Really saying nothing.

Case in point #1:

A talk by a city planner, supposedly on urban planning, ends up being a longer than alloted monologue about how his professor from the past, whom he personally met from the airport and chauffeured around says that what he sees around our city is among the finest. The minutes seem like hours as he waxed lyrically about other examples with similar accolades by seemingly qualified people whom he knew personally, some while being driven around by him as well.

Case in point #2:

An elderly and well-established local architect gives a presentation at a seminar on architectural issues related to Islamic civilisation which consists entirely of a slide show of his travels in younger days through middle eastern countries – with images of him and others looking like The Grateful Dead and all the anecdotes that came with the experience. Point consistently reminded throughout was how the younger folks in the seminar should follow his example, which we are to assume would cover the subjects pertaining to the seminar on Islamic civilisation. Older folks in the audience nod smugly in agreement.

Case in point #3

A tutor displeased with his class for what he considers lackadaisical attitudes, proceeds to grill them for no less than 4 hours on improving the situation. In those 4 hours he has managed to cover the hardships of parental roles in general, deftly segueing into dedication to studies [especially his], and eventual commitments in matrimony before being released into the real world. He highlighted the commitment of the university in giving the students the opportunity to study within their hallowed halls from out of hundreds of thousands of applicants, and the faculty’s relentless pursuit in extracting the necessary funds to carry out said nobility. Naturally this would follow with his own personal altruistic roles which includes the sacrifices he made braving the traffic day after day to be there at the expense of how his own flesh and blood would have to rely on other means of transportation while he stays dedicated to his task, as does his spouse in another part of the city.

Then comes the government’s role providing for the youth as they are the future of the nation to the extent that the nation has even paid for a foreign architect to design and foreign technology to build not just one, but two very tall buildings that we can be proud of. [The foreign part was my own addition. The way he put it you’d believe we designed and built it ourselves.] I hope you can see where this is going cos i’d really like to move to another case in point; but rest assured, not a peep about the actual problems the students were having with their tasks at hand which led to their poor performance.

Case in point #4

A workshop for learner drivers included a seminar where the presenter goes on and on about how in developed countries similar schools would have very hi-tech facilities including furniture from world renown furniture house, Ikea – like that was a good thing.

Case in point #5

Elderly folks telling the young ‘uns about the hardships of life during wartime, the perils of foreign occupation, the misery of rationing, the lack of proper sanitation facilities, the joys of independence, you get the picture. But was it so that them young ‘uns would appreciate the times they’re in and not take things for granted? Nope. It was so them young ‘uns will watch less TV, read more books and study much harder in school.

Case in point #6

Some politician on a TV forum where the topic was on how we should be moving forward with the times, declares out that rather than moving forward he’d like to look backward and went on and on about how things were in the past and proceeded to reminisce about it while the others in the panel, including the host, fell in as subordinates and nodded diligently till it was time for the final credits to roll.


I could barely fathom what was going on in all those characters minds as to how they could just go on talking about things actually irrelevant or barely contributing to the subjects at hand, if at all. One would expect that if not much was known of the subject matter then there wouldn’t be much to say; but they just went on and on, totally engrossed while digressing further and further till all that was left was to thank them for having taken the time to talk, regardless if they said anything of significance. Just for the act of talking, never mind the lack of actual content.

The first case was just telling you what’s considered good by whom he considers good [like you should too] as if that was good enough. Whereas shouldn’t he be talking about what makes the good good, and the inverse for what’s bad?

The second case – I don’t know, I’m still figuring out that one.

The mystery in the third case is why the tutor would not delve into the actual causes of the students’ problems in order to help them out of it? If he already knew what that was, what could it be that warranted the 4 hour sermon of sorts?

Case in point #4 appears to be very insecure as it seems like he needs to impress the audience with what he knows [as if that is what it takes to impress them], in order to coax a sense of authority from them in order that they’ll listen to him. And of course by the time he established his authority, the time ran out.

Advise from the elderly in #5 should be taken for the intentions behind and never the form in which that they actually choose to carry it out.

Number 6 is a politician.

Narcissistic Negation

Some examples in italics first. Pay particular attention to the first part of the sentence then notice the inconsistency of the later parts in relation to what was said in the first.

