End of recess week/ F1

Today is the end of a one-week midterm break and this is the breakdown of whether I've met the goals I set out. The answer is, of course, no - I knew I wouldn't finish everything, knowing myself, which makes keeping such to-do lists a bit of an irony. 1 point means I finished the whole task, anything lesser than that means well, I didn't, but still put in some effort.

1. Clear S.Asia readings. (1 point)
2. Clear Philosophy of technology readings. (1)
3. Clear Critical theory readings. (0.20)
4. Send an email. (1)
5. Do 8 characters for some writing mentor project. (1)
6. Do class presentation. (0)
7. Revise physics. (0.25)
8. Read up on physics essay. (0.25)
9. Do Philosophy of technology essay. (0)
10. Do S.Asia tutorial 3 (0.40)
11. Finish Critical theory essay. (1)

Total: 6.1/11 = 55.45% of goals met.

There were also 3 lower-level goals I set.

1. Clear NS deferment (1)
2. Exercise 3 times. (0.66)
3. Do 1 precis. (1)

Total: 2.66/3 = 89% of secondary goals met.

Well it's a pretty low score for primary goals but knowing myself it's the type of score I tend to get usually. S. Asia tutorial 3 was a late-week addition which probably shouldn't be on the list, and philosophy of technology essay is not due in 3 weeks (come to think of it, who would do an essay 3 weeks in advance?), so there's still some breathing space and it's not the end of the world. But it still doesn't deny the fact that I had a less-than-effective pit stop...

Didn't know F1 is so nice to watch. Well, sympathies to Massa, it was going to be a promising race for him. I don't really get the safety-car reset though, which tends to erase most if not all of the lead the leaders have worked so hard for. Since they detail the timings of each driver so thoroughly would it not be feasible to penalise those drivers on their respective time differences? Oh well probably doesn't matter anyway, wouldn't be watching another race again for the next 12 months.

Problem with suicide

Writer found dead last week.

The problem with committing suicide is that it's usually a very selfish act to make. It's probably the most selfish act one can make. Imagine how your parents and spouse would feel. Both would feel an overwhelming sense of grief, no doubt about that, but the former would also feel a sense of loss from the fact that they've spent so much money, time and effort raising up a child to being an adult only to see it all be reduced to nothing overnight.

As a spouse I would probably feel betrayed. We were going to spend our lives together in our little house, maybe have a few kids in the future. Now you're dead and you've left me all alone. You've committed the ultimate act of betrayal, because it's an irrevocable act. Above all, you have proved that you love yourself more than anyone else. While that is usually taken as a fact after a cynical fashion, to see it spelt out with such gruesome clarity is probably an experience we would not like to go through.

P.S 1: Of course, we need to consider the specific circumstances surrounding each suicide case. In many cases it could be an effect of a difficult medical condition.

P.S 2: A lecturer screened a film called Play Time. Suggest watching it if you want to feel something..new.

Adapted joke

A worldwide survey was conducted with the following question: "What is your opinion on the measures taken to combat food shortage in the rest of the world?" The survey was a massive failure because:

- People in Africa didn't know what food is.
- Western Europeans didn't know what shortage means.
- Americans didn't know what 'rest of the world' means.
- The Chinese didn't know what is an 'opinion'.

I spent two hours reliving memories on youtube. Just so much beautiful music to listen to. Grease is the word.

Consciousness as a biological or mystical gift

I was browsing a few blogs and I came upon this phrase: A rational agent is a moral agent. There are so many things to say about this that I don't know where to start. In fact I think I won't start at all. I think those 7 words are probably among the most loaded 7 words one will ever encounter.

A further thing to think about: what does it mean to be a human? The religious person would think it means holding a set of doctrinal beliefs. The social scientist would say, it's either the fact that we make tools to make tools, or it's language that makes us human. The rational person would say, it's rationality that makes us human. The existentialist would probably say there is nothing quintessential in being a human, and it is this realisation that makes us human; perhaps the mere act of reflecting what it means to be a human is the basis of humanism.

I don't know. I'm more inclined to the view that humans are really nothing more than something more than animals. In other words, I am inclined to believe there are no qualitative differences between animals and humans, only quantitative differences. And it seems weird that the moment I say this, I feel a bit weird, as if something inside me wants to believe that there is something more to being a human, than being something more than animals.

Work in progress (critical theory)

Ok.

The traditional theorist holds that we can know the world through our senses, through experiments, through science. The critical theorist, on the other hand, will maintain that the subject, meaning the scientist or observer, is a part of the world in which we are observing, and that henceforth we need to be wary of the knowledge we think we have. Any theorist, scientist, or observer is necessarily a product of historical and social circumstances, and those circumstances may go a long way in forming a bias within us, that renders our theories and experimentation less than adequate in understanding reality.

Almost immediately we can see that the critical theorist runs into the same trouble he attributes to the traditional theorist. For he is himself a product of external circumstances, and his charge of biasness on others has to be accounted for on his end. A number of critical theorists will, I believe, defend their position by making the argument that they are self-conscious, and that this very self-consciousness elevates their theory, perhaps, to that of invulnerability.

I admit that I have not read in detail this line of defence they take, but on the whole it does not look to me a very tenacious defence to mount. For if the traditional theorist reads up on critical theory, and becomes self-conscious of his own fallibilities, does it then mean that his original theory becomes validated and rendered OK under the critical theorist's scrutiny? The critical theorist would like to say no, but if he takes this line of defence, he is compelled to say yes.

