~~~ASUN~~~~

Now, the popular culture is that we have to have interest in what we learn. It's interesting what he said in the letter 非学无以广才，非志无以成学 used to be quoted either in its entirety, or just in its latter half, which pertains to hardship. Nowadays however, only the first segment is commonly quoted.

These two views are often seen as opposing to each other. Each side of the argument condemns the other side as the culprit for failure in education. Either, we are making learning a fearful task, or we are eluding ourselves by thinking children can be educated just by watching Magic School Bus. (oops...)

In China and India, people commonly believe that studying is supposed to be painful because there is a large population to compete within. However, I don't really believe that's what drives the perspective. Back in 诸葛's time, there was not that much population, and yet the perspective and intensity were already there. In the west, there is Beneath the Wheel (oh but Hesse is German... hmm).

Looking at today, how many would admit that studying is not difficult even if we choose the area we enjoy, unless someone's area of interest is to not do anything. Is it then, the difference between the two simply "short term" vs. "long term" vision? Namely, we are now studying for a goal that is closer in time, while in the other view, we study for a vague and far goal? I don't think that's the case. For one, even without realizing, everyone has short term goals, be it finishing a book or going through an exam. Long term goal is an interesting subject to examine. It is of my belief that long term goals are more meaningful when society/family gives no choice in the matter. Otherwise, it's delicious mind candy.

A more reasonable explanation is that these two views are not opposing each other. There are always hurdles and pleasure in studying, past or present, East or West. It's the dynamic of life, like riding a rollercoaster. Children are just as much subjective to the cycle as adults. The only reason such a dichotomy arose is that our society now is much more specialized. We no longer encourage people to study hard to 广才, be well rounded and perfect in all areas, we encourage deeper understanding and achievements in one field.

The consequence has two folds. One is that the belief that there is one field that is right for each person becomes more prevalent. There are people for whom this might be true, but for most, it might not. Secondly, once encountering hardship, it is hard for one to know whether to go forward or sideways, and hence the chackered career.

What's my point? There're both parties and ... studying parties whichever way we choose, so it's all good, march on.

EVER WONDER ... 
 Why the sun lightens our hair, but darkens our skin? 

---

Why women can't put on mascara with their mouth closed? 

---

Why is 'abbreviated' such a long word? 

---

Why is it that doctors call what they do 'practice'? 

---

Why is lemon juice made with artificial flavour, and dishwashing liquid made with real lemons?

---

Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

---

Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?

---

The autumn air is tight, and the morning sun rays pierce straight through every layer of veneer I brush upon me. There is so much coating around my person that I feel untruthful. At times such as today, I wear pink sweater with matching earphones feeling like dingledodies, and yet, when I charge straight into the torrent of life, I realize I'm not so strong and reckless. There is, at times, the dichotomy between if I'm brave enough to lead my life and if I'm crazy enough to let life lead me. There are also times when the two coincide, but there is still the fear. It is times like this morning, however, that I realize how estranged from but vulnerable to the actual elements of nature I am. All my humanly conducts are like treading in midair, naively thinking I can feel the softness of autumn leaves beneath my feet.

Earlier this year, it was all over the media when scientist from the US showed that people's social network circle has a strong impact on their health. The few studies that were conducted focused on pregnancy and obesity. It was shown that where you are in the network is associated with your individual makeup, which is unsurprising, but also, the network that is not immediately related to you, is also associated with your DNA. For example, some people like to introduce their friends to their other friends, so their networks are more entangled than others. In other words, how my network and my friend's network look like is more than the sum of our two immediate networks. There is another layer of meaning that comes from the information that describes how we are connected. This is described in the book Connected.

What it makes me think of are souls. We always talk about how we are more than an aggregate of billions of cells. It all sounds beautiful but like a wishful thinking. Now, however, it's much easier for me to imagine how my soul is really there, not just there because I want it to be. It's the part that is beyond.

*****************
For the math/stats nerds out there, I used to think of my soul as the residuals that are left unexplained by my model. Now I don't like it anymore, because all models are false, and the remaining variations can also be explained further by augmenting the model, but my cells are real. Even if I fully understand each cell, I cannot augment my cell model enough to account for all my individuality. Afterall, this is only an analogy. Social networking though, is not just an analogy, I think it's really the same mechanisms.

I was watching the Shawshank Redemption yesterday. (only the best movie ever? Albeit heavy for a happy and light hearted night.) It makes me think about the way we live. We mostly live like Red, enjoying the small things, or we live like Brooks, being kind and furnish a cozy niche for our humble existence. We live in the world and assume the world lives in us. For the past year or so, I've actually been trying to do that. It's a happy way to live. It's an easy way to live. It's a life that harms neither myself nor others, and most of all, it's a life that is not lonely. I believe most of what define who we are, is how we live, the style of which we have a choice more or less. That's why I hate it when someone tells me I as a person is similar to someone else whose life I fear to replicate. I believe I have a choice in the matter.

