Morality, power, persuasion
People want things, and they take action to obtain them. However, in the process of obtaining this item, a person may gain or loss something else. For example, in obtaining a shop item, a person may steal or buy it. However, he may lose something else should he steal it.
In the process of obtaining an item, another person may stand to gain or lose. When another person stands to lose, he would guard against this loss. Similarly, when another person stands to gain, he would attempt to obtain this potential gain. Therefore, in the process of a person attempting to obtain something, other people may stand to gain or lose. This may help or hinder this process.
When a person can obtain something easily, there is a high tendency of him acquiring it. The harder it is to obtain something, the lower the tendency of him acquiring it. The difficulty factor is determined by the person's ability to use his environment to achieve his desired ends, and also the interaction between the ends and environment.
Consider a particle at point A. When there is lower potential on point B than point A, there would be a force acting on the particle to move from A to B. However, when there is a high potential region between A and B, the particle would not move from A to B.
Now suppose the particle has slightly more kinetic energy than the change in potential energy from point A to the potential spike, the particle would then move from point A to point B. Let us raise the potential spike higher now. The particle would oscillate between states of higher kinetic energy and states of higher potential energy, but it cannot reach point B.
We open the particle to another pathway: one which has a lower potential spike, but after crossing the spike, it reaches point C, which has higher potential than point B, but lower potential than A. In this case, the particle would not move to B. It would, instead, oscillate between point A and C, even though the energy change in moving from A to B is greater.
A person wants many things. When someone else offers him something he wants, he is likely to accept the offer. In accepting the offer, he may benefit himself and the person who initiated the offer. In this case, both people can acquire what they want more easily than if they go for it alone. Thus, there is a high tendency for both of them to obtain what they want.
However, when someone else offers him something he does not want, he is unlikely to accept the offer. That someone else would need to force him to take the offer, and this is generally more difficult to achieve than a case of mutual agreement. Thus, there is a low tendency for this transaction to occur.
If a person has the ability take something by force and hold on to it, he would attain it if that is only what he wants. However, a person wants many things. Taking something by force may make it more difficult for him to attain something else in the future. Thus, by taking advantage of the environment, he can make attaining that object easier, which would lead to a higher tendency of him acquiring it. (Think enzymes)
However, in order to take advantage of the environment, one would need to learn how to interact with the environment in such a way that what he wants can be acquired. One can learn many things about the environment by assuming that what applies in the past applies in the future as well. If this assumption is a reasonable one, by studying the environment, one can learn to interact with the environment in such a way that he maximises his gains.
An important part of the environment is the social environment. An interesting thing about social environment is that while interactions with inanimate parts of nature is mostly a means to another end, social interaction is occasionally an end in itself. Playing around with the social environment can be quite tricky as there can be side effects.
If one can utilise the environment well to help him achieve his ends, there is a high tendency for him to succeed in attaining what he wants. By understanding what other people want, he can persuade them to work for him. Persuasion is a way to interact with the social environment to achieve one's goals. By understanding other people's morals and principles, it would more likely be successful.
If all else fails, sheer power works too.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Lately I read some other people's blogs, and it seems that there are many things bothering them. I realise how lucky I am to be free of so many troubles! Stress-free life ftw!
As mentioned before, many song lyrics are excellent poems to describe feelings, and here goes.
Simple Gifts:
'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.
When true simplicity is gain'd,
To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd,
To turn, turn will be our delight,
Till by turning, turning we come round right.
As mentioned before, many song lyrics are excellent poems to describe feelings, and here goes.
Simple Gifts:
'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.
When true simplicity is gain'd,
To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd,
To turn, turn will be our delight,
Till by turning, turning we come round right.
Friday, August 18, 2006
omg chem fun.
On wednesday, there was a demonstration showing the reaction between KMnO4 and glycerine. They react only with each other, and very strongly exothermic, without even a need for any additional heating or oxygen. Basically, you see a bright lilac flame with lots of smoke (though not quite as much as KNO3/sugar reaction), and the more reactants you have, the more smoke and flame you have.
The best part is, they left a huge bottle of KMnO4 and glycine out in the charge of people crazier than me. Of course, knowing that they were crazy, those crazy people were occasionally watched by a teacher. But when the teacher was looking away, the fun began. One of the crazy people just finished drinking a bottle of coke, and I suggested mixing the stuff in the bottle. And so we did. Oh, the smoke! Oh, the fumes! It was pretty spectacular.
