the world does revolve around

feelings.

what is their purpose,

and why do we follow them?

when we choose not to follow them,

are we not following some kind of feeling afterall?

logic alone cannot compel anyone to act.

logic helps us to reason things out,

weigh out what is probably good,

and what is probably bad.

can logic tell us what are our priorities?

can logic tell us what is important to us?

i think not.

one might think that what is probably good is probably important.

perhaps,

what is better would naturally be more important.

but why?

why is better more important?

it brings us more benefits?

but why do we need more benefits to live our life?

so that we can live a smoother life?

but why do we want to live a smoother life?

because we don’t want to feel pain?

can logic explain that?

logic,

provides us with facts,

provides us with suggestions,

provides us with probabilities.

but as hume said,

reason cannot compel us to act as even our weakest feelings can.

logic does not,

in any way,

tell us to perform an action.

feelings do.

feelings are the basis to all our actions,

and am i not right in choosing to follow my feelings?

even if i do choose not to follow my feelings,

it is just another feeling afterall.

am i being egoistic in choosing not to talk to you?

am i being egoistic in choosing not to care about you?

am i being egoistic in choosing not to give a damn about you?

egoistic:

being centered in or preoccupied with oneself,

and the gratification of one’s own desires;

self-centered.

i am not centred or preoccupied with myself,

because there are many other people that i care about.

i just don’t care about you.

so i am being egoistic because i care more about myself than you?

if you think that is what being an egoist is about,

then yes,

i am a egoist then.

but sorry,

there are people that i care about as much as i care about myself.

and you will probably never understand that,

because you are actually the one who is an egoist.

a person that will never understand what it means to care about other’s feelings.

because you do not even view feelings as important.

the one who is an egoist,

because you cannot accept the fact that someone does not want to talk to you.

because you cannot accept the fact that you are not important enough,

to warrant any attention from me.

because you are too preoccupied with yourself and your feelings,

to even care about leaving the other person alone.

but then again,

if i am an egoist to you,

i do not really care.

but knowing you,

you will probably tell lots of people that i am an egoist,

in hope that i will somehow understand that i should not be an egoist,

when everyone starts hating me.

wow.

the nobility.

thanks for your concern,

but i am telling you,

i don’t need it.

i know that i am not one,

at least less of a one than you.

the reason why you are lonely?

because you do not know anything at all,

when you say that you know everything about empathy.

the kettle calling

but yesterday i was talking to xinyang, and he made me realise something quite enlightening.

“what you think is right or wrong actually has very little to do with your decision of an action.”

not that i agree with it completely, but i think it is quite cool when some people think this way.

the pot of lines and wires

in my opinion,

how much you know about another person should seriously be solely based on how much the other person wants you to know.

unique tastes

happy birthday! lol.

foot caught in your mind

i just think that it affected me so much not because i know him personally, but i realised that so many of us are in the same situation. i’m not referring to the same response to the situation, but more of the system that we are in now.

it seems to me that we are facing the same pressures, in the same educational system and same lifestyles. of course you can tell me that there are so many striking differences between 2 people, but in the big picture sense, we are essentially so similar. it makes me think that all of us could have easily chosen the same course of action. this the thought that scares me; how close everyone is to this exact same result.

the existentialist believes that one gives meaning to the life one is living. from this, decisions would be made according to the meaning of life that one has prescribed. perhaps this is what changes things, we all have different meanings to our lives.

what is the purpose of life? the meaning of life? are these questions really meant for us, and are we qualified to answer them? i guess most would believe we should, since they are our lives. but are these really our lives? if we are qualified to answer them, then i should think we should be able to base our decisions on this answer that we have given. but are we ready to make decisions? and are we courageous enough to face the consequences?

these are all difficult questions, but without these answers, how can we continue living our lives? do we just float by?

i don’t know, and there is so much that i don’t know.

i only know that there are so many people out there so ready to make judgements, to think that they can tell whether someone else is doing the right thing according to their own beliefs. so ready to make judgements, to think that they can tell whether a certain factor is worth it, or worthy of a response according to their own beliefs. and we are so conditioned till the point that we cannot accept the truth that something that is so wrong can have a possibility of being something else.

does intention matter? tell me, how do you know? how can you judge? how many people in this world would be able to understand a person’s intention? none, i think. intentions are so complex, made up of so many layers of interacting factors that even the person would not have any idea whether his intention is this, or that. if we cannot be consistent in our judgements over two events, how can we be so sure that we are being completely consistent in even one event?

why are we sad? why do we grief? why do we think it is worth crying over? are we being selfish? are we sad for only ourselves? how can we be sad for another person? empathy? but you were not there, you were not the one who felt the pain, and you were not the one who felt the release. everything is in our imagination.

i really don’t know.

i am sad. not in the empathy way, perhaps at just how things turned out.

life. what do you make out of it?

