Zoneseekers

I've shifted

2009-07-29T23:27:00.007+08:00

Rightfully

2009-07-21T14:19:00.001+08:00

The students were all seated. The test papers were all distributed. Everyone sat in silent anticipation as the teacher walked carefully back to his desk.
He placed the remaining test scripts on his table and then checked his watch.

"Before you start, let me first warn you," his voice became slightly sterner at this point as he paused for effect, "I do not want to see anyone cheating in this test."

A final look at the watch. A concluding gesture. "All right, you may begin."

Instead of the tense silence and subsequent scribbling that the teacher expected, the moment he had sat himself down in the chair beside the table, the entire class had rosed from their seats and started to gather in groups, discussing how the questions should be answered.

It took a moment for him to recover, before he could exclaim, "Hey, I had just said I do not want to see anyone cheating in this test!"

Another teacher who was also in the classroom had burst into laughter at the scene. He smiled towards his fellow teacher, "When you say you do not want anyone to 'cheat', they take it that you mean they should not withhold what is good from anyone else. They would be cheating another person of something if they were to keep something to themselves alone."

This is actually a true story that was recounted to me by a lecturer who teaches cross-cultural missionary preparation. It happened in India, to a teacher who was attached at a school there for a short duration. On the surface, it is a good example to illustrate how it is necessary to be sensitive to the differences in cultures. Our actions and practices, though extended out of universally desired principles, may not and need not be the perfect model that suits a people. In appreciating a culture, it's important to balance between being too imposing or being blindly assimilated into it.

But on a deeper level, the more specific dimension that is addressed by the example is how 'cheating' is defined. While it may seem to be a unique way to think about 'cheating', I realise that if you take a step back to look at how we phrase what 'cheating' to mean, it can be stranger than how the students in the class had understood its meaning.

With the rigor and quality of the Singapore education system, 'cheating in a test' is an easily understood notion for Singaporeans. To break the term down, you are cheating in a test if you copy the answers off a friends' with/without his knowledge, if you make any form of communication with another test-taker with content relating to the test, if you refer to something like a piece of paper etc. Essentially, it's when you do not do it by yourself in that duration of the test.

What the term ultimately entails is individualism and a mihi solum (myself alone) attitude. Singapore's meritocratic system has no apologies about this, but if you look at the original definition of how 'cheating' is understood, its usually explained in the context of cheating a person. Relationships a key element in cheating. You cheat when you lie to a person. You cheat when you deprive a person of a right. When you cheat, you can go to the extent of breaking a person's trust, heart, soul and leave a scar which might only be eased after resentment or healed by grace.

The Singaporean understanding of "cheating" focuses on the individual's status in his community - "I do not want others to cheat me of what I am doing.", on the other hand, the students in India understood 'cheating' with a focus on the individual's contribution to the community - "I not going to deprive others of the knowledge that I have on this."

I know, it can be argued that if one cheats on a test, principally speaking, he is making others lose out too. But that is part of the point- its always "principally speaking", but never the principles themselves.

Another way of saying it is that there are very different ways of saying "It's not fair!"

"There is ony one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every othe sin is a variation of theft... When you kill a man, you steal a life. You steal his wife's right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a life, you steal someone's right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness."
-- Baba, The Kite Runner

Easing the clenched fist

2009-07-10T16:48:00.004+08:00

When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, "What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?" So they sent word to Joseph, saying, "Your father left these instructions before he died: 'This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.' Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father." When their message came to him, Joseph wept. His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. "We are your slaves," they said.
- Genesis 50:15 – 18

When one takes a close look at the bible, Joseph's story did not really have as glorious an ending as it should. After being sold into slavery by his brothers due to jealousy, becoming a slave, being thrown into prison and eventually, being a man with authority only second to Pharaoh. Kept safe and taught much by God throughout, Joseph's story paints a portrait of divine providence.

Although it was not mentioned, throughout everything, Joseph had to bear with the burden of carrying a past. A past that was, to said it simply, hurtful (Gen 37:18-36). A sort of past that would probably linger back and forth with questions in moments of mental idleness, which being a slave and a prisoner allow quite a lot of.

Of course, Joseph had emerged from all his experience as a man who has thought deeply over the mystery of God's sovereignty and human responsibility. His gentle response in return to the brothers' plea reflected this-

But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children." And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.
- Genesis 50:19 – 20

Such a response was shown due to his brothers' fear of Joseph's vengeance being unleashed on them after his father's death. Perhaps it was guilt or maybe it was out of fear of losing their lives, or the lives of they're family. But.. why must they think like this? Why did they have consider it in terms of a matter of debt?

I suggest that when Joseph wept, that might have been the question that he was yelling out in his head. He was not weeping because he was sorry for their state and sympathetic to their plight. He was possibly weeping because it meant that nothing was resolved. He wept because it showed that the relationship they had was still so stunted as if they were strangers. He wept because the burden of the past that he had to carry and go through had came back to strike him in a different form. He had wept because they were brothers. And yet...

And that was how Joseph's story had ended:/

At a Christian group retreat, the group I was with was doing this activity where you had to pick a card to answer the question written on it and choose someone else to answer it (Questions ranging from "How did you get your first crush?" to "Which book of the bible would you like to know better?") Mine was (at least I felt it is) a cliche - "What is the first thing you are going to ask Jesus when you are in heaven?"

My mind had raced through the dozens of the unanswered. Questions that could be picked in philosophy, history, evil, science, the human condition and although I eventually did say a question (one that was more personal to me), it occurred to me that actually, a question is not really the first thing that would be said.

I mean we always want to say something. The last word, a fitting legacy, a retirement speech, even a proper and clean handing over.

But in front of God, there would be "nothing" we can say.

Just like Joseph who had left many things unsaid, I guess its another way of showing that sometimes you really don't need to.

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." - George Orwell, Animal Farm

An end not in itself

2009-07-02T16:13:00.004+08:00

Peak-end rule.

This rule suggests that our judgement of how painful or pleasurable a past event is depends on how the experience was at its peak or end, instead of the more rational way of taking a net average of the pain or pleasure experienced over the entire duration.

Experiments have been conducted to prove this, but like any theory, the empirical evidence is better validated when examined through a life example than a lab report. In this case, a good life example is something called an ORD date.

Well, maybe it is not a perfect example. There are many other factors that would mar an NSF attempting a reflection. For instance, an ORD date prescribes not only a looking back, it also signals a looking forward (So what now?) And vocation and responsibilities-wise, sometimes there also is the need to ensure proper closures are made as you hand over duties to an understudy. And yes, of course it also is about some sort of liberation:P Ironically though, that makes it a good example because theories would work better once ceteris paribus is removed from the picture.

So we approach this theory with the knowledge that ORD -or for that matter, any experience similar to a indication that something has come to an end- does not exist in a vacuum. That in mind, we can note a few things that peak-end rule implies.

It means that we can go through a lot of pain at the start, but when the sweetness of things set in finally at the end it overwhelms us to the extent that it becomes a victory. This isn't very surprising actually since its largely accepted by people like sportsman. The pain doesn't matter anymore when you finally reach that finishing point. However, the rule is not a description of reaping fruits of victory. It applies to processes which might not have anything to do with a matter of input and output, or working at something - a school year, social dynamics in a group, a security operation, a relationship, a day at work- initial pain is okay, finally what happens is what I take note of anyway. Of course, the reverse of this works with equal potency.

It also means that we can invest energy and attention in blaming/rejoicing over something when we are not really considering the full issue. The focus was really only on what happened at the peak-end. Such investments can lead to situations that a lot of thought is spent on something not as significant because of how it had ended, and little thought spent over a series of events because things had ended on a low note.

On a broader level, it means that we are not wise enough to judge effectively how something really felt on the whole. Post-event evaluations we make would be biased to the situations faced near the end of things. And those one or two events at the end will probably not carry the full significance of the entire effect. To take a stretch, it's probably like asking the question what kind of person you would be/how things would turn out, if not for X. Such really cannot truly be answered because X already happened and the askance, however regretful it is, is based on a reality you have already been affected and changed by. It's also probably like what aWWI solider survivor had said in an interview in Band of Brothers before a Band of Brothers (WWII 10-part series show) episode was played, "If we were in other circumstances, we could have been good friends. But he was just doing his job, and I was doing my job, and in that context, we had no choice." (paraphrased) Let me sugest that when you combine both sentiments, you come close to the implication of the rule.

Finally-
"these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, eventhe depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."
- 1 Corinthians 2:10 - 11

There can be many things that bridges understanding, but anything that comes from man, while useful, is far from being the ultimate channel. Peak-end rule only reveals the weakness of man in being a finite being. There is more than just that.

If anything would make things clear, it won't be found in the wisdom of man, but the power of God.

"No, I don't feel lucky to be alive! I feel lucky I'm not dead. There's a difference." -- Mr Stoller, Breaking Away

Between nowhere and goodbye -

2009-06-28T21:13:00.002+08:00

The NSFs from my intake probably all feel it by now.
We have finished all our training. We have been through the worst phases of what our vocation can afford to offer us. We have been in where we are posted to long enough, and by now, we know our stuff-

ORD is coming :P

But well, not yet. This odd phase of almost reaching it allows much thinking.

I can look back and think about many mistakes in my life, but I think one of the best moves I made in my life, is having built solid friendships with a few close brothers. This bunch who I can go beyond a label of "best friends", who will always exist more than a photo to be posted as a facebook profile picture and who are there.

Something I actually can say I did right in life. Heh. Thank God :)

Something we wish to say if we were better writers

2009-06-19T15:41:00.003+08:00

Sometimes writers are praised to be good writers because they can capture the essence of an emotion which has not been given any name.

I have much appreciation for greater minds who can craft literature beyond a mere philsophical retreat of words being not enough, or just a faint justification of calling it 'mixed feelings'.

One emotion which I believe such a greater mind must address, is the emotion when a person is just next to you but who really is a million miles away.

Such a defeat is faced in varying forms. An old friend who you had shared a past that was less wiser with that you bumped into. A relative who you had always heard about, finally met, and who you struggle to break through formalities and make up for lost years. An important person to you who is pulling away and who makes you wonder over the concious attempts to catch up. A colleague who you work with closely on a daily basis, and find yourself having to discuss work even when it's lunch. A good friend who you know will always be there, but physical proximities insist on having both of you apart. A spouse whom through domestic drudgeries has become a stranger. A grandfather who you had negelcted a proper responsibility to spend time with, who you can only approach now with sheepish awkwardness and a strained awareness that he is getting old.

A strange reality of things is that on those various fronts, such a defeat need not always be painful to us. Sometimes it can be as fleeting as the thought process when you walk pass a begger, rushing towards a next destination. Even if we finally decide that such is painful to us, the remorse or regrets sink in at that moment when you realise it. It can even flood you quite intensely, but that may be the point. Intense moments don't last that long. And even when you do make that instance of connection with that someone because circumstance or divine appointment granted it, the refreshment allows its effect to linger only for so long. After that, it can stay on (arguably, just merely) as a prized moment in memory.

A gym-time conversation with a colleague recently revealed a very simple way to express this emotion. He said,

"Got scolded by my boss really badly la just now."

"Oh. Why?"

"We didn't manage to finish something by the deadline given. It's not anyone's fault really... Not his, not ours. It's just that when you deal with something like time... you know, some things just are not in your control..."

"Time's fault? Haha. I guess you can't say that too."

By the way, he is the most hardworking guy in the department (No, its not something subjective. Everybody agrees that he is.)

"Yup things are always more complicated. Difficult even. Otherwise it wouldn't mean a thing."
- A Friend's text message

Folded Butterfiles

2009-05-30T00:39:00.004+08:00

After some time in life, we will inevitably realise that we don’t need the answer to every question. Partly because we can’t but also because we don’t always know what are the right questions to ask anyway.

Sometimes, it takes time for us to realise the second part and in the process realising of it, we will keep insisting on it. Maybe in quiet confidence, maybe to the extent that it subtly frustrates, maybe even by expressing it in bitter angst.

I shall be talking about two ideas, will connect them both, and then relate it to the above thoughts by asking questions with regard to each.

The first idea was presented some time ago when I had watched a friend in his relationship honeymoon-period, reciting a 'how-it-all-happened' with his girlfriend of about three months beside him, and then hearing from his girlfriend her side of the story. Though both reports were made in the presence of each party, I guess only the people who weren't involved in it were wise enough to notice the differences in what was said by each. Some were tricky to spot while some were quite obviously observed. There were different empahses, different motives and reasons, different events considered significant, different turning points in situations, even different feelings felt.