On the other hand, there are those heros, those who live looking beyond the walls. They harbor hope that stretches long into the future or even beyond time itself. Their happiness lies in the possibilities rather than the existence. Their decisions are driven by the unknown. They are air-headed, because chances are they look so far ahead that they stumble upon a branch beneath their feet. Many people prefer to lead a life like this. I can't. I find it disturbing, in fact.  It's like reversing the universe, putting the spotlight on something you cannot see and dimming the lights on those clear and beautiful details. Black seen as white, and white as black... yikes, dizzy.

Is it really possible to have a vision so wide that you can live both in the present and in the future? Is it only possible in movies? It must be so tiring. My head would explode by the strain.  Maybe the two ways are just the two extremes, and we all live somewhere in the middle. A couple tablespoon of realism and half a cup of airheadedness. Hmm, only if it could be described as an ROC curve, we can find the optimal blend...

I was reading this book called How to Build a Dinosaur. It's about genetically engineering a dinosaur out of chicken. Personally I don't have a problem with genetic modification or even specie creation/re-creation, but one statement both in the book and news release just made me feel... our sense of moral (or should it be ethic?) is so distorted.

Because people questioned the ethics of doing such recreation, the group says that if any specimen/individual animal is to be recreated, they would all be in singleton and would not be able to mate.

Seriously? This is supposed to be more ethical than creating a herd of them? So, too bad, do you not only have to endure all these endless lab tests, gawking and woos and ahs, you will always have to be in your lonesome, all because we need to be very kind to you and make you die before you can make trouble for yourself by having children. Oh, and by creating one of you, I technically haven't done anything.

Basically, we believe that if we let one individual die, it's alright, but if we create a species and they somehow go extinct or escape... then we are inflicting pain on the poor fellas. That doesn't make sense unless you are a big advocate for mass abortion or even sterilization.

I didn't know that a thousand years before the Renaissance the people actually called the time they lived in the "Middle Times". This is rather interesting because I always thought terms such as the "Middle Ages" and "transitional period" are all retrospective. Nowadays we always think of ourselves are being post-such and such, or even apocalyptic for some. I wonder what kind of difference in social mentality would constitute to the different hopes and prospects for the future. Doubtless to say, different groups of people would have different views on this, and I yet to find out who those people with long term visions to see themselves as the middle of two primes.

I was walking on the over pass enveloped in the sound and sight of traffic flowing under me. My heart thumped with resonance.

This is definitely not the first time I marveled the sight of traffic. "Artery" is definitely the right word for the ceaseless, and yet dynamically immobile torrent. The whole thing often reminds me of a water fall, the sound muffling any screaming punk in my earphone, and the sight leading my eyes from one horizon to the other. BBack in Beijing, these over passes are more easily encountered, I often leaned over the railing trying to decide which lane should be numbered 1 and which one 16. It was even more fun to see the relative speed amongst all the lanes, a much grander sight from above than at ground level.

It's almost embarrassing to feel the city is just as astoundingly beautiful as nature, so long as I'm outside and treading each fibre, although I did eventually realize, the heart thumping effect was mostly due to climbing up the whole way than the excitement.

I wouldn't say I'm very surprised to hear Michael Jackson's death, after all, everyone dies, especially in the news. He does hold some kind of significance doubtlessly. I have to say that he was probably more adored in Asia than in America, I'm probably somewhere in the middle, I find him so far away from what I can comprehend that my mind cannot produce any kind of opinion.

One of the news report from Asia says his contribution to modern pop is incomparable and he has made the music community accept people of colour, okay that to me is quite some BS, especially since what he'd done to his own skin. I recall when I was in high school, some guys loved his songs so much that they sang them in every talent show, karaoke competition they could find. He represented american music more than Back Street Boys or Elvis. One guy even tried to dance like him. Even at that time, I felt sad for myself, because I could not understand even the guy who mimicked Jackson, let alone the celebrity himself. Nonetheless, the ferver was there, unmistakable, the probably must had been in myself.

Then when I came to Canada, everyone is bashing him like a half dead fish. I felt a little sorry for the guy. He's soul was so beaten I felt that nobody gives him a breather. Why would people hate him so much when his life is so sad? Mostly though, I find him in such a distant world from my own, I don't think I can ever have a place in my heart that either relate to hate him. He's... really just a picture on the wall, impossible to get off, stuck there forever.