the narrow path
Realisation: I seem to make things really hard for myself. There's this tendency in me to think, "But I don't want to do that for this base reason." So I don't, and take my 'moral' high route, and end up terribly sad. Not just morally too - I make things hard for myself practically too, reasoning that I must learn how to survive - throwing myself at the mercies of exchange and law school and rj and gifted. Although as someone pointed out, there do exist some people who aren't daunted by them at all, and perhaps I dream too small.
As for example of things I don't do. Like, not flirting (or specifically, using feminine sexuality to get things done). Not with people I am bargaining with, to bring down the price. Nor with random strangers I meet in a bar on the excuse that I'm high or drunk. I have seen people, who say, "Stop me from randomly kissing a stranger," but they do in spite of everything, and regret it a lot the next day. Which makes me wonder how much they want to be stopped in the first place. I also get horrified whenever I believe anyone likes me romantically, because I don't want to have encouraged that, because it feels so wrong.
Also things like not compromising on the way I treat various friends of the same level. I once explained to a friend that when I buy presents for others who all know each other and have equal relations with me, I make sure to spend around the same amount so that they won't feel left out and I would feel like I had done the best I could by each of them with the budget I had. This applies more for girls though - with presents for guys I often give up in the end, after lots of useless thought. Though I want to get them something nice too, I simply can't think of anything. :?
Speaking of gift-giving, I tend to think a lot before getting a gift for someone. I'm not sure if it really affects the quality of my gift to the giftee though... Like, if I'm going for a holiday and know I have a friend having a birthday while I'm gone, I usually think every time I shop, would that be nice for that friend? Or would that be better? I always thought that was the case for most people, but I've realised that it may not be. This is also part of the reason why I have not wanted to share in group presents recently. Because I think that giving a personal gift, though small, would be more appreciated. Given the person will already have the group present anyway.
There's also fairness. I have flared out at people sometimes when they have done things I found unfair. In fights with my siblings, I often demanded my parents decide a standard and apply it equally, even if the standard had to be disadvantageous to both of us in the end. I want decisions I can respect and understand. Note: My mother often just ignored me though, she gets too agitated by fighting and likes to say, "If you fight some more, I'm going to take all your advantages away!" She seems to think we have a personal vendetta against her when we fight; that we are trying to make her life hell. (I didn't understand this aspect of her for very long; now I know how to make fun of it to aid her calming down. ^_^) So she throws tantrums, instead of deciding things on principle, like my father might - though my father does understand the value of mercy and accounting for human quirks too, and has shown me how to think about that.
Other things: Not imposing on others until they show a willingness to be imposed upon. And not in the I-can-be-walked-over kind of way. I don't like receiving favours from others, unless I'm sure that they are fully repaid by friendship - that they desire my friendship and benefit from it. (Although there are some very rare people I click with so instantly that I can skip a lot of the wondering whether I am imposing on them, though I can never quite erase it fully.)
To some extent, though I wonder what would change if I behaved differently, I can't change my behaviour. It's so much part of me, that extremeness. And it's so difficult to live with, but somehow I have to learn to.
Another thing I wonder is: What are my real motives? Do I really think of other people's feelings, or is it just too much pride on my part to be a burden to anyone or to accept myself taking a wrong step?
I'm also aware that I don't meet my own standards all the time, because they are just so unrealistic and high. But I can't stop myself from trying, and thinking along those lines.
And strangely, I don't impose my views on others absolutely. It's quite an INFJ thing I think. But when I see someone doing something I find horrifying, I become fascinated. I want to take people on their own terms if their terms can be justified. I try to understand their entire mindset and sometimes conclude by not blaming them for things I might blame myself for.
Although there are other times when I get very upset, with some things I view as basic rules of courtesy. Perhaps I should just stop myself from imposing my standards towards that person if I know they will be like that, and view them as a meandering human of a different species. Ha!