Such a thought struck me again, more strongly this time, when I was visiting a bangkok slum area. This was home to one of the students who had participated in the English Camp I had facilitated. The camp wasn't a stay-over one but a day camp (like 9 to 4pm) and it was held at a church. The kids who attended it actually belonged to the neighbourhood the church was situated in. Thus, after the camp, we had the opportunity to fetch some of the kids home since most of them lived in homes that were in walkable distance from the church. When the youth organisation's staff had first mentioned this practice, I had originally agreed with the other facilitators that it would be nice to take the kids home since it allowed us to build a closer and more personal relationship with them. Afterall, we would be visiting their family and everyday surroundings.

However, when you actually are in the place that they live, entered through a narrow walkway along a roadside, your path towards the 'home' guided by the uneven wooden boards covering a ground that was slightly damp with a gambling arcade machine strangely next to the 'bedroom' area. And when you stand easily so out of place and allow thoughts consisting of concepts like hygine, political structures, NGOs, human dignity to flow into what you are thinking about. And when you visit everyday although you can only do it for another two more days since you have to catch your flight home later on... A closer and more personal relationship isn't really what one feels that he has achieved upon emerging from it.

The questions that can be asked here – Do both parties really need to feel the same experience for the reality to be justified as ‘real’? Beyond the moral and heartstring implications of one not being honest in the expression of feelings, what about if there was honesty, but not full honesty? What about if the relational experiences were just merely different based on the subjectivism involved? I don't think relativism in the realm of feelings has really been explored much in the light of how the post-modernistic society today confuses relativism to be applicable in the realm of truth, but even if we were aware of considering relativism in feelings, we would probably treat it with more idealism than logical analysis. As Logan said in X-Men Origins: Wolverine when he realised that Sliverfox had mutant powers of persuasion and that the relationship between them could have been false, “It was real for me.” But would that be good enough? Can we say the feelings, notwithstanding whoever that may be invovled in its crossfire, are all right when I'm all right with it?

The second idea is close to the first and can possibly be a thought that progresses after acknowledging the possibility of differences in a connection. The idea can occur when the realisation that connections between humans exist in a state of flux, or another way to say it, we need to move on. Its not an emo kind of thing - it's just a practical limitation of being a finite being.

The guilt and feeling of being overwhelmed by all the relationships is easily identified when you volunteer at a youth organisation. The various people you come into contact with, the many faces that you will meet, the persons that come into your life and become a monetary routine for that period of time. The difficulty faced here (or rather, the realisation that dawns on you) is that a single person can't save the world. Just as a superhero's acts of heroism are clouded by their problems in personal life, volunteers can go onto the 'scene' where they're in - be teacers, facilitators, speakers, pastors, trainer, and when they walk down from it, meet individuals.

And thats when they realise, its not about a 5 days intensive workshop. Not about a time when you ask rhetorical questions which you expect to set one thinking. Its not even about an honestly made one hour speech.

Commitment, consistency, time. Really, it's back to such basics. The simple reality that strikes us revealing that it can't be given not due to competency, but due to ability.

This realisation has its questions as well. To give an example, let us consider people who are attention-seeking, not really socially accepted and largely rejected by cliques. I had met such a 'type' back in my training days. It was during the Passing Out Parade training time that I really got the chance to 'get to know' him better since my squad was marching beside his. When we had our water breaks, the interval allowed some courteous gestures to be expressed and even granted me a chance to be a good listening ear for awhile. In other words, I was nice. I did not ignore him like the rest, but as a friend gently probed when I mentioned this to him, why stop there?

Why didn't I step out of the comfort of sitting with my squad to go and sit next to him and have a conversation instead of just being polite? Why not carry on the relationship, why not give your energy, time and commitment into it?

Mainly, the questions and issues struggle with the difficulty of 'definitions' in relationships. As the man who wanted to justify himself asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbour?"

Jesus answered that question by the parable of the good samritan, he did not answer questions. He stated how to be a good neighbour.

At the end of the day, that is really an answer enough. Afterall, Sliverfox did tell Logan later on, "It was real for me too."

"...because solitude had made a selection in her memory and burned the dimming piles of nostalgic waste that life had accumulated in her heart, and had purified, magnified, and externalized the others, the most bitter ones."
- One Hundred Years of Solitude, Gabriel Garcia Marquez

Re: Aware Saga

2009-05-14T00:04:00.001+08:00

Just wanted to say a few things with regard to this in terms of the issue itself (i.e. minus the progressive drama of how everything unfolded and concluded)-

Firstly, I think that the youth has been quite underestimated. What is presented in a material/session is not what a youth will automatically accept as 'fact'. A youth should be able to think for himself/herself, and with the benefit of a Singapore education, most singaporean youths would be equipped enough do some critical thinking (at the very least some la). They would be able to manage with skills like comparison and contrast, inference, and especially important with this case, discernment.

In fact, that should be a key lesson taught in sexuality education, wise discernment. Such discernment, on the plane of logic and concepts can be even easier than the discernment one needs when handling relationships. Discernment is useful and needed when it comes to content that can be perceived as sensitive and concern value systems. With discernment properly exercised, one is allowed to make a honest judgment of something that is unbiased and can be personal in expressing his opinion.

How should wise discernment be taught? We can explore a few examples of this in the logical mistakes along the way within this Aware thing.

One example, (and this is the one that everyone who is against the ousted new guards is particularly heated over) is the idea that being against homosexuality is considered a disruption of democracy and not being tolerant. Of course, a question like "Do you think homosexuality is wrong?" is not the sort of question can be answered with a simple, "Yes." nowadays. This is because there is a problem in that question, due to that embedded logical mistake (which I had bolded).

Or in other words, people mostly ask that question as a loaded question. The issue on their minds is not really the issue of homosexuality, rather it is the issue of choice. The issue that really angers them is that another individual's right and freedom is being violated, and that is why the question can be asked so easily as a taunt.

Using wise discernment, this is a logical mistake because an acceptance of persons is not the same as an acceptance of ideas. Democracy and freedom of rights should not be confused with relativism. The issue of choice and the broader issue of its implications on human dignity, rights to survival, rights to a quality of life etc. cannot be immediately linked to an acceptance (especially so for a blind acceptance) of ideas. In fact, the issue of choice and freedom has a more complicated dimension in terms of an individual's rights to justice and morals. But anyway, this should clarify that (at least in terms of ideas) the old guards and the new guards were disagreeing about something that can be less heated. The new guards and the people on their side, probably has no qualms with an individual's freedom of rights. They probably also have no qualms with regard to the acceptance of homosexuals as persons deserving of such dignity and choice. The issue that is in dispute here is the nature of homosexuality.

Another way of saying it, is how homosexuality is defined? Is it a lifestyle issue, an individual preference issue or a moral issue? The lines between each may be a little blurred, but they are distinct.

Lifestyle issues are how decisions one makes in living his life. How much time he spends with family or work, how much energy he devotes to a hobby or social activity, what sort of mindset he has, how he chooses to spend his money etc. The decisions made will reflect on the values a person has. The choices made in such a domain can be judged as either positive or negative depending on the value system that the judgment is dispensed from (E.g. One who prioritizes money over persons would naturally find a guy chasing nothing but career advancement something 'acceptable') Of course, there are social norms that define what a right lifestyle should be. These norms are usually formed out of good sense. For example, its good to have balanced diet, proper nutrition and ample exercise.

Individual preference issues consist of decisions made on personal taste. Such matters, like a favourite eatery, enjoying long bus rides, always eating ice cream after dinner etc. don't have much bearing over another individual or society in general. And if I like Pepperoni Classic while you prefer Aloha, we don't really have to get too worked up about things.

Finally, moral issues are issues that concern right and wrong.

Not speaking on the side of the new guards, but rather, on my being a Christian, my view is that homosexuality is a moral issue. Because of how we were made and how the law-giver should be obeyed.

Having said that, let me revert to the original point - before any lesson on sexuality is conveyed, wise discernment should first be taught. Notice, that be it a lifestyle issue, an individual preference issue or even a moral issue, the person in question is never (or at least, he/she shouldn't be) refused of his rightful rights. A fat person will only be told that living a lifestyle with unhealthy nutrition and lack of excercise is not advisable and that he should try to lose weight and keep fit for his personal benefit, but he is should be still treated with the same dignity. Rights may be removed from him (such as requiring him to run during recess etc.) but its more of a form of challenge for him to reach an ideal weight rather than violate his freedom. People who likes Macs as compared to PCs are both equally human. And every convicted person would deserve a fair trial before he is given a rightful punishment (It is in some sense a right as well? A right to be corrected, so as to live a -better- life).

As a Christian, I rather be rejected on the basis of what I believe than what I do not believe.

And I'm sure everyone else would want such a form of right.

"The only reason our own government was able to betray our country and us and sell it to the Russians - our misery, this wary - all of that could only happen because we are stupid, because we know nothing, we understand nothing, we cannot read and write, we believe anyone who comes in front of us and comes out with clever stuff, holds a piece of paper and says this is the law from today onwards. We are a nation of the blind. Anyone can do what he likes with us. Push us in the pond, leave us standing somewhere, lead us astray, even kill us. Only one who can see knows where he is, and can make up his own mind whether he wants to be there, and he sees where he is going all by himself... I want you and my children to learn to read and write. I want them to learn to make their own minds up about what is good and what is evil, who is lying and who is telling the truth, who is an enemy and who is friend."
-- Afghanistan, Where God Only Comes to Weep, Siba Shakib

While Being there for someone else

2009-04-14T23:03:00.010+08:00

I was jogging near my home last week and as usual, had stopped for a breather when I finally reached the park area. I saw a middle-aged Indian man who was sitting on one of those exercise machines meant for public usage, casually doing a few sets of lifts on it. Had an army singlet on (the logo, due to my being a policeman, I have no idea belongs to which unit), so maybe he was a regular.

Only seconds after I saw him, a small boy who probably around five or six years old came towards him dribbling a soccer ball. The father asked, "You finish playing already?"

The son said, "No. I want to play with you."

Somewhat awkwardly, the man got up from the machine and directed the boy towards the nearby open space beside the badminton court. And since I happened to be pretty off-form that day, I decided to watch the father-son play for awhile.

The game was a simple one of passing, father kicked ball to son - son kicked back to father, and so on. It was quite easy to observe that the father was obviously playing with consideration of his son's ability. Despite this, the son was still able to 'be angry' at the fathers for the slightly more difficult balls that he could not get, and had to run after. I didn't hear what he said when he stomped his feet and threw up both his hands in exasperation. But the basic idea conveyed through the body language was probably "It's your fault."

Once, the ball had flew a bit too high and got into the bushes. The father made a gentle gesture with his hands that signaled, 'take the ball'. So the son tried to, but before an attempt was made and after he had circled around the bushes for sometime, he shook his head and pointed to the bushes, "You take." So the father did.

I know that the above episode is no big deal in itself. Similar stuff can happen everywhere when it comes to relationships like this. Strangely though, there is not much of a fuss made about it.

What I mean by strangely- is that its a relationship where things are the most easily taken for granted. Where the self-centeredness and selfishness of one party can overlooked without pain. Where the injustices to the other party are treated as a norm. Where the sacrifices made by the other party are expected and unappreciated.

What I mean by its not made a fuss about- is that in our era of emo-ness (for the youth at least), those are the things we are frustrated about, get upset about, get angry over and basically rage/bottle up intense emotions over. Be it whether we are on the recieving end of the above mentioned treatment from an organisation (SAF is a good example:P), person, situation or whatsoever circumstance that presents such obstacles to us.

And in that strangeness and no-big-dealness of it all, such a relationship has a silent and consistent kind of beauty. While we are elsewhere, while we are feeling burdens, even while we are comforting others - while we are engaged with the others that both occupy us with the obstacles and help us to resolve those obstacles, we belong.

Sometimes it will occur to us, and then we can feel thankful about being associated to such a unit. Such a unit that is more than a mere whisper of grace, more than a door that is open, more than a fading clue that points to our relationship with God. We might not fuss over it too much. Ironically, the times when we do start to think about such things in terms of a fuss, what happens is usually quite undramatic.

"Because they are my family."
- A Filipino little girl had answered this after a long pause when she was asked why she thought that her family was the one she trusted the most in her life

Catching Up

2009-04-07T20:22:00.002+08:00

Then there was silence.

Glenn Tan kept his eye contact on him as he returned, almost naturally, to his meal. He bent back towards his own meal after watching him slice up the last morsel of chicken and faked a cough.

A part Glenn felt himself half-anticipating the "sian" to come. The one used to fill the air as such awkward silences. Actually, they filled silences in general even if it wasn't openly acknowledged that it was an awkward silence. Somehow, the "sian" was always effective enough to divert the conversation back into comfortable breathing space, possibly even a high. There was a cost though. It had to be at the expense of something else. A sacrifice of something else - someone's bad attitude, a leader's poor management of an event, a situation's unfairness to you - at the expense of that something else, plus a "sian" at the front of it, equals salvation to the human to human conversation.

But the part of Glenn that felt this was really the more casual part. The "world-can-be-a-better-place-but-I-won't-care-since-no-one-really-cares-and-its-not-that-pragmatic-to-go-about-caring-so-much-about-it-in-this-detail-anyway" feeling part.

