The anthropology blog Savage Minds has a recent post on the spatial metaphors we use to refer to time, for instance if we visualise the past as being behind us and the future as being in front of us, or vice versa. This was inspired by a feature in the New York Times of an article in the journal Cognitive Science, which claimed that speakers of the Aymara language are the only people who conceive of the past as being in front of them and the future as being behind them. Anthropologists being sensitive to such sweeping statements about human cultural practices ("the only people..."), the Savage Minds writer pointed out further examples of such perspectives on time among some Pacific peoples, and quoted Walter Benjamin on the Angel of History, whose 'face is turned towards the past.'
But is it so alien to, presumably, readers of the New York Times, to conceive of the past as being in front of you? Why do we find it so natural to think about the future as being ahead of us? I think it's because of the metaphors we often use for the notion of progress: moving forward into the future, climbing up and ahead; indeed the word 'progress' means to move in front (as opposed to 'regress'), and one more often than not sees the future being depicted as something better than the past and better than the present. Apocalyptic prophecies, one must remember, are rare and cautionary pronouncements against the prevailing tide of unwarranted optimism. So equating the future with improvement (and thus a forward movement) is not necessarily valid, but is so common in our modern culture that we conflate the two notions.
Logically speaking, it makes more sense to think of the past as being in front of you (before you, so to speak.) The past, after all, contains the only events that we can know of (aside from the present, but the present is a fugitive thing.) We can only 'see' the past, but we cannot see into the future because it hasn't happened yet. Being humans, with our eyes in front of our head and a forward-pointing field of view, we can only see the things in front of us, but are blissfully unaware of what's going on behind our heads (thus the nefariousness and fearsome quality of being backstabbed). Therefore, wouldn't it make sense for us to be facing towards the past, which we can see, and have our backs towards the future, which we cannot see? Granted, it is odd, given the notion of moving towards the future, to be thus facing the wrong way and hurtling bum-first into the unknown, but it is more realistic than fooling oneself into believing that one can see the future and going face-first but blind into the mist of what is yet to be. At least when we face backwards, we can still see the past (rather than nothing at all), and so learn from the mistakes of the past. Perhaps that is why 'history tends to repeat itself,' and our errors cycle themselves again and again, because we aren't used to facing the past, and thus have not the benefit of retrospection. So go, all ye merry folk, out into the world, and try going bum-first, though it might seem counterintuitive. You might find it better to have a good view of the rear!
30 June 2006
08 June 2006
Today and Yesterday in Pictures
Meeting Juliet to see DINOSAURS (or casts of dinosaurs) at the Science Centre!
"My my what big teeth you have!" "All the better to grin at you with."
Sue's nice ass.
Sister and her SMP partner: went with her to NUS this morning to see what mutant finangling she is working up in the lab with her friends.
Budding Biologists intently listening to a lecture on floral diagrams by Dr Shawn Lum.
Guo Liang through the looking-flask.
Two earnest trainees.
Around an NIE canteen table, clockwise from left: Shireen, Dr Beverly Goh, Tseyang, Enping, Dr Shirley Lim, Guo Liang, Me. Photographed by Dr Shawn Lum.
06 June 2006
Further Secrets of the Beauty Industry -- Revealed!
A former teacher of mine stumbled upon this blog, and read my post on the language of the beauty industry. In her email to me she pointed out two errors which she has kindly given me permission to post below:
As further evidence of the manipulativeness and lie-mongering of the body-image industry, there is an advertisement that appears quite regularly in the papers, showing a female celebrity leaning forward in a low-cut top and a headline screaming: "Push-ups should be in the gym. Not on your bust!" In the text of the ad, this company touts "all-natural bust enhancement", promising "pure essential oils that we massage gently into your breast tissues to give you a more shapely, curvaceous, and feminine bust-line." Unfortunately, the same advertisement also prints in type three times smaller at the bottom of the page: "There is no scientific proof that any non-surgical treatment currently available can enlarge breasts." One is met with a conundrum -- which part of the ad is lying? Is it the part claiming bust enhancements or the part saying that there's no proof any of this works that is in error? Contrary to what years of source and contextual analysis have taught us to think, it is actually the latter that is wrong. While one might doubt the efficacy of this particular herbal treatment for bust enlargement, the blatant statement that no proof exists for non-surgical breast enlargement is outright wrong. There are a number of processes that do result in breast enlargement without recourse to surgery! Namely
Therefore, heed this warning: just because it's fine print doesn't mean it's more reliable that the stuff that's printed in big letters. It can be just as or even more in error than the main text!
