Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Legally speaking
Self-proclamation, be it directly or indirectly expressed, or implied, either through verbal expression or non-verbal implications such as gestures, eye signals, or any body language suggesting such implications, is or should at times, which, depending on the context of the circumstances involved, be construed as a basic human tendency to explain and justify oneself and by human, it is intentional to mean any reasonable creature in rerum naturae, in the light of ignorance about both the objective as well as the socially-constructive reality of the matter, the knowledge of such reality in the self-proclaimed being irrelevant, is sometimes seen, depending on the circumstances by which the self-proclamation took place, as a contravention of rare and unconventional psychological readiness to resist such a temptation.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Land Law
Today is my first class of Part One of LLB. We learn Land Law today. The subject is very hard! And very working world-like. It is filled with words like "fee simple", "fee tail", "adverse possession", "testamentary" "mortgage" (which I heard before but don't really know what it is), "reversion", etc. And then half way through the class, it all suddenly sounded like a Trust class with so many "trustees". It is extremely hard to follow the concepts because to know what is going on, one have to know what the previous concept is first. So all my blurness in this matter started to kick in and I was blur for almost the whole class. Somemore tomorrow would be tougher it seems. Don't know how...although was very excited to start class today!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
False solution?
The statement "this statement is false" is a paradox because it would be false to say that the statement is true despite the subject in which the statement is referring to is true, while it is equally true to say that the statement is false because it falsely describe the truth of the subject matter. Therefore unless a statement can co-exist in both falsehood and being true, this statement would be an invalidity.
It appears that the statement exists in two different dimensions if it were to be logically non-fallacious. First, the statement "this statement is false" interpreted unto itself with its own universe of logic. Second, the statement "this statement is false" as a holistically detached form of arbitrary with no significance in meaning. Then again, the second requirement does not seem to fit in with the contradiction of the matter at stake, thereby creating an inability for a categorical assessment of statement to pose a paradoxical problem. If it were to have a meaning on its own, then it would have intertwine with the first dimension, leaving the paradox unresolved.
What about this interpretation: The main statement is true to say that the statement being referred to in the main statement is false because the subject matter being referred to is true. But it would be false to say that the statement being referred to in the main statement is true if the subject matter being referred to is true. Hence, it is false to say that the main statement is true when it says that the statement being referred to in the main statement is true if the subject matter referred to in the statement referring to the main statement is true.
Is the problem solved in my context, or have I fallen into its fallacy yet again...
It appears that the statement exists in two different dimensions if it were to be logically non-fallacious. First, the statement "this statement is false" interpreted unto itself with its own universe of logic. Second, the statement "this statement is false" as a holistically detached form of arbitrary with no significance in meaning. Then again, the second requirement does not seem to fit in with the contradiction of the matter at stake, thereby creating an inability for a categorical assessment of statement to pose a paradoxical problem. If it were to have a meaning on its own, then it would have intertwine with the first dimension, leaving the paradox unresolved.
What about this interpretation: The main statement is true to say that the statement being referred to in the main statement is false because the subject matter being referred to is true. But it would be false to say that the statement being referred to in the main statement is true if the subject matter being referred to is true. Hence, it is false to say that the main statement is true when it says that the statement being referred to in the main statement is true if the subject matter referred to in the statement referring to the main statement is true.
Is the problem solved in my context, or have I fallen into its fallacy yet again...
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Do you think we should live by the past, in the now, or for the future?
'The Interpretation of Murder' talks of such a consideration in its very first page. To me, there is no one right answer to this question, nor do I humbly think that one can live all three planes of the fabric of time. At some level or another, we are all inclined towards a certain lifestyle that both characterised us as a person as well as reflecting our past experiences.
'We should look ahead and think far'. This propaganda is often advocated by those who tend to live for the future. In a sociological way, it would not be entirely accurate to consider them as 'delayed gratificators'. Proponents of this way of thinking tend to believe in the corporeal, material world- and what can be possibly, physically achieved. Therefore from this point of view, it would not be worth living by the past since it would lack the 'directness' in corelation of past events directly affecting future ones. Neither do they seem to think that living in the now would bring any reward, since life would appear to be stagnant in one moment of time. People thinking this way tend to lead a 'preparatory' life that some would feel that they are missing out the 'moments' of life, only reaping what they sow that they missed the process of 'sowing'.
