Pontifications of the Penis

A cross section of the penis as we know it

I have a penis so it goes that I'm man. That adores women. And admires men. So it means I'll get on my knees for the former. Not the latter. And for the most part, I enjoy wielding a penis. My penis. Not yours. Or yours. You sick bastard. I admit it's not the 15 incher most guys in their first flush of porn would crave for, but you can bet it's not something to pick your teeth with after you eat. More like a slow melting ice cream that doesn't melt ... kind of thing. 

Actually, I don't like the word 'penis' because it sounds so clinical, so formal, so I need to wear gloves before I use it sorta thang. I like 'cock' better. It sounds dirtier. More sinister. Infinite possibilities abound. And it also rhymes with 'rock' and partially with 'fuck'. The downside is that it also rhymes with 'lock' but who cares. I'll never rhyme cock with lock because it sounds a little offensive, and I just fucking hate sounding like some offensive 15 inch cock wielder. 

Which I'm not because I don't have the number. 15 to be precise. These days I've learned to be happy with what I have. Which means not having 15. That's what experience does to you. Or rather growing old. Sometimes though I can't quite tell the difference where one ends and the other begins or if it even started in the first place. And experience has taught me why I won't be content with 15.

Firstly, the surgery would hurt a lot. What's more, if I grafted a 15 incher, I might just get a massive stroke or heart attack whenever I get a boner, so that's no fun. 'Hey watch it honey, you don't want to turn me on! I might just die on you. But you can ride me after if you're into that.' What's more, if I had a 15 incher, it'll in all probability be black in colour. Like the Macbook out now. If you want a bigger hard drive, we only got them in black honeh! I may be Asian and all but big cocks are black. That's that man. I've never seen a 15 in any other colour. And, and I'd have to be all rapper like, wear big gold chains, swap my teeth for gold ones and get tattooed up. I'm just not into all that. Plus my rapping sucks and I can't play basketball or run really fast. So even if I had 15, it might be wasted on me. 

And the vagina can only fit up to about 6 inches. So what's the point of having a 7 course meal when the diner only wants 3 satisfyingly full courses? Yes, a vagina can stretch much wider to accomodate a child but let's not dismiss comfort and extraordinary circumstances so readily shall we. That niner is not just excess... it's waste. And I abhor waste! Having a 15 incher swaying on a windy day will just conflict with my intense sense of moderation and reduce me to schizophrenia, if not multiple personalities for me and my cock. The latter may have psychological problems pretending to be a stout 8'er when he really is a hefty 15. There are somethings you just cannot fool yourself about. 

A 15'er will never get the whole thing unless he's into horses. Even then, watch out for the kicks, cowboy! And, and, he won't be able to wear shorts in public that end at the thighs cos then the package will be showing. He would have no career in speed sports be it swimming or running because of the drag his cock caused. He cannot be terribly clever because most of the blood is usually swirling around his tower of cock. He would have to take many breaks to read, especially erotic stories. Even if 15 can be considered a super power, he can never have a cool superhero name because all of them will sound funny. Nobody will want him in their superteam and he will end up doing straight to video porno and die a lonely death naked in the tub in some cheap motel after overdosing on a potent mixture of viagra, cialis and cocaine with cheap German porn repeating silently on the television.

I guess it's hard being a 15'er too. 

Poor chaps. 

Spare a kind thought for the 15s yah? They're human too. 

Something out of Nothing

Expectations. They cost nothing to conjure. It can be meaningful. It's usually whimsical. and plentiful. They are more easily felt than grasped, like gravity. Though it has no corporeal form, it has a great deal of force. The amount of force or weight of an expectation depends on the quality and/or quantity of persons. The more significant a person or the greater the number of persons, the heavier the expectation. The weight of an expectation can rival the weight of Atlas. Once an expectation is brought into existence it takes a life of its own. Sometimes it merges or fuses with the expectee's personality and lifestyle to the point that when the expectation begins and his life ends cannot be detected. It is possible to live entirely in an expectation, but it is not encouraged because there is no air in an expectation. Suffocation or asphyxiation is common within the expectation atmosphere if the weight does not first grind one's knee into the ground. An expectation is often misunderstood as a right. This is incorrect. An expectation is a wrong thought right. It can be about something impossible or possibly unnecessary. It is nothing but we make it something. We are good at making something out of nothing. We are not so good at making something into nothing. There is more litter in our attempts at annihiliation than the fruits of our creation.

