Making friends

At this juncture, I feel that making friends is more complicated, and often tangled with a lot of vested interests especially when we're making friends, or "friends" in the workplace.

Perhaps this is why people join "social events", it's as if we're not always constantly surrounded by people already. It's simply logic really. When people in a place of competition, it is difficult to feel forgiving, or see the good in people. Once we take ourselves from that context, it is easier to let your guard down, and thereafter, let people in.

No wonder company retreat always seems like an uneasy affair - for me.

However, what about making friends? After a quarter of a lifetime, it would be almost common sense isn't it? I feel that as I grow older, I learn how to socialise more, and befriend less. I am less trusting of individuals, and often find it difficult to step out of my comfort zone. Friends become something that is almost like a mirage. On one hand you want to believe that you are friends, yet the skepticism that crawls in is that whether this person is really just your friend because they want to do some social networking through you, or just make use of the resources you possess?

I choose to (naively) believe that you'll come to recognise your Friend when both of you possess that level of connection. It's akin to finding a soulmate really, when you are able to connect at a level far beyond honesty and shame - when it's finally okay to have socially awkward moments and make faux pas. Whether if this person is from the workplace, or any of the social events, having a simple conversation will allow you to understand your position.

I like to think that making friends is having a homing beacon. You put your antennae out there and see which signals you catch. It gets harder because antennae can get shorter due to our own insecurities, but if we are willing to risk our dignity and pride, we may find precious friends in a sea of strangers who may be also looking for us with their own beacon.

Atheist Belief

Prima facie, this blogpost might furrow some brows. "Atheists have beliefs?"

Let me assure that this is entirely possible, and although I may not elucidiate as eloquently as Alain de Botton who wrote the more famous "Religion for Atheists", I do want to address some deep-seated beliefs, and how contradictions are resolved ironically - via religion.

This post was inspired firstly when my friend had this quote on Facebook:

Lewis's defense against atheist, forms his underlying argument which starts from the fact that you must accept the following premises to accept his argument:

1. If thought is not designed by anyone, therefore we cannot trust that our thoughts are what they really are and not by some random design of chemistry.

2. Hence, it is unfathomable that Atheists' arguments against God is true since they might just be random

3.If those thoughts are not random, then you must accept that someone must have put those thoughts there in the first place and it must be a higher being since no known human have that ability.

I suppose it is a neat defense against the religion-hating Atheists (what Alain de Botton suavely calls "neo-atheists"). If we use the argument of neo-atheists that religion or even God is irrational, then C.S Lewis's arguments, along many others actually do defend their point very succintly. However even C.S Lewis misses the point entirely. 

The existence of God is not about an argument - it is as pointless to ask why would a parent love a child and yet another won't. We will risk into particularising or worse, over-generalising accounting some vague notion on pathology of the parent who abandons his/her child or engages in acts of incest for instance. Hence as much as neo-atheists engage in theist bashing calling them irrational, Chesterton was quite right in calling the neo-atheists equally irrational - nonetheless in the fable of the monk Michael to the atheistic scientist Lucifer. 

God is about belief and it is not about why people believe. It is quite a pointless questions as I've tried to point out - too many individual factors and perculiarities from one's dispositions to external family circumstances or even sometimes a bolt in the blue.

I think the right question to ask is what about a particular belief in God that reaffirm an individual and therefore consequently, why do atheists like myself find reaffirmation without it? I think theists and atheists are not very much different. Whilst we may have dramatically different practices, rituals or even world views, the common denominator is that we believe. Hence rationality as a factor in argument against or for God is a moot point because reason and evidence has nothing to do it.

Asking why do you believe in God is the same as why do you love one and not the other. It is arrogance in claiming you know of God and hence He is deserving of your love, or that you claim to know God so much that He is not. Regardless, neo-atheists and neo-theists both stem from the seeds of our own lofty ideals that love is for us to give. Perhaps we should be humble in our claims and understand that "worth" may not apply in the sense of religion. It is something we attribute rather than to be taken as whole truths. 

Atheists are as guilty as Theists, for we both delve in the matter of faith and until we learn to respect the value of each other's views and engage with them than merely dissing them for being "irrational", we will continually fight for an endless battle of which there will be no end.

Parental advisory

I'm been on hiatus for a while now, being ambitious by taking up 2 roles between teaching and event organising. Being I'm this company really made me learn, and despite the mess and chaos of the (dis)organisation, I'm actually happy.

I try to deceive myself that the cute guy in the office was not a huge factor to that happiness.
This job is peculiar to me in many ways. Firstly, it combines both my passions, education and events organising. Secondly, I grew up not going to any tuition centre or having intensive lessons like some if the students here. I mean I was a lazy bum in my younger days when manga and fiction had precedence over math.

I ramble.

There are some observations which I've made over the months, over the stories that my boss and colleagues share with me. Some hilarious, others quite sobering.

