Saturday, December 29, 2007

Society's Iron Gauntlet

Here's a question: are we free to make choices of our own, or are we limited and restricted by the rules of society? Is it like a pair of iron gauntlets: squeezing the throat of our free will and restraining our options?

Indefinitely, we as people do not have access to freedom to make choices in life; our surrounding societies indeed limit our decisions. What pieces of evidence do I have at hand? First off, a look back in time and history; Mao's regime - especially through the Cultural Revolution - through China's rise and development as a modern country.

In 1966, China's citizens could not freely express their opinions. This was a result of Mao's burgeoning paranoia at the time; his instincts as a political leader were kicking in overdrive, because within his close cabinet of colleagues were other individuals in power that decided to run the country in another way; more economical; more free for the people. And although Mao was only chairman of the Chinese Communist Party - and hence did not possess that great strength of the army and country - he still retained massive support from China's colossal population.

Armed with many who were steadfastly loyal to him, Mao instigated the purging of all forms of opposition. Stated clearly to the public, his conditions were effusively revealed to the public, and those who opposed would be forced to relinquish their jobs, their families, and even lives. China's citizens - many who loved Mao but possessed ideas that clashed against the Chairman's ideals - could not afford to make their own choices, and instead had to hunker down and simply endure his reign. His control extended so strongly that even the education system was banned and rewritten, and students were sent to the countryside for political reform. Even textbooks used for years and years in classrooms were not limited by the rules of society, for they could have contained ideas in conflict with Mao's own. In conclusion, this sums up just how individuals are not free to make their own choices in life; not when the rules of society is close at hand.

Another example to support this claim can be found in the literature work "The Lord Of The Flies" by William Golding. Ralph and Jack are potential candidates for leadership on an island where a group of young boys are stranded, and although the latter is the oldest member and does hold the most knowledge and strength, the former becomes overall leader due to common consent and majority of votes within the society of stranded kids. This shows that even one most suitable for the role as leader - being sagacious and strongest definitely brings out benefits - is turned down by the rules of society; that majority has to win.

Still, Jack refuses to let this hinder his ways; instead of falling under Ralph's leadership, he breaks off to form his own entourage, and Piggy, who remains steadfastly loyal to Ralph, faces a dilemma of either surrendering his loyalty and live, or else be held in grave danger. This shows the corruption of a society - a newly formed one under Jack's rule - that does not allow people to freely make decisions; blackmail emerges to try and gain control over the people, and as Piggy states that his spectacles - the only thing capable of creating fire on the island - can only be used by those who follow Ralph, he is killed by Jack's minions. This shows that speaking freely and heeding his brotherhood instincts only proceeded to get one killed, indicating that society's rules had overpowered him.

Also in the form of a literary piece of evidence is Arthur Miller's "A View From The Bridge"; Rodolfo is illegally immigrated to the states from Sicily in search for work. As he stays with his young cousin, and falls in love with her daughter, Catherine, and decides to marry her, he evokes the jealousy of Eddie, Catherine's father. In turn this builds up and catalyzes Eddie's decision to report the illegal immigrant and his brother Marco to the police, despite Rodolfo's justifiable reasons of coming to America. As the two Sicilians discover their incarceration is due to Eddie's betrayal, they ruin his reputation to the local neighborhood community, for everyone views blood loyalty above all others. Eddie, despite with good reasons to follow his choice of reporting to the police, is destroyed because society views his perfectly-justifiable course of action as the lowest insult and offense, and this leads to his swift death: an ultimate symbol that society - not rationality - governs one's decisions.

In conclusion, I again state that we as individuals are not completely free to make our own choices in life, because our surrounding society's will always restricts our options. Like Mao's regime in repressing opposition; like Ralph's entourage becoming attacked; like Eddie's rational actions initiating his downfall, the rules of society influence choices and decisions, and tightly controls the freedom of individuals.

Friday, November 30, 2007

Good Communication

Everyone has lost something. And this doesn’t just go for those abstract nouns, such as destiny, love, or self-discovery. Nope, I’m talking about physical items; objects that, in the flesh, travel with us…and in turn, are lost by us.

