more than a year on...

There are problems with prioritising logic above all else, especially when it comes to matters of the heart. For me, logic, or worse, rationality, is a rarity when it comes to girls. Which is odd – to say the least – since most of my life is predicated upon analysis. Analysis is everything, or so I used to say. Of course analysis need not necessarily or even primarily be concerned with logic; there are other factors such as objectivity, experience, empathy.

Recently I have been feeling bouts of despair, heartache, paranoia and betrayal, all sentiments in roughly equal measure. I think too often in my life I have not treasured people enough, and -almost- concomitantly treasured the wrong persons. Take Loo for example. We have been through so much, but I was too unforgiving and possessive about the girls close to me. Or Jia: we had a great thing, many say the best I would ever have, and I blew it. Now a new character, or ex character, in my life is causing mayhem, and both of these people are still there for me.

It is high time I stopped waiting for a message or a phone call, or for people to comfort me. To repeat a cliché, it is time to stop wallowing in self pity. I should revert to my analytical mode of thought, even when it comes to the complex psychology of love and human intercourse. Of course, there are problems with objective analysis in this area. But objectivity is not synonymous with rationality. The latter is what I should revert to: rational analysis.

Be rational, friend. That’s what I tell myself time and again, in the hope that words will crystallise into belief. The time has come to believe.

I AM: your father
I WANT: money
I WISH: that everything I wish for will come true
I HATE: stupid people (again, they are Wittgenstein’s flies in the bottle)
I MISS: the days when I was school-ess and the freedom that came with it
I FEAR: being broke
I WONDER: most of the time
I REGRET: alot
I AM NOT: your mother
I DANCE: Whenever I hear good music – in the club, in my room, at the hotel, in the shower – you name it
I SING: When I wish to make a fool of myself, or when I’m high at karaoke
I CRY: since its my party, and I want to. Hur hur.
I AM NOT ALWAYS: doing anything
I AM NEVER: an idiot
I WRITE: Because I can
I CONFUSE: most of the time
I NEED: A massive addendum to my wardrobe
I SHOULD: get off my arse and do something constructive
I START: Something
I FINISH: Nothing
I LOVE: money, alcohol, cigarettes, my parents, jia and my friends, food… the list goes on
I REMEMBER: people who have offended or wronged me, and generally all things negative

I TAG: beef!!

The Value of Art

Why do we think that art is important? We share the view that it has a profundity that merits our special attention. We also think that art has a value that sits uneasily with our usual property rules of resource allocation, because it seems some great works of art cannot really be owned in the ordinary way.

Art shares, with some other objects, a special status, which requires decisions about the distribution and ownership of art works to be made differently from normal arguments about individual or community rights to property.

Art as feelings
“The activity of art is based on the fact that a man receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man”s expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it. To take the simple example: one man laughs and another, who hears, becomes merry; or a man weeps and another, who hears, feels sorrow. A man is excited or irritated, and another man, seeing him, is brought to a similar state of mind. By his movements or by the sounds of his voice a man expresses courage and determination or sadness and calmness, and this state of mind passes on to others.”
Leo Tolstoy

Art as akin to moral appreciation
“Taste makes, as it were, the transition from the charm of sense to habitual moral interest possible without too violent a leap, for it represents the imagination, even in its freedom, as amenable to a final determination for understanding, and teaches us to find, even in sensuous objects, a free delight apart from any charm of sense.”

Immanuel Kant, the famed founder of deontology thought that the value of art was akin to moral appreciation and capable of expressing our highest aspirations.

Nietzsche ridiculed Kant here -
“Kant thought he was doing art an honour by pushing to the forefront as predicates of the beautiful those characteristics which constituted the glory of knowledge: impersonality and universal validity… the only thing I wish to emphasize is that Kant, instead of viewing the aesthetic problem from the experience of the artist (the creator) like all philosophers considered art and the beautiful exclusively from the point of view of the “spectator”...But if only the philosophers of the beautiful had been sufficiently familiar with this “spectator” at least!” ... Stendhal once described the beautiful as une promesse de bonheur. Here in any case the very aspect of the ascetic condition which Kant emphasized at the expense of all others – le desinteressement - is rejected and crossed out. Who is right, Kant or Stendhal? – If our aestheticians admittedly never tire of arguing on Kant”s behalf that under the spell of beauty it is possible to contemplate even statues of naked women “without interest” one is entitled to have a little laugh at their expense...”