*
Somewhat related but not totally, I wonder whether all politicians must be liars and all bureaucracies, inefficient. Today in class, we watched excerpts from a video. It was called Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance. Watching it was quite horrifying - it was about the government taking over land from a first nations (Canadian aboriginal) people to build housing and a golf course. The Mohawks, as they really were called, set up a blockade to stop the government from taking their land. The government behaved very dishonorably, promising that they would not stop food from entering the blockade but constantly doing so. They promised that the army was only there to guard the peace, not to move forward, but the army crept forward each night. The politicians, as mouthpieces for those promises, behaved exactly like untrustworthy crooks of the politician stereotype.
Watching that video made me, for the first time, really want to go into government. Sometimes we stop ourselves from taking leadership positions because we believe we aren't good enough, and there's someone better. But that's not true - the better people could be thinking the same way as you - often you end up with people who botch everything up and all you can do is blame them if you don't want to go in and change things. And blaming won't change the past.
Back to bureaucracy. This has to do with another class, my favourite American Empire. For the past two weeks we've been studying the journal entries of a man called Karl Loewenstein. These entries were an exciting find for my professor. It was really cute hearing him enthuse about his discovery actually. In last week's class, as an introduction, Professor Kostal told us that he had received a copy-edit (I think that's the term).
"Do you know what that means? I should have brought it actually, you guys would have enjoyed it."
All the while I was thinking he referred to Loewenstein's actual journal entry notes or something. Because the notes were sent to us in a pdf which contained scans of type-written yellowed pages - not scanned particularly well, or in order. I had suspected before the class that Loewenstein's notes were something Kostal had personally obtained, that were not available to the public.
"I am writing a book about this subject we are studying now! A copy edit is when you send your book to the publisher and they correct your work. The copy edit means that someone actually presumes to correct my grammar and writing!"
Everyone laughed.
"Yes, they actually do! Just the way I correct your essays!"
I think it's his delivery. :) So, Kostal was in Washington, doing research on law reform in post-war Germany and Japan. Loewenstein's name kept creeping up, as the author of German legal memos, but Kostal had no idea who he was. Eventually Kostal heard that Loewenstein's personal documents had all been donated to the library at Amherst after Loewenstein's death. So Kostal journeyed down there and found Loewenstein's barely-touched journal pages.
"To me, to a historian studying a particular subject; finding something like this was -" Furrows brow, searching for the right word. "It was like finding GOLD!"
Kostal thought himself very lucky, because Loewenstein's diary entries were written almost everyday, after the tiring days of work he had had to do, and in English. This was a boon because Loewenstein himself was born and raised German, until he fled from Hitler's regime to America.
Anyway, back to the relevant part.
Loewenstein was very critical of what the Americans were doing to denazify the Germans. He thought they simply didn't care enough. Kostal historicises this into his theory: the top officials in the American military government realised they could not carry out total denazification successfully. Thus, they decided not to do their job. They decided to do this in the best way to advance their political careers - which is to say, by finding some way to shirk the blame. Kostal insisted that this was one of the chief aims of bureaucracies; that not too long later, when we worked in bureaucracies ourselves, we would face that very same pressure.
I wondered whether bureaucracies had to be this way. Just like the way people say communism sounds good but will never work in real life. Couldn't there be a way for everyone to strive with their will to achieve the same goals? They could aid each other towards their common end. They could discuss their real ideas on how to reach the common goal, instead of discussing their motives with the best defendable theories. If all bureaucracies can't work in this way, why do we keep the institution in this form?
One very difficult task though, is that the mindsets of all the people working in government would have to be changed. Through the leaders first at least. Then the leaders would guide their people to the standard of work and the type of actions they expect. This change would need to be extensive, for one high-ranking careerist could easily sabotage the whole game, making everyone turn to fend for themselves, unless this idea of working for the people, selflessly, was totally ingrained into the culture of the bureaucracy. In this way, the careerist could be publicly exposed and scorned.
I wonder whether Singapore could be the first to do this. We fight corruption very well. In my NAFTA class, I learned that corruption was widely accepted as a legitimate business cost in the recent past. In Germany, bribes paid in foreign countries were actually tax-deductible! So things do change.
