affection, by perhaps making him a cup of tea every night before he sleeps because he has hypertension or otherwise, 3) You feel extremely hurt and heart-breaking that your hubby is disregarding, ignoring and despising you, BUT THAT YOU STILL CONTINUE TO STICK BY HIM AND LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE LITTLE ACTS OF CARE, CONCERN, KINDNESS OR OTHERWISE.

Point number 3 is the best example of agape love, love despite your heart aching like nothing Shakespeare can ever describe even!!!!!!!!!! And a love that you have to work VERY HARD FOR TO PERFECT, AND A LOVE YOU MAY EVEN HAVE TO SWEAT BLOOD AND PUT TO SOME KIND OF PHYSICAL OR MENTAL TORTURE OR TRIAL!!!!!!!!!!! And a love that essentially TEST THE NOBILITY OF YOUR SPIRIT/HEART/PSYCHE/MIND/NATURE/SOUL, Hwee Teng! And that is why this sort of love is SUPERNATURAL ALSO!!! One that is extremely difficult or too MIND-BLOWING for our human or monkey-like brains, which is why, such a love usually accompanies the conduct of a superior external agent or otherwise!!!!!!!!!!

The question Hwee Teng, is whether you are up for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers

Danger in the City

Agent Eunice talks about the same old interpersonal issues, with no twist whatsoever nor fun thereof. Below is the synopsis in yellow followed by my accompanying response.

"Interpersonal conflict is best resolved when we speak the truth with strength and not authority. Very seldom will a person turn around by being told he/she is doing something wrong/unacceptable. Simply put, nobody likes to be talked down. However, a person will turn around if they are told something that points to their best interest.... We can do so by pointing out the natural consequence of their actions."

I'm glad you raised a fantastic point, Eunice!!!!

You see Eunice, why would you ever entertain the idea or thought of considering talking down to somebody else. Do you see Eunice, that your involuntary tendency to perhaps use the method of talking down to somebody was NOT EXCLUSIVELY YOUR FAULT. Do you know Eunice, the real philosophy of why you would ever be tempted or just so inclined to talk down to somebody else in a conflict, is because OF THE OTHER PERSON'S SUBJECT!!

In short Eunice, something about the other person's subjecet framed your method of  response; something about the illusion of the other person's subject, behaviour, or overall feel or vibe caused your reaction. In other words Eunice, in most cases before you learnt about interpersonal communication in ES2007S, you had absolutely no clue nor control nor awareness about the appropriateness of your response to any social interaction, or very little clue, control and awareness of these.

For if Eunice, there was some aura of invincibility, or congeniality, interpersonal refinement or beauty, poise and grace in the other person, no matter what sort of grave or petty conflict you get into with him or her, YOU WILL NEVER TALK DOWN TO HIM OR HER!!!! And that person need not be of high societal or professional standing to have such a good air about him or her that will endear you to him or her; for he can even be as poor as the street beggar or cobbler: but not poor of his nature/soul/mind/psyche/spirit/heart.

Voila Eunice, do you see now the metaphysical reality of interpersonal communication Eunice? Do you see now why you can have so much propensity or temptation to talk down to somebody was exclusively because as much as you think you affected others with your talking down, YOU WERE FIRST AFFECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are absolutely in no fault Eunice, if you talk down to me in this forum, because Eunice, I made you to do so. And whether I knowingly or unknowingly make you do so is another complicated metaphysical subject altogether, something I have perhaps covered in all my blog posts and on facebook here: the topic of deception/illusion.

To put it much better Eunice, you are justified. For if the other person really was being such an 'asshole', you are demanded to act in accordance to reality by talking down and telling him or her the cold, hard truth, directly and without reserve. On the other hand, as I have mentioned above, if you get into the most severe conflict with a person of such good air, you wouldn’t have the ability to talk down to him or her or directly say the cold, hard truth to him or her. You would be hurt yourself Eunice, rather than you did the other person, when you try to talk down to such a gentle being.

Therefore Eunice, it should not matter whether a person likes to be talk down or not, because the real matter, Eunice, is indeed whether he would be talked down to or not. In short Eunice, it isn’t an issue whether one can select being talked down to thereof it is a more pertinent issue WHY one can be talked down to!!!!!!!!!!! Now this is a topic that would be worthy of discussion. Why is that so?

