Friday, December 18th 2009, 14:32
For the past couple of weeks, I found myself thinking about "The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell" again. The academic interpretation of this story within the context of late-medieval cultural norms is mostly straightforward, so I will not elaborate. However, I have also recently read about a number of 21st century interpretations of this story using a more straightforward approach. What is interesting is that sometimes a simpler method of enquiry could lead to deeper questions than you would otherwise expect.
One of these interpretations involves looking at Dame Ragnell symbolically, not as an actual woman but as a personification of the most common but pivotal type of choices to make in life. That is, the choice between inner and outer "beauty". Do you want to lead a quiet life helping others as a primary school teacher or do you desire the glamour of a high-profile career in an investment bank? Do you want to marry a kind-hearted and sincere person that makes you happy or do you want to be the spouse of a young and rich person that you can show off to your family and friends? If your best friends are coming to town to visit, would you take them to parties even though you know they like talking crap with their big mouths and will cause some embarrassment?
Although I forgot what exactly happened, I still recall the odd-feeling when I was told this story as a child. I was also asked which choice I would have made if it was a real choice. Obviously, being as naive and immature as I was (and still am!) there was no way I could have understood the conflict because I did not understand why grown-ups would care about what others thought of yourself if it gave you no real happiness. The desire for outer beauty, for fame and for glory simply has no rational basis outside the need to survive and to provide for your family! But what I do remember very clearly was his response to my answer, telling me that I was a good-natured boy, and that I would be a good man if I remained true to the choice I made when I was small..
I wouldn't exactly consider myself an adult yet, even though I am well past 18. Graduate school tends to lock people up in a perpetual state of adolescence (and a sense of despair as both their debts and wrinkles keep increasing). Unfortunately, I am already beginning to notice my beliefs wavering against the test of time. You might think maturity is characterised by a heightened ability to think rationally. But actually, I am beginning to believe that maturity may simply be the point in your life when you accept the futility of rational thought and begin to conform to the rest of society, doing everything you can to engage in a quest of fame, wealth and prestige just like everyone else. When you begin to feel that even though it is obvious there is no rational basis that these things would make you any happier, you feel that without having more of it than your peers you could never quite get a good night's sleep.
The real question is, if I were asked the same question today, would I be able to give the same answer from the deepest recess of my heart? I am not even sure if I can anymore, especially after my own family, friends and colleagues have had their say. I am not even sure if there is a correct answer, and if there is, did I give the right one so many years ago? The worst part of all this is the feeling when you realise that you are becoming the very type of person that you used to hate with a righteous passion. Who knows when I would I finally cross the line and join the winning side?
What is your choice?
Tuesday, November 10th 2009, 11:19
Right now about the only good thing about my life is possibly the recent hot weather around the region thanks to a heatwave. Great thing about hot weather is you always wake up everyday feeling energetic. Summer clothes are also less restrictive and more comfortable. Unfortunately everyone else is thinking of the same thing. Normally it would not be a problem if everyone had roughly compatible definitions of what "clothes" are. The bad news though is that Australians do not have a history of fashion-consciousness. They have a habit of wearing whatever they damn well please, no matter what physical shape and size they are, as long as it is not a formal event (well, mostly). They do this with complete disregard for the psychological stability and spiritual well-being of other people that might see them in their "clothes". Now combine this with a culinary tradition inherited from the English and influenced by American cultural norms and you end up with a picture you really do not want to see.
No seriously, let me spell it out. There are many places in the world that can get very hot. There are also many ways to dress to cool yourself that does not involve showing your unflattering body in the worst possible way. I acknowledge that everyone has the freedom to wear what you want, just like you have the freedom of speech and all the rest of it. I only ask that everyone consider what impact your appearance has on the general public when you dress for a hot summer day.
Friday, July 17th 2009, 22:30
Whoever thinks Australia is becoming less Anglo-centric and more Asian must be smoking something funny.
There are many good reasons why doing research in this country is a good choice, but alas, expertise with Asian-Pacific issues is not one of them. I have no problems about someone being completely ignorant about East-Asian countries. We are all extreme idiots about some part of the world or another. But when this type of ignorance is displayed in an esteemed academic that I used to highly regard, it is truly disheartening.
To be more specific: I cannot believe there are still professors out there that thinks you can do empirical work on a developing country based on data provided by that government. My IQ is far below the average academic, but at least I am smart enough to realise that there are lots of ways in which data can be manipulated or contaminated for political or other incentives. The number of ways in which this can happen are about the same as the number of starving people in North Korea. It's even one of the main reasons why 5-year plans failed in Russia and China: because the incentive system drove the people to just made up numbers or anything rather than the truth.
