A Most Dangerous Dynamics

Since I'd been down with a terrible bout of cold cough last weekend, this "torture" had actually presented me with a wonderful opportunity to catch up on my reading, one of which is this book. Frankly speaking, I had started off reading merely to "preview" the movie version. This experience has so far taken off into another enjoyment of its own.

To summarise the plot of this autobiography, it would be how the interplay of dynamics between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, complicated with the presence of Sabina Spielrein, altered what and how pyschoanalysis was to be defined henceforth. Of course there is the underground romance between Jung and Spielrein, where the two's identities of physician versus patient get increasingly muddled up as the events proceed.  However, lest we dismiss this autobiography to be simply that of a physician breaking moral norms, we need to examine how this issue itself ends up being a brokering chip, in Jung's mutating professional relationship with Freud, especially towards their eventual fallout. To equate Freud as a "Grand Master" enforcing strict professionalism within physician-patient relations would be incorrect, as we see later on in the book more and more, as Freud too does not conduct himself in the most impartial manner possible. In fact, Freud's interpretive arrangements within the International Pyschoanaylsis Association smack of outright dictatorship in a "schism" or "movement" not unlike that of politics, which is definitely not the way in which "science" goes about.

The most objective person in the sequence of events, Eugen Bleuler, one of Jung's first mentors in the Swiss psychology circle, who had repeatedly warned all parties that despite the merits of psychoanalysis, it was a seemingly dangerous method, as till then there had been no way to justify it to be classified as a "science". Thus the most pressing issue would be to resolve this crux of the problem. However, in the midst of the clash of personalities and power struggle between Freud and Jung, this critical issue has been swept under the carpet till this very day.

At the risk of reading too much into an otherwise riveting autobiography of two renown men, I cannot help but draw parallels between their power play and conventional office politics, myself greatly empathising with sometimes Jung, sometimes Freud, as the events in the autobiography proceeded.

All too often personality preferences and styles, end up making critical issues take a back seat for too long, festering in the dark like an over-ripe fruit. And by the time the stench is noticed, it may have already been too late, as the leaders involved will have long since passed on and the industry squandered a precious opportunity to rectify the situation. I guess the only conclusion I can draw from this book is that famous scripture verse from Romans 3:23 "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". If great men like Freud and Jung suffer from mistakes like these, what more we mere insignificant workers in our workplaces.

Workplace relations is neither a science, where rival point of views are essential to meaningful progress towards productivity, because it would hamper overall direction of the organisation. However it is not an art too, where the higher authorities have the sole right to enforce and dicate every single decision pertaining to the implementation of the daily operations, as their level of participation in it is restricted, sometimes hindering the wisdom of their choices. I would opt to say that workplace relations is a craft, where all members of the organisation adopt a unifying generic practical attitude of professionalism in line with the orgnisation's vision and mission as they go about operations, while leaving room for other essential matters of accomodation of styles, preferences, personalities to be flexible. However in many cases, the way in which an orgnisation runs has been held sway by a markedly few leaders for too long, such that their preferred manner of operations has constricted how the organisation is run, while simultaneously ingraining a conformed political mindset within employees of how to conduct themselves, with the sole aim of maintaining this constriction and nothing else.

I'll finish off this entry with a collection of my personal favourite abridged excerpts from the books, from which I got the inspiration to write my conclusion. The book is available in all bookshops and most branches of the National Library Board. Meanwhile I'd better start on watching the film version too.


In effect, Freud and Jung were contending to see which was the analyser, which the one anaylsed. What had once been a collaborative arrangement had collapsed into a situation in which only one of them could be the authority, only one the possessor of pyschoanalytic truth. Accordingly, each man now posed a special kind of psychological threat to the other, a kind of threat that was perhaps historically unprecedented. For not only was each man claiming to know the other better than he knew himself, but by that very act he was appropriating the other's right to his own identity as a psychoanalyst... The possibility of playing for such terrible, savage stakes was implicit in how psychoanalysis had evolved- without empirical checks or methodological safeguards, the right to discern the unconscious motives of another belonged to whoever was strong enough to seize it. Yet, paradoxically, the very nature of the psychoanalysis identity they were trying to wrest from each other demanded that they not indulge their fiercer passions any further. The identity of a psychoanalyst was a corporate one. If the two men wrecked institutional psychoanalysis with their different polemics, then neither would achieve the thing he was after.

