entry jun.3 07

im 38000 ft up in the air. since i hav nothing better to do i figure i can start writing something about anything

im the type of person who talks to myself alot but can never remember the content. so ill just go free today and do some typing. kinda like a scene in "finding forrester", with sean connery and a young black student. in the movie sean is a great writer who teaches the young man how to write. he says, "the first thing about writing is write" or something like that. so here i am, just typing my way though, putting down wutever. i think one of the things i do is that i think too much abt something that shouldnt be thought too deeply. just to be clear im not trying to be all sophisticated and all trying to impress ppl. being confident is one thing but self-indulgent bragging is just not cool. so yea i think alot, and its often a bad thing. i often try my best to think in rational terms, like casual relationships, how something happens and why someone does something. hang over from engineering training perhaps, and often this makes my entries boring. it would be logical to know how the world works to better achieve the goals you strive for. however the premise is that you have the analytical skill to make sense of this (increasingly) complicated world, and also get the information necessary for any analysis. in my opinion, analytical skill is less of a problem comparing to the lack of information, or lack of correct information. few weeks ago i watched a documentary called "fog of war". a fantastic piece if you are into the "serious" stuff, its by robert mcnamara, and if you know who im talking abt u will probably like it. hes the secretary of states when kennedy and johnson were president. some of the insights that stuck in my head are the fact that "rationality will not save us", and "what gets us in trouble is not what we dont know but what we know for sure that just aint so". the power play btw Kennedy, Krustruf, and Castro clearly shows that. they r all ratoinal leaders yet they almost nuked the world. put it all together: our analytical methodology is questionable, and our source of information is questionable. in addition, even with all the information we need, human beings tend to filter information and receive only those that conform with our beliefs, in another word, we see what we want to see. still, rational choice seem to be more reliable than random walk. yes, it certainly works well solving problems that have clear objectives, like making money, grow crop, treating paitients. but for other that have vague objective, sometimes we dont even know if we r doing things right or wrong. when it comes to life in general, it doesnt work because there is no clear objective. its all arbitrary. ok my battery is dead. make your own conclusion because im just babbling