Tuesday, August 31, 2004
to joyce tan: a sophist (which i got from dictionary.com for a more accurate definition than mine) is one of a class of men who taught eloquence, philosophy, and politics in ancient Greece; especially, one of those who, by their fallacious but plausible reasoning, puzzled inquirers after truth, weakened the faith of the people, and drew upon themselves general hatred and contempt. Hence, impostors in argument; captious or fallacious reasoners who were later characterized by Plato as superficial manipulators of rhetoric and dialectic.
and i must say i never did profess that exquisite eloquence and style in writing could be synonymous with their depth of intelligence. you could be smart, but you wouldn't necessarily be intelligent and worldlywise if you get what i mean. although in most cases these writers usually possess astounding clarity and discernment of many issues. and yes there are better writers than me i have never denied that nor have i ever swanked about my skills in composing even as their sorely deficient. so i'd like to come to terms with this argument of yours. where is the link between the fact that you have come across better writers than myself, and me?
by the way.. did i mention you have a nice name? haha
to yan: dearie your a classic. haha loveya
to anonymous #2: carving a path out for yourself and leaving a trail for others to follow is very admirable but very idealistic. yes "you are you", we are all ourselves. but to what extent? we are molded and fashioned by the ways of the world, the ideals and thoughts we cling on to; things we like to think are uniquely and sacredly ours; but these are ideals that were conceptualised many years before our time. so my question is this, how much of ourselves are we.
to anonymous #4? (i think): i don't believe you really catch the undertone here. whereabouts in my entries have i ever once said i was intellectually superior to anyone else? i was insecure in my latest entry, questioning if anything about me is artificial. and i must clarify that when i said i had a pet peeve about LIKING to THINK i'm intellectually superior. it doesn't mean i do. in fact if you've been reading my past entries, i've already pointed out that no one is intellectually superior than another human being.
we all like to think we're separate from the "common herd" (if i may so borrow the term from joyce tan) and i admit i do like to think that way of myself sometimes, but doesn't everyone? the difference is whether we ourselves can recognise that we are not, in fact, as inimitable as we love to think ourselves are. and that i do recognise, and i have already humbly admitted in my old blog. whatever emotions or idealised thoughts we have of the world and of ourselves are nothing original.
so i don't appreciate you coming here and making unsubstantiated allegations when your obviously not well acquainted with me, since you don't leave a name. you could say i am bitchy, imperfect, a total blabbering sophist, but it is utterly heinous on your part to say i'm being pretentious especially when all i've ever blogged about were geniune and sincere "transcribings" on my part. i'm very resentful at being called pretentious when all i ever wanted to exhibit on the web are heartfelt thoughts. these thoughts, they may not be my own, but at least these words, the meanings that i attach to them are preciously my own and mine alone. and people like you who misconstrue my words and put me down with an insensitive and unconstructive remark are not welcomed here.
well well well.. and to all those who have stayed tuned to my supposedly esoteric avenue. it's my toes. yup i love smelling my toes. especially when they are stuck in socks and smelly rotting shoes all day long. i yank out the socks and i smell my toes when i come home at night watching tv. don't ask me why, it's been a childhood fetish. but hey! at least i don't go round stealing toes to smell like how panty thieves do. Joyce Lim unzipped at 8:41 PM with 6 comments
Comments:
actually, i would much rather you didn't "tan"-(ned) me, but wouldn't that be weird? joyce calling joyce? ha.
i'm sorry if i intruded on your privacy (and getting a lot more outcry than intended), but my intention wasn't to diss you or criticize, really, i just felt a urge to respond to your particular entry. (ok, you can call me boliao if you want.)
i still want to respond to this entry too! can i, since it's supposed to be... "esoteric"? heck, just delete this if you don't like it. ;)
"things we like to think are uniquely and sacredly ours; but these are ideals that were conceptualised many years before our time. so my question is this, how much of ourselves are we."
This was echoed by Oscar Wilde too! He wrote: Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.
