I am already close to putting a closure on my three years liability; tomorrow is my last lesson for this term.
By the end of this year, I must be working full force on CloUdiSm.
All my plans are bending according to my will.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Original Fake 4th Anniversary
Finally something that caught my eyes for OF.
P.S: I have a perchant for consumer purchases that fall under the category of 'individualistic (weird), small, impractical, cute and expensive.'
Cheers
P.S: I have a perchant for consumer purchases that fall under the category of 'individualistic (weird), small, impractical, cute and expensive.'
Cheers
Terror Kid
I recently encountered a terror kid from hell.
When I saw her, my opinion is that she appeared like this cute little girl who displayed great expressive skills beyond kids of her age. She could accurately describe her feelings and thoughts clearly and I thought it was excellent.
But little cutie was little terror as well. And I literally mean TERROR with caps.
After this episode, my natural deductive mechanism started working its rounds; looks are terribly deceiving. I think we can learn a couple of lessons from 张无忌的妈妈(殷素素). Before she died, she said that "漂亮的女生都会骗人." The gist of her advice to her son was don't fringing trust woman, especially those you think is pretty, cute or both.
In my case, this also applies to a 4-years old.
But you see, looks is a critical factor to a woman's destiny. In a research (Smith, 1985) done on preschoolers, attractive preschooler girls were more often recipents of altruistic behavior and were less often recipents of aggressive behavior than were unattractive girls. I remembered I used this research to augment my sociology paper and got distinction for it. But frankly, this sole deterministic factor towards the looks department is way too reductive.
Now I will attack one point; it says 'altruistic behavior' - which probably suggest that people are 'helpful' towards woman that are attractive. Helpful in this case (although is a fringing general term) also promote the existence of a separate agenda, distinctive from the pure sense of 'being helpful'. I will adopt Thomas Hobbes perspective on this issue; simply phucking self interest. Period.
But here's an irony - although CloUdiSm does not dismissed the importance of physical beauty, it is of no guarantee to a happy and fulfiling love relationship. I will repeat; it is of no guarantee and in fact, woman who are attractive often faced the problem of men failing to know them deeper inside (not as in sex, but you know what I mean).
Some man hate me for thwarting their grand plans, because I always seek to expose some of the biggest shit these men have formulated and crafted so surreptitiously into their strategic plan. I think it helps because I always think like a bastard, although I often fail to act like one.
I am usually right with my gutsy little intuition and overactive analytical mind. I won't share scenario here but the conclusion is that there's no such thing as a good man - going by Smith's research, you are merely a recipent of an altruistic behavior because you are likely to be attractive by his standard.
And woman, before you get flattered by such manoeuvre, there is a clause to this effect: it is relative to all the women he knows in his social network. Once time has drastically reduced your 'physical value' and aggrandized by sheer comparison to the many others he might have acquainted within his social network - don't be surprised if the object of his 'altruistic behavior' is no longer you.
Unless your man loves you for who you REALLY are - which is something more lasting than our exterior self - the above paragraph might be a problem.
Then my attractive woman - how do you know if he loves you for what's inside more than what's outside?
Good question.
What do you think?
When I saw her, my opinion is that she appeared like this cute little girl who displayed great expressive skills beyond kids of her age. She could accurately describe her feelings and thoughts clearly and I thought it was excellent.
But little cutie was little terror as well. And I literally mean TERROR with caps.
After this episode, my natural deductive mechanism started working its rounds; looks are terribly deceiving. I think we can learn a couple of lessons from 张无忌的妈妈(殷素素). Before she died, she said that "漂亮的女生都会骗人." The gist of her advice to her son was don't fringing trust woman, especially those you think is pretty, cute or both.
In my case, this also applies to a 4-years old.
But you see, looks is a critical factor to a woman's destiny. In a research (Smith, 1985) done on preschoolers, attractive preschooler girls were more often recipents of altruistic behavior and were less often recipents of aggressive behavior than were unattractive girls. I remembered I used this research to augment my sociology paper and got distinction for it. But frankly, this sole deterministic factor towards the looks department is way too reductive.