Then I suggested reacting the stuff in the bottle with the cap on. However, you can't react this stuff in the school, because we knew full well it would explode, and we have not known how loud it would be. Considering that the school didn't even allow smoke bombs (which aren't even bombs at all), what more something that explodes and spews smoke and fire? So we took some KMnO4 and a bottle containing some glycerine out of RJ and found a nice spot to deploy it: a butress root.
Now what's so good about a butress root, you say? Well, only rather large trees have butress roots, and between butress roots are huge cavities which point directly outwards. This means that you can plant the bottle in the cavity and stand behind the tree; you'll be safe. If the tree collapses, nothing you could have done would make this experiment safe enough to not kill you, so it is not much of a concern anyway.
And so here we have a pile of KMnO4 and a bottle of glycerine and a bottle cap. Problem: How do you put the KMnO4 into the bottle and cap up the bottle tightly without it exploding in your face? So one crazy guy thought of stuffing the KMnO4 into the bottle cap and capping up the bottle with at bottle cap. Not a bad idea, but we didn't realise that the bottle cap had a speck of glycerine in it. Oh the fun! Oh the joy! The bottle cap was reduced (or rather, oxidized) to nothingness in no time.
Now we have a bottle with glycerine and no bottle cap and no KMnO4. The question still remains, how do you cap up the bottle without it blowing up in your face?
A certain guy had a brilliant idea. He took an empty tissue packet (made of plastic) and he koped KMnO4 with it and with a bunch of crazy people (like me), he ran out of the school. to the butress root. Then, we stuffed the entire plastic packet into the bottle. Now, recall that plastic is waterproof, so the KMnO4 sat comfortably in the plastic packet, and the glycerine out of it. Perfect. We had ample time to screw on the bottle cap. After screwing on the bottle cap, all that remained was shaking the bottle.
And so we shook it, and dropped it on the ground. No response. Weird. So we kicked it. White fumes emerged in the bottle. In a split second, the bottle exploded with the loudness of a balloon (quite disappointing) and flew across the road with a trail of smoke. It almost hit a passing car, but the car couldn't avoid being caught in the smoke trail. Nothing much happened to it. The exploded bottle hit the middle of the road and stopped, with a flame that lasted uncannily long. A plastic bottle shouldn't burn for 5 minutes. Later, upon investigation, we found out that it was the glycerine that was burning.
Chemicals can be fun.
On wednesday, there was a demonstration showing the reaction between KMnO4 and glycerine. They react only with each other, and very strongly exothermic, without even a need for any additional heating or oxygen. Basically, you see a bright lilac flame with lots of smoke (though not quite as much as KNO3/sugar reaction), and the more reactants you have, the more smoke and flame you have.
The best part is, they left a huge bottle of KMnO4 and glycine out in the charge of people crazier than me. Of course, knowing that they were crazy, those crazy people were occasionally watched by a teacher. But when the teacher was looking away, the fun began. One of the crazy people just finished drinking a bottle of coke, and I suggested mixing the stuff in the bottle. And so we did. Oh, the smoke! Oh, the fumes! It was pretty spectacular.
Then I suggested reacting the stuff in the bottle with the cap on. However, you can't react this stuff in the school, because we knew full well it would explode, and we have not known how loud it would be. Considering that the school didn't even allow smoke bombs (which aren't even bombs at all), what more something that explodes and spews smoke and fire? So we took some KMnO4 and a bottle containing some glycerine out of RJ and found a nice spot to deploy it: a butress root.
Now what's so good about a butress root, you say? Well, only rather large trees have butress roots, and between butress roots are huge cavities which point directly outwards. This means that you can plant the bottle in the cavity and stand behind the tree; you'll be safe. If the tree collapses, nothing you could have done would make this experiment safe enough to not kill you, so it is not much of a concern anyway.
And so here we have a pile of KMnO4 and a bottle of glycerine and a bottle cap. Problem: How do you put the KMnO4 into the bottle and cap up the bottle tightly without it exploding in your face? So one crazy guy thought of stuffing the KMnO4 into the bottle cap and capping up the bottle with at bottle cap. Not a bad idea, but we didn't realise that the bottle cap had a speck of glycerine in it. Oh the fun! Oh the joy! The bottle cap was reduced (or rather, oxidized) to nothingness in no time.
Now we have a bottle with glycerine and no bottle cap and no KMnO4. The question still remains, how do you cap up the bottle without it blowing up in your face?
