short tribute

I'm still on break, but I thought I needed to write something about this.

Gayle Goh has retired from the blogosphere. Go read her final post.

I believed she has made the correct and the wisest decision for herself, and I wish her all the best in her personal life and future endeavours.

Probably, because I am too new to the blogosphere, I have yet to have engaged and interacted with Gayle, and I much regret that there is no more opportunity to do so. I do not agree with many of her views, but I believe, together with countless others, that she was a excellent blogger, and today the blogosphere has lost one of its best.

in search of the nameless one

after searching through many remote towns near the mountains, i finally found an old man who knew something about him.

[FO]: Old man, do you know anything about a wandering swordsman who has no name?

[Old Man]: wandering swordsman? yeah! Jet Li, in the movie "Hero"! wah, that show damn cool man...

[FO]: no, not that one. even though he's a swordsman, he's more like a scholar. He sometimes call himself...

[Old Man]: Heavenly Sword?

[FO]: yes

[Old Man]: i was collecting herbs up on the mountains, where i met this young chap hidden in the mountain caves. he said he was practising gongfu in the mountains, but looks more like he's reading books and writing papers. he call himself "heavenly sword" and he told me that he used to be someone who wrote publicly about issues which affect the common good of the people. some people liked his ideas, but not everyone appreciated him for it. soon, he felt that it was too tiring so he took to the caves.

[FO]: yeah, last i heard, he was kinda upset about how everyone seemed to be self-centered.

[Old Man]: why do you want to look for him anyway? are you hoping to talk him out of the caves and back to writing for the sake of the public good?

[FO]: no lah. he sounds like a cool dude, so i thought it would be nice to lim kopi with him.

(yes, i'm still on break)

jiat kit kat lah

i'm taking a break.

i'm getting swamped with different projects in my offline life, and i didn't expect replying to comments (or rather, thinking about how to reply) on my article in SA to be this shack. wah cow, i'll never write to SA again man. =P

BL, it's all your fault for inviting me to submit an article!! =P

selective personification

Let me begin by first talking about 3 logical fallacies. Note that the three are not mutually exclusive.

Ad hominem
An ad hominem argument is basically what is also known as a "personal attack", although the form it takes might often be subtle. The following are examples of ad hominems:
i) Blogger G is only 18 years old. What does she know about the real world? Her views are naive.
ii) Blogger T is a PAP butt-kisser. Don't bother with what he says.
iii) From the arguments he has made, it shows that Blogger K has no heart for the people. We do not need to hear from those like him.

Appeal to emotion
There are many different possible manifestations of this fallacy, but generally this is a fallacy because it instead of relying on what philosophers like to call "valid argumentation", they rely on the manipulation of emotions. Here are some examples of appeal to emotion:
i) Trans fat is not banned by the government because the government values economics more than the health of the citizens. Aren't you disgusted by such money-mindedness of the government?
ii) The government does not allow us to voice alternative opinions because it wants to hold on to power. This only goes to show that the government is inherently selfish and cares not about the people. How can you not be angry at such a government?

Appeal to authority
This fallacy is not unlike the ad hominem. It is something like an inverse version of it. This is a possible example of an appeal to authority:
i) Blogger W is so much more popular and credible than Blogger F. So we should obviously side with Blogger W when he disagrees with Blogger F.

Also, let me say that I am also aware of the fallacy fallacy, which is the idea that just because someone said something which is fallacious, doesn't mean he is wrong about what he says, it just means his reasoning is poor (according to the standards of philosophical reasoning). I am not attempting to assert that any of the views in the examples that I've given is incorrect. Nor am I saying that the standards of the philosophers is what is appropriate for the current blogosphere. And I am also not interested to debate any of the views in the above examples in this post.

It appears to me that such fallacies currently rule in the plogosphere. The purpose of this post is not to criticize, but an attempt to understand why this is so. I first started to think about this when I realized that alot of people have the impression that I am a very young person. How did they get such an impression, and what effects does this impression have?