Because you see Eunice, if you are so aware of others’ likes and dislikes, but unaware of the dislikes and likes that people have about you, you are guilty of poor personal accountability. You would be the person who would be the first to make a prejudiced intercultural judgment on another person or otherwise; and you would also be the first to lose emotional control. Rather Eunice, all success interpersonal or not, starts with or within you---knowing the likes and dislikes others have of you and working to correct them, whence you would have demonstrated your interpersonal/intrapersonal maturity by taking on responsibility and showing that everything begins with you; or that you would in order to effect a change in others, understand you need to change yourself FIRST: so that others can also change along with you.  

First you discipline your agency, disposition, and learn your morals, ethics, and norms of mutually respectful and gracious acting, thinking, speaking, working. And first you judge yourself Eunice, and make sure you are fit as a fiddle indeed in every area I indeed audit you. And therefore first make sure of your own intrapersonal success/purity/holiness/impeccability/justice/MODERATION/perfection/morality/ethnics, so that you have the rank TO JUDGE OTHERS, OR AS YOU SAID ABOVE TO BE AWARE OF OTHERS’ LIKES AND DISLIKES OR BE SO CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THEY DON’T LIKE OR LIKE. Don’t trouble yourself Eunice, with what others like or dislike, for if you did so, WITHOUT HAVING KNOWN WHAT IT IS OTHERS LIKE OR DISLIKE ABOUT YOU, you are showing me what you really are---vain!!!!

So I have talked about two maters here, Eunice; first of which why you would talk down to somebody; second of which why you would be so concerned about others’ dispositions or predispositions, or likes and dislikes, when you have a more compelling one in you. If you would say your altruistic bountiful concern came from a big heart: but your poor personal accountability (not focused on what your objective/true strengths and especially weaknesses are, thereby naturally tending to egoism or misconceptions about how good you really are or otherwise) due to your un-moderated obsession with others’ likes and dislikes also came similarly from your big heart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So there is a contradiction here Eunice, your supposed good and big heart sprung from 2 sources; one positive and the other negative. It is like saying, Eunice, you marry a man because you both hate and love him!!!!!!!! BUMMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But according to moderation and justice philosophy Eunice, which I have written how many crazy times already in blog posts and on facebook, I can find no fault with your big, good and loving heart coming from light and dark, good and evil, positive and negative; neither can I find fault with you, if you so decide to be betrothed under the most ironical of media; by virtue of the dialectical argument of philosophy thereof if you demonstrated the other philosophy; moderation, in all your ways of betrothing or big-heartedness according to how we have discussed above, dearest Eunice, you are far from an abomination.

Beyond all these, I rather think also that the person who has been talked down learn to master his inwardly emotional energy and mount himself above and beyond the words of cold, hard truth. I would love to be talked down, if for nothing else because I will never reach vanity yonder!!!!

Let me tell you something: I rather not know that I know something, so that I do not be enamored of self-love, than know that I know something whereunto I may one day so come to Gnostic realization of the full gravity of my functions and capabilities, that I  KNOW NOT HOW TO KNOW, SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW, OR LOST THE ABILITY TO KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What is the adage to contextualize?

“Too much knowledge is a bad thing, especially KNOWLEDGE OF KNOWLEDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Maybe I should close down my blog of professional communication, because I'm deriving too much knowledge; and knowlege of knowledge, for all of my readers, classmates, and dangerously, myself.

Cheers
Que peligro

A Good Riddance---Interpersonal Communication

Phew! No more interpersonal communication!!!

I'm not sure what Brad thinks of this: but philosophy will tell you that being interpersonal all the time and all the while and round the clock, in every single interaction and circumstance is unsound and therefore totally wrong!

That is because there is no moderation, and only any thing or body that produces moderation is perfection or desirable! And because everything in nature is an agent of moderation---just look at the sunrise and sunset.

A person who conducts himself interpersonally all the time, all the while, round the clock, with no differentiation or variety or balance with other types of interaction that are perhaps not interpersonal---such as being for half the time exacting or totalitarian or otherwise, is doom for trouble! Let us see why!

Although this interpersonal person might not do hurt or trouble unto another, by virtue he is always forever interpersonal or SOFT, he might have hurt or trouble done unto him instead, because people might tend to take advantage of his empathy and kindness.

