The Crocodile

A mother is watching her  child playing by the banks of the Zambezi when to her horror a crocodile graps him by his legs. The woman exclaims and begs (in crocodile languange) the crocodile to take pity.

"All right," says the croc, "I'll give you a fair chance. I'll let your brat go free if you guess what's going to happen next! If you guess wrong, I'll gobble your boy up!"

At this, the woman thinks she has a chance. After thinking carefully, she replies confidently.

 

But why is the crocodile smirking?

 

 

********

This problem is similar to the Hanging Judge problem. It comes in 2 parts. What did the mother say? Why is the croc smirking? The 1st question should be chicken feet for ya.

The mother, hoping to trap the croc in a paradox, asked, "You'll gobble my boy up, isn't it?"

However, the cunning croc just smirk. "It takes a lot to outsmart a crocodile, you know?"

The hopeful mother overlooked one thing. Unlike the problem in The Hanging Judge, the paradox is not complete. The crocodile can gobble the child as long as it gobble the mother first.

 

 

Play the fool

After the mind-killing explanation of the Liar Paradox, let's have something light before we engage in other puzzles (I've quite a few more). How about a philosophical experiment?

 

Duration: 30 to 40 years

Props: a complex society

Effect: joyful

 

How did court jesters amuse themselves, when there were jesters and people had a riotous good time? They made fun of one and all, and had no time for rules and conventions. They talked too loudly and laughed at all the wrong things. Defying expectation was their destiny. They could shake up people and conventions. Nomadic and subversive, they wandered roads and crossed rivers, weaving in and out betweem etiquette and obligation. They overturned holy images, parodied the sacraments and mock the authority of the Church.

Let us do likewise. Make yourself into own critic, journalist, writer, novelist, film maker, musician, drummer - something of the kind. Something out of step. Do everything you can to make waves. Don't dream of changing the course of history, just sow a little chaos around you. Disorganise plans, create surprises, confound predictions. Live stubbornly within your society, without at heart acquiescing to it.

Obviously you have to submit to certain norms and forces. You might even have to crawl, out of prudence, cowardice or even sheer cheek, in front of Mr Big or other. Tell yourself that it's unimportant. Give way, kow-tow tactically, from time to time, if you are absolutely certain that something within you is resolute and unbending.

Take care to leave yourself room to manoeuvre, over a long period. Act slantwise. Move like a bishop in chess - systematically diagonal. Walk crablike and crossways. Day in day out, meeting no resistance. Make it a habit to seek out at least appropriate, most incongruous answer to any question. Apply it from time to time, and see what happens.

The longest and hardest thing about playing the fool is arriving at the realization that nothing is serious. Occupy the horizon, that the point of convergence where absolutely everything becomes, in a sense, laughable: existence, death, humanity, love, the universe, ants, writing, money, careers, bodies, thought, politics. Among other things. Not forgetting laughter itself, and hilarity, and court jesters.

=)

 

From 101 Experiments in the Philosophy of Everyday Life by Roger-Pol Droit

 

 

Solution to the Liar Paradox

Remember the Hanging Judge entry, which uses the Liar Paradox concept? Liar Paradox is generally credited to the Greek philosopher Epimenides. It asks us to consider the man who says, "What I say is false.", or "All men are liars" etc. I happened to stumble upon the solution to this paradox in a book I'm reading and I'll share it with all of ya. It's a bit chim though, but I'll put it as simply as possible.

 

(After writing the explanation, I'll rate this explanation as VERY chim, since I took 2 days to fully absorb it. You can take it as a challenge to see whether you can understand the explaination =)

 

The problem is solved by Jon Barwise and John Etchemendy who applied techniques of situation theory in 1986. (mai siao siao) The real root of the problem is an unacknowledged context. It's similar to the conflict between a American who thinks June is a summer month and a Australian who think June is a winter month. It all depends on context. Let me elaborate using algebra.