Although I describe myself as a "young punk" and a "noob blogger" in the sub-header and the "about me" section of this blog, it appears to me that this is not the real reason why people think I'm young, but rather it is the how I blog. Several blog entries of mine have been rather introspective, often questioning and challenging my own perceptions, beliefs and values. It appears that this is something young bloggers do. Old bloggers don't question and challenge themselves. They are confident of their own views, and confident that they can't possibly be mistaken. I also believe in being vocal in my admiration and respect of other bloggers, and generous in my praise. This, it appears, is not something old bloggers do. Only young bloggers show admiration and give praise. Old bloggers are too aloof to do that.

Why do we have such an impression? I actually do not think this phenomenon is unique to the blogosphere. It probably exists in the workplace and other social settings. In our minds, we have already classified people into the lao jiaos or the ginnahs. A "lao jiao" is someone who is "steady", knows what he is doing, knows what he is talking about. He commands respect. A "ginnah" is a newbie, someone who doesn't know what he's talking about, and someone who needs to respect and listen to others in light of his inexperience. A ginnah is considered "out of line" or "not knowing his position" if he disagrees with a lao jiao. Conversely, a lao jiao does not need to be polite or kind to a ginnah, although if he does so he is being generous. This kind of mentality, of course, traces its roots to an Asian mentality of hierarchy and respecting one's elders.

How about the blogosphere? It appears to me that we also subscribe to such a mentality, albeit in a confused manner. (Ironic that bloggers also tend to criticize "the Asian mentality"). Let's take Gayle Goh to be an example. When she takes an anti-establishment stand on some issues, she is heaped with praise and recognition as an excellent prodigy blogger. Yet, when she takes an stand which is less popular, such as criticizing Mr Wang for not accepting the invitation to appear on BlogTV, she is criticized for being naive and that she is too young to understand the real ways of the world. So it appears that you are free from the "ginnah" label so long as you take a popular stand, such as an anti-establishment one.

There is another aspect of the blogosphere which is unique from other social settings. To explain this better, I will invent a new term "personification". This word refers to how much of a person we see when engaging with somebody else in a non-face-to-face medium, such as on the phone, instant messaging, "slow mail", emails, and of course, the blogosphere. (Note that I am not intending the word "personification" to mean anthropomorphism, which is the meaning of the word in literary contexts)

Adopting the use of this new term, we can see that a phone conversation, although more "de-personified" than an actual face-to-face conversation, it is more "personified" than an email or instant messaging correspondence, where we do not even hear the person's voice. I think this helps to explain why some of us behave so differently in real life than on an online medium. I know of people, for example, who feel way too shy (conscious of others) to talk about deep personal issues in real life, but suddenly feel much more open about them over instant messenger (not as conscious of others).

So how about the blogosphere? I suspect we practise what I would call "selective personification". Which is, we personify netiziens to different degrees, depending on how much we agree with their views. If you agree with a certain blogger, you are more likely to personify that blogger more, and more likely to acknowledge the person behind the view by giving praise and voicing our admiration. Yet, if we disagree with the view, we are more likely to depersonify the blogger more, often attacking the blogger in such a way which fails to respect the dignity of the person behind that view (yet still personifying enough to attach the label of "ginnah").

Take a typical plogosphere flame war which starts over two disagreeing views. Now imagine that instead of an online medium, all the involved parties are sitting in a room and the two people voiced their views. Is the same flame war likely to occur in this room where all parties can see each other face-to-face? I think not. Why so? When our opponents are more personified, we feel more obligated to conform within certain informal rules of social behaviour, i.e. being civilized. It is precisely because we fail to see the other netizen as a fellow human being, where we feel it is justified to behave in an manner which is not quite as civilized.

Many of my blog posts are about honest and introspective reflections, where I question and challenge my pre-existing views. I confess such thoughts to blogosphere not because I want to whine, nor because of some cathartic or therapeutic desire to express such internal conflicts I have. Rather, I was thinking perhaps some people might have similar uncertainties I have, and hoping that reading my own confessions would be helpful for them. Also, I want such blog posts to be a reminder to others that behind every articulated view on the blogosphere, is a person with human emotions, weaknesses and frailties. I care very little that as an end result, I appear to me more "ginnah", and people take my views less seriously. My "reputation" and my "credibility" is not so important to me, but it is rather the people who read what I have to say and are able to take something away from it, for whom I blog.