And to your question, "how much of ourselves are we?" Not very much, I would say. See, all u wrote before is but merely a mirror of Oscar Wilde, it's like...we are living in mirror images: a shadow within a shadow, a ghost within a ghost.Imagine: simple phrases like "So sian", "I feel like dying" may have been echoed by millions whose lives were before us.
So what is the point in translating your thoughts?
"yes, you are you. we are all ourselves. but to what extent?" No point lar, because we are not really 'that unique and individualistic' after all, what.
Wrong. I think that view is so wrong, so pessimistic, so morose. One can have the same thoughts, but no two persons can have the same interpretation, experience, sentiments, same "soul" towards the same thing.
Let's take anony's example of the "apple-falling-and-let-Newton-discover-gravity" incident. Newton discovered gravity through the falling of an apple, imagine if Da Vinci was there, he might be thinking what a luscious apple this is and just spark off inspiration for his next painting. And maybe today, we might have The Apple, fetching millions in the Louvre. Or a priest taking a rest under the apple tree, and seeing the apple fall, might curse it, because the apple holds the biblical connotation, of the story which Eve and Adam took a bite of the apple and hence was introduced to Sin? And to vent his anger, he might eat it up (to justify the excuse that he was hungry at the same time too)! Ok, I'm stretching it a little, but hey, all this is possible right? And that's because each of us are different!
Ok enough, comment is too long... and i never mean to shoot anybody here, it was merely...transcribing my thoughts!
and to yan: thanks for correcting my mistake.
joyce: yep, nice name! :D and the link between better writers and you is, simply that there are better writers out there! (haha, my meaning gets diluted if i even attempt to explain. nvm, just forget it.)
all+me: no more criticizing if you can help it.
i'm sorry if i intruded on your privacy (and getting a lot more outcry than intended), but my intention wasn't to diss you or criticize, really, i just felt a urge to respond to your particular entry. (ok, you can call me boliao if you want.)
i still want to respond to this entry too! can i, since it's supposed to be... "esoteric"? heck, just delete this if you don't like it. ;)
"things we like to think are uniquely and sacredly ours; but these are ideals that were conceptualised many years before our time. so my question is this, how much of ourselves are we."
This was echoed by Oscar Wilde too! He wrote: Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.
And to your question, "how much of ourselves are we?" Not very much, I would say. See, all u wrote before is but merely a mirror of Oscar Wilde, it's like...we are living in mirror images: a shadow within a shadow, a ghost within a ghost.Imagine: simple phrases like "So sian", "I feel like dying" may have been echoed by millions whose lives were before us.
So what is the point in translating your thoughts?
"yes, you are you. we are all ourselves. but to what extent?" No point lar, because we are not really 'that unique and individualistic' after all, what.
Wrong. I think that view is so wrong, so pessimistic, so morose. One can have the same thoughts, but no two persons can have the same interpretation, experience, sentiments, same "soul" towards the same thing.
Let's take anony's example of the "apple-falling-and-let-Newton-discover-gravity" incident. Newton discovered gravity through the falling of an apple, imagine if Da Vinci was there, he might be thinking what a luscious apple this is and just spark off inspiration for his next painting. And maybe today, we might have The Apple, fetching millions in the Louvre. Or a priest taking a rest under the apple tree, and seeing the apple fall, might curse it, because the apple holds the biblical connotation, of the story which Eve and Adam took a bite of the apple and hence was introduced to Sin? And to vent his anger, he might eat it up (to justify the excuse that he was hungry at the same time too)! Ok, I'm stretching it a little, but hey, all this is possible right? And that's because each of us are different!
Ok enough, comment is too long... and i never mean to shoot anybody here, it was merely...transcribing my thoughts!
and to yan: thanks for correcting my mistake.
joyce: yep, nice name! :D and the link between better writers and you is, simply that there are better writers out there! (haha, my meaning gets diluted if i even attempt to explain. nvm, just forget it.)
all+me: no more criticizing if you can help it.