The other part of Glenn, the one which was more-than casual, the one that was blessed/cursed with the conviction and emotion made Glenn was half-surprised that he should be having such a part of himself.

I hate him he thought, and surprised himself more when he had put the emotions into words.

Jun Yang didn't know this of course. He regarded his friend as brother, as part of 'Nicholas they-all', as one of the more frequent DOTA players who was pro with melee heros. And frankly, this knowledge of the friendship didn't really go into actually placing a label onto who he was. He would have found his hatered of him more surprising than Glenn.

Actually, maybe it would be more surprising to Jun Yang than Glenn because Glenn didn't know how to explain to him anyway. He was being emo la. He knew that.

"Sian la." Jun Yang said, "I know that guy is not my platoon, but his in my company. He should really learn some respect. If he was not PES C I will definitely have pumped him!"

Glenn nodded. I hate him, he thought again, this time with more clarity. With more calmness even. I hate him for how different he has become. I hate him for how it always has to be about NS now. I hate him for how we need to 'catch up' at a dinner, why it has to be a dinner and not something else, why it cannot really do better as something else anyway. I hate that we do this only after so long, and the fact that we know that the reality of whats really going on in our lives can't be fleshed in justified detail anyway. I hate-

"Oi Glenn, which one you looking at?"

Glenn turned his eyes back to Jun Yang, and then to his fries. He waited for the Swensen's waitress to refill his drink, and then he took a long sip of water before responding.

"Sian."

-------------

This story had somehow floated into me after I finished a shower and was sitting blankly at the side of my bed and thinking about my schedule.

While I don't share the sentiments extended to such an extreme of hatred like Glenn, I guess its not that I haven't feel a sense of disappointment sometimes at the concept of 'dinner appointments'. Friendship requires commitment, consistency and all the usual stuff everyone knows about. However, when you are no more in the same place already and not doing things that require the contact and which allow each others presence to be taken for granted, to attempt a return at those ideals, we meet up. Sometimes, just sometimes (and maybe just for certain people) its easy to feel that your doing it to reforge that connection again. And seriously, that connection can't be reforged. It needed that context, that situation, that immaturity, that flaws, that circumstances, that lack of planning, to be appreciated as what it was.
When its over, it really is over. Meeting up to catch up won't make it happen again.

That might be the reason why I notice that the best conversations I have are with people I suddenly bump into (especially when your traveling somewhere with quite a distance to go with nothing in your hands other than an MP3 player or book) instead of planning to meet up with. When your context is already fixed and destinations of the day set, for a moment, your world intersects with someone else's when you had no intention to in the first place.

Maybe that's why they call it 'falling in love'.

“I’d rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I’m not.” – Kurt Cobain

Guarding Something. Maybe.

2009-03-22T20:21:00.008+08:00

Recently, there was an NSF posted to my department who was cited to have the condition of agrophobia. Actually, other than the email I received about his case and certain episodes when I saw him, I can't say that I know him that well. One of this episodes was at a departmental event when I was walking with my colleague towards a table to have lunch.

He was seated by himself , and this was pretty prominent since the other tables were all occupied by groups of 5 or 6, cliqued naturally by office divisions. After settling down, I saw that the office division he belonged to had actually signaled him to join them to eat with the causal, "Hey, come la. Sit here." which he turned down with a silent shaking of his head.

Agrophobia (as wikipedia says) is an anxiety disorder, which can be literally translated to 'fear of the marketplace' from greek. With such a condition, panic attacks come when the sufferer is in an environment where he/she perceives to have little control over the situation, when feelings of being trapped or insecure arise. The greek origin of the word does illustrate how crippling such a disability is, since the marketplace was probably the place where all the economic transactions would occur. Agrophobia would hence render a person unable to carry out his buying and selling, and daily needs.

But to say the least, marketplaces aren't the worst of humans. Being sadly more complicated than that, we can come together to provide many more effective instances where one can be convinced of the perception that he/she has little control over the situation, and when one feels insecure or trapped. I mean, the irony of being in a crowd but feeling alone is just one way one can realise an insecurity. There are others.

A principle highlighted in this, is that being sheltered does not necessarily mean one is secure. In fact, it could well be an inverse proportion -the more sheltered one is, the more insecure he is- can arguably be an accepted 'absolute' statement.

I thought about this when watching the NUS Eusoff Hall production, "You've Got a Friend in Me". John, whose imaginary friend whom he thought he had gotten rid off when he was 13 'returns', together with three new extra 'friends'. So the production mainly goes through how John manages with these 'friends' that no one can see except him. It can be suggested that person can create imaginary friends to tackle an insecurity (one friend for one insecurity even. lol.), while that is possibly another instance of how insecurity functions, something with less psycho-drama and which an everyday human can relate to, is the judgment of reality.

Maybe we can say that we learn this as we grow up. First, through the simple physical objects, and then onwards to the more subtle social dynamics and unspoken rules of society. We finally get to a somewhere when we feel comfortable with our judgements (and leave the philosophers behind to grapple with the more abstract judgements unrequired in the marketplace, like concepts of justice and time, and security)

Still, in that comfort zone, we don't learn everything about making judgements. There are gaps in how effective our judgement is when it comes to certain things - and thats especially the case when it comes to relationships and people.

Fundamentally, that is a little bit of what agoraphobia is about - a failed judgement or perception about relationships and people. When the perception is fuzzy or wrongly assumed, it is thought that we don't have control over the situation, and so one feels insecure about it.

As sensitive one can be, it is sometimes hard to discern realities socially. Maybe, when parents/elders give pep talks which are on repeated topics, they are actually finding a comfort in that intersection that both of you can relate in? It might be the few topics that can bring that familiar connection between both. Maybe, when a younger sibling keeps constantly doing a certain action, its because the person would like to spend more time with you. Maybe, when she said that in the message, it meant that..

In that sense, the term 'agoraphobia' is quite rightly named. The 'marketplace' works in that way afterall - displaying goods, showing what you got, trying to outdo others with your goods so you can make that transaction, allowing you to move on with a better life. Ultimately, the one who has the most 'control', 'wins'.

But we should take comfort in the fact that there will be places that won't be 'marketplaces'. There definitely still are.

Family, close friends, loved ones....and maybe even some parts of church.

Blatant sarcasm aside (:P), it does make sense why Paul prays for the Philippians (1:9) in this way-

"And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight,"

in the sense that, as Christians, we're supposed to grow in the understanding of judgement. And there probably is no better way to grasp that understanding then when we grasp it sincerely through abounding more and more in knowledge and depth of insight of love.

"How do you know what is real is not something you are imagining, and what you are imagining is not something that is real?" -- Edward, You've Got a Friend in Me

A Measure of Beauty

2009-03-11T22:07:00.003+08:00

There are times when I sit in a service, worship session or even a sermon and upon hearing certain things said, wonder to myself, "Hmm. Was that theologically right?"

I had a short moment of such pensiveness at a my most recent service when the pastor asked the congregation, "And you know who is the happiness person today?" -pause for effect- "God. God is the happiest person today, because we are here to worship Him."

Wellll :/ The church wasn't really that crowded. And even if it was, its not about the numbers since not everyone present may have the right ideas of worship and God. And even if they all had the right ideas, they might not have the right attitude and priority of worship at that point in time. And even if they all had the right ideas, attitude and priority, there will be moments in the worship where the hearts will not be fully cast towards that direction. And. So on.

Then again, this train of thought can be extended beyond just a service or worship session to Christian living itself. Its the same sort of logic, God is happy because you are doing quiet time. God is happy because you are praying. God is happy because you decided to make certain decesions based on Christian principles. And. Wellll :/

Ultimately, it leads one to a humbling realisation that our love to God is a flawed kind of love. Flawed because, its not complete? Not the way it really should be? It could be felt that there is no big deal in saying this because we are already quite used to talking about our limitations with regard to God. Ironically, it might hit us harder if we are gently told that the way we were loving a person was flawed. Instead of guilt though, the first response would probably be to question how the person could be the judge in saying that such way of loving was flawed?

What love is... that is quite a major topic which shall not be what this post is about. Strangely, I don't think we need to define love to think about whether certain ways of loving are flawed.

Slumdog Millionaire gives us a few examples that can be thought over - Firstly, the love of a mother. She shouted out for Jamal and Salim to run away from the anti-muslim Hindu attackers instead of running first to seek her own safety. No one would really see anything 'wrong' with the love, except if we can clincially ask why not she fled from the scene as well and trust that Jamal and Salim would take the hint from everyone scattering away to also flee. They could always meet up again later. Using this example might be a bit of a stretch, but it does highlight one question. How correct is sacrificial love when the sacrifice does not do justice to a few factors? It might not be just about the sacrifice of life, but perhaps of time, of energy, of convinience. A parent who may refuse to accept gifts from his children so they "don't waste money". A friend who insists on having just a simple birthday treat at the fastfood center instead of a gathering at a higher end restaurant so his friends need not pay so much. A relative who insists that it would be all right for her to miss the gathering at the restaurant because she is busythat evening. Instead of paying for her fee and having her eat just for a moment, she should just not attend. Is it worth it to give up something for someone because on your terms, it is better for the person?

A more extended case - the older brother kind of love that Salim showed to Jamal. No doubt that he did love Jamal, he made it his responsibility to protect him, to the extent of possibly risking his life when Jamal was in danger. Yet, there were moments when he did not see how Jamal valued something and considered the importance of something that mattered to him. When they were kids, it was the Amitabh authograph. Later when they were older, it was Latika. It was love, but not love to the fullest and most absolute extent? A friend argued that this is not called flawed love, but just growing up. It is true that its about "growing up" and on a broader perspective, progression. That is argubly the beauty and miracle of relationships actually - that two individuals can move on, things around them can move on, and still catch up as if "nothing has changed" (though the sensitive will remark that it is different).

But that should not be said too easily. As seen in the relationship that gave this movie the touch of fairytale- the romance between Jamal and Latika. Those who wait. Those who are faithful. A clinical question to ask here is what exactly are you being faithful to? A person? The notion of love? A memory of what was shared? A memory of a Latika being left behind as the train rushed on? To quote another friend, "People dilute and reduce it[love] to a feel-good and mysterious entity that fits into whatever concept they desire or percive" Such a generalisation pokes into the devotion of Jamal to Latika, and undying devotion in general. Because the fairytale usually ends the story as "happily ever after" when the courtship is complete and the part two of living together and having kids isn't revealed, is such lasting devotion also in some way a flawed way of loving? If in the end, the fairytale doesn't work out, things happen, 'love' somehow doesn't find a way - then what?

Argubly, thinking about flawed love easily leads one to the thought of "It could have been so much more beautiful." But after flaws and all the mixtures of emotions that can arise due to the defeated expectations from the desire of 'perfect love', it might be wisely realised that actually. If not for it, beauty and love would not have the appreciation it deserves. (As flawed as the appreciation of beauty and love is, that is.)

Usually I'll conclude with a quote right. Friends have confessed that sometimes they 'can't stand' going through the whole thing and just drag down to the quote. (Yes, forgiven -_-) This time -

I've heard this quite a lot. Had bought the album randomly cos it happened to be cheap. Listened to the tune for the first time on a long bus ride. Decided to loop it when I went for a jog.

I used to feel that the lyrics were quite selfish. Then, after hearing it for so long... Somehow, I just feel that after the bridge, by the third time the chorus is sang, the self-centeredness has been slowly dissolved, and whats left over is a silent, assured, trustful acceptance. It's no more the bitterness of "I want you to know", but about the moment and about the letting go.

In a way, it illustrates how as time goes on, some things become more important to you, and some things less important.

And that there is a difference between you mean so much, and you mean so much.

Telling the Truth

2009-03-06T21:30:00.001+08:00

The observer principle.

A term from physics, it describes the situation whereby the observer would affect the event itself, changing it for what it actually was in the absence of an observer.

Journalists would be aware of this since it describes the difficulty they would experience when doing a story where that they choose immerse themselves into. For the real story, and what actually happens, it would mean that they really have to be there and experience the setting itself. In practical terms, it probably means to follow a person on his daily routines, taste the lunch he usually buys, wait with him on his long journeys to work, watch him interact with his co-workers, family... and all the while, just silently observing. It's another human's second best attempt to understand the culture, manner, speech, and what matters to another individual and anything else that can enhance the story that ties this individual to it. (A questionable first best, would be to actually talk to the person. But then again, people and questions are probably two of the most likely things that can change a person's life.)

In view of the Observer's principle, professional journalism probably has a rule that instructs journalists that decide to take this path of immersion in their stories to be unobtrusive. To bring the reality of something out and truly giving readers the emotional impact that the observed episode should muster, a true story must be told. Another way to say it, a true story is enough.

