s . l . s . b . --- today

200202, 1810hr, central time.

of course i managed to finish my midterm paper. i just didn't do it in a very professional fashion - ie i didn't really proofread it when i finished. i just ran the spell check. haha. oops. i hear the professor is quite fussy about grammar and stuff. double oops.

in our international security class today though, the prof did something very interesting. he was explaining the different ways realists and institutionalists view the world, and to demonstrate very literally what he meant, he took out an extra pair of glasses, and like switched his glasses around when he talked about the two different theories. i would usually categorize that as being kinda spastic actually. but the interesting thing is, the two pairs of glasses were exactly the same. don't ask me why he's got two identical pairs of glasses, but he does. and it just kinda sparked something in me.

sometimes, i wonder what the world must seem like, to someone else. someone perhaps not as privileged as i am. maybe even someone with a very similar background - do we necessarily see the world in a similar way? the obvious answer is of course no. of course different people perceive the world in a different way. but my question is, why? if there is only one true form of the world, why do people see it differently? this reminds me of plato's argument about how some people have the capability to see the light, while others have to be contented with just seeing the shadows cast on the walls of the cave.[*read about the analogy] so when people do have different perceptions, are they just being different in terms of variation, or are some people closer to the truth than others?

well, i don't know. on one hand, it seems so terribly wrong, to suggest that there's only one true form of the world, that there's only one truth, to be pursued by the knowledgeable. it seems so fallacious. but it's not like i can prove otherwise. on the other hand, to say that everyone's perception is equal, it also seems so frustrating, because i genuinely believe some people to be terribly wrong and myopic - like my pet peeve: people who are homophobic, and people who racist. or worse, people who are both racist and homophobic, which is not uncommon at all, come to think of it.

so when the professor whipped out that pair of identical glasses, and proceeded to explain differences using identical glasses, an idea came to me. to begin with, i always believed there's no such thing as one true form of the world. i cannot prove it, but i feel that one's perception of the world will forever be twisted and molded by our own beliefs and values, and no one is nearer to the truth than others, simply because the world, as an abstract existence of both physical components and intangible components is constantly being molded by our very perception of it. it's like quantum physics. you cannot observe a wave of photons, because your very act of observation alters the result of your observation. does that make sense?

besides, even if there is some kind of truth that some enlightened ones can see, i don't think there's anyone who can genuinely proclaim to have removed all filters from his mind, to be completely free from all bias - everyone's bound to be looking through some kind of lens - perhaps the best you can have is the lens of the enlightened one. it's not, however, the lens that really defines what you see. what you see, is really defined by what you want to see. there isn't a measure of whose perception is superior to whose, but there is a measure of whose perception is more honest than whose. everyone has the ability to see, even a twisted picture has some kind of truth in it, because all the bits and pieces of this picture will tell you a lot - at the very least, it will tell you how biased it is. and really, everyone owns such a twisted picture, it's just that some people choose to see only a small part of it, can proclaim it the whole truth. it's like looking at one small piece of a jigsaw puzzle, compared to looking at the whole completed picture. even if the whole completed picture is some abstract art thingy that doesn't make much sense, the small piece will make even less sense. worse, it can be deceptively pretty, and simple.

i think i'm using too many analogies here.

what i'm trying to say is, people should at least step back and see the whole big picture. put the pieces together. stop hiding behind the glasses, and say our difference come from our glasses. maybe, if we all look at the big picture, we will see different things, but still come to the same conclusion. maybe.

oh well, just an idea. [from this, you can probably tell i wasn't really paying attention in my international security class....tralalala..ahem.]

***

* story of the cave: plato says, that human beings can be divided into various levels of enlightenment depending on how near they are to the truth - the truth being the highest form of knowledge. the analogy is basically a cave full of people, locked into position, facing the inside wall. there is a fire behind them, that caused shadows to be cast on the wall. behind the fire, is a path out of the cave, into the open, where one can see the sun, which is the ultimate source of energy for the fire, and the ultimate source of light. so in that sense, the sun represents the truth. most people are the cavemen who face the wall. what they perceive to be reality is actually non-reality. some people can break loose and move out of position. they can turn around, and they see that there's a fire that's casting all these perceptions and images onto the wall. however, it takes much more effort, to not only turn around, but go around to behind the fire, climb out of the cave, to face the sun. facing the sun, one first gets momentarily blinded by the rays, and of the few who got this far, the majority will become afraid and run back into the cave, swearing never to come this far again. only the very select few will remain, and finally be able to adjust to the light - to confront and know the truth. the story finally ends with the enlightened one or few who return to the cave, trying to enlighten all the other cavemen, only to get all beaten up by the rest of the cavemen. yeah, that's the story of the cave. [btw, i'm not really advocating it, i'm just explaining it to the best of my understanding of it. ok?]

