Do People look like their Dogs? & some reasons why people might keep pets...or spouses

This news just in: we DO look like our dogs. Ground-breaking research from Bath Spa University has revealed that we can tell which dog belongs to whom using our eyes. A group of volunteers shown pictures of dog owners and asked whether they had a labrador, poodle or Staffordshire bull terrier got the answer right twice as often as would be expected by chance. The Guardian


Given the quite scientifically-verified perspective that ‘similarity attracts’, people might pick a dog on the basis of their subconscious appreciation of their similarity in features. This might indicate the degree to which we might require a validation of our significance to the point that we even pick a dog on the basis of similarity in facial features - and which is simultaneously indicative of the absence of meaningful interaction in our relationship with our own species.

Additionally, the degree to which one needs such validation would also determine the kind of dogs one might pick, i.e., to complement or compensate for their choice of spouse or spouselessness.

So, if we are laughingly remarking that a particular person looks like her/is dog, we might actually be saying that the person has picked one that looks like her/im. In this, case, I would recommend that the person’s laughter be cut short in favour of wondering if they are not dissimilarly inclined in their relationships with people, and their own spouses.

However, that said, we might not pick our pets purely on the basis of physical similarities, but on the basis of characteristics as well. Speaking for myself, I would pick cats as opposed to dogs for their couldn’t-care less, independent-mindedness, and the sort of non-surprised incredulity that seems to be expressed on their faces in the face of human stupidity. In that, the only validation I might receive is in the knowledge that there is another who doesn’t give as much of a toss as I.

Another scenario is where a dog comes across as ‘owned’ just like one’s spouse. In that, say, a woman, receives additional validation as the ‘top dog’ with her canine companion on a leash in front, and the husband on an invisible one beside - which can be studied in terms of the extent to which one looks at the other when speaking or answering a question, sitting posture, who leads conversations, the degree to which one party moves forward when listening to the other, etc. This thought first occurred to me upon my constant observation of the relationship between women and men in singapore. In this case, if similarity attracts, it does so in terms of women’s perceiving similarly of their husbands and dogs, or putting it another way, feeling like the ‘top dog’ with two bitches in tow.

On the inverse side of things, a pet might just serve as a complement to a loving relationship within a family. So this is not a negative indictment of those inclined to keep pets.

The reasons why people keep pets is quite complex. It can indicate what we are in terms of our relationships with the people around us in a compensatory or complementary sense. Additionally, it might go even deeper with a subconscious realisation by many that they are quite disabled from effectuating effective care for their fellow humans by their own self-centredness or an overarching milieu wherein popular empathy is frowned upon. This is where the instinct to ‘care’ is contracted to that which is convenient or self-validating. Of course, as stated, it can also complement a generally empathetic milieu wherein people are relatively caring generically and thus exhibit this through cross-species empathy. But where same-species empathy is absent, cross-species empathy is compensation.


according2,

ed

Confucian Societies: I've never encountered a people who've done so much to undo themselves

Quite a few Chinese singaporeans are going on about becoming ‘2nd’ and ‘3rd’ class singaporeans in the face of a massive influx of foreigners. Where does that place Malay and Indian singaporeans then? 4th and 5th class perhaps? This basically serves as evidence of my observation in the past that Chinese singaporeans deem an event a non-event until it is they whom are at the receiving end. Such is expected of a people whom have, albeit unwitting, taken cultural and political fascism as the norm in the course of associating the idea of the ‘majority’ with ‘race’ as opposed to ‘nationality’. In this context, their gross hypocrisy is quite understandable, albeit unconscionable.


When, some years ago, the government stated that singapore ought to always have a ‘racial balance’ in favour of the Chinese, most amongst them kept silent. In the face of some griping on my part in personal conversations, the Chinese I spoke to basically brushed it off with the usual, ‘It’s like that one laa. If Indian or Malay are majority, they will also do the same.’ (translation of first phrase : ‘that’s the way it is’.) When the ‘speak mandarin and appreciate Chinese culture’ campaigns were initiated in 1979 and periodically given a steroid boost to the present despite the lip service paid to multiculturalism, similar silence or rationalisations such as, ‘Chinese majority what! If Malay and Indian majority, they also do the same.’ When Malays and Indians were underrepresented in the media; when Indians and Malays were portrayed as parking attendants/obese rockers and corner-shop proprietors whilst ‘the majority’ were cast as professionally versatile in a popular sit-com; when the government forbade the non-Chinese from learning Mandarin in schools whilst promoting Mandarin via ‘Speak Mandarin, it’s an advantage’ and ‘Mandarin is cool’ campaigns; when Chinese culture was publicly and centrally celebrated whilst others kept to their traditionally ethnic enclaves; when Indians and Malays were disqualified from quite a few jobs requiring ‘Mandarin speakers’; when the ex-PM turned ‘minister mentor’ stated that Mandarin is going to be the ‘mother tongue’; amongst a host of others instances, a similar response or lack of was forwarded….which leads me to believe that they expect to be respected purely on the basis of their being ‘the majority’ as opposed to their being respectable in an egalitarian sense. I suppose it is to be expected given they themselves respect the government because of their power as opposed to their being empathetic. Thus we are valued, thus we value.