What if you lost your house keys? Not just twenty feet from your front door, or along your neighbourhood block, but somewhere that hundreds of people pass throughout the course of the day? You would probably be swamped with fear, and then dread the explanatory confrontation with your folks back at home. What actions would you then take to try and address your loss to the public, and then maximize your chances to regaining and repossessing those keys? Communication would probably top your list, because that’s the quickest way you can get the thoughts – and hence, pressures – in your head out into the open.

Let’s define this term here; communication. A noun that refers to the interchange of various thoughts, opinions, or information through verbal or written means. In a way, this disperses the focus to quite a multifarious set of options, and the conclusion I’m about to approach is that really, the possibilities are endless. Communication can exist in endless forms.

But the principles of utilizing communication in a good manner are a completely different matter entirely. It not only refers to the quality and rhetoric of the articulation, but also the choice of delivery selected. What I mean by this, ladies and gentlemen, is that one’s success in communication can be completely unrelated and regardless of their skill in a particular area, for if the form of communication is poorly selected, you may find yourself permanently at square one.

For example, a masterful negotiator of price tags won’t get anywhere if the item of interest is fixed at a certain value. In this case, an attempt at communicating to lower this figure – in other words, bargaining – would be fruitless in such context. No matter how skilled you are in the art of persuasion, a seller cannot afford to give in to your standards at the risk of his or her job. Take the same skill to another situation, however, and the tides could change entirely, because we all know how, for a skilled negotiator, a good deal is only a few short steps away. No longer would it be like trying to wrangle meat from a tiger’s mouth; a use of good communication in the correct circumstances would definitely achieve desired results.

As I mentioned earlier, communication can exist in many forms, and one of the more popular examples is music, for it is, as many people see it, a form of language. Instruments and lyrics; all in the same big package. And then you have your audience; they listen to the ideas and thoughts you try to put across. So in terms of communication, what better way to convey a message in a good manner than to craft music your audience can properly relate to? Many music artists can shape their entire careers upon such decisions, for they know that choosing music to connect with their audience isn’t enough. For example, some rap music artists blare out life on the fast lane, presenting their indulgence to the world in albums about their newest car, their biggest house, or their latest riches. Many country music artists, on the other hand, base their lyrics on the lifestyles of average people…and most of their audience will fall into the category. Hence, understanding - managed through good communication, which was ultimately derived from a choice of selection.

So back to the lost keys? Same tactic. You have to choose the most appropriate method of delivering your thoughts across. Print out and stick notifications all around the neighbourhood? Bombard mailboxes with your phone number and address? Hit the yellow pages? Each method works; each technique can be well-practiced and polished to become a “good” form of communication. But in order to be truly successful, you must remember to fulfill the other half of the equation, in that only the correctly chosen forms of communication can present you the keys back to your front door…and the keys to infinite gates of opportunity.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Conflicting Harmonies

Two men, complete and total strangers, are thrown onto an island the size of an ice skating rink. They are marooned without shelter or friends, and separated from the rest of humanity. Mission statement? Survive. And any measures can be taken to achieve this.

Each person has one different possession. The first holds a jug of fresh water, full to the brim. The other carries a container of raisins, and it too is filled to the maximum.

No communication between the two is present. They both isolate themselves to different sides of the island, taking their belongings with them. And when the time to feed approaches, everyone is satisfied. The first man indulges himself in the refreshing fluid he is given, the second chews thoughtfully on the tender fruits he owns.

Right now, the two men are in harmony, because their demands have been dealt with, their requirements fulfilled.

But hours later, their demands grow. The first man finds his stomach grumbling uncontrollably; the second finds himself feverish with thirst, and his scorching dry throat becomes a living nightmare.

Simultaneously, they head for one another. A congregation takes place in the center of the island. By now both men are already down to half of their supplies.

If one was aggressive, he would fight for total control of all possessions. Conflict would then eradicate their ephemeral harmony.

But if they sought past the need of greed, a much more civilized approach would take place. Their individual harmonies would unite into a common one, and it could be shared.