"Traditional Javanese massage ain't no bump n grind. It's a continuous hell of pushing in the points in your body. Think needling in but with your fingers. Incidentally, I swear by Javanese massage to get back my figure after childbirth. Check with my massage lady. The picture of a sweet looking Javanese lady with flowers in her hair kneading your back is a LIE
Rejuvenating essence is boiled placenta. It's the placenta that supposedly has rejuvenating qualities not infant's blood. My aunt-in-law has a fat ang bao ready for me if I give her my next placenta.
I have yet to splurge on pureed pond scum or blinking red lamps but frankly speaking, as long as these products work, no one (ok, except those organic/environmental purists) is going to question too much about what goes into them."
As further evidence of the manipulativeness and lie-mongering of the body-image industry, there is an advertisement that appears quite regularly in the papers, showing a female celebrity leaning forward in a low-cut top and a headline screaming: "Push-ups should be in the gym. Not on your bust!" In the text of the ad, this company touts "all-natural bust enhancement", promising "pure essential oils that we massage gently into your breast tissues to give you a more shapely, curvaceous, and feminine bust-line." Unfortunately, the same advertisement also prints in type three times smaller at the bottom of the page: "There is no scientific proof that any non-surgical treatment currently available can enlarge breasts." One is met with a conundrum -- which part of the ad is lying? Is it the part claiming bust enhancements or the part saying that there's no proof any of this works that is in error? Contrary to what years of source and contextual analysis have taught us to think, it is actually the latter that is wrong. While one might doubt the efficacy of this particular herbal treatment for bust enlargement, the blatant statement that no proof exists for non-surgical breast enlargement is outright wrong. There are a number of processes that do result in breast enlargement without recourse to surgery! Namely
- puberty,
- pregnancy,
- weight gain (and the proportional bulking up of all the fleshy bits of the body) and
- inflammation.
Therefore, heed this warning: just because it's fine print doesn't mean it's more reliable that the stuff that's printed in big letters. It can be just as or even more in error than the main text!
04 June 2006
Keep Orchard Road Greenish
Today's Sunday Times published an opinion article by journalist Ignatius Low suggesting that Orchard Road's wayside trees be removed because they block the view of its buildings and decorative displays. I was moved to write an email to him in reply, which I reproduce below:
---------
Dear Mr Low:
I read with interest your opinion article on defoliating Orchard Road. I wish to point out a few disadvantages of your proposal:
1. Lack of shading and excessive glare
Overhead shelter from wayside trees screens out direct sunlight. If they are removed, the mid-day glare would make walking along Orchard Road unbearable. The wayside benches would certainly not be as popular as they are now, and while the ice-cream sellers along the shopping district will probably benefit from an increase in sales to sweaty and uncomfortable pedestrians, their workday would be very unpleasant.
2. Absorption of heat by concrete and built structures
Concrete and paving stones tend to absorb heat in the day due to direct insolation and release them at night when ambient temperatures are cooler. Surface temperatures on building surfaces and rooftops can reach up to 60 or 70 degrees Celsius at the height of day. Trees and groundcover (such as grass) on the other hand keep temperatures within limits by their transpiration. By removing them, the overall temperature of the surroundings will increase. This is not speculation: ambient temperatures in the city centre are 1-2 degrees greater than those in the suburban heartland. This is attributed to the aforementioned urban heat island effect. Higher temperatures will culminate in higher air-conditioning electricity bills and higher running costs for our shopping centres. Less people will be willing to walk in the open air, especially with new plans to connect all the Orchard shopping centres by underpass into a seamless air-conditioned warren, leaving very few people to admire the soaring architecture that the removal of trees has exposed.
3. Increased dust and suspended particulates
Orchard Rd, being a busy vehicular thoroughfare as well as a pedestrian one, naturally has a large amount of dust and smoke particles in the air from passing cars and vehicles. Idling engines, so common in a traffic jam, produce more particulates because of incomplete combustion. Trees and shrubs have a filtration effect and contribute somewhat to reducing dust in the air.
4. Aesthetic disharmony
The areas surrounding Orchard Road are high-value residential and commercial areas. Among the landmarks and prominent districts nearby are the Botanic Gardens, the Istana, the 'Embassy Row' along Napier Road, as well as residential areas in Grange Road and Tanglin. A large proportion of the air of exclusivity these places retain is due to the greenery planted in and around them. These serve to preserve privacy and soften the harshness of the urban landscape. Why else would the Istana, arguably the most exclusive and important residence in the city, be set within hectares of parkland? If Orchard Road's trees are replaced by, say, concrete sculpture or large umbrellas, its appearance would be disjointed from the adjacent districts.
