life, nickilosophy

The Path of Greatest Resistance

August 5, 2017 | 0 Comments

The Impression-Interpretation Dichotomy

I have been cursorily reading the book titled “Meditations” by Marcus Aurelius (and translated by Gregory Hays), the well known philosopher-king of the Roman Empire, and one of the concepts that struck me was the impression-interpretation dichotomy and how we are told to exercise strict control over our faculty of perception so as to guard against misconceived notions.

In particular, I have found my thoughts straying towards this instructive passage on various occasions:

” … At every instant the objects and events in the world around us bombard us with impressions. as they do so they produce a phantasia, a mental impression. From this the mind generates a perception (hypolepsis), which might best be compared to a print made from a photographic negative. Ideally this print will be an accurate and faithful reproduction of the original. But it may not be. It may be blurred, or it may include shadow images that distort or obscure the original. 

… For example, my impression that my house has just burned own is simply that – an impression or report conveyed to me by my senses about an event in the outside world. By contrast, my perception that my house has burned down and I have thereby suffered a terrible tragedy includes not only an impression, but also an interpretation imposed upon that initial impression by my powers of [perception]. It is by no means the only possible interpretation, and I am not obliged to accept it. I may be a good deal better off if I decline to do so. It is, in other words, not objects and events but the interpretations we place on them that are the problem. Our duty is therefore to exercise stringent control over the faculty of perception, with the aim of protecting our mind from error.”

Truth Is Relative: Why We Need To Consider Multiple Interpretations

One of the things you quickly discover as a lawyer is that the bifurcation of events and matters into the so-called “black and white” is often an impossible exercise. Rather, “truth” is relative and is, perhaps, more accurately depicted as shades of grey, which darken and lighten according to the interpretations that are imposed on it. This is nothing surprising, of course. After all, it is a truism of modern living that life is often more complex, nuanced and multi-faceted than we could ever imagine.

But the thing that never fails to intrigue me (and is somewhat indicative of my childhood interest in psychology) is how our life experiences inform the way we interpret (or fail to interpret) matters or events. It is commonly said that we perceive life through bespoke lenses, which are constantly being adjusted based on new knowledge and experiences acquired. Another way of looking at it is to imagine our knowledge and experiences as a container through which objects and events in the world are poured into, thereby invariably pre-shaping (this usage calls to mind the book and concept titled “Pre-suasion” by Robert Cialdini) the way these objects and events are perceived. I suppose that is why questions such as the following arise on various occasions: Why is it that some people are predisposed towards certain way of thinking? In what ways would nature and nurture have influenced a person’s particular mindset? Is it reasonable to infer that a person’s actions are guided by certain impressions or interpretations?

In this regard, my personal and professional interests appear to be aligned, for matters involving trade mark registration and prosecution often require lawyers to place ourselves in the shoes of the imaginary “relevant consumer” for a particular class of goods or services when providing legal advice. For instance, in assessing whether consumers are likely to be confused when faced with two similar-looking marks, it would be relevant, for instance, to consider the price and nature of the product in question. This is because consumers are more likely to pay greater attention to the marks as applied to the products when such products are expensive or health-related, thereby reducing the likelihood of them being confused. While this is one valid interpretation, it is, however, vulnerable to attack by other relevant countervailing considerations. For instance, price may be a neutral factor if the nature of the expensive product is such that consumers are indifferent to the mark and are more concerned about other attributes such as quality and style e.g. floor tiles.

Think Foxy

In the same vein, something I read this morning from “The Signal and the Noise” by Nate Silver resonated – that is, “the hedgehog and the fox” classification. I found the explanation provided in the book rather illuminating:

Hedgehogs… believe in Big Ideas – in governing principles about the world that behave as though they were physical laws and undergird virtually every interaction in society. Think Karl Marx and class struggle, or Sigmund Freud and the unconscious. Or Malcolm Gladwell and the “tipping point”.

Foxes… believe in a plethora of little ideas and in taking a multitude of approaches towards a problem. They tend to be more tolerant of nuance, uncertainty, complexity, and dissenting opinion.”

