When the law meets alternative culture - The Malaysian Story

PAUL'S PLACE - THE CASE WILL BE HEARD NEXT WEEK

On 31st December last year at about 10.30 pm, the police raided Paul's
Place, a small music venue for the independent music community, and arrested
over 300 people who had come to attend a hardcore gig including David Wong,
an employee who was helping out that night, and subsequently charged as the
owner with four offences.

The case is coming up next week at the Central Magistrate's Court 6
(opposite Dataran Merdeka) at 9:00 am on Monday 31st July.

Do turn up in large numbers and occupy pews in the public gallery - and guys
from the press, do come yourselves or send your reporters to cover this
important landmark in legal history - and hopefully whatever the outcome
will be given space in the media, so that the truth shall be laid bare, and
whoever is righteous will be vindicated (we hope).

To jog your memory:
********************
a) A raid was conducted on Paul's Place by the Brickfields Police Station,
31 December 2005. Over 300 people were detained. Those detained were inside
Paul's Place, in public places and food stalls within a 100 m radius of the
venue. Several police officers we spoke to that night informed us that it
was a "Black Metal" raid.

b) David and 3 other individuals were remanded for 2 days and released
following a press conference and some assistance from Mr Ronnie Lui. During
this time, the reason for the raids was shifted from "Black Metal" to
"Unlawful gathering", "public indecency" and back to "Black Metal".

c) Finally, after several weeks, the police department decided why they had
conducted the raid. David was charged on 4 counts, operating a pub without a
license, selling liquor without a license, not having customs/import permits
for the liquor (I think) and displaying the "Paul's Place" banner without
getting a DBKL permit. In addition to that, the others were charged under
the printing presses act for distributing printed 'zines and t-shirts
without the approriate permits.

For more details, please go to http://media-blackmetal-msia.blogspirit.com/
, a web repository on media coverage of this event set up by our friends at
the Center of Independent Journalism www.cijmalaysia.org.

Writing history in Malaysia

Check out this article. Will post my own commentary later

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/3555/2/

And what would you think of a course that has such broad scope by is in danger of veering into either stating the obvious, boring official lines or inanity

The Ethnic Relations Course: What it's really about

Part 1 - Basic Concepts on Ethnic Relations
Part 2 - Plurality and Plural Societies in the Malay World: Past, Present and Future
Part 3 - The Malaysian Constitution in the Context of Ethnic Relations
Part 4 - Economic Developments in the Context of Ethnic Relations in Malaysia
Part 5 - Political Development in Malaysia
Part 6 - Ethnic Relations Towards an Integrated Society
Part 7 - Local and Global Challenges for Ethnic Relations

Ma Jian's "Stick Out Your Tongue"

Here is the review as taken from The Star Bookshelf section
http://www.thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2006/7/28/lifebookshelf/14397977&sec=lifebookshelf





Stick Out Your Tongue
Author: Ma Jian
Translator: Flora Drew
Publisher: Chatto & Windus



Sensitively translated from Chinese, Stick Out Your Tongue is the kind of work, maybe because of its subject matter and the political persecution faced by its author, that would be lauded by literary circles, as well as human rights and cultural activists worldwide. It is the kind of work that would be eagerly picked up and read by westerners who want to see what the author had to say about the exotic East, especially one that is as elusive and far from international limelight as Tibet. However, credit is due to the author for not promoting rose-tinted exoticism, and for drawing out the humanity of the characters in his stories, thus making these ordinary actors memorable. It seems that nowadays, whether amongst popular fiction or its more literary siblings, nondescript characters buck the trend and the onus is on the author to spin either entertaining or fascinating narratives out of them.

Stick Out Your Tongue is a collection of five reminiscences and oral tales, which blur the lines between fiction and reality (a style that seemed to permeate a number of the stories I’ve read from Chinese authors, especially those writing about Tibet). In fact, the title of the book was inspired by the tragic tale of a young girl, under the title “The Eight-Fanged Roach”. She was given the name Metok, and was both a product of incest as well as a victim of incest. There is a strong Oedipal complex attached to this story, and the tragedy of incest that had entrapped her father to first impregnate his own mother, and then forced his daughter into sexual intercourse when drunk, had the aura of a Freudian case study, and highlights the universality of incest and tabooed sexual desires. She married an abusive man and finally lost her mind and lived like a bitch (pun intended) on the streets of Lhasa.

When Ma Jian writes in the afterword that the Chinese government had banned this book of his by calling him a purveyor of pornography, it is perhaps due to sexual tension that permeates his stories, and his breaking the taboo in allowing sex to colour his characters. Even the least sexual of his stories “The Smile of Lake Drolmula”, illustrates the unspoken obsession of a young boy, who left his familial hearth in the highlands for the city to further his education in a local high school, with his sister who was approaching womanhood. “The Woman and the Blue Sky” is the story of a woman who practiced polyandry, more out of necessity than real desire, in order to escape the clutches of her lecherous adoptive father. Prior to her marriage, she had been intimate with a soldier, who narrated this story to the author. “The Golden Crown” was about silversmith and his dead lover, the latter depicted as a very sexual woman, who suffered the penalty for her wantonness when she became trapped on the stupa built by her former husband in her bid to wrest the golden crown resting on it. The “Final Initiation”, despite being about the initiation of a young female lama who was an incarnation of a Living Buddha, included sex in one of the rites. Perhaps you might have heard of Tantric Buddhism, which is completely different from the form of Buddhism practiced by most conservative Malaysians. The pubescent girl-lama tragically died during her initiation, when she had to meditate in nude on top of a frozen river.

More importantly, in each of the story, the foibles of the human race is sympathetically depicted, with an awareness of the dejected lives of the people who populated the plateau, thus making each tale an illustration of a world that is both harsh and hostile, as well as patient and determined. At the same time, they show how kindness can be masked under cruelty, and helplessness can be taken advantage of. In a style that speaks directly to the reader, yet poetic, Ma Jian brings us memorable images of the Tibetan highlands that we are unlikely to forget in a hurry.