Singapore could be the leader, because we don't entirely follow the West, or the East. We supposedly value logic and meritocracy and efficiency above all else, yet are still focused on helping everyone in society. Can Singapore ministries then be led by and filled with people who wish strongly to do the best by all Singaporeans? People who don't do stupid things to innocents because of their vain desires to protect themselves?
As for example of things I don't do. Like, not flirting (or specifically, using feminine sexuality to get things done). Not with people I am bargaining with, to bring down the price. Nor with random strangers I meet in a bar on the excuse that I'm high or drunk. I have seen people, who say, "Stop me from randomly kissing a stranger," but they do in spite of everything, and regret it a lot the next day. Which makes me wonder how much they want to be stopped in the first place. I also get horrified whenever I believe anyone likes me romantically, because I don't want to have encouraged that, because it feels so wrong.
Also things like not compromising on the way I treat various friends of the same level. I once explained to a friend that when I buy presents for others who all know each other and have equal relations with me, I make sure to spend around the same amount so that they won't feel left out and I would feel like I had done the best I could by each of them with the budget I had. This applies more for girls though - with presents for guys I often give up in the end, after lots of useless thought. Though I want to get them something nice too, I simply can't think of anything. :?
Speaking of gift-giving, I tend to think a lot before getting a gift for someone. I'm not sure if it really affects the quality of my gift to the giftee though... Like, if I'm going for a holiday and know I have a friend having a birthday while I'm gone, I usually think every time I shop, would that be nice for that friend? Or would that be better? I always thought that was the case for most people, but I've realised that it may not be. This is also part of the reason why I have not wanted to share in group presents recently. Because I think that giving a personal gift, though small, would be more appreciated. Given the person will already have the group present anyway.
There's also fairness. I have flared out at people sometimes when they have done things I found unfair. In fights with my siblings, I often demanded my parents decide a standard and apply it equally, even if the standard had to be disadvantageous to both of us in the end. I want decisions I can respect and understand. Note: My mother often just ignored me though, she gets too agitated by fighting and likes to say, "If you fight some more, I'm going to take all your advantages away!" She seems to think we have a personal vendetta against her when we fight; that we are trying to make her life hell. (I didn't understand this aspect of her for very long; now I know how to make fun of it to aid her calming down. ^_^) So she throws tantrums, instead of deciding things on principle, like my father might - though my father does understand the value of mercy and accounting for human quirks too, and has shown me how to think about that.
Other things: Not imposing on others until they show a willingness to be imposed upon. And not in the I-can-be-walked-over kind of way. I don't like receiving favours from others, unless I'm sure that they are fully repaid by friendship - that they desire my friendship and benefit from it. (Although there are some very rare people I click with so instantly that I can skip a lot of the wondering whether I am imposing on them, though I can never quite erase it fully.)
To some extent, though I wonder what would change if I behaved differently, I can't change my behaviour. It's so much part of me, that extremeness. And it's so difficult to live with, but somehow I have to learn to.
Another thing I wonder is: What are my real motives? Do I really think of other people's feelings, or is it just too much pride on my part to be a burden to anyone or to accept myself taking a wrong step?
I'm also aware that I don't meet my own standards all the time, because they are just so unrealistic and high. But I can't stop myself from trying, and thinking along those lines.
And strangely, I don't impose my views on others absolutely. It's quite an INFJ thing I think. But when I see someone doing something I find horrifying, I become fascinated. I want to take people on their own terms if their terms can be justified. I try to understand their entire mindset and sometimes conclude by not blaming them for things I might blame myself for.
Although there are other times when I get very upset, with some things I view as basic rules of courtesy. Perhaps I should just stop myself from imposing my standards towards that person if I know they will be like that, and view them as a meandering human of a different species. Ha!
*
Somewhat related but not totally, I wonder whether all politicians must be liars and all bureaucracies, inefficient. Today in class, we watched excerpts from a video. It was called Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance. Watching it was quite horrifying - it was about the government taking over land from a first nations (Canadian aboriginal) people to build housing and a golf course. The Mohawks, as they really were called, set up a blockade to stop the government from taking their land. The government behaved very dishonorably, promising that they would not stop food from entering the blockade but constantly doing so. They promised that the army was only there to guard the peace, not to move forward, but the army crept forward each night. The politicians, as mouthpieces for those promises, behaved exactly like untrustworthy crooks of the politician stereotype.