This uneasy feat of taking a step away from what is happening and not being involved in it at all raises several ethical dilemmas for journalists. What sort of information should be left out? How much of the whole story should be told? If certain parts were omitted, would it be considered a form of deception?

Beyond just the publication of the article, one of the most difficult ethical dilemmas concerns the Observer principle itself - when should one help?

If you are doing an article on a family who had lived on welfare benefits which would soon be coming to an end due to a change in government policy, and you go into the detail of how they live on the edge, watching how they grapple with the fever of their baby girl - would you decide to stay observing, or rush them into the car to bring the baby to the hospital?

If you are doing a story on child illegal immigrants and watch one be abandoned by his smuggler, see him desperate, crying and begging you for help, would you go ahead to take him to safety?

Well, the above logic was applied to journalists. But what about philosophers?

Respecting the Observer principle does protect the medium of awareness creation- In order to provoke, enrage, shame and engage the masses, no means of communication can be more powerful enough than the truth itself. To effectively milk on this truth, the story has to be untainted by a momentary saviour - Beyond the face that story illustrates, many more individuals can be helped. And yet, it does take a lot of wisdom in knowing how far a journalist can remain a journalist in the story he will tell. And along that logic, a philosopher cannot remain a philosopher.

To explore the moral ambiguities and morally helpless situations in such a light - perhaps those that say that God is not fair can take a moment to pause and see that morality really isn't so simple to grapple with.

"Neither condoning or condemning, I understand." - Dr. Manhattan, Watch Men

Birthdays aren't the celebration of self, but the celebration of Life-

2009-02-28T22:23:00.005+08:00

-the life that God has breathed onto us.

As a brother had said in a facebook tag, "Another year added to your life brother. God is good :)"
That really does sum everything up.

I know that due to the nature of how I blog, my blogging voice is usually quite impersonal. But to make the exception just this once..

Thank you guys =) (As much as I suspect that the surprisingly large number that remembered and sent me messages today was due to facebook:P) Still, its when you get older that you start to learn how to appreciate the people around you. So yup.

Another thing that one thinks about when he gets old is the passing of time. At the speed of life, it is difficult to capture this. Let me suggest that one possible way to do so, is to ride on an MRT train. And as the train moves on, think over what that station means to you. It could be a place where your secondary school was at. It could be where your grandmother's home is. It could be near a location where you had a memorable meal with a friend. It could be a near the place you lost a competition you had put so much into. It could be where a girl you liked stays. It could be where you had a stayover with friends. It could be where your first NS camp was at. It could be where you had a fight with a friend. It could be where you used to always go to cut your hair.

Of course, some stations will mean a lot more than a just single event. Some stations might mean a lot less because the events that happened around them were not significant. Some stations will not really mean anything to you at all since you had barely been to the place.

By that logic, a geographical psychoanalysis of ourselves paints quite a deep picture of who we are doesn't it. (There could be some facebook MRT-ology thing. I.e. Having each station from Boon Lay to Pasir Ris and asking questions like "Who is the first person you think of at that stop." Somebody beat me to create this please :P)

That said, the speed of life does cause the geography to move on as well. Perhaps that would justify them as the containers of the passing of time, since we are a variable in almost a similar style as them. Who knows what Joo Koon might mean to you in time to come eh?

"A heart is not judged by how much you love, but how much you are loved by others." - Wizard of Oz (The Wizard of Oz telling this to the Tin Man)

A few seconds later

2009-02-20T21:02:00.001+08:00

I had ended work late due to a last mintue project and had to take the crowded bus along jammed expressway to get to the library. So I endured the ride, finally got to the library half an hour before closing. I dropped off my books, decided not to get anything and left the place, briskly walking towards the bus stop. This journey is one that passes by the mall, goes through the MRT interchange, goes across a road and then goes along a long covered walkway which connected the bus interchange to my bus stop.

It is also a journey I've been making for ages, the sort of routinal walk which that allows your thoughts to fade into day dreams and stuff because your footsteps already know what to do. Then, my day dreams and stuff were about the slightly vexed feelings I had of how much time I had wasted on the bus ride from my office to the library just so I could return my overdue books.

So, with a head filled with that slight resentment, it was about a few seconds later that my brain could register that there was a busker playing the guitar and singing a song along the walkway. A few seconds later- meant that I was several footsteps away from him when I realised that he was really good, and several footsteps almost nearing the bus stop when I had the dilemma whether to walk back to show my appreciation monetarily.

And it was probably after I sat at the bus stop to wait for my bus that I pondered over my entire thought process with regard to that busker that I felt the feelings of guilt, regret and shame sink in slowly.

Its very strange how conclusions about the human condition are realised through personal incidents like this. In this particular case, it reveals the strange social awkwardness of walking back to the busker just to show your monetary appreciation after you've walked a distance away. In a more literary light, it can be described as a fear of taking a second chance. (But to be less philosophical and more blunt, it can be a just simple social commentary on mindlessness of societal values/memes of 'saving face' and 'keep being on the move')

The above account was probably more felt by me because I had not saw the busker in numbers, but as an actual person who was there. He was blessed with a good voice and very proficient with the guitar (I thought over the amount of effort and perserverence needed to reach that level despite his being blind)

Feelings are felt more intensely when its over just one person rather than when its over a number of them. Oddly its a single person that would mean the world to someone, but never the world itself.

Journalists have both figured out and illustrated this concept through their technique in moving heartstrings - finding a face to the tragedy. A Mr Lim who struggles to feed his family of five in the financial crisis through part-time jobs, after losing his job in a foreign firm. A 12 year old Pramana who was accused of stealing cigarettes from a shop owner in central Java, and detained for 17 days. A narrative in Time or Newsweek about the story of a particular single mother who entered the sex trade to support her child somehow lends the colour, depth and voice to the causes that the world needs to deal with today.

Maybe its because we can't love humanity personally or care for it in any exclusive way. Perhaps the way most people learn to love fiercely is first through getting themselves lost in their emotions. This happens when personal tragedy, however egocentrically indulgent that tragedy may be, lashes them into realisations of the deeper and broader application of love.

But if thats the way human perception work - I thank God that its a beautiful way of managing the reality of how we progress from self-centeredness to a place when we attempt not to be so selfish. We learn from it and know from it, since it was personal.

In this sense, the Christian concept of surrender of self and denying ourselves is not really all that religious. It would be a matter of salvation, yes. But its also a matter of understanding a part of life.

Conclusions about the human condition always lead us back to the basic lessons anyway, and in this case, the next time I am seconds too late- I will stop, walk back naturally to the person, and show that bit of appreciation with sincerity.

"We see everthing in a glass, darkly. Sometimes we can peer through the glass clean, we'd see much more. But then we would no longer see ourselves."
-- Jostein Gaarder, Through a Glass, Darkly

I am - Sound

2009-01-26T22:48:00.000+08:00

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." -- John 10:14-16

If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound when no one is around to hear it?

I think the above philosophy question does a lot of disgrace to philosophers, because of reasons... that don't really have to be framed within arguments. (Seriously, sometimes you just know it -_-)

But besides gut feeling, this can also be suggested by responding with another question in a similar fashion - When our thoughts run unheard, will it be judged fairly if there no one actually hears what we really think?

Why it dismantles the philosophical query is because of how it highlights the fact that we are persons that have thoughts and emotions and exist beyond just an empirical analysis of the physical world. There are things that matter to us. There are situations that will bother us. And being human, the management of all these details will consistently be affecting us.

However, an individual's logical and emotional sensitivities cannot be elevated too highly. There are issues that go beyond the personal, into a state when its difficult for both our mind and emotions to comprehend.

"What does it mean to say that Cambodia's Pol Pot slaughtered two million people - a quarter of his nation's populations? Or that Stalin murdered thirty million and Mao sixty-five million? Does the staggering "relative weight" of the first equal the equally staggering "numerical weight" of the other two? The mind boggles at such questions, and the heart becomes numb at the mention of such figures. We have no calculus to measure them, and our emotions are not strong enough to embrace them.... in all history there have been only twenty-nine years in which there was no war under way somewhere, but does this say something overwhelming about us humans or is it only a tasty morsel for dinner party conversation?"
-- Unspeakable, Os Guinness

And personal agony sometimes can so scarily remove us from the reality of these voices - these voices that ran and even now, are running unheard. Voices that call out, longing for someone to disrupt their pleas, for a glimmer of reassurance through a voice that instead of suppressing, direct.

The cries of the heart and the soul can be so numbingly loud in our everyday midst.. and they call out for justice, for redemption, for a savior.

Someone, who hears them.

2008

2008-12-31T07:38:00.004+08:00

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom He is pleased!"

-- Luke 2:14 (ESV)

As the Christmas Sermon was droning on, I noticed this particular verse in the passage the preacher was preaching on. the word, "peace".

And it does make sense, why its so hard for us to be at peace with others. I mean a true, restful, trusting, sincere peace. Where we are at, when we are at, how we are at - we are always at some point in time when we have to look back and look ahead. When it will come to a time when we become tired to say "I missed.." or find it so difficult to say "I wish.." and when realise so uncertainly, how it has to go on.

A year doesn't just happen to you like that.

The meaningfulness of all reflections and thankfulness of about everything is on the basis that as Christians, we have been granted that peace with God. A peace with the One who is real, unchanging, true... who gives us that peace, there at that point in time- whatever point in time it may be.

I am - Sight

2008-12-15T00:30:00.005+08:00

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

-- John 8:12

When I was back in BPT, a certain phrase that kept popping up in squad mates conversations soon turned into a catch phrase -"What's going on?" And we ended up using that to amuse ourselves rather than actually finding out ("Hey Jared, whats going on?" "No idea.. James, whats going on?") We had a good reason in giving up anyway, because most of the time, we never did find out what was 'going on' until the very moment where the thing actually was 'on'.

I guess because its NS, which means you have another 40 equally clueless men stoning together with you at the moments of waiting, it doesn't make it that bad. However, not knowing something when you think you are supposed to, does inflict more than just an insanity to amuse the company your with with useless catch phrases in cases when its not NS.

What it inflicts, is probably related to man's inner capacity for detecting personal injustice. One of my pastor's illustrated this very simply through describing the need for him and his wife to have superb accuracy skills when cutting slices of cakes for each of their 4 children. Appeals and whines would otherwise arise.

A similar infliction would probably also be experienced when one is late for a costume party and is waiting with another friend at his place, unsure of when his friend's dad will be arriving to pick the both of them up. They both watch his television, wondering when they can go while attempting to ignore the people who tell them that everyone has already reached the place and are only waiting for them to cut the cake. ( lol:P)

As what NS men, children and a friend of mine have all shown - when something is unknown, unfair or uncertain, we are not at ease. Speaking more broadly, sight is something that is important to us. How things will be answered, what things will become, how will it all turn out.. The remedy of clarity is something pressing for us simply because of the immediacy of it. In this perspective, salvation is seen to be found in the discovery of a direction that is understood.

However, in ways other than the examples I gave, NS men, Children and friends of mine can show - not all questions can be answered.

A QT material I read recently contained a story about Mark, an Air Force Officer and Susan, his wife-

Mark loved Susan with all his heart. Due to a medical misdiagnosis, Susan had been rendered sightless, and was suddenly plunged into a world of darkness. When she first lost her sight, Mark heart-wrenchingly watched her sink into despair. He became determined to help his wife gain the strength and confidence she needed to become independent again.

Finally, Susan felt ready to return to her job, but how would she get there? She used to take the bus, but was now too frightened to get to the city herself. Mark decided to drive her to work each day, despite the both of them working on opposite ends of town.

However, soon Mark begin to realise that the arrangement was not working. It was hectic and costly. Susan had to start taking the bus again.

But the thought of something like that made her cringe. She was horrified, "I'm blind!" She responded bitterly. "How am I supposed to know where I'm going? I feel like your abandoning me."

Mark's heart broke when her heard her words, but he knew what had to be done. He promised to ride the bus with her, each morning and evening for as long as it took, until she got the hang of it. And that was what he did.

For 2 solid weeks, Mark accompanied Susan to and fro from work each day. He taught her how to rely on her other senses, especially her hearing, to determine where she was. He helped her befriend the bus drivers who could watch out for her and save her a seat. He made her laugh, even on those not-so-good-days when she would trip while exiting the bus or drop her briefcase.

They journeyed together in the morning, and Mark would then cab to his office. Although the routine was more costly and exhausting than the previous one, Mark knew it was only a matter of time before Susan could ride alone. He believed in the Susan who wasn't afraid of any challenge and just wouldn't quit.

Finally, she decided that she was ready to try to trip on her own. The next monday morning, she threw her arms around him, remembering his loyalty, patience and love. She waved goodbye and for the first time, they went their separate ways. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday... each day, she went on her own perfectly. Susan never felt better, she was doing it!