Now let us make a couple of changes. The crisis takes a turn. The men are willing to share. Sounds good enough…until I tell you that the mission statement has also changed. They will need to take control of both food and water. Although the intention to remain in harmony sounds far more practical, survival would be much easier when you don’t need to think the needs of another. Thus, this new condition would serve as a better type of harmony.

Reality is a reflection of this constantly changing situation. It may not always happen between two people, or two parties, or two countries, but different sides are always involved. And the mission statement is a fluctuating entity. Your boss, parents, best friends…but mostly ourselves, are responsible for this shift, but we do not necessarily acknowledge it.

And why do these change so much? Because our requirements are very much protean and inconsistent. It is natural proclivity for these mission statements to change, and we must fulfill them. To gain what, you might ask? That very sense of harmony and comfort zone we all want to seek refuge in. But when our ideas of this inner peace clash with another, we get conflict.

The two men in my story back there? A simple expression of today’s society. Even in such a straightforward scenario, conflict reigns unchallenged. And it isn’t even close to the brutal complexity of our modern world. Differences with individual possessions, just like the divide of food and water between the two men, is what harvests conflict, and its also the basis from which international tensions arise today. Meanwhile, the instinct and intention for survival only heats up the pressure, because anyone in the dilemma of making a life-dependent choice will only pursue their needs, not the ones of others.

It’s quite a subtle side to life’s big picture. We all realize that respect and acceptance of other’s feelings and thoughts is a nice thing, but at the expense of losing our own desires, and we totally scrap the idea. Give breathing room to someone else’s idea of a harmony, and it usually means hampering your own. What’s the point?

Well, we know the result of conflicting with another harmony is mostly more rewarding. Look around us, cars, industry, technology, are all giving us huge leaps in speed and efficiency, and the cost is merely conflict with Nature’s harmony. The Earth doesn’t enjoy having an atmosphere full of greenhouse gases and pollutants, but we’ve decided that things will be better that way…at least for materialism.

What can we do? Let’s return to the earlier analogy with the two men. Whatever the mission statement is, both harmonies always have a way of living in balance. There is never a situation where everyone is totally satisfied…that much is undeniable. Keep some…or lose all? Compromise and live on…or remain obstinate and unprogressive? One thing for certain…a situation with one single harmony is impossible. A congregation of many can be achieved – just like that congregation that took place in the center of the island with the two men. Our interpretations of an inner peace must adapt to those around us. We have to become more open to change and alteration, and only then can we truly connect with one another as a society. But until then, we still have much to learn…and until then, we still have to avoid the damage that conflicting harmonies can impose.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Calculate this

They can come in all shapes and sizes. Some can be mistaken as credit cards. Others are as big as typewriters or computers. Usually the ones we use amidst our day-to-day routines can fit firmly in an outstretched palm.

Calculators. Devices to speed up, or possibly squelch out altogether the duration between sums and number crunching. Calculators weren't always the name given to a machine. They denote any person who did numeric work using anything that wasn't totally mental - and by this it refers to a process done in the head, not a procedure completely senseless. This could include options from pen and paper to an abacus.

But wait, there's something missing. In the modern world today, or to be more specific, in educational systems taught by Western techniques, almost every student is equipped with such aids. There is less attention focused on the manual, mental mathematic solutions to problems. All there is to it nowadays is: "Press this button, then follow it with your command, and hit the ENTER key to get your answer."

Kids have gotten into the habit of seeing calculators as completely foolproof methods of producing answers. Suddenly there's no intermediate stage in their thinking. Suddenly the logical pathways they followed in order to reach conclusions have disappeared. By replacing these crucial, but otherwise time-consuming stages, using our calculators - these tools of "aid" designed to help us big time - is killing our ability to be more successful in life.

Of course, it takes nearly a degree to figure out how some of the calculators work these days. Some graphical calculators have manuals thick enough to drown people, and I thought these tools were supposed to save us time. We've now got ways to roll with the best of them: every time you reach for the calculator, it's a pretty big gamble. Will we obtain our answers quicker than working them out manually? Or will we wind up losing our minds and sense of direction in the multifarious keys, and the impressive liquid crystal numeric monitor?

