It is amazing that how at one lift of the head, I break free of a sceance-like mood; depressing thoughts, of how I do not fit into my sponsoring organisation's environs, due to my disinterest in research or display of inhibitively dangerous social idiocy or others, can't think independently when expts fails, have no drive to carry out new ones, am writing this instead, etc, are transformed into encouraging ones that make life bearable - thatI'm really fostering nice and comfortable relationships in my company, that I do enjoy reading and highlighting scientific articles, that activities up next for me (next minute, next day, next Monday) to perform are interesting and meaningful and satisfying, and that I'll continue to write this, nicely conclude it.
Complainers of Singapore complain about Singapore as a whole. It's "Singapore is too..." or "Singapore is so...", never bothering to break the poor entity "Singapore" down to particular "diseased" components, nor to coin symbols to represent those components. So Singapore doesn't have its "George Bush", "Bill Gates", etc. But it's indeed too small to be not invoked by its own name. If you put George Bush and Bill Gates both in Singapore they might meet each other several times a day (both out of geography and necessity, that is, since they are very likely to associate with each other in Singapore). Aside from stale examples, what about "Monaco is too..." or "Monaco is so..."? Can do with an example of a Monegasque complaint.
Come to think of it, the Chinese has no problem of being referred to with connotations of collective characteristics. Did the unifying philosophy really work so well? Language, lethargy, self-centredness (it's the middle kingdom after all), greed, all are preserved. Preserved by non-exertion and non-recognition of individuality. Or maybe the notion of a typical Chinese is no longer valid. But I'm not talking about typicality, I think. You can talk of a typical Singaporean as easily as a typical American. So there's nothing wrong with being able to describe a typical Chinese.
Really need re-learn Chinese. Does reading help?
Complainers of Singapore complain about Singapore as a whole. It's "Singapore is too..." or "Singapore is so...", never bothering to break the poor entity "Singapore" down to particular "diseased" components, nor to coin symbols to represent those components. So Singapore doesn't have its "George Bush", "Bill Gates", etc. But it's indeed too small to be not invoked by its own name. If you put George Bush and Bill Gates both in Singapore they might meet each other several times a day (both out of geography and necessity, that is, since they are very likely to associate with each other in Singapore). Aside from stale examples, what about "Monaco is too..." or "Monaco is so..."? Can do with an example of a Monegasque complaint.
Come to think of it, the Chinese has no problem of being referred to with connotations of collective characteristics. Did the unifying philosophy really work so well? Language, lethargy, self-centredness (it's the middle kingdom after all), greed, all are preserved. Preserved by non-exertion and non-recognition of individuality. Or maybe the notion of a typical Chinese is no longer valid. But I'm not talking about typicality, I think. You can talk of a typical Singaporean as easily as a typical American. So there's nothing wrong with being able to describe a typical Chinese.
Really need re-learn Chinese. Does reading help?
posted by Azzurra | 2:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home