On Friday Morning, Susan took the bus as usual. As she was exiting the bus, the bus driver said, "Boy, I sure envy you." Susan wasn't certain if the bus driver was speaking to her or not - who would envy a blind women who had struggled just to find the courage to live for the past year?

"What do you mean?" she asked.

The driver responded, "It must feel good to be taken care of and protected as you are. You know, every morning for the past week, a fine looking gentleman has been standing across the corner watching as you get off the bus. He makes sure you cross the street safely and he watches until you enter the office building. Then he blows you as kiss, gives you a little salute, and walks away. You are one lucky lady."

-----

(From Stories for a teen's heart, Book 2)

Sometimes... not having answers does not mean not being clear. While we might not have the answers to all of life's questions, God has granted us many things that we can be comforted by.

Things that can bring light where there have always been darkness.

"I say the gods deal very unrightly with us. For they will neither (which would be best of all) go away and leave us to live our own short days to ourselves, nor will they show themselves openly and tell us what they would have us do. For that too would be endurable. But to hint and hover, to draw near us in dreams and oracles, or in a waking vision that vanishes as soon as seen, to be dead silent when we question them and then glide back and whisper (words we cannot understand) in our ears when we most wish to be free of them, and to show to one what they hide from another; what is all this but cat-and-mouse play, blindman's bluff, and mere juglery? Why must holy places be dark places?"

-- Till We Have Faces, C.S. Lewis

Inscribed on the walls of a cellar in Cologne, Germany, where some Jews were hiding from Nazis:

I believe in the sun when it is not shining. I believe in love even when feeling it not. I believe in God even when He is silent.

I am - Singularity

2008-11-30T19:51:00.004+08:00

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

-- John 14:6

The recent state of world affairs (or rather, the media's emphasis on the issues) is a good reminder to me how philosophers can be made both deeply despised or deeply relished. A reminder of how propositions, logic, theorems, solutions and arguments can sound feeble when it tries to be meshed with the actual reality. A reminder that the world has almost took it for granted that values, ideals and beauty has to have a grey to actually exist - because of how it looks like when it tries to be just black and white. (I do notice the irony of the expression)

After all, wasn't it the insistence of my way that caused it? Wasn't it the stupidity of it should be such-and-such that resulted in it? Is the grain of such a determination really part of the human spirit when it has summoned so much hurt and divide? If salvation is found in letting the self fade from the picture, to pour out and serve others - isn't this the part of self that is left hanging onto the supposed 'relationships equation'? The 'trying to impose on me' bit, the connotations of pride, the underlying arrogance, the unrelenting assumptions that are awkwardly dipped in pity... Yes, it does sound a lot like the self is still in the picture.

As a Christian, I believe in absolute Truth. There are philosophical arguments (if we seriously just forget all that justified true belief, skepticism and whatever nonsense there is in epistemology -_-) that can show how this concept, at the core of reality (without the societal and cultural complications) has to be a component of it for the concept of reality to actually function. However, the strongest arguments against it are far from being philosophical. It usually starts of as a altruistically simple conviction as "tolerate differences - in fact, celebrate differences!" which can slippery-slope to "accept all differences!" which is where the fallacy of an egalitarianism of ideas - and not people - occurs. The Christians' response is that its an egalitarianism of people and not of ideas, that makes reasonable, logical, and let me argue -

emotional sense.

The hanging question in the preceding paragraph i.e. whether the self is still left in the picture, can be answered by another question- Can the self be completely removed from it? If we pour ourselves out, if we decide to love another, if we decide to render help to a person... is there something of the self that has to remain?

Strangely, it was a scene from Avenue Q that had set me thinking about it. I had watched it a few weeks back and remembered the audience that had burst into resounding, emphatic applause when the first part of it ended with the heart-wrenching solo "There's a fine, fine line" sang by a single party. She was hurt because of the other party's promiscuity in the relationship.

If we think about the words that are used to justify an absolute truth. Words like...

Only. Sole. Still. Lasting. Single. One. Choosen. The. Just. Special.

What if we did not find the above words in the script of a debater justifying absolute truths... but instead, on a card written to a loved one on the person's birthday? Or on a simple text message that encourages someone for a test? Or on a handwritten letter whose author had tried his best to express what it meant?

The Christian God is a God that has a relationship with His people. It means speaking to his people personally - Like King Nebuchadnezzar, who was brought down from his glory to depths of insanity until he realised the sovereignty of God. Like Joshua, who was given courage to lead the Israelites in claiming Canaan. Like Nehemiah, who had to face the discouragement of how the Men in Judah had fallen into sinful ways when he returned to Jerusalem.

It was because he choosed them.

Hence, they were special to Him.

When we say Jesus Christ is the only way to God and there is no one else.

It's something like that.

"Mammy was soon asleep, leaving Laila with dueling emotions: reassured that Mammy meant to live on, stung that she was not the reason. She would never leave her mark on Mammy's heart the way her brothers had, because Mammy's heart was like a pallid beach where Laila's footprints would forever wash away beneath the waves of sorrow that swelled and crashed, swelled and crashed." -- A Thousand Splendid Suns, Khaled Hosseini

I am - Sufficiency

2008-11-24T21:38:00.004+08:00

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

-- John 6:35

I think that the feeling of longing for something is a useful window to understanding how man decides to chase after something. It is neutral enough. Not as praised as something like ambition. Not as animalistic as something like desire. Not said so simply, as something like a want.

And it serves what it should be describing well- because such a feeling doesn't sound like the subject is merely economics. Nor does it indicate a topic that belongs only to the realm of psychology. Or for that matter, philosophy.

We long for things. And longings can take the form of the abstractly existential to the intensely personal. It can be a matter that concerns just the moment, when time seems to lose its liquidity. It can be a matter that concerns a distant uncertainty, when the fuzziness of what has passed seems too fast to allow any rational grip on it.

Longings however, do not grant us the fullness of life. In blunter terms - salvation is not found in being a self-absorbed whiner. In that ironic way, there really isn't much insight in fulfilling a longing. Using the same language, salvation is found beyond ourselves- when we cast our cares from our perceived insufficiencies to others' actual insufficiencies. When we let the self fade from the picture and be poured out, to serve.

I believe that its through that principle, in the usually strange way how life works - God is hinting to us that our longings will only fully and purely be answered in the person of Christ.

Moving on,

2008-11-11T20:44:00.006+08:00

I realised that I have come to a point when I'm not able to express certain things fully on my blog.

Actually, its not that I have progressed in literary ability to such a point (yeah, I think it should be considered a progression) its more because of the blurred utility of my blog. A post that is detached from an actual reality, musing over just the concepts of a particular abstraction is naturally difficult to conjure because of the relation that particular abstraction has with the reality that had in the first place triggered the muse.

If I had meant the blog to be an expression of the essentials of something fully- the relevant details, the personal emotions and the thoughts on the reality itself (rather than the subject matter) has to be mentioned. The convictions gained and spoils from the aftermath gathered would be less understood otherwise.

But well. I also realised that was not what I had meant it to be.

Loved ones understand. Some friends understand. God understands the full depth. And thats where the true expressions of what life is exist. Not in a philosophy classroom, a seminary, a debate or even a blog - but in a simple conversation over a meal. In a jog with a friend. In a prayer when the night falls, and you can't get to sleep.

As I told those who had asked, I probably only saw Bangkok through the eyes of a tourist-

The altars outside most of the large buildings where I noticed some Thais would look towards and bring their palms together, as if saying a silent prayer before leaving the area.

A shopkeeper's nonchalant face when he unflinchingly accepted my bargained price immediately after I quoted it, making me wonder how lower I could have actually paid for the bag.

The movie-goers' mixed expressions as they rose when the movie theatre screen flashed a short clip before the movie played, requesting everyone to stand to pay respects to the king

The plants growing around metallic wires that formed an elephant as part of the roadside decoration, although the plants didn't manage to grow the cover the tusks area.

The beggers holding cups and positioning themselves and their children along the overhead bridge leading into the one of the main city area shopping malls.

The mega shopping malls filled with high end boutiques, plastered with large consumer product advertisements and surrounded by early christmas decorations, just overlooking the roadside stalls selling snacks that were cooked on the spot.

The man who asked my group if we wanted to ride a cab to the malls, and followed us until we were quite a distance from the hotel to see if we would change our mind.

I guess its a little sad that such simple snapshots my memory recalled will remain in that superficial, fading glimpse. I guess If we don't attach ourselves onto the cause that calls out to us to answer.. many, many things can become like that.

once

2008-11-03T21:20:00.000+08:00

G.K. Chesterton had once rationalised insanity to be something due to an excess - and not a lack - of logic.

Its when one digests the details and attempt to make sense of it, when one pries the sophistries to depths that language can dig no further into, when one immerses into cares of the particulars and tries to forcefully cast an order onto what leads to what, and why such a conclusion is arrived at.

Martin Luther King Jr. had once argued that "Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will."

A sentiment easily felt from the hard, close reality of giving bible study to children from comfortable church-going christian families, to the distant but as close a reality of the causes that the world will always come to be aware about and bothered by, but never moved for.

A friend had once told me, from how things were going on recently, God seemed to want to teach him the lessons that he thought that he had already learnt in the past. To really meld the ideas he possessed into a lasting conviction... and test the principles of what the conviction really means to him.

And yes. He does work in such a way. Even when you have been a Christian for long enough. Even when you have heard the theological truths, even when you know what questions will be asked, even when you have taught those theological truths - The truths will still come back to challenge you again and again.

The moment you understand, and the moments beyond that when you understand a deeper aspect, another facet, a whole new meaning.

God is good. And I am still appreciating the fullness of what it means.

Respect because of a higher basis

2008-10-21T22:57:00.004+08:00

How do we measure how fit a person is to be respected? This is probably one of the rare philosophical things NSFs will ponder over, especially when they are in pumping position and the one who called for it isn't reaally imparting much 'life lessons' over the supposed punishment. This bitterness and spite felt over the lousy leadership and inefficient way of doing things usually acts as a foil to the leaders who are actually competent in management. This somehow gives the latter ability to order for 20 push-ups and end with everyone feeling justified that they were punished (although they really did 60 push-ups with extra crunches and jumping jacks too)

But as such days are already long over for me(:P), I'm actually thinking over a different sort of respect.

The starting point of respect towards a good leader is based on an assessment of the person's leadership. Perhaps he has qualities like leading by serving. Maybe he understands how to execute a firmness with a gentle touch. Its possible that his skillful in peppering the training with personal touches and appropriate points of light-heartedness. Ultimately, he proved himself to be someone to be respected.

This form of respect is earned. Do the right things, give the correct impression, be a role model, make some sacrifices - people will appreciate you, and people will respect you. The basis of this respect is demonstrated competence. On closer observation, one will realise that this form of respect is actually quite superficial. The concept that individuals who experienced working life will understand, that there is a difference with being a good worker and showing that you are a good worker, also applies.

But is there another form of respect, built on a different basis?

I think so, and for greater effect, lets approach it from a negative starting point -

A parent. Say, a mother. 'Uneducated' (as society deems). Had raised her two children by working hard at her clerk job which paid just enough if she did overtime. Traveling to and fro to her working place takes up time. By the time she reaches home to cook for the family and finish the housework, all energy for her to enjoy time for herself in the prime of her life, is sapped away. Still, enough money is made for the children's meals, leisure, occasional wants and education. Following which... gratitude is repaid with her children becoming her authority on finance, on material needs, on healthcare. Etcetera.

Do her children respect her? Of course they do. But on what basis are they using, by what principle do they mean when they say that they respect her? Do take note I do not mean the extremes of neglect or abuse here. I am referring to a much more common, much more acceptable phenomena.

I mean, just to ride on the example of parents - what does respect mean when one sees that they are possibly depending on their children to provide for them? What does respect mean when children seem to have the educational edge over them when in the first actuality, the parents were the ones who had groomed and nurtured the very fiber of the kid's formative years? What does respect mean when a parent has to fear a child's instructions and provisions, having to listen to what the child says?

How does a child execute respect if in all honesty - a parent has no financial security, no educational upperhand, and you are the giver?

Same concept here in a different way - a classroom of autism children who sobbed and sobbed and sobbed upon hearing the news of their teacher who had passed away.

Another example, a kid who keeps smiling and saying thank you to one at an orphanage who was there giving food items.

Of course, it must be questioned - in all cases, are we really at the position of the giver?

Society already has enough "Key-Performance Indicators" (ahem. Civil Service -_-) to prove this and to grade that, and doing a job that requires me to meet targets like that ironically reminds me that... some things really don't have any need to be proven.

Respect, and for that matter, love, is not something earned based on such a cold assessment.

I believe that the value of respect where it lies in its purest form, is not in the arenas and battles for glory. Where it really lies, is deep within who we are as people. Deep within every person's soul and being is a dignity that shines and whispers.

When we hear that voice, let us respect.