The religious versus the infidels

Though I usually do not read this site, but I find this article interesting
http://www.malaysia-today.net/loonyMY/2006/03/time-silent-majority-became-outraged.htm#comments

Strange how looking for information on child caregivers in Malaysia (for the purpose of work) brought me to this site. :D


The world seems to work like this, depending on where you are and what your creed of belief is

Christian versus the infidels
Muslims versus the infidels

Erm, do the Judaists have this dichotomy as well? Maybe, but correct me if I am wrong

Judaists versus the infidels


Interesting isn't it, that the religions of the Book, have this I-am-better-than-you-because-God-has-chosen me attitude?

Everytime anyone write any piece of apologist article on their religion, it will be our Brothers and Sisters in (Christianity/Islam) and everyone else is the lost sheep that needs salvation. I was told that the very definition of Muslim, from its Arabic root, means "submitting to God". Hence, the argument runs, if you submit to God, you are a Muslim. And Islam itself, from all the bits and pieces I've seen, should actually be marketed more as a Guiding Principle/Bible (which is actually what the Quran means) which God has given to the world to aid the lost, rather than as a stringent, orthodox piece of work that forces you into strict compliance. Whether in Islam or Christiniaty, are we able to shift our mindset to think that what may be "encoded" many not necessarily be as "set in stone" as we think?

I do know, within Christianity, some more fundamental groups actually create this dichotomous differentiation between "believers" and "Christians". For them, believers are those who believe in God and Jesus but do not necessary practice their beliefs according to the strict doctrine promulgated by these groups. So, there, within Christianity, we have even more subsets that were not in the Bible before.

And it is interesting that in Islam, God is not given an actual Gender. In Malay, God is referred to as "Nya" (bearing in mind that the Malay language used in Islam is very strongly influenced by the Arabic language, as they even share the same script in the past, and that is the script I intend to learn) while in the English Language Christian Bible, there is a strong representation of a masculinised entity.

And of course, within both religions, there are many misogynists, or misogynistic type of regulations pertaining to the woman, which I believe, were more due to psychologically influence interpretations of the text rather than anything else.

And interestingly, Muslims (I am now using this term in the more traditional way of equating this group of people with people who practice the fiqh tenets in Islam) who claim to know a lot about other groups of people are actually as deluded as the Christians who claim that Islam promotes repression of people. Living in a Muslim country, I know just how untrue that statement is. In fact, scholars will have a field day if they come and study the top misconceptions that people of different religions have of each other.

Practices and traditions imported wholesale from the evangelists of Gulf lands (and more recently Pakistan) for Islam and Europe (and more recently US) for Christianity without any form of digestion and integration into the existing traditions in Malaysia have, I believe, promoted some form isolationist tendecides between these different groups. We forget that there are many other groups from these two religions who are living in harmony with their lands and neigbours in other parts of Asia, barring the more extreme sects. And now, we are trying to bring this kind of exclusivity way of thinking via "mission work" to them.

J'ai content

Parce que je connait lire livres des enfants francais. Mais, je voudrais à lire plus livres difficile. Quelque faςon, j'ai prendre francais intensif et j'ai ne pas fois pour ça. J'ai rentrer travaille. Bisous!

The year of crucifixion

For those not in the know, Article 11 is the article in Malaysia's Federal Constitution, guaranteeing the right of religious freedoms to all. Yet there is another Article within that constitutions that state that being a Malay equals to being a Muslim. But this has been taken, interpreted around to say that any person who is not ethnically Malay but has converted to Islam (either by choice or because of parental "coercion") has no recourse out of it, unless they wish to be subject to the humiliation of apostasy under the law (and the law makes it hard for them to change their minds). Marriages with a Muslim in this country can only be made if the non-Muslim converts to Islam, regardless of other interpretation that allows a Christian and Judaist to marry a Muslim. Though of course, in the latter agreement, there is the thorny issue of what your children will be. While the liberals might say, let them learn the religion of both parents, the patriarchal precepts in both religion would prefer that the child follow that particular religion. And of course, as the law of the land gives the men the upperhand, usually, the child will follow the religion of the father. However, in Islam as practice in Malaysia, no marriages is allowed if the non-Muslim partner refuses to convert. Should the couple decide to defy the law and get married outside the country, their marriage is not recognised in Malaysia, which means they can still be arrested for khalwat (close proximity) or maksiat (sexual fornication) under the Sharia jurisdiction of Malaysia. So there.

The history of the Inter-Faith commission is basically to try to deal with the social conflict engendered by religious conflict, and also to deal with issues of greater religious understanding among the different adherents. It is unfortunate that many Malaysians, despite the so called "muhibbah" concept (racial harmony), all it takes is just a religious issue to give rise to fascist sentiments to take place. Even if one is to disagree that Huntingdon's theory of civilizational clash fit the larger picture of the world (and having read the beginnings of his book yesterday, I somehow could not help disagreeing that he has a point on the cultural divide), it goes in pretty well with the Malaysian scene, though there are many other factors which are unique to Malaysia that is not easily explained.

In going in the road show, the IFC proponents and campaigners are trying to introduce and explain the concept of what they are all about to as many Malaysians as possible, so that Malaysians can make their own choices, instead of having their choices dictated by self-appointed leaders. If you want to be pejorative about it, fine, call it propaganda. But it is not any worse than what a lot of religious fundamentalists do when trying to ply their creed. Many people, including myself, suspect, that the rising resistance against this Commission, are due to the lack of security in their own religion's ability to hold its own (which boils down to their own lack of understanding, despite being subject to years of teaching on their religions creed) as well as a fear of the lost of political status quo. If the US is moving towards unthinking democracy in many parts of its state, Malaysia has always practiced unthinking democracy, from the day of its Independence (a sad thing indeed).

