Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

The entire poem is a metaphor for a major decision that the author has to make in his life. The fork in the path represents the two options in the decision; the less travelled one represents the path that fewer take in life. The author looking down the road is him trying to foresee or calculate the implications and consequences of his decision; the bend in the undergrowth represents the unpredictability of this decision. “way leads on to way” represents the irreversibility of some of the decisions that are made and also how they lead on to more and more choices. The author’s sigh is his regret that he cannot explore each “path”.

I like this poem because it accurately illustrates the difficult decisions that one has to make in life and also the huge implications of some these decisions. However, it also depicts what could be the author’s regret or sadness at not being able to experience both paths to find out which would be the better one or making the wrong decision or “missing out” the benefits of the other choice, if any.

55 Fiction: Saving water

“There is no question of it,” a solemn PUB representative said. “Singapore must conserve water so that our country can become more independent and will not rely on other countries for potable water.”

After the public convention on water had ended, the representative rushed home to organise the water games for his son’s birthday party.

55 Fiction: UDICEP

The Universal DIsease CurE and Prevention (UDICEP) has been produced! UDICEP utilises a combination of antibiotics, antiviral and vaccines to create the ultimate treatment for any disease, whether viral or bacterial. It will also prevent disease because of the integral vaccines.

Brought to you by the Suriv Ulf Eniws Company. Many more products coming soon.

55 Fiction: A Miser

One day a miser was buying a hat. The owner of the shop was selling it for ten dollars, but the miser refused. Even when the owner had brought the price down to two dollars, the miser still refused.

Finally, the enraged owner bellowed, “Have it free, then!”

The miser replied, “Good. I’ll buy two.”

If I could eliminate one emotion from the world, would I?

No. Some may say that they would eliminate sadness or anger, the "negative" emotions, but I think that one needs to experience "negative" emotions before one can experience "positive" emotions and vice versa. If sadness was elimated, no one would ever experience true happiness. If hate was elimated, no one would feel love. Anyway, the emotions that we experience are probably not actual things, but "multiplier"s used by the subconscious to emphasise certain events or facts that are actually not real ("Emotion is the enemy of Truth").

What is beauty?

One of the holiday assignments is philosophy. I have to answer some of the questions in my philosophy WS. However, I’ll try not to be limited and will write whatever I can think of as I answer these questions.

This has much to do with the human mind. Humans are hardwired to look on some things as aesthetically pleasing, and this in turn can help improve one’s mood, or help recognise things that may be beneficial to one survival or quality of life. Of course, in modern life, this is more to induce a good mood etc. However, there is also a direct correlation between what “level” of beauty the brain is experiencing, or rather seeing (scientists have found that the brain weighs vision as the most important among its sensory processes), and what “level” of happiness or entertainment the brain or human experiences. If the beauty is external appearance, the person experiences a superficial “happiness”. However, if the “beauty” is because of an act kindness of integrity etc, the person will be more touched, along with the more superficial “levels” of happiness.

However, note that there is no such real thing as beauty. This is only because of the brain’s wiring. And because the wiring of every brain is different, beauty is just perceived.

If seen through a computer’s inputs, then nothing in this world is beautiful. There are only those that are more useful or more efficient than others or healthier or mentally sharp.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

There is now way to know that I am not dreaming right now. Some might answer that dreams seem very faraway and hazy when one recall them, and since "real life" seems so vibrant and, well, real, then it must be real life. However, when one is dreaming, the "dreamworld" is probably just as real and only when one wakes up, the other world seems very hazy and dreamy, pun intended. The only difference is that in the real world, we find out facts that we didn't know before. Dreamworld is merely a simulation by the brain. Since in real life we find out many things that are both true and new to us, it can only be unreal if it is a massive simulation by computers (Matrix). And there is no way to find out intentionally. Another thing is that dreams are inconsistent - they don't continue about the same thing each succesive night (Sometimes I wish they did - they'd be easier to follow).

What is happiness?