"The Rest is Silence" pg. 434-5

Was pyschoanalysis a science, in which rival hypotheses were essential to a meaningful examination of the data? Or was it an art, in which case the original artist had the right to enforce to how his creation should best be completed? A case could have been made that the actual practice of psychoanalysis was neither an art nor a science, but a craft... indicated the practical attitude which the analyst should adopt toward basic phenomena...while they left more essential matters...completely hanging. Moreover, in such a conception of psychoanalysis, the theoretical and practical innovations of Freud, Jung and others would still have had their place as that which distinguished the craft of psychoanalytic psychotheraphy from other forms.

As brillant as it was, Jung's innovation stopped short of truly turning psychoanalysis from the path that it was on. For he was not arguing that different types of patients might require different modes of understanding and even different types of intervention, which would have been a truly clinical approach. Instead, he was arguing that different kinds of theorists produce different kinds of theories, Which was a different matter. The evolution of psychoanalysis theory had been under the sway of its two giants for so long that the primacy of the theorist over the patient continued to be inadvertently maintained even as the effort was being made to understand what was going on.

From "This History of the Psychoanalytic Movement" pg.443, 464

All this was not supposed to happen in psychoanalysis, for psychoanalysis was, it was said, a science. In science, neither the vision of the founder nor the counter-vision of the disciple is of any movement. this in a way is science's great consolation. What is established rest on replicatable experience, and though it may later be amended or even overthrowbn by yet more penetrating investigations, one does not have to worry about other issues, such as personal temperament or religious tradition. Indeed this wqas the great hope... perhaps finally one culd put all conjectures about man's essential nature on an empirical footing. Early in their association, both Freud and Jung counted on just this protection... their differences would work themselves out as data continued to come in. But the data came in, and things only got worse...the fact that Freud and Jung could ultimately arrive at two different schools of depth pyschology indicates that psychoanalysis, despite its claims, was not a science...The problem lay between the theory and the data; it lay in the method... whe the time came, he (Freud) found he could not even describe the rules for interpretation, let alone prove their scientific sturdiness. The use of scientific language did nothing to resolve Freud's methodological problems... The real tragedy of Freud and Jung is not that they failed to create a science... The real tragedy is what they did to pyschoanalysis as a clinical method. They allowed the interpretive range of psychoanalysis to be woefully constricted while simultaneously creating a political organisation that ensured this constriction would endure.

From "Afterword" pg. 508-511

Word Play 11: Needs, Wants & Weight. Heavy...

Heavy... That's what a colleague and his wife remarked, observing all the barang I was lugging on my back, when I happened to meet them on the way to work this morning. I then joked that these "burdens" are nothing, as they are mere objects. It was the human baggage of relationships and emotions that strained me, causing me to protest in agony every now and then. I then made a snide joke, saying that if I threw my bags onto the floor, the items in it would at most be spoilt, but at least they would never retaliate. Now try moving my boss emotionally around like a bag, and even the slightest bruise on this Kate Spade would bring about unimaginable dire consequences... :p

Here I'll like to go into the concept of importance, aka "weight", while bringing in the concepts of needs and wants. Let's us examine the three below from dictionary.com.

Importance [noun] - great significance, mattering much, entitlement to more than ordinary consideration or notice, prominence, considerable influence or authority

Need [noun] - a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation; a lack of something wanted or deemed necessary; urgent want, as of something requisite; necessity arising from the circumstances of a situation or case; a situation or time of difficulty, exigency

Want [noun] - something wanted or needed, necessity; something desired, demanded, or required; absence or deficiency of something desirable or requisite, lack

The difference between needs and wants is a very fine line, indicated by urgency and necessity. When the want is something required for survival, it'll definitely fall into the needs category. Think of them as two overlapping circles in a Venn diagram. Simply put, some needs and wants are mutually inclusive, others are not.

