Though this is not something new, I must say that I am a person who incessantly contemplates - practically, profusely or even superfluously about anything, and so endlessly that I could have easily become overloaded with information engendered by my own rumination and scrutiny. So much that thoughts were no longer coherent, no longer germane to contexts I am in, no longer lapidary in its form and shape, no longer rationally justified when verisimilitude is at stake, where assaying feels apocryphal. Being immured in this vicious cycle of information pandemonium and yet being conscious of it makes it worse, for it posits the idea that either I lack the capacity to resolve it or this problem is pretty much intractable, if surmountable at all in principle. Nonetheless any assumption shall be held in abeyance, for again I shall analyze, like how it has always been, for I have never had anything that behaves like a sanctuary - one that provides sense of security privy to those who ponders - besides what I call rationality. And up to this second, I prize it more than anything else, subsuming emotion in the latter set.
I shall commence with the first thought that came to mind, noting the fact that this entry will be expected to be incoherent as mentioned in the prefactory paragraph.
Some time ago, a person told me to keep trying to apply to UK university after I told him I aspired to get into Oxford University's Physics and Philosophy. His reasoning was that it is always worth it to give a shot, and for some reason he is optimistic that I have a chance to actualize it. He mentioned about the interview, that creativity can be learnt, that personal statement is important. And some other things which summed up to one conclusion: just go and try it out.
Not that I do not want to do as he said; in fact, I have prepared much of the UCAS application form, not perfect but nearly complete. However, I have always seen optimism as something that is not logically justified. That is, optimism cannot be grounded at all. I do, however accept the less rigorous version of it, i.e. optimism is justified if there is reasonable amount of evidence for one to do so. Hence this problem is reduced to the problem of how much evidence I have to ground myself for that optimism, and from my analysis, I concluded that I do not have sufficient evidence to feel optimistic.
How so? Firstly, my academic qualification is probably not stellar enough for such top-notch university. Just like the Ivy League universities, their students' performances are pretty much able to eclipse my results quite easily despite me having only one B in my main subjects. It's exacerbated by the fact that I do not have anything useful that is non-academic in nature to support my case, such as leadership qualities. In hindsight, this is a mistake on my part for I was too engrossed with academic aspect and thought I could get away with it alone. The proclivity towards academics alone boomeranged as a result. Plus, I do not have strong enough reference and personal statements to back me up as most teachers do not know me well. Lastly, the lack of financial capacity on my part basically riven all my hopes, cutting asunder all my chances that would have otherwise been theoretically possible at the very least. With such overwhelming evidence against me, how could I hope for optimism, with the tides of despair coming towards me relentlessly? I will still try it out, but my analysis postulates that in pragmatic terms, I would not even dare to have the temerity to claim that I have a chance - even the slightest confidence will not do. This concludes my first thought, and this conclusion assumes that I have construed the person's meaning accurately if not unerringly.
Next, about the commencement of university. My classmates, at least, 15 of them out of 20 have begun their university life starting last Monday, in various places including Indonesia. 2 in Electrical Engineering, 5 in Mathematics, 2 in Business, 1 in Computer Science, 1 in Nursing, 1 in Literature, 1 in Engineering, 1 in Medicine, 1 in Social Work. 1 will be starting Law next year, 1 will be starting Physics two years later. While it has become some sort of inveterate habit minus off the negative connotation, I wished them all the best while concurrently felt that I could have gone with them if not for my circumstances which some people would understand without me mentioning here. Inasmuch as I try to work very hard in whatever I do now, I could not help but often think that I am still squandering 2 years of my life. I could not impugn the proposition that I could learn some things by ensuring that I make the full use of my time at the moment, yet the thought of these things being highly likely irrelevant to what I wish to attain is the major motivation to think that time is simply wasted. Indeed, the main issue here is that regardless of what I think pertaining this matter, I could never extricate myself from this situation; I am inexorably shackled into this circumstance whereby I could only evoke lamentation, whereby bewailing and bemoaning my past mistakes is all I can do at the moment.