mortal thoughts

when i was still a student in university, i took courses in Japanese over a period of two years. one of my Japanese teachers was a graduate student called Mihoko. she was a very lovely girl, and looked like one of those prototypical cute anime girls, with puffy round cheeks and a beautiful smile. she was also one of the sweetest and most polite persons i ever met. one day, on the last week of the school semester, we heard that she passed away. rumour was that she took her own life because of serious problems with her dissertation.

one year ago, my father passed away after fighting cancer for almost 2 years. today is his first death anniversary.

i don't think anybody finds talking about death a pleasant thing. yet i think, perhaps, some of the most important thoughts in your life are those pertaining to your own mortality. you will not live forever. you will die one day. what do you want to do before you die? why do you want to do them? how important are those things you want to do in the light of the fact that you will die one day? what is truly important to you? the answers to such questions are incredibly personal. yet perhaps, the answers to these questions will determine whether or not you lead a meaningful or regrettable life.

why is talking about mortality such a personal thing? is it because it is precisely the nature of death which is personal? that dying is a lonely experience? or is it because death is associated with sadness, grief, mourning, a sense of loss, and these are all emotions and reactions of a personal nature?

yet death is something which is common. how many people die each day? the obituaries alone carry the picture of around 10 people a day. if you consider the entire earth, perhaps 1 person dies every 10 seconds or so. death is a ridiculously common thing. and what makes it even more common? death is universal. everybody dies eventually what. so if we take a larger perspective, death is no big deal what. just another statistic.

supposing i told somebody that today was my father's death anniversary, and that i was contemplating issues of mortality. and then this person said "contemplate for what? death is no big deal what. after all, around 10 people in singapore die everyday. 1 person dies every 10 seconds in the world. such a common occurrence." what would you think? would you think that this person was being insensitive? if so, why? certainly his view isn't wrong what. in fact, his comment might even be appropriate if it was an academic discussion about population statistics, for example. further more, isn't "a larger perspective" a more objective one? and aren't we conditioned to exalt a more objective perspective compared to a more personal and subjective one?

now assume that i am actually not a human being who has lost his father but a year ago, but say, a sentient but non-living entity, such as a highly sophisticated computer program. and i say "i am contemplating about death" to somebody and then that person makes the same comment about death being common and is no big deal. is he now being insensitive? perhaps not. because now that i am a non-living entity, i cannot be "offended" by such insensitivity. i cannot feel as if i've been insulted because you have trivialized the contemplation of such a deep and personal issue.

this is a weird thought experiment because it's probably hard to imagine a sentient and yet non-living entity. but hopefully you get the gist of the comparison i want to make. what makes the comment in the first scenario insensitive, but probably okay in the second scenario?

there are certain informal rules about the interaction between humans in a civilized society. the breaking of such rules generally result in what we call "insensitive", "rude", "disrespectful" or "discourteous" behaviour. telling me "death is no big deal" when i am contemplating mortality is one such instance of "insensitive" behaviour. this is even so when "death is no big deal" is a considerably more objective claim. there are certain things we just do not say to people under certain circumstances, because its just not what people do in a civilized society.

what factors determine such informal rules? there are probably many different reasons, as it can be observed that standards of good manners or sensitivity differ across cultures. yet there seems to be one overriding theme: a respect for the other individual. because we respect the other individual, we do not say things which might greatly offend them, even if we might even be justified in believing the views we say. such is a mark of a civilized society, it appears.

are bloggers and netizens civilized? when you leave comments or engage with other people in the blogosphere, do we care about the individual we are engaging? or do we fail to see that the blogger that we are engaging is also a fellow human being, with human emotions and human sensitivities? or we couldn't care less? our own opinions matter more?

if so, what makes you any different from someone who says "death is no big deal" to someone on his father's death anniversary?

wise restraints

Right before my Christmas break, I saw this post by Zyberzitizen on "free expression", and got me started thinking about the concept of Freedom. Just yesterday (yes I have not been very up-to-date), my attention was drawn to a post on Singapore Election Watch, and in my mind similar issues surfaced. This post will not attempt to provide any definite answers on the nature of Freedom. It is but a call for contemplation, perhaps.