 

Let the what the man say be P (for proposition),

P = [What I say is false]

therefore, P = [P  is false] - eqn (1)

 

Now, to when we state whether a proposition is true (or not), we must take into account the context.

Assuming P  is true in context C  (which is the context in which the statement is uttered),

substitute eqn (1), we get

[P  is false] is also true in context C

This contradict our initial assumption!

 

Since there is a contradiction when we assume P  is true in context C , the ONLY logical explaination is that the statement is false. That's what get us into a dilemma. But wait a minute. What's the context for this statement?? Let's see what happen if we assume P is false in context C.

 

Assuming P  is false in context C ,

substitute eqn (1), we get

[P  is false] is false in context C

ie. P  is true in context C

This also contradict our initial assumption!

 

From the 1st assumption (of P  is true in context C), we conclude that P  MUST be false since the 1st assumption leads to contradiction. However we do not know the context in which P  is false. So we assume (P  is false in context C). However this 2nd assumption is also wrong since it also leads to contradiction. So the only conclusion is that P  is false, but NOT in context C.

 

The above is the gist of the whole problem, if you cannot understand, maybe this will be of some help:

If a person in country X says truthfully that June is a winter month, we know X is Australia. X is the context of the true statement. If the statement is false, X CANNOT also be Australia. 

 

To put it 'simply', in saying "What I say is false", the person is saying making a claim that refers (implicitly) to a particular context C, the context in which this sentence is uttered. If the claim is true, then it's true in context C, but it leads to a contradiction. So it must be false! But the context for making the observation that the claim is false cannot be C, since if it was, then that too leads to a contradiction. That means the person is making a false statement. However, the fact that the statement is false cannot be asserted in the same context C.

 

Frankly speaking, I was very confused myself when I wrote the book's explanation. Now I finally (think I)  understood. Actually what it's trying to say is that:

 

This damn stupid statement is neither true nor false in the context in which it was uttered. However, the statement is false when taken out of context (whatever rubbish that means). Pay attention to the context!!! Problem solved.

 

Hope you all can understand the explanation. Any disagreement or anything you don't understand please voice up. 

 

Solution from Goodbye Descartes  by Keith Devlin

 

PS. Finally the Liar Paradox is put to rest and we've no more rubbish about Liar Paradox in JF's blog again. *Heaving a sigh of relieve* Haha, you must be thinking this, but you're wrong...

 

 

Praise to Geoge Lucas

After watching the final episode of the Star Wars prelude trilogy (finally), I would like to commend Geoge Lucas for his creativity & ability creating such an exciting & exotic universe. However I would only give his Revenge of the Sith 3.5 stars. DO NOT turn away from the movie by my poor rating. I strongly recommend the entire Star Wars 'sixology' to everyone, but I've my own personal reasons for the rating.

When asked to comment on the poor rating given by reviewers on all 3 episodes of his Star Wars Prelude, George Lucas just shrugged and said, "Well, people watching Star Wars (prelude) can be divided in to 2 groups, those over 30 and those below 30. Those over 30 don't really like it but young people like it a lot. Since most of the reviewers belong to the 'over 30' category, it doesn't really matter."

Being a Star Wars fan, I've great anticipation for the movie, especially after so many people saying that it's a great movie. However, after watching Revenge I didn't feel the kind of elation I feel after I watch a good (4-stars) movie, like A Beautiful Mind, Matrix etc. I just find it an average movie, despite exciting lightsaber duels & battles, exotic worlds, beautifully designed weapons and starships, ironic development of storyline (Anakin cause the death of the woman he loves by trying to save her), and I'm not yet 30. After some thinking, I know why.