A certain guy had a brilliant idea. He took an empty tissue packet (made of plastic) and he koped KMnO4 with it and with a bunch of crazy people (like me), he ran out of the school. to the butress root. Then, we stuffed the entire plastic packet into the bottle. Now, recall that plastic is waterproof, so the KMnO4 sat comfortably in the plastic packet, and the glycerine out of it. Perfect. We had ample time to screw on the bottle cap. After screwing on the bottle cap, all that remained was shaking the bottle.
And so we shook it, and dropped it on the ground. No response. Weird. So we kicked it. White fumes emerged in the bottle. In a split second, the bottle exploded with the loudness of a balloon (quite disappointing) and flew across the road with a trail of smoke. It almost hit a passing car, but the car couldn't avoid being caught in the smoke trail. Nothing much happened to it. The exploded bottle hit the middle of the road and stopped, with a flame that lasted uncannily long. A plastic bottle shouldn't burn for 5 minutes. Later, upon investigation, we found out that it was the glycerine that was burning.
Chemicals can be fun.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
What does "knowledge is power" mean from a commonsensical point of view?
A more drastic proverb would be "a pen is mightier than the sword". However, I don't think that knowledge alone confers power to someone. Just consider a leading theoretical physicist lost in the jungle. It can be easily seen that the knowledge must, first, be relevent to the person's situation.
Now let's test: "Relevent knowledge is power." True? So suppose there is a war between two nations, and a strategist knows just the right strategy to deal with either country. However, neither country is willing to employ him. Is his relevent knowledge powerful? I doubt so.
Now let's retreat further and test:"Relevent knowledge confers power when used." I think this starts to make more sense. I'm not sure if this is acceptable, but when one say something is knowledge, it must somewhat hold true for an extended period of time. Thus, when one has knowledge, one would be able predict future events in the relevent field given enough relevent information, and when he has the power to change the input, he can manipulate the input to achieve the desired output. However, if he has no power to change the input, even with extensive knowledge, he cannot change the output.
Thus, I propose that "Relevent knowledge confers additional power when one's available power allows him to use that knowledge."
A more drastic proverb would be "a pen is mightier than the sword". However, I don't think that knowledge alone confers power to someone. Just consider a leading theoretical physicist lost in the jungle. It can be easily seen that the knowledge must, first, be relevent to the person's situation.
Now let's test: "Relevent knowledge is power." True? So suppose there is a war between two nations, and a strategist knows just the right strategy to deal with either country. However, neither country is willing to employ him. Is his relevent knowledge powerful? I doubt so.
Now let's retreat further and test:"Relevent knowledge confers power when used." I think this starts to make more sense. I'm not sure if this is acceptable, but when one say something is knowledge, it must somewhat hold true for an extended period of time. Thus, when one has knowledge, one would be able predict future events in the relevent field given enough relevent information, and when he has the power to change the input, he can manipulate the input to achieve the desired output. However, if he has no power to change the input, even with extensive knowledge, he cannot change the output.
Thus, I propose that "Relevent knowledge confers additional power when one's available power allows him to use that knowledge."
Friday, August 11, 2006
Morality has existed before people even came up with a word for it. People have an idea of what is right and what is wrong before there were any theories proposed on it.
An analogy would be that people have already been walking on the surface of the earth long before Newton conceived of gravity. Newton described this phenomenon. However, if it ended at accounting for why things fall, it would be useless; a theory that all objects tend to fall would work just as well, and being simpler than Newton's theory and predicting the same phenomena, Newton's theory ought to be removed by Occam's razor. However, Newton's theory included the three laws of motion, which explains and predicts almost all phenomena very well; far better than that can be explained by Aristotle's theory that objects tend to stay at rest. Thus, Newton's laws are endorsed by experiments and observations, and the "gravity" became a concept we all have become familiar with.
Let me ask a question: Can we live without gravity? This question can be interpreted in two ways. One, can we live if we are not acted upon by a force that would cause an acceleration towards the centre of the earth were there no normal contact? Two, can we live without the concept of gravity? Once this distinction is made clear, answering this question is trivial.
What are the implications of describing this... phenonomena that allows us to walk on earth? So what if we don't have this theory, we're not going to fall off the earth right?
Think of any physics question in your tutorial now. Notice that you have to use the concept of a force. A net force leads to a change in momentum of an object. Tension, spring force, air resistance etc are all forces. Without treating gravity as the force, it becomes harder to predict phenomena. Newton's laws provide an excellent estimate of trajectory. By altering the initial conditions, one can change the trajectory as desired. By obtaining an accurate description of nature, we can manipulate the trajectory of a cannonball to, say, hit a desired target. This is just like many other successful theories that manage to describe nature: explain, predict, manipulate.