Art as possessing intrinsic or sacred value
“The idea of intrinsic value is commonplace, and it has a central place in our shared scheme of values and opinions...[s]omething is intrinsically valuable … if its value is independent of what people happen to enjoy of want or need or what is good for them”
Dworkin

Ronald Dworkin postulates that art has “intrinsic” value, meaning that art is valuable in itself, and independent of what people enjoy, or want, or what is good for them. We can describe this kind of value in different ways. We can say, for example, that art is “inviolable”, meaning that something important is lost by its destruction. Horror at the destruction of the giant Buddha in Afghanistan by the Taliban is not dependent on the loss of pleasure that we ourselves would have gained from it – for I can feel that horror, without contemplating that I might ever have seen it.

Art and the enrichment of a community”s life: Competitive values
“Since it is reasonable to suppose that governments have duties towards its citizens to protect their interests equally, it is useful to contrast the idea of intrinsic value with that of the protection of those interests through rights.

The contrast of the value of rights, with intrinsic value, is instructive…the duties we have to protect people”s rights are different from the sorts of duties we have towards those things that have intrinsic value. You and I do not have a right that all Matisse”s works continue to exist…The logic of rights works differently. People have rights not to be murdered because to murder a person is to violate their interest in continuing to live.
A useful analogy is with the cultural experience of our language, the existence of which has the same intrinsic quality. ..There are sufficient reasons, other than the strictly utilitarian, for making the study of English compulsory in schools…it is a distinct gain when the English language absorbs new influences and creates new words, or new meanings for old words. Art is the same. It is impossible to imagine life in our community today without art, and art”s influences, about us, shaping the way we perceive the world. ..

Art [has a] “sacred” quality. Although intrinsic value cannot be defined in terms of the interests it serves, objects having intrinsic value will often be valuable and integral parts of human culture. Since governments have duties arising from a general duty to enhance the freedom and development of their citizens, they have duties to encourage as much richness and diversity in their communities, as well as, so far as it is legitimate to do so, in the world community.”
Stephen Guest

Guest thus has a very Millean libertarian argument and assumes a causal connection between diversity and human progress. He makes a more elaborate, but nonetheless essentially Dworkinian argument

Whom do you believe? Personally, I don't value art and hence am an external observer in the Hartian sense. That is why although analytically I have my own inclinations, I do not feel that I am in a position to comment.

Nicole Phua: A clarification and a counter-argument

Disclaimer:
There is nothing in this post which is meant in any way damaging against you personally, Nic. You are a decent person who has found goals in life, and you are a friend whom I respect. Whatever has happened in the past is irrelevant. This is merely my take on several of your viewpoints which you have expressed, usually with strong words, against me.

Readers, please forgive the ever-changing points of view, spelling or grammatical errors – I wrote this quickly and somewhat tardily.

Over-intellectualisation
This is a spurious argument, but since several stupid people seem to adhere to it, I shall attempt to deal with it as economically as possible.

For those interested in the “pragmatic” aspect of life, placing beliefs on a sound intellectual footing can seem like an abstract and fruitless expedition. Indeed, if you stumble upon philosophy, or other normative subjects, in an ill informed way as I recently have, it can all seem a bit like the war between the big enders and little enders in Gulliver’s Travels.

It is my opinion that all branches of philosophy seek to justify beliefs, or statements, opinions, etc. For what is a belief, without justification? Suffice it to say for now that a proposition based on assertion is not a proposition at all, which I have written about in one of my earlier entries. I am really tired of argumentum ad hominem against philosophers; working out solutions in an “abstract problem space” is neither a reflection of their character nor ability to deal with everyday life. They attempt to provide justifications, and this is not inherently incongruent with experiences and opinions forged in the furnace of the human experience. Indeed there is a branch of philosophy called pragmatism. It is not adequate to say “they don’t know shit”, or “dun need to make it so institutionalised lah”. That defence is not open to you, if it were a defence at all – in itself it is a proposition based exclusively on assertion.

“Parents have no duty to provide education for their children”
Nic is obviously what people would call an external sceptic: a person who denigrates a proposition by offering a counter-proposition which is bereft of justification. It is a question-begging assertion. One cannot make a (counter) proposition without assigning a truth value to it. In Donaldson’s brusque words, “the external sceptic should get lost”.

Nic’s statement is tantamount to saying there is no duty to provide education because there is no duty to provide education. Whether one believes that an obligation on the parents exists, one must provide reasons.

