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?

Mark's Cultural Commandment

In this issue, Mark's fellow coursemates were disgusted at the state of black prejudice in the United States of America; which was best portrayed in this scandalous video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrOSL85ZMck shared on facebook.

Mark's dictum: Cultural prejudice distorts what it sees, deceives when it speaks, and destroys when it acts.

The white dude saw only black; consequently spoke only black; finally acted also black!!!!

What a pity!!!

Cheers,
Que Que Que lastima, no le creo!

Brad's nonchalent Group 10

Brad looks for multimedia that can showcase lesson in action to no result; or might I say a result yet to materialize positively, hopefully! Haha!

Hi Brad,

You know I don't keep that sort of camera and sensing the lack of response to your photo admonition since two days prior; I only come to conclude that our group might still currently enjoy its non publicity, and do not therefore wish external conduct. What do you think? I'm just as clueless as you are. Haha!

Cheers

Narcissism in interpersonal and other cross-species communication talents

Brad recounted an incident on facebook where somebody or two he knew tamed a fierce doggie; in another instance, somebody else incited riots amongst seemingly docile bystanders.

Brad harmlessly spoke of the avoidance of conflict as something acquired, and in some extents fully God-given. There is nothing suspicious about this opinion and even I myself desire these talents of communication or conflict resolution: but we might want to investigate THE DANGER OF NARCISSISM OF, AND IN, SUCH TALENTS!

That is pretty darn amazing Brad; what sorts of people can do that; better what sorts of dogs there were; I presume a hotdog in disguise of a reservoir one? Lol! Incredible!

How I wish I have the ability to incite a riot or outmanoeuvre a lion of a dog myself! How I wish I have the whole world at my feet and I'm the supreme fleet commander; and how I would have also wished for the pride of doom and pall, and away all my midas and vitae essentia, for being inadvertantly blindsided and consumed in self-love!

And how I know Shakespeare would have written the same!

Let this literary stanza above be a reminder to everybody, consequently and forebodingly; that sometimes, there is strength or strength to be gained in weakness or inability because of the likely presence and anchor of humility. The master who has attained the highest podium of life or some skill is very often in the weakest most precarious position because his fall from grace can be twice as short in time, yet twice as severe in impact, by virtue that he is more at risk of amour propre from having the world at his feet, which will conspire his fall. Philosophers will say it is better you never reach the end of the ladder or perfection, because the truth of it or mastery of a faculty is too mind-blowing/pure/holy/bright/intelligent/moral/noble/high/fantastical/incredible, that your uninitiated id and ego will likely give you away. That is why I would say; or any philosopher too, the mid-ladder or middle-class, as well as even those further down, have a sense of perspective about life and living due to their humble circumstances nearest to strength. That predicates success and a step above the ladder which in all things equal is still good and safe from the seduce of foolhardy id and ego, so long you are not at or near the end of the ladder!

The old adage to justify this school of thought: with great power, comes disproportionately greater responsibility and fortitude. And since you cannot be so full or sure of your abilities; no matter how high your EQ or IQ or AQ may be; by virtue you are still grossly imperfect despite good commendations in these; it is safer to turn down the offer and pursuit of greater power, skill, knowledge; so that you do not unknowingly turn up greater pride and overestimation.

What Brad said above was right of course: but given a choice, I don't want to risk being overweened on a talent; and so I would do and learn just enough of a skill whether communication, interpersonal, or otherwise and by grace hopefully last me till my death. Why do I need to be very good at anything which I do ( discount my writing though haha, cuz that's different); and what is the ultimate purpose of having an excess of a skill such as communication, that you be so good to tame a reservoir dog or command riots at will? Why in the world is there a need for that? Isn't that the symptom of vanity or would-be ones alike; even if these people do not profess themselves vain: but that their lack of profession of their vanity IS VANITY ITSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers
No que bravo que esas gentes les aman

Divine words of wisdom

Below is a lecture on the philosophy of conflict.