Now let us go back to morality. What are the implications of arriving at a successful theory of morality?
A successful theory on nature describes nature. A successful theory of morality describes morality. Is morality objective like gravity? It would be difficult for me to prove that morality is not objective. I think I shall just assume that morality is subjective... the thing is while a subjective theory may not be falsifiable, it is more general than an objective theory. A subjective theory accounts for more phenomena than an objective theory, and in the case where neither theories are accurate, I'll take the more general one, which is the subjective view of morality.
So what is morality relative to? I'll suppose that morality is relative to "consciousness". Thus, a successful theory of morality would describe what a unit of "consciousness" would consider to be moral or amoral. It would then enable us to explain, predict and manipulate what a particular conscious being would consider to be moral or amoral.
If you caught the essense of the last statement, you would realise that this theory would have great implications, and is liable to use and abuse. This would enable the world to manipulate human consciousness to regard morality in such a way that the benefits to the society are maximised, and an objective moral standard can be reached. If everyone regards slavery as amoral, there would be no slaves. If all merchants regard moneymaking(as opposed to personal enjoyment) as their ultimate cause, merchants would be more efficient. If the scholars and scientists regard attainment of knowledge as their purpose, they would have greater fervour. If soldiers regard upholding the defense of their country as their duty, they would fight with their lives. This would lead to an even higher degree of specialisation of jobs. What's more, not only do people enjoy what they do, they would feel obligated to do it, and guilty if they do not. Each unit of consciousness would dedicate more time and energy to, presumably, what they are good at. The clockwork efficiency of an ant colony can possibly be attained.
This would also enable the manipulation of human consciousness to regard obedience and allegience to the state as the ultimate virtue. People are willing to fight to death for their leaders, and also be willingly lord over by their leaders. Personally I wouldn't consider this a bad thing... but in case the reader does, let us be reminded that in the eyes of the citizens, YOU are immoral.
I think this is quite cool.
An analogy would be that people have already been walking on the surface of the earth long before Newton conceived of gravity. Newton described this phenomenon. However, if it ended at accounting for why things fall, it would be useless; a theory that all objects tend to fall would work just as well, and being simpler than Newton's theory and predicting the same phenomena, Newton's theory ought to be removed by Occam's razor. However, Newton's theory included the three laws of motion, which explains and predicts almost all phenomena very well; far better than that can be explained by Aristotle's theory that objects tend to stay at rest. Thus, Newton's laws are endorsed by experiments and observations, and the "gravity" became a concept we all have become familiar with.
Let me ask a question: Can we live without gravity? This question can be interpreted in two ways. One, can we live if we are not acted upon by a force that would cause an acceleration towards the centre of the earth were there no normal contact? Two, can we live without the concept of gravity? Once this distinction is made clear, answering this question is trivial.
What are the implications of describing this... phenonomena that allows us to walk on earth? So what if we don't have this theory, we're not going to fall off the earth right?
Think of any physics question in your tutorial now. Notice that you have to use the concept of a force. A net force leads to a change in momentum of an object. Tension, spring force, air resistance etc are all forces. Without treating gravity as the force, it becomes harder to predict phenomena. Newton's laws provide an excellent estimate of trajectory. By altering the initial conditions, one can change the trajectory as desired. By obtaining an accurate description of nature, we can manipulate the trajectory of a cannonball to, say, hit a desired target. This is just like many other successful theories that manage to describe nature: explain, predict, manipulate.
Now let us go back to morality. What are the implications of arriving at a successful theory of morality?
A successful theory on nature describes nature. A successful theory of morality describes morality. Is morality objective like gravity? It would be difficult for me to prove that morality is not objective. I think I shall just assume that morality is subjective... the thing is while a subjective theory may not be falsifiable, it is more general than an objective theory. A subjective theory accounts for more phenomena than an objective theory, and in the case where neither theories are accurate, I'll take the more general one, which is the subjective view of morality.
So what is morality relative to? I'll suppose that morality is relative to "consciousness". Thus, a successful theory of morality would describe what a unit of "consciousness" would consider to be moral or amoral. It would then enable us to explain, predict and manipulate what a particular conscious being would consider to be moral or amoral.
