Don't let the bastards get you down
In the Handmaid's Tale, there is a scribbled piece of graffiti in the closet which says this in pig Latin. I wish i had learned Latin. Maybe I still can.
I spent all of yesterday in pajamas, i barely ate, i slept three times, i went to bed at 10. I barely ate, i couldn't even lift myself out of bed for most of the day. And last night when i got to bed, i spent a long time just feeling how exhausted i was. The house needed cleaning and i could not clean it. It is just impossible.
Someone said to me, you need to lower your standards. Lower my standards? There isn't a need for you to do all the things you do. Actually this is something which i have been accused of before. Having ridiculously high standards. My mom said this to me. She used to say, why are you doing all this when no one else cares? I would be lugging things, trying to set things up, moving things. Working till 2 am in the morning, getting up at 5 to do more work. Why are you doing this? Where do you get the energy from?
Thirty years hence, the accusation is still the same, except, i have clearly run out of energy. In the past when i encountered people who were difficult, i would just give them the bye ball. It was easy to be nonchalant when i was young, especially when it didn't matter, when my heart wasn't in most of the work i did. It isn't so easy now.
So, the answer is Lower My Standards, Don't Work So Hard, and Don't Give a Fuck - or Give Less of a Fuck. Like the world does. Especially since no one listens to me anyway.
I really hate saying this, but, by and large, i am always right. Life has shown this to me. I have a knack of reading things the right way. I am not very good at suffering fools gladly, which is probably my biggest problem. But i am really good and telling which is the right way up. I don't know why. I think it is because i did English Lit. Because i read History. Because i ask stupid questions. I never jump to conclusions. I hate it when people do that - i hate it when people speculate about the motives about other people. It pisses me off utterly. You cannot know what motivates people. What you can know re their actions and the consequences given a set of circumstances. You can know objectives and outcomes. You cannot know why someone does what they does. I mean it is satisfying on one level to vilify and gossip about someone, especially if they have been horrible to you, but it is ultimately futile. All you have is lived experience, action and consequence.
So why have i supported Corbyn from the very beginning, even saying that the UK needed him from the very start? Because i understood he was trying to create balance. The pendulum has swung too much to the right which creates a terrible instability.
Why have i questioned the education system in Singapore, even from the youngest age? Because i know it is soul destroying. First hand i have known and seen this. Why do i question the accretion of power any where, because it is dangerous. It is ok if the power is in the hands of a capable person, but if it in the hands of an idiot, it is a catastrophe. Just like Singapore - currently the Lee family is creating unnecessary untold chaos in their ridiculous wrangling about their house. In the USA, the power in the hands of the President and his idiotic minions has created a system where the world's freest democracy forty years ago, is now on the brink of dictatorship. Neoliberalism as an ideology, which LKY promoted is rotten to its core. If money is the measurement of all things, then everything around us is up for sale and as long as it makes money, then it is a success. So the well being of people become irrelevant. The destruction of the Earth becomes imminent.
Of course you are not very popular if you say things which people who have power do not agree with. If everything is arranged in their favour and you say, hey, you know this favour that favours you? Well it is not a good idea. Of course they get pissed off. And that has been a real issue for me. Even though i have been born in the favoured constellation i have always been able to step outside it and say, look here, this is just not on. I have always tried working on the side of the voiceless, to my own detriment. I have not a single bone of self promotion nor self preservation in my body. My only interest is to do my best and to give of my best. Of course people who have power and who only interested in power cannot understand this. They think, she's up to something. She wants to unseat me because she wants it all for herself. I could not be less interested in having anything for myself. Ask anyone who ha sever worked with me, my working style is completely copoerative. Listening to people and discussing things. Everything is on the table. If you have a problem, let us discuss it, respectfully.
I was recently watching this interview between Graham Hancock and this skeptic Michael Shermer. I was led to it because of an article written by Shermer which says that Hancock's theories about a lost ancient civilisation is rubbish. Having read Shermer's article, i found his arguments very weak and poor. He set up a premise from which to be judged for himself and then failed to be judged by even his own standards. So i thought, i should give him a chance. So i listened to the interview.
He was very poor. He was in fact not at all a skeptic. A skeptic is someone who is able to question and refute a premise based on evidence which he has. What Shermer did was obfuscate, filibuster, use ad honinim, quote out of date research and demonstrate that he in fact knew nothing about very little at all. His level of research seemed to be that of a casual Reader's Digest subscriber. He would conflate arguments, suddenly introduce false premises and then when pressed about subjects demonstrate that he had not read anything about it. In other words, Shermer appeared to be defending the indefensible. I agree that there is an important place for skeptics, but not this kind of right-winged prejudice which dismisses any new research as pseudo this and that or false archaeology. In fact, during the past year i have discovered what a closed minded, conservative bunch archaeologists are.
People who defend the indefensible are all the same everywhere. It doesn't matter what field they are in. Either the subject is indefensible because they don't know enough about it, or they know they are wrong but want to uphold the way things are. And you can tell when they are doing this. Stonewalling, rambling, excuse making, personal insults, poor performances and limp outcomes. Anyone who is happy to stand over their work, who is able to admit they have not done as well as they should, does not behave in the way the Michael Shermers of the world behave.
This is why the whole May-Corbyn debate is so frustrating. It is not a real debate. A read debate engages in evidence and fact, not evasive answers that lead no where. The whole point of the debate is clarification, not the defense of an indefensible position. And you can hear the indefensible position being defended. It is mostly used by the alt-right. I love arguing with alt-right people because all you have to do is just to repeat their statements to them as questions and ask them to defend them. You just said this... what do you mean by it? Please elucidate.