While one might decry the fascism of the Zionist in the their dealings with their majority Muslim neighbours, it is unfortunate that the way things have become in this world, every Jew is considered a potential Zionist and every Muslim a potential timebomb. The voice of the bigots, the prejudiced and the extremists ring louder than that of the moderates and clear-thinking person, so much so that they create an image of an extremely unfriendly, patriarchal and repressive condition in religion. Sad to say, many religious adherents, regardless of their religion, has a strong bent towards this (I think psychologists once did a study on people with religious bent and what made them tick, and what made them such zealots) end. I understand this myself because I was once a religious fundamentalist at the very core. But the problem with religious fundamentalism in Malaysia (and I believe, in many parts of the world), is that those with tenuous understanding of the core principles of their religionn can be easily persuaded by those whom they hold up as the demagogue, whose views they follow without too much questioning, because these demagogues are the wise men, the "levites", the "ulamaks", the "minister", the "priest". The way Islam is practiced today, in Malaysia particularly (I do not yet have a strong basis to attempt a comparative study with Islamic practices in the other countries, though I am trying to learn up as much as I could), has the aroma of the Inquisition and the Catholic/dichotomy of Europe in the Middle Ages (perhaps even earlier) right up to the 17th Century. The real reason for the existence of such religions, to guide human behaviour and to turn humanity away from perversions (perversions defined by the standards of morality that humanity had arrived at), had been lost, as we indulge in a catfight over issues of fiqh and practices. However, I can understand where these people are coming from, schooled as I was, from a young age, on the similar importance exacted on practices (and I don't mean moral practices, but religious practices), doctrine and morality. Lo behold someone who does not conform to the strict path as set out within the narrowest of hermeneutics. With so many religion engaged in the struggle for the Human Soul, it is always easy to lose sight of the perspective of why is God allowing such a divide to take place in the first place. Can 1 Corinthians 12 of the Bible be used to explain "diversity in unity". No doubt Muslims are not mentioned in here (though the Jews are) because Islam was not yet in existence at the time this book was written. Many Islamic scholars concede to the shared tradition of the Jews and Christians, with that of the Muslims. Just that the interpretation have some variation, and that which comes last is accorded the highest place of honour (Jesus Christ by the Christians, Muhammad S.A.W. by the Muslims).

I have still a long way to go to understand all that is going on, but I hope to achieve a better measure of understanding as I grow older, should I still have time on this Earth. Or have I gone the way which Paul, the apostle of Jesus in the New Testament warned of

"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit according to hte tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ" (Colossions 2:8). Is this what the Muslims fear as well? That the proponents of the Interfaith-Commission are wolves in sheep clothing? Even within Christian denominations, there are certain groups that do not recognise the other group, because to the former, the latter have fallen from the straight and narrow dictates of the Bible, using the verse in Revelations 21:18-19 as their justification

18. For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book [note that the book is in small letters in my translation, does anyone know the Greek word used?]: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book

19. and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Now, is the book the Bible or something else? And if one goes back to the Muslims, could that had been their fear as well with regards to the Al-Quran? One will only know as one starts reading the Quran, and that is what I will start doing again.

First the Danish cartoon controversy, now Lebanon's bombing by Israel, US policy that sides with Israel, it is little wonder that the Muslims are feeling threatened from all side, with all that happening to them in the space of 6 months.

But going further, the strong tide of radicalism, in Christianity and Islam, had begun since the end of the Cold War, or perhaps even before, the middle of last century, and I suspect, the pinnacle of it all is still in the works.

Realist versus Anti-Realist (Philosophy of Physics Pt 2)

(Updated entry, so it no longer appears in the original order)

I spent the better part of my weekend immersed in the works of a literary theorist turn philosopher of science, and after having waded through more than half the book, finally all that point of the debate made sense. In the last 3 chapters, he outlined most clearly, if not somewhat repetitively (good for a person like me who needs constant reminders :D), that the realist lies in the category of the alethic-objective (truth value whereas the anti-realist lies in the group of the epistemic approach to quantum theory.

But a question is, why is a person who is considered an instrumentalist be philosophically equated to subscribing to an anti-realist theory just because he is dogmatic? Maybe I might be accused of being a relativist in saying that an instrumentalist might not so much be completely rejecting the possibility of a truth-value out there rather than being convinced that the truth value lies inherently in the system he/she is propagating. Kind of like what fundamentalist believers of any religion believe that whatever truths can be found, is found in the Book/Scriptures/Creed they subscribe to.

Hence, if I were to do a bit of deduction, an adherent to epistemological reasonings (and I assue this reasoning would be logical deduction from a particular arbitrary ideal that one subscribes to) should believe that anything that could not be deduced from a theory that (im)perfectly explains what we see therefore either have to be illustrated by a complementary theory or be rejected. The "realists" (I am using scare quotes here because I am using this term from the POV of the 'mainstream' realist/antirealist camp) seem to argue that the "antirealist" (basically adherents of the "Copenhagen QM Model") reject the idea of an unknown truth-value, when I suspect that the latter's approach to the alethic is more agnostic than atheistic.
And as the author of the book I read himself pointed out, both sides weaved in and out of the epistemic and the alethic in their arguments, thus making their points chaotic in the process (or perhaps chaotic to a philosopher who insists on drawing a territorial border between the "realist" and the "anti-realist"). But somehow, I feel, it is more likely that each camp has their own 'imperfect' ontology of the theories they have each contributed to formin, and are perhaps waffling around in trying to find the most concise way of expressing their thoughts non-mathematically.

While the "instrumentalists" can fall into the trap of dogmatism (and I argue that not only them, but also the "truth-seekers"), they have enabled applications to be constructed based on their mathematical formalism. However, one might also argue that perhaps we are always hitting a cul-de-sac in trying to break the glass ceiling of quantum technology applications because we are using imperfect mathematical formalism.

There is also something else to be said about the descriptivists and mind-linguistic signification-through-the-process-of-assigning-a-signifier. Apparently, the author does not favour the Saussaurean approach of "assigning reality" through the project of assigning a signifier to the signified. While he seems to favour the post-structuralist in his arguments by criticising the positivists and structuralists, his stance does not fall into the former category. So I find myself in a fatigue inducing whirl last weekend, trying to pin down the theoretical foundation from which this realist/anti-realist idea is being worked from. Since I am at this stage unfamiliar with the works of Putnam and Rorty, having only arrived at them via secondary sources (yes I blush to admit that), I cannot critique his criticism of them, yet.



Anyway, as I do not have the book with me right now and am typing this during a short break at work, I can't say much more for fear of mis-citing the author


See "Quantum Mechanics and the Flight from Realism" by Prof Christopher Norris. There is a review of it here

Physics of Philosophy Pt 3 - resource listing

Just some resources I'll like to include in this post. I've been reading news from this site since my undergrad days, though it has been awhile since I've visited it (though I get news update sent me via email). So here it is

http://www.aip.org/pnu

Some writings of Niels Bohr
http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Bohr/Bohr-1913a.html
http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Bohr-Fission-1939.html

Something for the literary person wanting to study the written production of scientists and the science community
http://www.nbi.dk/NBA/papers/docs/cover.html

Literary science historian?
http://www.aip.org/history/nblbro.htm

This is something which I wish the arts and humanities community has:
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crlnews/backissues2000/march1/physics.htm

This is the issue of Open Access that will actually enliven the debate in the humanities scholarly community. Perhaps as a place to test the ground for your ideas, especially if the idea presents a radical approach to something well-worn. Apparently Princeton is doing something like that for the Classics.

