Book Review: "Stoner"

I love books. I love the touch of my fingers upon paper, sometimes coarse, sometimes fine, and I love the smell of ink and bleached paper as I flipped through the pages, which produces a scraping sound whenever my nails scratched through the surface of each page. Every book that I read will be yellowed on one side, and occasionally, the spine will be creased and folded through countless hours of opening it, creating lines upon it; and I hated it when it happens, because I liked my books in perfect condition, even after I have despoiled the secrets within. Ever since I was young, I have acquired the habit of reading, and while many others will prefer to spend their time to expend their physical resources and to breath in the air of the natural world, I crouch in a corner of the room, planted myself on a sofa, shifting into weird positions once in a while to find a comfortable position, while I devoured each sentence with a ferocity and intensity that is inexhaustible. 

Language is at once the most magnificent inventions that our common ancestors has came up with, yet it is also exasperating in that it confines us within its boundaries, with its rigid structures and rules. While we read, we are often struck by a rapturous sense of liberation, in that we can experience sensations that goes beyond mere symbols; and yet, paradoxically, language suffocates us, for we know it is the only means of communication we have, and we have to adhere to its sadistic domination on our lives. And yet, putting aside the sense of suffocation, reading is one of the most exhilarating experiences one can have, since it permits me a chance to transcend my current boundaries, and instead, offers my mind to wander through unknown landscapes, sometimes benevolent, sometimes hostile, as I witness the interpolation of words and phrases, transforming my vision into a recorder of other minds - a voyeur of minds.

While reading this book by John Williams, one of the most underrated writers in American literature (who (un)fortunately have received a revival of attention towards his works after his death), I was somewhat struck by the affinity I felt towards its hero, William Stoner. Maybe because it is our similarities, in which we both share a passionate love towards the written, the expressible, and the equally inexpressible. Or maybe it is because of a similarity of temperament. Who knows? I would love to be the acquaintance of him, to converse with him in the matters of books, and he could be my mentor, because I am but an amateur when compared to Stoner's expertise.

Such is the vivid psychological description in which the writer, John Williams, provided which not only made me feel a connection between me and a fictional character, but also to make me feel as though this person can exist (and indeed, must exist) in a time like ours. Set in the 1930s, in the decades in between both World Wars and the Prohibition as well as Depression era, Stoner, the hero of the book, is originally studying to become a farmer in order to help with his family at the farm. But after a fateful encounter with an English professor, in which the mystique of language possesses him like an unavoidable storm, he decides to change his profession and venture forth into the realm of literature. In the course of his life, he encountered life changing events, such as falling in love with a woman of his dreams, marrying her while discovering after the marriage that the woman is psychologically unstable, and the marriage will soon deteriorate into a toxic one. He will wade through academic politics, with a sworn enemy which is the chairman of the faculty. He will lose his daughter, which he prized very much, to his wife, as the battle between both creates collateral damage in his daughter, Grace, changing her life for the worse. He encounters death, through war, disease, the Depression era suicides. And he will have a love affair with a young instructor to alleviate his pressures which he encountered at home, creating scandals in a sexually repressed society.

This is a quiet novel, centered around an insignificant life, maneuvering slowly through decades of Stoner's life as he wade through crises, poverty, familial and political conflicts with a stoicism that is all the more remarkable for his meager upbringing. His affects will change through the course of his life from passion, desire, infatuation, care, and love, to mere indifference as he surrendered himself to the ever changing time, and Destiny. His life seems to be a sad, miserable one, as he himself knows the insignificance of it all, as he realized that Time will stop for no one, and that all efforts that we make will ultimately lose its meaning in our final confrontation with the Grim Reaper. His struggles are universal in that we all will face it, sooner or later.

That is not to say that he had not once lived. For he lived all right. He lived not despite having to struggle with every single blow that Life has landed upon him; he lived in spite of it, in that he sees life as ultimately worth living, even when all the evidence tells him the contrary. Here, interpretations may differ, in that some will believe that his life is an unlived one. After all, he had chosen the wrong woman to marry, abandoned his parents to pursue his own passions, losing their love, lost his daughter to a toxic marriage, lost his promising career as a literature professor to a stupid conflict of office politics and denoted to teach only freshmen classes, lost his love affair in which he discovered the possibility of profound love once again in scandalous adultery to (also) office politics and the restrictions of the society. So many losses, no wonder many perceived Stoner to be a failure, one to be pitied and empathized with.