While I was running

2008-10-20T01:14:00.005+08:00

When one detaches from everything for awhile and allow the reality around to be a distant observation for the time being, I don't think it means a deeper awareness of what things really mean can be yielded.

Sure- Things like the irritations, the complications, the burdens, and all the other very human factors can all be dissolved away into not being of any importance. Fundamental questions that do not seem to have exact resolutions can be easily ignored. Essences of things that are not yet understood, can be let go. And doing all that, is not out of spite or a numbing indifference, or even out of resignation. Its just because, one is in such a moment (or more aptly really, just because)

But even without asking all that, it still doesn't mean that no questions will be asked at all.

Especially the questions that don't need answers or explanations, or maybe are not even appropriate for such a way of response.

Because... we would always be searching for an expression of life. Something that will be potent enough to say what it actually means, something that will be worthy enough to do justice to what it is, something that will be moving enough to be personal to what we are. And in the first place, such a search is not something obvious even when we engage with life itself.

A moment of pain, savoured over about an hour can be such a reminder about the human spirit - as well as my God who saves.

-

2008-10-06T21:28:00.006+08:00

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of

wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects,

always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

- 1 Corinthians 13:4 - 7

A friend once told me that in relationships, you only get one chance to do it right.

Yet, obligations, assumptions, conditions, priorities, restrictions, standards, expectations... exist. Making you wonder, sometimes even forcing you to answer - what does it truly mean to do it right.

Sometimes what seems like surrender isn't surrender at all. It's about what's going on

in our hearts. About seeing clearly the way life is and accepting it and being true to

it, whatever the pain, because the pain of not being true to it is far, far greater.

-- The Horse Whisperer, Nicholas Evans

Giving Thanks with a Grateful Heart

2008-09-30T20:46:00.003+08:00

I just suddenly realised - A prayer that I had been praying for was answered.

Of course, its not the first time God answers prayers. What struck me was how late the realisation of it dawned on me. The answer came gradually and He revealed it in His time and way, but the effect of how it happened and the surprising pace of how it came about was somehow lost on me. I didn't make the casual link from what actually happened to the prayer I prayed, until I it just occurred to me how real the answer actually was.

As I seized the moment that I stumbled upon the thought to give a prayer of thanksgiving, I made another realisation - How inadequate I was in really expressing and surrendering the situation into His care. Reason being that I was similarly inadequate in my expressing and praise of His grace.

And actually, can such a scenario be any other way? When one speaks to God, as much as you can parallel the relationship to that of a teacher, authority or father - it is different. The One who founded the Earth upon the seas, the One who owns the earth and its fullness, the One who saves... there are no underlying psychological cover-ups, barriers or secrets because there can't be.

By that logic, the misconception of those that believe prayer to be something transactional should be cleared up. Good stuff = give thanks, Bad stuff = praise Him in the midst of it, is really a serious over-simplification, because very simply... relationships cannot be summed up in a matter of equations.

By that logic, speaking in tongues isn't exactly something of deep spiritual significance as compared to prayer with a sincere heart. Especially if the justification is that it makes you feel closer to God. Because... it doesn't. We were never close to God in the first place - in our total depravity, in our human natures, we could have never been until there was the Cross. And all Christians should declare their closeness to Him by that sacrifice rather than through speaking in a tongue. Intimacy with God comes from looking at the Cross, internalising the whole hurt Christ had to go through to reconcile the relationship and reflecting on it genuinely.

The deep ineloquence I sometimes feel when praying.... such a position of humility is always a good mix with the assurance that He understands the words of my heart.

When you talk to the stars

2008-09-23T23:19:00.005+08:00

It is easy to feel frustrated how elusive truth really is.

It takes effort for someone to say what something really means to him. It is painful to clarify what all the indications and subtleties convey.

Perhaps what makes relationships between persons work is because they know that what has gone on was real. Its something not a sophisticated mind is explaining, its just something a simple heart is telling - In one's heart, you know how real it was. And even if there are barriers that exist, even if there are things that can't be said, even if certain ends seem unresolved.

I heard many things from many people the past few days - not really to say that anything in particular was very inspirational or uplifting. But in its totality, I was gently reminded about how deeply we are chained to a state of flux.

A part of me knows that it is unfair to hold onto what will have to move on. But the same part of me is fearful about what would happen if I really let go, doubtful even if such a courage is a possible feat.

Yet, another part of me knows that there is a courage that I need to summon to make choices that matter.

"Its always important to know when something has reached its end. Closing circles, shutting doors, finishing chapters, it doesn't matter what we call it; what matters is to leave in the past those moments in life that are over."

-- The Zahir, Paulo Coelho

"I stare a the ranch as evening settles in. It's the first night of the full moon, and for me, the memories will come. They always do. I hold my breath as the moon begins its slow rise over the mountain, its milky glow edging just over the horizon. The trees turn liquid sliver, and though I want to return to those bittersweet memories, I turn away and look at the ranch again."

-- Dear John, Nicholas Sparks

The only problem is finding the words

2008-09-16T22:53:00.007+08:00

"I wept like a child. It was not because I was overcome at having survived my ordeal... I was weeping because Richard Parker (a Bengal Tiger) had left me so unceremoniously. What a terrible thing it is to botch a farewell. I am a person who believes in form, in the harmony of order. Where we can, we must give things a meaningful shape... I'll tell you, that's one thing I hate about my nickname, the way that numbers run on forever. It's important in life to conclude things properly. Only then can you let go. Otherwise you are left with words you should have said but never did, and your heart is heavy with remorse. "

--- Life of Pi, Yann Martel

I think that this is another reason to believe in the existence of God.

Religion has been described sometimes as merely something that fills the 'gaps' to life and be the 'easy cop-out' that answers the hard questions like some default trump card without giving an actual answer.

But actually, if one just puts aside all the bias (both a believer's and a skeptic's), put aside all the sentiments that there is a need for a rationalistic struggle, put aside the grappling with pride, honour and faith, if we just pause for a moment and allow silence to speak to us... it would be easy to realise, that deeply within our humanity, we want a resolution.

And does not need to be as grand as thinking of questions being answered or justice being served.

It can be just a wish to celebrate a loved one's birthday. It can be as simple as a desire to go back to an old stall you had previously frequented. It can be as human as knowing that you should say sorry after you did something wrong. It can be as baffling as an urge to ask how someone special is doing even though you know the short answer over words are limited in saying what you really want to know. It can be as painful as knowing that some things have to be said.

On a side note, the past few weeks have probably been the sweetest few weeks of my life so far.

Thank you.

A Wooden Rose

2008-09-01T22:02:00.006+08:00

The boy picked up the knife he had sharpened carefully. He steadied his hand, made sure the angle was correct, then paused meditatively as if choosing the appropriate strength to summon. Slowly and gracefully, he sent the blade into contact with the surface of the wooden board.

The teacher watched him silently. He felt both excitement and guilt as impatience slowly overwhelmed him. More guilt perhaps. It was a guilt that took on two forms, loosely clasped together by the smear of his uneasy excitement.

The first was the abstracter guilt. It was the guilt that arose because of the humbling it had inflicted. It was a guilt that was like the wind, slapping the face of an agnostic into a reasonable belief - strictly, yet gently. It was a guilt that pierced a surrendering sensation into the heart of a prince who has witnessed disease, old age, poverty and death and when that particular prince had he goes beyond an existential joy ride, realizing that one cannot forsake the extremes of pain and gratitude - because one cannot forsake love.

The teacher never thought that he would ever feel such a form of guilt. He never thought so, because he thought that he had already felt it before. He always reminded his students - never water a plant because you feel that you have to. The care for plants and animals are never to be a routine obligation from a higher species to a lower species. One has to understand the universal language, one has to feel the harmony that is provided in cycles and patterns of nature's art, one has to love nature, not because of its beauty nor because of its complexity, but because of its spirit. The spirit of nature which points so strongly at the spirit of the One who wrote down all of it in the first place - and that One who wrote down all of it is also the one who crafted the spirit of man.

It was the same hand that blew breath into both.

The same hand that allows man to see the world in a grain of sand and heaven in a wild flower.

The same hand that allows man to hold infinity in the palm of his hand and eternity in an hour.

Nature was sufficient, he had argued. No need for the wooden toy cars, the wooden elephants, the wooden houses... the crafts of a mere man should take a back seat to the crafts of the First hands.

"He will only finish, earliest by tomorrow night."

It was this reminder of his second form of guilt that caused the teacher to feel himself close to tears.

"You don't have to wait for him to finish this piece of course," the owner of the orphanage laughed as she walked to the cupboard to retrieve one of the boy's wooden roses. A rightful gift for an honourable professor, she thought.

The teacher held back his tears, looked at the owner who was walking towards the cupboard, and then took a last look at how the blind boy was working on his wooden rose and then silently walked away.

When one says nothing

2008-08-13T23:19:00.005+08:00

I heard a saying that goes something like - the point of language is to enables us to conceal our thoughts. (I know it would have a better effect if I actually made effort to find the exact quote. But oh well. lol. Whoever knows it, please kindly let me know :p)

Although this was not the quote that started me thinking about some things, the concept easily seeped into what I was thinking about, and from another angle, it would be the starting point if what I was writing now were to be a thesis.

The point of such concealment of thoughts take on many layers. It could be lying to someone. It could be evading an inferior impression towards someone. It could be an obligation to handle needed social contexts/politics. Or it could even be because one is writing a thesis.

But the above mentioned are the simpler versions. Concealment of thoughts go beyond just because one wants to be immoral, vain, safe or that its a needed rule for the proper framing and expression of justifiable ideas/thoughts.

Theres a concealment that occurs without such precise and identifiable intentions. A concealment - actually, concealments - that are committed by every individual at points in time over issues that are somehow within a momentary phase. In other words, you just don't say some things sometimes cos its either not the right time to or its just not a right thing to say.

So moments like this pass. Many are probably shrugged off, ignored and forgotten, especially if the person whom such a moment of concealment (on both sides) isn't, bluntly speaking, someone who really matters to you a lot.

But when moments like this happen to those that matter to you - thats when the danger arises. Instead of being shrugged off, these concealments fade into many other areas. For example, the evidences that an Iago would coax an Othello into believing (ie Assumptions, misunderstanding, mistrust and then murder -_-). Another example, a misinterpretation of what A really is, although both can appreciate that A leads to B. A last example, your grandfather wants you to celebrate his birthday and you know he likes chicken rice. You know he likes and would probably expect things to go in a certain way with regards to a birthday and a relation to that and chicken rice. But when things turn out... it was not supposed to be in that way.

The thing that this concept reveals, is that we cannot communicate to someone perfectly. Of course, its probably already enough when we can talk to another person, learn more about the person, know the person, understand the person, trust the person etc. I'm not questioning whether the limits of language weakens such a bond.

Rather, I'm thinking that perhaps the test of such a bond does not lie in how much conveyance is understood on a verbal plane. Instead, it may be found in the silence.

How and what one feels when he is silent with someone would tell a lot about the bond (and I'm not only referring to how comfortable he/she is with the silence) After all, the concealments that occur can be something mutually understood between both sides - and such a understanding is best concealed and appreciated, in a silence.

Hearing the raindrops upon the roof of the canvas tent

2008-08-09T16:02:00.006+08:00

I hadn't said it - I'm not sure if it was because of pride, or because the lack of ability to express it at that moment - sometimes, I feel sheltered. Too sheltered.

The sort of hurt I can feel and as much empathy I can gander from the uncertain sensitivity I possess, is probably one of the most useless kind of hurts and one of the most worthless kind of empathy. Sometimes, I can ask myself whether it is merely a 'prince mentality'. The sort of nice guy ruler that decides to spend some time with the local peasants, tries his best to fit into the general communal setting and has his heart wrenched out by the sights of what he observes. And thats merely it. He observes. He experiences. His behavior thereafter would be a choice between an unjustified 'saviour complex' or a selfish philosophical muse.

Unjustified - because how do you know what shes really going through and why do you expect that theres anything you can do to help?

Selfish - because after the feeble agony (which -I am angry with the English language having such a term with negative connotation- apparently stems from pity), you can't help but tolerate the pain of the individuals from lens at a distance.

Well, speaking more objectively, its not exactly a useless kind of hurt. Such a kind of hurt was the hurt which had spurred the idealistic bunch into action. Such a kind of agony allowed the power of moral pressure to actually exist. So yes, there is the political value of it.

But beyond such practical out-workings on international arenas- when your not talking about deaths in terms of statistics but persons, when your not crafting an action plan to ensure freedom but just at a loss for words in front of someone whose freedom was violated too many times, when your see a situation that is painfully, morally and emotionally complex and try not to feel like a fool when you mumble uncertainly, "you must be strong...", when the academic concepts dissolve and you come face to face with a reality...

one realises that he is helpless.

And in the comfort of his tent, he continues to hear the rain hammer onto the paraffin-coated canvas. Maybe, getting out of the tent and entering the rain will be a good idea.