The problem is: I'm a Star Wars fan! I know the story of Star Wars inside out. I knew Papatine is Darth Sidius. I knew the Jedi will be massacred. I knew Anakin will turned bad. That's the problem with making a prelude: people know the ending before watching the movie, so they are just watching for how it reach that ending. All the twists and turns have little effects on them. It's an uphill battle for the story teller. Lucas did a good job though for coming up with something that we didn't expect (the irony). I can imagine how good the movie for someone who I don't know what I knew. (Sadly the reviewers know as much as I do, so they gave the same rating as I gave :P)

One might wonder why Lucas prefered to make a prelude instead of a follow up? Well, as a hard-core Star Wars fan maybe I can answer for him. Because the original Star Wars story is so well-written, a dozen of writers like Kelvin J Anderson, Timothy Zahn's (to name the two I like best) had written dozens of novels which develop the story from just after Return of the Jedi, to 10+ years later, where Leia and Han Solo have 3 kids and growing up fast. And what do you do when you find it hard to write an extension? You write a prelude. Simple.

One seldom sees a story so well written that it inspired so many writers, programmers, toys companies etc. and being continued indefinitely. I can only think of a few universes that is comparable to the Star Wars universe, in terms of size and quality, Tokien's Middle Earth and X-Men universe. That's why I admire George Lucas. He's a genius. Those who haven't watched Star Wars should watch it.

 

PS. Here's one Star Wars inspired joke I copied from http://kennysia.com/. It's to demostrate that Star Wars is so good that it can even inspire stupid jokes like this. Haha, it's damn funny =P But be warned: it contains sexual explicit contents...  

 

********

Imagine a female Yoda...

Girl Yoda: "Kenny sweetums. Horny I am. F**k me you must!"
Kenny: "Yes, master."

*Undress. Kenny mounts Yoda*

Girl Yoda: "Mmmmm.... Very nice that feels. Long lightsabre, you have!"
Kenny: "Thank you, master."
Girl Yoda: "Ooooh, f**k me harder my padawan! Use the Force! USE THE FORCE!"
Kenny: "Ohhh... Yes, master."
Girl Yoda: "Stop you must not! Cumming I am! CUMMING I AM!"
Kenny: "Hold on, master!"
Girl Yoda: "AAAAH!"

*BOOM! Yoda explodes*

Kenny: "Master?! MASTER!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!"

 ********

 

 

Ramblings again...

The last entry's another essay that I can't help but copy wholesale from the book. That's because it's so well-written that I can never write as well as the author by rephrasing it. (Haha as if I'm better than the author in those articles I rephrased.) Anwz I feel that 101 Experiments in Philosophy of Everyday Life is really good and in fact this's the 2nd time I read it. Yup, the 2nd time. Tons of spare time nowadays. So I read books, reread books, write blog, play games, restart computer, watch movies lor. And occasionally engage in stupid activities like canoeing from Pasir Ris to Changi, which gave me backache and muscle aches all over (But it's fun lah =P), and driving a lousy pickup from SBS to Hall 12 a few hundred times to deliver tires for WSC. What's more stupid is that I'm doing the reverse process again later. Sianz... I'm a sai gang gia (sai gang gia n. 1. shit work lad)...

Sorry, I've digressed. Anwz currently short of good books to read, any books to recommend please feel free to recommend. Hmmm... now desparately short of movie khakis also...

(Imagine I've to ask my parents accompany me to watch Kingdom of Heaven! But strangely they found the movie more enjoyable than I do. Anwz why were the believers in the 2 religions which believe in God killing and butchering each other for The Kingdom of Heaven, ie. Jerusalem? And the most surprising part part is, they both claimed that it's in the name of God!!! Why huh???)

...paiseh, digressed again. Erm so anyone wants to watch movie pleassse call me leh. Haiz, sometimes I wonder maybe the more i ask pple to do something in my blog, the more pple refuse to do that thing. Eg. I asked pple to post comments and yet there's zero comment so far. So friends, wanna watch movie don't jio me ah!

