teh liang teik

come back.

i miss you.

It is the confession, not the priest that gives us absolution. -Oscar Wilde

you know that gnawing feeling, everyone has it. sometimes the lucky ones have it once in a while, the unlucky ones have it at the back of their throats; some days they manage to swallow the guilt down to their stomach, other days, there's just that burning, heavy feeling, threatening to consume them. 

today was a cause for the former type of guilt, the 'once in a while' guilt. class was on the 3rd floor, so i took the elevator up, as the doors were closing, i saw a girl rushing to the door, and was actually right in front of me. the 'open door' button was just 10cm from me, yet i made no effort to stop the doors closing, instead i watched her get left behind by the elevator. so close yet so far; she was able to touch my face if she wanted to, but she could not stand next to me. the whole way up, i felt an overwhelming sense of guilt; i know how frustrating it is to be left behind by the elevator only because the occupants inside refused to push the 'door open' button. i had done nothing to help.

if i had not noted down this incident, by  now i would have forgotten about it. i would have continued merrily down life's path for me. the fleeting sense of guilt has gone, due to the distance of time and space. 

however, when it comes to bigger things, actions that lead to devastating reactions and consequences, this guilt does not go away that easily. no matter how much you try, how hard to swallow the bitter taste in your mouth.. it does not go away. 

so i guess, what university taught me today is, think before you act. 

this is what's been happening to me recently

ScienceDaily (May 3, 2007) — The ‘Peter Pan Syndrome’ affects people who do not want or feel unable to grow up, people with the body of an adult but the mind of a child. 

Symptoms of an anxiety attack include:

Surge of overwhelming panic Feeling of losing control or going crazy Heart palpitations or chest pain Feeling like you’re going to pass out Trouble breathing or choking sensation

Hyperventilation Hot flashes or chills Trembling or shaking Nausea or stomach cramps Feeling detached or unreal

Physical symptoms of anxiety

Anxiety is more than just a feeling. As a product of the body’s fight-or-flight response, anxiety involves a wide range of physical symptoms. Because of the numerous physical symptoms, anxiety sufferers often mistake their disorder for a medical illness. They may visit many doctors and make numerous trips to the hospital before their anxiety disorder is discovered.

Common physical symptoms of anxiety include:

Pounding heart Sweating Stomach upset or dizziness Frequent urination or diarrhea Shortness of breath

Tremors and twitches Muscle tension Headaches Fatigue Insomnia

Can you put a price on your dreams?-Sanjay Chandran

what thoughtful words people put on their blackberry messengers nowadays. 

that short sentence made me think about my own dreams. which were basically unformed, like a clump of cells in an uterus, i forget what the name is. blastocyst?

anyway, today was a good day. a wonderful way to end my first week of uni as a final year student. 

why?

because for the first time in 3 years, i have finally found an accounting subject that i love, Financial Accounting Theory. sounds boring and stuffy i know, that's what i thought initially. i dreaded doing the DR and CR, the NPVs, and all that nonsensical counting and projections on a damn spreadsheet. 

but hey, it's something that really interests me. it's about critical thinking, not boring questions with only ONE answer. its about speculating on the different types of accounting practices that could lead to an all round efficient market. it's a wonderful mesh of finance, economics and accounting. 

and it doesn't hurt that my lecturer is both the head of the accounting department, and the honours department. cue sucking up. wish i was the only student in the class. 

so, that led me to finally form a dream. 

to come up with the Wen Hypothesis (okay, maybe i'll change the name to something snazzier, maybe the Cupcake hypothesis. but in urban dictionary (look at no 5), cupcake means something totally disgusting, so maybe not... hmm. ill have a few more years to work on the name of my hypothesis). 

back to my hypothesis. 

my hypothesis shall:

1)encompass both finance and accounting (because its my 2 majors)

2)applicable in real life, none of that nonsense economics principles where you have to assume perfect competition and all that jazz. it must work in MOST situations, markets and in daily life.