Not just because the rain will hide his tears, but more because he wants to be there for her.

A story to tell

2008-07-26T01:15:00.000+08:00

This is not the first time I'm thinking about the preceding concept. In fact, I think most of my posts show quite clearly that when I discuss philosophy, I do it almost reluctantly. I mean this in the sense that ideas and concept deserve to be given faces. A common man's wisdom says that philosophers spend too much time trying to interpret the world while the true point is to change it. (That can be argued against of course, the world has changed and is being changed by 'mere' philosophical beliefs mankind had/has believed into actualisations) However, the essence of this wisdom is very understandable. Our society today doesn't help much when every other person insists that philosophy is 'too cheem' and invovle distant, irrelevant abstractions. Even those who have the privilleage to handle it may lapse into being arrogantly ignorant (really treating it as distant and irrelevant abstractions) or elitist by writing in convoluted language.

I admit that I fall into the folly of writing in convoluted ways sometimes, but sincerely, I never do it with intentions to craft an elitist barrier. Philosophical matters are sometimes so hard to grasp that sometimes the philosopher has to attempt to push language to almost beyond its limit, and I struggle with that.

This is due to two reasons - Firstly, my ability to command language towards that limit is weak. Well, there's nothing much to say here since its just a personal weakness I'm working on. Friends have seen me when I arrive at ideas, and go into moments of hesistance as I find the right words to express it. Although sometimes I just settle for a human expression, thematic words that will hint at the idea to a sensitive individual, and a "you get what I mean?"

Secondly, thats the reason why I discuss philosophy reluctantly. I think my struggle (aside from the linguistic difficulties) also reflect what I had said at the begining - ideas and concepts need to be given a face. Or in other words, we need to tell stories. (I realise, this is what compels me to literature.) Concepts are remembered when the concept ceases to be just a concept. People are impressed by and moved by stories. We base our convictions and derive our purposes from our stories. From the mainstream universes like the Harry Potter series, the Chronicles of Narnia world, DC and Marvel, and even to universes with small fan-bases like The Way and A Blurred Line. From classics like Shakespeare to Novels like Pride and Prejudice. The television. The movies. The personal accounts that may have been sweetened by memory. The small things that happened to you (think blog) which make life more interesting.

And when people pursue a how-to-live-a-happy-life mindset (like those who have finally figured out that materialism will not satisfy, and are attempting to decide on what will satisfy their spiritual core), I believe that the creation of a story is one of the most fulfilling. It has many advantages - externalisation of your inner hurts, expressions of your inner ambitions, exaggerations of the ideals which you feel should be fought for the most... And because one is certain of it, because the expectations are tuned to what one decides, it can be something both comfortable and something which gives a sense of completion.

Its quite sad when I look over my past scribbling and writings over the stories that I could have told, but never did. My Distant Fragility... My Zoetic Retrospection. Oh well.

The closeness of telling a story to our spiritual core can also be seen in how intimately related telling a story is to Christ. Be it the bible, the life of martyrs or even a simple servant's tale they all contribute to one single unfolding story, weaved from many threads of unique lives, each understanding the many layers of past stories which significances had begun as stories on their own, each one designed by the one who had made the intersections of stories together in complete unity possible - And all these stories, playing out for the audience of One.

Leaving Things Unsaid

2008-07-20T22:50:00.003+08:00

There is a petty kind of injustice.. One that isn't found in any dramatic life-changing experience, that is not in some enlightening awe-inspiring tale and not even in a valid moment of suffering.

Human beings can sometimes get too full of themselves even in the sake of righteousness sometimes.

When one leaves things unsaid - Forsaking the pain of regret for the hurt of unseen possibilities may be an even more courageous way to love fiercely.

Reflecting simply - Because one cares

2008-06-29T22:14:00.002+08:00

A few weeks back, I had knocked off from work and was riding a bus towards IMM to meet my mom for dinner. I was initially accompanied by my colleague, but after he alighted I had still quite a long while before reaching the place.

So I stared out of the window for awhile, looking at the crowds of cars and people rushing back to their respective dinner appointments, evening activities and whatever other activities that the bustle justified.

In the midst of all this, I spotted an old Malay man, probably in his sixties, who was walking slowly towards the area that those flagging the bus were at. He was bespectacled, balding and had a weathered face which I could observe better as he boarded the bus, walked carefully towards my direction and sat himself on the sit beside me.

He caught his breath and naturally surveyed his surroundings, taking a quick glance at me. Well, a usual practice of mine is that when someone who isn't of any obvious threat makes eye contact with me for some time, I'll smile (Some chain email says smiling brightens up a person's day I think. And as lousy a source it is to build a conviction, it doesn't hurt :P)

He seemed pleased at my friendly gesture, and begun conversing with me. After some small talk about where I was going, how old I was, what I was doing etc. He got excited when I told him that I was serving National Service in the Police Force, reason being, he was formerly from the Force.

Frankly, I could not understand more than half of what he was trying to tell me. He was speaking mostly in malay and in a smattering of English. So, I listened, nodded and tried to find out more of what he was saying through his gestures.

What I could make out of all that, was that he had been in the Police Force ever since he left school. He served in many divisions and the prime of his service was probably in the Police Coast Guards. He probably had no children, and was not married. Now, he had retired from the Force for about 5 years and was working part-time as a Security Guard at IMM.

If he ever felt obsolete, left out by the pace of how things were going, unable to keep up to the progress of society - He never showed it. In retrospect, the only reason why such things would come to my mind was only because of the societal stereotype.

If I were to judge merely on how he presented himself, he had pride. Pride for being a member of the Force. Pride for doing a duty for the country. Pride for completing what he had done.

For a moment, I was angry with my judgement - because I couldn't help but feel a sense of pity. I do not think that pity is actually what such an individual deserved. And as I reflected on why I called him 'Sir', that it was not really out of a sincere respect of his duties, but really because I wanted him to feel like he deserved the pride he felt.. Sigh.

We alighted the bus together, and I thanked him for all his advice although I had not much idea what was really said. But before I could leave, he held onto my hand and kept repeating a phrase - 'Sindiri Jaga Sindiri'

"Okay Sir, I will find out what that means. Thank you Sir!"

What it literally translates to (as Danial says) is 'Self take care of self'

As much as this tale doesn't really amount to anything inspiring - to me, it reveals a deep and painful paradox.

But Time, to make me grieve,

Part steals, lets part abide;

And shakes this fragile frame at eve

With throbbings of noodtide.

- Thomas hardy

Reflecting simply - play

2008-06-10T21:52:00.003+08:00

One thing I appreciate about my new home is how peaceful the place is. I've actually complained a few times that I miss the good location of my old place. I used to live very near to an entertainment center, a library, countless of food outlets and an MRT/Bus Interchange. After getting the hang of taking and changing buses, learning which transfers get me to where, waiting times and etc though, I'm starting to appreciate the ulu-ness of my new home.

One advantage this new ulu location gives me, is a really nice, serene and breezy area to jog at. My jogs nowadays usually take me past a long canal with still waters, with a variety of canopies and clear skies that I'll past before reaching a stairway that leads me into a park area. Usually, I would use the footpath that encircles the basket-ball court and playground to do a few rounds, ignoring whats actually within the circle. Today though, my feet somehow decided to take me into that area.

Thus I paused, and caught my breath. I walked into the playground, absent-mindedly spinning those plastic bars on the Tic-Tac-Toe gird thing and half-smiling to myself at the kids who were ignoring they're grandparents' calling for them to go home now.

You know Singaporean playgrounds all look like about the same? (Most of our buildings are la actually, lol. ) This one was the version that you can climb up steps to reach a "roof-top" place, and get to the slides. And there's two types of slides - the "normal" ones where one doesn't have to climb up to high to reach, and then the big twisty one thats shaped like a screw.

I confess that when I was much, much younger, I feared playing on the big twisty slide. Every time I went to the playground, I would always play on everything else, avoiding only that big slide... eventually, I did grow out of it of course.

But today, as I observed the orange slide - something that my full height had actually reached beyond the starting point of it, I knew I couldn't play on this slide too.

This time, it was not because of a childish fear of heights. This time, the fear was more due to rules of social order, or in other words... too many adults and children were looking.

Perhaps it is a rule for our fears do take this two-phase route:

First, we fear doing something because we think we cannot. And then, we fear doing that same something because we feel we are not allowed to.

Things like the dreams and hopes of a new progress, the betterment of society and even of humanity.

Things like pondering over the wonder of a seed, being amazed at how a stone can never grow into a tree, but a tiny object like it can.

Things like enjoying the company of your parents and wanting to spend time with them.

Things like remembering a song that you liked in primary school, and humming its tune as you go to work.

Things like waking up just a little earlier, to stare out of your window and enjoy the morning's beauty.

Things like breathing in that fresh morning air - and being grateful.

Eventually, I jogged away from the slide and back onto the footpath. Then I made my way back home.

"The worst moment for an atheist is when he is genuinely thankful, but has nobody to thank." - Dante Gabriel Rossetti

Reflecting simply

2008-06-09T22:24:00.002+08:00

One way how NS can not be a waste of time is because its a useful time for reflection - Sincere, true and deep reflection.

I think its questionable whether I have actually done such over the past of my training phase, even as I've left the Training Academy and have entered my vocation. The danger of living so within in expressions of philosophy, the danger that emotions and phenomena can be turned into clinical dissections, the danger that persons and situations can translate into mere abstractions - the danger that I've been trying so hard to avoid, and to run away from... this danger has seem to have me in its clutches as I pause to contemplate the moments and to recall the past.

Perhaps I've been pensive. Yet, I can't help feeling that sometimes, to think about things and to think about things are very, very different. I admire my friends who reflect without needing the language of philosophy - who think about growing up. About people. About friends. About family. About learning something new in life. About change. About God. The simple cliches that I overlook now like regrets, smiles, photos, dreams, chocolates, books, handphones, dogs, paper, cluttered desks, pens with no ink, distant skies, gentle breezes..

Things that matter... and thus argue the loudest. I should never forget.

The Christian Advantage

2008-05-30T22:17:00.007+08:00

I recently felt very disappointed over an audio recording of a Christian-Atheist Debate, mainly because I felt that it was so so wasted. There is a difference with defending one's faith and defending a misinterpretation of one's faith, and I think christians experience that sense of defeat quite a lot. That debate I heard was a good example - and in fact, that may be just the point. One of the poorest ways to present Christianity is through presenting mere propositions about it. The 'Christian's advantage' which is really evident in more existential contexts is easily hidden in such proclamations, simply because of the pre-conceived notions that the opposition comes with. (I have actually been constantly exploring how to present Christianity beyond the propositions in my "Engaging Every Fiber of our Being" posts.)

The 'Christian advantage' refers to the sense of existential completeness that can be experienced in life itself, and while some great orators may extract the essential moments to illustrate the concepts that prove so much more that logical justifications can prove, the best way of understanding the sense of completeness Christ brings to one's life is to actually go through the riddle of life and attempt to address such at a personal level. The spirit of post-modernism in society today possibly defuses how this actually works. For instance, a friend of mine who is really into theatre once praised a playwright who "believes in Islam, has a buddhist wife and wants his son to try Christianity". Another muslim friend of mine who doesn't go for friday prayers or keep to hala food (I realise, I know quite a lot of such muslims) said that he is "unwavering in his faith" although he admits that he is "a bit dodgy when it comes to actual practice".

Both friends - they demonstrate a fallacy that is accepted in today's society. As many theologians and Christian Philosophers say, in today's post-modernistic society that is

But seriously now. Think about it. Beliefs do not work that way -_-

A religion is contingent on its doctrine or religious text. When one believes in a philosophy or a religion, he must carry it to its logical end and be consistent in all that the philosophy states itself to mean. What does it say about human destiny? About human value? About the grand concepts such as love, justice and morality? How do you grapple with the paradoxical qualities of human nature, say, that he has to be pro-choice and yet at the same time respectful of the "We"? (I've addressed how the Christian deals with this in Reluctant Selfishness )

In conclusion - Christianity is not a set of rules that people believe in which requires them to keep praying for good things to happen and to go to church regularly -_-

I appeal to all skeptics - If you want to doubt that the Christian God exists, at least do it with a proper understanding of what Christianity is about till u understand its existential relevance.

That is to say of course, if you are still able to put yourself in such academic shoes. The only people capable of doing so (if you are brutally, brutally honest with yourself), I believe, are those whose lives are consistent with the philosophy they have - In other words, those with the Christian Advantage.

"If a man prefers nothing I can give him nothing. But nearly all people... need this life of practical romance; the combination of something that is strange with something that is secure. We need so to view the world as to combine an idea of wonder and an idea of welcome. We need to be happy in this wonderland without once being merely comfortable."

-- G.K. Chesterton

"Are you attached?"

2008-05-25T13:43:00.007+08:00

"I understood that I loved her when I married her. But after I married her, I found out many things that I didn't know about her... and those things made me love her more."