Keep it in.

If we can think angriest most evil of thoughts does that make us evil? One may be tempted to agree with this statement. After all, if one could think it, one could most certainly do it. And it is but a short step from one to the other. Is it not?

But then let us consider it more carefully. Can mere possession of thought or comprehension of evil necessarily mean that one is evil? If that were true then so many of us could be considered evil. Most of us would have caught an action packed, horror or adventure movie or read some book where there isn't some kind of some manifestation of evil with some meaningless killing or treachery involved. If people could come up with this stuff and we pay to watch or read it then we all must be evil. That proposition is therefore absurd and most certainly cannot be true.

So exposure to evil and even thinking about it clearly does not result in immediate and thoroughly complete corruption. Evil requires more than just thought, it requires action to the fullest manifestations of those wicked thoughts. Murder as an example. It is basically the wilful premeditated killing of another human being (euthanasia type scenario excluded). It does not get much more evil than this. Perhaps some of us at some point or other in our lives may fantasize about doing someone in just for the hell of it. However, that does not necessarily mean we want to do it. or dare do it. That is merely using our imagination, perhaps in a constructive way even.

And in a way, by not acting out our evil thoughts each of us are containing the evil that could be unleashed out there in this world. Keep it in.

The Renaissance Man Reloaded

Thomas Aquinas

The idea of and behind the Renaissance Man has always fasinated me. The general definition of the word has tended to focus on his intellectual side. American Heritage Dictionary defines him as 'A man who has broad intellectual interests and is accomplished in areas of both the arts and the sciences.' Wordnet defines him as 'a modern scholar who is in a position to acquire more than superficial knowledge about many different interests.' Most of the definitions take a similar texture. The general visual you have of these sort of men are heavily bearded, tubby and smarter than you can ever imagine; think Aristotle, Leonardo da Vinci, John Ruskin, Thomas Aquinas (that is a younger depiction of him, which I have always preferred; he is my icon of the Renaissance Man for some strange reason - although I have a sneaking suspicion it has to do with his entry I read once in the Britannica Encyclopedia I have around). And the idea behind the Renaissance Man is that he has a very broad level of understanding with some measure of depth of life and has drawn wisdom from its experiences. One with a great and broad level of knowledge, understanding of it and therefore wisdom. He is the great generalist.

I used to abide by that definition before. But over these last few years having brooded over the idea of doing so after taking into account the massive intellectual, scientific, technological, medical, dietary understanding, educational growth and achievements since the Renaissance, it is time to revise the idea of the Renaissance Man. Why don't I just replace it you may quite reasonably ask? For two reasons. The first is auditory. I quite like the sound of Renaissance and it's rather fun to say. It involves the whole face and mouth in saying it and if properly pronounced it sounds quite pretty as English words ripped from the French often sound (from the French word 'rebirth'). Secondly, I could not be arsed to come up with some crassy new name and sound like I'm touting something new. I'm not. Coining a word used to mean something in days when people were a bit more discerning with their literature. It was a goddamned event. Now, it's mandatory to be able to do so to write those business books or self help ones. None of that for me.

The idea of the Renaissance Man I think can withstand a revision without harm to itself as long as the core idea of what he is remains and the revision is guided by it. So what is it that I'm such a busy body about to write all about it? I think that there are generally four components to a person in this day and life. There is the physical (body), the mental (intellect which would include the arts, religion, and science), the emotional (love, hate, envy, etc. and the sexual) and the political-legal (financially solvency, your rights as a citizen, no prior convictions, etc.). Earlier I had thought of putting sexual as a component by itself, but then I thought that might be putting too much pressure on the guy.

I think that the Renaissance Man has to now weaken his intensity on his intellectual aspect and have a fair and reasonable appreciation of the other three components of his life. So he should not only know of what to do to be healthy, he must at the very least keep himself physically trim (not saying he can't smoke or cigar), he should also have a fairly good understranding of the political and legal system he is in and his rights within it; a sophisticated appreciation of the dynamic interplay between, within and of the undercurrent emotions, and naturally, he is able to keep in firm control of his; he is highly ethical and honest though not without cunning and cynicism; and perhaps even competent at a musical instrument or two, on top of having a reasonably wide level of knowledge, understanding and wisdom. He is to me the Great Generalist. You can throw any question at him and he can in all probability tell you something useful about it or he would have read it.

