East.Side.Back.Street

It's 2 a.m. and I can't manage to fall asleep, so I thought it would be time better spent posting than floundering in bed.

You know recently everyone's been talking about striving for the best, being the best and living every second to the fullest(es is probably the most significant voice in this area). This is due, I believe, largely in part to us growing up - both mentally and emotionally. Just yesterday Es was reiterating it in all his contemplation and seriousness, meaning well I'm sure. But some part of me felt worried, not just for him, but for all of us. Does any of us really understand the definition of success and the "best" way to achieve it? In fact, does doing the "right" thing all the time constitute a flawless and successful life?

First of all, the definition of "right" in itself is a very subjective concept, one that is generally agreed upon from a society's(by its broadest definition) definition of morality, ethos and circumstance. I used the term "generally agreed upon" because even within the boundaries of a particular society every individual has its own deviation of thought, however small, from the conventions with which he lives by. How do I put this into perspective? For example if I were to place our clique into the context of a society, we would agree that we have general univocal concepts on morality and defined rights. There will then be slight deviations, like how song believes that homosexuality is an outright wrong and how I believe it to be arguable. But for simplicity's sake I will not talk about these deviations. It would be safe for me to say that we are aligned in a very polar way, and in this respect, our clique's congeality is both a blessing and a bane.

Influence is probably the strongest medium to bring about change of one person from another. Our definitions of moral concepts and perceived rightness is in fact a by-product of intra-influence, juxtaposed with the individual values that we have grown up on. Complications then arise for obvious reasons: the pitfall of groupthink, the unequal sharing and reception of ideas, and the imbalance of influential power. Let us not first consider the implications of shutting out foreign forces and ideas, and focus on the internal dysfuctions of our clique.

1. Unequal sharing and reception of ideas

When you look at it objectively, it is apparent that some people are much more vocal than the rest in the clique(and I'm not talking about the lame jokes). Es and Lam for example have very strong opinions and convictions, and although it is a strength in many ways, there are inherent weaknesses that shouldn't be overlooked. I believe that being principled is a basis for a worthy life, but if set too austere, rigid and indifferent to the contexts in which it is applied, then it is detrimental to the well-being and development of the individual. This is commonly termed stubborness. When stubborness sets in a conflict, it can be said that the less stubborn of the two would concede. This hampers the exchange of objective and reasonable ideas and influences. That is what I mean by the unequal sharing and reception of ideas.

2. Imbalance of influential power

This is linked to the first point. Influential power stems from vocality, confidence, responsibility and amiability. I am probably the most pronounced example of someone no one takes seriously, most of the time. This is of course my own doing. I wouldn't mind being labelled as such, because my perception of life is about uncalculated optimism. I have subconsciously made myself one of the least influential people in the clique, not that it matters to me. But the point I'm trying to get across is this - the people with the least influence might not necessarily carry the worst ideas and notions, but these are often undermined by human bias and conventional assumptions. And this problem exists even in non-adversarial settings, an instance being a clique. In matters concerning rights and wrongs, I daresay I'm less convincing than many of you just because of my nature.

I think this post could go on for much longer but I think I've said the main points of what my thoughts are. Sometimes I wonder if we're too comfortable with each other to really improve and critically think about our value system and beliefs. I personally feel we have a great thing going for us, and I wouldn't care to change. Then again, would it be a wise idea to exclude the rest of the world in the formulation of our narrow judgements? Internally, could things be better and that input is not always taken from the select few? That is a cause for contemplation.

As for es, for you and I are both in danger of immoderacy, albeit in completely opposite poles, I need to tell you what I sincerely feel and hope you'll take heed. I understand perfectly your ideals, ambitions and plans for yourself, and they are lofty and admirable, but if you do things out of necessity, "rightness" and worry about everything all the time, you're not living life. Rather, you're playing it out to a script that offers little more to yourself than to hear the appreciative laughter of your audience. Ironically being too practical in pursuit of humanity can lead to the erosion of what makes us human in the first place.

This post was meant to be reflective and at the same time maybe it's just an idiosyncrasy of my mind.

Let me leave all of you with this quote, one which I found close to my heart.


Success

To laugh often and much
to win the respect of intelligent people
and affection of children; to earn the
appreciation of honest critics and
endure the betrayal of false friends;
to appreciate beauty, to find the best
in others; to leave the world a bit
better, whether by a healthy child
a garden patch or redeemed
social condition; to know even
one life has breathed easier because
you have lived. This is to have
suceeded.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson


-sq