Anyone that does empirical work on developing countries without adjustments for deliberate signal distortion is just living in an ivory tower.
Thursday, June 25th 2009, 21:57
US politicians are trained under apprenticeship system, mostly by whoever referred you into a party. The problem with this old system is that apprentices learn by imitation, which means that you keep repeating the stupid mistakes that your masters make. These traditionalists never really *learn*.
I thought the Lewinsky scandal1 have already taught everyone a lesson, that attacking your rivals for extra-marital relationships is no longer effective these days. It is not that the public believes there is nothing wrong, it is just that people ultimately place more emphasis on qualities such as knowing what to do for the country and actually being able to do it. One word: ability. So then the Republicans proceeded to lose more seats in the House.
Fast forward several years, now there's Mark Sanford and his affair. What did they do? What every cheap tabloids newspaper would do: they disclosed all the personal e-mails they got hold of. How predictable. So did I read the e-mails? Yes, I had to actually see what's there before I make my point. Of course, if you believe it's only an excuse for my low character, please be reminded that I never claimed moral high ground or conceited self-righteousness.
But anyway, like everyone else, I did not find anything in the e-mails that made it necessary for them to disclose these things. What I did find was a series of beautifully-crafted love letters, excellent use of poetic language and romantic fine-feelings. Compare that to those newspapers, I really think the latter should be ashamed of themselves for such open contempt for decency or personal respect.
Now don't get me wrong, I realise he must have inevitably breached other rules of conduct as well, so he's no different from most other US politicans, GOP or not. But no, we won't focus on the legal technicalities or breach of ethical standards, that's just boring. We won't even talk about GOP, cultural values and hypocrisy, because that's not "interesting" enough. We'll just concentrate on the affair, because sex sells.
Um, hello, freedom of the press is a precious thing paid for with the blood of those that came and left before us, it's not meant to be used that way! Why this double standard between politicians and your average American? Who's the hypocrite now? Besides, what's stopping him from coming back in force, or continue to do great things in other professions, once the press starts talking about something else? Get a life.
Or a date.
1(Or Clinton scandal; I guess Americans still blame the woman)
Saturday, May 29th 2009, 10:59
I have lots of choices about my future, so that's good. Unfortunately, all of them are horrible choices.
"As you get older, life just gets worse and worse. And then you die." - one of my professors.
Well said.
Monday, April 7th 2009, 23:07
This one really got me thinking:
http://www.mingpaonews.com/20090406/mra.htm
Someone should do a research topic on this issue.
Saturday, March 7th 2009, 20:11
My story, in one sentence: I saw someone watching porn in the library today.
If this does not ring any bells, I will say it in another way.
The library is open to the public, which means anyone can come in. Yes, that includes female friends, small children, your advisor or your own mother. The library computers were placed right at the open area in the middle too. Nobody could've missed it.
If you think about it, it's worse than being naked in public really. People that stay in public areas naked are generally out-going, attractive and confident, qualities that are well-regarded. Internet pornography, on the other hand, is something that most people consider disgusting. Besides, in virtually all societies, there are, let's just say, "pre-conceived ideas" about people that watch it, such as a perverted personality, lack of social skills to find a partner or (in more conservative places) psychologically impaired. Even if you don't get yourself into trouble, it's going to damage your personal reputation.
Wait - did I just state the obvious? I think I did, but apparently it's not so obvious to everyone.
Or, you could just watch it at home, or at least find a little corner in a cafe with Wi-Fi access.
Then again, maybe it's not so obvious after all.
Thursday, March 5th 2009, 22:30
When 'Narnia' and 'The Golden Compass' were showing in Hong Kong, they were both best-sellers. Of course, that's only because they were Western movies with expensive CG's, and not because there was any interesting plot to enjoy. Most of them could not even remember anything after coming out of the cinema, except the names of a few attractive female actors. Part of the reason, of course, is the complete unfamiliarity with European culture or even the English language. Actually, you might feel that they weren't missing much anyway, as they really were little more than awesome displays of sounds and effects meant to relieve stress for a few hours. So for a while I just forgot about it.
For the viewers in Hong Kong that did understand the English, it was worse. Namely, almost all of them made a remark that, to me, displayed a level of ignorance that completely caught me by surprise: "Fantasy monsters, kids in an adventure... the two stories talk about the same things, right?". Wait... what?! The two stories being the same, or even similar? I mean, one has a very strong Christian tradition, while the other is atheist or at least agnostic, how much more different can you get? Wasn't it, like, staring at your face? Didn't you notice the difference when one is in the "religion" section of the bookstore while the other was in the "philosophy" section?
