Weblog
Thursday, 20 March 2008
-
I'm bringing Xanga back - drop a comment if you're with me!
Thursday, 24 May 2007
Thursday, 03 May 2007
-
I thought of writing several battlestar entries with respect to political theory and existential philosophy. That was a good part on the essay that carried it through barely surviving.
I thought of comparing Heideggerian existentialism with examinations. I see parallels.
But I don't feel competant right now.
Thursday, 19 April 2007
-
Myojo Chicken Abalone
All reviews are subjective to the personal tastes of the author. Like all other reviews, don't take them too seriously and they do not represent the views of the market at large.
Now to showcase one of my chief intellectual pursuits -- Instant Noodle appreciation. Instant Noodle appreciation is an underappreciated and neglected field of study in our institutions of research. I will attempt to expose the world to this fledging academic item. There are many perspectives, one can take -- Marxist, Liberal, postmodern or post-structural, Neo-Durkheimian, Ultra-Weberian, anti-Nietzschean, and so on. In our inaugural issue, we discuss Myojo Chicken Abalone.
That's right folks, that's what it is. I'm eating my last pack of it as I write this. As you can see, it is 85g, much heavier than the standard 60g Maggi Mee or the new 80g Maggi Mee. As expected, it doesn't come with the depicted egg, meat or beans and definitely no stinkin' pieces of abalone (let alone chicken) in here. Would have liked a few chunks in there.
If memory serves me right, Myojo Chicken Abalone comes in a pack of five for under two Singapore dollars. There's just one flavouring sachet in side, with the standard brown dust-o-magic. The hard noodle comes in flat but round shape, like a big coin. It only qualifies as an instant noodle if you consider 2-3 minutes instant. But who's to complain?
As observed, my cellphone camera turned out to be an OK shot! To be frank, I cook my noodles in a metal thermos by pouring hothothot water in, and it cooks fine. The thermos advertising says that left capped and standing, it can cook rice and congee. So by logic, it can cook noodles too, which it does. So that's my metal thermos and my chopsticks for decor. Notice the purplish background. I actually took out a piece of coloured paper for a nice background, as with the shot above.
Back to the noodles. The broth that is produced is almost clear, somewhat yellow in colour. There's a little hint of chilli, but it tends to accumulate at the bottom of my mug. Hmm. Looks like I should stir more often. There are few, if any, of those measly square orange or dark green flakes that pass off for vegetables. The noodles are whiter than a North American geek. Oil is minimal, you can only see a few droplets floating around the unsubmerged noodles.
As one of the not-so-privileged to have not remembered the taste of Abalone if I EVER did have a chance to eat any, I have no idea what chicken abalone is supposed to taste like. So I'm imagining what Maggi Mee Chicken flavour tastes like, then subtracting that flavour away from what I'm tasting here. I'm not suprised to find out that abalone actually tastes like MSG! All in all, the taste is mildly bland, far from a riot in the mouth. Scooping out the dregs of the last few noodles feels like a chore. Slurping the remaining base soup feels like something you do when you're bored and desperate for entertainment.
Verdict on taste: B+. A grudging B+, I would have given it a B, if not for the other Chicken Abalone sitting in my larder which doesn't taste as good as this one, and that one probably deserves a B-, which B for Mjoyo Chicken Abalone seems not far enough. I don't classify it in my A category, because there's just some magic sparkle that it lacks, and a rather "meh" taste to it that hinders it from climbing to any recommendable state.
Alright guys, see you next issue!
Friday, 06 April 2007
-
I'm Thinking When I Should Be Writing
This is all either Rappa's fault or Kariel's fault. I'm currently reading Henry S. Kariel's "In Search of Authority: Twentieth Century Political Thought" as a bedtime book. Yeah, that's what I do when I need easy reading. Political economy's much worst when the figures and economic modelling s'thrown in. I found Kariel through Rappa who mentioned him in class, surprisingly on a definition of globalization. I never found Kariel's globalization books, but instead I found that book instead. Nothing to do with globalization, but very interesting on how he read different thinkers, most of them not usually categorized as political theorists. Reinhard Niebur's part in Kariel's book and some talk earlier on got me thinking about freedom and religion. First, on religion.