Another colleague was just musing to me the other day that she was unable to grasp why the environment in our workplace operated in the way it did as a whole. I then postulated that the issue was rooted not so much in the difference between needs and wants, but what we define as "needs" and "wants", The method our workplace being more in accordance to the needs and wants of those with greater authority. The subjectivity of the issue lies with how each individual defines needs and wants, as they are often decided by the importance we place on them. Let me elaborate it using an example.

One person may value getting the latest Samantha Thavasa very much, while the slightest gravy stain on my Crumpler bag when eating mixed veg rice will cause me huge distress. In the market place, the absolute value of the Samantha Thavasa will far surpass that of the Crumpler, though in my private opinion, that may not even be the case, as it does not matter to me, namely meaning it is of not much importance to me. However, just because I view the Samantha Thavasa of lesser weight, does not necessarily invalidate its worth. Too bad that in real life, sometimes we do not always operate so objectively.

Things of importance are both good and bad, depending on the context. Without weight we'd all be floating around astronaut style. Though it may be an amusing novelty at first, try peeing without any gravity. However, too much weight will burden us and make us tired, draining us of our energy eventually. Just ask that famous maid carrying the backpack for the NS army boy...

Some bags, I've learnt to discard from my life along the way. Other bags, I cling onto them for dear life, like how cowardly I behaved when travelling on my first lone ranger trip to Hong Kong in March last year. Since then, many events have happened, leading me to throw away some wants, while persisting to clutch tightly some other things and ideals which I view as needs. These "Crumplers" of mine are what keeps me grounded daily, while yet being not too heavy such that I drag my feet to work every morning and home every evening. :)

Why two, not one?

Cannot really think of a better title for this entry, thus, I'll just have to name it as that. To fellow believers, I think I do not have to explain too much on today's significance. I'll delve more into the "redemption offering" to write off our sins part. When preaching the gospel to our oikos, I'm sure any believer knows the "Jesus died on the cross for our sins" pars because of the "All have sinned and fall short of the glory part". Straightforward and simple enough. Thus, upon acceptance our Jesus Christ as personal Lord & Saviour, we have been redeemed of punishment for our sins when facing judgement, the ultimate penalty across the board being death. However, despite assurance of eternal life in Heaven with Christ, the "what now" question has always been the one nagging at me. Thankfully today's sermon at church has helped me answer this spot of bother. Kudos to Pastor Low of New Life Baptist Church! :D

During the precise moment of Christ's death, the curtain in the temple tore cleanly into two from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:44), clearly heralding the new era of reconciliation between man and God without the need for any intermediaries. This is further substantiated by the arrival of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). However, between the period and journey from acceptance of Christ till reuniting with Him in Heaven, what then? Here we have to examine the Old Testament again, specifically the ritual of the offering for the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16).

The ritual for the Day of Atonement applies for all mankind, including even the priests themselves. It involves two goats, and not just one, without blemish. They are selected at random, one allocated for slaughter as a sin offering (vs. 15), the other to be prayed upon to confess all the sins of mankind and then sent away to the wilderness to fend for itself (vs. 20-22). The necessity of having two, instead one one goat, for the ritual was a minor puzzle for me then, as I did not grasp the full concept and extent of redemption till today. The goat for slaughter is actually the redemption from death part, whichI fully understood, was aware and accepted. Meanwhile, the goat for exile symbolises redemption from the burden of our sins while still on earth...

Last year during a major quarrel with someone (non-believer), he had said the line "no one owes you anything and neither do you owe anyone anything". I was very bothered by the line then, though more of due to other factors. Fast foward the situation to a new year, and those factors have long since worn off, but the line still lingered in my mind, aka Lady Macbeth's "out out damned spot" style, and I only realised the reason today. Despite having accepted the entire redemption package deal from Christ, I still insisted on carrying the sin baggage around on my back, with Jesus the lamb baa-ing away at me, shaking his head. Yes indeed, what took me so long to realise, no wonder I always complain of backache...

In retrospect now, I think my friend's statement was not phrased correctly. Its is not about any human owing any other human being more or less. We all owe God, but He decided to write it all off, because He doesn't believe in book-keeping. Matthew didn't quit his job for nothing after deciding to follow Jesus. :p However, I still enjoy buying big bags, especially the Crumpler types which I can dump loads of stuff I want in. They are definitely not baggage and burdens. Amen!