True, sometimes there are mathematical concepts we just can't grasp normally unless the numbers are written out before us. Like Pi, for example, the nasty little constant that decides every circle we come across. The endless decimals of recurring fractions. We can't successfully visualize these unless something regarded with awe and august - our trusty mechanical buddies - produces the figures for us.

Sounds pretty good right? But they can also play tricks on us. Some calculators, without correct use of brackets, can completely disorientate negative numbers, and produce a chain of bad habits and incorrect answers for students. The calculator can become more of a crutch than a tool, and amidst exams or any lifetime situation, people will be double-checking even the most trivial sums and calculations, for they have no experience to handle them otherwise.

This is the huge compensation required to make up for speed and efficiency. It is a big number. A tortuous sum. One no calculator - human or mechanical - will ever be able to solve.

Friday, August 24, 2007

Chinese VS International: On The Chessboard

“In Chinese Chess the knight, sometimes called the “Mă” in Mandarin, can be obstructed by other pieces in its pathway. But this is different with International Chess – the knight is always free to move.”

I never failed to remember those words my dad told me when I was eight. That one fact made me look out of completely new eyes when I compared the two remarkably similar games of chess together. The one-on-one competition to outsmart your opponent was taken on a completely new level: the knight could not be obstructed, taking out what my young mind thought was nothing but a flaw in the game. After learning the Chinese Chess rules for a few short months, I never even had the chance to use them in my rush to gain what I thought International Chess would promise – a more entertaining game.

But now as a sixteen year old, when I’ve thoroughly learnt the basic rules and strategies for both games, I look back at them with neutral eyes. As an American born Chinese, I was determined to find the pros and cons for each game, even though I enjoyed playing both. And asked myself the following questions: what were the fundamental principles and properties that made such a simple but fascinating game? Did it have something to do with the rules? Yes, it did…

Each piece on the board is given a specific route of movement and attack. Players will need to think hard about how to combine a variety of different tactics to accomplish the simple objective: a checkmate. But what is the one thing that makes a game fun to play? A challenge. Balancing out the difficulties of a game is crucial – making it impossible to win will throw people off, but making it far too simple is a game not worth playing.

And it made me think that International Chess had somewhat chosen the latter road. Even though each player had identical chess pieces and quantities, it was their abilities that made things far too simple when in comparison with Chinese Chess. Under skilled hands, and victory would come all too quickly. Played by an amateur, and things would get too frustrating. Everything is focused on the superpower of the board: the Queen. Its crucial status reflected the all-too destructive demeanor – such a powerful piece would make it a substitute target besides the King. And the Knight isn’t too far behind: if it cannot be obstructed like in Chinese Chess, then defense and attack would be far too simple. The King is free to roam in all squares of the chessboard. Pawns can be redeemed for additional Queens once they reach the opponent’s starting side. Such rules would give both players advantages, but it acted like a two-way sword: such power could always go against you. Where had the challenge for this game gone to?

Chinese Chess, on the other hand, seemed so much more balanced in many different ways. While not straying too far along the scale of impossibility, it enhances difficulty levels using several methods. The King is not allowed to leave the “fortress”, and neither can its guards. The Elephant/Minister cannot cross the river – restricting their movement and limiting their usefulness. Knights can be obstructed with any piece, and if it comes to a standoff between one horse and a hindered one, the latter cannot reciprocate the attack because of the lack of mobility. Kings can never directly come face-to-face along the length of the chessboard, opening many doors that lead to colorful checkmates. There is no ultimate piece of the game – it is more balanced by giving the two rooks the title of being the most powerful pieces.

Why such a big difference? Both games focus on the use of strategy and tactics, and both players are given the exact same positions at the start of the game. Maybe one would think it all lies within the rules…but how did such a difference in the rules come by?

It made me think the answer lay inside the two dissimilar cultures – we’ve all heard the phrase ‘when East meets West.’ And in a way, it did make sense if we compared it to the corresponding traditions. Back in the olden times, customary Chinese people treated more than just family members as ‘brothers.’ Neighbors, friends, even colleagues, were all given the same attention and closeness. But in Western society, did this exist to such a degree? Maybe there were exceptions, but everyone had more of an independent attitude towards living, perhaps wanting to achieve more without synergy.