Recently my ever friendly centre manager was traumatised by a parent who demanded to see my boss for her son's ailing grades. My boss wasn't in the office (dodged a bullet there!) and she instead lashed out at him. I don't suppose customer service is something I take to very well, however if I were there, I would have bitch slapped her.

Okay I exaggerate. In any case, this parent was blaming the centre. I don't teach her son, but from the other tutors who do, her son is lazy and just plain…blase about his studies.

Standing on the other side of the fence, I can understand her frustrations. I speculate, but perhaps the situation went a bit like this:

She knows her son is not performing well in school and is eager for his performance to improve. So being the resourceful parent, you seek out your friends for recommendations and enrolled your son into one. After throwing in money for a few months, you hope to see improvement and yet, the same result happens. Any average consumer would be upset. After all, when you buy something from a supermarket, you expect that some sort of utility, or returns for the money you paid.

There's a catch.

If I were there, I hoped to tell her that education and learning doesn't quite work that way. Teaching is really more of an art, part performance, part technical and all round dynamic. Learning is not something that can be taught, only encouraged and inculcated. After all, even the most enthused teachers can only go so far within 1.5 hours in the lesson. Parents spend most of their time with their child, shouldn't that love for learning start at home, groomed in schools, and pursued at length at tuition centres?

I shudder and give a forlorn look at the centre manager who took the bashing. Does he know he is taking a beating for the rest of society that have allowed for such parents? Does he know that the problems lies much deeper. It seeds from a parents' insecurity, a society's competitiveness and unforgiving attitude to failure. It seeds from capitalism - that everything that can be commodified will be  - where humane values like learning and passion is assumed to have a monetary value.

My parental advisory, albeit a naive one, is that your child needs to own his/her learning. If there is no sense of ownership, then they will never work hard for it. Pouring in money into tuition will only give a false sense of entitlement for your child, that he/she deserves getting good grades because an external teacher will always be there to somehow make them score - give them the special formula to the A.

A distinction must be earned and gained, not bestowed. Money may buy you grades, but it can never buy you distinction.

Chemistry

Baking is all about chemistry. It really starts from finding the perfect hard preferably one that doesn’t break the bank. Then it leads up to unpacking it, seasoning the oven’s heating elements, giving the mixer a test spin.

What excites me most, is the browsing of books for ideas. I am enchanted by the various basic creaming methods, the science of balance between the 3 basic ingredients: eggs, flour, sugar. Various ratios, various temperatures, so many permutations.

Baking is a performance. The construction, the mixing and assembling of ingredients is deceptively and commonly assumed to be the “rehearsals” before the main show where the confectionery hits the shelves. Oh, what does one know about the years of trail and error, the wisdom of knowing the caramel’s temperature just by it’s colour, the play and combination of taste and colour. The actual show is really the execution of such knowledge during the baking session, the ground work of techniques and practice, like a concert, showcases when the baking process starts.

It’s all about chemical reactions. Baking, like music, is when strict method and scientific understanding meets artistic freedoms.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.6

Qualia

How do we know whether the red you see is the red I see? How do you know that what I call "warm" is what you experience as warm?

I suppose we cannot ever tell what each other feels, or how does it feel to have a million lens like flies since we won't ever have the physique is one.

Perhaps, the problem on the human level can be easily speed through music and still art.

The reason we so desperately seek to paint what we see, is to show others what our mind's eye see, to share our inner qualia. Music, sound the same to you and I, when we play in tune and in harmony. It's the absolute pinnacle of matching you're qualia with mine, and we CAN be sure that what you hear is what I hear, yet paradoxically we can derive different interpretations of it deep within our emotions.

I don't suppose qualia can be tested, but it can definitely be shared and expressed, albeit in limited avenues.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4

The Hope invested in Youth?

Recently in my line of work, there has been a lot of talk about youth. During an interview with Dr Moeller (former ambassador to Denmark), he said that personally, he feels that his time was to make this period a better period than it was before previously. Coming from the cold war, he wtinessed the tides of change and felt somewhat bittersweet about this period, he wasn't too sure if he had made a positive difference, or have progressed very far from where he had come from.

This vested interest in youths, it would seem stems from the disappointment of one's time. Young people are often heralded as beacons of hope, an investment even, of a better future. The youths have their ideas of what they want to do, and learning from the past mistakes, they are seen to be innovative in their solutions.

Is that true? I am hesitant to call it conclusively so. While my business is one vested in youths, and true enough I do want to see that there is hope in the youths of the future. However, the concept of "youth" is very arbitrary, inconclusive and often just simply confusing.

What does it mean to be young and is this hope invested in youths something that is justified? Let me draw an example, the 'older' generation see young people potential that they themselves have achieved. The older generation have regrets, they have faced with disappointments. Indeed, how much of 'potential' they see in youths, one that is in actuality, cast upon them due to their own shortcomings? While they see unripe potential, I've come to see that youths are expected to act and to act in ways that are becoming of them - innovative but also docile, innocent but also mature. These are contradictory characteristics expected of youths - we cannot have both dichotomous natures embodied in one. Something seems to give here.