But another interpretation can also be made (such is my interpretation). For on the contrary, his life is a complete one. Who says that a life of completion must be a perfect one? A life with no struggles and suffering is in fact one that is unlived. For life is a struggle, from the moment we see the first rays of sunlight, to the last breath that we drew, all presents itself as a challenge, and we drag ourselves day upon day so that we might enjoy our victory against our failures. Stoner lost many things, and many of the things he lost are unjustifiable, and it incites our anger to see that Life has treated him so unfairly. But he gained many things as well, that we cannot deny. Life is a trade-off: we lose somethings we might cherish a lot in the past, but we also will gain (or regain) things that we will come to love in the future. For isn't it the love of literature, the love of the world, the love of his job, the love of his daughter, the love of the young instructor - Katherine, the lost love of his wife, and the stoical endurance of all things that are unfortunate but soon too will pass, that defines him as who he is? We are not defined by the things we own, we are defined by what we do. And Stoner, in this regard, lived, and lived to an extreme extent. For despite everything he lost, he nevertheless acquired the only thing that cannot be lost, and will never be snatched away from his possession - love. And this is not only romantic love; no, it is a love that is more profound and encompasses Life in its entirety. 

It is a miracle to see such simple materials (the life of an academic) be constructed into a novel, and it is equally another bigger miracle to see that John Williams succeeded in crafting a perfect novel from such simple materials. To put it simply, I enjoyed every single moment of the reading experience, and I regret I have not sooner read it, for it has already been sitting on my shelf for a long, long time. One comes to realize that from an insignificant life, such as Stoner's, one can learn magnificent truths, truths that are integral to living, to existing, and are as universal, as it is significant to all humankind. History more often than not, neglects to record meager lives such as Stoner's into consideration. In History, the portraits of the few outlasted the mass, and the conflicts, the battles, the struggles of the masses will soon be forgotten, a simple fleck of dust in the vast flux of Time.

Such is Life, can we rebel against that fact? Maybe not. But maybe, like Stoner, we can learn to endure it, to live our lives to the fullest, to witness the unraveling of it all, even if we might revile against some parts of it, even if after some years, maybe a decade or more, our existence will be forgotten, and our death will be no more than a reminder for all of our mortality, that vulnerability to oblivion. Well, such is Life. That's how it is.

Book Review: "The Conquest of Happiness"

Consider the gibberish below, the kind of writing one encounters when one boards a spaceship from Mars during a night's wildest dreams. It is so obscure that it made Rome decline. It is so abstract that Picasso tore up his paintings when he witnessed this behemoth. It is so... (Ok, I should stop.)

Just.... just.... WHAT THE F!

This is the kind of writing which one will only encounter in the dusty rooms of an advanced mathematics class, or in a philosophical tome on logic and mathematics. It is written by one of the most famous English philosophers in the 20th century, and while this proposition essentially "proven" the most practical thing in the universe (namely, that "1+1=2"), it is essentially irrelevant to how we determine the attitude in which we face our daily lives.
(Actually, the goals of the book in which the proposition is extracted is ultimately disproved by "Godel's incompleteness theorem". As in mathematics, any attempt made to encapsulate it through axioms and inferences, must ultimately imply that the system is either A. inconsistent; or B. there must be some truths of mathematics which cannot be deduced through it. But this just over the head, so just... forget about it.)

It makes my head pain to think that we need a proposition, to prove another proposition: WHAT IS THIS TRAGEDY CALLED MATHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But then again, look at the quotations below, which I would extract a few from a very timely book which I have recently read:

"In adolescence, I hated life and was continually on the verge of suicide, from which, however, I was restrained by the desire to know more mathematics. Now, on the contrary, I enjoy life; I might almost say that with every year that passes I enjoy it more."

"If one lived for ever the joys of life would inevitably in the end lose their savor. As it is, they remain perennially fresh."

It might come as surprise to you that both the fantastically, wondrously, deliciously head spinning mathematical proposition that I listed above, and the down-to-earth, practical, and pragmatic advice listed below are both written by the same authors, namely, by Bertrand Russell, the aforementioned philosopher. (But maybe it is no surprise to you, since I asked it in such an obvious way, right?) The book above is named "Principia Mathematica" (which I guess NO ONE ever wanted to read, unless you pride yourself in masochism), and the book which I am today reviewing is called "The Conquest of Happiness".