They are the ones who live in the now. Usually, these are the ones who appreciate what they have- not what they would have. Sometimes, I would think that this seems to be the 'right' way to live by most standards. This is because we do not know what lies in the future whilst the past more often than not cannot be changed. Therefore, we should be grateful for what we have before things change, because the truth is, things always change.
Those who live by the past tend to invoke past events as soundbites and as a way to further improve conditions than things previously were. But sometimes, people get stuck with the past, so much so that they cannot move on in life to traverse what lies ahead in the future, nor in the now for that matter. A complete opposite with those who live for the future, those who live by the past often believe that the past does matter despite it being 'happened already' and the whole saying of 'there is no point crying over spilt milk'. People make ammends based on past history and that's how we ironically do not get stuck in the same cycle of events equivalent to a person who lives on lost memory.
I think that at the end of the day, all three timelines play an important role individually in shaping who we are as a person today and who we will be in the future. But if I were to choose one timeline I would consider for myself, right now I would say that the best way is to live in the now. I strongly believe that we should all appreciate what we have now- the people around us, our possessions, and experiences we had thus far acquired. Because at the end of the day, nothing seems so certain to be worth 'preparing' for, while there is nothing so 'thoughtful' to be worth looking back at, unable to progress through life, hence missing the whole point of life. Therefore, we should be grateful for what we have, inspired by what has been, and hope for the best in the future, rather than becoming an extremist in either timeframes.
'The Interpretation of Murder' tells us that the past creates meaning in life while the future leaves us with the existence of hope. But in my opinion, neither matters so much as the things we currently have in the now and we should therefore appreciate them.
'The Interpretation of Murder' talks of such a consideration in its very first page. To me, there is no one right answer to this question, nor do I humbly think that one can live all three planes of the fabric of time. At some level or another, we are all inclined towards a certain lifestyle that both characterised us as a person as well as reflecting our past experiences.
'We should look ahead and think far'. This propaganda is often advocated by those who tend to live for the future. In a sociological way, it would not be entirely accurate to consider them as 'delayed gratificators'. Proponents of this way of thinking tend to believe in the corporeal, material world- and what can be possibly, physically achieved. Therefore from this point of view, it would not be worth living by the past since it would lack the 'directness' in corelation of past events directly affecting future ones. Neither do they seem to think that living in the now would bring any reward, since life would appear to be stagnant in one moment of time. People thinking this way tend to lead a 'preparatory' life that some would feel that they are missing out the 'moments' of life, only reaping what they sow that they missed the process of 'sowing'.
They are the ones who live in the now. Usually, these are the ones who appreciate what they have- not what they would have. Sometimes, I would think that this seems to be the 'right' way to live by most standards. This is because we do not know what lies in the future whilst the past more often than not cannot be changed. Therefore, we should be grateful for what we have before things change, because the truth is, things always change.
Those who live by the past tend to invoke past events as soundbites and as a way to further improve conditions than things previously were. But sometimes, people get stuck with the past, so much so that they cannot move on in life to traverse what lies ahead in the future, nor in the now for that matter. A complete opposite with those who live for the future, those who live by the past often believe that the past does matter despite it being 'happened already' and the whole saying of 'there is no point crying over spilt milk'. People make ammends based on past history and that's how we ironically do not get stuck in the same cycle of events equivalent to a person who lives on lost memory.
I think that at the end of the day, all three timelines play an important role individually in shaping who we are as a person today and who we will be in the future. But if I were to choose one timeline I would consider for myself, right now I would say that the best way is to live in the now. I strongly believe that we should all appreciate what we have now- the people around us, our possessions, and experiences we had thus far acquired. Because at the end of the day, nothing seems so certain to be worth 'preparing' for, while there is nothing so 'thoughtful' to be worth looking back at, unable to progress through life, hence missing the whole point of life. Therefore, we should be grateful for what we have, inspired by what has been, and hope for the best in the future, rather than becoming an extremist in either timeframes.
'The Interpretation of Murder' tells us that the past creates meaning in life while the future leaves us with the existence of hope. But in my opinion, neither matters so much as the things we currently have in the now and we should therefore appreciate them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
