Be funny or they will kill you.

"If you are going to tell people the truth, be funny or they will kill you."

~ Billy Wilder

Hahahaha. I like this quote.

It's one thing to know the truth.

It's another thing to tell the person (yourself/other people) the truth.

And it's an entirely different thing to act on the truth.

--
That's one of the reasons why businesses want people who are good with people. People who can empathize and know how to say the right, persuasive, sometimes humorous words. People who can sort out the nuances in the situation.

Think:
that idiot who's just blind to how he hurt you and still think he's right.
the 'me' who's rather ashamed of myself sometimes
the inconvenient choices we had to make
the convenient, but not so good choices we make

We're human. So we've our strengths and weaknesses. It's not necessarily bad to be like this, but it's definitely good to improve for productivity's sake. The question is, at what cost? The cost of immense pain and loss of productivity that results from the brutally painful truth? Or at the cost of temporary pain from the seemingly-less-brutal truth?

Effectiveness and efficiency is important.

It's not just about career. It's also about moral/ethical/happiness growth too.

-------------

2nd random note:

It's better to express whatever we think, with good intentions shown, and be wrong, than to shut up and let the situation be as it is. It's sometimes rather uncool, but whatever. See situation lah, then decide the strategy.

Hmm. I remember when I stopped speaking out often. That's when, my interest in the subject cooled down.

How ethics is like Math

This is a blog comment I'm about to post on my philosophy module's blog. I have problems posting it now. But I'll post it later. The topic was 'How ethics isn't like Math'. Underlying Socrates's (we're doing Plato's books now) many questions, he seems to have a notion that there is a guideline to decide what we should do. I'll probably edit this over time to improve it. I like this topic, but I'm thinking about this excessively. So posting it up here will sort of achieve a closure to this train of thought. Haha. (:

--

To respond one by one to everyone’s sometimes similar contentions would be a very long read. So here’s an improved proposition for Plato that defends against some of the limits of Math suggested. Some parts still repeat, but in different ways. I really think ethics is a complicated Math problem, and the problem is not the limits of Math, but the limit of our ability to actually convert it into Math. We are in the process of figuring out f(x) as we debate on the limits of justice/family-piety/etc. But, we don't actually have the true f(x), and that’s why we rely on both our left and right brain.

There is an absolute truth, like the most accurate ethics math function f(x). Just as Math is a tool, ethics is a complicated math function, a tool that guides us to live fulfilling lives.

Math is multi-dimensional, it can process complex questions and give complex answers. Life is a math problem with (maybe) infinite variables. Think f(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,…). It has many variables, many different weights, many different inter-linked functions for many different principles and context. It’s complicated. And the answer can be complex too. In a situation where a=2,b<20,qr>9, abs<-200, then the answer is to output x=900, y=232, z=90. The real thing is even more complex though, and the numbers can represent defined events. We figure out the formula in the same way we figure out how to solve any math problem, or how to build a building. When the building eventually collapses, when we become sad/depressed for too long, we know something’s wrong with our formula. And when the brain is able to find better answers, it liberates people, and makes people happy. (So people pursue the ‘truth’.)
[Issues addressed: Cataclysm of using numbers, what questions to ask, how we formulate f(x), how we know f(x) is right]

This f(x) can be broken down to something fundamental that we can all agree upon, like (as Hazel suggested) the fundamental concept of counting. Complicated math is hard to understand, and finding out f(x)exactly is harder than rocket science, but with experience and testing, we can estimate answers, and estimate what f(x) is. When our f(x) estimate is different from someone else’s, there is a contradiction, an inconsistency. So we argue to find out what went wrong. As we argue and compromise, hopefully we get closer to the truth. It is like taking multiple readings to get the true length the piece of a rope.
[Issues addressed: Inexistence of universal agreement, how we determine f(x), changing religions]

The heart, the gut feelings are affected by the brain which (subconsciously) controls hormones. The brain, our supercomputer that has an estimate of what f(x) is, based on programming by teachers like experience/family/friends/study, and is able to give a rough estimate (a range maybe?) of f(x) when it is an ethical question. The brain gives an exact answer for f(x) when it is asked a normal-math/plain-logic question.
[Issues addressed: ethics as an instinct as much as logic is, heart and soul vs. cold hard logic, how we get f(x)]

The math solution people (including ourselves) have might be far from the truth, due to corruption/spoiling of our supercomputers/lack of updates. It is not like simple logic, where we can understand the f(x) that we formulated. So sometimes, when we don’t understand how to solve it, we trust someone else to help us.
[Issues addressed: People’s role, why people act unethically/badly]

Let's assume that at the action borderline, let’s say, f(x)=0, it doesn’t matter what we do really. When we obviously know what to do, it’s like when f(1000)=100000 > 0. If split between two actions, maybe f(x) <> 0 means we should do action B. When the estimate of f(x) is somewhere at the border line, we become confused/sometimes make less than good decisions. (But it is okay, we can forgive ourselves because we did not really know. We can live with estimates.)
[Issues addressed: why people act unethically/badly, ethical dilemmas]

More limitations can come up, but I think there is always a mathematical way of looking at it.

As a Christian, how do you deal with non-Christian death?

This guy stringed words together quite well.