And so i go on. I kinda feel like the last sentence of the Great Gatsby... "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
I spent all of yesterday in pajamas, i barely ate, i slept three times, i went to bed at 10. I barely ate, i couldn't even lift myself out of bed for most of the day. And last night when i got to bed, i spent a long time just feeling how exhausted i was. The house needed cleaning and i could not clean it. It is just impossible.
Someone said to me, you need to lower your standards. Lower my standards? There isn't a need for you to do all the things you do. Actually this is something which i have been accused of before. Having ridiculously high standards. My mom said this to me. She used to say, why are you doing all this when no one else cares? I would be lugging things, trying to set things up, moving things. Working till 2 am in the morning, getting up at 5 to do more work. Why are you doing this? Where do you get the energy from?
Thirty years hence, the accusation is still the same, except, i have clearly run out of energy. In the past when i encountered people who were difficult, i would just give them the bye ball. It was easy to be nonchalant when i was young, especially when it didn't matter, when my heart wasn't in most of the work i did. It isn't so easy now.
So, the answer is Lower My Standards, Don't Work So Hard, and Don't Give a Fuck - or Give Less of a Fuck. Like the world does. Especially since no one listens to me anyway.
I really hate saying this, but, by and large, i am always right. Life has shown this to me. I have a knack of reading things the right way. I am not very good at suffering fools gladly, which is probably my biggest problem. But i am really good and telling which is the right way up. I don't know why. I think it is because i did English Lit. Because i read History. Because i ask stupid questions. I never jump to conclusions. I hate it when people do that - i hate it when people speculate about the motives about other people. It pisses me off utterly. You cannot know what motivates people. What you can know re their actions and the consequences given a set of circumstances. You can know objectives and outcomes. You cannot know why someone does what they does. I mean it is satisfying on one level to vilify and gossip about someone, especially if they have been horrible to you, but it is ultimately futile. All you have is lived experience, action and consequence.
So why have i supported Corbyn from the very beginning, even saying that the UK needed him from the very start? Because i understood he was trying to create balance. The pendulum has swung too much to the right which creates a terrible instability.
Why have i questioned the education system in Singapore, even from the youngest age? Because i know it is soul destroying. First hand i have known and seen this. Why do i question the accretion of power any where, because it is dangerous. It is ok if the power is in the hands of a capable person, but if it in the hands of an idiot, it is a catastrophe. Just like Singapore - currently the Lee family is creating unnecessary untold chaos in their ridiculous wrangling about their house. In the USA, the power in the hands of the President and his idiotic minions has created a system where the world's freest democracy forty years ago, is now on the brink of dictatorship. Neoliberalism as an ideology, which LKY promoted is rotten to its core. If money is the measurement of all things, then everything around us is up for sale and as long as it makes money, then it is a success. So the well being of people become irrelevant. The destruction of the Earth becomes imminent.
Of course you are not very popular if you say things which people who have power do not agree with. If everything is arranged in their favour and you say, hey, you know this favour that favours you? Well it is not a good idea. Of course they get pissed off. And that has been a real issue for me. Even though i have been born in the favoured constellation i have always been able to step outside it and say, look here, this is just not on. I have always tried working on the side of the voiceless, to my own detriment. I have not a single bone of self promotion nor self preservation in my body. My only interest is to do my best and to give of my best. Of course people who have power and who only interested in power cannot understand this. They think, she's up to something. She wants to unseat me because she wants it all for herself. I could not be less interested in having anything for myself. Ask anyone who ha sever worked with me, my working style is completely copoerative. Listening to people and discussing things. Everything is on the table. If you have a problem, let us discuss it, respectfully.
I was recently watching this interview between Graham Hancock and this skeptic Michael Shermer. I was led to it because of an article written by Shermer which says that Hancock's theories about a lost ancient civilisation is rubbish. Having read Shermer's article, i found his arguments very weak and poor. He set up a premise from which to be judged for himself and then failed to be judged by even his own standards. So i thought, i should give him a chance. So i listened to the interview.
He was very poor. He was in fact not at all a skeptic. A skeptic is someone who is able to question and refute a premise based on evidence which he has. What Shermer did was obfuscate, filibuster, use ad honinim, quote out of date research and demonstrate that he in fact knew nothing about very little at all. His level of research seemed to be that of a casual Reader's Digest subscriber. He would conflate arguments, suddenly introduce false premises and then when pressed about subjects demonstrate that he had not read anything about it. In other words, Shermer appeared to be defending the indefensible. I agree that there is an important place for skeptics, but not this kind of right-winged prejudice which dismisses any new research as pseudo this and that or false archaeology. In fact, during the past year i have discovered what a closed minded, conservative bunch archaeologists are.
People who defend the indefensible are all the same everywhere. It doesn't matter what field they are in. Either the subject is indefensible because they don't know enough about it, or they know they are wrong but want to uphold the way things are. And you can tell when they are doing this. Stonewalling, rambling, excuse making, personal insults, poor performances and limp outcomes. Anyone who is happy to stand over their work, who is able to admit they have not done as well as they should, does not behave in the way the Michael Shermers of the world behave.
This is why the whole May-Corbyn debate is so frustrating. It is not a real debate. A read debate engages in evidence and fact, not evasive answers that lead no where. The whole point of the debate is clarification, not the defense of an indefensible position. And you can hear the indefensible position being defended. It is mostly used by the alt-right. I love arguing with alt-right people because all you have to do is just to repeat their statements to them as questions and ask them to defend them. You just said this... what do you mean by it? Please elucidate.
And so i go on. I kinda feel like the last sentence of the Great Gatsby... "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
Just me, fighting and always ending up against the issues of character which have defined me. But i suppose we all have choices, and i would much prefer to be the fighter than the last para from 1984: "He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
Comments