 

Walk in the dark

Duration: a few seconds

Props: a dark room

Effect: disorientating

 

Suddenly it's pitch dark. Power cut, or sudden awakening, or attempt to avoid waking those who are asleep... The reason doesn't matter. You are walking in the dark. Preferbly without expecting to. No light to give your usual bearings as to obstacles and distances. With only your memory to guide you, you must cross a familiar room, your bedroom or your sitting room, in total darkness. What is worth exploring here are your moments of uncertainty. Your gropings seem to suggest that you don't know how to navigate the familiar space you've crossed a thousand times. how many steps are there between the bed and the door? Is there nothing between? Where's the arm of that chair? The corner of the bed? These reasuring places bristle suddenly with question marks.

The simplest movements become fraught with risk and perplexity. Worst of all, you can no longer judge distances. What you thought you knew, in the light, has become uncertain. Nothing is guaranteed. You stretch out your arms, thinking you're about to bump into something, touch the wall or brush past the doorframe... Nothing there. You keep groping in the void. Almost from the start, what invades you without your wholly realizing it is in fact the benightedess of ignorance. The darkness makes you stupid. It has thinkened your head and destroyed your bearings. Suddenly you bump into the corner of the chest of drawers. You hadn't imagined it was there. So you were completely wrong in your calculations. You were not where you thought you were. The chest has looed out of the darkness and struck you a calculated blow, high up on your thigh, just where it hurts most.

The absence of light skews all your estimations. It confuses your contours, and your body seems uncertain and at a loss. You can only move in limited fits and tiny starts. And yet, very little is actually missing from your picture of things. Known reality is still unmoved and in place. Nothing has budged, neither the objects nor the relations between them. Nevertheless, they have become incomprehensible. Distanced and vaguely menacing.

In the dark, the world is supposed to be 'the same' as in the light. But you have only to test this proposition to find that the world changes completely, depending on whether it's visible or not. What we call 'the world', 'reality', 'normal life' reposes inside a thin, easily disturbed stratum.

 

From 101 Experiments in the Philosophy of Everyday Life by Roger-pol Droit

 

 

'Achilles and the Tortoise' Paradox

This is an ancient paradox thought up by this wierd guy called Zeno, who lived circa 450 B.C., in Elea, Greek. Here it goes:

Achilles is to race the tortoise over 100m. Since Achilles can run 10 times faster than the tortoise, the tortoise is given a 10m head start. The race starts and Achilles set of in pursuit of the tortoise. In the time Achilles takes to cover the 10m to reach the point where the tortoise started, the tortoise covered 1m, and so is 1m ahead. By the time Achilles covered the extra 1m, the tortoise is 1/10 m ahead. And when Achilles reached that point, the tortoise is 1/100 m ahead, and so on, ad infinitum. Thus, the tortoise will be in the lead forever, albiet by smaller and smaller margins; and the great Achilles can never overtakes his opponent to win the race.

********

Real life application of the above argument:

Suppose your mouse pointer is on the 'Back' button of your Internet Explorer and you wish to click on it get out of this irritating, mind-boggling page. You'll 1st of all need to half click the button. And to do that, you'll need to quarter click the page. And so on. In fact, before you can click on the button, you must make an infinite number of ever decreasing fraction clicks on the button.

And if you are sick of this button clicking business and wish close the Internet Explorer, you can't. Because in order to close the Internet Explorer, you've to move your mouse pointer to the 'X' button on the top right hand corner, and before you do that, you'll need to move your mouse pointer half way to the top right hand corner and so on. (Not to mention you still have to click on it. =P)

As Zeno pointed out all that time ago, you simply can't go through an infinity series of stages in a sadly all too finite amount of time. It's in fact, impossible to do anything - logically speaking.

Now try and click the back button. 

 

What's wrong with this argument?

 

From 101 Philosophy Problems by Martin Cohen

 

 

Opening Ceremony

It has been exactly a month since this blog site's birthday on 14th Apr, and I'm opening it to friends today! 14th Apr... that's a special date... it's one day before my end of year exam! I think lots of blog sites are started during exam periods, since that's the time when they are most sianz. (Michelle, right? =) Anwz as the site's name implies, there's nothing much inside here, jus tons of 废话, so don't take it so seriously. Also, my ang mo buay siu (buay siu - adj. 1.cannot swim 2.cannot make it) one, pardon me for my bad english k?