 In a perfect world in some divine one, that person might survive because nobody could or knows how to do hurt or take advantage of others, by virtue they are so perfect and regulated or holy! In short, they couldn't hurt a fly, nor accidentally either!!!!!! We don't have that sort of highly initiated and aware human beings on earth. Therefore, a forever interpersonal person cannot guarantee that no misdemeanor will be done unto him, in action, word and thought. He needs to understand that our world is imperfect, and that caused moderation into our world. For why would a perfect world need any moderation? A perfect world has only one side of the argument of good and bad, that of which is of course the former; for a perfect world is perfectly good or holy or otherwise. Therefore, a perfect world needs no moderation.

That person will need to rightly and justifiably moderate his interpersonal (good) agency with some other perhaps more hostile (bad) agency. If one day he talks nicely and sweetly and empathetically to your ears, HE MUST the next day or some weeks later, SHOUT, JUDGE, CRITICIZE YOU IN A MANNER THAT SEEMS OVERBOARD, RUDE, DISRESPECTFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even if he isn't going to shout, judge, criticize you in a manner that seems overboard, rude, disrespectful, HE HAS TO AT LEAST DO IT WITH OTHER PERSONS; WHERE AS LONG AS HE DEMONSTRATES A CONTRAST AND CONTRADICTION IN HIS MANNER OF DISPOSITION AND AGENCY; WHEREIN IT DOES NOT MATTER IF HE DOES IT WITH THE SAME EXACT PERSON OR NOT, HE IS JUSTIFIED, MODERATED, BLAMELESS IN OUR IMPERFECT WORLD.

In short, supposing myself for instance only; today I walk into ES2007S and smile and engage everybody so interpersonally until they almost want to marry me, even the boys: but when I go out of ES2007S class and perhaps back to my home and I have a troublesome brother toddler, who is disrupting to the brink, I will want to SHOUT, LASH, JUDGE, CRITICIZE, SLAP, AND HURT VERBALLY, NONVERBALLY AND EVEN PHYSICALLY WITH A CANE!!!!!!!!

Voila, I am a moderated human being, perfect by moderation and therefore justified! My brother toddler won’t take or learn to take advantage of me because I’ve been too OVERBEARINGLY nice, sweet, interpersonal, empathetic, or indiscriminatingly forgiving. And yes, nice-ness can be overbearing, as too much of any thing is a bad thing.

Does everybody see this beautiful philosophy, which also defines the rest of nature? I am trying to address the ontology of interpersonal communication, which is the layer deep beneath superficial interpersonal communication; because if you do like I do for every subject matter you encounter, YOU UNDERSTAND THE TRUE MEANING OF LIVING AND LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For that reason, philosophy of every thing is VERY SIMILAR to religion of every kind, wherein you also learn about the true meaning of life.

The real issue of ES2007s is WHEN and WHY AND WHO to be interpersonal, rather just WHAT or HOW to be interpersonal, because you don’t want to be interpersonal with everybody and anybody. Do you think you want to be interpersonal when you see a vicious reservoir dog? Because it isn’t ALL THE TIME that your smile and pat on the dog’s head will get you out of trouble; if anything you were lucky is all!!! Because success in and with anything is MATTER OF LUCK! Today you may get away with this vicious dog; the next day, you may not, because even your subject and your behavior are being changed on a day to day basis, though not as in significantly, but more atomically!!!

And so the dictum: be moderately interpersonal, AND, interpersonally moderated.

And also, I would like to retrieve back my statement in January in one of my posts here, which says that consistency define interpersonal communication. By virtue of the philosophy of moderation, you cannot be consistent enough to be overall consistent, so I have to retrieve that statement and render it null. Consistency is only useful for writing an expository or argumentative essay. It cannot, so I feel, be applied to life and living because then you will get into all sorts of problems with moderation.

Cheers

Murder in the City

Agents Eunice and Luqman try to resolve interpersonal conflict in completely different ways.

Guess what Eunice and Luqman, you are both right.

THE CORRECT ANSWER WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS, by virtue of moderation and justice.

Interpersonal conflict is best resolve when we both speak the truth to the other party one-on-one, AS WELL AS, run away from the problem and let time heal it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When there are conflicting truths to a subject, always remember that THE REAL TRUTH IS A COMBINATION OF THOSE CONFLICTS.