Could the game be somehow reflecting these two contrasting cultures? Perhaps…in Chinese Chess, everything is more balanced when determining the abilities of pieces. There is no ultimate power on the board – everything needs to fully support each other in order to win. International Chess has the same concept under its name, but only after the Queen has been removed. Otherwise, players tend to use their most powerful piece to do their bidding; to go independently rather than wait for the majority of their forces to get into position, while the Chinese concentrate more intently on the support of each and every piece to see victory.

Just like men in Eastern society waiting to give aid to their brothers when they need it.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

The Background

So before I launch into what the draconian job interviewer asks ("Name? Nationality? DOB?"), you can always save yourself the trouble by skipping it if you know me personally.

And hopefully the majority of people reading this won't. Because if they knew me with such detail...it'd just be downright dodgy.

At the time of writing this, I am currently amidst the age of 16 (anyone want that in minutes or seconds?) and I know why I'm feeling so enervated: because I've begun embarking on my 17th year in life. And it all sounds fun to me.

I was born in the U.S.A., and am therefore American by nationality, but I walk with Asian blood. Both my parents are Chinese and were raised up on the mainland. Their decision to raise me in the States probably owed itself to an affluent Western country background, but only they truly know. All I can say is that here I am in Hong Kong, living here for the past decade, and seeing three separate locations to call as "home".

I'm pretty thin. But not to the point of having vestiges of flesh dangling off bone. One nickname a friend made up for me is "slender boy". And yet that person also calls me "muscularly arm" after what inspiration gained by watching too much Family Guy.

I view music as a language... An expression. Of the soul, I'd say. Of the mindset, definitely. And if you're on the same page as me in terms of heavy metal songs - and you agree it's not just "noise" - music defines one's demons too. This world would be a void without the passion you find in every song out there. This world is lucky to have these gifts. And I cherish the act of unwrapping them.

I think books are worth more than TV... Before you go out there and assassinate me for blasphemy, do a double-take and consider it. Classic literature is great (and I don't mean you to immediately go out and study Shakespeare's complete works) and its content is a real booster for your own vocabulary and writing skills. What circulates around on TV these days (although i do agree that Prison Break is a heart-racer, and Lost is awesome) is most likely melodrama that goes for special effects, camera technique, or popular actors to get the ratings. The chick-flicks. The sour soaps. The re-runs of lame sitcoms. Grab a book. Start a new page.

I like chocolate... Just an icebreaker.
=)

The background info of this blog's begetter (wow, that truly sounded complex) is up there. Refer to it any time. See you folks.

Kickstart

Hey there folks.

So here we have it. Blogging technology. It's definitely been hot stuff ever since Earth hit the 21st century, and we've definitely seen the power of these gadgets in the way to abet, advertise, and advocate the multifarious work of others.

And by being a 16 year old student - with limited knowledge and certainly a shortage of common sense - this won't be a blog you have seen elsewhere. What I mean by that is simple: I won't be writing about when the next universe will form, or 1000000 ways to live life free from stress, or how to strike-it-rich with the stock market. There are plenty of other blogs to tell you that.

And I'm not after fame or money with these writings either.

What I submit (or what I wistfully hope to submit amidst my chaotic high-school life) will consist of articles from diverse genres. Maybe something of interest will hit me. Maybe an area in the news. Maybe a review in some music. Maybe a quote will be analyzed and matched with our daily lives. Whatever. And I hope readers will be entertained with these various areas: how they don't need to exclusively hug a huge copy of MacWorld or an encyclopedia of health when my blog here - a collective set of many topics - to serve them.

It's a short intro. A lukewarm, almost lackluster kickstart. It feels drained of vivacity and strength. But I'm saving the vigor for articles later on. Rest assured.

Life's busy. It always is. And so are we. What are you going to do: continue knocking on it's door, yelling for it to show itself properly, or make your own move and live your own life? As Ralph Waldo Emerson said "Don't follow the path ahead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."