 

Let me now introduce you to the different sections of my blogs.  

 

Do not enter - You have been warned. This's where I put my rubbish writings. Okok, I admit everything in this site is rubbish, but well, some rubbish is more rubbish than the others, and this's where I put the most rubbish of the rubbish. For a taste of what's inside, this entry is placed under this category. My estimate is that people wont stay for more than 30 seconds inside. Enter at your own risk.  

 

art /a:t/ n  the expression of creativity - This is where I put some nice pictures and music, articles regarding visual arts, music, movies, magic, architecture, design and so on. Currently nothing much inside, and it's mostly for my own reference. Pop by if you have time.

 

Makan for thought - Some articles that stimulates you intellectually and spritually. Almost all copied from somewhere, and because I copied too much le so this site is opened to friends only. (I've been wondering: copy say copy lah, why use such a chim word like plagiarize?)Anwz the contents inside is quite interesting, I think.

 

My views on... - Here's where I write my views on politics, current affairs, philosophies etc etc, ie. anything under the sun, rubbish mostly. And as I've said, don't take it too seriously.

 

放我出去 - exit to some less rubbish, less crazy blog sites, mostly my friends' and juniors'. Mostly for my own use, when I'm tramatised of my own site. To owners of those blogs which links are put here, you won't mind right? If you mind tell me, I'll take away the link. 

 

Nothing much to say le. Anwz I imagined this site to be a external harddisk for my brain, something like the device (what's its name?) used by Professor Dumbledore to put his extra thoughts, knowledge and memory in Harry Potter. This blog site is not like a normal blogsite where people penned down their feelings & thought everyday. I only write when there's something to write (or copy). So I suggest that you read the entries according the categories. And some of the entries are for my own future reference. All in all, welcome to have a look inside. Give some comments k?

 

Have a nice day!

 

 

The Unexpected Exam

One day, the Chinese Cinema class were told that they were to have a test on what they have learnt so far this term, particularly theories used to analyse 少林足球. "So when is the test?" one of the student asked.

Teacher replied, "That's up to me. I may have it at any point between now and the end of the term. However, when I do have the test it'll be a surprise!"

After school, Min and Xin were discussing the bad news. Xin was very worried. However Min said," Don't worry Xin, I think the teacher is having a bit of joke at our expense - you see, I don't think there can be a test!"

 

What reason did Min give?

 

 

*******

There's a flawless reasoning behind Min's belief. She explained that the test cannot be held on the last day of the term, since by then the class will know that it must going to be held and thus, not a surprise. "That's great," said Xin sarcastically. "So it's any day between now and the second last day of the term then."

Min explained patiently,"It can't be the second last day of the term either, because if it can't be on the last day, by the night before second last day we'll know the test is going to be on the second last day. Thus, it can't be on the second last day either!"

 Xin got it now, "Nor the third to last day, nor the fourth - nor any day! Haha!"

 

PS. They don't tell the others, who spend ages trying to memorise the theories to analyse 少林足球 and other movies like 功夫, much to Min and Xin's secret amusement. Then one day, just 4 weeks after the original announcement, the teacher came in and announced the test.

"You can't do this!", said Min.

"Why not?", replied the teacher, surprised.

"Because it's got to be the surprise - and you can only hold the test when we're not expecting it!"

"Yes, but Min, you're not expecting it wat." said the teacher.

 

PPS. There's no flaw in Min's reasoning, each step and the conclusion is correct. However, unfortunate for students everywhere, it just doesn't work in reality.

 

Adapted from 101 Philosophy Problems by Martin Cohen

 

 

The Hanging Judge

Here's an ancient puzzle that is quite interesting. It's solvable, try not to look at the answer. It goes like this: 

Now Judge Dread had had many disagreeable before him, but this one, who styled himself 'the Philosopher', is particularly annoying. Dread says:

"You have been found guilty of being a crook and a swindler and repeatedly lying to the court to save your wretched skin. Well, justice has caught up with you now, my friend. The sentence is..." *drum roll* "...Death by Hanging."

