—

NYT: This is Your Life (and How You Tell It) describes a new focus on life stories as a source of information in the field of psychology. The connection between personal myths and identity is a strong one, and in fact the two may just as easily be seen as different angles on the same thing – to use “identity” over “life story” is to speak of state functions instead of a repeated path simulation. I think the state function approach requires more processing. After this article, I went to looked into a few books by the author mentioned, and got the library to order “The Stories We Live By“.

I have always been curious about identity, given that I am a Taiwanese who grew up in Singapore who later realized in America that I was rather much both. In my own inquiries, I have isolates certain important questions.

What makes something personal? I think this is quite perfectly answered via reference to personal myths – personal are the things that interfere with the important story, facts that (by the rules of storytelling) force a person to revise their personal myth.

I read “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie a few years ago, and felt that the techniques described in the book were manipulative and hypocritical. Now I understand better what it is that they do – they are ways of hacking into the life stories of other people. If the life story is all there is, then changing the life story of another person IS changing their life, and the question of sincerity becomes irrelevant. A self-fulfilling prophecy is not a lie. I do not think this is sufficient grounds for exempting such hackery as manipulation, but it does lessen the charge somewhat.

—

The pain started Tuesday and proceeded to ramp up at a slow constant rate. Finally on Thursday morning 3am it became intense enough to wake me from sleep. I decided something had to be done. The next day.

Thursday I went into MIT Medical to get it checked out, expecting, at best, to get some new-fangled antivirals. Well, after some prodding they suspected appendicitis and scheduled a CAT scan at MGH. The CAT required imaging fluid be ingested, and boy does that stuff taste bad! It had been diluted 60mL in 500mL of sweet apple juice, and still tasted bitter enough to almost induce vomitting. After drinking all that, I was to MGH via ambulance. Found out that the MIT ambulance was operated by undergrads – they were the most awkward ones to interact with during the whole process, being some almost my age and fairly attractive.

Arrived at MGH, worried that my long stay on earth as an alien observer was finally at at end. After all, HQ could scarcely allow me to remain here after I had been exposed by the scanner right? Well, unfortunately that did not happen. Instead, turned out I had appendicitis. Had to go through some paperwork to put me through the ER, and had the operation done Thursday night. Am now (Saturday) sitting at home recovering from three small Laparoscopic punctures in my abdomen.

A big thanks to all the people who visited me during my brief hospital stay – Hui (who’s helped a LOT), Troy (bossman) , Qin, xg, Emma, Sandy, Amelia. And my roommate Marc, for getting me waterproof tape.

The idea that people should be restricted only to comments within their own specialties, and leave the thinking to the “experts”, is a very dangerous one. If that statement is accepted, the discussion might end right here, since it isn’t clear that any of us ‘understand enough’.

Discussion still continues though, because there is more to words than authority – there is reason.”

I believe many of you were at tonight’s panel. I was particularly struck by Morris Chang’s comments about the inevitable stalling of China’s economy in the same manner as Taiwan, due to Cultural reasons. I agree with him. I have thought about that question and come to the same conclusion in the past.

It is my hope that we can raise some kind of coherent, rigorous conversation about cultural weaknesses amongst the Taiwanese at MIT. As Wei-Chuan has said, as of right now the organization seems to know only eat-eat-drink-drink, and does little else. There is no conversation and no common consciousness. I would like you to consider the desirability and possibility of change in this aspect.

I do not think that we are bad at having opinions. What’s weak is the ability to develop those opinions. There is an excess of the tolerance for relativism, and on important issues disagreeing people seem to be unable to speak to each other. In the absence of meaningful disagreement, agreements are shallow and only joined by coincidence of name, as opposed to some deep generating principle.

There needs to be conversation about more fruitful ways in which to disagree. We need to make the strength and vigor which comes of public conversation available to us. This is something a technical education does not offer by itself – we’ll have to work for this one. We must be aware of the dangers of philosophical bankruptcy, how we are wasting many opportunities by neglecting self-examination.

喬綸