“it’s not the answer that enlightens, it’s the question.” – Eugene Ionesco

fair value

new discoveries of the day:

aqueous grounded paracetamol tastes like crap.

the literal meaning of “a pill difficult to swallow”.

thanks but sorry

there are things i will never forget.

frying in a hot aquarium

i read the straits times today, and i realised that there were only 3 days left to the IMF/World Bank meeting in Singapore. so obviously there was a lot of talk about what has been done in Singapore to ensure that the delegates have a great time in Singapore, including flowers along orchard road and security measures.

so yes, there was an article about the possibilities of protests in Singapore during the meeting itself. imf/world bank meetings held throughout the ages have always attracted much protests, such that it has even become a regular fixture with these meetings. and apparently, singapore has received much flak with our strict laws regarding protests and demonstrations. both organisations has said that the decision made by the singapore government to prevent any protests from happening was a bad one, since they think that the demonstrators always have something important to tell them.

it is true that many of these protestors might have something important to tell the imf and the world bank, and they probably feel very passionate for their cause, such that they are even willing to travel to the countries hosting the meetings just to make themselves heard. true, there are many times that the governing body does not bother to listen until one actually does something drastic to attract attention. these organisations (e.g. the italian “reform the world bank” organisation), whose sole purpose is to make the imf/world bank listen to what they say, believe that by demostrating and protesting, improvements will be made to the world.

they are, in fact, saving the world.

but no matter how noble their purpose is, i do not think that Singapore should allow protests to be held in Singapore just because these organisations want to be heard. if imf and world bank had felt so strongly about the importance of these protests, they should have not picked Singapore as the hosting country in the first place. Singapore’s laws have been in place since a long time ago, and i do not deny that Singapore does have a reputation for being a strict country, with its laws being enforced in almost every aspect of our lives. hence, it should have been obvious to imf and world bank that what Singapore would be able to provide would most probably be security, and of course, peace.

to be asking Singapore to lift these laws after their decision to pick Singapore as the host country is just being too wishful. just because we are hosting the meeting does not mean that imf and world bank can have the right to request Singapore to give up the peace and security we have had for 41 years. yes, true enough, it might be a possibility that the protests might not escalate to violence and such, but it is not difficult to admit that they will definitely be disruptions in our daily lives, such as public transportation and the security in the country. Singaporeans do see the importance of the meeting, and what it is doing for our country on the global stage, but it does not mean that all the Singaporeans’ lives are revolving around this imf/world bank meeting. there are so many people’s lives who would be affected if protests and demonstrations were held in Singapore, even though they might not even be remotely connected or concerned about the imf/world bank meeting. 

think about the housewives who pick up their children from school everyday. they live their lives for their children, trying their best to provide the best environment for their children to live, study and play in. the imf/world bank meeting is not going to even be on their minds, since it is not directly connected to their lives in any way. so is it justified for their lives to be disrupted and placed in a precarious position just because singapore is hosting the imf/world bank meeting? our government has to provide for these citizens as well, so how can we give up the lives of this group of citizens so that we can listen to what these established reforming organisations have to say? it’s like, hey, i know your meeting is really important, but no matter how important your meeting is, the security of my citizens is not of less importanance, so this security should not be compromised.  

i believe that sm goh was right in saying that Singapore cannot practise double standards, and change the rules just because we are hosting the meeting and being presented to the global stage due to this meeting. it would not be fair to Singapore, since anyone on Singapore soil should be subjected to the same rules that the citizens of Singapore are. it would be hypocritical if foreigners received special treatment in our homeland. sure, we would do anything to make them feel welcome as guests, but i hardly think that allowing protests would make these delegates feel welcome to Singapore. don’t demonstrations and protests always dampen the spirits of the people present at the meetings?

anyway, i feel that Singapore is being very forward-looking in enforcing our laws on protests and demonstrations. this decision made by Singapore is actually telling the world that there are other ways of making yourself heard, other legal ways. we do not actually restrict the freedom of speech, all we are doing is encouraging organisations to be more creative in bringing their points across. and these ways of telling global organisations what you want do not have to involve violence, or protests, or demonstrations. for example, i think that the indoor demostration is actually a very good idea. the purpose of holding is protest is afterall, telling the organisation what you want to say, and what they should do to save the world. by providing a venue, Singapore has already made it very clear that we are willing to listen to what you have to say. indoor demonstrations can be held, and they will definitely be listened to.