s . l . s . b .
[ stuff . . . ] feeling: pensive food: caramel lollipop shaun bought for me CD: at work! no music allowed... show: barbershoppers reading: media and politics readings - i missed class on tuesday, better catch up. surfin': i really like erwine's design. looking forward: TBP semi-formal this weekend goodness: the electronic circuits midterm i thought i screwed up turned out to be quite okay after all. sensei watch: someone asked sensei today about the relation between nyu-in (to enter hospital) and byo-in (a hospital), and while he was trying to explain it, he wrote the wrong kanji for byo, and couldn't remember the right word. he turned red in the face - omigod, so damn cute! hahaha.
[ say . . . ] 200202, 1810hr, central time. of course i managed to finish my midterm paper. i just didn't do it in a very professional fashion - ie i didn't really proofread it when i finished. i just ran the spell check. haha. oops. i hear the professor is quite fussy about grammar and stuff. double oops. in our international security class today though, the prof did something very interesting. he was explaining the different ways realists and institutionalists view the world, and to demonstrate very literally what he meant, he took out an extra pair of glasses, and like switched his glasses around when he talked about the two different theories. i would usually categorize that as being kinda spastic actually. but the interesting thing is, the two pairs of glasses were exactly the same. don't ask me why he's got two identical pairs of glasses, but he does. and it just kinda sparked something in me. sometimes, i wonder what the world must seem like, to someone else. someone perhaps not as privileged as i am. maybe even someone with a very similar background - do we necessarily see the world in a similar way? the obvious answer is of course no. of course different people perceive the world in a different way. but my question is, why? if there is only one true form of the world, why do people see it differently? this reminds me of plato's argument about how some people have the capability to see the light, while others have to be contented with just seeing the shadows cast on the walls of the cave.[*read about the analogy] so when people do have different perceptions, are they just being different in terms of variation, or are some people closer to the truth than others? well, i don't know. on one hand, it seems so terribly wrong, to suggest that there's only one true form of the world, that there's only one truth, to be pursued by the knowledgeable. it seems so fallacious. but it's not like i can prove otherwise. on the other hand, to say that everyone's perception is equal, it also seems so frustrating, because i genuinely believe some people to be terribly wrong and myopic - like my pet peeve: people who are homophobic, and people who racist. or worse, people who are both racist and homophobic, which is not uncommon at all, come to think of it. so when the professor whipped out that pair of identical glasses, and proceeded to explain differences using identical glasses, an idea came to me. to begin with, i always believed there's no such thing as one true form of the world. i cannot prove it, but i feel that one's perception of the world will forever be twisted and molded by our own beliefs and values, and no one is nearer to the truth than others, simply because the world, as an abstract existence of both physical components and intangible components is constantly being molded by our very perception of it. it's like quantum physics. you cannot observe a wave of photons, because your very act of observation alters the result of your observation. does that make sense? besides, even if there is some kind of truth that some enlightened ones can see, i don't think there's anyone who can genuinely proclaim to have removed all filters from his mind, to be completely free from all bias - everyone's bound to be looking through some kind of lens - perhaps the best you can have is the lens of the enlightened one. it's not, however, the lens that really defines what you see. what you see, is really defined by what you want to see. there isn't a measure of whose perception is superior to whose, but there is a measure of whose perception is more honest than whose. everyone has the ability to see, even a twisted picture has some kind of truth in it, because all the bits and pieces of this picture will tell you a lot - at the very least, it will tell you how biased it is. and really, everyone owns such a twisted picture, it's just that some people choose to see only a small part of it, can proclaim it the whole truth. it's like looking at one small piece of a jigsaw puzzle, compared to looking at the whole completed picture. even if the whole completed picture is some abstract art thingy that doesn't make much sense, the small piece will make even less sense. worse, it can be deceptively pretty, and simple. i think i'm using too many analogies here. what i'm trying to say is, people should at least step back and see the whole big picture. put the pieces together. stop hiding behind the glasses, and say our difference come from our glasses. maybe, if we all look at the big picture, we will see different things, but still come to the same conclusion. maybe. oh well, just an idea. [from this, you can probably tell i wasn't really paying attention in my international security class....tralalala..ahem.] *** * story of the cave: plato says, that human beings can be divided into various levels of enlightenment depending on how near they are to the truth - the truth being the highest form of knowledge. the analogy is basically a cave full of people, locked into position, facing the inside wall. there is a fire behind them, that caused shadows to be cast on the wall. behind the fire, is a path out of the cave, into the open, where one can see the sun, which is the ultimate source of energy for the fire, and the ultimate source of light. so in that sense, the sun represents the truth. most people are the cavemen who face the wall. what they perceive to be reality is actually non-reality. some people can break loose and move out of position. they can turn around, and they see that there's a fire that's casting all these perceptions and images onto the wall. however, it takes much more effort, to not only turn around, but go around to behind the fire, climb out of the cave, to face the sun. facing the sun, one first gets momentarily blinded by the rays, and of the few who got this far, the majority will become afraid and run back into the cave, swearing never to come this far again. only the very select few will remain, and finally be able to adjust to the light - to confront and know the truth. the story finally ends with the enlightened one or few who return to the cave, trying to enlighten all the other cavemen, only to get all beaten up by the rest of the cavemen. yeah, that's the story of the cave. [btw, i'm not really advocating it, i'm just explaining it to the best of my understanding of it. ok?]
<	=	>
\| main \| me \| email \| gbook \| links \|