Something has been bugging me for as long as I can remember. You know those arrows drawn on the MRT platforms, supposedly directing people in and out of the train?

They are WRONG. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

People never get in the train from the side and people never get out of the train from the front (but that's 'cos there's a human wall outside the door). All the time I travelled on the train, commuters did the exact opposite. And the weird thing is, despite being cognitively capable of comprehending signs, I instinctively want to get out of the train from the side. But then again, that might just be survival instinct (hmm, impenetrable human wall). In any case, I just wonder why they didn't just switch the signs the other way around. Whoever came up with the way it is now obviously either never took a train ride before or lack the insight to human behavior.

The human wall will always be there, right in front of the door. Heed my call and see light.

***

I know the exams are coming and people are freaking out, but I am exceptionally calm this semester. In fact, I couldn't be more relieved that the exams are finally here. It marks the nearing end to term papers, essays, media writing and whatnot. It marks the end of this semester. It marks the coming of the next semester and the next semester marks the end of my tediously pathetic university life. Now I know why people always look so happy at graduation. Not for reasons we thought obviously, but for reasons we now know.

Don't ask me why I now find university life so repulsive. I have no bloody clue myself. It's not as if I'm not gratified with my improved state of intellect (but not of mind, mind you, state of mind decidedly scrapping the bottom). It's just that, despite enjoying my literature class immensely (magnitude not quantifiable; it's that much) and despite getting an A for my essay from the strictest professor I've ever met (most respected as well), I wind up thinking (after the euphoria had worn off), "Okay, I got an A. Now, so what?"

The point is, no one gives a shit that I got an A. Personal sense of achievement, however strong, however precious, lasts only that long and can only be manifested within oneself, generate meaning and value within oneself, before being reduced by a heightened state of awareness of the reality that is out there and how small I am and how insignificant my essay is. No matter how well I do now, how smart I make myself out to be now, it doesn't matter once I get out there. So why did I even bother? And the more I think about it, the more it makes sense, I tell you. Just take university entry as an example. People with C average for A levels get in FASS. Moi, with straight As, get in FASS. When we graduate, we will be lumped together and stamped with the mark of academic excellence from the top dunno what university that is NUS, and we will all be the same, judged as having the same calibre. So, my point is, why did I make life so difficult for myself during my A levels when a decent B average would have gotten me to where I am now? I'm not working in a very smart way, am I? Minimum effort, maximum results should be the way of life. So why should I even bother to get As in university now when I'm going to be judged as no different from any Arts graduate?

But then again, it's not as if I'm putting in a lot of effort in my studies. I mean, I'm well-aware of the fact that my idea of 'a lot of work' is very different from what others may perceive. Usually, my effort is comparatively much smaller than the average hardworking person who may clock hours of studies a day, so I don't know why I'm even complaining about all these. I just feel so abused, is all.

Woe, self-centreness and self-importance. It's nice to indulge in it once in a while.

***

So after all that rambling, I supposed it would be totally anti-climax to be talking about more academic stuff and to let you in on the fact that I've been enjoying some academic stuff all day. But this one is interesting, I think, and a brilliant take on the philosophy of determinism (the idea that people are driven to behave in a certain manner by factors external of themselves and are thus not completely accountable for the decisions they made; doesn't it sound like film and history?):

"Well, but one may be betrayed into doing things by a combination of circumstances, which one might never have done otherwise."
"Why, yes (Irwine replies), a man can't very well steal a bank-note unless the bank-note lies within convenient reach; but he won't make us think him an honest man because he begins to howl at the bank-note for falling in his way."

Haha, I don't know about you, but I found that incredibly funny.

And then there's also this brilliant book for those interested in the mode of historical inquiry, titled Re-thinking History by Keith Jenkins. Great read because it's kept simple and straight to the point, free of self-important bombastic pseudo-scientific rattling and it went at length to suggest a Marxist reading on the modes/types of academic inquiry in universities in relation to power and how power determines what we are taught, what we are taught to inquire, during the course of our 'education'. Great stuff. I should have majored in History.