This week, before the weekends, was a time where almost everything went wrong. Not so much for my personal well-being, but it worries me what these wrongs will do to those who have no mental immune systems.
University is such a beautiful place. A brilliant place where religious bigots who speak of out casting or exiling homosexuals for ‘spreading’ homosexuality are allowed to lecture students on community psychology. Probably sometime in the future we can expect to legally murder or commit suicide just to get away from such idiots, so that they don’t ‘spread’ such bigotry and idiocy to others.
Saying homosexuality is contagious is like saying, I don’t know, a penis (or a lack of one) for example, is contagious. Unfortunately, however, bigotry and idiocy IS contagious. No more than chicken pox, but still contagious nevertheless. Because there is a staggering number of people who have literally no mental immune system. These are people with no in born morals or virtues, only fear and fear-mongering, probably out of envy for not being capable of kindness at birth.
I used to say ‘hope for the best, prepare for the worst’. I now realize I was wrong: you shouldn’t hope in the first place, because it will only get you disappointment. If, however, you are obligated by reasons unknown to mankind to hope, then hope for the worst as well, because the worst is infinitely more likely to happen than the best. This way, you have 100% chance of not being disappointed, as Jeremy Clarkson once wrote in his newspaper column, "Disappointment is a word for people who don't think ahead."
And on that bombshell, adieu to y’all.
P.S.: on a more cheerful note, bro Yat says he has a friend who knows a publisher, and has suggested that we both collaborate on a novel. And make millions overnight like Rowling, I hope.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
It's like starting an old car without petrol.
Not writing a blog post for so long is probably showing its effects now, as I sit here for more than 10 minutes thinking of how to begin. Now that I have, things are that much easier.
I’ve just finished reading a self-help book that my mother bought for me. It has an interesting title, to say the least, but I’m afraid the contents do not reflect the same emotion as the title does. The subtitle is ’10 simple truths that will set you free’, but honestly, after reading it I feel more confused than free. The fact that it was written by two professional therapists with Dr. tagged to their names makes it all the worse.
I remember once upon a time where I mentioned psychology was a subject full of lies, in the sense that it tells us to lie to ourselves and to help others lie to themselves; and got into a pretty petty argument with two of my friend’s friends who were fellow psychology students themselves. Now though, I realize that I was wrong, but not in a way that makes them right. I still maintain that the subject is all about lying to the self to live a better life, but that description was not meant for psychology. Rather, it was counseling/psychotherapy. Especially so now that I’m done with that book.
Why am I so enraged by a mere book? Good question; I wish to know the answer myself. I mean, it’s just a bloody book, right? The authors probably have bollocks for brains and they can put down whatever junk they feel works and then publish it as some self-help book with the impression that whatever works for them would work for the rest of the world too, right?
WRONG
Okay, maybe not wrong after all. But what makes it wrong is that the fact that the authors are in a position of knowledge, and is supposed to impart stuff that, at least, isn’t complete cattle crap if it can’t be 100% correct. They do have the ‘Doctor’ title for a reason, and that at least proves that their head is somewhere we can look for signs of intelligence and not mere instinct-based bestiality. Or at least I hope so.
Firstly, it says that, and I quote directly from the book, “The fool is the one who deceives, not the one who is deceived. Your kindly grandmother who falls for the insurance scam is not a fool; she trusted that the scam artist would do exactly as he said he would do. She is a person of her word, and she expected him to be also. That makes her vulnerable to deception, but this does not make her a fool. To choose to trust another does not imply naiveté or foolishness, but a choice to take another person at his or her word.”
I’m sorry, but isn’t that the perfect description of a fool? I don’t know what kind of English is being taught to American people but as far as I can work out, a fool is a silly, weak-minded, stupid or possibly even idiotic person who lacks judgment or sense. So how on Earth is someone who falls for a scam NOT a fool? Someone who is vulnerable to deception is someone who is probably simple-minded and cannot tell if something is too good to be true, therefore a fool. The scammer, on the other hand, is a genius because he knows what he’s doing and is good at it. It may not be morally right, but that’s beside the point. I really couldn’t for the life of me work this out and I doubt anyone who speaks the kind of English I do can. If you beg to differ, please enlighten me, but throughout the duration of your attempt please make sense. I doubt I have any qualms with splattering your brain matter on the floor literally if you do the same with mine metaphorically.