Here is my take:
There is an argument that there is no moral obligation for your parents to provide you education. I fail to see any cogency in this. It is quite obvious that there is a moral obligation on parents to provide what is “reasonably necessary” for their children to survive in the real world. They, at least, need to satisfy this minimum condition. Imagine if you parents didn’t send you to nursery, or primary school. Most would agree that they would have failed in one of the aspects of parenthood.

Ok. So they provide you with basic education. Why then, university? This is the crux of N’s argument against me. The duty to provide is universally applicable, in the sense that all parents should provide this. The argument from inadequacy of resources or the demographic culture of certain backward societies is a strong one. If parents do not have adequate means to do so, their obligation has been superseded by countervailing factors, though not extinguished. This means that whilst they cannot achieve X, they have to provide some form of compensation. In our context, parents should teach you whatever they know outside of classroom related activities. For example, if your dad was a hawker, how to make a good portion of bak kut teh, or if he was a hairdresser, how to cut hair well enough to sell your services. If we were in a weirdass state which forbade or didn’t cater for university education, how to make a good living, whether by art and craft martial arts or whatever. I personally think they satisfy their duty by imparting to you the drug importation or gambling business trades, but this is contentious and is a subject for another time.

So why do I suggest this duty? The main reason is that it is normatively desirable. The imposition of this duty has a dual effect -

The static effect - we would contribute to the progress of humankind if we so did. This applies regardless of time period; from Socrates and Ancient Athens, the Qing Dynasty to modern day, the value of education has been recognised.

The dynamic effect – Parents and children would both provide and receive the duty and its benefits differently and varying degrees. The efficacy of the duty would vary context-sensitively, which shifts the question as to whether there exists a duty in the first place. I reiterate - this is desirable.

It would surely be normatively beneficial if we were universally supportive of my proposition and were united in that opinion.

But this is not the point. My point, Nic, is that for you to assert and reprimand my lack of gratitude for my parents’ provision of tertiary education, you have to provide reasons why you don’t think a duty exists. Further, for me to say that they owe me that duty doesn’t negate the fact that I am appreciative of what they have done for me. I say appreciative, not grateful. They are two different words with varying connotations, which are too often used interchangeably. I think this is a sufficiently simple point that my intelligent readers would understand. Whether one agrees with my argument is irrelevant – so long as they provide reasons. We can then examine the arguments and see whose reasons carry more weight.

The castigation of people who are "rich"
“He’s not rich like you la…”
“You are rich la, different”
Rich boy don’t talk, etc…

This is one of the most stupid points you have made. Again, my post is predicated on your providing justifications for your propositions. This… is… stupid. I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

Is it merely that I come from a financially decent background and hence I am given opportunities others may not have? If that is so, I completely agree. Some people think this is “unfair”, but that is not pertinent. It is simply a fact or not. Whether a fact exists is surely a hard edged question, whether it is normatively fair or just is independent of that.

But as I see it, from other conversations and not merely your statements read in isolation, that you are making some type of innuendo (a generous word) against me, and “rich” people in general. If that is so, I do not see why. There is no reason to discriminate against others merely because they are from a stronger financial background. I will use two situations -

The dad is rich but the child is bleeding useless
Anyone is probably right to say that the child is useless. He dropped outta school, couldn’t make it as a paikia, blahblah. He fucked up.

But since he is so damn rich, he has a good inheritance anyway. That is not his fault. He may be able to live an undeserved life of luxury. But that is not to be held against him. Whether you have moral reasons for refusing the inheritance (which I doubt most people would, when it comes to the crunch) is again, irrelevant. He is not to be faulted for his choice, nor his parents’ gift. A statement on his situation (not ability) should be one of envy, not fault.

The dad is rich but the child is capable
I believe I fall into this category, at least to some extent. I do not agree entirely with the “dad is rich” bit – my dad is upper middle class, but not more. I do believe I am capable and have proven myself to be, again, at least to a certain extent.

If that is the case, it is not my fault that I have been furnished with opportunities others might not have had. I saw an opening which my dad orchestrated, and I took it. How I performed is independent of that. There is no reason to take anything away from me. Your castigating tone is not justified, nor in my opinion could it ever be. I may get a hotshot job, but that is to my own credit. If it is not, one zips back to the second category, and the same arguments apply.

“I was with you at the lowest point in your life”
Er… ok. So what is the point of this? You want gratitude? That is spastic. I wouldn’t even give you appreciation. I will not hang our dirty linen in public, but I suppose you know what I mean. Another point is that it was consensual. I do not believe you did it out of pity. Your motivation was something other than that, and hence you cannot claim credit for merely being with me at a specified time dimension.

