foreword
ぜんかい -- ゼンカイ
no longer yearning. what have we not done before?
"the world is really but the stage - create the most fulfilling play"
If you're a thief, master the art of thievery.
A psychotic mind leaves no room for regrets.
profile
Zheng Kai
01.11.1989
CHS - AJC
RevoAct
AJChoir
1st Tenor
tagboard
yesterdays
December 2005 #
January 2006 #
February 2006 #
March 2006 #
April 2006 #
May 2006 #
June 2006 #
July 2006 #
August 2006 #
September 2006 #
October 2006 #
November 2006 #
December 2006 #
January 2007 #
February 2007 #
March 2007 #
April 2007 #
May 2007 #
June 2007 #
July 2007 #
August 2007 #
September 2007 #
October 2007 #
November 2007 #
December 2007 #
January 2008 #
February 2008 #
March 2008 #
April 2008 #
May 2008 #
June 2008 #
July 2008 #
August 2008 #
September 2008 #
October 2008 #
November 2008 #
December 2008 #
affiliates
ajchoir #
aj alumni choir #
aggie #
boonteck #
cheeguan #
chris #
bel #
douglas #
gerald #
guowei #
jasmine #
jonathon #
meirong #
peiyong #
saffie #
shirojon #
thomas #
tianxiang #
timothy #
tzeswen #
weida #
xiany #
xiaoxuan #
xinchu #
yuhuai #
zhanny #
zhi-an #
footnote
© Copyrights:
Original layout
Content & Images
Chok Zheng Kai, 2008
|
|
Friday, July 25, 2008
The Prisoner's Dilemma under the Game Theory is classically defined as the following situation: Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?
The movie I just caught portrays this scenario. Watching Batman - The Dark Knight might be considered really late for many, but it is too early for me to see the end of it. No doubt the storyline was overwhelmingly dark and intensifying, it ironically brought some light to some of the very basic human behavioural instincts we live by.
I used to tell my family I believe it is really a thin line between insanity and sanity. I mean, what do you define as insane? People often get "insane" and "irrational" mixed up. Somehow, modern society informally judges one's "sanity" by their ability to judge cognitively and rationalise. This, I feel, has become more of a standard that has been moderated instead of crediting the diversity in thought processes. That could partly explain why some exceedingly bright geniuses gets misunderstood as "weird" and "psychotic".
Thus, I could, somehow, mysteriously relate to the Joker; not his sadism, but his theories and his love for experiments. I agreed with what he said in the show, "(Insanity) is just like gravity, all you need is a little push". However, let's not let ourselves be influenced by the real-life controversies surrounding the actor's death and plight and overrate the Joker's character. Instead, we should see him as an abstract messenger from the story-tellers passing a simple message to the audience.
Indeed, the fragility of the human mind - our greatest weakness, as well as our greatest strength.
|
|
|
Saturday, July 12, 2008
I had to make the exception to blog about the following even though I just posted an entry a few days back. This special obligation, I felt, was much needed, because I haven't enjoyed myself like this in a really long time.
Anyway, we the usual gang of three were usually supposed to meet every Friday, but this Saturday's "make-up" session was completely marvelous and overwhelmingly fabulous! So much so I had to take time off to post this entry. It started with a shopping experience from Vivo City all the way to the whole stretch of town. It was tiring yes, but definitely worth the squeezing through MRT and the crazy sales-whore crowds. Well for one, Ricky found a very good deal he couldn't stop talking about it the whole day and night.
The unforgettable part came during dinner. Following Ricky's suggestion, we headed to Marina Square MOF (Ministry of Food) for a Japanese dinner. We chose to be seated at the outdoors. And that seriously made all the difference. Our table was situated along a corridor just seemingly next to the NDP Parade that was going on while we were dining. We were eating while enjoying the scenery and spectrum of lights and sounds from the floating platform when it came - the magnificent fireworks, unblocked, right in front of us. It was so stunning even the waitresses serving stopped midway in their duties to turn around to admire. With each shot of firework, it seems to form layers on top of each other and got closer to us. It was this effect that made it so spectacular and unforgettable. This, I must say, is the first year I ever got such a good view of the fireworks.