Damn, when I list it out like that, it sure does look like a tall order. But then that's the point I suppose. We cannot have just about every calling themselves a Renaissance Man (or Woman) as easily as say, some of the Heads of States in Malaysia hand out titles such as the multiplicitous forms of and ubiquitous 'Dato' and now 'Tan Sris' are also becoming a dime for half a dozen. And unlike some of those titles, you cannot pay, cajole or beg anybody to become one. It is something you have to achieve for yourself, by yourself. And more importantly it is a state of being and cannot be flashed around like a Dato'-ship or Tan Sri-ship can with their plate badges. In fact, by then such materialistic achievements would be incomprehensible to him. As I think it is becoming more unbearable for us.

The Past

The Past is Behind
Mel Kadel

There are those that walk amongst us who yearn for the past. But they do not experience nostalgia like most of us do. Theirs is fused with a passion laid upon the anvil of the fear of the future and hammered ceaselessly by loathing of the present in the hope of reaching into the past and transporting it to the present. They think the past like a fire long burnt out that can be rekindled and revived by returning to that former way of life, of dressing, of diet, of thinking, of societal relations, of economy. By practising this they think that they can return to that glorious wonderful past when everything was simpler, sweeter and superior. These people are past fetishists and represent a species of extremism.

They are obsessed with the past because firstly, the past is obvious. Everything has happened already. So you know what happens. Consequentially, and secondly, there is nothing to be afraid of. So the past is also safe. But because the past is made up of many different views and experiences, despite its ocean of certainty, there remain vast continents of ambiguity. The film, Rushomon, by Akira Kurosawa exploits this truth. Thirdly, the past can be in conflict and is therefore still fluid. And because of that, and fourthly, the past is malleable. It can be shaped, sculpted, pruned, emphasized, softened or interpreted to support or suit a particular purpose. This was seen just recently in the University Putra Malaysia’s Ethnic Relations Textbook that was defended by our Ministry of Higher Education. Finally, the past usually appears benign with a bias towards sentimentalism as compared to the present and future. In sum, these fetishists long for the past because it is known, safe, and malleable with a strong tendency to sentimentalize or glorify the past.

Past fetishists think that by perpetuating the past in the present they can use the past like a lantern, sword and shield all at once to conquer the unknown future. This thinking is as misguided as it is impossible. Mere mimicry never resulted in time travel. Once something is said and done, it remains said and done. Nothing in the universe can undo it. It recedes into the past, distant and remote. The past can never be brought to the present or into the future simply because its time has passed. To truly return to a past it is not enough for you to merely observe its externalities or way of thinking, the entire fabric of existence has to return to that time with you. And that will never happen.

The inherent danger with this attitude should be obvious. Past fetishists are so concerned with reconstructing the past that their every effort is directed towards mimicking that they tend to ignore or are unable to meet the present demands of reality. They are like the person who walks forward with his head turned back the whole time. Naturally, they would not be able to see where they are going or avoid the danger approaching them.

Further, the concept of progress is an anathema to past fetishists. There is no need for development or discovery since the past was perfect, complete and known. All that is required for a better future is a return to the past. Regression and stagnation is the order of the day. Progression is irrelevant.

The irony with past fetishists though lies in the tools they use. They inevitably use modern equipment and knowledge to achieve their aims – for example: bombs, computers, chat rooms, modern vehicles, the internet and modern banking facilities. This is because they have no choice. The other irony is that the tools that they rely on to accomplish their goal are created by or created in a (possibly) different intellectual and moral cultural environment based on the notion of progress that would be subjugated if not annihilated if these fetishists had their way.

Once these ironies and the sheer impossibility of their goals permeate into their subconscious their passion putrefies into frustration. They turn to the present day scapegoats to vent their rage, believing that the eradication of their perceived object of hatred would bring them closer to their goal. The more their scapegoats resist, the angrier the fetishists become, the more severe and uncompromising their methodology becomes. This is ultimately manifested in violence and increase of it. Asimov once wrote that violence is the first refuge of the incompetent. It would not be out of place to include the frustrated as well.

We can only ever experience the past (in the sense of living it again after the moment has happened) through our own memories, nobody else’s. Anything other than ours is at best a simulation, an approximation. Discussion of times gone by, recorded material and artefacts may link us to the past but it is only through a looking glass because we were never there. Only our personal past can be truly experienced. Memories therefore are the only means of ‘time travel’ that we have. And it’s cheap. All one needs is the triggering of the relevant senses – the faint smell of roses, or a shimmering arpeggio on a guitar, or the smooth feel of velvet beneath the fingers – and the feelings, the mood rushes in pervading us.