Now, some are bemoaning the balance tilting in favour of foreigners whom, according to some sources, has reached 37%.

Perhaps those whom are used to living on the privileged side of things will tend to want to maintain such privilege. I suppose the growth of Chinese fascism moved from associating ‘the majority’ with ‘race’ as opposed to ‘nationality’, and then later moved to associating ‘nationality’ with ‘race’. And it is then that the lip-service paid to multiculturalism becomes an act of magnanimity where a Chinese nation is kind enough to give the non-Chinese advantages that they ought to be grateful for given that it is Chinese nation wherein they are paradoxically outsiders and locals. Thus, the little that is given to those whom are not a majority can only be appreciated in a state if they can be thought to accept that they are outsiders – just as migrants to a country would be grateful for advantages in a foreign country which they perceive to belong to it inhabitants as opposed to themselves.

But what the Chinese are failing to query after in their ire over being confronted with an influx of foreigners is how the logic that had been applied in their favour is not being turned against them. The core of that logic lies in the interests of one of the family not being considered. This translates to, with regards to the Malays and Indians, their interests not being considered in an egalitarian manner even if they were one within the national family. Not, it is the interests of the Chinese that is not considered even if they are a part of the national family. So now, they are being undone by the self-centredness which had been in their favour in the past. A hypocrisy that is almost too poetic of words methinks.

But the interrelationship between the Chinese, local ‘others’, and foreigners is not entirely the same. The Indians and Malays were basically nobbled and led to underachieve in a climate where it was impressed upon their young over a couple of decades that they couldn’t aspire to much or be versatile because this or that career was ‘a Chinese thing’ or they couldn’t speak Mandarin – via the media, policies, discrimination, etc. However, the interrelationship between the Chinese and foreigners is not unlike the interrelationship between the Malays in Malaysia – where the Malays have institutionalised via other means, a similar brand of fascism – and the non-Malays. Both have couched themselves in the complacency that comes with being members of the ‘preferred race’ and have failed to develop maximally for want of competition. In fact, in singapore, Indians are frequently told to tone down on their inquisitive and intellectual propensities lest the Chinese, whom maintain their position through ‘control’ as opposed to ‘reason’, won’t give them a job or promotions. Hence, I cannot but help observing that the ‘indians’ of today are quite the far cry from the ‘indians’ of yesteryear whom were relatively intellectually vibrant. Someone once said, upon the passing of Joshua Benjamin Jeyaratnam, the old warhorse of the opposition, that there would never be another like him. I agreed, but not because he was exceptional, but because the successful socialisation of the population into a Confucian/Legalist culture would ensure that the intellectual and perspectival vibrancy that it takes to produce one like him, or have him appreciated is no more. And I cannot but observe that the high level of creativity and vibrancy of the Malays has not developed beyond their cultural arena given the overarching Chinese cultural milieu that sets a highly regimented standard that locates popular volition in the whims and fancies of their lauded leaders when it comes to either.

What the Chinese don’t realise is that their Confucian/Legalist culture of subservience to authority; being apathetic for the historically and, hence, culturally-induced fear of the top-down consequences of mutual empathy; allowing popular intellectual individualism and creativity to be tethered to the decrees of their hallowed founding fathers and professional politicians; and, as a result, being averse or indifferent to different others; has led to that intellectual and perspectival ineptitude that emerges from not integrating with difference, seeing past one’s immediate and self or group interests, and lauding the ‘order’ that comes with awaiting and abiding by the dictates of their ‘Asian democratic’ government. In this, their undoing at present is decades of apathy, subservience, and bigotry in the making. It is no wonder that singapore has to import talent from relatively multicultural and non-Confucian/Legalist states since a monocultural state pales in quite a few creative, intellectual and perspectival abilities when faced with the former. The desire for political longevity had led to the promotion of monocultural fascism. And the intellectual and perspectival stupor and bigotry produced is that which now requires the importation of foreign talent, and which significantly prevents popular political and intellectual vibrancy to acquire that degree of critical mass that would be required to bring about democracy. The Chinese ethos of doing one’s best in a bad situation is now mirrored in the government’s doing exactly that by bringing in foreigners. How else can they get around the mass ineptitude that they created?

So now the Chinese go on about how 'singaporeans' - meaning the relatively privileged Chinese - are playing 'second fiddle to foreigners'. Well, as they have been accustomed to playing organ-grinder when it comes to the non-Chinese, is it any wonder that the groundwork they have worked so hard on via self-absorption has led to that degree of apathy and social imbecility it takes to bring in foreigners, and which has led them to taking the place of the dancing end of the said organ-grinder?

Hence, In this context, the locals' current, and most hypocritical ‘democratic’ and ‘egalitarian’ aspirations, or more aptly, pretensions, in the face of authoritarianism and foreign competition rings as hollow as post-termite infested woodwork.


according2,


ed.