"...HOWEVER, as I'm a magnanimous Judge, ahem, I shall give you one more opportunity to learn the value of truth. If, on the day of your execution, you sign a statement making one true declaration, the sentence will be commuted to ten years imprisonment. If, on the other hand, your statement is false, the sentence will be carried out immediately."

At this the jury applaud at the severity of the sentence and everybody is pleased to to see such a villain get a heavy sentence, coupled with the humiliating public true declaration. But strangely, the Philosopher just smirks back as he is led away to Death Row.

The day of execution arrived and the crook, beaming, signs a declaration which is handed to Dread who read it with growing bewilderment. Then, snarling, he crumples it and orders the Philosopher be released, with no penalty whatsoever to be imposed.

 

What could the prisoner have said in the statement to have saved himself?

 

 

 

*******

This's similar to the 'All Men Are Liars' (said by a man) type of paradox. The Philosopher just have to say, "I'll be hanged." Then he can't be executed (since the statement is true) or sent to prison (since the statement is false). Think about it.

 

From 101 Philosophy Problems by Martin Cohen

 

 

Religions (Post Scripts)

PS. With regards to 'Join Christianity or you go to HELL!' statement, some may say that's because we have sinned, and only if you believe in Jesus that you'll be pardoned. Fine, I admit I've sinned. But according to Christian belief, even new-borned babies are sinned. Why? Great, now everyone is sinned so everyone has to join Christianity so as not to go to hell, even babies. I can only see 3 rationale for this: 1) Head of Church came up with this thinking (slogan) to encourage (threaten) people to join Christianity. I can imagine it worked very well to uneducated mass in ancient times. I don't mean the pastors are delibrately cheating us in present day. I believe they've absolute faith in the truthfullness of the statement (Take note of the word 'faith'). But that doesn't make it true. 2) It makes it easier for Christians to deal with deaths, of themselves and of relatives. True, it's more comforting to think one goes heaven when one pass on, but that doesn't make it true either. In this case though, it doesn't matter. 3) It's true.

Somehow, I feel that case 1) is more likely. Just a personal opinion.

 

PPS. No offence meant to anyone believing in any of the religions mention above. I'm just expressing my opinions & doubts. Anyone with comments or answers please tell me. I'm interested.

 

 

Religions (Part 2)

We've came to Christianity. Here I would like to quote from Douglas Adam's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979) , which was copied from XiaXue's site:

 

"The Babel fish," said the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. (......) The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language.

 

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof for the nonexistance of God.

 

"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

 

" 'But,' says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It would not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

 

" 'Oh dear,' said God, "I haven't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."

 

Frankly speaking, there's no other religion that requires more 'faith' than Christianity. 'Join Christianity or you go to HELL!' Not that I'm not sympathetic towards the sufferings Jesus underwent for us, not that I'm sure that God doesn't exist (I'm neutral), but I think it'll take quite a lot for me to believe that go to hell thing.

 

Anwz, assuming God exists and He did pass words to his messengers, isn't possible for those messengers, or people who listened to those messengers, to misinterpret His messages? Afterall, it has proven on a several instances that people's interpretation of His messages is wrong. Sun doesn't revolves around Earth. Earth wasn't created just a few thousand years ago. If not for the church, Copernicus and Dawin won't have such a hard time.

 

And this leads to my next question: if it's possible for people to misinterpret God's messages, is it possible for people to delibrately misinterpret God's messages? Or even, put words into God's mouth and said that God declared this and this?? If not, why are there witch hunts, where women deemed as witches (note: some may be innocent) were burnt at stake? Was our almighty God so tulan with these mere mortal women that they've to be treated so cruelly? (Isn't God all forgiving? Or He has some 'higher plan' for them?) Or was some people (head of the church probably) just psychotic? What about wars 'in God's name'? Doesn't God tells us to love our enemies? And if I didn't remember wrongly, doesn't 1 of the 10 commandments tells us that 'Thou shall not kill'?

