Category: Old age of my youth – 2014

SATURDAY, 11 OCTOBER 2014

Some white Afrikaners are of the opinion that they should never have given up their political power, and that fellow Afrikaners who were of the opinion two or three decades ago that apartheid was an unjust system and that South Africa had to become a multi-party democracy were “traitors to their own people”.

The only people who won’t acknowledge the current government’s corruption probably have their own snouts in the trough, but to jump to the conclusion that the previous regime should never have ended because the current government is corrupt is to deceive yourself and to expose yourself as intellectually lazy or dishonest, or both.

Apartheid and everything it meant in practice had to be terminated because it was immoral, and because it corrupts the oppressor’s and exploiter’s being to the core to oppress and exploit other people.

It was also to everybody’s advantage to end apartheid with a relatively peaceful political settlement, because if it did not end in this way it would have had to be defeated in a struggle that would have been bloodier and more violent than it had been up until 1994, in which the white Afrikaner would have lost more than just political power.

The current group of politicians who abuse their positions of power to rob the state and to deceive the public ought to be criticised as a matter of principle. It is the civic duty of South Africans of all colours and political affiliation to criticise incompetence, corruption and other cases of wicked behaviour. Yet, some white Afrikaners find it strange that people who preached a few decades ago that apartheid had to end now also complain about the ANC government. “Isn’t this what you wanted!” they write in the comment sections of articles on the internet.

What “they” wanted – these liberals and progressives of twenty or thirty years ago – was for a morally unjustifiable system of repression to end, because it was immoral, and because it would have corrupted the white Afrikaner to the core – in fact, the moral cancer had already permeated deeply in many cases.

What these liberal and progressive people still want is a non-racial, democratic republic. To blame them for the government in 2014 being corrupt and incompetent because two or three decades ago they said apartheid had to end, and may even have worked towards this goal, is to bark up the wrong tree.

______________________

WEDNESDAY, 8 OCTOBER 2014

I don’t have children, but I think I have a good idea what it means to have children.

1. You experience joy and fulfilment and happiness you will never be able to express to someone who doesn’t have children of his or her own.

2. You also experience anxiety and sadness and disappointment you’ll never be able to express to people who don’t have children of their own.

3. You think differently about yourself, your value, your role in society, and what you will leave behind of your existence.

I do wonder how many people think about the joy and fulfilment and happiness, and still decide not to have children. How many people think of the anxiety, the sadness, and the disappointment they face, and make a conscious decision to have children regardless?

______________________

MONDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2014

Most people understand the difference between an opinion and a preference. “I love Italian food – to tell the truth, I prefer it to Spanish food,” is a preference. On the other hand, it is opinion to say, “Italian food is better than Spanish food.”

With preferences, you don’t need to substantiate anything. You don’t need to present any evidence. You don’t need to quote facts from an authoritative source to give weight to your preference.

Opinions, on the other hand, are an animal of a different colour. Why do you say, for example, that Italian food is better than Spanish food? Why do you think one player will be more valuable to the national team than another player? Why do you think one solution is better than another solution?

People want their opinions to carry weight. Indeed, many people want their opinions to be of such a nature that other people would almost be compelled to agree with them.

When I give an opinion, I like to back it up with reliable facts – names, dates, perhaps some statistics, and if I can stretch my mind that far, some scientific data. If I cannot recite the relevant facts at the appropriate time, I will either stay quiet or express my opinion with a clear understanding that my facts may be wrong. If you can prove my facts are incorrect, you can expect me to acknowledge my error. I will also thank you for alleviating me of my ignorance.

Of course, I expect the same courtesy from you. If you cannot give your opinion weight with verifiable facts, and I refute your argument with names and dates and figures, I will expect you to admit that you are wrong. The same goes if you indeed quote what you think are facts and I prove your information is incorrect.

If I have laid verifiable facts on the table that prove your opinion carries no weight, and you insist that your opinion is accurate, I will give you another chance – people don’t often like to admit in the heat of the moment that they’re mistaken. If you continue to insist that you are indeed right, brushing aside the facts I have tabled as mere inconveniences, you leave me with no choice other than to conclude that you are an inflated balloon full of old breath – one that could burst at any time. I won’t believe you when you say your name is Sam Sorrow or John Doe or Pete Burger. I won’t believe you when you tell me you’re a qualified dentist or a mechanic or a lecturer at a local university. I will indeed not believe another word that comes out of your mouth.

If you refuse to acknowledge a fact as a fact, you expose yourself as unreliable, intellectually shallow and underdeveloped, and probably as one who thinks nothing of lying, and of deceiving people.