I, Lesbian…and the meaning of a Transvestriarchal society

“
Within a Transvestriarchal context, we can began to understand the publicly prominent surge of Lesbianism. It could very well be a desperate attempt to seek out women for companions since the feminist movement has done a poor job in teaching men to be like women.

So ed says to all men out there with elongated clitorises, or women with non-elongated penises, it’s time to afford the feminist movement a major rethink.


Yes. I’m finally ‘coming out’. I’m ‘gay’, or specifically, Lesbian.

Whilst some might put down the increase, or at least, prominent preponderance of lesbians to genetics, freedom of choice, and so on, and whilst I would not disagree too much with these causes, I also put it down to a reaction emerging from the failure of the Feminist movement – which I deem to be, in part, a movement headed by women in drag.

Firstly, I bemoan how the Feminist movement traded its femininity for inclusion. I am all for voting rights, equality and et cetera. But when it was implied that I was a male chauvinist for not thinking it appropriate for women to swear, downing as many pints as their Neanderthal halves, and being as sexually promiscuous as men, amongst others, I ejaculated with an, ‘Oi! The rights of women ought not to be focused on how they can be like men, but how men ought to be taught to be like women.’ In efforts to show that we can be as good as another under discriminatory conditions, it frequently amounts to us having to prove that we can be better than the bigots. In the case of gaining equality with men, that amounts to being worse than them doesn’t it? You see, in the quest for inclusion, we must be sceptical about what we are hoping to be included in. For instance, to be included in a patriarchal system is to seek to paradoxically embrace the bigoted ethos that founds such a system whilst compromising one specific sex-based manifestation of bigotry. That serves less to eradicate an evil as opposed to refining it via our incorporation into it. The overarching system of bigotry, be it based on nationalist, capitalist, cultural, etc, sentiments is maintained. And henceforth, women end up becoming as bad as men with an expanded source of exploitation – women.

For instance, the ‘girl power’ movement with its Madonnas and Spice Girls is basically a masculine movement in drag as it reduces everyone to their arrogant and sexual denominator. And isn’t the arrogance the means by which women were reduced to mere sexual and reproductive properties in an allegedly patriarchal ‘past’? Except, in the present, it is women whom are taking the helm in the presentation and reduction of their own sex. So, its not ‘exploitation’ anymore because we are confidently 'booty-bouncing' in the face of men whom have no legal and traditional right to do as they wish with us women. And now it is women critiquing the physical attributes of men and their related prowess – signalling that men have largely been reduced to a ‘thing’ for their use by women incorporated into a transvestriarchal scheme of things (with women being women in form but having penile in perspective). In essence, and in this, amongst others, may be found the evidence of the feminist movement’s subversion by the male-within the woman, and which is simultaneously a corollary of the feminist movement having unwittingly sought incorporation as opposed to egalitarian appreciation of their historically developed empathetic traits. In other words, women appealed to common empathy so that they might be included in a generic and apathetic male scheme of things – and which ed officially terms as a transvestriarchal society.

So with the increasing success of this movement, phrases such as ‘my (female) boss is such a bitch!’, ‘that bitch is so arrogant and full of herself’, ‘that woman is such a bitch on road’, ‘that women is such a slapper/slag/whore/etc’, take its meaning. When a man says that, it is a simple attempt to distinguish and exonerate men when they engage in such behaviour, and an attempt to claim a monopoly over the traditional and patriarchal right to be a ‘bitch’. One has to be a women and exhibit male traits in order to qualify to be ‘bitch’. Thus is how the traditional male right to such traits is claimed. But what does the ‘bitch’ of a woman evidence about the ‘modern woman’ and the feminist movement as a whole?

Within a Transvestriarchal society, we can began to understand the publicly prominent surge of Lesbianism. It could very well be a desperate attempt to seek out women for companions since the feminist movement has done a poor job in teaching men to be like women. And how do we make sense of their homosexual male counterparts in this scenario? Perhaps, these are men whom might be quite high in feminine traits – subtracting the population in male prisons where the motivation might be ‘dominance’ in the face of the ‘weak’, and the later of whom therefore take the role of the traditional ‘woman’…and which therefore, and essentially, is ‘heterosexual’ – and hence do not seek out relationships with masculinised women, or lesbians, and hence turn to other homosexual men. Hence, much of this ‘gay’ thing might very well be a reaction against reactions against the consequences of a feminist movement gone awry.

So, perhaps, the lesbian and the male homosexual, as a totality, serves as the last bastion of womanhood given that feminine traits have been compromised in a world where women are seeking to be like men. Of course, people would like to think that they choose to be with other people as a matter of choice so as to avail themselves of the feel-good kick that comes with the illusion that we are moved by our own volition. And hence, they would not consider that given a feminist movement gone right in the past, their motivational constitution might very well be quite different. I’m not saying that the ‘gay’ movement is flawed. All I’m saying is that our choices aren’t being made under conditions brought about by the maximal feminine development of the ‘feminist’ movement. It is this that leads me to deem many female-male relationships as ‘homosexual’.