I think people need to understand the philosophy of conflict whether cultural or otherwise.

People only ever think of running away or avoiding conflict, but isn't conflict the best requirement for subsequent peace or resolution or henceforth successful communication and interaction? This logic or philosophy is the same as that of failure and what J.K Rowling said in her speech. People fear failure and make all sorts of plans to make sure they dont come face to face with it. Yet it is failure and conflict and other depressive episodes that test your mettle and what you are made of, it even refines and polishes them so that you get stronger and more battle harden for the next one.

I'm not saying you should go out and intentionally get into a conflict with anybody on the street for no reason. I'm not advocating the practice of conflict; rather I am advocating the right perspective of conflict everybody should subscribe to. Which means you do try to some extent to avoid conflict, but yet recognize that no plan is conflict proof; no success is failure proof either. Being realistic and mentally prepared for conflict and failure is what I or any self-help book will urge; having fortitude when conflict and failure arise to our disconcert is even more important. That should be the essence of the lesson on intercultural conflicts Brad gave in class. You should not naively think that knowledge about what the causes and pitfalls of intercultural conflicts are will forever protect us from getting into one ourselves. If Brad was trying to teach that, or everybody misinterprets the lesson and fail to put it into wider philosophical perspective, that is the most pitiful thing!

The underlying message of the intercultural lesson was not about the avoidance of conflict so much as it is about the mental strength and absolute perspective in times of conflict, because after all, conflict is what drives human survival, evolution, adaptation, and ultimately success.

You are only as good as your last conflict, do you know that?

Cheers
Que bravo

Natalie Portman and Angier entrances Mark

Professor Brad of NUS shared a stunning article about Natalie Portman in the New York Times, but I think it went unnoticed over the other Natalie of Angier, Portman's unsung editor and worthy challenger for the Oscar title of Most Precocious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

O Brad, I'm almost consigned to speechlessness. I'm not sure whether I should fall in love with Natalie Angier's beautiful prose-like account of Natalie Portman; of which I can fully reasonate because I apply myself in blogs to similar expressive standards; or straight with her for I readily imagine her mesmerizing feminine beauty that exceeded even Portman's with the writing she cast her spell; or with you with enough game to recommend this article to all of us!!!!!!!!!

This is the kinda superlative article that you should confine students' postings to from now on, because they are ahead of the pile in terms of artful language style and expression and all the 7Cs, though it is much more than 250 words. That is why New York Times articles are some of the best English ones around not without reason!!!! I'm sure you wished you had a Natatie Angier in every department of ES2007s students', so that every blog you read will give you a feast of the eyes and disarmament of satisfaction. For when I read this article, it was just so pleasant, so very pleasant to my core existence; similar to when I read Isaac's blog posts and comments, only much more patently differentiated and original, and indescribable as much as that I could not find any more complementaries!!!!!!!

And Natalie Portman herself was no slouch; I've certainly seen her acting and hadn't know what to think because she had such mastery of theatre!!!!!!!! She had head-turning beauty as well, on top of Harvard's top credentials; it is small wonder she is pregnant and a new child and Oscar decorated future beckoning; she must have been such a fine feminine to not be undeserving of all the flourishes of love and life!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To the ages: Natalie Angiers and Portman; forever consecrated by my admiration, adulation, and best of them, infatuation!!!!!!!


Cheers
Ellas se quiero, ellas se quiero!!!

The Philosophy of Sex (2)

Agent Jonathan will chase after a girl he likes if doing so gets him her. Might there be an issue with that sex philosophy?

Hey Jonathan, good question that you just raised!

But why are you wanting to approach the girl? If you had everything, she WILL DRAW TO YOU INSTEAD, Jonathan!!!!!!!!

The whole philosophy of love and relationships of today's starry-eyed youths are totally off-tangent, and UNDOCTRINAL!!!! I'm of course sometimes guilty of that sort of thinking too, because I'm also youth!!!!