And so, several months passed and life goes on.
Today, while I was in the University Bookstore, I saw the two books again, at discounted prices. Of course, you guessed it: they placed both of these books next to each other. But this time, I was shocked again, not by its blasphemy, but by my own realisation of the obvious, staring at my face, and I didn't realise it all along. They really are the same - they have a very strong belief about their religion and worldview, and through stories, they seek to convince children to think the same. Yes, that's it - to a typical Chinese, who is usually not very serious about religion in general, the opposite extreme of a religious crusader is not a anti-religious fanatic, but someone like themselves, who does not care at all!!!
Universities are not just centers of learning, but also a source of inspiration too? Perhaps that's the reason why they are still around, despite the convincing arguments that say these institutions are outdated and sub-optimal for the purposes of transmitting knowledge. Yes, inspiration - the most intangible, but also the most rewarding.
But inspiration only comes to an open mind, I suppose.
**********
Also, I did (finally) get some sort of internet connection at home. It still sucks, so I would still toss it as soon as I get fed-up with it again.
Wednesday, February 25 2009, 18:49
Patience and open-mindedness is one thing, incompetence is another. I know Australians are used to a slower schedule for getting things done, but I still don't understand what "bureaucracy" they were referring to when the fastest company offered to get me connected in 3 weeks. Not to mention slow connection, small traffic limits and outrageous monthly fees.
So I said to myself: fuck it!!
That's correct - I won't have internet at home; I will only be online in my university. It's a lifestyle change, but I am definitely not paying that kind of money for such inferior service standards.
Saturday, January 17th 2009, 11:51
Observations from attending a very bad concert last night:
Biology: The rate of disease infection increases, then decreases, as a function of time.
During some concerts, there will be balloons passed around. One of the most common usages is to inflate them, then release them into the air. The process of inflating the balloon inevitably injects a certain amount of saliva, and therefore germs, into the balloon. When the balloon runs out of air and drops back down, it will fall on top of another spectator, which will then pick the balloon up, inflate it again, and release it into the air again. During the process of re-inflation, the spectator may unknowingly come into contact with a diseased balloon, and hence contract the disease themselves. As time passes and more spectators become infected however, more and more balloons will land in front of already infected spectators, and hence the actual rate of infection will begin to decrease again.
Psychology: The less you deliver, the more it will sell.
It is common knowledge that out of the general population of people that regularly attend concerts, the proportion that chooses classical performances over the more modern variety are decreasing. This is, however, not a matter of taste, but a matter of perceived value. In a traditional concert, the music begins exactly at the stated time, and latecomers would not be allowed in, to ensure that the musicians would not be distracted. This piece of traditional etiquette, however, lowers the perceived value of the concert relative to the more modern variety, where the performers would often arrive late, leave early, and often refuses to perform until the audiences protest loudly.
In fact, the more popular and the more expensive the concert is, the more often the spectators have to protest loudly to pressure the artists to continue the performance that the audience have already paid for. Especially in concerts where the target audience are young females, the situation occurs so frequently that it became a formalized process, generally consisting of repeated shouting of the word "encore" along with angry feet stomping. Male audiences will generally lose interest and leave after the first "encore"; females usually continue to enjoy protesting multiple times.
Mathematics: Nobody needs seats.
A spectator expects to see the stage, and if there is an obstacle at eye-level, the spectator will elevate their heads above the obstacle in question. In the 1st row, there are fences blocking the spectator from seeing the stage unobstructed, to prevent over-zealous fans from physically approaching the performer. Therefore, the 1st row must stand. Now assume that the spectator in row k is standing. Then, spectators sitting in row k+1 is now obstructed by the physical presence of the spectator at row k, and therefore must also stand. Proof by induction completed, everybody will end up standing, which implies that seats are no longer necessary.
Economics: Even a large number of sellers might not create perfect competition.
In classical economic theory, if there are a very large number of sellers for an identical good, then the price should be very close to zero economic value. Usually outside the places of performance, there are many street vendors selling glowing sticks. The conventional wisdom for purchasing these items is to bargain more viciously than your typical tourist, until you drive the price down the near the cost of the item. Unlike classical economic theory, however, cartels can sometimes be formed up, an implicit agreement by the sellers in the entire region that they would not budge an inch with the prices. This happens even when the retail prices of other places are lower, and that the lower "real" price is widely known.