Two things on religion. Its an old wound: How can two denominations, two churches, or two individuals profess to be of the same religion? Traditionally one would think that the difference between a denomination would be minor doctrinal differences, as opposed to major differences. But I highly question the major-minor distinction in doctrinal changes. Minor doctrinal difference can result in huge difference in spiritual practices. Let me illustrate: The church that I grew up believed in the universal speaking of tongues; the Pentacost was here and now and all Christians could receive it as a gift from God. As a result, Christians from our church often enter into a period during worship when nearly everybody speaks in tongues, like a dissonant mass chanting session. However, some churches don't follow that and services are much more structured, clear -- Apollinian is what I would describe it.
When I first attended an Anglican service -- with the vestigial rituals of the Catholic church -- it seemed so different to me. It was like, it was bereft of life, of the dynamicism of Pentacostal/charismatic churches. The songs were the same, but had much less colour in them. But most strikingly, how could they not practice the speaking of tongues, a whole brand of spiritual experience that the church has not collectively encountered? This isn't just any cultural difference between church -- its a whole spiritual experience that a church eschews.
So IF I have shown to a degree that any difference at all in the doctrine of a religion actually does matter, then it is possible to hypothesize that as long as two INDIVIDUALS cannot agree on a particular interpretation of the Bible then its not the same religion, if not then at least when it entails a different spiritual experience. Furthermore -- hopefully I am doing some justice to Kiekergaard -- I believe that certain (subjective) truths cannot be communicated, especially religious truths. There is no way to convince anybody OUT or IN to a religion. Argument is for rational, objective statements. Spiritual truths have to be discovered subjectively, by each person for himself. So if different people can only realise the same spiritual truth out of sheer coincidence (since spiritual experience can not be communicated) how is it that we have so few religions and how can so many people agree dogmatically?
Perhaps this is why that there is always a need for effective clergy. The pastor and elders of the church always hold a monopoly on the interpretation of the Bible. I've heard my church-mates quote our senior pastor as though a solid authority. So, in a sense, its still the same religion within a particular church.
I realise that in (political) philosophy, there are many different subphilosophies with the same parent title. But political philosophy is embraced as a human endeavor. There is no absolute within it, all its students know that theories are human and failure is always a possibility -- that is the characteristic of the sciences. Religion is absolute -- holistic and correct, the word of God.
The other thing about religion: there are a lot of things Christianity doesn't prescribe politically. I imagine what a Christian nation without the trappings of secular political thought would be like. I wonder how would they structure government. Would it be modelled after the Judges period of Israel? Would it mirror how the Protestant churches govern themselves -- small, decentralised colonies (almost communist, IMHO). Would there be a constitution parallel to the Bible -- which would imply that the Bible HAS not been holistic in explaining a political system necessary for governance... or would it necessarily rely on a secular order? After all, Christians are IN the world but not OF the world. You need somebody to persecute the church so that they can be self-righteous in bringing light to the world. You can't bring complete light to the world because that's really God's job. (He's going to remake the world again, but this time its going to be perfect!)
When I was younger, I wondered what a political scientist would do in heaven, since God just solved of humanities' problem. Then I realised that there are no political scientists in heaven because real Christians who do anything at all do it to just survive in THIS world. Only Christianity is relevant (well.. attitude really), everything else secular fell away with the world.
One thing I have been thinking about on relationships. But this post has been long enough. I hate writing about religion, it is my least favourite topic to write about because I have no claim in its expertise at all. I am wholly out of my league, yet sometimes it just dominates my thoughts. Pardon the gendered pronouns though, I'm too lazy to type "him/her".
rockjianrock
-
- Name: Jian
- Birthday: 9/11/1985
- Gender: Male
- Member Since: 8/30/2005
Connect
Weblog Archives
Don't worry - your calendar is here… to see it in action just click "Save"
above and refresh the page.