The monster has shown his face! The monster of maths! The anathema to all my pains, Bertrand Russell!

Bertrand Russell, one of the most eminent logicians and mathematicians, also one of the founders of the now popular "analytic philosophy" in Anglo-Saxon countries, is also a very prolific writers on topics like education, society, politics, ethics, marriage, sex, and in this case, happiness, which is actually a field most commonly associated with psychology. He is also a historian, a social critic, a political activist, and a pacifist, which advocated against the Vietnam Wars etc. Before this, Russell believed that philosophy as a subject should be strictly technical, and highly restricted: philosophy as an academic subject. In the later half of his life, he turned towards popular philosophy, the kind of philosophy that most laymen are familiar with: the philosophy of life. He is a maverick, and an iconoclast of his time, and in this case in regards to this book, I consider him a psychologist, and one of the highest order at that.

Run you fools!

In an age where self-help books become one heck of a redundant genre, "Conquest" remains ever-relevant. Written 84 years ago, where the self-help books as a genre is nonexistent, the message in it is timeless, it doesn't age; it grows ever present. Our age is an age of unhappiness, where people fret over every failure, refusing to see those few moments where they truly shine. As Kierkegaard said, "ours is an age of reflection, not of passion." Everyone is obsessed with their own shortcomings, making themselves suffer for every mistake they made. We not only judge others, we judge ourselves, and in judging ourselves, the vicious cycle continues.

The book first diagnosed our current condition, our contemporary psyche, what makes us unhappy. Russell mentioned several issues, such as envy, boredom, persecution mania, the sense of committing a sin, etc. Now, what is surprising is that Russell didn't stoop so low as to become dogmatic. His style is carefree, and when he spoke, he spoke with a tone of wisdom, not of authority. And we will gladly listen to his "common sense", which is anything but that, since common sense is so rare nowadays. There is a common theme that links together all these "Russellian" factors of unhappiness, namely, that of the refusal to see reality as it is, a thwarted and distorted outlook of life. Take for example, if I am a megalomania, perceiving myself as important, and my work crucial to the advancement of society, then whenever I encounter an obstacle, I will be more likely to blame others for my own failures, and I will also be envious of those that are more successful than me, ad infinitum. Perhaps, the sense of sin is one of the most crucial factor of unhappiness, because if I constantly feel myself as guilty, as wronging somebody else, would I ever be happy? And wouldn't constantly perceiving myself as a sinful person also be a form of megalomania? An attention seeker?

Compared to the diagnosis of the causes of unhappiness, the factors of happiness are relatively simple, which is to commit oneself to a project, a job, to be enthusiastic about it, to seek to build constructive and close impersonal relationships, and to regain that zest of life. It all sounds so simple, and it is. These things that Russell raised are so common-sensical that I am baffled at first that a philosopher of such a high order should write a book as simple as this. But Russell never claimed otherwise; he never professed to have found a profound way of living, of founding a new theory of happiness. He merely said what he had experienced, what he had observed through his life. And it is precisely that these are such common notions, that we become oblivious to them; we perceive ourselves as always having them, and since they are so easy to obtain, we no longer raise ourselves up in order to make an effort and make ourselves happy, it doesn't matter that much to us anymore.

To conquer happiness, to make ourselves a "happy man" (or a "happy person" if you want a non-sexist term), that is what Russell encouraged us to do. Russell's happy man is one who is passionate, filled with the zest of life, have close relationships with others, work with enthusiasm, who rationally dissects his own distorted worldview of depression and unhappiness, objective, and most importantly, never self-centered, purged of the obsession of the ego, of the self. It requires some effort, although happiness can also arrive in the form of contentment, of enjoying the view as it is, and even when we experienced resignation in the face of the insurmountable (trust me, nothing more enjoyable than this).

This is a book that is somewhat outdated (since it was written 84 YEARS AGO!). It is somewhat biased towards extroverts, as there is a certain description of introverts as constantly neurotic, which is quite simply untrue. And then there are the sexist linguistic usages, "the happy man", never woman, or people (although Russell, in his days, is radically feminist). But then again, the message is so useful and so practical, that it is a detriment to not read it. Its messages conform with what psychologists nowadays find. It is filled with the prudence and the non-common-sensical wisdom of Bertrand Russell, one of the most eloquent writers of the 20th century. In short, it is how popular self-help and philosophy books should be written.