Further, what is your definition of lowest? If it is an emotional state, which I construe it to be, then your point is factually untrue. The lowest point in my life up to the time you made your statement was when you dumped me. So you left me, causing the lowest point in my life. You are certainly not to be credited for that.

There are other points you have made, which I postpone for discussion. Now I want to drink and make merry.

Cheers,
Yan

And in approximately 8 hours id be done.

Free as a bird,
gonna roll like a muthafucker;
three-one-third!

I am surprised I have managed to hang on for so long. This whole period was a nightmare. The bad thing is I won’t even get a reward for it, unlike last year.

Lotsa plans; gonna be a busy summer, but I do not think I should let my mind drift too far just yet...

My heart aint in my papers this year, I don’t know why.

Today’s paper would’ve been horrendous last year. But compared with my first paper of this year, I was quite happy.

I have to be retarded not to get a 2:1, so I’m fly on that. Problem is a 2:1 don’t mean shit. Ahwell, I guess Id have to recognise the limit of my abilities.

for memory's sake

Today was a miscarriage of justice in the strictest sense. Not the American rhetorical sense which politicians and demagogues use to inflate their causes.

It is not easy to not brood over a past paper, when you do have something to brood over. Neither is it easy to maintain a “it was ok” expression in front of your peers, since if you tell them the truth they are just gonna say “you cant fuck up.

The not sleeping last night was a waste of time.

It is easy to give up. it really is.

Thank you to angela and steph for providing some alleviation on the worst day of my life in recent memory

the stupidest dilema from an intelligent person

Original from Brian Leiter’s blog, comments not in quotations are my own.

Gerald Dworkin poses the following rhetorical question:

If you wanted someone to aid you in making a difficult ethical decision about medical treatment for your child would you be better off consulting a moral philosopher, or a physician who has dealt with similar cases for 30 years? I know whom I would choose.

Are you stupid? I would choose neither. What kind of a dumb question is that?

“The people I would turn to for aid in such a decision are those friends of mine whom I regard as having a certain kind of wisdom and insight about the human condition.”

Not others, of course. I can easily think of a few inclusions and exclusions now. Which I will not mention for fear of offending, but ask me if you so feel inclined =)

“
Moral philosophers are not even more likely to be well-informed or concerned about history and politics than any other group of philosophers. In short, moral philosophers are no more likely than other philosophers to be humanists, with all that that vague word connotes.

It's clear to me why (say) someone working in metaphysics is not likely to have more insight into the human condition than the average mortal. It's because many people working in metaphysics are captured principally by the problem of working out the consistencies of an abstract problem space with only dubious connections to how we live our lives. Moral philosophers tend as a whole to be exactly the same as metaphysicians, except they have chosen a somewhat different problem space to explore the logical relations between theses. There are of course also strong practical considerations in favor of choosing this problem space, as it is more likely to result in gainful employment.

This is not to deny that medical ethicists have an important role to play in hospitals. Medical ethics boards in hospitals play important roles in helping doctors and families make difficult decisions. Some of these decisions are perhaps guided by the moral philosophy done by analytic moral theorists. But I would bet a considerably larger portion are guided by the factors cited by Dworkin, namely "sympathetic feelings, experience with the subject matter, and intuitive insight".

”

here is your long awaited comeback post beef

I think incorporationist positivists have conjured up intellectual sleight of hands worthy of the greatest prestidigitators.

Fuck you.

GO RAZ!!

On another note, Stephen Guest is pretty damn good too. I am not sure which one shall be my jurisprudential inspiration.

Hmmm….

P.S. now its yo turn to blog you fag

wow. just came here to blow the dust of this page. think its the longest hiatus ive had since i started this blog. doubt there'd be many entries in the coming months - its preparation for exam time.

hmm, not much been happening. went to paris, spent too much money, and dont know how to post photos.

i am sick as a bitch. arhghg. just before exam revision sumore. i hope it goes away before monday.

having said that, i am feeling rather...quietly happy. pleasant. at peace, i should say. all good things must come to an end, and im glad this did so without much hostility and ill-feeling. (tho inevitably there must be some)

i feel like a load has been lifted off my chest.

i've compiled a list of michellin-starred restaurants in London i have yet to go to, and intend to conquer this summer.

not really a travelling person, but cant wait to go to spain and portugal with baby! im sure itll bring her loads of happiness! yay. id just be looking for good food.

