relativism 1

what gets my goat also are the moral relativists - it seems a cop out to resort to "it's depends on one's perspective", or "what's wrong to you may be right to me" because it often indicates an unwillingness (or maybe inability) to take the issue to its logical conclusion in preference for leaving it in the safety of an indeterminate miasma.

surely relativist positions suit opinion, not morality best. an act that is wrong but has extenuating circumstances, for example, is not right under such circumstances and wrong under others - it is still wrong but understandable, or permissible, or forgiveable. the morality of the fact does not alter, only the adequacy of response to it. non-moral issues need no such finesse.

carpentry

generated much point-blank surprise from my conversation answer to how last week's precious few days off were used, where i avoided both cerebral taxation and the occupational hazard of letting work spillover into freed time. i restored old furniture.

the quizzical reactions: why bother fixing the old and broken when one can buy the utilitarianly new and perfect? what yield, worth or value came out of the time spent doing so, since it was neither recreation nor profession, neither art nor chore? why engage in the bygone craft of carpentry and handiwork in an era of colour-by-numbers ikea assembly (or why add longhand when a calculator is available)?

work-life harmony

as part of a larger socio-political agenda of the state (stress levels affecting healthcare budget, work demands detracting from family life and correspondingly population growth, etc), this new initiative filters down once again in the most legislated, most panacean of ways. case in point: staff can opt to go for a walk in the nearby gardens together - the option being a choice of dates, not a choice to walk or not.

and so personal life has been made more harmonious with work life through the implementation of additional work-organised activities which take away more personal time. maybe the implementers-that-be further intend that we transfer our daily-life activities into a work context - in which case we ought to spend more hours in the workplace running our errands from workstation portals, dating our colleagues at in-house restaurants, raising our kids in office creches, and living in en-suite serviced apartments.

we'd never have to leave work.

yin and yang

now, for something completely quotidian: i drink only cold beverages; the woman is more normal in her variety. in any order of one hot and one cold drink, regardless of type or volume of beverage, swankiness or relative crowdedness of establishment, or age, experience, distractedness or sexual disposition of the waiter, the hot invariably is placed before me, the cold in front of her. even for the most astute of service personnel, who bother to ask 'who's having the coffee?', their hand actions by their serving tray already belie their inclination.

so far, this gender construction is batting a hundred.

ant and grasshopper

no fireworks this time in the results, even with the significant improvement over last year. interesting is a comparative statistic, the weakest class did better overall compared to the strongest. this is not a new trend, but has surfaced in certain years. my theory is that hard work trumps intelligence and flair most of the time: an accurate assessment of one's capabilities followed by an earnest effort to remedy one's weaknesses will always succeed more than a comfortable banking on one's ease at grasping concepts and appreciating nuance.

such a truism - but it works for scenarios at this level of challenge.

self-nomination

is it defeating to nominate oneself for a award? does it demean said award if the organisers open it to application rather than nomination? on the one hand, self-nomination smacks of self-aggrandisement, and calls into question one's motive for doing whatever it was one was doing in order to deserve the award. on the other hand, going by the truism that no one owes you a living, it is surely imperative to avail oneself of the best possible opportunities - participation might get one some recognition, non-involvement gets one nothing.

is it any wonder that the third option might include those who are deserving of such award and recognition, but steadfastly refuse to have anything to do with it?