DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE
Part 5
WHAT IS BEAUTY?
Beauty is the kind of idiosyncratic perfection that glorifies its own existence.
Tuesday, 28 August 2018
Monday, 27 August 2018
DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE
Part 4
WHAT IS ART?
Art is a form of expression extolling particular responses to, modes of or interpretations of human experiences; seeking to provoke the physical senses and mental processes into further diverse and unpredictable secondary responses in an effort to enrich and enlarge the full totality of the human experience.
Part 4
WHAT IS ART?
Art is a form of expression extolling particular responses to, modes of or interpretations of human experiences; seeking to provoke the physical senses and mental processes into further diverse and unpredictable secondary responses in an effort to enrich and enlarge the full totality of the human experience.
Sunday, 26 August 2018
NICE MOVIE - CRAZY RICH ASIANS
Let me give you the verdict at the outset - you will enjoy this movie because it is so full of fun. Despite the inevitable cliches, the exaggerated show of decadence and the deliberate silliness, it manages to introduce some freshness in weaving together the three threads of a familiar love story, an undisguised ridicule of the laughable pretentiousness and the mad antics of the so-called super-rich and a re-exploration of the conflict between Asian family values and the Western pursuit of individual happiness.
So, it is still worthwhile examining the three questions that occupy your mind when you stumble out at the exit as the closing credits roll:
(1) In this day and age, are the so-called Asian values of hierarchy, authority, seniority, tradition and family still relevant in the face of a globalised world built around individual autonomy, freedom of choice and the universal pursuit of happiness? If the predictable ending is to be believed, the answer seems to be a NO.
(2) Is it necessary to be rich, never mind super-rich, to live satisfying and fulfilling lives? If large parts of the movie mine laughter by laughing at the excess and superficiality that money buys, the movie seems to answer NO to that question too. But seriously, if true love and happiness on the one hand; and a life of wealth, comfort and power on the other; are mutually-exclusive choices, how would or should we choose? I think that really depends on you.
(3) And the last and a politically-charged question: is the possession of wealth an accurate measure of a man’s (or woman’s) talent, self-worth and especially his worthiness for respect and self-respect, never mind the secondary question of whether which has more merit - old money or new money? To be polite, let’s just say that it is unsafe to give a clear answer to that, though it is pretty clear in our minds! Since money and talent are two of the most sensitive and contentious issues in Singapore, an honest answer here will probably be an unwanted one.
So, it is still worthwhile examining the three questions that occupy your mind when you stumble out at the exit as the closing credits roll:
(1) In this day and age, are the so-called Asian values of hierarchy, authority, seniority, tradition and family still relevant in the face of a globalised world built around individual autonomy, freedom of choice and the universal pursuit of happiness? If the predictable ending is to be believed, the answer seems to be a NO.
(2) Is it necessary to be rich, never mind super-rich, to live satisfying and fulfilling lives? If large parts of the movie mine laughter by laughing at the excess and superficiality that money buys, the movie seems to answer NO to that question too. But seriously, if true love and happiness on the one hand; and a life of wealth, comfort and power on the other; are mutually-exclusive choices, how would or should we choose? I think that really depends on you.
(3) And the last and a politically-charged question: is the possession of wealth an accurate measure of a man’s (or woman’s) talent, self-worth and especially his worthiness for respect and self-respect, never mind the secondary question of whether which has more merit - old money or new money? To be polite, let’s just say that it is unsafe to give a clear answer to that, though it is pretty clear in our minds! Since money and talent are two of the most sensitive and contentious issues in Singapore, an honest answer here will probably be an unwanted one.
Tuesday, 21 August 2018
DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE
Part 2
WHAT IS LOVE?
Many people think that love is an inexplicable and mysterious feeling that you have for another person. It seems that when you love him or her, you just know it; without knowing how or why.
I think a little differently. I think love is a spontaneous attraction or disposition towards a person whose mere presence makes you happy. I think love can be explained and can be recognized and understood, but it must be defined in the context of a relationship. Loving a thing or an object is diametrically different. So, in a loving relationship, you will find at least these seven features:
(1) You have a natural fondness for that person, a fondness not dependent on any specific quality or characteristic.