In this, also, the idea of the ‘feminist movement’ has been monopolised by its being a movement for women. And some men, whom have maintained their sexual heterosexuality, have learnt to become women in heterosexual relationships. Except that in this sense, they have just become another manifestation of the weaker side in a game of dominance over the weak – quite pronounced in societies where men have the additional masculinity-compromising disadvantage of having been thumbed-down in the political arena as well,i.e, some Chinese societies are good examples of this. As they can’t head a feminist movement by virtue of their being men, the historically patriarchal idea of dominance is maintained by a collusion between domineering/successful men, and women in drag. At best, if female traits are included in practice, it is twisted to go well with the male domineering and bigoted ethos. Hence, we see women become domineering ‘mothers’, ‘Iron Ladies’ and ‘bitches’, as opposed to empathetic ones in a socio-economic system that subjects empathy to the profit and power motive. In this, we see the final subjection of women to the male ethos by their being possessed by it as evidenced by ‘girl power’, which is synonymous with women occupying the previously male-occupied and top-down oppressive acropolis as opposed to tearing it down; women being presented as ‘Samurai Girls’ and kick-ass Angels; ‘Iron Ladies’ whom are as apathetically strong-willed as men; and so on an so forth.

It is within such a context that ed can come across as a male chauvinist for frowning upon women for exhibiting male traits.

So ed says to all men out there with elongated clitorises, or women with non-elongated penises, it’s time to afford the feminist movement a major rethink.


“Lesbians of the World Unite!”



according2,


ed


[symbol design by 'ed']

Eid celebrations : the United Kingdom’s 5th Plinth and the redefinition of ‘The Native’

I was most pleasantly surprised to discover that the Islamic Eid celebrations were being held in Trafalgar Square yesterday. But I couldn’t help wondering after the reasons why I ought to be surprised at all.

Perhaps this surprise is due to my experiences in Singapore... ..which reserves all significantly prominent spaces in the media, the public, politics, culture, etc, for a ‘majority’ that has, through much effort on the part of Singapore’s BNP-style government, been defined along racial and cultural lines.

Singapore, which was historically a Malay country, saw a significant influx of Chinese and Indian migrants during Colonial times. After independence, it became, officially, a multicultural nation. 50 years after PAP-rule (People's Action Party), and after lip-service was paid to multiculturalism and democracy whilst it was being subverted, it had become a Confucian nation with popular Chinese support, and well on the way toward making Mandarin the nation’s ‘mother-tongue’. And across the Causeway in Malaysia, which was also a historically Malay country, the Malays have maintained the privilege of the historical inhabitants of the nation over the migrants-come-lately. So, in the former, people are accustomed to according greater significance to a ‘majority’ defined in terms of ‘race’ and culture, and in the latter, ‘originality’.

My surprise at the Eid celebrations being afforded a celebratory space in a location that was historically associated with native British achievements, observations, celebrations and demonstrations, came from my being accustomed to discrimination being rationalised on the aforementioned bases. After all, all the Chinese that I'd known had always said, in the face of disaffection, 'everywhere in the world also like that'. I suppose familarity loves to assume global similarity so that it can focus on making the best of a situation that is thus assumed to be natural as opposed to suffering the tedium that comes with critical introspection.

In the United Kingdom is brought together both reasons used to discriminate on both sides of the aforementioned causeway. Not only is the ‘white’ population a majority of about 92%, but they have been the native population of the country with a shared and highly eventful history going back thousands of years. But instead of pandering to these potential justifications for the institutionalisation of racism, it seems to be doing its utmost to undermine the perspectival basis upon which such sentiments might be founded and flourish.

By affording the Muslims yesterday, and the Hindus next weekend, this historically ‘white’ and native British space of great native political and cultural significance, the country is in effect relocating the idea of ‘the native’ by locating the natives of non-native origins in a historically British ‘native’ space. Whilst the 4th Plinth is currently being occupied by people drawn from all walks of life to elevate the significance of the ‘commoner’ on a podium which, in the other 3 Plinths and pedestals on Trafalgar Square is occupied by political figures, I couldn’t help appreciating Trafalgar Square itself as the 5th Plinth that presents all cultures as equally significant. On the 4th Plinth, is validated the significance of the people, and on the expanse of this 5th, the significance of difference.

Upon this 5th Plinth, is pedestaled the United Kingdom’s Mutually Affirmative brand of Multiculturalism. In this is the recognition, subconscious perhaps, that no culture that is borne of a relatively historically disparate and insulated past can be shorn of its deficiencies till it is subjected to the insights garnered from the unique perspectives that come with relatively unique and disparate histories.

Said I to Vanessa, who informed me of the event, and who was also similarly pleasantly surprised, that this strategy of egalitarian inclusion can actually help to focus us on the integrative elements of our respective cultures as a response to an integrative approach by others. It is too often that exclusion tends to exacerbate tendencies toward individuation and rejection of the entire culture of those who spurn our difference.

For instance, if we are excluded or assailed by a different other, we might look for elements in our culture that enables us to amplify our own difference and exclude those who exclude us so that we might continue to feel good about ourselves in the face of those who discriminate against us.”

