With every utterance of control, there is an ego born of pride, of false knowing and incomplete understanding.
For as much as we control, so are we controlled by that which is around us. As much as we analyze this process, even more so do we become a part of it.
It is sheer ignorance, if the naiveté of humanity, that permits even us to step outside of that which consumes us, that which is a part of the whole, and is the whole itself. That we might suggest that our will is not its will, that our error is not its error.
It is another arrogance to say that our error is but its error, to deny our actions on its behalf.
For all that began with nature will again end with nature - that is, entertaining the contrived concept of a beginning and an end. All that meets the eye is but a piece of the whole, the whole being a cycle of which there is no witness of a beginning and without certainty of an ending.
Our eyes see with limited sight. Our minds breathe with limited life. It is this inability to conceive of that which endures all, that which is all - that defines our being a part of the process - and not outside of, beyond, or above all.
How closely tied is our instinct to our adeptness. For it is our instinct to learn, to grow, to adapt. And so, mankind has, and will, continue in a way that always will.
Why does the sun differ from the moon? For the same reason, or lack thereof, that we are not mere beasts. We are no different, though our tongue speaks not the same.
However superb we elevate our humanity about the robin, still we know not its thoughts.
Might we entertain that its thought leaves ours behind, that it lives in a world to which we are but a busy simplicity, ever concerned with fabrications of an imagination cultivated? But we do not know what the robin thinks or even wills.
If there comes a day when we do see eye to eye with the skirting robin - will we be prepared for such complexity, as we now understand not?
Is it possible that we, too, may evolve in a parallel way, and as such, these two days may never coincide as one? So the robin and man, ever in watch, ever to question, never to know.
It is this longing and lacking that drives the cycle and leads us only to tomorrow.
We are never a farther step from today.
[c. 20071014]
Note: Access to Blogger is still blocked within China. Without access to a much appreciated VPN (proxy), I would be unable to publish to my blog from within mainland China. Thus, I am blessed and grateful to be sharing. With every post, I hereby protest the oppressive nature of the Chinese government blocking access to any part of the web.
20100113
20100111
on respect
Over the years, I have pondered much the notion of respect –what it does mean and what it does not mean. While it may be foolish to try to define it rigidly or simplistically, I find value in pursuing a truer understanding of it. To disregard the exploration of the abstraction or ambiguity surrounding respect, is to simply default to a superficial definition of respect.
a question
How do the terms ‘survivalism’ and ‘selfishness’ pertain to ‘respect’?
Survivalism may encompass an act or a choice made, cognitively or otherwise, that without being made would lead to the destruction of the self, and by exaggerated extension, the human race. Literally, to survive is to simply to continue [the] existence [of an entity, being.]
Selfishness may describe those actions or choices made, on matters that do not endanger the continuation of one’s existence, and in fact, may create frivolous benefits at the expense of another’s survival. Literally, to be selfish is simply to lack consideration of others.
intersection
I believe these two concepts intersect [or diverge] at a common point, namely respect. I summarize ‘respect’ as “the cognizant compromise of the superfluous desires of the self for the preservation of the basic needs of another.”
When I directly devalue the needs of another at the mere gratification of myself, do I disrespect another. When I value another’s intrinsic rights by relinquishing my desires unessential, do I respect another. Without an intrinsic understanding of this, one is even incapable of respecting the self, and by extension, another.
Disrespect is born via the cognitive acknowledgment, or ignorance of, the sometimes subtle and highly relative distinction of ‘need’ vs. ‘want’.
defining by opposite
Defining what is a ‘need’ or what is ‘essential’ is no abecedarian task. Similarly, defining what is ‘superfluous’ or what is merely a ‘desire’ is better left to the omniscient.
But reality defies the ideality of accurately distinguishing between ‘needs’ and ‘wants’, and so demands otherwise; the one left to practice respect is, ultimately, the common person –you and I.
Perhaps a need is but something we have, if even without wanting it; a desire is but something we want, if only without having it. In quantitative terms, a ‘need’ might have a negative value; a ‘want’ might have a positive value, with survival hovering only at a neutral value between, zero.
Looking at the meanings opposite of ‘survival’ and ‘selfless’, only then, may it be possible to gain a better understanding of where or how these concepts truly intersect to better realize respect, as not only a relative abstraction, but as a tangible reality.
That which speaks not of survival speaks not of life. It speaks of peril and all that perishes.
That which speaks not of the selfish speaks of all that is selfless. It speaks not only of generosity and all that is altruistic, but also of applied philanthropic action.
what it is
Respect is a choice; it is not a simple definition carved out of infallible stone. It is a choice made by the fallible, by the common person, which speaks of a regard for life, of a concern for others.
Respect speaks of sought-out understanding –both of the self, as well as a willed understanding of others.
And living mindfully in the balance between.