(2) You accept him/her the way he/she is and you will never try to change him/her to fit your preference.
(3) You have genuine respect for his/her freedom and opinions and you will never try to dominate, override or disregard his/her free will and autonomy.
(4) You appreciate him/her as someone special and treasure him/her above everyone else.
(5) You are naturally kind and helpful towards him/her and you will do everything in your power to protect, satisfy and ensure his/her happiness.
(6) Loving someone does not entail possessing him/her.
(7) Your love for someone is not dependent or conditional on him/her loving you back.
If any one of these features are missing, it is possible that you don't really love him/her.
Lastly, must love be forever? ........... sadly, no! Love can fade. Love can be lost. Love can disappear. And, like everything else, love can die.
Part 2
WHAT IS LOVE?
Many people think that love is an inexplicable and mysterious feeling that you have for another person. It seems that when you love him or her, you just know it; without knowing how or why.
I think a little differently. I think love is a spontaneous attraction or disposition towards a person whose mere presence makes you happy. I think love can be explained and can be recognized and understood, but it must be defined in the context of a relationship. Loving a thing or an object is diametrically different. So, in a loving relationship, you will find at least these seven features:
(1) You have a natural fondness for that person, a fondness not dependent on any specific quality or characteristic.
(2) You accept him/her the way he/she is and you will never try to change him/her to fit your preference.
(3) You have genuine respect for his/her freedom and opinions and you will never try to dominate, override or disregard his/her free will and autonomy.
(4) You appreciate him/her as someone special and treasure him/her above everyone else.
(5) You are naturally kind and helpful towards him/her and you will do everything in your power to protect, satisfy and ensure his/her happiness.
(6) Loving someone does not entail possessing him/her.
(7) Your love for someone is not dependent or conditional on him/her loving you back.
If any one of these features are missing, it is possible that you don't really love him/her.
Lastly, must love be forever? ........... sadly, no! Love can fade. Love can be lost. Love can disappear. And, like everything else, love can die.
Saturday, 18 August 2018
DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE
This is a series that defines comprehensively and objectively difficult-to-define words and the concepts they represent.
Part 1
WHAT IS RELIGION?
Religions are emotional attempts to placate anxiety about human mortality or to provide existential consolation through a tenacious adherence or loyalty to a set of cultural beliefs, rituals and communal behaviour, to be defended at all costs. Their central ideas are focused either on an unalterable fundamental principle or varying concepts of a supreme supernatural being or beings that have absolute control over human destiny. Characteristically, such ideas are neither grounded in reason nor reality, so a scientific or logical evaluation of religion is not possible.
This is a series that defines comprehensively and objectively difficult-to-define words and the concepts they represent.
Part 1
WHAT IS RELIGION?
Religions are emotional attempts to placate anxiety about human mortality or to provide existential consolation through a tenacious adherence or loyalty to a set of cultural beliefs, rituals and communal behaviour, to be defended at all costs. Their central ideas are focused either on an unalterable fundamental principle or varying concepts of a supreme supernatural being or beings that have absolute control over human destiny. Characteristically, such ideas are neither grounded in reason nor reality, so a scientific or logical evaluation of religion is not possible.
Saturday, 9 June 2018
TRUMPKIM FEVER I
 |
| Source: https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com |
 |
| Source: https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com |
No one seems to have noticed that both the American and North Korean national flags have the same basic colours of red, blue and white. Both parties should realise that there is much commonality in their national psyche! I hope this will put them on a more friendly frame of mind to bring their two countries together onto the path of peace and mutual prosperity.
Thursday, 7 June 2018
THEY ARE NOT COUNTRY TRUMPKIMS
The Dems said he is Forrest Gump,
Yet Heaven dotes on Donald Trump.
We called Kim a mad Rocket Man,
But he is really a savvy statesman.
Now, on the twelve of June,
They are going to call the tune.
Watch how bigly they will score
In the lovely island of Singapore.
A nuclear peace for the human race
Will put all detractors in their place.
Neither a simple country TrumpKim,
They’ll win Nobel prizes in a whim.
