Anyone on this site
Just last week, my class done a biology experiment on the substances on food. When I was about to submit my paper(actually it was more like a handout, but for convenience...), Mr. Bio asked me if I represented an individual or a group. That got me enlightened.
Think about it. Would you rather work for a better group or for a better individual. While you might say, to work for a better individual is for a better group, how many of us automatically knows that and actually would want to that. Of course, most of us want to do that, in fact, I agree with working for better individual is working for a better group. However, would you rather have several individuals in a group, or a single working force, self complementing, working seamlessly for the better good? Thus lies the paradox underneath, should a superior individual attempt to teach a comparatively inferior individual to better the other? Of course he should, at fist glance, as it complements moral ethics. But then again, if the former teaches the latter, wouldn't it cause the former to lose out competitively? This realization isn't really "moral" but once again, what is moral anyways? At last, should we work for the group or for the individual? The group, I say, because I ain't perfect, and so are you, and we need others to correct ourselves.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
On the answers of people.
Anyone on this site
How does one make one plus one be not equal to two? This is the question that have been stinging the back of my mind since some guy mentioned to me as a yardstick of "cleverness".
What exactly is the "cleverness", I don't really know. Being able to wash my own clothes is "clever" and so is being able to brush my teeth. But I digress.
The point is, how do you make "one plus one into three? "(or not, but still...) Contemporary knowledge of mathematic tells us nothing about this. In fact, most people don't know how. There is a answer to this though, one that I have heard from my friend, who is obviously clever, is that one male and one female creates a child, thus the answer become three. But then again, three what? Physics tell me neutrons and protons can create a pion and return it back within a period of time. Is it the same "theory" as this? Maybe yes, maybe no. The thing is, it all depends on us. The child might die, and the total people would still be two; the pion is returned and the total number is still two. So,most of the time, it all boils down to what we believe and choose. For example, my answer is x. Why, you ask? Because I let x be the answer of the question above.
Another question is, take a bottle. Fill it half with water. Is it half full, or half empty. Say half full and people will think:" Optimistic"; say half empty and the answer is "Pessimistic". Huh? How is our answer deterministic to our personalities? Freud would be proud. Following my previous answer, I normally don't choose what is supposed to be the answer. It simply is not any use to follow their rules. I could let x again, but nah, originality is the form of humans. I say, it is full with water and (perhaps) air.
How does one make one plus one be not equal to two? This is the question that have been stinging the back of my mind since some guy mentioned to me as a yardstick of "cleverness".
What exactly is the "cleverness", I don't really know. Being able to wash my own clothes is "clever" and so is being able to brush my teeth. But I digress.
The point is, how do you make "one plus one into three? "(or not, but still...) Contemporary knowledge of mathematic tells us nothing about this. In fact, most people don't know how. There is a answer to this though, one that I have heard from my friend, who is obviously clever, is that one male and one female creates a child, thus the answer become three. But then again, three what? Physics tell me neutrons and protons can create a pion and return it back within a period of time. Is it the same "theory" as this? Maybe yes, maybe no. The thing is, it all depends on us. The child might die, and the total people would still be two; the pion is returned and the total number is still two. So,most of the time, it all boils down to what we believe and choose. For example, my answer is x. Why, you ask? Because I let x be the answer of the question above.
Another question is, take a bottle. Fill it half with water. Is it half full, or half empty. Say half full and people will think:" Optimistic"; say half empty and the answer is "Pessimistic". Huh? How is our answer deterministic to our personalities? Freud would be proud. Following my previous answer, I normally don't choose what is supposed to be the answer. It simply is not any use to follow their rules. I could let x again, but nah, originality is the form of humans. I say, it is full with water and (perhaps) air.
MalaySIA ISA democratic country...So?
So it means that the power is in the people's hands. Of course, this is what we all know about the system. It also means that the bigger group has the bigger say in the Parliament. Now, this group happens to be the Malays. Once again, every time I hear something about any other race "controlling" the country, I simply sigh. There is no hope for the DAP to lead the country, just as the chances for a Chinese Prime Minister in Malaysia is slim. The Chinese is not the major ethic group, the Malays are. Also, the talk about us being Malaysians, not Malays, Chinese, Indian, or any other race obviously shows that the particular person is NOT Malaysian at all, or even have even lived in Malaysia. How so, you ask? The answer is simple: Malaysia's culture is founded on the integration and mixture of all the other subcultures among all the races and religions. To do away with race means our assimilation into another's culture, like how Singapore developed a much western-aligned culture after doing away with the racial sentiments. We are Malaysians-lah. Where else do you see green "angpows" on Hari Raya in the region? There's Singapore.
Democracy means power in people's hands. But the people have another thing in mind: giving that power to someone who could act as their nanny and make sure their needs are covered, yada yada yada--the government. Strange as it seems, we like to see the road in front of us, and not the horizon beyond. Subsidies are here to STAY, say the "rakyat" with their stomachs in mind, while economists scratch their head over the reason this country's economy haven't failed yet. Amazing country we live in,eh?
Democracy means power in people's hands. But the people have another thing in mind: giving that power to someone who could act as their nanny and make sure their needs are covered, yada yada yada--the government. Strange as it seems, we like to see the road in front of us, and not the horizon beyond. Subsidies are here to STAY, say the "rakyat" with their stomachs in mind, while economists scratch their head over the reason this country's economy haven't failed yet. Amazing country we live in,eh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)