Ok, I better narrow down my research topic. For now, it's back to the 'day job' :/

The art of self-publicity - Amazon Wish List

've decided to put up my Amazon wish lists for books I would love to have for research purposes, hoping (wishful thinking) maybe some kind soul would like to give them to me as gifts, either from their collection or Amazon. . :D

The list will grow (and change) so you might want to visit it from time to time. It can become a good bibliographic reference as the list grows, and you might find a book you never knew about but would like to have. :)

Scientists/Science communicator/scientist novelists

Not a new concept. We have Charles Lutwidge Dodgson and his Alice books, Isaac Asimov and his Foundation trilogy (and other short stories and novels).

MIT Press, which normally only do really hard-core stuff, has produced two "science" fiction books. One by Dan Llyod (Radiant Cool) and another by Christos H. Papadimitriou (Turing). Former one on phenomenology and consciousness, and the other on computation, AI and wiring of the flesh to the virtual world not unlike Gibson's Neuromancer where virtual sensations (the "sim-stim")could be physically felt.

Yesterday, I saw two books on Amazon called "Gold Bug Variations" and "Galatea 2.2" by Richard Powers. He's written more like "Prisoner's Dilemma". I saw mixed reviews on it so I wonder if anyone else reading this entry has read any of them, or any of his works?

Today, while crawling the net in-between work (I'm faced with a lot of job-related delays today, which is a different story so will not go into it), I found a rather interested site with some articles by a physicist from the University of Washington in Seattle. His name is John Cramer and apparently he writes novels as well as science communication articles (he does the latter really well, I have to say). So I suggest checking it out at http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/av_index_sub.html
It did make some of the different debates clearer to me (as well as clarify some stuff which I've seen as disparate figures but could now link together). I've only read two articles so far "Quantum Telephones to Other Universes, to Times Past" and "Quantum Time Travel". He has written some novels as well.

Hmmm...I suppose these novels I've just mentioned will fall under the category of novel of ideas rather than science fiction. So what is the literary merit of a piece of work that is heavy on the ideas but not necessarily heavy on the plot and characterisation? Should a person claiming to study literary works be studying these works at all? Or would that be more under the province of cultural studies and communication science? And in the age of the uncanonical, what determines the literary merit of a work being studied anyway? I am sure lots of debate has been going on on this (I've seen it around trade journals of English studies) because it also affects the way you structure the programme for college level studies. I should find out how the literary studies programme is structured for the national literature of my country.

what bout subtle science fiction and novel of ideas? One that comes off the top of my head is Borges.


Anyway, I am making a long list of them for now, as I go along.

NB. I was really excited to see two books on mathematical fiction I had read as a teenager, "Fantasia Mathematica" and "Imaginary Numbers : An Anthology of Marvelous Mathematical Stories, Diversions, Poems, and Musings", on Amazon. If you have never read them, check them out here

The Tale of Two Philosophers

This was translated and reworked into a sort of semi-fictive narrative two years ago. The original essay was written in Malay 3 years ago and published at jalantelawi.com early last year. I think I still have a lot to work on but these are just some ideas I was/am contemplating

.
_________________________________________________________________________________
While eating al-fresco in sunny Kuala Lumpur, some friends of mine got into a philosophical discussion that culminated into a hot debate. Yoga, a newly minted philosophy graduate from a university up north in Malaysia, as well as a fan of the logical-positivist tradition of A.J. Ayers and his group, got into a disagreement with Yu-Min, a graduate student in mathematics, who argued that Wittgenstein was contemptuous of the so-called Vienna Circle and found them irrelevant. Neither could they agree on how Wittgenstein and Popper would have responded to the statement:

The hen is crossing the road.

In order to stop their escalating quarrel (both had at least downed 2 bottles of whiskey between them), I decided to invite them to my home to test out a new software programme that my boyfriend, Juan, had been working on recently as part of his graduate school project in MIT. He had put it on his FTP site and I had downloaded it so that I could mess about with it. This programme is basically an AI simulator, part of a bigger project; where personalities, works, and the thoughts of knowledge builders and creators of the past are basically keyed into the system and simulated through three dimensional mapping of information networks. It is actually a very exciting project, built for educational purposes. If you remember watching a Star-trek episode with the characters reliving their fantasies in the Holodeck, this programme is based on the same concept, except that instead of getting holographic projections, the simulator projects the known characterisation of a particular philosopher, scientist or musician onto the textual screen, and you can post questions to them. It is a more intuitive and technologically sophisticated version of Ask Jeeves and Google, but less advance than the Holodeck. Since this particular part of the software I had downloaded happened to have programme libraries of the famous philosophers of the Western world, I decided to run it pass Yoga and Yu-Min. They were of course sceptical, though Yu-Min, a programming geek, is more receptive.

“I don’t believe that an inflexible man-made programme can actually channel the thoughts of any living (or dead) person,” said Yoga scornfully.

“Well, you don’t have to believe. Just see how it works. It does not try to simulate every quirk in a person, but it isn’t hard to simulate the essence of one’s philosophy. Also, Juan mentioned that this project involves many linguists, so they have helped to ensure that the language is stylistically as close as possible to the written language of these people,” I explained.

Having powered up the programme, I went to the menu to see whether Wittgenstein and Popper were on the list. I saw Popper’s name and clicked on it. As a text-box popped up, I typed in the statement

The hen is crossing the road.


In a few seconds, out popped Popper’s answer across the monitor screen. It comes with audio as well, so we can hear the ‘voice’ of Popper speaking

Popper: The hen crosses the road. I have no qualms or objection to the above statement as long as it has verisimilitude. The truth of the statement is unchallenged as long as no dissenting witness comes along to say that the hen did not cross the road, hence proving the falsity of the above statement. Or he might state that the hen is not really a hen, ergo an under-developed rooster. Once we could verify the abovementioned statement (though it is not universally or absolutely verified), we can proceed to observe if the hen faces a problem while crossing the road, enumerate possible solutions, elimination of improbable solutions and then to finally re-think the problem in light of possible new solutions. But, as aforementioned, there is no one absolute criteria to determine the truth-value of the above statement. It depends on the truth-content. Hence the statement could not be absolutely ascertained. There might be other eye-witnesses who say that the hen is not really crossing the road, but looks like she is doing it. Yet, the empirical values obtained from the observations of these witnesses will not totally verify the truth-value of the above statement since prejudices exist.