But courtship at the HIGHEST AND MOST RESOLVED LEVEL, IS ABOUT DRAWING PEOPLE TO US, NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND!!!!!!! That is the REAL PHILOSOPHY OF LOVE AND RELATIONSHIPS; OR FOR THAT MATTER ANY AREA OF LIFE AND LIVING!!!!!!!

Of course for guys, socialization has taught us that we must make the first initiative in pursuit of the girl of our dreams, but that mustn't get overstated. Guys, BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHY ABOVE, should moderate their pursuit of girls of their dreams!! So this brings us back to the basal philosophy of moderation, something that I lost count of how many times I mentioned in all my posts on my blog and here on facebook. I think I mentioned moderation, as a doctrinal princple to anything in life and living about close to 20 times already.

On top of that, I think guys should bias on the safe side of moderation in their pursuit of girls of their dreams. They should really totally give no regard for the importance of pursuit, rather they should hold in higher regard disciplining themselves and their dispositions, achievements, traits, values, virtues, ethics so that these can potentially become attractive enough to draw in the GIRL OF HIS DREAMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that is the ACTUALITY, PRECURSOR AND AVOWMENT OF A SOLID, LONG-LASTING, POWERFUL, ALL-WEATHER FOUNDATION OF A STRONG RELATIONSHIP, MARRIAGE OR WHATEVER!!!!!!!

The above powerful philosophy is of course uncompatible with the emphasis of today's media and pop world on illusions of personal appearance and corporeal endowments or gifts.

But there is also a blatant weakness in my arguments in my above latest 2 posts. It is hopefully evident to anyone who reads it. There is an unmistakable loophole, and any sharp-minded youth or Brad can see right through it in an instant!!!

Cheers

Eunice and Empathy (5)

Agents Eunice and Jake exchange on verbal and nonverbal views of love and empathy.

Hey Eunice and Jake, I'm glad the both of you raised this point!!!!!!!!!

But consider this Eunice and Jake, why in the world is there a need to confess love verbally, when emotions as abstract as love can be professed non-verbally?!!?!?!

And non-verbally does not only include the superficialities of professional communication such as maintaining a longer than usual gaze at your bf or gf, or conversing with him/her using the full force of voicetones modulations, or smiling and winking flirtatiously on every occasion of interaction. While these might be interpersonally important, there are other easily overlooked but exacting non-verbal issues at hand.

Showing love through actions in exclusively what you do only should be the most powerful indicator of love, but sadly, as you know, we are all human beings, and are very unable to simply tell a girl or guy loves us by the things he or she may do, such as offering us a ride in his/her car home at midnight after lecture, or helping us run an errand that locates in Jurong when he stays in Changi while he/she is caught up in the preparation of exams. We affective/emotional (or weak) human beings need these hidden acts of love to be accompanied by a kiss on the lips after the ride to your doorstep, and completing the long errand. Do you see what I mean? We need undifferentiated acts of love to be embellished with all the sorts of flowery informalities and that is human's greatest weakness----being unable to see through instantly and directly the mind/psyche/spirit/soul/nature/intention/heart of another person's.

But, but, but, but, having said that, by the argument of moderation of which I have mentioned till I've gotten boringly sick now, emotional awareness and agency is also human's greatest strength!!! If only it garnishes the interactions and communications between disparate human groups and also within themselves; by bringing verve and therefore DEFINITION to the undifferentiated or hidden acts of love or otherwise that we are so poorly put together to see and evaluate!!!!

So having rebuked and invalidated Eunice and Jake, I also have to exalt and give my consensus! How ironical; but every in life is like that . Good is bad's irony or antithesis, and if good and bad exist in this world, ironies must also therefore likewise!!!!!

Cheers

Eunice and Empathy (4)

Agent Eunice pleasantly finds out empathetic love.

Hey Eunice, I'm glad you raised another good point!!!

If you were saying love should define communication and even beyond it, I couldn't agree more with you. But it really depends on what kinda love you're talking about. If its romantic love, then that is bound to fail, BECAUSE IT IS TRANSIENT!! Romantic love will ONE DAY END.