“It’s not that I want to gossip, but do you know who she’s been seen with ever since she got those implants?  Its that man who dresses like a 70s pimp. The one whose  daughter was dumped by that wife-battering singer who was caught with his pants down while the maid…….”

Next example:

“Of course I did it out of sincerity and expect absolutely nothing in return, but he could have at least remembered what i did and sold his kidney for when I was broke. It’s not like he needs both of it or like I was asking for anything in return.”

Then there’s:

“You know I’m not the sort to poke my nose into other people’s business, but how much are you bringing back from work after taxes including bonuses and overtime, and what kind of benefits do you get?”


“I can’t stand people who stab others in the back. So I’m not like that brazen hussy who got me to sneak your car out with her so we could go to the hairdressers.”

And finally:

“I never like to copy other people’s design but I just cannot come up with a good idea if I haven’t seen one before.”

Isn’t it amazing how folks declare out how they are not of certain traits or behaviour, then in the same breath without batting an eye, proceed to show clear indications of that very same undesired trait in themselves? It’s as if they know it’s wrong so they declare it first in order to establish that they are not like that. So when they actually do it after it’ll be okay because they know that they’re not like that -cos they just said that they’re not.

It’s like saying good about themselves without actually being good. How delusional can you be?

Well, from experience, you can be blindingly deluded because the people i know who do it have absolutely no idea they do it. And the times I’ve pointed it out to them, they vehemently deny it. It’s probably because when they say out loud what they’re not, they are picturing in their minds the badness they are avoiding, but what they do next is detached from that mental picture. The only way to elaborate this further would need using one of the examples.

Take the first one. When declaring that she doesn’t gossip, she has an instant image of others who gossips and she decides not to be like them. As she cannot see herself, she has never seen herself gossiping; in other words, she can’t know what she looks like when she gossips. Which means when she pictures people gossiping, she is not included in the picture. So after declaring out loud she doesn’t gossip and picturing those who do – which does not include her – she proceeds to do it cos she can’t see herself doing it. It was the pictures of gossiping that stuck with her, not the abstract concept of what gossiping is. Could this be another example of using a form to understand a notion, instead of understanding the notion in the abstract?  The form in this case are the mental images of people gossiping. What she is missing is what gossiping really is which could apply to any form including hers – which she can’t see herself.

So be cautioned. Since it is so easy to be deluded as such, what those examples did could also easily be done by you.

In the words of the 70s philosopher Uriah Heep – Look At Yourself

For Malaysian Electric Guitar zer0es

Music has a language which is the structure with which you form the music. Technique is the mechanism you utilise for fluency in expressing that language. The sound made is the product of how you use the technique to express the language. And how you use the technique to express the language to create the music is entirely up to you. It’s not up to Yngwie Malmsteen or Steve Vai,  nor Eric Johnson or Eric Clapton. They, as with all the other guitarists worthy of being called a guitarist, have their own ways to express themselves with the electric guitar.

It’s not about practicing to levels of proficiency till you’re a copy of them; till you could go round haughtily claiming to the denizens that you can play as fast as Malmsteen, including the pouting lips and sucked in cheeks. Or bend and shake the notes like David Gilmour complete with pursed lips and puffed up cheeks. Or tap like EVH with grinning lips and smiling cheeks. You only need bona fide guitar heroes to broaden your vocabulary of how the music can be played. Theirs is their own expression. Just as yours should be your own.

If you want others to drool when you play note for note of what others could; if you want them to cream at the flurry of notes at the same speed, or even faster; if you could make all the facial expressions and do all the moves – than all you’re looking for is to be regarded as a good mimic. You’d be no different than a well-trained simian. Or local rap artists who prance around like they’re the bizkit just because they actually believe they sound black and from the projects. Ignore the apologists who say they’re using the form and expression of others but make it their own. Yeah, that’s not mimicry. That’s thievery.

So get your own sound. Forge your own expression. Find your own sense of fashion. Get out of the local mindset that only accepts something as good only when it’s able to mimic something that is already good before. When you got the language and discovered the technique, and stored a library of how it’s done -close your eyes, silence your mind, reach down deep inside and let it flow using the language to give it form and the technique to give it beauty. And only then would it be interesting to lend you an ear.

But if you’re merely playing like someone else with roving eyes to see whose watching and a grinning sneer that says, “Ain’t but a thang”, then join the queue at the next Idol line.