As Yoga and Yu-Min starred dumbfounded at the screen, I quickly searched for Wittgenstein and typed in my query. This was what came out, together with the audio.


Wittgenstein: How do we know that it is a hen? Could it be a rooster in disguise? Maybe we consider it a hen since it fits our perception and taxonomic classification of a hen, that it has no comb and wattle. But would such categorisation verify the above statement absolutely? Or could the hen be just a sign without a signifier or meaningful application? Could we show that the hen is related to the object crossing the road? Let’s say that we could verify that the hen is really crossing the road, is the hen conscious that she is crossing the road? Is she conscious of the fact that she has no language to describe her consciousness? As a human who realises that there is a hen doing a form of work, we can explain our observation with the idea that “the hen is moving in a direction perpendicular to traffic-flow.” How does this statement differs from the statement “The hen is crossing the road”? Maybe the hen is not crossing the road, but is a mere illusion in the mind of the observer.

“Wow!” exclaimed Yu-Min and Yoga simultaneously.

“How can I get a copy of this programme?” asked Yoga.

“You can copy this onto your drive or CDs, though you might need to zip it up. It is has a few separate files that you need to compile and run. The instructions are here with the files,” I replied.

As it was late into the night, Yoga and Yu-Min went home. Before leaving, Yoga mentioned that he would drop by tomorrow afternoon with some blank CDs to copy the programme.

Before going to bed, I composed an e-mail to Juan, telling him about having tested his ‘progeny’ on some friends and the date of my flight back to Massachusetts.


*Epilogue
The two possible answers above have been derived from a study of Popper’s Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach and Wittgenstein’s compilation of philosophical ideas, Philosophical Investigations. We could surmise that their perspective and priorities differ. However, the two answers given could be considered logical and probable, viewed through different ends of a tunnel. Enthusiasts and philosophers who work from the approach of logical positivism (which was quite popular until the 1960s) promoted Wittgenstein’s philosophy as an important work in logical positivism. Yet, I would detract from such view because logical positivism views that truth could be arrived at via induction and logical analysis. From what I gathered, Wittgenstein has never explicitly stated such ideas, nor has he subtly argued so. He has moved away from his original ideas found in the Tractatus logico-philosophicus by the time he wrote his Philosophical Investigations. His position in philosophy is at best, ambivalent, and deeply misunderstood by many philosophers. According to him, no real action could be determined by rules, each action could be adjusted to the rules. An example that he had given are two men from a tribe playing chess, and that they go through the whole motion of playing chess. If we were to observe them at it, we will unanimously agree that they are playing chess. But what if they decide to shout, scream and stamp, and the behaviour could be translated to the movement of the chess pieces? Would they still be really playing chess or even a game? Wittgenstein did not provide a solution on logical analysis, because what is deemed logical to one person might not always be logical to the next. Yet, he supports the inductive theory when he said that “games” could be determined by their “family traits”. In such a manner, he had given a definition to “games” by correlating their known features. Hence, a game becomes the cause as identified from the effect.

Popper also argues against the idea of logical positivism which he claims is centred around the verification principle, stated as:

A statement is only meaningful if it is formal (with an abstract determination regarding quantities or numbers”, a module of modern mathematics and logic), or through an empirical verification (with experimental determination of facts and essentialism), which are a priori analytic and a posteriori synthetic. A priori synthetic is said not to exist.

According to Popper, Hume is the source of inductive problems, by giving contradictory answers when trying to solve logical and psychological problems. In a logical problem, Hume has stated that we should not conclude based on repeated experiences when explaining a situation which we have never experienced. However, in Hume’s psychological problem, he stated that we have been conditioned to think that a situation which we have not experienced will obey the conditions of situations which we have experienced. Popper thus restated Hume’s logical problem as

Could the assumption that a universally applicable theory is true be verified empirically; that is by assuming the truth-value of some of the test-statements or observable statements (which are said to be derivable from experience)?

Thus Popper, by restating Hume’s problems, provides a less contradictory version to Hume’s earlier statement: that an experiment that is repeated could verify the universality of a theory. With the above statement, Popper has started a debate that would dismantle the logical analytical assumption that had been built by the positivists. Both Popper and Wittgenstein are alike in that they do not believe in determinism. The difference between them is how Wittgenstein holds on to the assumption that a philosophical question need not be meaningful and could exist as a philosophical puzzle whereas Popper is of the opinion that philosophical problems should simulate real-world problems. A characteristic of Wittgenstein Popper objects to is his subjectivism. For Popper, knowledge can only grow if we examine hard facts. While it could not be denied that Popper has much influence in the development of psychology and the sciences, Wittgenstein has contributed immensely to ways we view language, consciousness, ideas and mathematics, especially theoretical mathematics. Much of Wittgenstein’s ideas are still being hotly debated today. Perhaps writing vaguely but profoundly contributes to that. So, dear readers, you can decide whether the chicken did cross the road, or was knocked down while Popper and Wittgenstein were having their altercation.

Philosophy of Physics and Theoretical Physics sitting on a tree...

Yes, cheesy title but just ignore that for once, would ya? :D


I have a little bit of dilemma here. It has to do with my understanding of the above topics.

It seems to me, where I read books on theoretical physics (back in my undergrad days), I've no problems with the concepts, only with the higher math required - the kind of system we underwent didn't help matters because we weren't learning enough math to catch up with the math quantum mechanics and its ilk require. However, now that I am trying to read books written by philosophers and English studies scholars who write about debates in theoretical physics, I am having some problems remembering and understanding their points. I mean, I get all the stuff that is quoted or illustrated about what some illustrous physicist have to say on the subject (in fact, it was a kind of refresher course for me, coz in physics courses, we only learnt that which is considered the best representation of acceptable physics, we didn't bother too much with theories that had been proven wrong, or were unprovable - except when the lecturer decided to digress philosophically or when we decided to do some extra-mural reading. I've only have limited knowledge of Aristotle's contribution to the physical sciences, drawn mainly from the history and philosophy of science course which I was forced to take in my first year but which I hope to rectify soon), but then, the analysis kinda got me stumped (either I'm not too bright or I need to change the way I read). I find it difficult sometimes to make sense of what these people are saying.

