aH of smiles and tears: June 2006

Friday, June 23, 2006

also:
a friend of mine pointed out that i was engaging in a circular argument that would resolve nothing and reach no conclusion. [aka i was talking cock]. because since i have conceded that my points could be proven neither right nor wrong, this entire debate is futile. but, i realised, perhaps therein lies the essence of post-modernism - chaos, confusion, and the realization that existence and life in the truest sense, is simply a maelstrom of infinitely shapeshifting axioms. by indulging in this intellectual discourse, are we, rather delightfully, yielding to post-modernism? i am very sure that caleb vehemently disagrees. just an afterthought to my previous entry. im going to watch spain vs saudi arabia now.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

a rather clumsy illustration of relative truth comes to mind - orwell's 1984. arguably not a post-modernist text, it still elucidates my point. there's the notion of doublethink - war is peace, freedom is slavery, etc. and then consider the engineering of truth that happens throughout the book - oceania has always been at war with eastasia, then -toing- oceania has always been at war with eurasia. at one point it becomes impossible to distinguish what the 'truth' is anymore. so this leads to us saying that, truth is a construct of man which is open to modification and alteration whenever necessary. 1984, to me at least, asks this much of truth - if everyone does not hold something to be true, is it still true? o'brien [the character, not the authour] tells winston during one of his re-education sessions that he [o'brien] could float off the floor and take flight if he wanted to, [i]as long as the people believed he could fly[/i]. ergo, as long as the masses assume something it is true, then it is true. this is in direct conflict with leb's definition of truth, aka that which remains true regardless of whether you believe it. re : the bleeding issue - how do you know that we bleed when cut? possibly, because we are indoctrinated to believe that we will bleed, and hence expect to bleed, thusly, we bleed. human perception alters reality to create truth. a tree in the middle of a deserted forest falls down if humanity as a whole [or at least a majority] believes it, and it does not if it does not believe it. truth is a creation of man, and as such it can be altered, but not easily.
question : how is life live-able, then, if truth is in flux? several streams of possibility exist. number one, aka the logical fallacy theory, is that the relative nature of truth allows humanity to delude itself into believing that truth is absolute. this then serves as the nexus from which an illusory, yet constant reality manifests. the problem with this, though, is that it almost definitely cannot be proved - see leb's 'one-ended stick' argument. how can we prove that the absolute reality that is currently in existence is in fact a self-imposed state of being that stems from the chimeric nature of human truth? my name is not plato, so it would be virtually impossible to do this.
number two, which is a bit contrived, is that humans lack the mental faculties to comprehend the true nature of the complex monstrosity they have created, and as such are allowed to exist in blissful ignorance of [or the inability to understand] the relativity of truth. to be frank, for all my arguments and vehement pro-postmodernist stand, i cannot even begin to comprehend reality as a flexible and malleable construct. it is one thing to debate about truth; it is completely something else to fully grasp its quintessence and understand it in all its glory. this is perhaps why we are unable to reverse the reality we have created for ourselves.
okay i cant think of anything else to say, im kinda hungry. the bottom line is the understanding of the concept of relative truth will potentially lead to mental chaos and turmoil, which i suspect is the intention of the post-modernists. whether this maelstrom of confusion is the chicken or the egg, well, ill leave that for when ive had my lunch or something.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

hey brandy-
nice writing, i dont think i can match up

but i refuse to let postmodernism reign in a confused manner on our blog- which many ppl happen to read, so i shall try and refute- how convincingly, i don't know. =)

repeating brandy- how does one define truth? perhaps in doing so, we find therein the very logical inconsistency of the idea of 'relative truth' or 'changing absolutes'. truth has two very possible definitions 1.) that which best is in accordance with reality. 2.) from a layman's point of view- truth is that which is true whether you care about it or not, whether you agree with it or not (see argument: if a tree fell in the middle of a deserted forest, did it fall or not?)

postmodernists cast doubt on certainty and meaning by saying that "all truth is relative". however, as brandy pointed out- either the postmodernists assume that the statement they just made is either true, or holds meaning OR the statement just logically collapse upon itself. it is a paradox to argue that truth is relative whilst trying to prove that that in itself is a truth. the RULE that all truth is relative is sometimes true, and sometimes untrue means that sometimes, relativism is false and absolutes are true. but the very EXISTENCE of absolutes on any level of possibility immediately proves that relativism is false. simply put, this does not mean that all truth IS relative, it simply means that arguing that truth is relative would be like trying to argue in favour of a one-ended stick. where would you even BEGIN to picture a one ended stick in your mind? it's a logical impossibility.

furthermore, even if one could begin to be comfortable with such a fallacious thought, the first definition of truth would immediately come into play- without truth as a category, life would not be live-able, and would immediately fall out of connection without reality. absolute truth is not only TRUE, but is completely necessary for human life, if even to the most common observer. how would one live without some concession to absolute truth? on some level, absolute truth translates into empirical reality!