But, but, but, but, unconditional agape love will forever stay in place, because it is chained tightly around your soul/mind/spirit/psyche/nature/heart!!!! Romantic love is only chained and effectual with the man of your dreams. When it is not your hubby, you would give unto any other person with lesser than expected love; which is why romantic love is both subjective, and therefore PROFANE AND SULLIED!!!

The only objective kinda love in this world is unconditional or agape love. Love that does not differentiate between your hubby and next-of-kin and a dirtied, ugly-looking beggar or drug peddlar!!! And you would give equally positive words to the latter group of people as you would your closest kin! If you cannot imagine yourself doing that Eunice, you haven't attained that sort of level of love. To better contextualize what I say, Eunice: imagine somebody had done unto you severe wrong or outrage, the very very terrible crime of its kind; would you go back to the person who outraged you and forgive him of its trespassings, better yet to even give positive encouragement and words also? Now that is true love of the most noble of its kind, and it requires a most surreal kind of soul/spirit/heart/psyche/mind to do so.

If Eunice, that is the page of love you are preaching, we have the same one!!!!!!

Cheers

Eunice and Empathy (3)

Agent Eunice surprisingly ditched the empathy or found it too cumbersome to bear; a shocking and unimpressive move.

O Eunice, you raised a fantastic point, this time for rebuke!!!! Haha!!!

Now you are really blowing hot and cold Eunice; for I thought I just read a post you made concerning the considerability of empathy!!! Or maybe I saw an illusion!!! Haha!!

Simply because right here, you are dodging the bullet by not wanting to face the challenge of complicated conflict resolution!!!! You should have told Jake the same thing you wrote in your empathy post, if for nothing else but consistency's sake!!!!

How do you do this empathy Jake and Eunice? How do you find a modus viviendi between the Christians and Muslims, femininism and masculinity, conservatives and liberals, consequentialists and deontologists, cultural Tibetans and Aboriginees, man and woman????

Simple, Jake and Eunice. If you both are unreligious, then the only way is to extend your moral imagination!!!!!!!!!!!! Which is to empathize in short!!!!!!!!! This is called the Evolution of God in Richard Wright's national best-seller, but it has nothing to do with Christianity because Richard wrote from a buddhist's perspective. Here God is not the superlative noun; it is more adjectival.

But to extend your moral imagination was likened to bringing more God (as in co-existence and less hostility) into interactions between disparate human groups. He said that as human beings grew and evolved, and as Brad said above, we survived and adapted by being more capable of imagining the state and function of others' being or culture, as understanding that they have similar survival and posterity goals as themselves, and that they understood that all human beings were fundamentally like themselves and trying to live to some well-defined scheme. When they knew this and everytime they discovered new asymmetry with newer and different groups of people, God changed for the better and they gained newer perspectives and solutions to incorporate the views, agencies, rules of others. That is to say these people gained more respect and understanding over the time and have their God evolve to make sure they ensure the survival of themselves by ensuring likewise others' through empathy and correlation with others. These people understood that posterity was dependant on A NON ZERO-SUM GAME between human groups, and that they needn't get a better resource of future for themselves by thinking in terms of themselves at the expense of others or vice versa, and that their survival was symbiotically defined with that of others!!!! That was how their moral intelligence or God came to be and improve, that is, empathy!!!!!!!!!!!! Richard Wright talks about the conflict between Muslims and Christians and how moral imagination or empathy made tensions between them more manageable and unproliferated. He also talks about in general various other examples of other disparate groups of people and gave examples to his thesis on the evolution of God how there was some form of conflict resolution or at least management in them.

Cheers

Eunice and Empathy (2)

In this issue, Eunice continues her fascination with empathy, only this time she is determined to win over her participant(s) in the interaction by unreservedly aligning herself with them. Might that raise issues?

O Eunice, you raised a fantastic point!!!!!!