Adapting the classification into the context of the impression-interpretation dichotomy, hedgehogs believe that impressions can be unified under a singular interpretation whereas foxes believe that impressions always birth varying interpretations.

In fact, I am of the view that it is a necessary but insufficient condition to aspire towards a foxy mindset in this regard. After all, escaping the rigidity of pigeonholing everything under a unified worldview only to fall prey to ill-conceived interpretations may not be ideal.

The Path of Greatest Resistance

The range and number of interpretations one might conceive of a certain impression are, after all, dependent on the capacity and capability of the individual mind. But what holds true for all individuals is that the interpretations that we think up can be situated along a spectrum spanning from the interpretation of least resistance to that of the greatest resistance.

I believe we are all familiar with the mind’s tendency to linger on matters that upset us and I think that holds true for interpretations as well. A random Google search on “negative thinking” explained that “[n]egative thinking is a survival strategy that causes us to look for what is wrong so that we can protect ourselves against danger…” As a brief aside, while negative thinking could be a form of the mind’s defensive mechanism, I’d say that it is a rather brittle and dubious defence that is prone to create further errors in thinking. For instance, negative thinking often results in self-fulfilling prophesies.

Unsurprisingly, those in the legal profession may be particularly susceptible to such a tendency given how we are trained to consider the worst case scenario as a starting point. In this regard, one might say that the interpretation with least resistance would almost always lead our minds down the neutral pathways of negativity. Conversely, the path of greatest resistance would be the most positive interpretation of a particular impression.

Since everything I’ve recently read and thought about has neatly fallen into place, I’d take this opportunity to remind myself of two things: first, always resist the temptation to compartmentalise objects and events under a singular unified theory (my idealistic mind is particularly susceptible to this); and second, always consider the path of greatest resistance when it comes to interpreting impressions.



February 19, 2017 | 0 Comments

That which we call fate is mere symbolic meaning assigned to indifferent circumstances. 

Well, at least that appears to be one way of interpreting the manner in which signs, events and people converge in our lives. The hopeful side of me does, however, feel some discomfort in a wholesale subscription of this cynical philosophy even though parts of the interpretation resonate with my deistic belief – that is, the belief that our world was created by an indifferent God and that religions are ultimately instruments of Man (and thus divine intervention and intercessory prayers are mere figments of our imagination or wishful thinking).

Instead of defining what ‘fate’ is or is not, I believe that it may be interesting to approach the concept of ‘fate’ from a different perspective by considering ‘fate’ as the occurrence of a set of circumstances which correlates to the parameters of recognised patterns such that the next optimal step to be taken can be easily identified. In other words, ‘fate’ is the putting together of all the jigsaws of a puzzle except for a couple of missing ones such that we will invariably know what to do to make the picture whole.

Accordingly, when applying this alternative approach to the context of romance, instead of treating a ‘fated encounter’ as a predestined meeting made possible by a supernatural force, one could instead look at such a ‘fated encounter’ as the presentation of a certain set of optimal conditions such that an individual correctly seizing upon the opportunity would likely become romantically entangled.

In fact, if you think about it, our orthodox understanding of (and subscription to) ‘fate’ tends to encourage a reliance on the supervening force to direct us to our desired outcome, which invariably results in some dilution of responsibility towards, for instance, the relationship.

On the other hand, the alternative pattern-recognition approach treats the realisation of certain specific conditions as a prerequisite to achieving a desired outcome and would, ideally, promote greater involvement by the individual, as opposed to an overt reliance of external stimuli.

Comparing the two approaches, one might say that the orthodox view of ‘fate’ is more passive and that the alternative, active outlook could, on this basis, be seen as the more superior and productive approach to adopt.

Ear-candy of the moment: Paris by The Chainsmokers





life, nickilosophy


September 17, 2016 | 0 Comments

When you are of the view that something is inconsistent, consider the fact that you are measuring the other party’s actions in accordance with your personal expectations, which may include obligations and rights that have been unilaterally imposed on him or her and which will forever remain unknown and unknowable unless you seek express clarification.