Word Play 10: Enemies and reason, your freewill for correlation

Even though I am consciously making an effort to not curse or scold anyone from the workplace, I cannot help but do some word play on the situation there. A more amicable colleague SH always remarks half-jokingly "Oh, that enemy of yours is it?" or "Which enemy is it this time?", whenever he spots the frustrated look I have due to work disputes. Whether or not those parties define me as deserving to be classified as "enemy" is solely under their control. What I'll like to examine is the correlation, or lack of between the concept of "enemy" and "reason". Ok, this topic is kind of difficult to digest, so I'll state the defintion of both concepts below from dictionary.com.

en·e·my (noun)

a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.

rea-son (noun)

1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.

2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.

3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.

4. sound judgment; good sense.

5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.

As we can see from the definition of those two terms, they do not necessarily bear correlation towards each other. The term "enemy" focuses on the hatred, antagonism and adversity between the two parties. Meanwhile the term "reason" delves into the soundness, justisfication, basis and sanity of the relationship between the two parties and the situation.

This is the beginning of my 4th season at this workplace and reflecting on what has happened so far, I am unable to draw strong correlation between those two terms. If indeed as my colleague says, my relationships with those parties in question are indeed worthy to be classified as that of enemies, then the criteria seems to be a very hollow one. For two of them, I have offended through lack of tact, thus there is indeed a very strong and obvious basis for their hostility towards me. However, there have been a few others whose rationale for their eventual actions pertaining to me, I am completely clueless about.

In an earlier entry, I've already touched on how reciprocation versus freewill influences our mindset and treatment of others. Same here, as the treatment of hostility towards others is that of enemies. Everyone has the freewill to decide how much basis, ground, justification they require, in order to classify others who treat them in a certain way as enemies. I have not yet found enough of these requirements for any of them, as I find the task of keeping track of these extremely energy consuming, and the duty of maintenance of the hostility even more so tedious. 如果彼此不和已经那么累人，更何况是仇视地对待...

Word Play 9: 骂人法则123

今天又在做工时被气坏了，甚至气得没能力喘口气。Literally angry till out of breath, such that during the entire incident, I was unable to reply anything else other than "I did not XYZ." Thankfully now I'm back in front of my computer again, catching my breath back, together with a prescription of TCM medication from 中华 Free Clinic to 降火, as it seems like I'm suffering from a bout of physical heatiness too.

I was reflecting on today's incident, which led me to wonder about the concept of scolding, aka 骂人. Being drained as I am of energy now, I have no intention of scolding anyone, especially on today (Holy Thursday, eve of Good Friday). Simply pondering over a common phrase which many blurt out in heated moments, the “你去死啊！” or "You go and die/f*** yourself!"

For most scenarios, this phrase serves no concrete purpose, to both the one scolding and the one being scolded. Let me go explain it from both sides.

1. The one scolding

This scolding is actually a half complete sentence, the full version being “我要你去死啊！” or "I want you to go and die/f*** yourself!" However, now think upon it, what specific action verb applies for the “我” or "I" in this sentence... Sad to say, nothing at all. In fact, the action verb that applies to “我” or "I" here is merely “要” or "want". Wants are merely desires, some attainable within our capacity, some mission impossible. In the context of this phrase, I think the chances of us attaining what we desire when we blurt out the phrase are very very slim indeed...

2. The one being scolded

When the interchange of words has come to this extent, it no longer deserves being classified as mere feedback. Thus, the receptivity of the one being scolded is definitely not very high. Even under any circumstances, the receptivity of anybody to the phrase would be zilch. If I were the one being verbally whacked by this phrase but being in a calm mood, I'd remark to myself how hilarious the phrase is, as the one scolding me is totally helpless at substantiating what grounds am I to oblige and accede to this request. Tsk, tsk. :p

I've indulged in inward cursing of this sort often, but now I've realised the futility of it. Not that scolding is fruitless. In fact, it was through the harsh scoldings by many mentors, was I able to get rid of many bad habits and mindsets of mine.