Now I will attack one point; it says 'altruistic behavior' - which probably suggest that people are 'helpful' towards woman that are attractive. Helpful in this case (although is a fringing general term) also promote the existence of a separate agenda, distinctive from the pure sense of 'being helpful'. I will adopt Thomas Hobbes perspective on this issue; simply phucking self interest. Period.
But here's an irony - although CloUdiSm does not dismissed the importance of physical beauty, it is of no guarantee to a happy and fulfiling love relationship. I will repeat; it is of no guarantee and in fact, woman who are attractive often faced the problem of men failing to know them deeper inside (not as in sex, but you know what I mean).
Some man hate me for thwarting their grand plans, because I always seek to expose some of the biggest shit these men have formulated and crafted so surreptitiously into their strategic plan. I think it helps because I always think like a bastard, although I often fail to act like one.
I am usually right with my gutsy little intuition and overactive analytical mind. I won't share scenario here but the conclusion is that there's no such thing as a good man - going by Smith's research, you are merely a recipent of an altruistic behavior because you are likely to be attractive by his standard.
And woman, before you get flattered by such manoeuvre, there is a clause to this effect: it is relative to all the women he knows in his social network. Once time has drastically reduced your 'physical value' and aggrandized by sheer comparison to the many others he might have acquainted within his social network - don't be surprised if the object of his 'altruistic behavior' is no longer you.
Unless your man loves you for who you REALLY are - which is something more lasting than our exterior self - the above paragraph might be a problem.
Then my attractive woman - how do you know if he loves you for what's inside more than what's outside?
Good question.
What do you think?
Monday, April 19, 2010
Blinded
It's ironic when someone shared with me this surreal wondrous encounter with a man all suave and heavenly, but pointing evidences are directed towards signs of what I have deemed as a player.
It's facile to get yourself suck into a whirlpool of love, deluded that it 'must' be some kind of love, but these are in fact symptoms of confusion and insecurity. The derangement stemmed from temporal shutting down of our prefrontal lobe, which governs our critical thinking (if we even exercise them at all) or simply 'the rational way' of looking at things.
Which is why being in love makes us 'blind' - our executive thinking function is disabled.
Man loses his mind after four drinks; a woman: after four kisses.
What do you think?
It's facile to get yourself suck into a whirlpool of love, deluded that it 'must' be some kind of love, but these are in fact symptoms of confusion and insecurity. The derangement stemmed from temporal shutting down of our prefrontal lobe, which governs our critical thinking (if we even exercise them at all) or simply 'the rational way' of looking at things.
Which is why being in love makes us 'blind' - our executive thinking function is disabled.
Man loses his mind after four drinks; a woman: after four kisses.
What do you think?
Monday, April 12, 2010
Changes
Some things changed and they are never the same again.
We are never the same again because some things changed.
We are never the same again because some things changed.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Mobbed
This youth kept pestering me to sign on his foolscap paper. Yes. Sign my big signature on it like some random superstar. Then he kept pestering me for my mobile number.
Seriously, the thought of it damn funny because usually only lesbians are that 'interested' in me. ROFLMAO!
Then later, I kanna mobbed by my group of youths (imps) at the end of the outreach until AL saved me.
I think I might have to moderate my aura of people-being-comfortable-with-me or I will get killed someday.
Seriously, the thought of it damn funny because usually only lesbians are that 'interested' in me. ROFLMAO!
Then later, I kanna mobbed by my group of youths (imps) at the end of the outreach until AL saved me.
I think I might have to moderate my aura of people-being-comfortable-with-me or I will get killed someday.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Can you buy love?
Had a conversation with this youth who is inspired to be a social worker. As usual, I told her about the reality of this industry. And her reply was: I don't think that woman needs to 'earn so much'.
Because she reckoned that her future husband will provide the rest.
A young woman with great ideals in love. Like all explorer with their lofty aspiration to tread on unknown path - probably only to find acrimonious disappointment at the end. Perhaps it may not be as drastic, but surely, reality would eventually moderate such ideal to a more 'manageable' level.
Maybe she is naive.
Or perhaps I have grown to become more cynical.