3)be cursed my uni students, both finance and accounting because they have to learn about it and have many many lectures on it. 

4)be so totally awesome. 

which means that. I NEED TO GET INTO HONOURS. from there MASTERS and/or PhD. sounds quite ambitious. but i'm gonna try anyway. 

HONOURS FTWWWWWWWW!!!!!

my blood, sweat and tears-my essay

Technology has evolved alongside evolutionary advances of human beings: adapting to our ever-changing needs. Thus, technology presents as eternally transient. Objectively, technology is considered as a form of life, a megamachine, assisting the projection of thoughts into actions; the orderliness and structure of human life cannot exist without technology. Hence, technology is considered as an object, bound to the wishes of human beings. In contrary, technology also represents an extension of the self, embodying a belief that its utilisation changes human beings and the situation (Lally, 2002). In relation to this, technology is analysed subjectively, allowing for the different but no less important interpretations of this essential part of human life.

Secondly, personality is an extension of one’s identity (Ng, 2009). For the purpose of this essay, identity is assumed to consist of the internal attributes of the individual, and external relationships with the world, such as technology. The close affinity between technology and humans has existed for centuries; our view of self is closely connected with it. The presence and utilisation of technology ultimately restructures the individual. As such, it can be extrapolated that technology shapes human identity.

Intimacy is in itself bound to the idea of identity. Intimacy is an exchange of personal knowledge. Following that, privileged information is a projection of identity. It can therefore be said that the relationship between humans and technology will have significant spill over effects for intimacy. This essay will effectively and succinctly evaluate the connection between technology and human identity, and the effects of this relationship on intimacy, through the analysis of doors and clothing.

Doors and clothing, serve as prime illustrations of how their manifestations have changed human identity. Doors and clothing serve similar purposes- as a physical barrier, a projection of identity, and an emotional hurdle. In the Middle Ages, openings in the wall were frowned upon, and sometimes in Western cultures, regarded as evil (Hanfmann, 1942). This is in direct contrast with the view of modern society. We regard doors as essential, no longer considering doors to be malevolent. It is so common that we would be shocked at a building without doors. This illustrates the way technology has changed the present mind, and thus identity, of civilisation.

Similarly, in ancient times clothing was fashioned out of animal parts, as a protection against the environment. As society advanced, the complexity of clothing developed alongside. The notion of being clothed started with the invasion of European powers. These powers enforced their own style of dressing as a form of suppression of the local identities, a subtle method of dominance (Ruane, 2010). Now it is a widely accepted societal norm to be clothed; this technology has been embedded so solidly in our lives today. Clothing was first introduced to serve as a protective barrier, however, with time, it has shaped civilisations: clothing is an apt reflection of the identity of societies.

Likewise, the erection of a door serves as a means of defence. However, the very presence of the door also implies that there is hope of admission. The connotation of the door is that it serves as an obstacle of gaining entry into the presence of another, signifying that admittance is privileged, and has to be granted (Moore, 1981). Following that, clothing serves the same purpose, shielding the wearer from harm. Being clothed separates the individual from the rest of the world; no one is to penetrate that defence. Clothing effectively protects the most private and precious possession-the body.

Nevertheless, as with most boundaries, there will be some means for access, if granted. Doors and clothing allow others to be invited in. The premise for this is that the individual feels secure enough in their knowledge of the other, firm in the belief that no unwanted consequences will arise. Doors cater for this through their ability to be closed and bolted, or opened and unlocked; the underlying aim of its invention. Alternatively, clothing allows others into the personal space of the wearer through its material, cutting and size. This is achieved through the selective ‘unveiling’ of the body. This is a deliberate gesture, implying that entering without invitation is a violation.