One of the most important (and clichéd) aspect of the past is that there are lessons to be learnt from it. But the lessons are not obvious and the issues subtle and sophisticated because of the multitude of variables involved. And the past is neutral which means one doesn’t necessarily draws the right lesson simply by staring into the past. There is therefore merit in spending time to meaningfully contemplate not just our personal past but our shared heritage and our history as it was, and not as we would like it to be. Only when we clearly see what came before us can truly better it now for the future. The past is a mere guide, not the law. It is a mere record of what happened before not of what will happen. History does not dispense justice, it only tells of lives lived and lost.

Soma That Speed

Speed limits. Fascinating things. Let me get one thing clear first. I'm not discussing the speed limit imposed on those places where it is justified such as near schools and such, physically disabled people areas (such as where the Malaysian Association of the Blind is situated which is a centre of activity for many blind people), in long stretches of road in residential areas (used also as a tool to enforce peace and security), dangerous blind (not intended) corners and slip-in roads as most Malaysian cities have, and to regulate certain stretches of roads for to cater to their peculiar circumstances. No. Those places are wholly justified. In fact, I say the police should be watching those areas. It is there that they shall find the law trampled if not driven over regularly.

But not on the highways. Not those vast, flat and seductive empty six-laners that God laid down for those of us that want to place our pedal to the metal. No. Those places like the Garden of Eden should be left pristine just as it was made. A grave matte black with vertical disconnect white lines without those metal poles with the red circle and a number in the middle at the side. The following yellow triangle signs however are welcomed: falling rocks, high winds, winding roads up ahead, bumpy roads, and perhaps one for cops around the corner would be greatly appreciated. So as you can tell by now, I'm talking about speed limits on the highway.

The question I always find myself asking is this: if the highest one can travel in a vehicle in the country is 110 km/h, (1) why do car makers that make cars for our country not calibrate the car to limit its top speed to maybe 120 km/h only (only army and police excepted) (2) why doesn't the government make it a policy to limit the cars to that speed only and enforce it? Surely it would be easier to do that than to allow hundreds of thousands of vehicles every few years with the ability to go beyond the speed limit at will and try to contain them. The assumption is noble - people should be able to regulate themselves - but not most third world developing countries in Asia, including our country. In these places, laws are mere guides, even an opinion perhaps. But operationally it is an absolute disaster. Why do it this way then? I'm sure I am also not the only one to have thought about this and asked this question. I am certain the question must have occurred to all these traffic experts.

Will it kill people's need and desire for cars? No. You still get somewhere in them and that's the most useful part about them. The speed is secondary. So the car industry may take a dent but it certainly will not bring its doom. It may even save fuel, cars that don't go so fast or are not high performance also don't burn fuel as quickly too. And for the record, even the Toyota Prius goes up to almost 110 miles per hour (approximately 180 kilometers per hour). Will it make it easier to do policing? Yes. It would be so easy to see who is speeding beyond the limit. Less traffic police resources have to be invested into this area and it can be used for other purposes.

There are all these substantial benefits in favour of reducing speed this way but still it is not done. The question parallels the existential one. Why did God make us in and for freedom yet fashion such a narrow path for us to be near his Grace? A test of our faith, we could rationalize but it still sits rather uneasily sometimes. But back to the speed limit. And I suspect a reason governments allow cars to be so much higher above the speed limit is because they in some vague way understand that there is a freedom in being able to break the law and go as fast as you can in your car. You have the freedom to keep within or to break the law. That is important. Because that is one of the most fundamental rights we have as human beings. They day we are not able to do that we would have either a Brave New World or 1984, or worse both. Which if you think about, is the direction our country seems to be slowly drifting towards. Anybody got some soma?

this is how shit happens (in malaysia...and almost everywhere else!).

In the Beginning was The Plan.

And then came the Assumptions.

And the Assumptions were without form.

And The Plan was completely without substance.

And the darkness was upon the face of the workers. “It is a crock of shit and it stinketh.”

And the workers went unto the Supervisors and sayeth, “It is a pail of dung and none may abide the odor thereof.”

And the Supervisors went unto their Managers and sayeth unto them, “It is a container of excrement and it is very strong. Such that none may abide it.”

