And, for that matter, interpretative connections.
My dad was a bit annoyed with me (in the 'cos-its-ridiculous' sort of way) from the way he saw me gather information to get to a location I needed to be at, last week. I got it through the usual 'directions' sort of way where the guy tells me to sit MRT to wherever and board whever bus at whatever and see what near-by etc. and finally struggle out from a maze into the exact spot. "Just ask for the address next time." -- his logic was simple: knowing the exact location of the place would ensure you won't get lost in the first place. The other side-information could be bonuses, anyway, the important part was the address.
Well.

The annoyance of such getting-go has been around for the long while. But sadly, the point in searching for a something is not that simple to derive in several real instances. Mostly because when such problematic situations are concerned, those solutions are not definite correct ones nor are the points exact 'places' to be going to. But without such a benchmark for a field that runs amok pretty much everyday, the world would be in chaos. (The stereotypical understanding of chaos, not the percieved one that is in progress now) Of course, most things do get above the benchmark, beyond the level of the 'Because - Therefore - So' and even the rebelious 'but's and 'howevers' have a more abstract form. When the matter gets to that stage, and perhaps even transcend across its edges towards a new perspective or higher image altogether, the weak imitation of the 'address' fails miserably.

A very good example comes from the forum I just attended, as the speaker had said: The UN has failed in ensuring effective collective sercurity because it was in itself an aspiration rather then a reality. A main problem was that agreement was hard. And such a pre-resistical factor lead to another fluke: The Law. The written rules of the UN and the words spoken could be interepreted on in so many ways by so many countries, of course each country favoured the circumstances to be more beneficial to itself. Lawyers love aruging about words and the UN has provided them quite a lot of words to argue with. Examples are Korea in 1950 -953 and The Middle East in 1948. Because of the countries unwilling to compromise, because they choose not to give way and to abuse the 'address' that was provided, in the end the interpretative connection failed. To pharaphrase the guy( Proff Brian Farrel, btw) "UN becomes the Society of Divided Governments in the world".

The essence within the last example clings successfully onto the other examples that everyone could cite. The 'play of words', the game of interpretation, is a big and indigestable folly many treat as a painkiller. Another thing would be the implicits of religous doctrine. Yes, so many all cry out in anger and pain (or sadder, some can't even cry out...) to question why the heck their all fighting in their own way just because of some book. The different levels of each faith has expounded from the social classes to the style classes and even the personalised classes. There becomes the essence of 'one way, many styles. because diversity is not supposed to be condemmned'. There are also the divisions of the extremists to the moderates to the conservatives and even the rojaked people who mix their idealogies within their faith and shake up politics with the beliefs system. Sometimes, it turns into a 'feel-good' session. And I'm not speaking of hedonism. No, humans have a 'heart' sometimes as well, and would want some things that they deem should be accepted because its right. Based on, of course, their standard. The interpretative rigiors affect the dogmatic to the insiders, they baffle the intellectual and the followers. It becomes so damned screwed up sometimes that people get tired of it. Double Symphaty works here...

Now, about relationships. This factor causes massive distresses in this field as well. Its pretty explainable, just go check out a few blogs of secondary school kids to find out their woes at being tortured by cases of interpretative wrongs. Many also raise their hands to say that they hate backstabbers. This roots from a simple factor that people don't like fakery, and 'addresses' are exactly what presents such fakery to them in an implicit way.

I recall a lecturer had mentioned, to assume means to 'make an ASS out of U and ME'. Its laughable, and probaly everyone will hear of it at some point. But this simple concept hides a profound answer. Interpretative connection with people is just difficult to mantain and hard to oil. The members of the UN need attitutde changes to make the world a better place, the academics need to step out of their window and understand the rest to sercure a better apology, the humans... will probaly screw up in any case, so well, they should just.... be.
Sincerity may be an answer to all this. But the funny irony is, most don't appreciate proper sincerity.

So I guess...
Next time, I'll just follow my dad's advice and get the address.

---

_Past

June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009

---