If one thinks about it, lamentation or any manifestation of negativity is indeed irrational for it is never more productive than being positive in attitude. After all, negativity cripples more often and not, and it signifies the prelude to despair. Yet, no matter how level-headed one is, negativity is bound to sustain itself even in infinitesimal amount. Vestiges of regrets, anger, hatred, or simply negativity will always retain itself within the crevasses of one's heart no matter how far they dwindle. Furthermore, my analysis suggests that negativity is guaranteed to exist and bound to each individual. Though the argument is quite a cheap trick, I believe it is pretty much apodictic. Given that negativity is a diametric concept, i.e. that its existence entails the existence of positiveness and vice versa, the very meaning of positiveness such as optimism cannot be fathomed without having the concept of pessimism in mind - something that laymen call "two sides of the same coin". This is circular if and only if we use one to prove the other, for each is only justified when the other is. This circularity disappears when we take both to be one and the same thing - that both have to simultaneously exist, and must be understood concurrently. Though not ostensible to some, this is similar to the fact that the concept of difference can only be understood when concept of boundary is understood and vice versa. So it is actually logically justified to possess negativity. However, it is, almost certainly, not practically justified due to its nature of crippling people's productivity in their work and performance, which is psychological in nature. So the point is I do not see why I should lie to myself and say I am contented with my current life when I do not feel so, although I would still continue walking forward and do whatever I can to do what I must.
There is one issue that piqued my interest - namely about what is loosely called relationship in the sense of boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. Hereafter I shall denote such relationship BGR. My current fellow mates sometimes discuss about this matter, whether it is about their own experiences or simply for the sake of discussing it. And I expected them to ask why I did not participate in BGR, which they did inquire at some juncture. I do not find myself in a quandary when such issue was brought up, for I vividly know what my answer is. I shall state it explicitly for the sake of those who are interested though this is highly unlikely. My answer is that "I have no right to partake in such activity or relation, at least not yet", and this I have upheld for at least 6 to 8 years. Most people would find me lugubrious with such an answer, perhaps?
It is not my intention nor my discretion to make those who wish to know addled by my responses in any matter. After all, any form of writing is never meant to stonewall comprehension; at most, even for poets, they merely try to place their contents behind shrouds of mystery, clandestine as they are perceived superficially. This also means that they were supposed to be comprehended even if the propensity to misapprehend it far outweighs the possibility of understanding it correctly. Therefore, it is imperative for me to demonstrate my thought processes in such a way that its meaning can be made out though multitudinous interpretation is bound to occur.
When I claimed that I have no "right", I implied that I am not good enough in whatever respect one could think of in order to ensure that BGR is a successful event - the phrase successful event do sound disinterested or even clinical and misplaced, but I do this to maintain objectivity if there exists at all. The word "whatever" is used because of the subjectivity of the people involved. Suppose two girls A and B - given the nature of humanity, there are common grounds that A and B will have when they try to participate in BGR, e.g. they do not want me, in this example, to be abusive to them. This is pretty much a sensible demand. However, there can be no consensus about other properties or characteristics of mine that they will demand universally, for both A and B. A may require me to be good looking, B may require me to be rich, and extending this to the set of all possible girls/ladies, a set L containing all ladies cannot demand a universal property that applies to all gents especially positive traits. In other words, it is easier to pin down what all ladies do NOT want than to pin down what ALL ladies want to have, i.e. a universal positive characteristic. Subjectivity prevents such universal positive trait to be derived but permits universal negative trait to be specified. Hence, firstly I have established that I will not be completely able to decide why I have no right, though I can always speculate or surmise some properties inherent in me which the ladies in G will not wish to see, which in turn affects the success of the BGR itself. Lastly, the word "yet" implies that I assume the possibility that there exists at least a lady/girl who despite some negative traits will still partake in the BGR, and such possibility is guaranteed for one cannot posit the physical existence of a perfect being, and thus no one can have zero negative trait especially when the concept of positive and negative is one that is not absolute or indubitable - a stance that even moral philosophy cannot establish rigorously yet.
I must concede that my scrutiny is nowhere close to stalwart. Still, hopefully the analysis itself sufficiently limn my thought processes in pellucid enough way for no one to be flummoxed though my convoluted style of writing and my language proficiency could in principle hamper even the most basic interpretation of it. After all, I could not help but think that in some way this entry is tainted in verbiage, verbose in nature and yet I find myself unable to convey better in other way.