However, I am not saying that they write terribly (or do they write terribly?). I remember, in my late teens, while trying to read Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind, I went through many pages that made little sense to me (and it was kinda torturous in a way to go through them), especially when he started talking about the mathematics of AI, though the physics part were definitely exciting and comprehensible.

So, I find Feynman easier to understand than let's say (ok, it's his is a very reader-friendly style) ...Foucault (ref specifically to his Archaeology of Knowledge) or this guy other guy whom I'm reading, Norris (Quantum Theory and the Flight from Realism), though for the latter, I think it could be the fact that he squeezed in so many stuff in the first two chapters that threw me off-balance. But he did provide a pretty clear differentiation between the realists (Einstein, Podosky and Rosen and anti-realists like Bohr and gang, apparently related to this ongoing confrontation between the orthodox QM group and they who subscribe to relativity. I would like to read what Bohm has to say about it (because I really cannot remember what he said about QM, since I've only read a little of his writings before, and that was long ago).


Perhaps I should change strategy and begin from Feyerabend, if I want to go the philosophy of science route? Hell, Popper and Wittgenstein made more sense (my only problem with the latter is that he says so much stuff that I can't always remember what he said after awhile without rereading. Ya poor memory, maybe didn't take enough of those Omega-3 and 6 stuff when I was growing up :D) to me. But what I like about the way the philosophers had written it, is that they have taken ideas that were made to sound so certain and irrefutable in physics textbooks to force us to rethink that perhaps we might be looking up the wrong side of the telescope (or tunnel).


But at the end of the day, knowing the math helps, because the way I finally do really get it, is when I also finally also get the math. I hope my friend who is doing a PhD in physics is reading this and can give me her opinion :)

And I suggest rereading Michio Kaku's Hyperspace. It is an old book (published more than a decade ago) but worth looking at again. And to go back even further, read also Edwin Abott's Flatland.

And since my particular interest is in the discourse of science in Literature that are not necessarily science fiction (or cybernetics/phenomenology/cyberpunk fiction), I think it would be good to start compiling a list of books, for a start, that highlight the exciting/cutting-edge science of their day. Though it is easier to start with treatises written by the scientists themselves (and I will definitely use this as secondary sources), I am still creating a biliographic list of works that have a definite allusion to science (the Romantic writers would be a good source) and more obscure works/works that had never been studied or examined from the perspective of scientific discourse.

Just my little musings as I am going through the materials, and plotting my moves. :)


Coming up next, my musings on a 'chick lit' book I am reading (when I wanna get away from the heavy stuff) :P

Updated: What could this be?

The result of writing when you are half asleep is that you lose sense of timing and tenses. Have corrected the gramatical confusion below.
________________________________________________________________________________
The glazed moon smiles down at you. In the background, one hears the owl hooting, his round eyes staring straight at you and into a firmament that is a firmament to you, because you cannot see.

You are sitting here in the black organdy grandmother made you wear, a black hat pulled low over your black curls and snub nose, and button-boot legs hugged to your body. Your back is against a headstone, of somebody's ancestor. It is around eleven at night, half hour since you left the church meeting. On your walk home with the rest of the gang, you had poured scorn on Evelyn who told you she would never walk pass the graveyard at night, because Johnny has told Sylvia, who then told her, that he had seen a figure in dark cape and hat, hanging about the graveyard one night, when he was driving by in his buggy. Johnny had been caught in a downpour in another town and had therefore arrived back late. He had decided to take the small path that cuts through the church land as he was in a hurry to get home, hoping to reach the main road leading to his side of town sooner. He noticed that the figure was as tall as a man, but standing very still. He thought he saw a face, but could not quite remember. He decided to drive on, with the silent figure standing just 500 metres away. When Johny looked again through the corner of his eye, just before he turned onto the main road, the figure had vanished.

Poo-poo. You said. That's just a figure from a fairy tale. Johnny likely made that up to impress Sylvia. You know that he has a thing for her. Deep down, you know you are fascinated by someone yourself, and today, he happened to be walking back with the rest of you. His name is Jonathan and he just arrived here 3 weeks ago, and living with his aunt. Your fourteen year old romantic heart is smitten by the sea-green laughing eyes, longish curly hair and olive skin. It was whispered that he is half Oriental. He is your age, but with a charisma that magnetises girls both older and younger. They are drawn to him, but fear to have anything to do with this half-alien creature, yet longing secretly to be in his company.

Jack dared you to go sit alone in the graveyard until midnight, and proved your theory true. Bolstered by Jonathan's sudden interest in the conversation (and perhaps, in you, you think) you said, alright, I'll do it. As the party walked near the path that leads to the graveyard, you broke away from the group and ran into the graveyard. Just as suddenly, you regretted the bravado, but it was too late to turn back now, or you might never hear the end of it from the boys. And you do not want to be embarassed in front of Jonathan. As the party walked away, Jack called back and said he will come by with another boy and retrieve you at close to midnight.


It felt like hours, sitting among those who do not sppeak, with nothing to entertain you other than reading the names on the headstones. And tonight, that activity holds no interest for you. You just want the hour to pass so you can go home, and be celebrated as some sort of heroine. You wonder what would grandmother think, and then remember that grandmother has gone to visit a cousin, and only old Annie, the servant is in. Annie doesn't care what you get up to as long as you do not get yourself and her into trouble.

Thank goodness your grandmother made you wear that thick dress, because your cashmere jacket would not otherwise protect you. The night is settling into silence, when you hear a low whistle. You think it is coming from your left side, but you are not sure. It comes short, long, short and finally a long low cry. You are frozen like that little cupid sitting above the headstone you are leaning against. The whistle stops, but you hear a low rustling noise. Your heart nearly stops beating, and then, a crunching noise. That sound becomes more and more consistent. A short silence, and the crunching resumes. You become very curious. Turning in that direction, you call out, voice slightly shaking, "Who's there?" The crunching noise stops. You see a tall figure in dark cape and hat. And the figure is not standing still, but seems to be moving unnaturally fast towards you. As it came nearer, if fear had kept you rooted to the ground, it now gives you the adrenaline rush. You break free and ran for your life. You run and run and run, not daring to turn back. Suddenly, you see a figure standing in front of you, and you nearly screamed until you see who it is.