And the Managers went unto the Directors and sayeth, “It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide it.”

And the Directors went unto the Vice Presidents. And sayeth unto them, “It promotes growth, and is very powerful.”

And the Vice Presidents went unto the President. And sayeth unto him, “This new Plan will actively promote the growth And efficiency of this Company
And these areas in particular.”

And the President looked upon the Plan. And he saw that it was good, and the Plan became Policy.

And this is how Shit Happens!

- from another website.

On Awareness

Aleksander Balos-Credo's 'Awareness'

I recently finished reading Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela's 'A Human Being Died That Night: Forgiving Apertheid's Chief Killer'. Dr. Pumla is a clinical psychologist that was provoked by a mother of one of apartheid's many victims who had told her that she had forgiven, Eugene de Kock, commanding officer of the apartheid death squads, to seek him out and find out what made that mother forgive someone known infamously in South Africa as 'Prime Evil'. The thrust of the book is a meditation on forgivness, its nature, its meaning and its paremeters. Dr. Pumla in the course of her meditation throws open many issues both psychological and legal as well. One of the passages that found resonance with me was this:

"How much evidence is necessary for one to change perspective and for transformation in one's life to result? Is knowledge enough to change a person's heart? Is it sufficiently simply to know that the beliefs on which one has based one's behavior are wrong? Perhaps one doesn't need more knowledge; one needs the resolve to use the knowledge that one has. Moving from reflection to engagement requires a new way of seeing the old - the kind of shift in perspective that information rarely yields but spiritual conviction sometimes brings."

Although this passage relates to how the Christian religion in South Africa failed to 'create a moral climate in which soldiers could draw from the religious conviction and exercise moral restraint' and even interpreted the acts of suppression and repression of the blacks as 'divinely sanctioned acts', it finds application in other areas as well because it asks a fundamental problem. How do you persuade someone to change something fundamental about their way of life or personality? How do you inspire someone? The paragraph does not yield answers though it does one important thing - it points out what knowledge does not do. Knowledge doesn't simply change one. It gives one tools to do so, but it does not effect the change. That has to come from 'resolve' or interest or necessity. Knowledge is nothing more than a store of information.

More important is how to use that knowledge in a meaningful and productive manner not just for our own personal growth but also in our interactions with other people and our work. That is not to say technique is supreme to knowledge but they both require each other. There is synergy in a meaningful combination of one with the other. And that is why I am now opposed to these popular non-governmental organizations idea of merely raising awareness about issues, which the government has taken up for its own policies and procedures, without also instilling or making available just what to do once awareness has been achieved, and providing the necessary and attendant infrastructure to provide a foundation for that policy.

An illustration of this would be the 'Love Our River' Campaign organized by the Drainage and Irrigation Department (DID) and the Department of Environment (DOE) which was organized to 'promote public awareness of the importance of rivers and highlight the critical state of river pollution.' The Spotlight report in New Straits Times (NST) dated 20 October 2006 reported: 'DID section assistant river Ahmad Darus said the department had spent RM 10 million during the campaign on ‘site activities’ which included landscaping – building walkways and gazebos for the public. Between 1993 and 2003, an average of 35 rivers a year were monitored, and gotong-royong and landscaping activities were carried on an average of 23 rivers, he said. In 1993, RM 100,000 was spent on billboards. An additional RM 50,000 was spent in the subsequent years, said Ahmad. More than a thousand awareness seminars were also held in schools nationwide.'

But as Dr. Pumla has pointed out mere knowledge does not change a person's heart, and that is harder to change than one's mind. It goes the same for awareness. The NST understandably reported in euphemistic terms how it was a failure. And that was the problem with the campaign. It was more concerned with spending money, construction, and petty activities. How do these impersonal campaigns for the masses supposed to not just raise awareness but become an active dependable force in combating river pollution? How does it equip them with the relevant skill or abilities to assist in building an effective, meaningful community to assist in the fight against environment pollution?

That is not to say that awareness is not important, but its importance is limited temporally to a narrow area. It is that first step. But then the journey of a thousand miles does not end with the first step. It continues with many other steps which will be repetitive, dull, tiresome but no less important because all of them will take us to our destination. The question then is what would give us that resolve? Spiritual conviction may give us that. But I suspect that is a question that each of us has to answer in each of our own individual and unique way because we are similar as we are dissimilar. And in trying to find that answer are we able to transform awareness of humanity into human action.