Recently I kept thinking and behaving in such a way as if I have a set of rules and principles hardwired in my mind which I cannot and shall not defy. For example, I have been moving on based on simply two objects - responsibility and integrity. I do things that I must, and I do not say no when it is a yes. These may not seem unnatural, or rather, these seem to be basic values that everyone knows. However, I am inclined to opine that the society do not behave exactly as these basic rules dictate, which is basically an empirical evidence of Kant's Categorical Imperative not working in practice. Most people will reason out that such absolute, sacrosanct obedience to moral rules or principles is way too strict to make practical sense; a weaker version of moral absolutes or a "less absolute moral absolutes", evidently an oxymoron as it sounds, is always at work. It professes to be able to resolve more satisfactorily moral dilemmas, and this advantage is precisely the pretext of a less strict moral rules, and now such rules have been so embedded in people's lives that strictly speaking no one would be able to completely live their lives without at least once committing infraction to one's own rules and principles.
The verity of my analysis in this matter is also not logically certain - for like all philosophers as far as I know, I could not find a logic behind moral rules and mechanism that is at work in society, and in turn no satisfactory moral theory can explain why society behaves in this manner. In my case, I see responsibility and integrity as two main drive in my behaviour and yet I do see people not conforming to these basic laws of societal behaviour. I can certainly conceive of one thing which may be the cause - namely self-interest, such as more rest and relaxation. Basically it is pretty much similar to the concept of hedonistic decadence - that moral rules are eroded by self interest especially material in nature. I will not be so bold as to claim that the morality of people around me has plummeted into oblivion, for it would have been equivalent to see only one side of a coin. However, it is certain that the very same force that drives the Invisible Hand of the market conceptualized by Adam Smith is one which erodes, at arbitrary pace, the morality that people are supposed to uphold in accordance to Categorical Imperative, one of the rational justification of morality.
The only thing I can do pertaining this matter is to list out the problem, which is the previous paragraph, for I believe that self-interest in unquenchable and thus the extent to which it overrides moral values and principles depends on how far a person can suppress his self-interest. If this is the case, will I be able to maintain my own rules and principles despite all odds to go otherwise? After all, to be selfish is still human, if you ask me. For now, I will only regret all mistakes I made, since for most of them there are corresponding infringement of my principles. I am inclined to believe that I am unable to live up to my own principles all the time, but if by doing so I can attain what I wish, I will strive for it even if it means my life will seem mechanical.
Up to this point, I have already been able to see that even the last analysis of self-interest seems anfractuous in style, despite my effort to ensure that my reasoning is as algorithmic as it can be. I must capitulate that perhaps I did not put as much effort as I claimed, thus this vague writing.
While I still have manifold thoughts and ideas that could in principle be written, even if some are merely platitudes of my mind, I shall at least end for now with the last analysis for the day, namely the examination of "juxtaposition of dreams and pragmatism". One would realize without delay that it is the same as the name of this blog, and it is logical to assume that this analysis is meant to scrutinize the very meaning and reason behind this blog's digital existence. I must say that this assumption is justified and indeed that is what I intend to do. this is especially so since the juxtaposition between dreams and pragmatism is on the outset a recondite notion - on one hand it represents a parallel comparison between two objects which more often than not clash bitterly than agglomerate sweetly, while on the other hand it signifies my very own dialectical way of dealing or even reconciling with the pragmatic side of the world and the idealistic facet of my rational thoughts. Indeed, now that I think about it, I have not reassessed since antiquity this notion and given that I have undergone many changes in both way of thinking, or even principles and circumstances, it would not be surprising to find my original ideas in need of revision. The redacted reason will be the end product of this last analysis.
Why should one even juxtapose dreams and pragmatism? For one simple reason - people dream and yet people live in real world, and by "dream" I mean aspiration, conceiving something yet attained for one to try to obtain. And this is especially germane for those who lives for their dreams. After all, some phantasms in one's dreams can be practically achieved or obtained, and this is common sense. No matter how much I am under illusion that I was a millionaire, it is still a practically tenable illusion, while of course some others are not practically possible e.g. squaring a circle. However, tenability or practical possibility is not adequate for most people, for what is important is to actualize all possible dreams. Humanity wants to achieve what they dream of, and if they have infinite amount of dreams, they will have to sacrifice some while actualize others from the entire set containing all dreams. And given the obvious handicap of a sentient being which is that of limited lifetime, one is bound to give up some dreams, or rather, to selectively realize some dreams.