I continued,

“if we look at Islam, we will find the all-encompassing value of universalism, and which is also found in varying incarnations in other faiths such as Buddhism, Christianity, Sikhism, and so on, that together forms a whole. (this excludes societies which places importance on the assimilation of others to the cultural norms of the centre/powerful/prominent/majority/popular and which views difference as an unconscionable compromise of ‘order’ – especially when such perspectives did not emerge as a reaction to discrimination by others, has been promoted as a virtue in itself, and valued as ‘strengths’ in themselves.). But such universalism is compromised when there isn’t much of a market for it as exhibited by others’ discriminating against us. That is when cultures and faiths become mere identities taken on for the sake of contradistinction.”

In this, the Muslims, Hindus, and the ‘native’ British as well, amongst others, are being exposed to what is being practiced as an unassailable value of egalitarian integration on the 5th Plinth that is Trafalgar Square.

There are, amongst others, two reasons for cultural introversion that are relevant here. One, which is applicable to all, is that emerging from shared and mutually insulated histories that provides people with formulae for appreciating reality, and which the tedium of thought in the face of difference might lead to their rejecting it; and two, people being focused on the identity-value of their cultures, instead of those elements of their cultures that encourage universalism, when faced with discriminatory others. Egalitarian integration undermines both. This is how people might be focused on the integrative elements of their cultures as ‘the market’ for cultural introversion is compromised by the integrative approach of others.

In this, everyone gains as cultural and perspectival deficiencies emerging in the course and because of, historically disparate experiences are gradually eradicated via the appreciation of the varying facets of universalism that is spread across various cultures. And in the consideration of difference in itself, the core deficiency that founds historically disparate experiences is undermined. Where others have lesser reasons to reinforce their brand of cultural fascism, be it on the basis of ‘originality’ or ‘racial numbers’, the United Kingdom, having both, illustrates that these pale in consideration of the value that is added to all by the egalitarian valuation of all.

It is in this, that the United Kingdom seems to be well on the way to becoming the 6th Plinth in itself, and a bastion against the small-minded and bestial pragmatism of fascists elsewhere.





according2,


ed

On Henry Porter's 'Right to Offend' - the virtue of cultural offence

“

It is only when we appreciate the significance of these principles that we can let the past, shorn of its deficiencies, to come to maximal fruition and be of progressive relevance in a globalised future. It is in our efforts to put up an intelligent and objective defence(and offence) that leads us to the true nature of our identity which we might otherwise be less than appreciative of. If not, historical and cultural replicationism will certainly contribute to the future being shorn of those proficiencies that will enable history to repeat itself. ~ ed

Henry Porter, The Guardian :

“The Right to Offend

…but I can say that free speech – even about religion – is the freedom to be offended.


ed:

Good article indeed!

I'm, officially, but not officiously, a Roman Catholic; attributed the identity of 'an Indian' purely on the basis of my biological ancestor having taken a piss in India; by nature's choice, a 'man'; nationally, and unfortunately, a 'singaporean' (but, thankfully, currently in the UK); but am well aware that all identities are consequences of disparate histories, perspectival spaces, and historical reactions in the face of a myriad of circumstances that can lead to these cultures not being maximally developed or becoming culturally introverted.

Hence, I believe that the pairing of critique and consideration on all sides of identity-divides tends to focus us on the true meaning of whatever identity we take on after we clear it of the perspectivally debilitating debris that inevitably comes from the foundational and less than ideal - non-globalised - basis upon which our respective, but not always respectable, 'cultures/identities' emerged.

So critique away mates. Do your worst, for in the consideration of which, I'm sure I'll be able to visualise my best.


ed


*



A bit more…


When we say we are ‘Muslim’, ‘Indian’, ‘Man’, ‘Woman’, ‘Christian’, ‘Chinese’, and so on. What we are actually saying is that we are a product of oversights and insights garnered in the course of a relatively disparate history and perspectival space (perspectival space includes culture, politics, the way we cook, etc). And in this, we are actually acknowledging that we are a product of less than ideal conditions from which emerge our identity. I say, ‘less than ideal’ conditions because I have no problem acknowledging that the less my exposure to various ideas, the less refined are mine. Hence, the fact that these ideas were produced within relatively isolated circumstances, oppressive systems, or defensively in the face of aggression, basically means globalisation enables us to use a myriad of perspectives to re-evaluate those cultures we have for millennia have had little choice but to identify with for want of a globalised milieu. Along with this, the production of my ideas may only help me get along in the environment wherein I produced them, or be an impediment in new circumstances in making the most of myself and others.

This is where cultural critique comes in and Henry Porter’s, ‘Right to Offend’, becomes synonymous with, ‘the Right to question after the viability of your/my way of thinking and doing things in enabling the continuation and progress of this democratic and globalised milieu’.

If this causes offence, it is not always the critique that causes offence, but, at times, the inability of the identity-holder to tear her/imself away from the feel-good refuge her/is identity has supplied her and consider the validity of the critique. That is why I’ve always stated that ‘cultural pride’ is the refuge of fools. I’d opt for cultural objectivity myself. 