5. Loss of tropical identity
Singapore is in an unusual position of having a First-World shopping district in the tropics. It is precisely the demands of a tropical climate that led to the original tree-planting campaigns of Singapore's early nationhood. We cannot duplicate the urban chic of say New York and Tokyo because it is unsuitable for our climate and surroundings. Indeed, during recent heat waves their inhabitants have suffered. Stripping Orchard of its trees would do injustice to the Garden City image our country has cultivated over the past few decades; quite literally it would be an injustice to the name of the road itself. At a time when tropical architecture is looking into rooftop gardens and other urban plantings as a means of temperature control and decoration, bare stones and paving tiles are steps backwards.
I hope you see what my point is: that trees are essential elements of the built environment in Singapore. Certainly you are not serious with your proposal and raised it only to provoke readers to think about how essential greenery is to our quality of city life.
Sincerely,
Brandon Seah
---------
Dear Mr Low:
I read with interest your opinion article on defoliating Orchard Road. I wish to point out a few disadvantages of your proposal:
1. Lack of shading and excessive glare
Overhead shelter from wayside trees screens out direct sunlight. If they are removed, the mid-day glare would make walking along Orchard Road unbearable. The wayside benches would certainly not be as popular as they are now, and while the ice-cream sellers along the shopping district will probably benefit from an increase in sales to sweaty and uncomfortable pedestrians, their workday would be very unpleasant.
2. Absorption of heat by concrete and built structures
Concrete and paving stones tend to absorb heat in the day due to direct insolation and release them at night when ambient temperatures are cooler. Surface temperatures on building surfaces and rooftops can reach up to 60 or 70 degrees Celsius at the height of day. Trees and groundcover (such as grass) on the other hand keep temperatures within limits by their transpiration. By removing them, the overall temperature of the surroundings will increase. This is not speculation: ambient temperatures in the city centre are 1-2 degrees greater than those in the suburban heartland. This is attributed to the aforementioned urban heat island effect. Higher temperatures will culminate in higher air-conditioning electricity bills and higher running costs for our shopping centres. Less people will be willing to walk in the open air, especially with new plans to connect all the Orchard shopping centres by underpass into a seamless air-conditioned warren, leaving very few people to admire the soaring architecture that the removal of trees has exposed.
3. Increased dust and suspended particulates
Orchard Rd, being a busy vehicular thoroughfare as well as a pedestrian one, naturally has a large amount of dust and smoke particles in the air from passing cars and vehicles. Idling engines, so common in a traffic jam, produce more particulates because of incomplete combustion. Trees and shrubs have a filtration effect and contribute somewhat to reducing dust in the air.
4. Aesthetic disharmony
The areas surrounding Orchard Road are high-value residential and commercial areas. Among the landmarks and prominent districts nearby are the Botanic Gardens, the Istana, the 'Embassy Row' along Napier Road, as well as residential areas in Grange Road and Tanglin. A large proportion of the air of exclusivity these places retain is due to the greenery planted in and around them. These serve to preserve privacy and soften the harshness of the urban landscape. Why else would the Istana, arguably the most exclusive and important residence in the city, be set within hectares of parkland? If Orchard Road's trees are replaced by, say, concrete sculpture or large umbrellas, its appearance would be disjointed from the adjacent districts.
5. Loss of tropical identity
Singapore is in an unusual position of having a First-World shopping district in the tropics. It is precisely the demands of a tropical climate that led to the original tree-planting campaigns of Singapore's early nationhood. We cannot duplicate the urban chic of say New York and Tokyo because it is unsuitable for our climate and surroundings. Indeed, during recent heat waves their inhabitants have suffered. Stripping Orchard of its trees would do injustice to the Garden City image our country has cultivated over the past few decades; quite literally it would be an injustice to the name of the road itself. At a time when tropical architecture is looking into rooftop gardens and other urban plantings as a means of temperature control and decoration, bare stones and paving tiles are steps backwards.
I hope you see what my point is: that trees are essential elements of the built environment in Singapore. Certainly you are not serious with your proposal and raised it only to provoke readers to think about how essential greenery is to our quality of city life.
Sincerely,
Brandon Seah
03 June 2006
Curiosities of the Past
Sometimes the past throws rather alarming things at you:
and
"Moreover there is a fossil of burnt human bones left by the Malayan cannibals of the Mesolithic Age displayed in [sic] Singapore National Museum." -- Hsu Yun-Tsiao, JMBRAS 45.I.1-9.
and
"There is the record of a sea-gypsy [i.e. Orang Laut] who from his boat in the Singapore River watched Raffles arrive and was still there 60 years later; still a fisherman, still with no home but his canoe. In the happenings that had turned his solitude into a busy port he had taken no part whatever." -- R.J. Wilkinson, JMBRAS 13.II.17-21.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