Furthermore, selective entrance takes on many forms. It can occur physically, through the opening of a door and the stripping of one’s clothes. Additionally, it can be done in such a way that grants only a certain level of entry through the material of the door. Glass doors are more yielding than wooden or metal doors. It suggests a more open relationship between the individual and the outside, in contrast with a solid door than prevents any disclosure of the personal and private life of the individual. With clothing, levels of entry are allowed through its cutting and material. The donning of a knee length dress is an illustration of this point. The wearer provides others with unrestricted views to her calves, whilst at the same time, shielding other parts. Lightweight and sheer material allow the body form to be seen, without an actual revealing, enabling access without a physical invitation.

It is commonly assented that one’s property is an externalisation of oneself (Knowles, 1983), (Arnold, 2008). Doors and clothing are key examples of how personality and identity is manifested and depicted through one’s property. The fluidity of the door design allows the owner to portray their identity- through its shape, size, colour, material and other attributes. Likewise, clothing fittingly embodies the identity of the wearer. With a wide range of styles to choose from, the wearer would select those that appeal to their tastes. It expresses the likes and dislikes of the wearer. The manner in which doors and clothing represents the identity of an individual will be illustrated through the evaluations of two of the key identity attributes- personal preference and culture.

Free will, coupled with the booming nature of consumer products, provide human beings with the privilege to choose any gadget in any possible design. As these two technologies have been so incorporated in our lives today, this allows a thorough examination of how doors and clothing quantifies identity through its ability to reflect the personal preference of the owner.

In society today, design and manufacturing advancements have successfully allowed the production of doors to suit all kinds of identities. Individuals are given the privilege of selecting a door that they are utterly satisfied with. This gives rise to the manifestation of identity through the deliberate choice of the shape, size, material, colour and other modifiable attributes.

It can be assumed that exhibitionists would generally choose glass doors. It could also be extrapolated that for a more conservative individual, the door they would prefer would adhere to the traditional design-wooden, sturdy: generally more muted in appearance. An extrovert would lean towards doors that are louder in design- brighter colours, an uncommon design and so forth. An art aficionado would tend towards doors with more intricate designs, paying homage to their favoured artist or era. Additionally, trendy individuals would follow the latest craze, revamping their doors to reflect and reaffirm their identity as ‘stylish’.

In the same way, clothing reflects the wearer’s sense of self through personal preference. Choice of colour, style, material and cutting allow the individual to subtly convey their identity to the world. A person who dons a scarlet red coat in winter, amongst black coats makes an intentional decision to stand out in the crowd. Introverted individuals tend to choose clothing that blends in with the rest of society, preferring to shy away from attention.

Another characteristic that forms the identity of an individual is culture. The influence of culture is an integral part of understanding the identity of the individual (Thurnwald, 1936). The way in which doors exemplify culture and thus identity can be explained through its physical attributes and its connotations. Firstly, the physical design of a door embodies the culture and identity of a society, and thus its members. For example in the article, Bernward and Eve at Hildesheim (Cohen and Derbes, 2001), the bronze doors are a pictorial representation of the fall of humanity and the opposition of Eve and Mary. The doors were designed in the Middle Ages. Society then was devout and vested in religion. This technology mirrors the cultural values of that period. From this, the devotion to God is reinforced. Definitively, as evidenced by this pictorial representation, it can be said that the doors act as a strengthening technology, reinforcing the religious culture of that period.

Secondly, it can also be inferred that the connotations of doors reflect culture. For instance, ‘open door policy’ is a common phrase used in society today. This expression produces an image of an open door, symbolising entry for all, with no obstacles barring the physical and visual scope. This recent ‘invention’ dating from 1843 (Prichard, 1942), incorporates the technology of the door into a universal phrase and culture. Through the years, has been adopted into daily conversation and practices. From the physical invention of the door as a means to an end, it has been assimilated into a new technology-language. The ‘open door policy’ has relatively changed the culture of society today, promoting the practice of communication and equality, a basis in building intimate relationships (Marshall, 2008).

Similarly, clothing also reflects the culture and identity of an individual. It is concurred that the style of clothing changes with the current societal values. During the 19^th century, women dressed in corsets, bodices and voluminous skirts; to protect their virtue (Gold, 2010). Their culture was one that was concerned with propriety and definite gender roles. The style of dress emphasized that culture, portraying women as the weaker sex and their need to be guarded.