Simply put, what may appear to be inconsistent to you may merely be inconsistent behaviour vis-a-vis your expectations of a certain state of affairs.

Most people generally behave in an entirely consistent manner with what they believe to be appropriate or civil based on the pre-existing paradigm they have, consciously or subconsciously, pigeonholed you into.

And it is, perhaps, with this frame of mind that one should consider what one’s actions actually signify to others – and vice versa – so as to differentiate between the signal and the noise.

After all, we tend to perceive the world using asymmetrical lenses: we judge our own actions by our intentions, which are fortunately or unfortunately sequestered in the hidden province of our minds, and that of others by circumstances divorced of context.

This may likely be exacerbated by the fact that we now live in an interconnected and heavily flattened world, where the inflation of textual communication has invariably devalued the currency and meaning of words. Accordingly, access to another person’s inner sanctum of thoughts may likely prove to be more difficult or even impossible.

We thus find ourselves scrambling to acquire and assimilate scraps of available information so as to connect the dots between actions and intentions and consequently form either a map or mural.

We erroneously but unavoidably believe that in the Venn diagram of ‘act’ and ‘intent’, only the overlapping region is true; in essence, the provable intent has been proven by act.

Ultimately, however, such visual compartmentalisation may lead to false conclusions. There are many complexities in life which (come to think of it bear certain resemblance to prime numbers) resist analysis or the resolution into simpler, constituent elements.

Indeed, life is more than just the sum of facts, evidence and proof. Sometimes we just have to take the leap of faith.

ideas, life


September 4, 2016 | 0 Comments


He set down the abacus and stared into the darkening horizon, as a thoughtful look stole across his countenance.

Caught by a shy ray of dwindling sunlight, the lonesome tool revealed a tableau of unaligned wooden beads.

These beads, separated purposefully, revealed an infallible truth unbeknownst to all, save the mathematician.

The calculus doesn’t lie, he sighed, and took one long at the unforgiving image before tossing it away –

The beads, shaking in frenzied distress as they took an unintended sojourn through the air,

Their rattling cries, a requiem of death performed by merciless winds,

Before hitting the ground,

And shattering into pieces.

But all the mathematician could hear, in his mind,

Was the sound of rolling dices,

As the beads are set free.

And so, it seemed, the wheel of fortune…

… spins again.



Without fear or favour

June 2, 2016 | 0 Comments

Every embarrassing act we do brings us closer to taking ourselves less seriously.

Well, at least that’s what I’d rationalise and tell myself whenever I do something silly. It is always infinitely easier to travel the path of least resistance but that is also the path of mediocrity or the path of least rewards. While overcoming resistance may not always bring about just rewards, I suspect that the mere act of stepping outside of one’s comfort zone – or, perhaps, more accurately, the testing of one’s willingness to step outside of one’s comfort zone – creates an initial link which may, hopefully, grow into a chain.

Such acts also affix tangibility onto one’s thoughts, ideas and intentions by bringing the cerebral into the physical, which may be more important than we give it credit for when we look deep into ourselves to figure out who we have been, who we are and who we will be/want to be.

After all, if we accept that the individual is a dual concept formed by one’s acts and one’s intentions – which is eerily reminiscent of the twin pillars of criminal liability, namely actus reus (guilty act) and mens reas (guilty mind) – then it goes without saying that the mental conception we have of ourselves always, always, represents only parts of the jigsaw that constitutes the essence of one’s personhood. Granted, physical acts may be done on a whim or may not bear any apparent motive, but the intention to do certain acts, e.g. to reach into your wallet and offer donations, belie subterranean patterns of behaviour. These patterns – if ever we could map them out, would form a mural that would roughly depict the outlines of one’s personhood.

And looking at the outline of my personhood, I am wondering if I should stay the course and follow the blueprint of conservativeness or to rip the map and stride forth without fear or favour.