----

at this point- one must make a distinction between the existence of truth, the speculative nature of guessing-if-something-is-true and the gap of knowledge between the two that becomes story-truth. the existence of truth is simply that fact that something exists-if you cut open the body, whether or not our guess that something will come out or not does not change the fact that blood WILL ooze out (barring a myriad of weird circumstances) this is fact, and is true. however, the speculation and the guessing game that we play prior to the event is a different thing, and DOESN'T CHANGE THE TRUTH THAT SOMETHING WILL COME OUT IF SOMEONE IS STABBED! dont be ridiculous. to take it to another level, either o'brian did or did not do what he claimed he did. there are no more possibilities- it's either yes, or no- e.g. if he said he had a daughter, either he did or did not. however, we dont know if he did or not- and so he can say what he likes, manipulating the gulf of knowledge therein to whatever end he desires- story truth. multiple streams of possibilities exist- but not for truth.

die die postmodernism

heres a quandary:

if everything is meaningless, how is it possible to identify and declare this? would the act of announcing this state of insignificance be insignificant in itself? does this result in the genesis of a paradox that will effectively cancel itself out? does it logically, or illogically, follow that nothing is meaningless because it is simply impossible to say so?
im thinking specifically about language and the post-modern issue, uni students please forgive me if i sound ignorant and flagrantly naive, i [i]have[/i] after all been mired within an insitution celebrated for its incompetence and utter lack of human intelligence for the past year and a half. if the essence of post-modernism states that language in itself is completely obsolete and has no intrinsic value and purpose, does that result in a self-defeating argument? granted [bear with me as i state the obvious here] that writing about the obsolesence of language, in coherent english, or any other language, is ironic and ostensibly a shot in the foot. but, does this neccessarily render the theory inviolable and unfeasible? i mean, if it is indeed true that language and reality and the universe itself possesses no meaning whatsoever, what a jolly it place that would be, then how do we go about stating this? we cant just flop to the ground and start gibbering, now can we? because we have become enamored and inevitably dependent on coherence and order as a way of life, we know no other way in which we can express ideas and intellectual developments, even if said developments are an attack on said coherence and order. its the matrix all over again, the real world vis-vis artificial construct idea, and the overlapping of the both.

and then, to jump ahead of myself because i have a stomachache, theres the issue of relative truth. i still believe that that also can be true [i realize that in saying this i am leaving myself superbly wide open to rebuttals and counter-arguments that will engulf my very soul, have mercy]. we are all familiar with the idea that truth is not constant, but a variable that fluctuates and ebbs from one individual to another. the veracity of this philosophy would undoubtedly be a great boon to the post-modernists, because if truth is relative, then the steadfast lexicon of words and the legacy of literature could be thrown into jepoardy. bloody hell this stupid office is so noisy and people keep on talking and taking phone calls its getting supremely hard to think. SILENCE PLEASE has anyone watched silent hill? i just had a thought - if indeed truth is relative, then the statement 'truth is relative' can be proved false, and also concurrently true. truth can be mutable, and yet simultaneously it can be solid and constant. most of us believe that certain things are definitely true because we choose to be boxed in by language, and also have been ingrained with an artificially generated mindset and set of beliefs that is almost impossible to unshackle ourselves from - the very fact that i have to use language and truth to logically disprove themselves is already proof of this. what flows out from my body when i cut it open may not even be blood, in a myriad of alternatives - the substance may not be blood, there might be no substance at all, the act of cutting open the body etc. but then there also exists the possibility that the substance that flows out from my body when i cut it open is, after all, blood. multiple streams of truth exist, and perhaps our version of it has become so unbendingly accepted and approved that it is slowly approximating absolute, immutable truth.
then again, truth is possibly a human concept. one could then also argue that because we, as humans and originators of truth, have chosen to define truth, then we have also created it to be absolute and unchanging. for all our speculations on extra-terrestial life, aliens could exist in a completely divergent and contradictory state as compared to life on earth. whos to say that their definition of truth will coincide with ours - or if they even have an understanding of the word 'truth'? so maybe, just maybe, human truth in the most basic sense could be constant. but step back abit, and youll find that that may not be so true.
which brings me back to the quandary - if truth is relative, does that mean that language and everything else is meaningless? and by meaningless i mean 'devoid of meaning', not something like 'utterly futile', because that would be wrong. okay i have a stomachache so i cant continue.

this entry is dedicated to CALEB YAP, who will no doubt blast a salvo of counterarguments my way in the near future.

