It’s been a while

I seriously have not written in this blog in a while, and I feel pretty aweful since that is a sign that I am not managing myself well enough to give myself enough time to debrief the experiences I have in life, to think about my experiences as if I am rolling them like candy in my mouth, slowly getting the taste out of it. I have three midterms coming up, so I’ll just list things, and hopefully I will one day come back to them.

CITRIS and the rags to riches lady with sharp eyes, a fluffy coat, a leopard dress, a docile looking husband, and two kids who are proud to have parents with a building named after their family. What does it feel to be obsequiously rich?

Sitting alone in a room with empty chairs, eating too much popcorn, and attempting to contemplate the meaning of the “genuine” life through Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

Forfeiting the urgency of the future to satisfy the now, giving time to self when such time is impossibly scarce by watching a movie.

Thinking about social construction and the art of taking tests through the lens of immunology (antibody formation).

Recognizing the need to speak like a poet when the situation is ripe, attending slams to “prepare” the subconscious, but being unable. Damn habitus.

Seriously wanting to blog, but considering the reality of the situation, and choosing instead to half-ass a wannabe post with incomplete, broken sentences.

Tired of thinking about making the “right” decisions, but making poor ones in the mean time, such as writing this blog.

Time to stop. Time to get back to work. Life is beautiful.

Writing

I write I try but I can’t I wont.
There are things to be written but the will is not there.
There is homework to do, but the will is not there.
There is productivity to be sipped, slurped, and swallowed whole, but the will is not there.
The will is not there.
The soul is there. The soul is there.
The soul is full. The soul is full.
And it needs some sleep.

Break out in hives

A conversation with my roommate on the assertion of self and necessity for social solidarity. The always slightly cautious, always slightly reserved self is not conducive to leadership and “being”. It is initially uncomfortable putting oneself out there, but this is inevitable, given the trajectory I am going. Unless of course, I can live a kind of dualness, with one being on stand-by and one being full power. The state of stand-by is good at keeping things always slightly at a distance at preserving the precious resource called time, but at the same time, it deprives much of the opportunity to learn and observe. The pro to being more reserved is the balcony level observation learning, whereas the con is less “hands on” and viscerally satisfying learning. On the other hand, the pro to being “all out” is much “trench level”, roll-up-thy-sleeves-and-dirty-thy-hands kind of satisfying learning sans the balcony view at the time. The ideal is to have control between the two, but it seems like I am much more predominantly “stand-by” than I am “all out”. The habit has become a habitus, and a habitus is hard to break. The conversation I just had with my roommate was definitely considered a “trenches” kind of experience, as I was in an all out, no-reserve ranting. To balance that, I am currently balconying it.

So what is the conclusion? A few. Life can never be fully in control, and all can be analyzed more deeply. Also one’s concern in how one is perceived should never become an impediment. It’s good to notice and leverage such nuances (as Bill Clinton skillfully does), but at the same time, living the skin and getting comfortable in it seems a much more genuine route. How is the emotion to be directed, as I am certainly feeling more invigorated and ready to re-integrate my being into my social reality? It’s kind of crazy. My goals and where I am being taken necessitates that I face the “stand-by” habitus and face it now. It is inevitable, and it will hit me sooner or later. The sooner, the better, as I will have some time to react to it and begin running forward at a mad pace, as if all hives has just broken loose.

Interesting piece of Satire

This was a homework assignment for a class I had in Biology. Nothing personal to any of the characters I mention here.

An NBC Correspondent sits down with Maurice Wilkens in a cozy room surrounded by heavy books and fancy chandeliers. The camera crew stands eagerly, ready for the live broadcast. The head cameraman gives a curt nod. The correspondent begins.