If you caught the essense of the last statement, you would realise that this theory would have great implications, and is liable to use and abuse. This would enable the world to manipulate human consciousness to regard morality in such a way that the benefits to the society are maximised, and an objective moral standard can be reached. If everyone regards slavery as amoral, there would be no slaves. If all merchants regard moneymaking(as opposed to personal enjoyment) as their ultimate cause, merchants would be more efficient. If the scholars and scientists regard attainment of knowledge as their purpose, they would have greater fervour. If soldiers regard upholding the defense of their country as their duty, they would fight with their lives. This would lead to an even higher degree of specialisation of jobs. What's more, not only do people enjoy what they do, they would feel obligated to do it, and guilty if they do not. Each unit of consciousness would dedicate more time and energy to, presumably, what they are good at. The clockwork efficiency of an ant colony can possibly be attained.
This would also enable the manipulation of human consciousness to regard obedience and allegience to the state as the ultimate virtue. People are willing to fight to death for their leaders, and also be willingly lord over by their leaders. Personally I wouldn't consider this a bad thing... but in case the reader does, let us be reminded that in the eyes of the citizens, YOU are immoral.
I think this is quite cool.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
An electron found itself in distress. It was attracted to the proton, but it could never get close enough to it, thus there was always some amount of trapped energy. It thought, "I wish I were a neutrino, then I could stay with the proton and give out a certain amount of energy."
However, a neutrino passed by and told the electron, "Once you became a neutrino, you'll lose all the electric potential energy you currently have, and there is no way of you releasing any potential energy from that proton."
However, a neutrino passed by and told the electron, "Once you became a neutrino, you'll lose all the electric potential energy you currently have, and there is no way of you releasing any potential energy from that proton."
Sunday, August 06, 2006
It is nice when all possible factors don't conflict with each other.
When chemical A exhibits extensive intermolecular hydrogen bonding, has large electron cloud, chemical B has small electron cloud and is non polar, simple molecular, nice and simple. Chemical A has higher boiling point than B.
Boiling point is a phenomenon that results from overcoming the electrostatic forces of attraction between numerous particles. Between the particles, these forces of attraction get alternatively weaker and stronger. When the forces are stronger, the forces of attraction of the collective whole would be harder to overcome, leading to a higher boiling point.
When all your agendas point towards a certain direction, your path is clear. I find the 7 deadly sins to be an excellent guide.
Here I shall consider the circumstances most favourable for studies.
Pride: You feel shiok in doing well.
Greed: You badly want a scholarship.
Gluttony: You are aware that remedial => less opportunities to eat outside RJ.
Envy: Someone else is doing better than you.
Sloth: You mother has convinced you that "If you don't study hard you'll go sweep the streets."
Anger: You are pissed that you did extremely badly for one particular subject.
Lust: You think that doing well for Promos is sexy.
There. When all these factors are present, you'll naturally want to study. Such is the power of the Dark Side.
When chemical A exhibits extensive intermolecular hydrogen bonding, has large electron cloud, chemical B has small electron cloud and is non polar, simple molecular, nice and simple. Chemical A has higher boiling point than B.
Boiling point is a phenomenon that results from overcoming the electrostatic forces of attraction between numerous particles. Between the particles, these forces of attraction get alternatively weaker and stronger. When the forces are stronger, the forces of attraction of the collective whole would be harder to overcome, leading to a higher boiling point.
When all your agendas point towards a certain direction, your path is clear. I find the 7 deadly sins to be an excellent guide.
Here I shall consider the circumstances most favourable for studies.
Pride: You feel shiok in doing well.
Greed: You badly want a scholarship.
Gluttony: You are aware that remedial => less opportunities to eat outside RJ.
Envy: Someone else is doing better than you.
Sloth: You mother has convinced you that "If you don't study hard you'll go sweep the streets."
Anger: You are pissed that you did extremely badly for one particular subject.
Lust: You think that doing well for Promos is sexy.
There. When all these factors are present, you'll naturally want to study. Such is the power of the Dark Side.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Today I went for scholarship day with my sister and mother. We came back with lots of goodies that are not relevent to us, not meant for us, and cannot be used by us. My mother and sister just took everything they could take, and so we had lots of stuff to carry... its not like I'll take every scholarship if I can, I would be mostly interested in A*, DSTA, MOE or SAF.
They took:
PSC, GIC, MAS, Police, SAF women, Singapore Power, PUB, Design.
Personally I would only take pamphlets from NUS, NTU, A*, DSTA, SAF and MOE. The rest are not really relevent to me.
And I saw bad behaviour today. During the DSTA speech, you could hear handphones ringing pretty often.