# posted by 
: 9/01/2004 3:06 AM
: 9/01/2004 3:06 AM
just surfed on... i'm not impressed. so you're an ordinary blogger, then blog about your life, i have no problem with that. why give yourself airs and call yourself a "sophist"? writing about the supposed "big questions" doesn't make you a philosopher. claiming you are one just makes your ego look too big. if you think that anything you've written here is startlingly original, well, you're wrong. just my 2 cents.
nick.
nick.
# posted by : 9/01/2004 9:59 AM
: 9/01/2004 9:59 AM
nick? which nick are u? oh my god i do not want to deal with stupid comments anymore. yes i call myself a sophist. do you even know what a sophist means???? and to think i even copied it all out for joyce from dictionary.com. it's either you didn't even bother to read it or your just totally utterly STUPID!
oh my god i am DONE WITH IGNORANT PEOPLE with stupid unconstructive and ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS remarks like yours. and i do not think that anything i've written here is "STARTLINGLY ORIGINAL" i just bloody said it is not. i just bloody said that i have always maintained my stance that nothing of anyone is original. clearly your comprehension skills are found wanting.
in cases like yours i pride myself on having the best said "fuck off" complete with two middle fingers and two middle toes. take your inane remarks somewhere else
to joyce: from now on we'll drop the surname :) no no i really appreciate your comments. especially the most recent one. i had no idea oscar wilde wrote that, was that a poem or a book you must enlighten me! yeah i always think nothing about us is really us, but i see now that it is a very pessimistic view.
"One can have the same thoughts, but no two persons can have the same interpretation, experience, sentiments, same "soul" towards the same thing."
thanks for that. it was lovely :)
oh my god i am DONE WITH IGNORANT PEOPLE with stupid unconstructive and ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS remarks like yours. and i do not think that anything i've written here is "STARTLINGLY ORIGINAL" i just bloody said it is not. i just bloody said that i have always maintained my stance that nothing of anyone is original. clearly your comprehension skills are found wanting.
in cases like yours i pride myself on having the best said "fuck off" complete with two middle fingers and two middle toes. take your inane remarks somewhere else
to joyce: from now on we'll drop the surname :) no no i really appreciate your comments. especially the most recent one. i had no idea oscar wilde wrote that, was that a poem or a book you must enlighten me! yeah i always think nothing about us is really us, but i see now that it is a very pessimistic view.
"One can have the same thoughts, but no two persons can have the same interpretation, experience, sentiments, same "soul" towards the same thing."
thanks for that. it was lovely :)
to Joyce Tan: i agree with you totally... i just couldn't find the words to express my thoughts... Thank you.=) I still believe that everyone has the freedom of thought and choice. A gift God has bestowed upon us and something that none can take away. We can always be ourselves if we choose to be. Of course we'll be influenced by others but then it only helps us to create our own unique interpretation of the subject matter. Oscar Wilder himself may have inherited his thoughts from someone else and merely added his own interpretation. But on the other hand we cannot always be original. We have to sometimes continue on what those before us had started in order to make progress. Its a long run. We can't always choose to be different and start all over again. What we can do is to improvise on their thoughts and create our own interpretations. Thats where our originality and creativity comes in. Like Newton said: " If I have seen further than others, its because I am standing on the shoulders of giants." Therefore we should continue to develop what our forefathers had left for us while building the stepping stones for our children as one day they will replace us in the quest of discovery. Then, hopefully, there will be progress.