Many describe being happy as having lots of money, property and having a good life. However, this is completely untrue, or, I should say, to a certain extent. Having a good life is not necessary for happiness. Or rather, one will be happy by having a good life - by one's own standards. By lowering one's standards of a "good life" to accommodate for the "drawbacks" of one's life, only then can one have true happiness. However, something else is lost - the urge for advancements that will improve one's standards of life and possibly the people around oneself. In other words, not helping oneself (and possibly others) while one has the means.

So, which should we choose? The betterment of our own lives and others' or true happiness?

But then again, this may not be the only two choices. Look at Star Trek. Humans are still developing better and better technology but have achieved a sort of utopia. At first this seems impossible unless the Earth is a totalitarian regime ruled over by a very benevolent and uncorrupt leader. This because when better technology comes into existence, people usually think "How can I help myself with this" or "How can I make money from this". However, this is not the case in Star Trek. Instead, all technology is built for exploration of space and the "quest for knowledge". Thus, a utopian society is achieved.

What is the right way to live?

The way to live depends on the environment. In prehistory, the lives of humans were perilous, constantly being threatened by all sorts of dangers, such as lack of food or water or predators or unsuitable habitats. Thus the “way to live”, if I could put it that way, was to kill any animal that was weaker for its meat, take flight if necessary when up against stronger adversaries, and try to get the most out of the environment so that we could live long enough to, erm, ensure that there would be a next generation.

Now, humans have much more time on their hands and have invented all sorts of leisure activities and entertainment and industry. However, along with these has come environmental damage, so now humans have to be concerned with the environment, and the “way to live” would probably to reduce one’s negative impact on the environment.

Thus, I conclude that (in my opinion) the way to live should be to lead a simple life, never harassing one’s neighbours unnecessarily and also taking the least from the environment around us.

Filial piety and 《弟子规》

I feel that filial piety and general respect towards one’s parents has somewhat decreased over the past generation together with the “modernisation” or so-called “opening up” of this world to Western values because of the Western dominance in today’s society. In the original Chinese culture, parents are respected highly by their children. 孔子，　in 《弟子规》，　describes how a child should respect his parents, in the morning greeting them, notify them when leaving the house, asking for their permission when doing anything. People may look on this as “old-fashioned”. However, I think that this shows true and proper respect for one’s parents. 《弟子规》also states that after the death of a parent, one must mourn and abstain from meat and wine for 3 years. This is because a baby depends on its parents for 3 years to learn to eat and walk before it can survive more independently. This shows the respect for one’s parents that should have in life. Of course, it may not be so practical to carry out such acts in real life. However, we must still have this respect for our parents. Notice that 《弟子规》does not promote complete, blind respect for one’s parents. It does say that children can correct their parents when they are wrong. However, the underlying respect must still be there (children should not shout at their parents or scold and if the parent does not listen, the child should not be angry but should beg and plead for the parent to listen). Nowadays, youngsters can lie and even dare to argue or yell at their parents (and not apologise later on, even blaming their parents for getting angry at them). This shows that children no longer respect their parents or their parents simply do not occupy such an important place in their childrens’ minds. Also, the care that children are supposed to show for their parents is becoming increasingly reversed. Instead, children are doted on by their parents and when they throw tantrums, parents will do anything to appease their anger (of course, this is just a generalisation. It doesn’t mean that everybody is like this). When children grow up, instead of caring for their parents like their parents did for them, they simply plonk their parents in a nursing home.

But why is this? Maybe it’s because humans were hardwired for max survival. This means that children would not care for their parents if it meant that their own survival was compromised (which most of the time it was) e.g. giving what little food/water there was to their parents. This would be fine when their parents were younger, but when parents grew old, they would die because no one cared for them. But in present day society, even though humans in developed worlds like us no longer need to think so much about our survival, we still act the same way. And people who live in conditions where they really need to think about their survival still care for their parents.

So even though we are not really hardwired to care for our parents for the benefit of our survival, we should care for them because we no longer need to worry about our survival.