With that, even the usual 'not-too-enthusiastic-about-national-events' Ricky and Nigel got really excited and felt that immense pride for our home and nation. The feeling for me was, of course, overwhelming. And the food made it all so pleasurable too...especially the dessert - heavenly. Gosh, I must have used so many words to describe such a wonderful experience I have officially ran out of vocabulary for more. After the fireworks, you could tell everyone in the vicinity was high. Songs and cheers were heard everywhere and I momentarily felt like snatching a microphone to shout "HELLO SINGAPORE!".
Somehow, through this experience, we were once again reminded how lucky we were to have met - the three of us. It was probably the best thing that happened from NS so far for all the three of us. Now this brings me to another point about life, about how unpredictable and fragile things might be. The three of us met by what I would call a "accidental-situation". In the sense either of us might not have OOT-ed, or we might not have taken the time and effort, or even have the chance to speak to each other and find out more about ourselves. If so, poof, we wouldn't have existed.
It's been a long time I am so thankful for my friends. So much so I can't wait for the next meet up. With us now being like that, I can't imagine us after ORD. Gosh. One word - explosive.
|
|
|
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
If you had to kill at least someone, but were a given a choice - to kill one young man of age twenty, or to kill five eighty-year-old women, which would you choose?
When making such a decision, the first thing that comes to your mind would be the consequence of any decision. You will weigh taking a life versus taking five lives. Obviously, only taking a life would be the lesser of the two evils. Then comes the next step, analysing the potential damage. If you kill that young man of age twenty, you are denying him of at least another 60 years of his life, assuming he lives as old as the five women. However, the five old women might have neared the end of their lives anyway, so perhaps it would be better to kill them instead?
Are you affected by the direct literal consequence, or the potential consequence? As much as this question demands a straightforward answer between the two choices, many of us cannot help but take some time to actually ponder over our decision. For many, the moment the potential consequence sets in, it clouds our minds and removes us from our simple one-factor-to-consider scenario. Taking away this "ceteris-paribus" status makes individuals go into a mini-panic, and this activates their emotional side that will eventually affect their decision.
Now, think again. This question is about killing, thus emotional glands will definitely be activated. This is because us, homo sapiens, have longed been programmed to think of killing as a wrongdoing, a sin, a traumatising experience should one experience or witness it. But why is this so? Why should killing here, in this case, be seen as such? Is it because of religion? Is it the far-too-successful nurturing of the society that makes us feel and think this way? No background information has been attached to the question - it could have been about saving many other lives! In the sense that one party's the murderer(s) and a death sentencing could have saved lives of potential victims.
Next, why did the question deliberately choose the subjects of a young man and five old women? One young man of age twenty gives us the impression he has a bright future ahead of him. Why? The term young injects positivity in our minds, the age further confirms it. The male gender is more perceived to have a bright future, in the sense, an illustrious career, a responsible head of the home, an important figure in society. On the contrary, five old women portray a frail image, and the age further confirms it. Furthermore, the female gender here, coupled by their age, gives us the impression they are needed to be taken care of. This adds an idea of burden they are giving to others around them, and thus not as useful to society as compared to, the former subject.
If the question had their subject's genders and ages edited, would you still have gone through the same thought process to make your decision? Sure, the decision might have been the same. But in this case, the process is far more important. Why do societal norms and stereotypes spring into action even when making such a seemingly inconsequential hypothetical decision? Has society made us or have we made society? This is important, for this is how we are governed, how we think, and how we set our laws. I am not trying to propose some New World theory, but I just wanted to highlight how much our society, our government, our nurturing environment affects the most delicate and crucial part of the homo sapien - the human mind.
Yes, it might have been convenient to fall back on such beliefs. It gives us a sense of reassurance and stability, but could we have been denying ourselves of something better? What if you were told one day everything is, but everything? Or maybe its us that are the problem - we choose to accept too many different interpretations and think too much.
Just like that, I denied myself of what I preached.
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood - which one will you choose?
|
|
|