For instance, what is it to be ‘Muslim’? For the ignoramuses out there, it is synonymous with ‘terrorist’. But quite a bit of the meaning of perceived and practiced Islam comes from a host of sources. One of them is the association of ‘Muslim’ with those practices that emerged in the course of attempting to identify oneself as a separate people in the face of foreign cultural hegemony or political aggression, i.e. the Crusades, the west arrogantly handing over Arab land to the Jews. Thus, these practices or perspectives might get confused for that which Islam might not be in itself.

For instance, what is ‘a communist’? Some would associate it with Stalin, Gulags, the KGB, and so on. But that is not the true meaning of ‘communist’ but rather products of a defensive reaction against those whom wanted to destabilise the communist regime. Hence, thereafter, communism came to mean something else other than what was intrinsic to its core perspectives.

For instance, what is ‘a chinese’? Those whom identify and take pride in ‘chinese culture’? No, it is a perspectival constitution that is derived from popular political failure and top-down oppression that in turn led to the production of a system of thought that enabled its practitioners to circumvent the negative consequences of said popular political oppression to make it more palatable in perpetuity.

For instance, what is it to be 'a woman'? On the one hand, it is an identity borne of experiences in a male-dominated history that whilst marginalising them, protected them from being incorporated into the worst propensities of mankind whilst their nurturing instinct brought about by their reproductive capabilities led to their being the embodiment of the non-mephistophelean half of humanity. On the other hand, it is currently an identity borne of a thoroughly masculine 'feminist' endeavour that sought to be included in the bestial socio-economic-political milieu created by men. So these days, if a 'woman' was to say, 'I am woman, hear me roar!', that which is emitted sounds like that of a transvestite yet to undergo a voice change. For in the reaction against a male dominated society, the idea of 'woman' became quite corrupted. I mean, when butt-bouncing 'Spice Girls' or the hump-anything-in-skirt-or-boxers 'Madonna' is taken to be a sign of 'Girl Power', then we know that the identity of women has mutated sufficiently to see an increase in the sale of strap-ons - which gives credence and true meaning to the theory of 'penile envy'.


Let's not forget that when we are assailed by a culturally distinguishable force, we tend to run helter skelter seeking out just about every cultural symbol we can get our hands on to rally the troops. And when we do this, we tend to exclude any symbol or perspective that might overlap with that of the enemy so as to bring about that degree of cultural distinction for the purpose of reserving whatever privileges or preserve whatever self-perceptions we have learnt to hold on to to give us meaning in life. In Piagetian terms, it can be perceived as an effort to maintain 'cognitive equilibrium', that is, the efforts to maintain the formulae by which we are already making sense of reality as opposed to exposing ourselves to the tedium of thinking along novel lines and placing ourselves in the self-efficacy-compromising position of self-doubt. In the worst case scenario, culture is generally the last refuge of the depoliticised or disenfranchised. In the 'best' case, which is just as bad as the worst case, it is perceived to be the reason why we managed to beat back or match the others. And right in between the worst and 'best' case is purgatorial phase where we attempt to achieve either. In this, the masses are detracted from, perhaps, the essence of their own faith, or the true causes of their respective cultures.

In these instances, the meaning of identities we take on or meanings attributed to identities are corrupted by perceptions, a less than ideal past, defensive posturing in the face of aggression, and so on. However, in the face of critique, having no other ready-made and thoughtlessness/feel-good-inducing refuge and pedestal to access, we revert to what we have been thought to know and block out the self-doubt inducing critique of others with the aid of proscriptions on ‘being offensive’.

There is a big bulbous line between being offensive and being thought-provoking that comprises a combination of ignorance and cultural pride on both sides. And sometimes, that is a sentiment felt by the person being offended. Of course, just calling an Afro-american a ‘nigger’ or 'cotton picker', or quite a few Chinese are fond of calling Indians ‘mamas’ or ‘prata men’ is certainly offensive in itself as it strips the individual of her/is personality and reduces her/im to just a word or occupation that references nothing of perceived significance. However, if one was to say, this or that race of people are ‘stupid’, that would sound offensive, but is not necessarily offensive provided the person can provide a justification for her/is statement. And if s/he does, or even if s/he doesn’t, then we can go on to study if this is true or false, and in the course of which, we either end up identifying those cultural elements that causes various types of ‘stupidity’ amongst that ‘race’ of people, or why they aren’t and the offender is stupid for stating it; or perhaps inquiring after the offender’s idea of ‘intelligence’ so that we might consider applying those perspectives that can enhance the ‘stupid’ race of people’s intelligence. If you think about it, that is the approach utilised in, amongst others, the fields of psychology and sociology is it not? From there we move on to determining the optimum conditions to 'bring up baby' and a population don't we? So why should 'culture' be exempt, pray tell?


In sum, I have to reiterate,


1. many identities are founded on the basis of less than ideal pasts founded on politically/socially oppressive environments, defensive posturing in the face of aggressors, etc.