"Are you ok?" asks Jonathan as he holds the shaking you. You nod.

"I was a little worried about you being all alone, out here, so I came back out again after the rest had gone back. You look like you have seen a ghost..."

He glances at you and asks no more questions. Holding your hand, he leads you away. Initially, you are shivering from the tingling sensation of his holding your hand, that he has come back for you, your heart beating from excitement and leftover fear. But excitement soon gives way to a knotty feeling inside, as you find the hand holding you becoming colder, and fingernails sharper...

_______________________________________________________________________________

So, could this potentially be an advertisement, a short story, an excerpt from a novel, or a scene from a B-grade period, thriller movie script? :D

The E-S tests (Updated)

For those who could not access the flash animated test, try the two links below. They are in html format so you will have to do your own paper and pencil scoring.

For the E-test
For the S-test

______________________________________________________________________________________

Couldn't resist trying this out. I scored average on the empathising test, but lower than most men and women (gah!) However, I scored above average, though not at the highest score range, in the systemising test, higher than most men and women, so, I guess that can only mean one thing...

I need to work more on the EQ :)

Try the tests and find out for yourself what I mean.

Try it if you dare
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/page/0,12983,937443,00.html

And below is the full article by the tests designer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,937913,00.html

Anyway, don't take them too seriously. They are NOT, as the creator himself said, diagnostic tests. So your overall personality cannot be summarised by such results. You know, I once tried a free online IQ test (can't remember which side but I was very much into trying IQ tests back then coz I wanted to see how scoring was done) with very similar styles of questions. I still wonder why the creator of the test actually thought that one can define a person's IQ through such a test? I must had either missed his point, or that test creator had thought he could bamboozle eager test-takers. Apparently, if you score well enough, you get invited to join an exclusive IQ club. Perhaps someone with a higher score in the systemising test can tell me :P

Anyway such tests are not fool proof. Once you figure out the pattern, you know which answers will give you a median score, which gives you a low score and what will give you a high score. It's all about discerning the pattern. I've read of geeks who were (perhaps still are?) obsessed with taking standardized tests to find out how they can crack the system.

But I think, these tests point more to self-perception than the perception of others. For the latter, you need competent assessors who can discount statistical errors, e.g. why you would choose this answer over the other, and if it is indicative of the way you see yourself or something more innate.

Three years ago, while preparing for a stylistics seminar presentation on selected articles featured in a woman's magazine, I came across an article online that teaches you how to construct magazine quizzes. There are a few basic rules to follow but more importantly, it's all about how creative you can be in coming up with possible situations and choices of questions. So, don't think that the magazine editors have extracted them from some esoteric research. I always suspected the quizzes were made up, but didn't realise there were articles telling you how to do that, right out there for everyone to read :D Ah well, it was a good reference for my paper. :)


Now that I am a copywriter, I can assure you that it is highly possible for clients to ask people like me to create pop-quizzes/pop-tests for them should the latter be needed in a marketing campaign.

nuggets from Tokyo - notes on art, love, life and war

On Friday, I went with a friend to watch an experimental play performed by the Japanese troupe, Seindan, who was recently in Singapore to perform at the Arts Festival. After reading about them, I tried getting a few friends to come along, but in the end. it was just me and another person. Am I glad I work not too far away from the box office, so was able to get tickets on the very same day.

When I first entered the auditorium, I was struck by the very simple setup on the proscenium stage. The backdrop was that of the lobby of a gallery, though upon observing the props, I did not at first realised that the wood lattices hanging at the back were meant to represent paintings. Nor did I quite see the brochure and postcard rack at the far right of the stage, as my view was blocked by some panels.

Before the play started properly, what was to come was hinted on when I saw some of the actors wandering on the stage. Of course, I did not at first thought that they were actors, assuming as I did that they might be members of the audience who wanted to a closer view of the stage. Apparently they were the cast.


We were advised to sit near to the left or right if we wanted to view the English subtitles, and nearer to the middle for the Malay subtitles. However, I tried not to spend too much time following the conversation on the screens, but to actually skip the verbal message for the body language and expressions of the actors. It's a pity that I do not understand Japanese, but then, I haven't got time to pick up that language at this point. But, when the acting is done well, it does not matter that you do not understand the language.

Tokyo Notes
The time was 2014, in Tokyo. It was wartime in Europe (100 years from 1914, the period of WW1) A bunch of people have come to the gallery to look at the surviving paintings of Vermeer, and the conversations that followed among the characters took their point of departure from the exhibition, and even from aspects of Vermeer's paintings. The characters consisted of family members who decided on a reunion at the gallery when their out-of-town art-loving eldest sister came for a visit. While the characters were smiling and laughing with one another, one could see, from their taut faces, the visible tensions. As I did not buy the script, which was on sale at the door, I do not have the names of all the characters. Then, there were also lovers who decided to visit the gallery's exhibition together, as well as former lovers who met by accident at the gallery. The director and playwright, Oriza Hirta, tried to make the play as naturalistic as possible, so much so that one hears parallel conversations going on, though, but rather well-done, to me at least, in that I did not get confused in all concatenation. That despite having to rely in the screen, which is not very reader-friendly when there were multiple conversations going on. I must say that Hirata had superbly designed the conversations to fade in and fade out whenever one group reaches a climax in their dialogue, or if there is an important point that requires the full-audience attention.