 

Must we have faith in everything people say God says? Remember: faith = believe blindly.

 

In my opinion, religions started out good, but has been misinterpreted/corrupted by people as times goes on. Now, it's just a source of power for those who control the faithful masses who believed in the religion. What I feel is, believe in or join whatever religion you want, but do not believe blindly. For me myself, I only believe in one 'religion': I won't even join any religion. Instead, I will just adopt useful teachings from all religions. With regard to any teachings that's threatening and illogical, I'll jus f it and go to sleep (睡教).

 

 

Religions (Part 1)

I'm writing this entry partly because I've wanted to pen down my religious (or non-religious) thoughts for a long time, and also partly because I felt some 共鸣 after reading XiaXue's entry on Christianity. As far as I can remember, I don't have good opinions on religions ever since I was young. I remember I even made a girl to throw away her Buddha pendent when I was in kindergarden. Haha 我这么小就做孽了! =P Anwz here are my doubts on the 3 major religions, namely Taoism, Buddism and Christianity. (Islam is out of the question coz I'm slightly racist.)

 

I admit I dunno much about Taoism, I just know that it evolves from 老庄's teaching. 老庄 advocate 'be one with nature', but it seems to me that rituals that the Tao priests do are so unnatural, so... fake. How is it that a religion can deviate so much from some famous sages' teaching and claim that it's based on their teaching? Is it brand name or something?

 

Buddism. Of the three religions, I most incline towards Buddism's school of thought. However, I'm sceptical on the religion itself. Buddha's teaching told us that everything keeps changing (诸行无常), therefore realise that everything is just mirage (虚幻); We must put away material & emotional wants & needs (四大皆空), & most importantly, the concept of 'self' (诸法无我). Once we achieve these, we'll attain an enlightened / happy state, ie. nirvana (涅磐寂静 - the second word is spelt wrongly, it shld be 木 instead of 石). This's the aim of the religion. However, how come we can see monks driving Mercedes? Maybe they are so enlightened that Merz means nothing to them. It's just a form of transport.

 

Bullshit.

 

(To be continued...)

 

 

Xiaxue's blog

Just visited S'pore's most popular blog site after it being featured in ZaoBao. Well, this girl's writing style is 俗气, with lots of f-words & others, but it's highly entertaining and funny, reminding me of Liang Zhi Qiang's style of humour - she made us, as a Singaporean, laugh at ourselves. I love this quote from her blog:"Tokien can't be more long-winded than me." (For those who have read Lord of the Rings before, you'll understand how longwinded Tokien is) Seems like she's quite well-read, 不愧是 RV student.  For those who haven't heard of her site, go have a look: http://www.xiaxue.blogspot.com

PS. Her entry on entry on phone sex is damn funny, but feminists are going to protest! =P

 

 

Days after 3 May 2005

Ramblings again...

Read a book on Feng Shui recently (haha me too bo liao le...), it mentioned, '...for a person to be healthy, Yin & Yang must be balanced in the body. For a person to live comfortably in a house, Yin & Yang must also be balanced in the house... '  

I guess this balance applies to life also, & my e has never been more balanced after exams.

Ktv on Wed, housework on Thurs (balanced between fun & not fun)

Read story books, watch VCDs at home on Thurs,  play SIMS 2 in hall on Fri (balanced between entertainments)

Celebrate Mother's Day on Sunday morning, went back hall on Sunday night (balanced between family & friends)

Went GE lesson on Monday morning, play game and chess training on Monday afternoon (balanced betwen school work & games)

Hall & Home (balanced between autonomy & dictatorship)

Life is good.

A synonym for 'balance' is 'equilibrium' - a state where things refused to change.