You are talking about empathy and that is very important here again!!! However, I'm also worried a girl like you could become so wide of heart that you would let down all your guard and give your pluck to the other party that you be stuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rather I believe Eunice you should have added that you would empathize ONLY TO A CERTAIN LIMIT, BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULD BE PRACTICING MODERATION AND JUSTICE VIRTUES!!! You can never empathize with a person fully Eunice, because you will need to be that person, which you cannot and knowing you cannot and still try to be like his/her mind/soul/psyche/spirit/nature/heart will bring you to a more severe interpersonal pit than if you DIDNT EMPATHIZE WITH HIM/HER IN THE FIRST EVENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is like trying to be a master of a trade when you aren't one; such as a trainee fighter pilot believing he is as good as his master and want to take the skies to engage in enemy battle. He obviously would let his life, master and kin down because fighter pilots who take to the skies in battles are masters of their trades, not rookies!!!!!!

All you need to do Eunice, is find one trait, emotion, value, virtue, ethic; or non-trait, non-emotion, non-value, non-virtue, non-ethic, in which you can empathize; that would be more than enough for you to create a connection and a thoroughfare into the person's emotional, mental, spiritual world!!!!! Again, by virtue of moderation and Justice, Eunice, you don't want to create too many connections especially if it is just a professional work sphere or anybody on the street or bus-stop; unless it is your hubby or son or daughter you are doing the connection with!!!!!

Also when you do this connection by empathy with that stranger or acquaintance anywhere, you want to be careful not to sell your soul to him/her because for all you know you might have done so to the devil himself!!!!!!!!!! That is the problem or grey area of empathy under adverse circumstances. But most of the time in the workplace professionally, people are cultured, goodwilling and generally well-intentioned; but you still don't want to be given completely to another person's fundamental agency if you simply want to gain her friendship, understanding, faith, agreement, acceptance, tolerance, and maintain a good working relationship. You want to align yourself in such a CONSIDERABLE AND CONCERNED YET TACITLY FIRM AND RESOLUTE AND SECURE WAY; so that you are not compromising your own virtues, ethics, values, rules to the other person's. Too much or being too involved is unjustified and therefore unmoderated because you lose your primary substance. This phenomenon is best demonstrated in peer pressure in boy-girl relationships!!!!

Empathy must cause your emotional, spiritual, mental, even physical, improvement and development and not the deteorioration of these domains that come only with over or unmoderated empathy!!!!!!!! In other words, under moderated empathy, THE OTHER PERSON MUST ALSO EMPATHIZE WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU DO NOT DO THE WHOLESALE EMPATHY YOURSELF; YOU BECOME HALF THE PERSON, AND HE/SHE BECOMES THE HALF OF YOU!!!!!!!!!! THAT IS EMPATHY AT ITS VERY BEST IN INTERPERSONAL INTERACTION BECAUSE IT IS DEFINED BY PLATONIC PHILOSOPHY OF MODERATION OR JUSTICE, WHICH IS INTRINSICALLY ITS PERFECTION!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers
Que completita!!

Eunice and Empathy

Agent Eunice comprehended enough of the importance of empathy in interpersonal success, but abrupty threw the weight at presumably poor government for the lack of empathy amongst local people, rather than taking personal accountability, because after all she was part of the same society in which she unceremoniously decried its apathy and unknowingly as well hers.

Hey Eunice, you raised another fantastic point!!!

Any society in this world cannot have systems that only promote empathy, because remember about the importance of the master virtue called Justice or Moderation? I've preached that how many crazy times already!!!

Most societies/countries in this world have a COMBINATION of systems that promote empathy as well as rational self-interest!!!! Society is both empathetic and apathetic, by virtue of Justice and Moderation!! Similarly, any good government or political entity must be a combination of conservative and liberal, failing which we end up finding countries like Iran and North Korea and Burma!!! There is no Justice in these triplet because there is NO MODERATION OF GOVERNMENT OR POLITICAL AGENCY!!! They are full-on on egotistical self-interest or they must have mistakenly think they are having the advantage for the people by their dictatorship; I rather like to think it is the latter!!! And they need to come out of this illusion or delusion!!! If it is clearly the former, then these respective governments are truly callous; either sadistic or masochistic!!!