Regarding the shooting thing, sorry i got confused between you and the other anonymous. Anyway do you have a blog too? i would love to read it sometime. Good day. =)
To Joyce Lim: Please pardon me if I am wrong but i think you meant that there are moments in life when we have no choice but to conform. Nevertheless, i still feel that we can be uniquely different as our different experiences mould us into different individuals.(Joyce Tan)
I agree with you that i am an idealist. =) Something that i am proud of as i believe that the world cannot progress without ideals. Who expected the Wright brothers to realise their flying dream a century ago? Man wouldn't have taken a giant step forward through Neil Armstrong if the minority idealists didn't believe in their dreams. Before that, most would say: " You want to go to the Moon? You must be crazy." I believe that idealism is an inherent part of humanity. Its the driving force that propels us towards realising our dreams. The difference between an Idealist and one who is not may just be that the Idealist overrides his logics with his ideals . He believes that anything is possible. Singapore has its own idealistic Olympic dream, which was mocked and doubted by many initially but now supported as we inch towards its realization. Nevertheless, i concur with you in a sense that many ordinary people like us are simply powerless to resist the comformities of the society. All of us (loyal male citizens of Singapore) have to shave our heads when the call of duty arrives. But our thoughts within these identical bald heads can remain uniquely different. =)
Lastly a quote from our dear Oscar Wilde for nick : " Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."
Sincerely, Anonymous #2
Regarding the shooting thing, sorry i got confused between you and the other anonymous. Anyway do you have a blog too? i would love to read it sometime. Good day. =)
To Joyce Lim: Please pardon me if I am wrong but i think you meant that there are moments in life when we have no choice but to conform. Nevertheless, i still feel that we can be uniquely different as our different experiences mould us into different individuals.(Joyce Tan)
I agree with you that i am an idealist. =) Something that i am proud of as i believe that the world cannot progress without ideals. Who expected the Wright brothers to realise their flying dream a century ago? Man wouldn't have taken a giant step forward through Neil Armstrong if the minority idealists didn't believe in their dreams. Before that, most would say: " You want to go to the Moon? You must be crazy." I believe that idealism is an inherent part of humanity. Its the driving force that propels us towards realising our dreams. The difference between an Idealist and one who is not may just be that the Idealist overrides his logics with his ideals . He believes that anything is possible. Singapore has its own idealistic Olympic dream, which was mocked and doubted by many initially but now supported as we inch towards its realization. Nevertheless, i concur with you in a sense that many ordinary people like us are simply powerless to resist the comformities of the society. All of us (loyal male citizens of Singapore) have to shave our heads when the call of duty arrives. But our thoughts within these identical bald heads can remain uniquely different. =)
Lastly a quote from our dear Oscar Wilde for nick : " Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."
Sincerely, Anonymous #2
# posted by : 9/01/2004 5:08 PM
: 9/01/2004 5:08 PM
Joyce (tan): I do not agree with yo quixotic proposition that "no two persons can have the same interpretation, experience, sentiments, same "soul" towards the same thing." Im sure both of us cld debate this 4ever, but lets just use pure logic i.e. math. There are a few billion freakin pple in e world. Odds wld favour several pple hving e EXACT same thoughts, interpretation, experience, sentiments, same "soul" towards the same thing. Having said tt, i 2 am convinced tt ure a nyce person ;) sorry if I sounded condescending at any point. same for anoy 2.
nick: I can be as condescending as I want 2 u cuz ure obviously a fuckin retard. “in e kingdom of e blind,e one eyed man is king”. Lets take dis a lil outta context. Dere mite b heapsa pple smarter than joyce,but wit e likes of u reading her blog, is it any wonder y joyce wld feel intellectually superior? anoy 2 quoted ma gd man wilde..but in case pple lyk u do not get obvious hints..i shall put it in simpler terms. FUCK OFF.
nick: I can be as condescending as I want 2 u cuz ure obviously a fuckin retard. “in e kingdom of e blind,e one eyed man is king”. Lets take dis a lil outta context. Dere mite b heapsa pple smarter than joyce,but wit e likes of u reading her blog, is it any wonder y joyce wld feel intellectually superior? anoy 2 quoted ma gd man wilde..but in case pple lyk u do not get obvious hints..i shall put it in simpler terms. FUCK OFF.
well well well it's funny but it's the same ole people commenting. hah! ok hmmm anony #2 no i didn't mean in any sense of the word to conform.
Post a Comment