Watching that video made me, for the first time, really want to go into government. Sometimes we stop ourselves from taking leadership positions because we believe we aren't good enough, and there's someone better. But that's not true - the better people could be thinking the same way as you - often you end up with people who botch everything up and all you can do is blame them if you don't want to go in and change things. And blaming won't change the past.
Back to bureaucracy. This has to do with another class, my favourite American Empire. For the past two weeks we've been studying the journal entries of a man called Karl Loewenstein. These entries were an exciting find for my professor. It was really cute hearing him enthuse about his discovery actually. In last week's class, as an introduction, Professor Kostal told us that he had received a copy-edit (I think that's the term).
"Do you know what that means? I should have brought it actually, you guys would have enjoyed it."
All the while I was thinking he referred to Loewenstein's actual journal entry notes or something. Because the notes were sent to us in a pdf which contained scans of type-written yellowed pages - not scanned particularly well, or in order. I had suspected before the class that Loewenstein's notes were something Kostal had personally obtained, that were not available to the public.
"I am writing a book about this subject we are studying now! A copy edit is when you send your book to the publisher and they correct your work. The copy edit means that someone actually presumes to correct my grammar and writing!"
Everyone laughed.
"Yes, they actually do! Just the way I correct your essays!"
I think it's his delivery. :) So, Kostal was in Washington, doing research on law reform in post-war Germany and Japan. Loewenstein's name kept creeping up, as the author of German legal memos, but Kostal had no idea who he was. Eventually Kostal heard that Loewenstein's personal documents had all been donated to the library at Amherst after Loewenstein's death. So Kostal journeyed down there and found Loewenstein's barely-touched journal pages.
"To me, to a historian studying a particular subject; finding something like this was -" Furrows brow, searching for the right word. "It was like finding GOLD!"
Kostal thought himself very lucky, because Loewenstein's diary entries were written almost everyday, after the tiring days of work he had had to do, and in English. This was a boon because Loewenstein himself was born and raised German, until he fled from Hitler's regime to America.
Anyway, back to the relevant part.
Loewenstein was very critical of what the Americans were doing to denazify the Germans. He thought they simply didn't care enough. Kostal historicises this into his theory: the top officials in the American military government realised they could not carry out total denazification successfully. Thus, they decided not to do their job. They decided to do this in the best way to advance their political careers - which is to say, by finding some way to shirk the blame. Kostal insisted that this was one of the chief aims of bureaucracies; that not too long later, when we worked in bureaucracies ourselves, we would face that very same pressure.
I wondered whether bureaucracies had to be this way. Just like the way people say communism sounds good but will never work in real life. Couldn't there be a way for everyone to strive with their will to achieve the same goals? They could aid each other towards their common end. They could discuss their real ideas on how to reach the common goal, instead of discussing their motives with the best defendable theories. If all bureaucracies can't work in this way, why do we keep the institution in this form?
One very difficult task though, is that the mindsets of all the people working in government would have to be changed. Through the leaders first at least. Then the leaders would guide their people to the standard of work and the type of actions they expect. This change would need to be extensive, for one high-ranking careerist could easily sabotage the whole game, making everyone turn to fend for themselves, unless this idea of working for the people, selflessly, was totally ingrained into the culture of the bureaucracy. In this way, the careerist could be publicly exposed and scorned.
I wonder whether Singapore could be the first to do this. We fight corruption very well. In my NAFTA class, I learned that corruption was widely accepted as a legitimate business cost in the recent past. In Germany, bribes paid in foreign countries were actually tax-deductible! So things do change.
Singapore could be the leader, because we don't entirely follow the West, or the East. We supposedly value logic and meritocracy and efficiency above all else, yet are still focused on helping everyone in society. Can Singapore ministries then be led by and filled with people who wish strongly to do the best by all Singaporeans? People who don't do stupid things to innocents because of their vain desires to protect themselves?
Labels: family, infj, law and the american empire, life, negotiation and international conflict, reflections
Post a Comment