I propose another line of defence for the critical theorist. Horkheimer ostensibly had some influence from Hegel, and it is on Hegel's dialectics that his ideas can possibly be defended. Simply put, if we accept Hegelian dialectics, then biasness and un-biasness are antithetical to each other, and should eventually find a synthesis. If we further accept that this synthesis is a superior state of thought than either of the previous two states, then we will need to accept that both partiality and impartiality are not only crucial in the development of human thought, but, in a sense, absolutely necessary as well. The critical theorist, in so uncovering partiality, or biasness, has already performed a crucial role in the synthesis, and he is free to admit of his own partiality unabashedly.

The focus now shifts to Hegel's account of dialectics, and any assault on the critical theorist's position has to deal with that to some extent. Personally, I've got my own criticism of Hegel, but I have got to qualify this criticism as unqualified criticism as I haven't read his works, and so I think I shall not proceed any further for now.

Half Nelson

Watched Half Nelson again, its good. The irony in the last part is just so beautiful.

On the misunderstanding of comfort zone

One of my pet peeves of recent times is people saying, I want to do this, or we should be doing this, because we should get out of our comfort zone. Now, this is a source of annoyance to me because these people usually don't seem to understand the terms of getting out of one's comfort zone. On top of that, the phrase 'getting out of our comfort zone' is increasingly used against that lifestyle which is perceived as lazy, inactive, backward and generally unbecoming.

Let us first address the latter issue. When a person tells another person, in jest or in seriousness, that he shouldn't keep himself indoors and be a couch potato, and that he should venture out to experience new things, it seems to be that this person is thinking that being a couch potato is a detrimental thing to be, and that venturing out is the antithesis to that. To this I must say, that this is really a difference of perspective and not a difference of quality living. People usually choose the lifestyle that is most comfortable to them. By and large this means lazing about at home. To the outdoor person, however, being outdoors is their way of being comfortable. To say that being indoors is comfortable and being outside is out of that comfort zone, is thus a false relation, for it could equally be that being outdoors is comfortable, insofar as it is in line with the person's natural preference, and that being indoors is outside of that comfort zone.

There is no way of establishing which manner of looking at things is the ideal manner, and when an outdoors person tells an indoor person to get out of his comfort zone, he really is telling the person to get into his. To this the indoor person can equally reply: "I don't see why I should be getting out of my comfort zone when you are still in yours. If you recommend that I get out of mine you really should get out of yours too. In your case, that means leading a normal, peaceful and largely sedentary lifestyle. Instead of going rock climbing every weekend, why don't you get out of your comfort zone and try watching tv all day?"

It seems that, in everyday conversation, and even in newspaper articles and journal writings (especially those travel-related ones), we seem to associate getting out of a comfort zone with doing things we don't usually do. So, for example, going trekking overseas, trying bungee-jumping and encouraging people to do volunteer work always come attached with the statement, get out of your comfort zone. The irony of this is self-evident when I watched a Lonely Planet advertisement on Arts Central recently. In it a female said that she went parachuting because it is out of her comfort zone; a few seconds later the clip showed her after a jump with a wide grin and saying, "Wow that was awesome." I personally find it hard to see how enjoying one's self is getting out of one's comfort zone. The very essence of getting out of a comfort zone should preclude all forms of enjoyment, excitement, and other positive feelings. In the same vein, doing volunteer work is NOT getting out of one's comfort zone, because having a warm, glowing feeling of benevolence and accomplishment in one's heart is in effect the feeling of comfort.

Now, it seems that we live in a society sufficiently advanced enough to take many things in life for granted. As a result, we tend to mistake things for being out of our comfort zone when they really are still within. For example, going to a foreign country and attempting to survive on a shoestring budget tends to be associated with getting out of one's comfort zone, when you're really still going to live under a roof and be able to wash your clothes. Sure, you're probably going to feel uncomfortable without many of the usual material comforts by your side, but feeling uncomfortable isn't the only measure of whether one is outside one's comfort zone. (If it were, then I can get out of my comfort zone inside my comfort zone already, by sleeping on the floor instead of my bed, for example). To really be out of the comfort zone, one has to go below the 'essential comforts'. Manufactured clothing is an essential comfort. So is water from the tap. So is a backpack. So is money. It goes beyond the tangible too. A friend once commented that being understood is a luxury of life. I would take it further and say human communication is a bare essential. There are so many things around us that are essential comforts, and you really aren't doing justice to the phrase 'getting out of my comfort zone' if they still remain with you.

So, to summarise, going mountain climbing is not getting out of one's comfort zone, because it could be in one's natural preference to like the outdoors; the activity could be a thrilling experience that you enjoy; and you are going to purchase climbing gear from a store anyway. Sweating, doing new things, pushing the limits, being disciplined, doing voluntary work, are all not by themselves truly getting out of the comfort zone. To think we get out of our comfort zone when we don't really just betrays a presumptive attitude in ourselves when what we really were seeking was fun, leisure, the pleasure and thrill of new experiences, and the sweet feeling of self-sacrifice.

I believe it is extremely hard to get out of one's comfort zone, in the true sense of the term. I also believe that there really is very little point in doing so, which is why I can usually be found in mine. The point of having a comfort zone is to stay in it, not to stay outside it. I don't need to sleep on the floor to appreciate the comfort of my bed. I already do like my bed, and I accomplished that not by sleeping on the floor but by lying on the bed and thinking: Ah, this is so comfortable.