For both Zyberzitizen and SEW, it is assumed that Freedom is a good thing, and that we ought to strive for more freedom. It is also implied that any attempts to encroach on our freedom will always be bad. Yet, do we have a clear idea of what Freedom is? Are our conceptions of freedom the same as everybody else's?

Here are three articles from Wikipedia, but personally, I found them to be perhaps too technical. Let's take a preliminary definition of Freedom to be "have no constraints of restraints". So someone who is free is someone who is not constrained or restrained. That sounds intuitive. But does it work? If I free does that mean that I can do anything I want? Am I free to rob a bank? If I am free to rob a bank, is the bank free to not get robbed by me? Am I free to shoot somebody dead? If I am free to kill somebody, is that person free to not be killed by me? Is he free to live? How about defy the law of gravitation? Am I free to fly? Or am I free to defy the laws of mathematics? Am I free to make one plus one equals to three?

These are extreme examples no doubt. But let us consider the issues at hand (for Zyberzitizen and SEW). If I am free to express anything I want to express, am I free to express something offensive? And if so, are readers free to not get offended by your own expressions? If you claim your freedom to express out-trumps the freedom of your audience not to get offended, why is that so? Who decides which freedoms (or which rights) out-trumps which freedoms (or which rights)?

So there cannot be complete freedom from restraints. Try as we might, we can never be free from some things such as the laws of physics, or the laws of logic (and some are inclined to believe, the laws of morality). If some restraints are necessary, then what should these restraints look like?

Once, my professor told me about the phrase, "the wise restraints that set us free", which was often spoken of in the past, but almost never in current times. [I googled this phrase and found the hit count to be extremely low.] What does this phrase mean? My professor shared with me two anecdotes:

The first anecdote was about when he was PhD student in Harvard. He was working on his thesis and had a writer's block, and he was very concerned. He worried more and more about his thesis each day until one day he realized that this thesis has taken over all other aspects of his life. In his own words: "Harvard has become my god". He was shackled by Harvard and the PhD, and he decided, enough was enough. He wasn't going to allow Harvard rule his life. So he just took off and went vacationing. After about two weeks, he realized, Harvard was still his God. It was just that instead of being under servitude and submission to Harvard and getting the PhD, he was now preoccupied with running away from Harvard. Either way, servitude or running away, he was shackled by Harvard. Upon realizing that "freedom from Harvard" meant neither of the two, he returned to Harvard and completed his PhD.

The second anecdote is about two couples who are dating. For the first couple, the girl asks the boy "Why do you love me?". The boy replied "Because you are beautiful, gentle and kind." Instead of feeling happy, the girl felt burdened. She felt that she had to make herself up until she was very pretty, always show her kindest and gentlest side, or else she would forsake the love of her boyfriend and he would leave her for someone prettier, gentler and kinder. She felt insecure. For the second couple, the girl asks the boy the same question. He replied "I love you because of you. I love all of you, including your faults." The girl was very happy, because she knew that she can be bratty, angry, indulgent and other aspects of her natural self to the boyfriend, and yet he will not stop loving her. She felt secure.

What are the wise restraints? In the first anecdote, the unwise restraint was making Harvard the most venerated or most hated ideal in his life. The wise restraint was choosing to be still under the restraint of Harvard (and hence having to complete the PhD), but not letting it become the most important thing in his life. By choosing to be under this restraint, he is as a result, "free" from Harvard (from being the God of his life).

In the second anecdote, the wise restraint was the boy choosing to love the girl in her entirety, including the more undesirable aspects of her. The resultant freedom is the girl's. She is free to behave naturally, and free from insecurity, because she knows that she does not need to earn his love. Perhaps, love is, by nature, selfless. Loving someone involves constraining yourself, but allowing the one you love to be free instead.

Due to limitations of the universe we live in, there is no such thing as freedom without restraints. The question is therefore not, whether or not we have restraints, but instead, which restraints we choose to have (assuming we have a choice). Different restraints will result in different consequences. Some consequences are more desirable than others. Which is then the wisest restraint to choose?