Besides that, the practice of shielding the face and body in various cultures also represent the identity of its individuals. It has been reiterated that it is in fact a cultural practice, “Egyptian imam sheik Muhammad Tantawi's edict declaring the garments a cultural tradition--not a religious duty” (Purewal, 2010). Moreover, women don these veils proudly, a salutation to their femininity and their position in the society. These women differ from the West in the sense that their culture encourages the binary of individualism and collectivism. The veils differ in physical appearance-colour, material and ornaments: fostering individualism; whilst at the same time, the act of veiling increases anonymity, preserving their virtue and honour (Bos, 2006).

The close relationship between technology and identity has significant impacts for intimacy. This is due to the fact that intimacy and identity are intricately bound to one another. To clarify, it has been persistently concurred that intimacy is the mutual disclosure of personal and privileged information (Marshall, 2008). The technology used in this essay, doors and clothing are personal properties of the individual (Knowles, 1983). As property, i.e. technology itself contributes to shaping the identity of the individual, by disclosing this personal attribute to another; intimacy can be facilitated and nurtured.

Firstly, doors and clothing act as an emotional stumbling block between individuals. These technologies insulate the individual, providing physical and emotional protection. They act as a barrier, keeping the personal and privileged information away from the public, only allowing those who they deem fit to enter their personal space. Through this, the mutual disclosure of this facet of their identity will be the building blocks for intimacy.

Doors and clothing are both pathways to the innermost, privileged components of a person. The onion-like design of the present-day house and clothing provide for this. The repairman is only allowed into specific parts of the house, but never the bedrooms, strangers only see the clothing we wear but never our undergarments; these are prime examples of technology preserving personal information and thus fostering intimacy between individuals. Partners are granted unrestricted entry to our bedrooms, and depending on the circumstance, they are also given access to the body through the removal of clothing.

Secondly, disclosure of personal information cannot be realised without the revelation of identity. The attributes of identity discussed in this essay are personal preference and culture. There are considerable implications of both for intimacy. Personal preference through the selection of doors and clothing exemplify the identity of the person. With these preferences projected onto physical items, others will be able to assimilate the information and thus, be privy to the identity of that individual. Through this, intimacy can be fostered, as it is a mutual disclosure of privileged information. With the stripping of doors and clothing, the individual is effectively inviting others into their world. However, due to the onion-like nature of doors and clothing, the differing levels of intimacy between individuals are aptly represented. Doors and clothing do enhance intimacy; but they can hinder and prevent unwanted intimacy as well. To illustrate, the main door allows familiar people in, whilst the opening of the bedroom door for a partner, and shutting the door with both parties within, effectively prevents others from entering their personal space. This serves two purposes- increasing the intimacy between the couple, while creating a bubble, separating them from others. Likewise with clothes, the onion-like structure is again demonstrated. As referred to in the above, selective entry can be granted to the public. Once this is granted to the world, it is no longer ‘privileged’ and ‘personal’ information. Thus in order to gain a deeper level of intimacy between human beings, the removal of these barriers occurs, as such with committed couples. This further demonstrates the powerful implications of technology on intimate relationships

Furthermore, the inherent culture of an individual will significantly influence the way they conduct social, and thereafter, intimate relationships (Marshall, 2008). With doors, the culture and identities of the owners can be easily determined. In reference to the above example of the bronze doors created in the Middle Ages, it can be said that doors were not as common then as they are presently. The concept of privacy was not valued (Jamieson, 1998). This further reflects the state of the home during that period. An important example is the intimate relationships between members of the household and between couples. Doors allowed for privacy, however, due to the cultural identity that era, doors were uncommon and privacy was not prized. Relationships were forged to satisfy economic needs. Therefore, intimate relationships were not cultivated, nor were they needed (Jamieson, 1998). This is in direct contrast with the current culture, as indicated by the ‘open door policy’ of today. This policy aids in the development of intimacy between individuals, in all social settings through openness, equality and freedom of communication. This further illustrates the dramatic shift in the importance of intimacy, which is facilitated through technology.