After the speech in the question and asnwer session, there came the ultimate:
A woman, presumably a parent, asked the senior public relations officer a question, and she politely answered. While she was answering, her handphone rang. She took out her phone (which isn't supposed to ring anyway!), and she ANSWERED IT and walked away while the PRO was answering her question. There is like almost no regard for her! Lao eh.
An indicent later brightened up my day. My mother and sister wanted to shop at junction 8, but I have to go for tuition so I had to carry all the scholarship goodies home. As you can remember, there was a lot of it. While I was walking towards the MRT station, an RJ girl with two other people around approached me and asked me to donate for some "Very special arts" thing. Here's roughly what she said:
"Hi! We are Rafflesians too! Would you like to donate to our cause, it is to fund the "Very special arts programme" for the disabled members of the society... As you can see, a lot of potential scholars have signed and donated. So you should donate too."
Both the two people with her and I were laughing, and I reached for my wallet.
"I really hope you become a scholar."
ROFLMAO.
But when I took my wallet out I realised I have no money. :( A bit paiseh. The first time I sincerely wanted to donate I have no money :(( I was thinking that by donating I could encourage her to entertain more people with her powerful BSing skills. Aiyar. THIS is what I call very special arts.
If for some reason that particular RJ girl happens to come by this place, I really really realllly had no money. I really wanted to donate, and I sincerely thank you for brightening my day.
They took:
PSC, GIC, MAS, Police, SAF women, Singapore Power, PUB, Design.
Personally I would only take pamphlets from NUS, NTU, A*, DSTA, SAF and MOE. The rest are not really relevent to me.
And I saw bad behaviour today. During the DSTA speech, you could hear handphones ringing pretty often.
After the speech in the question and asnwer session, there came the ultimate:
A woman, presumably a parent, asked the senior public relations officer a question, and she politely answered. While she was answering, her handphone rang. She took out her phone (which isn't supposed to ring anyway!), and she ANSWERED IT and walked away while the PRO was answering her question. There is like almost no regard for her! Lao eh.
An indicent later brightened up my day. My mother and sister wanted to shop at junction 8, but I have to go for tuition so I had to carry all the scholarship goodies home. As you can remember, there was a lot of it. While I was walking towards the MRT station, an RJ girl with two other people around approached me and asked me to donate for some "Very special arts" thing. Here's roughly what she said:
"Hi! We are Rafflesians too! Would you like to donate to our cause, it is to fund the "Very special arts programme" for the disabled members of the society... As you can see, a lot of potential scholars have signed and donated. So you should donate too."
Both the two people with her and I were laughing, and I reached for my wallet.
"I really hope you become a scholar."
ROFLMAO.
But when I took my wallet out I realised I have no money. :( A bit paiseh. The first time I sincerely wanted to donate I have no money :(( I was thinking that by donating I could encourage her to entertain more people with her powerful BSing skills. Aiyar. THIS is what I call very special arts.
If for some reason that particular RJ girl happens to come by this place, I really really realllly had no money. I really wanted to donate, and I sincerely thank you for brightening my day.
Songs are wonderful things made by wonderful people, and being poems they are meant to express feelings. Further noting the fact that there are so many songs in either your mother tongue or in English, there is probably at least one song that can describe your feelings really well.
Thus, it is probably quite a good idea to post lyrics to say your feelings. The song would most likely say it better than most bloggers can. And what can better express your feeling than a sad tune to go with a sad poem? So it also makes sense to put up background music.
However, writing a song is not an easy thing to do, and when someone writes a song it probably means he has strong feelings or is very talented (take Andy Lau for example, who can write a song as an ode to the toilet bowl, AND do an MTV on it).
Enough said, I shall post the lyrics of a very popular song!
MAJULAH SINGAPURA
Mari kita rakyat Singapura
Sama-sama menuju bahagia
Cita-cita kita yang mulia
Berjaya Singapura
Marilah kita bersatu
Dengan semangat yang baru
Semua kita berseru
Majulah Singapura
Majulah Singapura
Wonderful.
Thus, it is probably quite a good idea to post lyrics to say your feelings. The song would most likely say it better than most bloggers can. And what can better express your feeling than a sad tune to go with a sad poem? So it also makes sense to put up background music.
However, writing a song is not an easy thing to do, and when someone writes a song it probably means he has strong feelings or is very talented (take Andy Lau for example, who can write a song as an ode to the toilet bowl, AND do an MTV on it).
Enough said, I shall post the lyrics of a very popular song!
Wonderful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)