Sunday, June 04, 2006

tomorrow is mr phua's driving test
lets wish him luck!
because that will be the only thing that will be able to get him to pass.

kidding.
hohoho good luck kukuphua

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Robin's Hood Party [in aid of ST pocket money fund]
wed 14 june
butterfactory
20presale

anyone?

just wondering.
why are we the 'last colourless' AH? cant we be the 'last colourful' AH? [dont you think its ironic that the word 'newsflash' preceding the previous post was in a spectrum of colours? or did you intend that dear cousin.] the red/blue dichotomy sounds extremely dubious to me, no offense to those currently in school.
and why red/blue? why not tangerine/turquoise? if you ask me, those colours are much more appealing. maybe AHacidgreen and AHobsidian? those two go really well together, im gonna wear an outfit like that soon. red and blue are so...primary colour. so dull. AHmaroon and AHlavender! that sounds gorgeous. red and blue are boring. out with dull classifications! personally, id rather be plain AH. not AHred. red isnt my favourite colour. maroon is. how about crimson. AHcrimson and AHsapphire! astounding. im looking at a colour guide right now, and i can find a million different colours that would sound undeniably more interesting. AHvermillion! AHazure! AHchiffon! AHchartreuse [thats green btw, you learn something new everyday]! wow. i would bomb parliament to the tune of the 1812 overture to have a class name like that.
I ALSO SAY [hi liz!] why dont we just abolish this stupid 'SB1/SC1/SA11/AD200BC' system thing. it encourages elitism [ahem] and is a breeding ground for bitterness. putting students into numbered classes is tantamount to rating their academic abilities and subliminally [or not] telling that 'hey, weve seen your results, and while we do say that the sky's the limit, and all students are equal, this is what we think of your chances!' okay granted that quite possibly wasnt the intention of the MOE or school bureaucracy [am i spelling this right] but sadly, i think that's what it has become. it like a mini intra-school ranking system! 'THIS is our BEST class! dont you think its COOL that their class name sounds like an ubiquitous english tea treat?!' theres really no need to have this multifarious, 'meritocratic' system within our schools.
plus, its so much more fun to have non-number names. think about it. cue imaginary conversation that will never happen in real life or at least will not be as impactful as it is here, when it is provided as a hard-hitting example to drive the point home:
"hi WOLVERINE [not his real name], which class are you from?"
"hi THEAMAZINGSPECTACULARICANDOREALLYWICKEDTHINGSWITHPLASTICSPIDERMAN [again, not his real name], im from AH-X68795!"
"uh. wow."
that sounds like a freaking MACHINE to me. oho! is that what theyre trying to tell us? that we should be STUDYING MACHINES?! i mean, what the toot man. we dont live in one of asimov's novels or something. would you rather i address you as 'joshua kukuphua tian hui' or 'instrument 56-xBa12'? i tell you, all our school names will soon be changed too. instead of ACJC, you can just call it 'BuonaVistaCollege120'. YAWNSOBORINGGOSLEE.
and think of how cool your name would sound! you can now say with pride that you are 'Ms Dominique de la Sascha-Venizuela of AHmagenta' instead of like, 'Thak Sum Bong from 2SA1'. okay bimbo moment over.
the point is [okay very truthfully, i havent really thought about what my main point is because im on a roll here and i wont be this awake for another, say, 2 days], we are not a a colourless AH. we could quite possibly be the most colourful AH. why confine ourselves to one colour [although, hypothetically speaking here, if we could, i would love that colour to be orchid or thistle. but in sparing amounts. i have a shirt in various shades of purple, and it looks hideous], when we could be all at once? we elude definition and evade dichotomization by the status quo, because we shun the conventional paths of tradition and decide to blaze our own trail through devious terrain and etcetc im sure you all are yawning by now at my attempt to sound glorious.
what i wanted to say is, we are certainy the last heirs of a legacy. but we should not be hailed as 'colourless'. we are chimeric, we are mutable, we are impossible to define. but never are we dull. never are we boring. except when we give PW presentations.
end.

p.s. i realized that people could argue that being chimeric, mutable, and impossible to define would merit the status of being 'colourless'. in which case, i have argued in vain. d'oh!

p.p.s. if anyone from MOE is reading this, go ahead and give the colour thing a try. it'll be fun. and if it succeeds, let me know. although you probably wont be giving me any credit for it.