2. despite getting into sudden little fits of anger once or twice every (working) day now, i am glad for the people around me. i'm glad that even if they don't talk to or share very much with each other, that they talk to me and that i get their views and perspectives and what they feel (or what they say they feel) about stuff. it's not so much the info i get, i think, but the catharsis in, maybe, saying my piece, and knowing that, hey, i'm not alone (cliche as new york times' after deadline says it is), and also the recognising that somebody managed to touch me intellectually.
3. i think anger can actually be a good motivator for me. not the sudden little fits of anger, but the muted underlying rage that drags on over a period of time. i think it has actually sharpened my level of alertness and awareness in some little way or other, made me in some other little ways braver, more reckless, less risk-averse, less restrained. but it's not a good long-term solution, because i think happy is always better - i could be just as motivated if you keep me happy, and that can definitely last longer.
i remember being in new zealand as a kid, there was a very steep uphill slope we had to make a long painful trudge up returning to the motel every day. one day, i didn't get something i wanted, i was so angry, i walked ahead of the rest of my family. and when it came to that familiar route back, i stomped angrily up the slope. when i arrived back at the motel, i remember even at that young age (primary 2?) that it struck me how quickly i had made it up the slope, how i hadn't even noticed the painful climb up, and how i wasn't even tired or panting at all. that was my first realisation of the power of (my) anger, however silly.
4. when i first learnt the concept back in 2007, i thought that the consideration of internal relativity made good sense. but now, it just feels like...some form of affirmative action...reverse discrimination. of course, i'm sure it still makes good sense now, assuming all is fair and equal. but it's like some econs theory, assuming ceteris paribus. the latin phrase seems almost empty, useful only for theory and understanding, because when in the real world is it ever ceteris paribus anyway?
it also occurred to me that the sense of fairness people try to bring kids up on is...so limited, sometimes i wonder why they even bother doing so, only to tell you when you grow up, ahh, this is life, accept your lot, blah blah. wtf. i mean, this sense of fairness/justice seems highly inadequate. what in the world is fair anyway, so why should we expect fairness? i mean, is it fair, say, that person A was born intellectually more inclined than person B? by conventional fairness, you should say, no, it isn't. so what gives person A any grounds to believe that it is only "fair", based on his higher intellectual inclination, that he should achieve more academically than person B?
sorry, it occurs to me now that i actually had a similar argument on life and fairness with a young enthusiastic teacher once back in secondary school. i think he thought me a lost cause - so cynical and pessimistic in my young secondary-school age. maybe he even thought i was psycho. i apologise it seems i may have regressed to having to work out secondary-school issues in my head now. pui.
5. it's eight o'clock; i should go to sleep. goodnight.