A murderer who murdered his wife did not murder from 100 percent outrage or anger. How I know is not because I murdered anyone; rather I am applying the philosophy of moderation that has been proven true in every aspect of nature. A murderer before he attacks his wife with the chopper or otherwise, for adultery or otherwise, contains both feelings of hatred and non-hatred----love and compassion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BUT because he CANNOT RESOLVE the contradictory feelings of hatred and love, HE DOESNT KNOW WHAT TO THINK OR DO, and he loses control of his emotions because his brain is reading contradictory feelings and emotions. THEREFORE, his subsequent action is left to IMPULSE or you could say destiny, because it is just as confuse and in uncontrol as his confusion and lack of control over what to think of his wife's adultery or otherwise. So therefore, he murders her, though it could have occurred as much that he would have stormed out the door, or file for instant divorce: but it just so happened, fate or his fundamental nature has it that he will murder his wife.

That is why they say, NEVER TEST OR PUSH A MAN TO THE BRINK OF TEMPTATION OF WHATEVER IT IS THAT HE WOULD BE TEMPTED WITH, WHETHER IT IS ANGER, FORTUNE, OR A WOMAN!!!!! Because then, there is no guarantee or sure control over his agency in these temptations. His response is left to the fate and destiny, and is as unpredictable as the clouds of storm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Religious/pious men, or those with extremely virtuous and high moral foundation and standing, ARE NOT EXEMPTED FROM THE ENSNARE OF TEMPTATION, by virtue that all men/women are equal and one of the same nature!!!!!!!!

If I get in an interpersonal/relationship conflict in Zurich, I will be the first to fly out to Buenos Aires the same day!!!!


Cheers
Buenos Aires que si

Trifling Words of Vanity

Revised Personal Statement (for writing convention of the modern world's) 

Dear readers,

I am a final year engineering student at the National University of Singapore. I undertake this non-profit project proposal with three other fellow NUS students and together we hope to make a positive contribution to Singapore’s social future and growth. Having been empowered by the opportunities at education and knowledge in the prestige of NUS' establishments, and grateful thereof, our team feel it is very win-win to return the power of society.

Mark. G
Que de carino, mas Que de nobleza y Que de virtud ja ja!

Sex in the City

Brad postures in response to a classmates' intercultural account of a student exchange American dude who got his hands on no-fly zones of a Singapoean girl's, that hookers in Singapore's redlight district who have sex with men for cash utilities are unconservative; he also postures one more by saying that Asian or Singaporean girls who find themselves working in a bar are just as unconservative

Hi Brad,

The hookers in Geylang do not have a problem with conservative; instead they have one with rationalism. They were Asians and presumably brought up the way we think they were brought up which is conservative, traditional, and somewhat inhibited in freedom of thought, speech and action, very unlike individualist American or British culture or otherwise.

These Asians who so worked as hookers had a problem with rationalism because they can have a conservative set of morals, ethics and values, but then decide to forgo one or two of them if it brings about THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER ALA JEREMY BENTHAM'S UTILITARIANISM (18TH CENTURY FAMOUS CONSEQUENTIALIST PHILOSOPHER). THAT EXPLAINS WHY THEY TOOK UP THE HOOKER JOB!!!!

How do these hooker jobs bring about rationalism/consequentialism/utilitarianism or the greatest good for the greatest number?

Let's look at the hookers. They can be generalized to women who do not necessarily enjoy or take pleasure in the sexual act so much as they eye and enjoy better the velvet cash rewards that accompany sexual services and the pleasures of orgasm that their male customers concurrently experience of and with them; these are the benefits or the good which is the maximum and total sexual pleasures experienced by the hooker and her man, as well as those with respect to the self or self-interest in terms of the cash earn for day-to-day survival and making ends meet for their families, themselves and/or otherwise.

On the other hand what might be the greatest disadvantages or pitfalls of casual sex services? You name it, I got it: HIV, gonorrhea, herpes, syphilis, cervical and/or womb cancer, and some other mentally harrowing and sado-masochistic experiences thrown into the mix.