seriously, when a protest was first held, was it not precisely because no one was listening to what they had to say? if Singapore is now telling these organisations that they are listening, why do protests and demonstrations still have to be held?

furthermore, imf and world bank should recognise that Singapore has not had a demonstration in the last few decades, and we might not actually be equipped to handle large-scale protests and demonstrations. we do have practices, like mock protests and so on, but as said, they are practices, and the police force might not be able to handle when something like that arises. one might think that there is always a first time for everything, but is this a necessary experience that Singapore has to go through?

if this imf/world bank meeting hosted in Singapore actually goes smoothly without a hitch, i.e. no demostrations and no protests, i believe we are showing to the world that these global meetings do not always have to be marred with reports of protests, and “reforming” organisations will always be able to find other ways to carry out their cause, if they are even passionate about it in the first place.

in conclusion, i think that the 2 organisations should be more far-sighted, and think of these laws being enforced in Singapore as the beginnings of a civilised and peaceful society where views are heard without violence, rather than a primitive government trying to enforce its laws on the world.

ah. angst.

proof.

 leonraj says:

how do you get all these weird music collections?

 ::tia:: [hi! i'm ziLin!] says:

.. they are NOT weird!

leonraj says:

eh ok, but how do you get them?

leonraj says:

i’m pretty much stuck in the 80s era in terms of music.

 ::tia:: [hi! i'm ziLin!] says:

hahaha lousy!

 ::tia:: [hi! i'm ziLin!] says:

80s.. is like? abba?

leonraj says:

like, beatles.

leonraj says:

the carpenters are pretty good too.

 ::tia:: [hi! i'm ziLin!] says:

isn’t that 60s..?

leonraj says:

i’m not that good with dates.

leonraj says:

I prefer other fruits.

 ::tia:: [hi! i'm ziLin!] says:

LOL

 ::tia:: [hi! i'm ziLin!] says:

         but i don’t think people usually consider dates as fruits

to set the record straight, dates are fruits of the date palm. oh wells.

take it with a pinch of salt

“memories are memories. memories have no power.” – my lovely samsoon.

these few days, i have been recalling quite a lot of events from my childhood. it is quite weird, and i wonder if i’m dying. cause people who are usually close to their death start to recall stuff from their whole life, perhaps for reflection, i think.

and ever since i was young, lots of people have been telling me that i don’t actually have a “lifeline” on my palm, in fact, i have no lines or very little lines on my palm. and this would either mean that i’m a spirit, or i’m just going to die very young. oh wells, i have lived on this earth for 17 years, which i do not consider as short, so uh, i am not very sure what is happening.

ah anyway. this recollection was quite scary. not in the nightmare sense of scary, but more like something that i have not thought about for a long time. most likely it is under the category where the brain pretends to forget the incident ever happened so that you can still cope with life and so on.

but oh wells. the memory is not very clear, just bits and pieces. but just enough to scare me.

i think i was about five…

there were drawing of stars on the seat of one of the wooden chairs for the dining table. the stars were blue and they looked amateur. the next thing i knew, i was being scolded like mad by my mum for drawing the stars on the precious chair. and the scolding is the really bad kind, and i cried like i was going to die.

i was made to wash the wooden chair in the toilet, but somehow or other, the stars just would not come off, most likely cause it was drawn using the permanent marker. and after the washing, i got scolded again. apparently due to my inabilities in washing off permanent marker ink.

i was only five…

and the best thing was, i had no memory of drawing the stars on the chair. not now, not at that point of time. all i remember was confusion, cause i had absolutely no idea why i was being blamed as having drawn the stars on the chair. i did not even know how the stars appeared on the chair.

but it could not have been my brother or my sister, cause my brother was like, primary 3, and my sister, primary 5. they can’t be going around drawing stars on chair seats.

it is like a big mystery, i think i will never know what happened. but i just feel like it’s so weird. it’s like a gap in one’s memory, something that will never be filled up. something that no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to understand.

i think gaps in memories are pretty painful. because you’re the only one who has the ability to actually possess those memories involving yourself, and once there is a gap, there is never going to be an external source that can tell you what happened.

and it’s just going to haunt you for the rest of your life.