Before I go out of point, Eunice, the key point I'm saying here is that you cannot depend on the government for everything because a government, though for the people, cannot possibly align with every particular request sane or insane for they would become insane themselves. They surely can promote systems with empathy but only to an extent or balance with other systems promoting some other ideals like selfishness or individualism or whatever it is!!!! In other words there is a limit to the amount of effort to promote a certain ethic and the rest is up to us to further cultivate without further explicit injunctions and declarations from government. In short, everything boils down to the human agents and the circumstances surrounding whether we will be taught cetain ethics and virtues or not, and how much they are emphasized over other ones. Therefore, the degree, nature, intensity, frequency, sincerity of our empathy are largely a matter of the luck of circumstances and environment which include anybody we interact with in the course of our life that may instruct and embolden our empathy.

There is nothing to change that Eunice, you must accept that. Singapore can only do so much to introduce empathy and LOVE for our neighbours or strangers, if it has even already done enough!!! The only way Eunice for you to change the level of empathy, is to start your own private organization called Empathy and promote activities and examples that may support Empathy; you dont go through the government forever, because the government needs to be justified and balanced to ensure its own survival in a world sold on self-interest and rationalism!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ask not what the government can do for you, Eunice; rather ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR THEM!!!!!!! Because simply by default, THE GOVERNMENT HAS ALREADY DONE FOR YOU ALOT!!!!!!!!!! Also obviously you dont ask what the government can do for you, BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSE TO DO THAT FOR YOU, AND HOW YOU KNOW THE GOVERNMENT HAS DONE ENOUGH OF THAT SUCH AS EMPATHY FOR YOU IS THAT YOU HAVE LIVE THIS LONG AND THIS FRUITFUL!!!!!!! AREN'T YOU ALIVE EUNICE, AND EVERYBODY HERE?????!!!???!??

Cheers

Culture must be Illusion!!! (2)

Professor Brad of NUS whose original view says that culture is not an illusion because cultural products and ideas generally stay quite the same; but is 'quite' sufficient of non-illusion is what we will investigate.

Sup Brad,

If you would say we can change the way we see the world, and if the world includes culture of any definition, then isn't that intuitive of illusion and deception? Therefore, the world and therefore culture has to be illusion, isn't so? Similarly, in class we were talking that the ways and behaviours and objects or tools of lesson instruction constituted the culture of ES2007s, but what happens when a better projector or light bulb comes along and replaces the existing ones in the classroom; or that small things such as the light intensity deteoriation over the years due to continual use and filament decomposition; or that newer badges of students in future classes bring a slightly different sort of mentality and rules of behavior of professional communication in that they recommend using MySpace to be incorporated somewhere in the rubric of the module; then change has been implicated, isn't so? And if by virtue of change; illusion must also implicated, because absolute non-illusory products and elements do not downshift or ever upscale, isn't that so?

There was a reason the ancient philosophers Plato and Heraclitus said that NO TWO CONFIGURATIONS OF FLOW OF WATER ARE THE SAME IN A RIVER AT ANY GIVEN POINT OF TIME IN SPACE!!!! They are ever-changing, even a 0.1 percentage difference of the configuration is change; and by that, even a 0.1 percent decrease in the intensity of lights in our classrooms over time; or the moods and frequencies and depth of students' responses and interactions in the classroom, is enough to make no two cultures of ES2007s the same that spans the time continuum!!!!