Similarly, with clothing, the above 19^th century culture represents how relationships were conducted. Women were regarded as the weaker sex, ruled by men, and given strict roles in society, such as child rearing and housekeeping (Jamieson, 1998). Although not as oppressive as the Middle Ages, women were still viewed as the inferior sex. This hindered the development of intimate relations, as there was no mutual disclosure of privileged information, because women were treated as subjects and not given the freedom of thought and action. However, it is important to note that way in which clothing is worn does not necessarily result in the repression of intimacy. With the veiling of the face and body, this could ultimately result in higher levels of intimacy between married couples. For example, the face and body in these cultures are considered as very personal, belonging only to the husband. As such, with the unveiling for one’s spouse, this provides for intimacy in which non-veiling societies will not be able to experience. The act of unveiling could be considered as intimate as it signifies the disclosure of the most privileged and personal information, i.e. identity of that individual.

An important point to note is that doors and clothing themselves do not affect intimacy. It is the way that humans have assimilated them into their lives that allows intimacy to be kindled or thwarted. As above, closing the door with your partner inside both promotes yet prevents intimacy. Clothing is not removed in front of an audience, but only for people with whom we have intimate relationships. This adaptation of technology to suit different personalities (strangers, friends, partners) allows for different levels of intimacy between individuals.

The use of doors and clothing has changed our world, however it is undeniable that their use has reshaped our identities. As evidenced, through personal preference and culture of doors and clothing, identity is ascertained. Thus, it is concurred that there is an important link between technology use, and identity. Intimacy is the mutual disclosure of personal and privileged information. As identity is a facet of privileged information, it can be said that intimacy can be achieved through the externalization of identity. Furthermore, through the evaluation of different personal preferences and culture, the individual impacts of these technologies on intimacy are clearly elucidated.

References

ARNOLD, M., SHEPHERD, C., GIBBS, M. 2008. Remembering Things. The Information Society, 24, 47-53.

BOS, J. 2006. AROUSA EL BURKA. Ornament, 29, 60-63.

COHEN, A. S. & DERBES, A. 2001. Bernward and Eve at Hildesheim. Gesta, 40, 19-38.

GOLD, S. 2010. Opulent and Elegant, Dresses as Art, New York, The New York Times Company.

HANFMANN, G. M. A. 1942. Etruscan Doors and Windows. The Journal of the American Society of Architectural Historians, 2, 8-16.

JAMIESON, L. 1998. Intimacy: personal relationships in modern societies, Cambridge, Polity Press.

KNOWLES, D. 1983. HEGEL ON PROPERTY AND PERSONALITY. Philosophical Quarterly, 33, 45-62.

LALLY, E. 2002. The Relationship of Ownership, Oxford, Berg.

MARSHALL, T. C. 2008. Cultural differences in intimacy: The influence of gender-role ideology and individualism—collectivism. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 143-168.

MOORE, M. 1981. On the Signification of Doors and Gates in the Visual Arts. Leonardo, 14, 202-205.

NG, T. W. H., FELDMAN, D.C. 2009. Personality, social relationships, and vocational indecision among college students: The mediating effects of identity construction. Career Development International, 14.

PRICHARD, E. H. 1942. The Origins of the Most-Favored-Nation and the Open Door Policies in China. The Far Eastern Quarterly, 1, 161-172.

PUREWAL, N. 2010. Strong feelings about ... banning burkas: we must protect women from religious coercion ...(this & that)(Brief article). This Magazine, 43, 7(1).

RUANE, C. 2010. Clothing: A Global History. Journal of Social History, 44, 268-269.

THURNWALD, R. C. 1936. Civilization and Culture: A Contribution Toward Analysis of the Mechanism of Culture. American Sociological Review, 1, 387-395.