Eye-brain-tongue coordination. HAHA yeah. right.

Hard to believe though it is, my first language was actually Chinese. I think I must have spoken nothing but Chinese for the first three years of my speaking life.

I learned English mostly through reading, television and interaction with the other (virtual) brains in vats. Although earlier on I’d learnt Chinese through television and interaction too, I think it was the reading that did it in for me. I never really got started on regarding Chinese texts as anything but homework, wheras when I was younger I kept wishing for longer and longer English stories to read. Moreover, my parents decided when I was around five to stop using Chinese around me, because English was more ‘practical’.

Eventually it evolved to the point where I was (and still am) using English almost exclusively, with Chinese shoved far away into the background for lesson time. At the moment I know enough to understand manga (the chinese editions are cheaper), but apparantly not quite enough to give road directions to mainland chinese visitors. *_* My parents are now attempting to reverse this trend by making a point of talking to me in Chinese, but it doesn’t often work because it’s inefficient – communication between the Parents and the Kids is already enough of a problem without throwing Chinese into the equation – and because they’re so used to speaking in English to us now that they often forget.

My mother tried teaching us Cantonese this February, an effort that failed miserably partially because we were all rushing homework and because, I think, we all got fed up with us not understanding her when she told us to wash the dishes.

This would have been quite different when I was younger. My father began his slew of Japanese lessons when I was four. I was particularly irritated by that because I don’t memorise well and my father is a very, very impatient teacher who tended to get excited and call people names. So eventually we didn’t learn Japanese, and ironically, when it came to secondary one and I wanted to take Japanese as a third language, I wasn’t allowed to. My parents are strange.

The method I used for learning the physical nuances was slightly at variance with the one I used in language, although the basic concept (repetition) still stands. For example, I took half a year how to use the chopsticks properly, but it eventually came to me in a brilliant flash of holy epiphany in the kiddie-school canteen and I haven’t forgotten how to do it ever since. Learning how to turn corners on the bicycle or swim breastroke was much the same, except that because the coordination involved was so complicated the motions tended to go clumsy after long periods of disuse. For the really convoluted things like dances, however, I am established to be hopeless.

The language of arty-farty things like colour harmony and human proportion I probably have been learning all my life, mostly through observation. Things like online language I have had to grope around blindly to pick up, although I still can’t bring myself to substitute ‘you’ for ‘u’.

That’s mostly all I have to say for language at the moment. I still can’t bluff my way through the pronounciations for strange French food though.

Doing Fine Thank You

All things considered, I think I’m coping quite well.

H2 subject: Literature
I am not worrying overmuch, except that I can’t seem to access IVLE, no matter how many times I have called or emailed the admin. I am fed up and I intend to go to the office and make some noise about it soon.
The only possible difficulties I may have with Lit should be having to learn to interpret a text more quickly, justifying every single assertion I make and learning to write fast enough in a timed paper.

Edit: I can access IVLE now. Thank you Mister Neo! You're the best.

H2 subject: History
I am not worrying overmuch about this either. I find it absurdly easy to absorb info in History compared to, say, in Math. However I do find trouble leaving out the details and keeping my essay to a decent length, and/or writing fast enough to keep within the time limit. I also find that the points in my essay don’t link as well if I don’t plan properly first.

H2 subject: Math
Trigonometry and functions are fine, but graphing techniques is going to be a problem.
I got a prefect boiled egg for my first and my latest math classroom quiz.

Edit: On hindsight it was not a good idea to tell my mother this. I come from a family of math nuts.

H2 subject: KI
I love KI, but I talk too much.

H1 subject: PW
Not coming along too well at the moment, but it should be all right once the PreU Seminar ends.

H1 subject: Economics
In Economics we are tested frequently. I smoked my way through the last paper and I thought I was going to fail. Instead I passed decently and I still don’t know how I did it.
I am experiencing complications in memorising the defintions of terms, especially since the textbook is quite useless.

Edit: two months later and it's still useless. We'll see if it's worth burning after the A levels. It's too useless not to be officially edited soon.