Illusion is that particular of change, and while I know you say that generally the fundamentals of ES2007s don't change, I fully understood that. But when you talk about culture, person, or anything in this world, particularity is of utmost importance; you dont just assume Mark is just like another idiot you taught, or Cynthia behaved like one of the modest girls in your 2007 inaugural class. Rather, each person is particularly different from another, and each instance of time or each day of the week in which we have ES2007s class and therefore its culture is also different from one another!!! That was what Plato and Heraclitus were essentially getting at!!!

They have in fact implicitly implied that there is one sort of culture that is absolutely and forever binding; and given my perennial bias, I'm sure you knew what it was!!! Haha!

Cheers

Visual Interpersonal Communication

Agent Benjamin took some good time to ruminate back and forth between music and interpersonal communication; a noble preoccupation that was one!!!!!!

Hey Benjamin, you raised a fantastic point!!!!!!

The visual element, I think, in interpersonal communications is to bring definition to it. When a presenter came with his presentation, rather than over airwaves or multimedia such as via audio or video respectively, it makes the presentation more tangible, real, close, and therefore more effective, personal and delicate!!!!!!!!!

Similarly for music, people who can attend and sit still to listen to pure classical music played by famous pianist Langlang or Richard Clayderman are one-of-a-type!!!!! Simply because they must have been very able to image the chords and tunes and notes vividly and pleasurably!!! Failing which they wouldn't have appeared for the concert in the first event!!!!

So obviously Benjamin, you couldn't have been more right to say that we need a visual element for interpersonal communication if it was the kinda visuals in person I was talking about above. What sorta other visuals do you need or what other types, I'm not so sure. Perhaps to clarify, you might have been implying that you need a hotter-looking girl, not just a hot girl, to hold your interpersonal attention and communication even better!!!! Haha!

Or perhaps you expected the visual to be the person with lots of velvety expressions and animations and taking you for a ride than a plight!!!! But be careful with that, because you don't want to be shown overboard emotions and expressions that will overwhelm you and turn you away. Again, there must be the virtue of moderation or justice, the ideal I have preached so many crazy times already!!!

Therefore Benjamin, your statement about visuals of interpersonal communication would be MORE ACCURATE, if you keep adding that there must be a CERTAIN AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF VISUALLY ENGAGING FEATURES OF AN INTERPERSONAL INTERACTION!! Having said that, and if you implied the visuals of good-looking girls, then also make sure you apply the virtue of moderation to your expectations of always interacting with ever-increasing beauty!!!!

Only then, Benjamin, yourself and the interaction is justified or has the Justice (moderation) virtue.

CHeers

Culture must be illusion!!!

Brad and some classmates didn't think culture was illusion enough. Here is everything why they might be wrong:

Was I really out of my mind when I told a classmate or wrote in my blog that culture was anything but not an illusion?

Simply because saying otherwise that would have been inconsistent with the teachings of arbiter Plato! Unless Plato was out of his mind himself which could not possibly be because all of philosophy present and past borne out of his! It couldn't be any surprise too, that Shakespearan circles proclaim: "all the world's a stage"; and we silly actors and actresses!!! Shakespeare reaffirms here the theatrical production define by and defining its cast who themselves are one. If this is not convincing enough yet; let us dwell on the actualities of lingua. A stage is theatric is therefore make-believe is half-truth is illusion is deception!!! Everything we see in Les Miserables is a deception; both the state of utterances and emotions of the players who try so hard to evoke real-life experiences and accounts of players in similar roles. On that note and in fact, any reenactment of history in a drama or movie is somewhat an illusion or deception because you cannot revisit and realize exact state of mind for like state of mind, exact feeling or exact unfeeling for like feeling or like unfeeling, word for word, exact situational background for like situational background, once again!!! Something must be more true to make impotent this stance of mine!!!

For my part, I myself am a walking illusion and deception, because I do not carry the same two states of minds, mood; or atomic/electron configurations in these to every ES2007S class!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And so is everybody and everything else material or immaterial in this world!!!!!