Eulogy for a Non-Christian Friend

Denver wrote: "Gregory, at the funeral that you mentioned, did you express your universalist perspective when you gave the eulogy? If not, how did it affect your words? If so, what did you say? And, if you did, was that a surprise to your friend's family?"

Here is an edited version of what I said (with the personal stories and comments removed). I have changed my friend's name to 'Alan'.

This was a very personal eulogy and was not written for public consumption, but I offer up parts of it here if it might be helpful to some people. I feel somewhat uncomfortable about doing so but it shows one way in which universalism can inform such situations. I think that it enabled me to offer real hope without compromising the gospel.

How can you sum up the life of a person? Of someone so unique and so special? The texture of a human life is too subtle – too complicated. Words fail us. Even to try and capture what Alan meant to my family is an impossible task. So many memories, ... so many thoughts. We can feel paralysed. But speak we must. So I offer just a few reflections from my family in honour of Alan ...

[the main body of the eulogy was here]

Finally, I would like to offer two brief reflections speaking as a Christian. The first is that I have no idea why God would allow Alan to suffer as much as he did. For all the world, it looks cruel and pointless and I offer no excuses for God. The Bible is full of complaints and accusations against God and I simply wanted to say that blaming God is a biblical thing to do. One day we will understand God’s reasons for allowing this but for now, if we feel angry with God, that’s OK.

The second springs from the fact that for Christians this week is Holy Week. This week Christians celebrate a God who did not stand aloof from our suffering and pain but who became a human being – the man Jesus. And on the cross this human person – this God –entered into our experiences of suffering and death … and then he was resurrected.

In the story of Jesus Christians see the human story, our stories, writ small – death then resurrection. Darkness then light. Grief then joy. The resurrection means that that death is not the end of a story but a chapter in it. And all Christian hope in the face of death is based on Jesus’ resurrection. The God of the cross and resurrection is the one who will not let death have the last word; who will not allow it to separate people from him.

So I believe that this is not the end of Alan’s story. Alan was not a Christian himself – not yet anyway – but Jesus said that God is a shepherd who keeps on looking for his sheep ‘until he finds it’. And I believe that he will find Alan and that Alan’s future is one of resurrection and eternal life in a relationship with God.

I believe that Alan will be whole again and that God will bring to perfection all those distinctive character traits that are so distinctively him.

So Alan. There is a hole in the world without you. An Alan-shaped hole that can never be filled by anything else, because nothing else could be like you. There is an empty space now that feels like it should not be there. One day, friend, one day it will be filled again. Don’t think you’ve seen the last of us. And the next time we meet it will be in far better circumstances – ‘a new dawn, a new day’ (Nina Simone). But for now – ‘cheers’, ‘thanks’, and ‘goodbye’ . . . until next time.

A Friendship Poem

I stumbled upon this today...

--

You Say You Want to Be Just Friends

You say you want to be just friends,
But do you mean goodbye?
Is that the easy way to end
The wish without the why?

You owe me nothing, as I owe
You equally, and yet
There's something in the undertow
I cannot just forget.

There's something lovely like a song
That's waiting to be heard,
Or like the feelings that belong
To some unspoken word.

And so with you I cannot simply
Smile and stay aloof.
I take the risk of asking frankly
For the untold truth.

Copyright by Nicholas Gordon

---

Reminds me of the sweet, sometimes unappreciated poems that we used to write in autograph books when we were younger. My autograph book is still missing. It was last with, I can't remember her name anymore. I just hope she doesn't throw it away, so that one day, we might actually meet again, and then I might be able to reclaim my old autograph book.

CNY this year was good. I saw some interesting faces, including the Greek boyfriend of a cousin, and a long-lost cousin whom I last met years ago. And the atmosphere was good generally.

Hmmm. Although my family ties are still ok, friends have been becoming more and more distant. It's largely my own fault. I'm not one who makes a lot of time for friends, or people in general. This is because there're so many things that demand time, and there's also the fact that I have a very long 'warm-up' period. I wonder if it was ever shortened.

Anyway, I think it's important that we're good to ourselves before we can be truly good to others. To me, to be good to ourselves is to be able to keep ourselves through achievement of important goals while appreciating the journey, which is what makes life life. That means we have to prioritize, and balance living in the now and preparing for the long-term.

(But of course, this priority ladder is different from people to people. Or sometimes, it's so vague that we end up regretting our prior decisions, or sometimes we regret difficult choices when we need not, especially when there was already a 'sunk cost'.)

Haha. This style of self-talk, was influenced by the fable "The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari" which my sister borrowed from her library, which I read over CNY because it was the only short storybook available to me. The book's good, its presentation is better than many other self-help books, which I guess, explains why it was a bestseller for quite many weeks.

Hmm. I think my grammar in speech is becoming really bad, maybe because I have not been talkative enough nor book-reading enough for quite a long while. Nonetheless, I enjoy conjuring new words or new phrases everyday, just as much as a lot of manglish/singlish users. (:

Haha. I just found my old stash of poems that I long ago immortalized on Angelfire, which was one of the few free website providers then. Back then, I still used my old email (which by the way, isn't supposed to sound narcissistic, but to sound like joys forever). I remember especially liking the Friends 2 poem.

2nd

from behind.


:(