NBC: “This is Tony Murdock, live on the NBC channel with Dr. Maurice Wilkins, one of the founders of the double helix. Dr. Wilkins, thank you for agreeing to speak with us today about your experience. Here in the United States, we’ve read and enjoyed Dr. Watson’s famous account of the discovery, and we were wondering if you could just tell us a little about the experience from your personal perspective. Maybe you could start by telling us a little about your impression of Dr. Watson?“

Maurice Wilkins: “Well certainly. To be candid, I did not particularly like James Watson when I first met him. He was a young, fresh, and lanky kind of fellow with—how should I put it—‘interesting’ hair.  (Correspondent smiles charmingly) Additionally, with a Bachelors degree in Zoology, he didn’t come off as having a particularly outstanding background in the subject of understanding DNA. James claimed that he was inspired to pursue DNA after seeing some of my x-ray diffraction photographs at Naples, but I don’t recall ever seeing him there. Ultimately, it was his persistence and passion in this topic of DNA that got me invested in the matter. At the time, I was more concerned with the quality of my crystallography, and so I wasn’t as interested in paying close attention to discovering the structure of the DNA as he did. I guess to some degree, we kind of complemented one another: just as my x-rays had inspired him to look into DNA, his interest in discovering the structure of DNA inspired me to look more scrupulously into the structure as well. Throughout the process, we’ve come to learn very much from one another, and today we remain good friends.”

NBC: “That’s very, very interesting. (Wilkins raises an eyebrow) Now, you mentioned your primary focus was in crystallography. What was it like exactly to be working on crystallography while looking for DNA?”
 
Maurice Wilkins: “Well, it was undoubtedly ‘interesting’, of course, why else would I have dedicated so much of my life to it? (laughs) But you know, although it doesn’t sound as exciting, fast paced, and biographically worthy as James and Francis’s search for DNA, Crystallography nonetheless played a crucial role for many of the scientific breakthroughs of our generation. It’s the unglamorous pillar of the monolithic DNA theory, I guess, and things certainly wouldn’t have turned out the same without it. Who knows, without the clues provided by x-ray diffraction photographs, we might have all adopted the ‘interesting’ three-stranded helical structure proposed by Linus Pauling instead. What a mess that would have been! (Chuckles heartily)

NBC Correspondent laughs along

NBC: “Thank you, Dr. Wilkins. Now, I understand that throughout this project, you were also working with Rosalind Franklin who also hoped to discover the mystery behind DNA. If you don’t mind, could you talk a little about your interesting relationship with her as well?” (Wilkins loses his grin.)

Maurice Wilkins: “You know, I would actually prefer not talking about that woman.”

NBC: “………….” (Correspondent’s face tightens.)

(“This is a LIVE broadcast”, the head cameraman mouths at the correspondent, “DO something”. Cameraman makes a gesture of cutting his neck.)

Correspondent attempts an awkwardly formulated smile. Wilkins doesn’t smile.

NBC: “In that case, then, Dr. Wilkins— (Wilkins cuts correspondent off)”

Maurice Wilkins: “—Alright, alright. Since you insist… I guess I could. Let me start off by saying I don’t have anything against Rosalind—seriously. I believe she is a serious woman deserving of all the respect and seriousness of any trained crystallographer. I just don’t think she fits the “culture” of the friendly scientific community very well, you know what I mean? I mean, you’ve heard from James, I’m sure, but she almost assaulted him! If I didn’t had my head in that mess, who knows what craziness would have ensued. Perhaps she would have taken a chunk off his shoulder or something. For years I’ve been trying to get her to cooperate with the people she works with, but she just doesn’t take my advice very well—if at all. She can sure take some good x-ray pictures, but you know what, she almost stole away with my work on the DNA at one point! Such audacity! Why couldn’t she act more feminine? I just don’t understand that woman. She’s an ‘interesting’ case, really…

Sensing the talk is drifting from political correctness, the correspondent interjects.

NBC: Well, um, Mr. Wilkins, that’s very interesting to hear (Wilkins raises his eyebrow. A drop of sweat forms on the forehead of the correspondent.), but we must, um, first take a short break from our interview. (Turns to camera) This is Tony Murdock with the NBC hour-long special in our exclusive, live interview with Dr. Maurice Wilkins, one of the primary founders to the DNA double helix. (Cameraman makes gesture of cutting his neck.) When we come back, um, we will talk to him a little more about his interesting role in discovering the double helix. (Wilkins stands abruptly to leave in the background, muttering something under his breath) Stay tuned, and we will be right back!”

The head Cameraman stops the camera and the whole crew runs after Wilkins as he exits the building.