Ideals are admirable, but time is one bitch factor that makes ideals 'idealistic'. Because all phenomena in the world are impermanent - which unfortunately includes relationship. Hence, people do change for the better... or worst... and the commitment invested in a relationship by an individual might just be a plug pulling decision at later point in time.
Going by this logics: most relationship will not stand against the test of time. Although there are real testimony of people who have preserve their relationship well, Hume's problem of induction will probably make this only probable, confirming only at the point of death. For those who do not understand a shit I am saying, I shall explain a little:
If we are taught that apples are red and in our daily experience all the apples we see are red, our conclusion will be such that all apples are and will be red. However, we cannot make such a conclusion as we have not seen all the apples in this world and one day we might find an apple that isn't red in colour (e.g. a green apple), which will render our induction as erroneous.
Using a case example, examining Jack Neo's situation would have easily revealed that the length of relationship does not improve the quality of his love. Nor does the existence of his children or public impression makes any difference to his relationship. How I derive this is because at the end of the day, the reality of his decision is that a freewill man cheats. Period. He can be loyal throughout his courtship or even the early years of his relationship, but time has shown that the flesh is weak and the integrity of his relationship is compromised.
Kolhberg would probably explain it as 'people who excel in moral reasoning, but epic fails in moral action.' However, I am not overly concerned about the morality of his action because yunhaier place little consideration of morality in my treatise in the nature of love (CloUdiSm). Morality and ethical consideration in love is structurally created by society for society to define the aspects of marriage, but not love. At most, human system can only provide opportunity for 'nurturing' love.
Love is one aspect of human function that cannot be mandated by any artificial systems, like you cannot pass a national policy to 'force someone to love another.' However, you could 'buy a bride' (which constitute under a marriage domain by the state), even there is no love (basically you could even be in a relationship without the love part). Or you could even pay for sex. All these are real options available in our society because these are considered structural system that are tangible.
Can you buy care and concern? (Yup those people are actually called nurses and are only available when you are in the hospital. However, it is still largely limited to physical care. I can be a nurse that cleans your bowel, but emotionally I can still be fucked up to you)
Can you buy loyalty? (alternatively, these can be called promotions. Basically in marketing, you need to entice your customer to buy your brand over and over again. So a good reason why they should be loyal is because they see value in the things they buy from you at a cheaper, better, faster & stronger rate. The minute someone else is selling something cheaper, better, faster & stronger, why the fuck do I need you?)
Can you buy love? (the closest thing to this is to rear a pet)
I will now explain why morality plays little role in love: when someone cheats in a relationship, fundamentally speaking, the relationship is likely to be in some bad shape for an external invasion to score a critical hit. This bad shape does not necessarily means consciousness as it often manifest itself as internal dissatisfaction. And to add: internal dissatisfaction does not always mean the presence of an external force.
And when a person cheats on his/her relationship - he/she is making a choice to seek for something that provides a form of novel happiness. Such momentarily happiness are fleeting. Vanished as hastily as the subsided wind calm itself after a squall, eventually one might realized that these are illusions given by our cosmic lesson in love to test the foundation of the relationship. If it rocks the boat and sink it, then perhaps the boat wasn't build to last in the first place.
And when the boat sinks, we will instantly regard it as a bad omen and 'moral reasoning' starts.
But I am perplexed because I seriously don't understand why is it bad. You see, if the boat wasn't build and meant to last a lifetime, having it wreck by the storm merely revealed how incapable it is to weather any greater adversity in love. A relationship is feeble not just by foundation, but also by development and individual personality.
So why is it bad to lose a love that wasn't meant to be?
Why does people choose to possess something that only appears to be theirs in title but not in essence?
The minute you retain love for anything other reasons other than love per se, you know deep inside that it is the day you have lost it.
Learn only to accept what is real. All the pretty floral decoration of deception and lies are only artificially boosting the 'value' of your relationship. Once removed - it's worthless.
I would rather have an original Giordano than a fake GUCCI.
At least the former is real.
Because she reckoned that her future husband will provide the rest.
A young woman with great ideals in love. Like all explorer with their lofty aspiration to tread on unknown path - probably only to find acrimonious disappointment at the end. Perhaps it may not be as drastic, but surely, reality would eventually moderate such ideal to a more 'manageable' level.