Heard this song the other day. im not sure if its popular or wadever since i am way outta time when it comes to music, but it reminded me of someone very special. and i kinda like the lyrics =)

Nine Million Bicycles:

There are nine million bicycles in Beijing
That's a fact, It's a thing we can't deny
Like the fact that I will love you till I die.

We are twelve billion light years from the edge
That's a guess, No-one can ever say it's true
But I know that I will always be with you

I'm warmed by the fire of your love everyday
So don't call me a liar,
Just believe everything that I say

There are six BILLION people in the world
More or less
And it makes me feel quite small
But you're the one I love the most of all

We're high on the wire
With the world in our sight
And I'll never tire,
Of the love that you give me every night

adieu people.

a tribute to brilliance

Speaking with Jason yesterday made me realise – what I had known but seemed obfuscated lately- how brilliant a man he was.

It is quite refreshing to notice one whose brilliance is not institutionalised, as cliché would have it – an uncut diamond. I’m not sure if being brilliant in that way would help you pragmatically in life. But it is a good trait to possess nonetheless.

Signposts along shores abound. The cold winds, world's end blow beginning to. Poor wandering goose rivers, autumn's waters swallow. Welcoming jaws hungry goblins await . Recalcitrance no more hold me shall. Wings flap. Rhythm change beat. No I longer shall. Leave you.

I have, since yesterday, started playing a game of catchup but yet keep up, which I seemed destined to lose. But I’m sure I’d catch up somehow. A friend once said to me “what absolutely needs to be done will be done”. I completely agree with that statement, and more people should.

Dworkin is such a genius it is scary to see how analytical one can get when grasping and explaining vague concepts, not by the usual dilettante way of narrowing it down to something more tangible and referable which we were taught in high school, but grappling with ambiguous and sometimes metaphysical ideas directly, like trying to grip a slippery eel with three fingers.

I find jurisprudence very interesting, contrary to what most of the student population think. It is not my preferred field of philosophy, but if I cant do well in it at undergraduate examination level, I probably shouldn’t be interested in philosophy at all. Kymlicka has said in a different context, “I do philosophy because I think I am good at it”, and if this belief is flawed, even if I never find out, this will still be detrimental to me. But I reckon the exam would justify or completely disprove my belief.

Further to my last post, I am beginning to think how we can expand the harm principle to cover day to day conduct, as a guide to ethically justifiable/unjustifiable intercourse. More on that in awhile.

My blog is far less pictures without jia to post em for me. Haha. Too bad.

I am more or less settled for summer, it seems I will be back mid August. Trying to do math practice questions have signalled the death throes for my diminished wish to become an investment banker upon graduation, and cemented in my mind my ambition to start (hopefully not end) my career as a lawyer.

Thanks to everyone who planned that wonderful surprise party for me. It was awesome.

Anybody with a perfunctory interest in philosophy would have heard of John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle:

"
...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.
"

My self-regarding act i.e. getting drunk actually permutates into an other-regarding act. It causes hurt and heartache for the people close to me. I spout nonsense that I don’t mean and I suffer from a lacuna in my memory. No recollection afterward. Extending the libertarian principle to cover indirect harm toward society in a narrow sense - the people close to me - justify them blocking me from drinking. But that would do no good, since i won't listen. Hence, I will apply a sanction on myself never to get drunk in front of others again. I shall do it in isolation, where the only person I can hurt is myself.

Since you apparently like to air out all our troubles on your blog, I shall do the same

Fuck you.

I was worried, and how the fuck was I suppose to know that I was enjoying when you were ill? U never indicated anything

Also, even if I did know, why couldn’t I be having fun over there? What am I meant to do? Fly back to make sure you are ok? Nothing I do here will make you more or less sick.

You single-handedly ruined a very nice surprise party my friends over here planned for me.

And how contradicting you are. In the card/email(s) you have sent, you have always apologised for being a liability.

So please, make up your mind, clean up your act, and try to have a rationale private conversation without the world as your audience

There is this immolating monstrosity inside of me, gnawing at my insides and chewing outward toward my flesh and skin. Soon I will be consumed, and nothing will be left of me. And you will no longer recognise me as the man you thought I was. Self abnegation in all its glory.

Today I got word that I have received three prizes for topping UCL Laws faculty in one way or another. The Herbert Smith Prize for Excellence, Webber Prize (highest grade performance) and the S J Berwin prize (best overall examination grade).

Fuck. If they had told me earlier I could put it in my CV and maybe Clifford Chance, Freshfields and Linklaters wouldn't have rejected me. sigh.

In any case, this is so surreal.