I am of an idealistic disposition, though I do pay close attention to any force that are at work in real life which is short of ideal or perfect. Giving up some dreams does not imply aberration from idealistic behaviour. However, what is at stake is how people reconcile dreams and real life, which is often the very motivation for living and subsistence. It takes aptitude to achieve something of highest calibre. It takes tenacity, perseverance and commitment to achieve something difficult and time-consuming. It takes creativity to achieve something original. It takes what one calls talent to achieve something with less effort than the norm could dictate. It takes knowledge to achieve something new. It takes intrepidity to achieve something pristine and untouched. It takes astringency or in-depth analysis to achieve something rigorous. Whether one concurs with these depictions, I know not. The gist, at the very least, is there.
What is the significance of the above depiction? It simply means it takes A to achieve something of characteristic B, and this is sufficiently universal a guideline. When one dreams, one is attempting to grasp or even create an object O of property B. When one actualizes it, one is said to possess A. When one fails to achieve his dream/aspiration, it must mean that he is not in possession of A provided he knows O with property B. When a person lives whimsically without aim, it suggests that he does not know O, and subsequently he cannot have B as the challenge he must face. Consequently such a person will be likely to lead mediocre life for the lack of knowledge on B means he does not know what the nature of the things he tries to achieve is, thus do not know how to deal with it when things get tough. And lastly, a person C is called "Complacent" if he knows O, but he thinks he is in possession of A, misconstrued B or both.
The Complacent person, C, is of the highest significance because the other two types are easier to rectify. A whimsical person simply has to consider carefully and prudently his goals and dreams, and if he has what it takes, he will be able to fulfill what I shall denote as the AOB equation, that it takes A to achieve O of characteristic B. A person who failed to achieve his dreams simply has to reassess whether he actually has A, or whether O is too far-fetched, or both at the point of time he failed to achieve it and correct the relevant problems by adjusting A or O. However, for C, this is tough. He knows O, the objective he tries to attain. However, he thinks he has A when he does not, and obliviously proceeds to pursue O only to have failure face him in the end. Or alternatively, he misconstrued B as within his calibre or grasp, and subsequently proceeds to pursue O, also to have failure to meet him because his aptitude and characters would then be irrelevant to O, which actually has characteristic B' instead of B. It takes A' to achieve B' and C only has A to achieve it. The mismatch causes his demise.
For example, C wants to obtain perfect score in his examination. According to his results in the past, people regarded him as some genius because of his stellar performance, or better still, a performance cannot be bettered by anyone. The school practice papers are claimed to be harder than the actual examination to allow students to accustomize themselves with the standard of the papers.
Let B be the standard of examination paper, B' be standard of school papers. In this case, B < B'.
Also, O in this case is the examination itself. As such, A would be the proficiency level of the student C.
The AOB equation is:
It takes proficiency level A to achieve(or more aptly, conquer) examination of standard B, because student C manages to conquer examination of standard B'.
However, how about if B is not lesser than B', e.g. actually B > B'? Then there is no guarantee that C can conquer the examination, or in fact, he could have failed instead. Or alternatively, what if he thinks he is good enough with his subjects, e.g. English, that he thinks he will be able to achieve good results, and conquered school papers quite well in this subject as well, but in actuality he is not? This will mean that his proficiency level is actually A', where A' < A. And similarly, A' will not be enough to conquer an examination of standard B. Either way,he will be complacent in the literal sense and as a result, failure is to be expected and no one but C himself is to be blamed.
Yes, some will realize that the very person C that I am talking about is myself. And it happened as I depicted above, almost exactly. The significance of the depiction to my own self is that regrets and mistakes cannot be overridden, they can only be forgotten. Their effects will snowball in whatever they do when you cannot deal with it promptly. And I am here writing this entry with the scars of the past still deeply engraved in my mind, never to be extricated.
So much for the last analysis, I think it is necessary for me to include an equivalent of a peroration to this entry. No matter how much I think, there are things that will not change. I could feel bitter for it, and it will stay as stagnant as one could imagine. I feel more and more powerless in the face of the forces that act on me, be it circumstances or other people. I will, nonetheless be honest to myself. I will be doleful when I am not happy, and not delude myself in optimism and lies. I will be sang-froid even if things get uncontrollably challenging, if that is the only way to obtain what I want. I will not be hesitant to evince a strong feeling of hatred if the need comes. I will be inscrutable if severing bonds is what I require. I will masquerade if that will get the job done and help me attain my wish. My integrity will be upheld, but above all, my wish must be granted. That is my responsibility.
Dreams and pragmatism negate yet intermingle. However, for the sake of my minute, insignificant wish, if need be, I will decimate this logic with my own hands. I will obtain what I want, no matter what.