Note: Access to Blogger is still blocked within China. Without access to a much appreciated VPN (proxy), I would be unable to publish to my blog from within mainland China. Thus, I am blessed and grateful to be sharing. With every post, I hereby protest the oppressive nature of the Chinese government blocking access to any part of the web.
a question
How do the terms ‘survivalism’ and ‘selfishness’ pertain to ‘respect’?
Survivalism may encompass an act or a choice made, cognitively or otherwise, that without being made would lead to the destruction of the self, and by exaggerated extension, the human race. Literally, to survive is to simply to continue [the] existence [of an entity, being.]
Selfishness may describe those actions or choices made, on matters that do not endanger the continuation of one’s existence, and in fact, may create frivolous benefits at the expense of another’s survival. Literally, to be selfish is simply to lack consideration of others.
intersection
I believe these two concepts intersect [or diverge] at a common point, namely respect. I summarize ‘respect’ as “the cognizant compromise of the superfluous desires of the self for the preservation of the basic needs of another.”
When I directly devalue the needs of another at the mere gratification of myself, do I disrespect another. When I value another’s intrinsic rights by relinquishing my desires unessential, do I respect another. Without an intrinsic understanding of this, one is even incapable of respecting the self, and by extension, another.
Disrespect is born via the cognitive acknowledgment, or ignorance of, the sometimes subtle and highly relative distinction of ‘need’ vs. ‘want’.
defining by opposite
Defining what is a ‘need’ or what is ‘essential’ is no abecedarian task. Similarly, defining what is ‘superfluous’ or what is merely a ‘desire’ is better left to the omniscient.
But reality defies the ideality of accurately distinguishing between ‘needs’ and ‘wants’, and so demands otherwise; the one left to practice respect is, ultimately, the common person –you and I.
Perhaps a need is but something we have, if even without wanting it; a desire is but something we want, if only without having it. In quantitative terms, a ‘need’ might have a negative value; a ‘want’ might have a positive value, with survival hovering only at a neutral value between, zero.
Looking at the meanings opposite of ‘survival’ and ‘selfless’, only then, may it be possible to gain a better understanding of where or how these concepts truly intersect to better realize respect, as not only a relative abstraction, but as a tangible reality.
That which speaks not of survival speaks not of life. It speaks of peril and all that perishes.
That which speaks not of the selfish speaks of all that is selfless. It speaks not only of generosity and all that is altruistic, but also of applied philanthropic action.
what it is
Respect is a choice; it is not a simple definition carved out of infallible stone. It is a choice made by the fallible, by the common person, which speaks of a regard for life, of a concern for others.
Respect speaks of sought-out understanding –both of the self, as well as a willed understanding of others.
And living mindfully in the balance between.
Note: Access to Blogger is still blocked within China. Without access to a much appreciated VPN (proxy), I would be unable to publish to my blog from within mainland China. Thus, I am blessed and grateful to be sharing. With every post, I hereby protest the oppressive nature of the Chinese government blocking access to any part of the web.
20100109
officialdom
the red stamp of officialdomThis red stamp validates and sublimely summarizes the last four months of my service as a visiting English Teacher, partnering up with EduChina and Shangqiu Experimental Elementary Schools of Henan Province.
Two months ago, I requested a letter of recommendation, and my superior insisted that a personalized recommendation could not compare to this certificate; it is the thing that employers will look for... and so be dazzled by.
Below is my 聘书 [pinshu, Certificate of Appointment] with EduChina, China's largest educational service provider:
it's official: my EduChina Certificate of Appointment中国教育学会中育教育发展研究中心特聘JESSICA老师卫中国教育学会实验学校英语口语教学简直教师。I am amused, in fact, for I fear that only Chinese companies will take it seriously.
[Chinese Society of Education and Education Research Center for Educational Development distinguishes Teacher JESSICA as a part-time Spoken English Teacher for the Chinese Society of Education Experimental School.]
But at least it's official.
critically
For obvious starters, my surname is missing; I am represented, in full, only by my given name.
I briefly imagine that I have a following who know me simply as "...Jessica..." -in a way that I am not confused for another Jessica, nor are others confused for me.
But this is not a reality, and I am thankful for it.
Secondly, 2009年9月20日, the date printed at bottom right (i.e., September 20, 2009) is actually a date before I had worked for, let alone heard of their organization.
Had I not started working for them until the end of October?
Thirdly, the certificate simply states that I have been appointed as an Oral English Teacher. It says no more about what I have contributed; it says not why they would recommend me in the future to others.
Have I left them speechless?
offense in no sense
No matter how convincingly or logically one may argue, it seems that a personalized and thoughtfully tailored recommendation letter is a simple frivolity.
I would take it personally, but I cannot.
This is standard business in China.
An easily reproducible certificate bearing a 盖章 [gàizhāng
The red stamp has the final say.
Note: Access to Blogger is still blocked within China. Without access to a much appreciated VPN (proxy), I would be unable to publish to my blog from within mainland China. Thus, I am blessed and grateful to be sharing. With every post, I hereby protest the oppressive nature of the Chinese government blocking access to any part of the web.