Next. There is a sentence in the book that mentions “to avoid the responsibility that comes with happiness and success, to protect themselves from the scariness of loving someone, and so on.”
What sort of responsibility ever comes with happiness and success besides keeping it up? I’ve yet to hear of anyone being told that once they are happy, they will have to remain happy or else some politician will be assassinated or if they are successful they have to remain successful or the World Bank will go bankrupt. And who the fuck would, in their right mind, be scared of loving someone? And why turn something as beautiful as love into something so morbid that it’s worth being afraid of? It’s not love that people are afraid of; it’s the heartbreak that comes after it. Heck, people love love. So much so, in fact, that people don’t give a flying toss about the possibility of the heartbreak. Saying that people are afraid of love is like saying people are afraid of money; the only two things in the world that people would commit all sorts of vices and atrocities for.
Finally, there’s this. Near the end of the book, it tells people to use guided imagery, imagining a traumatic event, to let go of it. In other words, we must recreate our greatest nightmare to get rid of it. To me, that is along the lines of saying “kill yourself so that you won’t die.” Sure, how are you going to die (again) if you are already dead? Isn’t that defeating the purpose? It’s bloody hilarious now that I put it this way, I must admit, but I digress. Point is, if you’re trying to let go of something, why do you need to get to it first? Sure, if you want to throw away, say, a bottle you need to pick it up first, but this is ridiculous in the sense that if it is already lost or gone missing, do you still need to go looking for it and then personally put it in the rubbish bin just to make sure it is gone?
On a side note, I am reminded of the nonsense people say to their youngers involving the words ‘now is not the time to’, ‘this is just the beginning’ and ‘you’re still young’. From experience, my father used to tell me “UPSR is nothing; it is PMR that will determine your future.” Then three years later “PMR is nothing; it is SPM that will determine your future.” And just before I entered university, I got “SPM was nothing; your results in university will determine your future.” Yeah, I’m sure now he’d just say when I graduate that it is my job that will determine my future. I’m just wondering what would determine my future when I retire. My death probably, though that idea is as hilariously impossible as committing suicide to be immortal. Then there’s my mom who told me “high school is not the time to be looking for love; wait ‘till university,” and is now telling me “don’t look for love when you’re still studying; wait until you’re working.” Yeah, sure, when I’m working I should wait until I retire before looking for love, right?
I’m sure I’m not the only one getting this sort of bullshit, so to those who share the same problem, here’s a tip: they’re always going to tell you that either you’re being one step too far ahead or that it is just beginning; the next step is the important one. I say, “Fuck You” because according to that logic, there is never the right time for anything because either it’s too early or what you do now does not matter since the big one is only just coming up.
And now I don’t know how to end this episode of ranting because I can’t think of anything interesting to say.
And on that bombshell, adieu to y’all.
I’ve just finished reading a self-help book that my mother bought for me. It has an interesting title, to say the least, but I’m afraid the contents do not reflect the same emotion as the title does. The subtitle is ’10 simple truths that will set you free’, but honestly, after reading it I feel more confused than free. The fact that it was written by two professional therapists with Dr. tagged to their names makes it all the worse.
I remember once upon a time where I mentioned psychology was a subject full of lies, in the sense that it tells us to lie to ourselves and to help others lie to themselves; and got into a pretty petty argument with two of my friend’s friends who were fellow psychology students themselves. Now though, I realize that I was wrong, but not in a way that makes them right. I still maintain that the subject is all about lying to the self to live a better life, but that description was not meant for psychology. Rather, it was counseling/psychotherapy. Especially so now that I’m done with that book.
Why am I so enraged by a mere book? Good question; I wish to know the answer myself. I mean, it’s just a bloody book, right? The authors probably have bollocks for brains and they can put down whatever junk they feel works and then publish it as some self-help book with the impression that whatever works for them would work for the rest of the world too, right?