I remember what Viktor Frankl once said in "Man's Search for Meaning", that the acquiring of meaning must ensue some form of pursuit, and cannot be obtained when meaning is the direct goal of the pursuit. What this means is that we cannot make what we seek as a direct goal, because to do this, we would not only fail to obtain the goal, but also make ourselves more and more miserable as we perceive our failures. And this, I think, is the same with happiness, that happiness must always ensue a project, a relationship, or a work, and instead of viewing happiness as a goal to pursue, an end to be achieved, it should be viewed as an ingredient to life --- a happy life.

Book Review: "Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki & His Years of Pilgrimage"

There are writers who write strange stories, stories so weird and original, that they baffle another with their creativity. And then there are strange writers who write strange stories, and these are the writers who are truly original, perplexing others with their bizarre and highly unusual structure of their stories. They confront the limitations of literature, and they challenge readers to question the phantasmical qualities of the reality among the pages and lines.

Haruki Murakami undoubtedly belong to the latter, along with the likes of H.P. Lovecraft, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Yukio Mishima, and Franz Kafka. His works more often than not, alienates his readers, some hailing him as the next Samuel Beckett, while others dismissed him as a trashy pop writer, and regarded his entire oeuvre as typical post-modern kitsch. Why such extreme polarities?

H.P Lovecraft: The call of Cthulhu

Fyodor Dostoevsky: The great Russian writer

Yukio Mishima: The "samurai" who cuts his own belly

Franz Kafka: The metamorphosis

Contrary to what we claim everyday in our lives, we like familiarity, and we embrace art in a similar way. Works that stepped out of the norm are likely to be despised and hated, precisely for its originality. That's why books or music that fit our habitualized preferences are commercially successful, when they are anything but masterpieces. Nicholas Sparks' repetitive romance novels, Maroon 5's unoriginal (and even cliched) lyrical qualities are precisely those that topped charts and stay on it. When Radiohead's music or Dostoevsky's novels are first publicized, they are hardly what we now refer to as successful ventures. They are criticized as destroying art, and for not conforming to pre-established norms. You may respond, "But they are critically acclaimed now! You lied!" But that is exactly the point, because it is only after several decades, or even centuries, that these initially despised works received their acclaim, as we slowly get used to them. They are trend starters, who created a new category for what defines art. They are "hipsters" who slowly become assimilated into the mainstream.

But enough of my rantings, time to move on to my main point here, which is Murakami's new book. Murakami is a weird writer, that is without a doubt, and I think many here will agree with me. Most of his famous books incorporate Kafkaesque surrealism, making them having a very dreamy, and even creepy atmosphere. From "Hard-Boiled Wonderland", "A Wild Sheep Chase", & "The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle" to his more recent works, "1Q84", "Kafka on the Shore" (he likes Kafka... very much), and "After Dark", all of these are very much strange but fascinating stories of people being swallowed up by absurd situations, meeting equally strange people along the way, while going on a frightening journey that borders on hilarity. His mind is a blender, and the things he suggest are very much out of this world, but at the same thing, there is a common theme among his works.

Fabulous Murakami is Fabulous

He incorporates themes of fate, of unrequited love, urban alienation, classical & jazz music, contemporary psyches, loneliness, death, graphic violence and sex (beware, there are many scenes of this type) and cats (lots and lots of cats) into the strangeness of his fictional world. Most of these books have a bland or eccentric man as a narrator, who often more than not, meets an extraordinary female, has their foundations of their reality shaken up by some catastrophic event, and embarked on a self-searching journey.

Cats... I wonder why...

A diagram analysis of Murakami

But that's not all. The above-mentioned books are surrealistic books, but he also writes several books that are more down-to-earth and grounded more on our well-recognized reality, such as "Norwegian Wood", "Sputnik Sweetheart" (although this one is exceptionally strange as well), "South of the Border", & this book which we will discuss shortly hereafter. These are the books which are my favorites (although I like "Hard-Boiled Wonderland" a lot). Not only because they are more realistic, but because in these works, he explored the aforementioned themes in much more clarity and detail, and because it is more realistic, we can, more easily, relate to them, as compared to a man who talks with cats (as in the main character in "Kafka on the Shore"). It has been a while since he wrote a book that is so realistic, it comes as a shock for me as a long time fan of his, and that's why this book recently became one of my favorites of his.