金錢

如果我有一塊錢，我會放棄餅乾糖果，我選擇將錢用在累積儲蓄。 你要問我為什麼，請看看那些坐在街上的乞丐，那，就是我的答案。

如果我有十塊錢，我會放棄綜藝娛樂，我選擇將錢用在買書買筆。你要問我 為什麼，請看看那些汗流浹背的勞工，那，就是我的答案。

如果我有百塊錢，我會放棄山珍海味，我選擇將錢用在自付學費。你要問我 為什麼，請看看那些欠債賠錢的學生，那，就是我的答案。

如果我有千塊錢， 我會放棄遊玩享樂，我選擇將錢用在股票投資。你要問我 為什麼，請看看那些犧牲奉獻的父母，那，就是我的答案。

如果我有萬塊錢，我會放棄追求財富，我選擇將錢用在超越金錢。 你要問我 為什麼，請看看那些視財如命的富人，那，就是我的答案。

人生，是一個賺不完的市場。一塊？十塊？百塊？千塊？如果你已受金錢主宰，瞧瞧金錢背後真正的意義吧， 那，就是你的答案。

The squelched Poet

I attended a poetry slam today, and I as I came home and plopped my hands upon my keyboard intending to blog about something impressive, I sense how foreign it feels to type. The source seemed to have dried, the river no longer flowing, and the creative impulses evaporated and finding their way to the sun. Overcommitment. I’m doing much more, but reading much less. Seeing more people, finding less of myself. My reflection is waning, stopped at the stop lights called deadlines and commitments, slowed to a crawl by the reading to catch up on. If only there were 26, or 30 hours in a day. If only I could read faster, write faster, digest and process faster, then maybe all can be done, and the poet within wouldn’t be squelched to an insignificant pulp.

Looking at a Squirrel for a Long Time

After a long conference that lasted from morning until 4:00, I decided to go for a brisk run around the school campus. I trudged with heavy feet for a good 5 minutes, and before long,  I came across a small bend that led down to the majestic five story tall Psychology building. As I was going down the slight downhill slope, I heard a persistent, sporadic, rough kind of  noise that caught my attention. I stopped and looked up–two squirrels, shooting away at each other with raspy, squeaking chirps. I’ve never heard a squirrel make noise, and I was quite startled by the noise. The squirrles I see are usually either busy excavating their way to a forlorn nugget in the ground or curiously (hungrily) stalking a stranger for an imaginary nut. These squirrels, however, were friggin squawking at each other by blowing air through their cheeks and teeth, almost as if they’re suffering from a respiratory attack. I stood and watched.

I kept watching, and watching, hoping to be rewarded with some flurry of action that would befit the weirdness of the curious noise. Occasionally, the squirrels would jerk up and down mechanically, take two furious steps left and right, but for the most part, the just kept puffing that noise, over and over, and with such determination and resolve! I kept thinking to myself what on earth the squirrels could possibly be doing (conversing? yelling? debating politics?), but unfortunately, I didn’t know enough squirrel-speak to derive anything valuable. At one point, one of the squirrels came awfully close to the outermost branch and started harking in my direction with its odious little jiggly cheeks. I saw its chest heave with each wheezing squabble, but again, I didn’t know enough squirrel-speak to feel insulted or anything. I watched it in reverent silence.

It took me a good 15 minutes to give up waiting for something spectacular to happen (To be honest, I was hoping for some WWF style brawling). But even though I left without a good spectacle that was worth the 15 minutes of my life spent standing there (passerby must have thought I was a little nuts for standing there for so long), I did question what it meant to be able to simply stand and watch some squirrels. I mean, people of old from centuries ago never had access to television or the internet, so much of their time must have been spent doing some pretty mundane things, including watching flowers and admiring nature (Walden Style). Science began with this kind of freedom to do pointless observations and allow curiousity to reign; art is also very much about this process as well. However, with all the crazy college deadlines, priorities, projects, and obligations, sometimes it seems we allocate more value to “productive” things and completely strip the meaning away from “pointless” meandering and observing. I don’t know what watching those two squirrels could have done to help prepare me for my future career goals (certainly, I can’t include it or my resume or anything), but at least at that moment, as I looked at those two little chubby squirrels, I felt a sense of awe, wonder, and child-like mesmerization. I hope I didn’t make the squirrels too uncomfortable by staring for so long…