CCA: College Publications
The meetings are very lazy, end well before time and people talk through potato chips. I am assured, however, that the frenzy starts when magazine time comes around the corner.

Edit: Didn't try out for the elections. Am more ambitious.

Exterior: PreU Seminar
I have been sabotaged into something, I think, which will leave me no time for rest until June.

Ranger's Creed --> KI live feed?

This homework is a blatant hint from Mister Cheong, and I shall endavour to be brainwashed, especially since I fear I don't even need to be.

Fancy rewording is in order. I'm too tired to redo everything so I'm just going to prune the original a bit here and there, with the occasional bad spelling and uneccessary commentary.

Note the first letter of each sacred Paragraph.



Recognizing that I volunteered as a KI student, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession (KI is a profession, isn't it?), I will always endeavour to uphold the prestige, honor, and high esprit de corps of my KI CLASS.

Acknowledging the fact that a KI student is a more elite soldier who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air (meaning from all directions, by all means for the unenlightened), I accept the fact that as a Ranger my country (country!) expects me to move farther, faster and fight harder than any other soldier.

Never shall I fail my comrades (classmates). I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong (pffft!) and morally straight and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be. One-hundred-percent and then some. (I like this phrase.)

Gallantly I will show the world that I am a specially selected and well-trained soldier (do not fail your regiment!) My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow. (I still have the longest skirt in school.)

Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country -- the legions of ignorance! I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am BETTER TRAINED and will fight with all my might. (And then some.) Surrender is not a Ranger/KI-student word. I will never leave a fallen comrade* to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country.

Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude** required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission though I be the lone survivor.

*A classmates who has fallen sick on the day of a KI class. And then some, again.
** Intestinal fortitude is nothing against the power of bananas, chock-full as they are of fibre and vitamin C.


Not very well done. I'll think I'll edit this as I soldier on in the next two years.

The Story of the Principle of Charity

We have to consider the Principle of Charity because, for one, there may simply not be enough time to state what people term ‘the obvious’. For example, someone sets fire into the building you’re in. You expect people to come bursting past your little cubicle shouting ‘FIRE’ instead of, ‘It’s over 27000 C° in the boss’ office and there are orange flickering thingies on the twenty-seventh floor. Therefore I conclude that something unforseen and possibly dangerous is happening upstairs and to evacuate before the next ten hours.’ You also expect people not to be stopping to consider this announcement, then arranging for a meeting in two minutes to discuss the relative merits of the suggested option. NOO I DON’T WANT TO DIE says the part of your brain that prefers the rest of the body to continue functioning, and you run. Even if it turns out that there is no fire after all, you would not fault your earlier response to that stimulus eg. leaping out of your little cubicle to dive for the stairs, because there are times where a suspension of belief is necessary – better, as they say, to be safe than sorry.*

‘Fire!’ is also an incident where the Principle of Charity is most useful. Picky picky philosophers can ignore pressing imperatives like these – Archimides was one such, I think – possibly only if they are so used to neglecting the side of their brain that wants very much to see the next sunrise. Other people can dismiss the Principle of Charity too if, for example, they are so busy with the administration that they just don’t realise why some loony is doing laps around the building continuously shouting one inane word. And, surprise, perhaps they decide to stay put and maybe complete the filing before they reluctantly head for the emergency exit – or are conveniently roasted. The End.

Natural selection is just not made for some people.

But the Principle of Charity can be applied for situations which don’t involve life and death either. For example, when you tell your mother good morning, you don’t expect her to demand you to state your premises unless it’s a Monday. Greetings demand the Principle of Charity because their forms are truncated and usually taken for granted. One is likely only to question them if it’s socially appropriate – often when
a) one is on really good terms with the other person and wants an interesting conversation, or
b) just doesn’t agree with the statement and is merely expressing one’s viewpoint, or
c) one is a dunce. Or a philosopher too far gone into the deep end of etymology. Or so I see it. Tell me if you’ve got any more!