And yes, even immaterial and abstract in culture or virtue or whatever is, wherein you may have originally misconceived these as unchanging and absolute because you had previously thought that immaterial stuff were supposed to interrelate absolutism because it was intuitive to think likewise: but as long as the immaterial and abstract were of this world and man-made, they were not the actual immaterial and abstract and absolute that were doctrinal (I'm sure Brad know what I mean)!!! Fundamental immaterialism is completely different from earthly ones; the former stays in one place forever, but not the latter.

Cheers

Presentacion de Oral (Assignment 5)

Don't be too alarmed I'm giving assignment 5 one month ahead of time when assignment 4 hadn't even cleared, because this was a playful counterfeit and a sort of sneak of the real one due on April 6th. On a serious note though, I wanted to address some of the issues and concerns Brad harangued ( for lack of verb) our project team during the surprised impromptu presentation on the 1st of March.  The following content was taken from an earlier response made to an email by agent Vanessa concerning potential impediments in course of the project proposal. Here goes:

Hey people; personally I think the problem statement was good enough. Maybe I should personally speak with Brad to convince him! Our problem statement was indeed about the lack of awareness of help given to problem gamblers, not the lack of awareness of problem gamblers or gambling, I couldn't see how Brad regretfully failed to see that and tragically misconstrued, nor the both of you good people allowing Brad to do so!!! It evaded me too completely; it was terra incognita! Might it therefore have been the spirit of the problem statement was simply not made absolute enough in your given speech to Brad, the presence of which couldn't see how a confusion dared arose.

But I would agree with the fact that there may be a problem with our purpose statement; Vanessa could put it up on the Wikis sooner still so that we could review what was wrong keenly, and then I'll help to make the modifications accordingly.

Regarding purpose of the survey; yet again maybe it wasn't clear or convincing enough for Brad, but still the purpose was fine, I brooded well enough.

The purpose of the survey was 1) Redo the survey done by NPCG on the indigenous Singaporean populace for NUS', then find out the degree of confluence. Such findings would be left and right, front and back significant because NUS' constituted the most educated one in the Singapore state and it would be interesting to know what their views on problem gambling measured up with. 2) We further wanted to know, with the survey, whether they were aware of the various types of help services given problem gamblers. 3) We then wanted to know, on top of how to make more people become aware of problem gambling (which from where we will get our solutions to the problem statement), whether there were other better ways to remedy problem gambling such as what I wrote in the survey questions: doing community services, attending courses and taking and passing exams and/or otherwise.

Clearly, the way I saw it was pretty clear enough what the purpose of our survey was; it just failed to empathize with Brad's right keys; which was why he asked to revise many things. We should speak with him again on Friday.

More informal section of the email, in terms of writing and expression

Basically for our proposal, the problem statement was the lack of awareness of the help services given to problem gamblers, and this was very very very bad, because if problem gamblers got no clue where to go for their help, they will keep continuing  deeper and deeper into gambling and cause deeper and deeper misery and distress for their families, friends, peers; and finally the whole of Singapore society will be in deep backwater. Realistically, we want to try to manage, not solve, problem gambling's effects!!! We could never solve the problem of gambling, because no matter how we contain it by closing down all casinos, people will find their own means and ways to continue engaging in such activities whether in Singapore or overseas. It's just that with the casinos opened in Singapore, gambling and its problems were brought that much closer to our doorstep and bound to affect society. Sensibly, we want to manage the problems caused by gambling, which means to make sure problem gambling DOESNT BECOME WIDESPREAD OR RAMPANT, which is to get problem gambling under control where it still will exist; only in benign amounts.

Obviously,  that was what we wanted to find out from our survey: how best we can manage problem gambling. Was it merely the help services that will be enough to tackle problem gambling wholesale, or were there more issues and angles to tackle? And that was what the survey was meaningful for; and also to ask the people if increasing awareness can manage the issue of problem gambling best, on top of finding out the level of awareness of the help services given problem gamblers; and we will get all this information uniquely from the NUS' educated force.

Brad just needed to know all this, and he wouldn't have too many doubts I'm sure.

Cheers
Que lastima!