"The question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremist we will be" - Martin Luther King, Jr. From Letter from Birmingham Jail, 1963

[Addendum (04/01/2007): During a conversation with Cognitive Dissonance, she correctly pointed out that I have been conflating the meaning of the words "constraints" and "restraints", which have slightly different meanings. The idea that I want to present is that freedom is necessarily restricted, and these restrictions may either be internal or external.]

to all men on earth

i was reading this post by zyberzitizen (and left a comment), and suddenly i remembered something i was thinking about a few months back. oddly enough, what set me thinking was this post by whipsers of the heart. back then, i was wondering if us members of the plogosphere suffer from trying so hard to be intellectual that we neglect our emotional faculties. currently, i sorta believe the converse is true =P.

what has this got to do with christmas? well supposedly, christmas is the season where we "ponder upon the meaning and significance of love". i think i saw that in an article in the Straits Times yesterday. singaporeans? yeah right. so this christmas will you be more willing to let people alight from the mrt first before entering? or will you stick to one side of the escalator? or will you be a more generous driver? will you be a more gracious blogger? of course, you can say, love has nothing to do with that. love has got to do with friends and family. fellow singaporeans, they can talk to my elite uncaring face.

Pseudonymity wrote that christmas is the time to think about those less fortunate than you. that is no doubt true, but i'm thinking christmas is the time that we ought to take a deep long look at our personal selves also. as bloggers, we're accustomed to thinking about big issues, thinking about issues which cover and involve millions of people, that we don't spend enough time thinking about issues which involved just one person: your individual self.i think christmas is the time for self-introspection. christmas is the time when you ask yourself, could you have exhibited more peace, goodwill, charity, kindess, compassion, forgiveness, graciousness, love? christmas is the time when you ask yourself, what could you do, on a personal level, to greater exhibit these qualities.

for me, it was realizing that complaining or reacting negatively towards singaporeans who just aren't gracious enough, doesn't make me anymore gracious. no doubt ugly singaporeanism exists, and it is something worth talking about. but when doing so we are thinking about the big issue, the larger picture (the millions-of-singaporeans point of view). yet, exhibiting graciousness is a personal thing. if my own personal reactions to the issue is anything but gracious, then perhaps i am not helping the sovle the problem, but aggravating it.

what you could do need not be something grand or life-changing. it could just be something simple. something like wishing people "merry christmas".

to the KTM, BL and Huichieh, who in my opinion are the coolest folks in the plogosphere: merry christmas! hope you all have an excellent holiday season and much meaningful time spent with your family and loved ones.

to inspir3d (of Intelligent Singaporean) and the folks at Singapore Angle: merry christmas! really appreciate all the work that you do to bring quality and improvement to the singapore plogosphere. hope that this christmas season bring you much joy and laughter.

to those who are teachers such as singaporeteach and piper: merry christmas! thank you for educating our young. hope that you take the holidays to rest and recharge, and when school starts again, may you again help to bring love and joy to your students.

to those who are students, including ben, kitana, aaron, charissa and yanjie: merry christmas! hope this holiday season finds you well, and that you have adequate rest and warmth during this break. all the best for your semesters ahead!

to fellow newbies such as cognitivedissonance and zyberzitizen: merry christmas! hope you find what you are looking for by entering the plogosphere, and may you be spared the self-doubt and insecurity i went through when i was just starting out. and please do spend time with your family and loved ones this christmas season.

to dory, who called me a whinner in this post of kitana's: merry christmas! i hope that you will have much meaningful time spent with your friends, family and loved ones. and that christmas be truly a time of love and warmth for you.

to gundam, who spoke up for me (i think) in the same post: merry christmas to you too!

to the rest of the blogosphere, such as those who had left comments on my blog, those who had the opportunity to have conversations with myself, and those of you who are just readers: merry christmas! some of you have been nothing short of inspiring and influential to me, but to be honest, some of you i personally find very irritating. nevertheless, merry christmas to you all! may this holiday season be special and may you find yourselves in joyful, merry situations this christmas.

to my friends and colleagues: i know you read my blog =). merry christmas!

and lastly, to my dearest da jie: thanks for the japanese dramas! =) i am eternally debted to you. merry christmas!

merry christmas everybody, and peace and goodwill to all men on earth.