In "Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki", the main character, after being ousted by his four high school friends, became very much distraught and suicidal. He grow up without knowing the specific reasons for why he was ostracized, and the traumatic experience of being expelled from his close and tightly knitted group made him change dramatically. After 16 years without knowing why, his recent girlfriend requested him to tie up the know, and pursue the mystery before they move on to a more serious relationship. And this story is about a journey, that Tsukuru Tazaki carry out in order to search for the truth, and also himself.

Doesn't this story seem very familiar to us all? Throughout our lives, we make friends, not only for the sake of making friends and socializing, but also, to some extent, to survive. A social tie is proof that we are alive, that we belong somewhere, and that we are worthy of another's regard. Humans are after all, social animals.

But because there are so many friends that we make, there are bound to be some who became strangers. It is a natural process, and although it is slightly depressing to acknowledge it, it does happen, a lot. Think about it, how many of our primary school friends are still in our social circles after we graduated from university, where the pressure to work and marry placed a heavy burden on us all? Not many, I will presume. And even if there are reunions or meet-ups, we converse, but gradually, we realize that the topic runs out. We indulge in the same conversations over and over again, reminiscing the same old memories of the good old times because we have not time enough to make new ones together. Friendship demands experiencing the same things together, and after a while of separation, the tie loosens. We start talking like grown-ups, topics like politics, the economy, and even marriage surfaced. Banters and jokes lessened, and it just doesn't seem "fun" and "lively" anymore.

In Tsukuru Tazaki's case, it is a much more extreme one, one in which he is totally excluded from a group. Some may experience this, others may not. But the pain is obvious, and the scar horrifying. Imagine a person at the peak of his life, venturing out in a foreign city, believing that there is some place else that he totally belongs, that he can totally fit into. And then imagine that one day he is told that he can no longer go back to his haven. It is devastating. An animal wouldn't survive the exclusion from its herd.

But survive he did, with courage and dignity, although in the process, he lost something, something essential to make new friends, something that makes him connect with others. And I would venture out and make a speculation in his case, that he lost his trust towards others, and because friendship demands trust, he became isolated.

Isolation is a much discussed theme in Murakami's books, and he depicts the harmful as well as the strange but tenderly beautiful side of loneliness with so much insight, it becomes terrifying. Much like Cioran who depicts insomnia with extreme clarity, Murakami's depiction of isolation is on a class of his own.

"Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki" is a lovely novel, an exploration of a person's descend into madness, and how he managed to overcome it. It describes the existential loneliness that we feel sometimes with regards to our own isolation, and it expounds on fears of being alone, and of being afraid of our own uselessness. It explores the notion of how time and space affects a person's relationship with others (much like the animated movie, "5 Centimeters per Second"), and most of all, it describes the fluidity of our mind, the ability to adapt.

"5 Centimeters per Second": Go watch it. Beautiful, heartbreaking, and life-changing

Humans are such durable creatures that we can adapt to even the worst circumstances imaginable, although not all succeed in the process of overcoming our fears. Some triumphed in the face of adversity, others fall by the sword of catastrophe, but the fact that courage can triumph over the calamity of our random human lives should not be overlooked. The Romantics of the nineteenth and twentieth century described it as the unbeatable "human spirit", and psychologists nowadays termed it in more scientific terms, such as "resiliency".

But one thing can be extracted from all these teachings, passed down from these giants of the past, and it applies to the experiences that Tsukuru Tazaki had endured:

This too shall pass. And in passing, we find not answers, but ourselves, which is worth more than mere solutions.

Book Review: "The Power of Habit: Why we do what we do & how to change."

I remember a day when I was walking in a mall, and realizing that I was hungry, I went to the "food street" section in search for something to comfort my ferocious belly. And while I was still thinking and comparing between the various choices (ah, the contemporary consumerist mentality), I suddenly realized that I was standing under a big red and yellow sign with a big "M" on it. I have unknowingly walked into McDonald's. Strange indeed that even when I haven't made up my mind on what to eat, and consciously deciding on a choice, I have "unconsciously" made up a choice. Freud might have a say on that, by hypothesizing that it is because of my libidinal instincts constructed of my unhappy childhood with McDonald's that pushed me to make this choice. But I have a better explanation: the process was automatic, because it was a habit.