2. these will incline the population toward insights and oversights which will be maintained by the compensatory and recuperative function of ‘cultures’

3. that no idea reaches its maximal development till subjected to the scrutiny of critique borne of paradigms produced by disparate histories

4. that critique, when paired with consideration on both sides, is actually an attempt to free cultures of whatever restraints our respectively disparate histories have produced.


It is only when we appreciate the significance of these principles that we can let the past, shorn of its deficiencies, to come to maximal fruition and be of progressive relevance in a globalised future. It is in our efforts to put up an intelligent and objective defence that leads us to the true nature of our identity which we might otherwise be less than appreciative of. If not, historical and cultural replicationism will certainly contribute to the future being shorn of those proficiencies that will enable history to repeat itself.

So, people, if you have an identity, open it to critique, lest you mistake your own identity to be that which it essentially might be not.



according2,


ed

Obama Hails Historic Disarmament : Farce or Fiction?

“The world took its first concerted step towards getting rid of nuclear weapons today when the UN security council voted unanimously for a resolution on disarmament and non-proliferation.

The summit in New York represented the first time the security council had met to focus on the elimination of nuclear weapons. Barack Obama, who at the same time became the first US president to chair a council session, described the resolution as "historic", saying it "enshrines our shared commitment to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons".

Now whilst some might be viewing this event positively, I’m not too sure.

It seems that even though there is an almost global agreement on non-proliferation, there are still some sectors that do not, by intent or action, abide by this on the basis that the possession of nuclear weapons by some states puts them at a disadvantage.

So, I’m wondering, if this move by the UK, the USA, amongst others is another effort at maintaining its military dominance of the planet. The logic might go like this,



“If I can have nukes, you might argue that you could too on the principle of the equality of all nations. But if I’m decreasing my stock of nukes, how are you going to argue for your increase?”


The principle here is increase vs. decrease as opposed to the previous haves vs. have-nots. It doesn’t matter if I’m decreasing my stock of 2000 nukes to 1980, as it is still a 1% decrease that keeps alive 100% of the hope that it can possibly go down to 1960 in a millennia or two. But if you’re going to argue for a 1% increase of your currently non-existent stock of nukes, that compromises 100% of hope as it displaces the decremental with the incremental.

From hereon, anyone wanting to increase their stock from 0 to 0.1% is going to come across as a greater pariah than before given the new ‘historic’ decremental milieu. And the powerful states will be able to cast such efforts in the same category as ‘terroristic’. Just as ‘terrorism’ is cast as violence inflicted on the unarmed, this would be ‘arming’ in the face of ‘disarming’. The potential of such a perception in the subconscious mind of the global masses garnering support for the dominance of existing nuke-armed nations and moves against any nation with 0-to-1 nuke ambitions cannot be understated.

So, the question I am left with is, if this is truly an advance in disarmament, or a refinement of the scheme to maintain and perpetuate existing dominance. Given that history has generally been a process by which the iniquities of the past are refined for future application, I cannot but pause to wonder.



according2,


ed

Sg: In Memoriam, JBJ. Move over JBJ, it's 'ed' Turn

There is only one thing that I learnt from JBJ, who will always have my respect, and that is, the significance of the individual in attempting to see beyond what is being promoted via the prominent, powerful, and popular. Even where many ignored him, and I couldn’t help noticing that the Chinese attending a Chinese martial arts performance at a well-lit stage a placard’s throw away significantly outnumbered those attending a memorial candlelight vigil for JBJ at a hardly-lit ‘Speakers Corner’, he still plodded on.

Unfortunately, the people, on both sides of the illusory divide between the proposition and 'opposition', well-practiced in following the prominent or/and powerful, never appreciated this point, and to this day, they still abide by the Confucian notion of, ‘if you aren’t someone, then your ideas are not worthy of discussion or consideration.’. That is the problem with many activists, be they Chee or JBJ or their bevy of sheep. They fail to realise that whilst they are occupying the limelight amongst those whom are inclined to be mesmerised by the visual pitter patter of fairy lights, they are simultaneously devaluing the significance of the individual whom they hope to fight for. That is a paradoxical situation that generally arises within societies used to leaving politics in the hands of the politicians.

Hence, when you look at the ‘activists’ of today in singapore, they are most inclined to only discuss the ideas of the prominent, be they Obama, their own oppositional leaders, and those of the party they purport to oppose. But there is little equitable appreciation of each other. It seems that the formula by which one’s ideas might be given serious and popular consideration requires little more than the propensity to be burdened with government-initiated lawsuits, be seen to oppose, and be arrested for it. Originality of ideas, or true insight seems to have little to do with it as, I have to admit, none of the ideas of JBJ or Chee can be accused of it. They were just aping western methods and approaches for the realisation of democracy without appreciating how local conditions and culturally-induced biases had to be taken into account, and added steps taken to counter these. Not appreciating this led to them being undone by these oversights. It is all too easy to blame the authoritarianism of a government than to consider the impotence of one’s methods. Hence, people are still inclined to hero-worship Chee or JBJ as an unwitting and subconscious effort to relieve themselves from doubt-inducing introspection whilst absolving them and their respective cultures and perspectives from complicity.