Tuesday, 5 June 2018
THE REAL CAUSES OF POLITICAL MANICHAEISM
AND THEIR REMEDY
https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/graciousness-charity-vital-for-healthy-debates
"I hope that we in Singapore can do better by being committed to respectful, reasonable and robust discourse with one another," says Straits Times Forum contributor Zhang Jieqiang.
That I certainly agree, but I do not think that the lack of charity or grace is the reason why debates often degenerate into mutual demonization, ad hominem attacks, name-calling and accusations of bad motives. There are three main reasons why such degeneration occur:
First, people get into debates with the wrong frame of mind. They think that debates are about winning and losing, so they will do or say anything, however ridiculous or unreasonable, to maintain indefensible statements at all costs. Sometimes, in a mistaken effort to save face or to appear to have a superficially amicable outcome, they would suggest having a very unsatisfactory and pointless "agreement to disagree". In reality, debates are about exploring ideas from both sides so that each side can benefit from a clarification and enrichment of their own thinking and learn new ideas from others.
Second, people engage in debates with the wrong ends in mind. They want their own views to prevail and therefore, all their inputs into any debate are designed to support their own original stand. Ideally, they should present their views in the hope of receiving a contrarian rebuttal with the aim of re-evaluating their own stand. Perspectives and views don't "belong" to anyone and people should be able to adopt and abandon views at will depending on how a debate proceeds.
Third, people in some societies or cultures wrongly think that a debate is a quarrel or an adversarial conflict that is best avoided. This is because of the basic assumption that people are incapable of changing their minds or their views. They expect everyone to be afflicted with an irreversible and highly tenacious dogmatism. On the contrary, the whole point of debate is to seek to change one's own mind for the better, with the help of your debating partner(s).
In short, you go into a debate not to win, but to learn; not to prevail, but to explore; not to change the mind of the other, but to see whether your own mind should be changed in the light of arguments from others.
So, political or social Manichaeism is not the outcome of a lack of charity or grace. Rather, whether in America or Singapore, it is because people got into debates without knowing what debates are all about! Until and only if political and social discourses are informed by an enlightened understanding of the true nature and spirit of "debate", they are destined to be both frustrating and counter-productive everywhere.
AND THEIR REMEDY
https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/graciousness-charity-vital-for-healthy-debates
"I hope that we in Singapore can do better by being committed to respectful, reasonable and robust discourse with one another," says Straits Times Forum contributor Zhang Jieqiang.
That I certainly agree, but I do not think that the lack of charity or grace is the reason why debates often degenerate into mutual demonization, ad hominem attacks, name-calling and accusations of bad motives. There are three main reasons why such degeneration occur:
First, people get into debates with the wrong frame of mind. They think that debates are about winning and losing, so they will do or say anything, however ridiculous or unreasonable, to maintain indefensible statements at all costs. Sometimes, in a mistaken effort to save face or to appear to have a superficially amicable outcome, they would suggest having a very unsatisfactory and pointless "agreement to disagree". In reality, debates are about exploring ideas from both sides so that each side can benefit from a clarification and enrichment of their own thinking and learn new ideas from others.
Second, people engage in debates with the wrong ends in mind. They want their own views to prevail and therefore, all their inputs into any debate are designed to support their own original stand. Ideally, they should present their views in the hope of receiving a contrarian rebuttal with the aim of re-evaluating their own stand. Perspectives and views don't "belong" to anyone and people should be able to adopt and abandon views at will depending on how a debate proceeds.
Third, people in some societies or cultures wrongly think that a debate is a quarrel or an adversarial conflict that is best avoided. This is because of the basic assumption that people are incapable of changing their minds or their views. They expect everyone to be afflicted with an irreversible and highly tenacious dogmatism. On the contrary, the whole point of debate is to seek to change one's own mind for the better, with the help of your debating partner(s).
In short, you go into a debate not to win, but to learn; not to prevail, but to explore; not to change the mind of the other, but to see whether your own mind should be changed in the light of arguments from others.
So, political or social Manichaeism is not the outcome of a lack of charity or grace. Rather, whether in America or Singapore, it is because people got into debates without knowing what debates are all about! Until and only if political and social discourses are informed by an enlightened understanding of the true nature and spirit of "debate", they are destined to be both frustrating and counter-productive everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)