During silent retreat last week, a constant point that God had wanted me to consider properly was what I wanted for myself. Applying it to the context of scoldings and quarrels in heated moments, I think the best method to scold would be to ensure that the “我” or "I" has a specific action verb. All else is actually secondary. Thus, next time I'll curse inwardly “你这TMD王八蛋！我更要活得好好的！” or "I'll survive and prosper all the more, as you're such an arsehole!"

Response to Word Play 8: The 豆花西施 fights back

I understand that at least one follower of my previous blog entry was severely offended by the last few posts, namely the one on vessel size, and the one on toufu. First things first for updates. I haven't gone for any followup on my facial. My forehead is resembling a minefield. :p

Ok, back to more serious talk. As much as I wanted to just shrug off the comment that the follower had posted then, I cannot, and have decided to write this entry in response. I'll try my utmost to not launch into attack zoneage while trying to put my points across.

I gather from the response and feedback from the follower that I suffer from these main issues:

1. Being attention-seeking

2. Painting the VWO sector which I work in a terrible light

3. Being a false believer of Christ

I'll construct my personal POV and arguments, replying each point one by one.

1. Pertaining to being attention seeking, I can't help have a "Duh! Only NOW you realise?!" reaction. Please lah, all forms of blogging aims to bring attention of others to a certain issue the blogger feels is of concern to him or her. Of course I'm attention seeking! I'm facing work stress which is important to me since I'm the type of person who has to have passion for what he or she works for. Think of it as me doing public broadcast of a complain session with friends about work. I'm sure we accidentally eavesdrop on conversations like these in public areas too. Whether or not we get so infuriated enough to snap at the ones doing this to shaddap is another matter. Firstly, I'd like to thank the follower who did a "shut the f*** up" to me. However, I'll simply reply, "Cannot lah, I don't want to constipate it inside, but neither do I want to do venting onto my family and friends, or blow my top in office, as I still need my ricebowl".

2. Regarding the second point, I'll like to bring to attention a "revelation" I've gotten recently, though to some wise family and friends they'd have this "aiyo, what took you so long to geddit" reaction. There is no Promised Land on earth. Thus, there is no ideal workplace and definitely no perfect colleague and/or boss. I do not need to bring into the mind about NKF and Renci that you'll know what I talk about. However I need to clarify one point. Despite the imperfections in my current workplace, there are some ravishing beauties present. My colleague "Spiderman Peter Parker" is a kindly brother or sorts, who is always willing to dispense precious time, even on his off days to come back to put in extra work. He never tires to nag at me to calm down, when he himself is facing even more stress from that nemesis of mine. Another senior colleague is able to pull of the "assertive without being angsty" effortlessly, especially in light of my boss's nasty remark of the lack of productivity in my department. In fact, she had even reflected on how she talked to my boss the other day, and was worried she was being too harsh on him, when I observing the scene then, had felt she was being a tad too merciful. These are only two of the "beauties" in this place, who have a great heart to serve the VH community, many more who I haven't mentioned. The only "problem" is that I've always behaving like a selfish emperor of sorts, hoarding those 美人 for me myself only, unwilling to let the public know of their existence. It seems that we humans in general, find it much easier to talk about negative things, while keeping silent on positive things. No wonder a friend of mine constantly reminds me that I suffer from a "leftover food pessimism".

3. As for the final point, I really wish I had the confidence to lash out at the blog follower and scream "F*** you! It's absolutely bulls*** you're talking." Sad to say is, I can only answer that everyday I do my best to follow God a day at a time. In certain moments I'm Paul, other times Peter, other situations John or Thomas, and sometimes Judas Iscariot. I think all followers of God go through this process. The walk to follow Him was never said to be a joy ride. I cannot proclaim that I'm a authentic believer, but at least I know I'm still trying and have not yet threw in the towel and I hope I don't ever.

Alright, I think that is all I need to clarify for the time being. As for the follower's jibed comment of me as being a stinky piece of toufu, well it is true considering the layer of sweat causing the outbreak on my forehead. Meanwhile though, I have great memories of the 臭豆腐 from Taipei's 士林夜市. It tasted heavenly and I really hope to go Taipei for a shortbreak if possible. :)

Word Play 8: My face is like beancurd 我的面子如豆花

I’ve slackened with following up on my facial sessions. It’s been at least three months since I’ve gone for them, and with yesterday’s event, the blackheads are back with a vengeance... However the face I’ll look into today is the concept of 面子 or “face” as translated literally. 给面子 is quite an abstract Chinese concept, and no matter how I struggle, the closest translation I can come up with is “giving one due dignity and respect”, or to put it literally “give one due face.”