In Chee’s reverential homage to JBJ, he presents him as one who constantly fought against apathy and indifference. Unfortunately, as JBJ and Chee, rarely, if ever, touched on cultural factors, all that one can say is that both put up the 'good' fight whilst indifferent to the cultural foundations and means upon and through which apathy and indifference is based and reinforced. The party in power, however, and unfortunately, did not make this mistake.

Hence, today, thanks to their oversights, activists are inclined to simply follow their leaders; not give as much consideration for each others’ ideas; view critique of the opposition as indicative of one’s support of the party in power; discuss ideas of the prominent; whilst embodying in practice and oversights, their ethnically and hierarchically ordered depreciation of reality which is nothing short of culturally and racially fascist. A wholly Confucian/Legalist paradigm seems to encapsulate and insulate the populace and singaporean ‘activists’ from that degree of empathy and appreciation of each other’s significance that is required to enhance their understanding of the essence of democracy. How does one attempt to promote that which one has little understanding of?

That is why the ‘opposition’ is, today, not truly a product of the insights of the past, but of its oversights. The significance of ‘ed’, in the context of the title and this observation, is not about the author, but of the significance of the individual which Confucian/Legalist cultures is by definition incapable of grasping. Whether people are on the side of the proposition or ‘opposition’, they always seem to engage from within the overarching paradigm instituted by Confucian governments. In that is their undoing, or in the best case, slows down democratic progress immensely whilst the redefinition of the idea of ‘progress’ is itself redefined via the socialisation of subsequent generations. The significance of ‘ed’ lies in the significance of every individual to see beyond the perspectival fashions of the day. That is, to question their leaders, to deem oneself worthy of going past these leaders in perspective, to appreciate revered icons not only in terms of their achievements, but also in terms of their oversights. In other words, not to live within the shadows of the giants of the past, but to realise that the ‘giants’ of the past and present appear as such on the basis of our ignorance as opposed to their aptitude. (Hence, my being able to produce perspectives appreciating the phenomena of democracy, indifference and apathy in consideration of local/foreign cultural factors that verifiably cuts deeper than the perspectives of Chee and JBJ put together.)

To ask JBJ to move over for ‘ed’ is to direct the local populace to appreciate the value of their own significance in building upon and past the giants of the past and present, and to focus on both their achievements and oversights so as to present the best challenge to the Confucian/Legalist/Orwellian milieu that can be afforded it by way of horizontal valuation – that is, the popular appreciation of each other and oneself as opposed to the reverence of leaders and those whom are more known for a resume of arrests as opposed to insight. That is the essential and only valuable message that is the stance and approach of JBJ. And it is only in replication of it that we honour his memory.



according2,


ed

The Cosmopolitan Initiative

“I'm all for nationalism.....so long as it refers to a Nation of Humanity ~ ed.


Cosmopolites : from gk. Kosmospolites, from kosmos "world" + polites "citizen," from polis "city"


The Cosmopolitan


* The Cosmopolitan refuses to be solely defined by or identified with her/is place of birth or upbringing.


* The Cosmopolitan realises that her/is identity is formulated by contribution from a myriad of cultures whether s/he is aware of them or not - due to which, a debt of gratitude or sceptical appreciation is owed to its source.


* The Cosmopolitan believes that all identity is learnt and therefore refuses to replicate in its entirety that which is presumed to be her/is culturally & geographically-defined heritage simply because it is expected as a matter of tradition.


* The Cosmopolitan views the entirety of the earth as her/is place of birth and will determine, through inquisition and selection, that which will make up her/is identity.


* The Cosmopolitan realises that true perspectival progress lies with the fusion of the best of cultures and thus seeks to embody this Truth in her/is objective appreciation of the value of all cultures. This is undertaken for the purpose of constructing a culture worthy of respect as opposed to according culture respect on the mere basis of its being 'culture'. In this, The Cosmopolitan seeks to understand difference as opposed to discounting it.


* This perspective and associated symbols are diametrically opposed to the perspectival deficiency underlying those avowing unquestioning perspectival allegiance, origin, or affiliation to any one particular nationality, race, culturally distinguished state-of-being insofar as that state-of-being is not representative of the best of all cultures.



The aim of this perspective is to incite a more conscious pursuit of cosmopolitanism via a resolute adoption of the perspectives enumerated in the aforementioned articles.

This article is not meant to simply promote 'tolerance', but to promote a more open-eyed search for, and adoption of, the best elements of cultures. It aims to relegate the narrow notions associated with, amongst others, 'race' and 'nationality', to the proverbial dustbin of history.

The Cosmopolitan Blogger/Thinker/Writer/Citizen will try to not narrow her/is interests and articles to include only 'local' affairs or those of personal interest, but will seek to discover, appreciate and engage in 'foreign' affairs as a means by which one's Cosmopolitan vision might be realised.


according2,

ed [cosmopolitan]


[first published, 9th August, 2007. edited, 18th Oct, 2009]