Maybe she is naive.
Or perhaps I have grown to become more cynical.
Ideals are admirable, but time is one bitch factor that makes ideals 'idealistic'. Because all phenomena in the world are impermanent - which unfortunately includes relationship. Hence, people do change for the better... or worst... and the commitment invested in a relationship by an individual might just be a plug pulling decision at later point in time.
Going by this logics: most relationship will not stand against the test of time. Although there are real testimony of people who have preserve their relationship well, Hume's problem of induction will probably make this only probable, confirming only at the point of death. For those who do not understand a shit I am saying, I shall explain a little:
If we are taught that apples are red and in our daily experience all the apples we see are red, our conclusion will be such that all apples are and will be red. However, we cannot make such a conclusion as we have not seen all the apples in this world and one day we might find an apple that isn't red in colour (e.g. a green apple), which will render our induction as erroneous.
Using a case example, examining Jack Neo's situation would have easily revealed that the length of relationship does not improve the quality of his love. Nor does the existence of his children or public impression makes any difference to his relationship. How I derive this is because at the end of the day, the reality of his decision is that a freewill man cheats. Period. He can be loyal throughout his courtship or even the early years of his relationship, but time has shown that the flesh is weak and the integrity of his relationship is compromised.
Kolhberg would probably explain it as 'people who excel in moral reasoning, but epic fails in moral action.' However, I am not overly concerned about the morality of his action because yunhaier place little consideration of morality in my treatise in the nature of love (CloUdiSm). Morality and ethical consideration in love is structurally created by society for society to define the aspects of marriage, but not love. At most, human system can only provide opportunity for 'nurturing' love.
Love is one aspect of human function that cannot be mandated by any artificial systems, like you cannot pass a national policy to 'force someone to love another.' However, you could 'buy a bride' (which constitute under a marriage domain by the state), even there is no love (basically you could even be in a relationship without the love part). Or you could even pay for sex. All these are real options available in our society because these are considered structural system that are tangible.
Can you buy care and concern? (Yup those people are actually called nurses and are only available when you are in the hospital. However, it is still largely limited to physical care. I can be a nurse that cleans your bowel, but emotionally I can still be fucked up to you)
Can you buy loyalty? (alternatively, these can be called promotions. Basically in marketing, you need to entice your customer to buy your brand over and over again. So a good reason why they should be loyal is because they see value in the things they buy from you at a cheaper, better, faster & stronger rate. The minute someone else is selling something cheaper, better, faster & stronger, why the fuck do I need you?)
Can you buy love? (the closest thing to this is to rear a pet)
I will now explain why morality plays little role in love: when someone cheats in a relationship, fundamentally speaking, the relationship is likely to be in some bad shape for an external invasion to score a critical hit. This bad shape does not necessarily means consciousness as it often manifest itself as internal dissatisfaction. And to add: internal dissatisfaction does not always mean the presence of an external force.
And when a person cheats on his/her relationship - he/she is making a choice to seek for something that provides a form of novel happiness. Such momentarily happiness are fleeting. Vanished as hastily as the subsided wind calm itself after a squall, eventually one might realized that these are illusions given by our cosmic lesson in love to test the foundation of the relationship. If it rocks the boat and sink it, then perhaps the boat wasn't build to last in the first place.
And when the boat sinks, we will instantly regard it as a bad omen and 'moral reasoning' starts.
But I am perplexed because I seriously don't understand why is it bad. You see, if the boat wasn't build and meant to last a lifetime, having it wreck by the storm merely revealed how incapable it is to weather any greater adversity in love. A relationship is feeble not just by foundation, but also by development and individual personality.
So why is it bad to lose a love that wasn't meant to be?
Why does people choose to possess something that only appears to be theirs in title but not in essence?
The minute you retain love for anything other reasons other than love per se, you know deep inside that it is the day you have lost it.
Learn only to accept what is real. All the pretty floral decoration of deception and lies are only artificially boosting the 'value' of your relationship. Once removed - it's worthless.
I would rather have an original Giordano than a fake GUCCI.
At least the former is real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