The problem with the concept of 给面子 is then, how much or what quantity of “face” is the other party due. We may feel that we have 给足面子, meaning given the other party sufficient due “face”, but the other party may still protest and insist that we 不给面子, meaning we do not give them the due “face” required.

This deliberation of how much face to give will never be resolved if we continue to point fingers at others. As in the concept of facial treatments, my specialist Susan often chides me for my lack of upkeep, resulting in the regular outbreaks on my nose especially. Despite being a seasoned specialist at this task, I definitely know the extra effort she takes in squeezing those irritating blackheads stuck in the pores. So in this case, I am also hugely responsible for what I look like. How much 面子 others give you also definitely correspond with the way in which you conduct yourself. I can go for facial regularly, but if I fail to do my side of maintainenance, there is still a limit of how much effect the facial specialist can beautify me.

I had been long inspired to write the entry by an action I go about often: giving some colleagues beancurd drinks as a treat. This habit has roots in my first long-term job 5 years ago. The motive behind this ahd simply been a private acknowledge of gratitude and thanks to these 师父s, 师姐s, ah-hias, ah-zes for their patience and guidance during my term under their tulage. In that former workplace, there were many "conditions" that I had to keep in mind when just doing this simple act. Now half a decade later and in another workplace, sad to say, these "conditions" remain present. However the difference lies in my audacity to pluck these "blackheads" away.

Last year when I just entered this current workplace and bought my first beancurd treat, most of those being treated had graciously enjoyed the dessert, though two senior staff had insisted on paying for their share, subtly implying the presence of these "blackhead and pimple conditions". Then I had been slightly disheartened but did not give this further thought.

Eight months into this workplace, I bought the same beancurd treat again last month. Those two seniors happened not to be present in office by chance, but there was a test of another sort. Present was a certain colleague whom I did not get along well with, and who had in fact been pivotal behind some of my current challenges in my workplace. Despite a nagging urge in me, I did what I wanted and did not give her any share of the beancurd dessert.

I know some people will deem my action as "work blasphemy", pointing out the folly behind this act. Granted, I understand the logic behind forgiveness, and as I've long maintained, I still seek reconciliation and forgivesness between the two of us. However, since she maintains her ground till this very day, there is a limited amount of 面子 she is due from me, as what she wants is nothing short of me to resign. In fact, if I had proceeded on to giving her a share, it would have got interpreted as a move with a hidden agenda, leading to further speculation and mayhem. On my end, I'd rather proceed on with consistency than to subcuumb to the rules of playing the "blackhead and pimple conditions", because only then am I at peace with myself.

When I went to look for a fellow colleague in another department for dinner later, and happened to run into another colleague present who had did two acts of major backstabbing to me last year, I did not acknowledge her presence. When leaving, my dinner partner was worried and questioned that "You really didn't bother to acknowledge her and 翻白眼 to her?" I wouldn't say I'm proud of what I did, but more of at peace with what I did. Considering the gravity of those two incidents last year, it had already taken me great effort to simply not ackowledge her presence. As my friend Genette had said last year when two very unreasonable colleagues had lambasted her, "There's only a limit to how much I can change within this period of time, I'm human." Forgivesness is a process, with this colleague I'm proceeding at a much slower rate, because this is the only amount of 面子 I can muster to give her as of the moment.

Thus, by treating those two particular colleagues the way I did, I'm already giving them as much 面子 they are due, with my limited supply. Beyond that would be sheer hypocrisy, because this would have no correlation to my initial motive behind treating others with beancurd!

Beancurd is a very smooth and tasty dessert. To keep our daily lives smooth and full of positive flavour, instead of screaming at others on how they destroy the smoothness and beauty of our fragile 面子, maybe we can take on the role of doing some self-maintenance. This way it makes the job of our fellow facial specialists much easier. Meanwhile I need to book an appointment with Susan soon. :)