WRONG
Okay, maybe not wrong after all. But what makes it wrong is that the fact that the authors are in a position of knowledge, and is supposed to impart stuff that, at least, isn’t complete cattle crap if it can’t be 100% correct. They do have the ‘Doctor’ title for a reason, and that at least proves that their head is somewhere we can look for signs of intelligence and not mere instinct-based bestiality. Or at least I hope so.
Firstly, it says that, and I quote directly from the book, “The fool is the one who deceives, not the one who is deceived. Your kindly grandmother who falls for the insurance scam is not a fool; she trusted that the scam artist would do exactly as he said he would do. She is a person of her word, and she expected him to be also. That makes her vulnerable to deception, but this does not make her a fool. To choose to trust another does not imply naiveté or foolishness, but a choice to take another person at his or her word.”
I’m sorry, but isn’t that the perfect description of a fool? I don’t know what kind of English is being taught to American people but as far as I can work out, a fool is a silly, weak-minded, stupid or possibly even idiotic person who lacks judgment or sense. So how on Earth is someone who falls for a scam NOT a fool? Someone who is vulnerable to deception is someone who is probably simple-minded and cannot tell if something is too good to be true, therefore a fool. The scammer, on the other hand, is a genius because he knows what he’s doing and is good at it. It may not be morally right, but that’s beside the point. I really couldn’t for the life of me work this out and I doubt anyone who speaks the kind of English I do can. If you beg to differ, please enlighten me, but throughout the duration of your attempt please make sense. I doubt I have any qualms with splattering your brain matter on the floor literally if you do the same with mine metaphorically.
Next. There is a sentence in the book that mentions “to avoid the responsibility that comes with happiness and success, to protect themselves from the scariness of loving someone, and so on.”
What sort of responsibility ever comes with happiness and success besides keeping it up? I’ve yet to hear of anyone being told that once they are happy, they will have to remain happy or else some politician will be assassinated or if they are successful they have to remain successful or the World Bank will go bankrupt. And who the fuck would, in their right mind, be scared of loving someone? And why turn something as beautiful as love into something so morbid that it’s worth being afraid of? It’s not love that people are afraid of; it’s the heartbreak that comes after it. Heck, people love love. So much so, in fact, that people don’t give a flying toss about the possibility of the heartbreak. Saying that people are afraid of love is like saying people are afraid of money; the only two things in the world that people would commit all sorts of vices and atrocities for.
Finally, there’s this. Near the end of the book, it tells people to use guided imagery, imagining a traumatic event, to let go of it. In other words, we must recreate our greatest nightmare to get rid of it. To me, that is along the lines of saying “kill yourself so that you won’t die.” Sure, how are you going to die (again) if you are already dead? Isn’t that defeating the purpose? It’s bloody hilarious now that I put it this way, I must admit, but I digress. Point is, if you’re trying to let go of something, why do you need to get to it first? Sure, if you want to throw away, say, a bottle you need to pick it up first, but this is ridiculous in the sense that if it is already lost or gone missing, do you still need to go looking for it and then personally put it in the rubbish bin just to make sure it is gone?
On a side note, I am reminded of the nonsense people say to their youngers involving the words ‘now is not the time to’, ‘this is just the beginning’ and ‘you’re still young’. From experience, my father used to tell me “UPSR is nothing; it is PMR that will determine your future.” Then three years later “PMR is nothing; it is SPM that will determine your future.” And just before I entered university, I got “SPM was nothing; your results in university will determine your future.” Yeah, I’m sure now he’d just say when I graduate that it is my job that will determine my future. I’m just wondering what would determine my future when I retire. My death probably, though that idea is as hilariously impossible as committing suicide to be immortal. Then there’s my mom who told me “high school is not the time to be looking for love; wait ‘till university,” and is now telling me “don’t look for love when you’re still studying; wait until you’re working.” Yeah, sure, when I’m working I should wait until I retire before looking for love, right?
I’m sure I’m not the only one getting this sort of bullshit, so to those who share the same problem, here’s a tip: they’re always going to tell you that either you’re being one step too far ahead or that it is just beginning; the next step is the important one. I say, “Fuck You” because according to that logic, there is never the right time for anything because either it’s too early or what you do now does not matter since the big one is only just coming up.
And now I don’t know how to end this episode of ranting because I can’t think of anything interesting to say.
And on that bombshell, adieu to y’all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