20100103
counterfeit coal
No part of this post is written with explicit intent to compare the literal and figurative, and any resemblance to any character that died in 1976 may be purely coincidental.
Introducing the Chinese ¥100 bill -two of them, to be exact:
detect the twin: indubitable identical and fraternal fakeLet me explain.
Over the last month of 2009, I came to be the unwitting owner of two fake ¥100 banknotes.
Interestingly, I could only have received them from a student of mine, and it implies either their knowing of the counterfeit bills, or that they two were unaware of their being counterfeit.
rejection
I was made aware of their fakehood by several vendors: the taxi driver, the grocery store clerk, the phone card street vendor. Nobody wanted my pink bills.
Was it simply because of the small tear, running vertically? The torn off corner? Was this simply the coal left for me at the end of a lackluster year?
eagle eye
It seems the answer is not so straightforward. Upon a closer look, the differences are neither minute nor few.
Challenge: if you scan the photos but do not skim the following text, can you spot the fake?
Using my neighborhood as a natural light-table, here is a comparison of two bills. First, with flash, then without:
see any differences?
how about now?
watermark or wash out?Looking closer still, in plain sight, the fake (right) offers a 'watermark' that is no more than a fleshy ink (note, the real watermark (left) can be seen even from looking at your computer screen from a different angle):
ghostly or yellowed?The close-up below addresses two aspects: the iridescence of the '100' at left (real), and the luster-lacking design at left (fake):
iridescent does it... and does it notAnother method, impossible to convey virtually, is the textured surface of certain areas of the note. Mao's left hairline is subtly raised, as is the '1oo' and emblem below, as well as the curved ridge of lines extending below (the latter being present in recent printings). The fake, at right, offers some, but not all of this rich texture. You'll have to trust me on this.
Holding the note at edge and looking left across the top right, you will find that a perpendicular look at the oval 'emblem' of a fake note offers nothing more. The real ¥100 note, however, has a a '100' hiding inside:
how many '1oo' can you see?
In the below image, the real note is at left, the fake at right. There are obvious differences in the pattern clarity and color subtlety. Generally speaking, the fake is never as delicate; in fact, it is often rather bold:
Holding the note at edge and looking left across the top right, you will find that a perpendicular look at the oval 'emblem' of a fake note offers nothing more. The real ¥100 note, however, has a a '100' hiding inside:
how many '1oo' can you see?In the below image, the real note is at left, the fake at right. There are obvious differences in the pattern clarity and color subtlety. Generally speaking, the fake is never as delicate; in fact, it is often rather bold:
textured lines: all in the touchThe difference is that the magnetic strip at top (fake) is merely a painted green line, whereas the real magnetic strip actually shows depth in color against the neighboring ink:
magnetic strip or painted line?The offset of the magnetic strips is no alarm, unfortunately; not all magnetic strips are equally spaced along the horizontal.
flipside
Looking at the back side of the ¥100 note, more differences await:
ZHONGGUO RENMIN YINHANG: People's Bank of ChinaThe color differences in the pattern below would only raise concern if comparing side by side, and even then, this alone cannot discern the counterfeit bill:
color differencesBelow, design subtlety shows through on the fake (top) and real (below) bills, as do color intensity (note the swirled crests within the double zeroes). Additionally, the blue and red mosaic tiles are truncated at the bottom left:
missing mosaic...This below image makes it difficult to see any difference, but it is possible to tell that the '100' bleeds through from the front, legible still:
barely visible... but there!Note the differences in design below: the fake (top) has a more unified color hue than the real bill (below). Also, the fake leaves little guesswork in deciphering the repeated 'RMB100' lettering, as compared with the subtlety below it:
under scrutiny: the stark and subtleLooking at the iridescent magnetic strip, other detail differences appear.
Some results using flash:
Fake is dull. Real is iridescent.Without the presence of flash, another detail comes to light:
Fake has inversed '¥100'. Real is iridescent, but without clarity of text.lessons learned
A few words of warning:
Beware the crisp bill that speaks stiffly of unsophisticated paper brittle, not the minted cloth robust.dead giveaways
Beware the clean tear on a new bill, not yet worn with the use of trusted years.
Spend a few minutes getting to know your money, issued straight from the bank.
When in doubt, compare with a trusty bill in your pocket.
And lastly, trust in people, but never in money.
Mao might be dead, but these counterfeits are being given away like spittle to the wind.
My days of blindly accepting payment from a trusty source, however, are over. I will pass a shrewd eye over any bill, be it received in straightforward friendship or slippery foeship.
As for the fate of the two counterfeit bills in my possession?
Lucky for me, I discovered my fakes before the bank would've, as the notes would have been confiscated. And so, they will become a memorable part of a scrapbook from my time in China, the land of real fakes.
Note: Access to Blogger is still blocked within China. Without access to a much appreciated VPN (proxy), I would be unable to publish to my blog from within mainland China. Thus, I am blessed and grateful to be sharing. With every post, I hereby protest the oppressive nature of the Chinese government blocking access to any part of the web.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