Having gotten and weighed the advantages and disadvantages of casual sex services, the women, whether accurately or inaccurately, derives a conclusion that due to exigent familial, personal, economic circumstances, she decides in favour of being a hooker; which is that she perceives the greatest good for the greatest number of people including any family members or friends and relatives and children she is trying to support, even the man she will fornicate and DEFILE herself with for being of service for his extrinsic pleasure.

In that sense she is not making a decision based on her conservativeness because she is by default of conservative socialization given her Asian background (if we presume all Asian socializations are more or less conservative); instead she is taking a decision based on self-interest or rationalism precisely because she is willing to overlook her conservative roots for some benefit to her outcome of life, which is often times cash-driven. She then calculates and perceives a greatest good for the greatest number and that cannot be faulted because she is rationally, albeit very mistakenly, giving more weightage to the perceived altruistic virtue of trying to support her family members or otherwise. That makes the most sense and perceptible to her because human beings are largely self-interested about oneself as well as one's circle of interests and rational when it comes to matters of day-to-day survival and staying alive and living on; and this is all the more defined and justified when these women are struggling to find a way out of poverty and are very desperate. She ultimately had to perceive, given her poor state, that there can only be the greatest good for the greatest number of people when she opts to moonlight in the streets of Geylang, or Vegas, Rappongi, Patpong.

She has made a decision consequentially a la utilitarianism, independant of her primary value system or morals and ethics and beliefs socialized into her. And most hookers who take the streets are really mostly doing it out of making daily ends meet and a job rather than a pastime or hobby. If they were doing such sex out of the love for it or hobby, then they can be implicated for being at odds with the presumably conservative and prohibitive Asian socialization they were schooled in: but they weren't for most cases!!!!

The same cannot be said of the bar girls at Boat Quay Singapore Brad! Those girls who work as bar girls might not be so desperate for cash and survival because if they would, they should have been selling their bodies instead of working in the bar. These groups of women are the in-between groups who dont demonstrate as dire a circumstance as hookers. Of course I'm generalizing here because these women might be working as bar interns as some one-off job and then they can rightly be implicated for trangressing Asian conservative ideals: but I dont see how that can be the case because I think they are also operating out of rationalism and self-interest and utilitarianism. They want the greatest pleasure--which is cash salaries as well as being desired and drooled over by men and having a surge of sexual estrogen and its attendant ravishes of feminine sensualities, for the greatest number---which include themselves and all the male customers they will serve, entertain, flirt, chat up with. So in a sense, they might be considered to be operating independantly of their primary conservative agency, in which of course inconsistency and contradiction exist hand-in-hand with more liberal bar or pole girl jobs. This is the same inconsistency and contradiction that would have been present in the hooker example given earlier.

Contradiction and inconsistency exist in every human agent, and that is as rule as that of night and day, light and darkness, hot and cold, yin and yang. The success of human agents in any aspect of living is and must be contingent upon the perfect balance of the contradictions which is MODERATION OR JUSTICE! Similarly, the 'success' of a hooker or bargirl must LOGICALLY be her ability to not feel the effects of the conflict between her conservative primary and liberal secondary agencies; which means the hooker and bargirl must be A VERY ABLED HOOKER AND VERY ABLED BARGIRL, who can be conservative when conservative calls for it around her family and friends outside of her job, at the same time be liberal and SEXUALLY WILD, SEDUCTIVE, AND UNINHIBITED while working her hooker shifts.

Note that I am deriving this concluding statements from pure consequentialist and philosophical logic and reason, without considering any deontological/religious/absolute morals and ethics that would ordinarily be relevant and incorporated and adjusted into the concluding statements. In effect, I'm trying to show you that while I use rationalism/consequentialism to derive my concluding statements on hookers and bargirls, it is not foolproof and it has shown its faults by heretically championing a hooker's/bargirl's line of work as long as she demonstrated skill in manoeuvring between the 2 contradictory sets of agencies; when we all know by cultural socialization or otherwise, something possibly reprehensible, or unworthy and morally depraved about such jobs.

Brad and one and all, WE ARE BACK TO THE SQUARE ONE ARGUMENT---MODERATION OR JUSTICE WITH A SENSE OF DEONTOLOGY!!!!! Please read the older article on deontology vs consequentialism to glean more information!

Cheers
Hookers and Bargirls
No las gustan, y tu?