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?