The out-of-town eldest sister, Yumi, was with her sister-in-law (whose name escapes me now), and they were conversing quite plesantly. After each set of dialogue, they will be moving out of the stage (presumably to other areas of the exhibits) and other characters will be coming, or, if they were already there, take centre-stage. But as the dialogues between these two sisters related-by-marriage progresses, the audience soon came to realise that, despite the warm family banter, all was not quite right between the sister-in-law and Yumi's brother, Yoshi, who was the husband. As Yumi narrated to her sister-in-law Yoshi's childhood difficulties and phobias, it slowly emerged that Yoshi and his wife,that sister-in-law, would soon be getting a divorce. One less familiar with the Japanese culture will wonder why the women were smiling and giggling as they talk to each other, even about a subject as painful as that. But it is about maintaining a happy (steely) front, however pained you are on the inside. This is especially so for women in a predominantly patriarchal society, and you can see aspects of that emerging via the conversations of the women, as well as the body language. The women seemed to have the attitude of deferring to the men in their lives, be they the husband, lawyer, brother, or lover. The woman is the one who usually makes the sacrifice (in this play). Yumi sacrificed a potential career in the art to be at home for the parents as the rest of her siblings move away to Tokyo to pursue their individual careers and lives. A number of the female characters tend to walk a few paces behind their lovers (and it seems, even today, many Japanese women still have the tendency to do that, particularly those who had never been abroad). Even in the most relaxed relationship, one can see the man taking the lead.

Before the play started, the audience was introduced to the Vermeer's painting of "The Milkmaid" via a projection screen. There was also the "Girl with a pearl earring",a girl reading a book and some other paintings. In each groupings of characters, the audience is confronted with discussions on how the subjects in Vermeer's paintings seem to be always facing the window. There was an instance when one of the art gallery subject specialist explained the concept of the camera obscura to Yumi, and how Vermeer had utilised that in his paintings. The concept of light and shadow in the paintings, as explained by curator-character, is, in a way, an important theme in the play. It is projected through the different layers of the play. In the first instance, it can be a binary imagery for the known vs the unknown, the seen versus the hidden. This is illustrated by the dialogue between the characters. As the night progresses, the audience was treated to a slow unravelling of some of the characters' personalities, though inevitably, there would be a few that are a close book to us, because they were not central enough to the play, though still integral. Marriage, love, humanity, estrangement.

It is perhaps important to point out how the men tend to be rather philosophical in their outlook, whereas the women were more practical, though there were instances when a woman or two become pensive. While not all the characters were art-lovers, they were there because someone close to them was an art-lover and they were accompanying that person. But, since they were already there, they decided to take a look at the paintings, particularly the latest exhibits, and one of them, a man who was mostly sitting alone as his friend/lover (we do not know which, since the little we get is from the conversation between that man and another character) went around the gallery on her own. But he too learnt to appreciate Vermeer, when feeling bored, decided to take a look himself.

It was at the gallery that he encoutered a former student with whom he had had an affair. The tension and awkwardness between the two of them can be clearly felt during their conversation. There was a kind of "talking-around-the-issue", or talking at, instead of each other, betwen these two characters. A veiled suggestion on how he might had ruined the young girl's life, though this was quickly squashed by the girl-s turn-about remark, so one is never sure. From the dialogue, we knew that he was married, but was out with another woman. There might be, or no, special intimacy between him and the woman he is accompanying. Or he might be lying about her relationship to him. But like the interplay of subject and light in the paintings, the audience will be wondering about that hidden shadow, the unsaid and the unrevealed aspects of the character and his/her individual stories. What is palpable is that, many of the characters have issues to deal with, be it a long-distance relationship caused by the other serving at the war in Europe, or a torn marriage caused by another's change-of-heart, cynicism caused by lost of faith, and a feeling of bereftness due to having come from a broken family. We are similarly introduced to a couple whose marriage is about to break-up, though they have a 3 year old son. And a girl, the heiress, who never knew her dad until just the week before he died, when she was told of her inheritance. There were two young man who had seen active service and had came back, and another who wants to be conscripted into service. There is an underlying fear, or even threat, of Japan being drawn into the war, if she does not actively resist it. Hence, the conscription of some of these young men becomes a metonymy to irony.

Mr Konimatae, the gallery's subject specialist, and also former peace movement activist, has moments of melancholy when he becomes philosophic. And in one of these moments, he gave the lawyer-character a rather pessimistic view of the world (his exact words I forget), but was enough to discomfit the young lawyer. The lawyer was employed by one of the characters to work out the papers pertaining to the donation of some paintings that she had inherited upon her father's death. What had initially started as a veiled suggestion for the lawyer to convince the girl to donate all the paintings in her collection turned into philosophical outpourings that stumped the lawyer, slightly.


Anyway, this is not meant to be a professional review, but some notes to myself, and perhaps a story to my readers, of my impression of the play I've seen. The cast had successfully conveyed the myriad feelings of their characters, and the Japanese culture, just from their very expressive use of the body language. This is also a critique to that particular form of modernity that Japan has fallen under, one that breeds isolation and alienation between individuals and family members, that emphasises the material and the far distant war in another continent which only occasionally enters the conscious mind of these characters. While the other characters who are not family members are also building blocks to the story and serve to reinforce the theme outlined by the play, it is the family characters that are the central quincux, on which the story hinges. As it is now 4 am in the morning, forgive me if I do not sound very coherent. (:


I leave with this thought from the director himself that aptly sums up how the play has been like for me.

As its title implies, I got an [sic] idea for "Tokyo Notes" from Yasujiro Ozu's masterpiece "Tokyo Monogatari" (Tokyo Story). Where in Ozu's film the old parents visiting their children are delineated scene after scene, "Tokyo Notes" depicts the siblings, now living separately in Tokyo, gathering in the lobby of an art museum in Tokyo when their art-loving sister living in their hometown comes to visit. Naturally, each of them has his/her own life and pains but now their only common interest is who takes care of the parents. As another background, it is suggested that a major war is going on far away in Europe. But the people gathered here look so unrelated to the great global shift, concerned only about their own lives and problems.

If theatre is a device to depict the vibrations of human minds, this piece may have been an attempt to reveal the minutest of such vibrations. I hope to present to the audience what vibrates quietly in the double chaos of the enormous conflict between nations and that in a family, the smallest unit of people in the 90's.

And from the programme notes

Hirata claims that modern theatre in Japan which started out by importing Western modern theater has also lead to playwriting governed by Western logic. Thus, he believes, writing styles and logical structures irrelevant to the Japanese language have been routine practiced, and in trying to give those irrelevant styles reality the actors have been forced into distroted acting styles too. This is the heat of Hirata's criticism of the conventional Japanese Theater

Instead of ostentatious ideas and tricks, Seinendan chooses a clear and firm theory to create the production in order to establish a new expression that can alter the framework of theater itself.

Now, this is something I would like to explore too, with regards to this region's traditional work of art and literature (or should I say, intellectual history?) But this is in another posting. (: