stupidity of olivia

stupidity of oliviaShare Today at 23:59 | Edit Note | Delete Sigh...on nights...watching You've got mail. Xmas eve. Wishing I am Meg Ryan. How can you be 40 odd years old and still be so DAMN cute! The world is not fair! I just love the way her lips turn down wards when she smiles but the corners of her mouth turns upwards. It's so damn cute! You know I still hope I will own a bookshop one day. Damn it, I might just shut the whole shop down so I can read all the books myself! May be I'll meet my Tom Hanks there too?! Oh fuck this Hollywood schmooze. I'd probably just end up with a shop like on Blackbooks. Wahahaha... For now, the closest I'll come to is a Meg hair cut :-( For the record, by the way, I think Nicole Kidman is the prettiest actress nowadays. Although I think Irene Jacob and Juliet Binoche are the most elegant. Of course, NO ONE comes close to Audrey Hepburn, EVER! Made it to church tonight. Finally! I just don't have that enthusiasm to church any more. ALthough I think I"m still very certain that God exists. I find no better reason for life than Christ. However, I also cannot shake that Seneca philosophy because the world is not fair, it isn't "good". Eexpect the worst, lest you be disappointment by expectations. Met a professor for brunch the other day. Given that we've never actually met before, we got on rather well. But he said something that impressed on my memory. Although I doubt he remembers saying it, although I suspect he doesn't even remember me now. Anyway, he said "there is so much to do, so much to see". I wish I can have the same enthusiasm about life. May be it's because he lives in New York. May be it's that sense of action that city life has, that fuels his optomism. You know, for a while, I even considered doing USMLE because of that. Ah, the stupidity of Olivia.

consolation of philosophy

Reading the "consolations of philosphy" by Alain de Botton at the moment. Only read the first few chapters. It was talking about Socrates would rather be executed, than to relent on his views. Part of De Botton's argument is that philosophy helps you to hold your believes, because, philosophy advocates for constant questioning. Therefore if you held onto believes which withstood rigorous questioning and refutations, you know the grounds those believes are held, therefore, you can be certain within yourself, that you are right. While it is a very noble concept, I recall also the social experiment where subjects were shown black lines of varying lengths. After seeing numerous other "subjects" wrongly identify the shortest line, true subjects would follow the trend, despite it being clearly the false choice. This is a fascinating social phenemenon with much implications to psychiatry as well. There are certain advantages to having a need to conform. I would speculate that as we develop a sense of identity, need to belong and conform helps to steer us away from extremes. This is, of course, only a good thing, if you believe in moderation and that the world is full of grey rather than black and white. It is, however, entirely possible that I have, in Socrates' eyes, compromised on the truth by saying this. While I would say that I am Christian, I would like to think that I have no doubt I would get to heaven when I die, I am, with many points of the Christian believes, uncertain that I fully agree. Issues like suicide, abortion, are obviously controversial. However, I am somewhat adverse to the idea of using "the will" to overcome "instinct". I don't think I can truly clarify what I mean about this. It's just a general feeling that there is a part of me, which I still own as part of me, that does not WANT to "be good". It that is instinctual, if that "wish to rebel" is part of human nature, why is that "bad"? I suppose the argument is that those instincts are the footprints of sin in human lives. May be I'm just giving myself excuses, rationalising that these instincts are acceptable. Or may be I'm already becoming hypofrontal, and losing my higher executive reasoning functions. On the ward that I'm working in, there are quite a few patients with dementia, particularly the frontal type. This type of dementia, people retain a lot of their memory function, but the inhibitions, planning, sequencing, judgement abilities are lost. So you have these very eloquent young-old (it also tend to be younger in onset, so like in the 60s), immaculately dressed, but live in squalor, drive erratically, spend all their pensions, because of the illness. You are trying to tell them what's wrong, but that part of the brain for insight is lost, and they stare at you with this incredulous look, while putting to you all the great activities and gatherings they still do, when in fact, their relationships have fallen apart, in debt and have no home to go back to. I cannot see, how continuation of life, in those circumstances, is respectful to life. Having said all that, I have to admit I have much to learn. Having said that I now understood the randomness/ meaningless nature of the exam process, I am still proud. Having got full marks in the interviewing part of my exam, I was almost expecting to get the prize of best registrar for the year. I went to the prize giving party. I was disappointed. The prize is actually given to based on both the writtens and the clinicals. I only scraped pass the writtens. Examining this feeling, I realised how greed and that sense of "never enough" have infected my spirit. When I didn't know the exam result, I was just hoping I would pass. When I found out I passed, got the marks back, I wanted the prize. To an extent, that need "to be the best" is good in order to utilise all your potential but it's a relentless grind that, if you are not careful, will squash you. Similarly, even though I say I don't expect people to read the dribble I write, I still feel very flattered if people respond. On that note, i shall shut up.