People who make a habit of this must ask themselves why they find it so terrible to admit they are wrong. And how sure are they that they don’t need professional help?

POSTSCRIPT: Sunday, 11 June 2017

Prediction can also be seen as opinion. It is also possible that two different predictions can be made, both backed by verifiable facts, with the second prediction based on information that was overlooked in the first prediction.

Example: I think Tennis Player A is a better clay court player than Tennis Player B. To give weight to my opinion, I quote statistics of the two players’ performances on clay courts.

“I see what you mean,” my conversation partner will admit. But then he makes a prediction. “I still think B is going to win today’s match.”

“On what do you base your prediction?” I will ask. “I just proved to you that A has a much better record on clay.”

Maybe we have a bit of an audience following our conversation. Everyone is now looking at my friend. If he says nothing to give weight to his prediction, people will disregard it. Even if he is right and Player B wins the game, the other people will probably write his prediction off as pure luck.

There is another possibility, though. After reminding my friend that I have quoted statistics that prove, as far as I am concerned, that Player A is a better clay court player than Player B, my friend says: “I hear what you’re saying but look a little deeper. A needed at least four sets in each of the first four matches of this tournament to defeat his opponent. B, on the other hand, dominated his opponents from round one. If you look at the previous three clay court tournaments, you will also see B has been performing better and better, and he has significantly improved his technique. Plus, don’t forget that A had knee surgery seven months ago.”

The first set of facts about the players’ performances in clay court tournaments remains accurate, but clearly more information has now come to light. Even if Player B loses the match, everyone should be impressed by my friend’s reasoning ability and by the way he gave weight to his opinion, to his prediction that the player with the less impressive overall record might just have a higher likelihood of winning.

______________________

MONDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2014

My professional ambitions* are WRITING, PUBLISHING what I write, and MAKING MONEY.

* Professional ambitions: What you do when you are not relaxing or doing things that improve your life.

THURSDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2014

Incidentally, on Tuesday, 17 November 1998 I asked: “Why Taiwan?”

I answered: “To be free of debt in two or three years’ time and to empower myself financially. Why? To focus on my singular ambition – to write. Why? So I can give expression to my need, my desire, my urge to create. Why? So that when I return to dust, I can leave something behind.”

How does this compare with what I wrote on Monday? In both notes, I used the word ambition. In both notes writing featured prominently. But what good does it do if you finish a novel every few months, and every few weeks another short story, and every now and then a poem or an essay, and no one ever reads it? That is where publication comes in. I have made it a priority to learn how to publish – my own literary projects, but also more commercial projects.

I also mentioned financial empowerment in November 1998, to make it possible for me to pursue my “singular ambition”. Now, too, I want to make money, not just so that I can spend the best hours of my day on my own projects, but to make life easier for the special woman in my life, and to be able to enjoy more of life with her.

In short, the choice of words is somewhat different. What is behind it, has remained more or less unchanged.

______________________

SUNDAY, 7 SEPTEMBER 2014

A guy on a motorcycle cuts you off seconds before you get to a traffic light. You have to brake sharply. The guy races through the intersection, and because your forward motion was interrupted, you are forced to wait at the red light.

Six blocks later you crash into a car. Not because you’re a bad driver. Not because the other person had done something terribly wrong. You crashed into them because you were still steamed up because of “that other pig” cutting you off – six blocks earlier. Now you have to pay for the damage to someone’s vehicle. Because you couldn’t restrain your emotions. Because you took all your resentments, all your insecurities with you on the road.

Same with pre-race trading. I increasingly get the idea that my understanding of the story is no longer as big a problem as it was eight months ago. The way I enter into trades is also considerably better. But because my mind is not what it should be – because of the heat and humidity, the fact that my bicycle’s chain falls off every day and then the overweight foreign dude with the grandmother bike has to stop on the bridge to reset his chain with his keys, and who knows what else, every now and then I allow a trade to go where it wants instead of controlling it. And it’s not because I am a bad trader, or because I don’t understand what’s going on. It is because I can’t restrain my emotions. Because I take my clouded mind with me to the trading session. And the result is that I don’t make money – or worse, that I lose money.

We like to tell ourselves that we ought to be happy, that it’s better for our health and our relationships and so on. Verily, verily, I say to myself: Work on being a happier person, make it clear to all your insecurities what they can do to themselves, and make more money.

A happier person with fewer insecurities will probably also find it easier to remain calm in the traffic. Which might just one day save your and/or someone else’s life or limb.

______________________