This is ridiculous.

I need to get champagne.

I need to get smashed.

This is yet another excuse, I know. But at least I have a reason.

Edit:
This is hell. dad is crying about how the top student cant get into the columbia program. he is gonna call rodney austin up, whereupon he will find out about me extremely poor attendance. and ill be properly screwed

Steph's 20th Birthday!!

To celebrate steph’s inauguration into the twenty (plus) era, we decided on a night at Metra. It was one of the best clubbing nights ive had in sometime, due mainly to the combination of fun people and calefacient.

Drunk people: the usual suspects : jiejie jiejie and jiejie.

Haha. No la. Others included our rarely-seen-in-clubs guest Angela, Lauren, new addition Lorraine and of course, the birthday babe!!


Last picture before heading to the club. i took the picture, hence i realise the picture is missing some star-quality. sorry readers =)


wicked shot. james aka dolce doesnt look like a criminal!!


pretty lauren and jiajia

angela's friend lorraine. scarily sociable, good looking and lotsa fun.

jiajia and i again.

May this year bring you good tidings steph, i hope u know i appreciate u so much as a friend and everything else. hugs

An it is the new years eve. In London at least. Its 40 mins to New Year’s day in Singapore already

Jason wrote this for us. So sweet e fella.

Today's a day to have fun and laughter,
A time to celebrate a new year.
A time that we dedicate to loved ones,
And to those that we hold dear.

A day for friends to bond closer,
To realise how fast time can fly,
A day for one to reminisce
Over favourite times gone by.

A day to make new resolutions,
To start on a clean slate.
A time for us to bitch about life,
Only to blame it all on fate.

But most importantly, today's a day,
I hold tribute to all of you.
Without the support you've given me before,
I could never have pulled through.

So once again, i have to say,
Thanks to you significant few.
This time tonight, on New Year's Eve.
Guys, this day belongs to you.

Everybody say it with me: AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Met up with hongy two nights ago. Hope you’re fly champ! I found familiarity in certain phrases u used, made me feel kinda nostalgic. The power of words.




Just beat her at hei bai peh. hence the contrast in disposition.

And somemore pictures from the night:






Crescent Bar sometime ago:


First time we met since she came! phoenix palace chinese restaurant




My much spoken about traditional and sober xmas. on the way to james':




Vintage Triumph GT4. its not an ex car, but i think its fuckin sweet














James' quaint lil' house. all GBP2mil worth of it:



Windsor:




Our xmas fireplace!


Yes, i did drink all of these myself. since i have been back. average of 4 bottles a week, excluding parties.




Was quite nervous about a certain something two nights ago, thank you jack n looness, from the bottom of my heart. Good to know I still have my friends back home.

And looness go book your ticket bloody hell.

Well my boys would be at some fly hotel room, and strangely enough I don’t think id be doing anything to usher in the new year. Probably juz stay at home with the two best things in my life – alcohol and cigarettes. Sorry jia. Haha.

For Kathy

And so I walk in the Valley of the shadow of Death. Tragedies plaguing my heavy heart like headless horsemen perched on blood stained saddles. The light of my incandescent love completely obscured by the impenetrable darkness. Bloodthirsty vultures riding the impregnable maudlin night, thirsty for gangrenous, infected flesh. Death bells ringing in my ears like tetanus amplified on a dog.

Wounded narcissi in full bloom, why won’t you fight with me? Ah, I see. Youre heavy heart is wont to give up. So I pick a cigarette out of my half depleted pack of Malboro Lights. The minature flame from my Dupont precipitated a fleeting moment of light, before being quickly smouldered out by the stale, sepulchral air. You used to walk beside me: we did everything together.

We’ve carpentered my mahogany coffin, with mother of pearl trimmings and platinum plated hinges and crystals adorning the panels. An activity so trite in literature but as derigeur as rigour mortis in human relationships of the tangible world. But that is the last thing we ever did, or will do, together. Or is it?

I wait patiently for a miracle from the pathetic heavens, for the long awaited angel to descend to my aid. But the past has been archived and i await my judgement.

It is amoral and devoid of integrity to give up on something so much has been invested in. The horror we feel in the wilful destruction of a human relationship reflects our shared inarticulate sense of the intrinsic important of each of these dimensions of investment. We are at the edge of Life, would you still not fight with me?

You still wouldn’t, you were taken away.

And I lay awake in my coffin, pending the time when Death would claim me as his own. I hope he arrives soon. Before Life resuscitates my will. Or you do. Whichever.