In Charles Duhigg's "The Power of Habit", he wrote extensively on what it is that make us "learn" habits, how habits influenced our everyday living, and most importantly, how to make new, helpful habits, and eradicate the old, harmful ones. Ever wonder why someone can't stop shaking their legs when they should be sitting still? Or are you curious as to why smokers or even drug addicts can't stop harming themselves in search for pleasure? This book offers a glimpse as to why some habits are so hard to eradicate while others come and go. So instead of viewing all behaviors as unchangeable or fixed, we can see them as fluid and malleable habits. 

Charles Duhigg

As the avant-garde Irish novellist, Samuel Beckett, once said, "Life is habit. Or rather life is a succession of habits." And it is somewhat true, because most of what we do in life are reinforced habits, constructed and put in place through our experiences and the passage of time. Take for example, the mall experience which I started this article with. There is a McDonald's near the university where I study at, and in the entire complex, there is not much of a choice when it comes to food; and besides, McDonald's is not that expensive, and its efficiency is admirable. So after several years of visiting McDonald's, it becomes an automatic habit, because whenever I'm hungry, I will think of McDonald's and proceed to go there and grab a burger. (Do not eat McDonald's, I'm not promoting it!)

Samuel Beckett. He won a Nobel Prize for Literature, just FYI

So, to use Duhigg's terminology, there is a "habit loop" that is constructed and constantly reinforced whenever I perform a habitual behavior. First of all, there is the "cue": which is a trigger that prompts us to act, and changes the mode of our brain into autopilot. Then, after the cue comes the "routine": which is what we go through in order to satisfy the prompting of the cue (the routine can be psychological or physical). Finally, we arrive at the "reward": which is one of the most important part in the habit loop, since it determines whether this habit is worth continuing, and if not, the habit will be changed or discarded. 

Now, what happens when I automatically walked into McDonald's is this: I received a cue from the grumbling of my stomach when I'm hungry, and so to satisfy the urge to eat, I go to McDonald's since it is one of the most practical choices at my university, thereby performing the routine. And the reward is that I am full, and I saved money and time, so in my mind, this habit is worth keeping. And after years of repeating "cue-routine-reward", it became stuck in my head. 

But that's not all! Because there is another element, and that is "craving". In order to cultivate and create a habit, one must crave a particular thing in order to sustain the entire habit loop. In my example, it is not only hunger that produces the habit of me visiting McDonald's, because if that is the case, any food will suffice. It is because I crave for McDonald's (because of its lustrous beef patty, its fizzy soft drinks, its crispy fries, ok I should stop), that I visited it in particular. Hence, I crave, I received a cue, I perform the routine, I get my reward, then I crave it again, and so it goes. 

After explicating on the model of "the habit loop", the book then explores how corporations used this insight to construct helpful habits, how unethical implications can be made based on this model (the gambling industry, or certain online shopping companies etc.). And it provides a very helpful appendix on how to eradicate certain harmful habits. 

The book itself is written in a journalistic tone, much like Malcolm Gladwell's entire ouvre, and it made it much easier for laypeople and those who are just curious about the topic of habits to digest the topic. It rarely contains technical jargon, and the hard science is dumbed down, making it much accessible for non-psychology students. However, for some, it may seem too simplistic, as the book itself is written by a non-psychologist, a journalist, to be precise. But despite its limitations, the book is a very entertaining read, and it occasionally provides very helpful insights. 

Malcolm Gladwell. Another populizer. 

In short, this is a surprising book, that may make some uncomfortable, because it is certainly surprising to find something as subtle as a habit changes our entire way of living. This is not to undermine the notion of free will, as we can, through our determination, change our habits consciously. But we often think naively of our actions and thoughts as in our complete control, but there are often times when it is our unconscious habits that determine how we act and how we think. And more often than not it is this part of our mind in which sometimes we can't voluntarily control that makes all the difference. 

(The concept of habit actually has deep roots in the psychological concept of learning, more specifically, of "conditioning". The concept of "classical conditioning" and "operant conditioning" are much too complicated and technical, and are impossible to understand unless one understands the underlying premise, which is laden with jargon. But if you are interested, you can look up the works of Ivan Pavlov, B. F. Skinner, Albert Bandura, and other behaviorists, which the links provided below will lead you to.)

Classical conditioning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning

Operant conditioning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning

Ivan Pavlov

B. F. Skinner