This is why I feel that youths today are not seen as the hope, but rather a form of redemption of the older generation. The youth of today are always in debt of the past generation. We are financially in debt due to our school fees/housing loans. We are constantly in emotional debt due to our lack of experience in life as we waddle through heartbreaks, betrayal and despair, we are also in familial debt, as we "return" what our parents have given us. There is much uncertainty with being young, and while one might argue that there are also plenty of choices, often I find that we take the choice that is a) imposed upon us by our elders, whether explicitly or implicitly or b) we take the path most well travelled.

As a result, we repeat the mistakes of those before us, and perpetuate this almost idealistic hope of redemption in the next generation, hoping that they don't follow our mistakes - and yet, still insisting that they do what is "right" (get a "right job", start a "right family", "settle down").

The youth doesn't bring hope for a better future, they simply serves as beacons of redemption from the previous generation. The previous generation see us as their second chances - to make the same choices, but to perform better instead of allowing us to make the choices for ourselves. We are not angels of hope, but puppets under the hands of those who are in a better financial position to manipulate.

What has human geography got to do with music?

The following article was published in NUS Geography Department Annual "Geosphere" magazine issue.

Music Geographies

I don’t know about you, but ever since I’ve arrived at NUS FASS, my eyes have been opened to a whole new world of ideas. I’ve read things that changed how I think such that I can never go back to the way I was before. There are many things which we didn’t know could be known and instead of filling up our brains, our best professors made us realise that we had one, constantly opening up new channels of inquiry.

So much of what we read is based on what is seen, and out of all our well-padded organs (exams just makes me put on so much weight), we are most aware our eyes. It’s true, is it not, since eyes are windows to the soul? Much of geographical studies are produced through observations and reproduced through texts and maps - the quintessential geographical tools. We are less aware of what we hear, smell or touch, unless it chafes what we “normally” experience.

Often we intuitively know what music is, without the need for anyone to define it. However when we actually start to define it, we find that it is difficult to do so. For instance, would you call the karaoke attempt by your neighbour at 9am on a Sunday music or noise? We then realise how music is defined is at once subjective because of where and when it is heard and the context of which it is considered acceptable performing space.

Even within spaces, music play an important part in shaping how we feel and in turn how we react to certain things. Clubs hardly play slow music without a bass, and lounge bars often do not play pop music. It seems that music can treat a place, and our socialised reactions against certain genres then in turn dictate how we react with each other in the space. Spaces also shape musical performances. From rock concerts to classical symphonies - each venue is shaped and marketed differently due to their needs and social function. We all know the raw energy that comes from pop/rock concerts where rules of propriety are suspended - it’s almost expected that loud sounds (or some would argue noises) are allowed or even encouraged. Yet the pindrop silences in classical concert halls amplifies the fool that applauds during the wrong time (between movements for instance)  which can draw accusatory glares towards your direction, if the fool happens to be you. It singles someone out as being not informed, making one feel not belonged and out of place.

Some composers have even used spatial elements to create music. Iannis Xenakis for instance, took the architectural-mathematical principles that shape spaces and used them to create works like Metastasis. While his avant garde ‘music’ to the layperson might be ‘noise’, it is without a doubt that spatial influences on music is profound - both literally and figuratively. To bring things back on simpler terms, we often associate the high strings with horror show bathroom scenes (in fact, I’ve tried watching a horror show with the speakers mute before, and the effect was hilarious) and soundtrack composers have more than once tried to evoke emotions ranging from epic (think Spartacus) to the quiet (Pride and Prejudice). Some movies are completely devoid of music and rely on the very absence of it, to create tension throughout (I am Legend). Whether it be fantasy or reality, sounds paint spaces as much as light colours our world.

Yet, can we describe music as much as how we have experienced it? Unlike sight, we cannot draw ocular imaginations based on what we are listening to, although many songs and lyrics point to specific locations in which the listeners can evoke feelings from. What about instrumentals? I find myself drawing different auditory images and emotions depending on where I am currently at. The same song or piece can become differently, based on what I am doing, how I am feeling at that moment as well as where I am. Music, despite it’s permanent quality due to improvements in technology (digital recordings etc), will always have a transient quality and is momentary, because of its audience. Therefore, like spaces, people react differently towards music depending on the time of day, and the peculiar emotional connections we develop historically. We may hear the same way, but we always listen differently.

Geographers have called for a beyond-visual understanding of spaces. Therefore, as much as our education opens our eyes, it is our ears that also need opening. Adding sound is like adding colour to a black and white television. It makes things pop - so to speak. While eyes are windows to the soul, our ears make our souls act.