The Principle of Charity is also used to decipher lines couched in socially accepted terms which everyone is expected to understand – such as, perhaps: ‘It’s really rainy – so no football match today I guess.’ Without the Principle of Charity, there would be no link between the premise and the conclusion; and, considering how commonplace such remarks are, not applying the expected assumptions (eg. football matches are never played on really rainy days) as is expected in a conversation would be ridiculous. *Figures of speech, too, require a suspension of belief. ‘Better to be safe than sorry’ is a good example. People learning English may need it carefully explained to them. ‘Ramrod-straight.’ ‘Poorer than church mice.’

There are times, however, where it is difficult or dangerous to make uneccessary assumptions, and therefore people must tread carefully. Let’s say a lawyer is interrogating a man charged for serial murders. When the lawyer asks, ‘Did you kill this or that person?’ and the defendant replies, ‘I was holding the knife at that time,’ the logical conclusion – applying the Principle of Charity – would be to assume that, yes, if the answer that the defendant gave was the answer to the lawyer’s question, that the defendant did indeed kill this or that person. However, there is no obvious link between the question and the answer in themselves, and since in court all the evidence must be clearly collected and collated in order for the judge to dispense a fair sentence, the defendant’s reply cannot suffice as a substantial response to the question. Especially, for example, if the victims all had no knife wounds. At this point in time the lawyer would probably repeat the question and, to keep things clear, request for an answer either ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

The Principle of Charity is should also not be applied in conditions where linkage between of premise to evidence to conclusion is crucial. This is because in order to prove a point beyond all logical doubt, all areas which can be questioned must be carefully probed, explored, acknowledged – and if possible, clarified. This would be because the Principle of Charity by its very nature makes leaps of logic which calls into the picture assumptions which may be unsuitable for building an argument.

And this is why the Principle of Charity applies!

Philosopher's Song

I was going to put it up here before I found out that XT had already bunged it on her blog. Damn!

In any case, it's good. It's about a bunch of philosophers all getting drunk, and it's by Monty Python. These two premises should be sufficient reason for you to go take a look. Just google it and you'll find out.

I want the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice! Especially since we're doing the text for Lit. Surely I can't be going to be stuck with Kiera Knightly and that bloody ampersand for ever.

What philosophical belief do I subscribe to?

I seem to be halfway between empiricism and naive realism.

To be very short,
Empiricists say that some truths are independent of experience (eg. logical or by definition), but are not innate -- most truths and all ideas come from experience. For example, if I grew up with people all around me telling me that Descartes was spelled 'Day-Carts', something would have gone seriously wrong with my KI entrance test paper and I wouldn't be writing this entry now.

Naive realism is to take the world at face value, in the way that everyone does unless they're philosophers. If I see a cake in front of me it will be because there IS a cake in front of me. [Yes, you can tell I'm hungry, but that's beside the point.] If I say that the roses in the shop window are pink-orange-purple-green it will probably be because the roses in the shop window have pink bits, orange bits, purple bits, and -- more importantly -- green bits. Easy.

Naive realism has problems though with the variability of experience or perception. For example, under a bad light, Britney Spears might look like a camel. You never know. You may not even know she's Britney Spears until you're told, at which you may not believe it because your prior experiences of Britney Spears have probably been different. Of course if someone produces objective proof (eg. a famous but microsopic mole on Britney Spears' left bum cheek) you may then agree, in a shell-shocked sort of way, that Britney Spears was the same as she ever was, only maybe without the airbrushing.

I like John Locke because his ideas seem so cool, and Hume because he stood up to John Locke despite the obvious coolness of his ideas (John Locke's arguments had a few gaping holes, but you can't deny that they were cool. It's all in the perception.), but the one I really agree with should be Hume. Hume is a sceptical empiricist. I think I must have been a Hume follower before I even knew about his existence. The theory that all knowledge of cause and effect comes from habit (with the certainty increasing exponentially to the experience) must have been the foundation and the beginning of my foray into the grand and far too widely explored concrete jungle that is philosophy.

Moreover, as the surrealists say, there is no spoon.

I'll update everyone when I decide to defect to a new philosophical belief. Yes, I'd broadcast my apostasy. Hopefully I'll be influential enough by then to generate riots.