This was a simple statement that I heard one of my pastors said about his recently (almost a year) wedded wife. Yeah, its really sweet =)

From a christian perspective, I see the beauty reinforced because I think that it points very strongly towards the divine hand involved in weaving their tale. In contrast to this though, I also heard an account of another marriage situation from a friend about a man who 'decided' that he didn't love his wife anymore due to a new/younger/foreign interest..

Both scenarios highlight a simple fact - Love requires solid commitment. Philosophically dissected - that means duration, depth and devotion. 'Finding the One' sometimes quite a self-centered way of phrasing it yeah? When one really loves, the perspective might be not so much about caring for your own interests but about the best interests of her (ahem. In a guy's perspective) - say her time, her social dynamics, her spiritual growth, her parents, her thoughts, her context, her feelings...

No. I'm not attached... not yet.

When a momentary honour should matter more

2008-04-30T22:06:00.003+08:00

"Prisoners too, suffered from this strange 'time-experience'. In camp, a small time unit, a day for example, filled with hourly tortures and fatigue, appeared endless. A larger time unit, perhaps a week, seemed to pass very quickly. My comrades agreed when I said that in camp, a day lasted longer than a week. How paradoxical was our time-experience!" -- Victor Frankl

I know that national service is really a very far-away experience from a Nazi concentration camp, and its kinda insensitive to parallel the 'good life' NSFs are experiencing to inhumanity. However, Just to borrow the concept of it, Frankl expresses the NS time experience perfectly. To put things in another way, our time has this ability of moving fast and slow at the same time. Fast because when we're out of the camp into our former realities, so much seems to have changed (and our weekends are like gone almost immediately -_-). Slow because when we get back into camp, we live by the moments and look forward to moments (Breakfast.. Morning break.. Lunch.. Afternoon break.. Dinner.. Evening break, repeat for 5 days and....... Book Out!) Fast because when we look back, it seems like only yesterday that you had hair. Slow because when you're in pumping position and waiting to be recovered, the sun just happens to be sunning very brightly. Fast because all your old friends are all changing and moving on in someway or another... and slow because you seem so close, and yet not near to anyone of them at all.

On a side note, I think a great way to disprove panentheism (the true believers please) is to get them to do drills. Then we try to synchronise everyone's timing, to march in step, stamp at the same time, and repeat for like a month, five times a day under the hot sun. Maybe they'll get to appreciate more how they're just part of a larger conciousness and will fade into the drilling contingents in sync with the parade commander's direction -_-

Seriously speaking, what impresses me the most(and i think the rest of society would probably agree) is not nice drills. A performance nor a rank does not prove anything if one does not gain actual respect. Its not the 'Morning Sir's or the salutes that we should be looking for - a nod from a Guest of Honour to command the parade does not beat a nod from the Coy's cleaner when you help him to clear up the rubbish he has to pick up daily.

Even a panentheistic-ally similar squad can display such respect when they finish off they're standard 20 push-ups with 3 more - "One for Myself! One for FI! One for the squad! 1-2-3, permission to recover sir!"

Such a moment of true honour, sincere humility and consistent unity - a moment that all can smile at, as we await the next moment to surpass us.

Of a bright and shining star,

unblemished by the green(blue) - the white star?

The untainted, pure, clean, white light.

What a future; what a sight!

-- An ode to the gate, Creative Reader

Permission to carry on sir?

2008-04-20T07:12:00.003+08:00

I guess one thing I can appreciate my National Service's mundanity is the great equalising it does to everyone. Equally bald heads, a common routine, a communal living and recreation space, a fixed lights out time.. Crudely speaking, our individualities are commanded to be surpressed into the crowd. This is reinforced by punishments we get for moving in sedia position because we disrupt the stillness, not marching in step with the rest and simply just being punished as an entire group because a single person did something wrong/un-uniform.

And I appreciate it, because seriously, how often can one get such a lesson in humility? The trainee phase of national service, the time when one is really just the "lowest lifeform" in the training academy. Such treatment is a good reminder to think about the state of man before God. In the words of Paul, "For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not recieve? If then you recieved it, why do you boast as if you had not recieved it?" (1 Corinthians 4:7)

"Indeed, I know of only one way to eliminate the great gap between giver and reciever, and that is a humble recognition that all of us are needy beggers, surrounded each moment by the mercy of a sovereign God. Only as we experience God's grace as pure grace, not something we earned or worked for, can we offer love with no strings attached to another person in need. There is but one true giver in the universe; all else are debtors." -- Phillip Yancey

C

2008-03-07T23:27:00.003+08:00

I just can't help feeling... well. Disappointed.

And its a disappointment that does not consist of regret - afterall, I have no idea what to regret.

Its not really of much use to think about things in terms of how the system or the markers aren't the ones who are the appropirate judges of how good one is in a subject that is difficult to assess. The reality is that I have been given such a grade by markers who graded everyone else. By standards of comparison, in terms of how I competed with the rest, I was considered a C. As much as its easy to think of standards and testing measures as limiting, not considering true potential - the reality remains a reality.

And as much passion I have in philosophy - It would still be impossible to argue away the printed grade. Sematics, truth, beauty, abstractness; they all ironically do not matter now.

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

Philippians 4:6-9

Thank you God.

Engaging every fiber of our being - Cherish

2008-02-07T15:39:00.000+08:00

This is a really backdated post... I had intended to post this just at the begining of 2008, somewhere when it was probably much easier to be sensitive about things coming to an end, and something new begining. And not now, when the 'its over' feeling has long ended, and everyone is settled in their new positions. But perhaps the lateness of this entry due to procastination is a revealing reminder to our ability in expressing appreciation and grattitude. The more emotionally atuned might commit themselves to mementos, rituals and even closures. But as we move on in our finitude- time becomes a balm for wounds, a purger of the old and an invitation to the new.

Yet...

"...it isn't easy to burn intimate documents that are dear to you; it would be like admitting to yourself that you won't be here much longer, that tomorrow you may die, and so you put off the act of destruction from day to day... Man reckons with immortality, and forgets to reckon with death." -- Immortality, Milan Kundera

The book of Exodus in the bible devotes 3 entire chapters to the Passover.

Exodus 12:1-17

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire head, legs and inner parts. Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the LORD's Passover.

"On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn both men and animals and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD. The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt.

"This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD -a lasting ordinance. For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat that is all you may do.

"Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.

Besides being particular instructions for the Israelites to follow in the past, Christians today recognise the event having two important representations: It parallels to the Holy Communium, which in turn points towards the sacrifice of Christ. On a larger picture, it parallels the Israelites' redemption from slavery in Egypt into the promiseland, which in turns points towards the Christian's Journey, from bondage to Sin to freedom in Christ.

The lamb of the blood is needed for the Israelites to realise that something needs to pay the price - The lamb had died in the place of the first born in the home. The manner of eating the passover, in haste, was for the Israelites to recall the readiness in faith they had to possess while in Egypt (they were disappointed 9 times, over 9 plagues on Egypt before they were released) The purpose of the unleaven bread was to indicate renewal - there was no need for old yeast, as God had granted them a brand new start.

The potrait of the passover is thus a memento, a ritual and something that points forward. The historical significance of the Israelite's freedom from Egypt is important, but so is the perspective in terms of what it stands for in macro terms. The Christian God is a God who remembers. A God who recognises human nostialgia and gives us a time frame and processes to remember Him by.

And appropirately so, since we're so forgetful creatures. Beings who flirt with the experience of nostialgia, and yet regret not appreciating the moments we cherish.

"I can't live in a world without a past." -- Danial (until he tells me which emo comic he took that from. lol.)

Engaging every fiber of our being - Reluctant Selfishness

2007-12-08T22:27:00.000+08:00

Perhaps, relationship problems and conflicts can all be traced to the issue of a reluctant selfishness. We are selfish. We care about what matters to us alone. And yet, we are reluctant to because the relationships that we depend on and the people we meet mean something to us.

The self in us desires to achieve an intimacy while struggling with how far is actually possession or over-bearingness. The communicative element in us desires to reach a unity while struggling with the difficulties of being unable to connect. The voice in us cries out to be understood while struggling with what is significant to us that we should in the first place understand. And all these will definitely be inadeqate achievements in all our friendships - on the personal, the coporate and even the existential level. Yet, we know that such a phrasing is only doing too much injustice to this concept of human relationships. The psychologists and sociologists who dare to have even acknowledged the very essential and unique - individuals.

An 'individual' has become a weak word. Maybe because in all of human effort in grappling with the notions of relationships, we have allowed terms of more specific significances to exist - we can indicate another 'individual' to be a colleague, team-mate, a leader, a boss, a teacher, a classmate. Even a friend. And yet, and yet... We all know another deeper concept to exist here. The concept of love.

Even that concept has become so clichedly weakened. Commercially. Societally. Morally. Hollywood-ishly. Fairy-tal-ishly. And yet, and yet...

Reluctant selfishness. Knowing other 'individuals' only goes so far. 'Love' can only give us so much. Its never quite as good as it can be... as it should be. We are selfish, because we helplessly desire such attainments - a personal, coporate and even an existential fufilment. But sub-conciously we know that those cannot be ultimately achieved in human relationships. Once we realise our distractions, and finally discover some sense of the importance of such fufilments... We wonder if the actual answer was to be distracted in the first place.

If 'love' were the goal of life, where was the source that had started this all?

The Christian believes the fuzzy fufilments we enjoy in relationships are just clues. Clues pointing towards a much more complete relationship. As a Christian, I know that despite my reluctant selfishness, I have founded that holistic fufilment :)

Sad to say, such a proclaimation has also become weak. Even the first Spiritual Law 'God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life' has turned into a mere proposition that faces questionable stares upon grounds of proper theology. In the words of Blaise Pascal, "There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every person, and it can never be filled by any created thing. It can only be filled by God." But yet, this is conveyed in an odd sense to the looking world who can easily respond 'We are satisfied. We are filled' Only until the sense of a reluctant selfishness hits again that it realises its really 'We can be satisfied. We can be filled.' And its ironically that reluctant selfishness that creates the reluctance to realise that logically speaking, we are unable to achieve this as an 'indivdidual', as one who is grappling with 'love'.

Christians have personal relationships with God. Something close enough to be considered exclusive, yet morally accurate enough to be deemed unselfish.

"Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me." -- Isaiah 49: 15-16

Christians have an united coporate relationship as the Church on the basis of Jesus' blood. Unity is in one heart, one mind and one spirit.

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." -- John 17:20-21

Christians understand their identity, and the reason for our inability to construct it originally.

"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ." -- Eph 1: 7-9

And thus, Christians have the principles of Love.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

-- 1 Cor 13:4-7

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

--- 1 John 4:7-10

And after making legacies, searching for a special someone, attempting an unfufilled ambition -

We would inevitably, and slowly start to understand what love really means.

"I do not know the answer to the problem of evil, but I do know love." -- The Brothers Karamazov

And thats because I know Christ.

Engaging every fiber of one's being

2007-12-05T20:07:00.000+08:00

"The search for religious orientation has always been a matter of utmost importance. Every person who exists would have his or her ultimate concern, a 'god' that one worships and adores, simply because it satisfies. Or at least, appears to satisfy. Even for the young, the ones that are grappling for an identity as they grow, trying their best to create their own individuality- they too have their own religions: systems, concepts and people that they rely on, which shape their perspective of themselves and the world."

This was something I had wrote in the introduction to one of my letters appealing for support for ministry work (my PSS). About two years ago. As mature (hehe) as that writing sounds... the author behind it realises that such a concept wasn't properly understood at that point in time. (I mean, observe the axiomatic diction and tone of arrogance behind the assertion. lol.)

Such an error of youth - which should be disabled by maturtiy - actually ironically reveals much of what that concept implicitly invovles. When we discuss philosophy, and high and abstract ideas, there are broadly three ways to consider it.

First, to be remote. As I had impersonally commented on mankind's religious orientation - many too can look upon the human psychology, the societal moral decline and the problem of pain with such 'distant glasses'. It becomes a subject of discussion, not a concern to grapple with. It may appear interesting, but never something of personal significance.

Second, to be distracted. The world's expectations and entertainment are enticing for us enough to just carry on with whatever we're doing and look forward to what we're about to do. It seems only natural that its about chasing the ultimate comfort while dabbling in altruristic boosters along the way to gain the aderanaline of 'meaningfulness'. As G.K. Chesterton said, "We all feel the riddle of the earth without anyone to point it out. The mystery of life is the plainest part of it."

Third - to enage in our humanness and see the questions of life as questions of Life. And accept the world view we evaluated as we should. If we are evolved beings, accept that fact fully and tell your wife that you love her only as a result of the chemical reactions that happen in your brain due to a scientific process of time plus matter plus chance. If life is void of any meaning at all, and simply for no reason, accept that fact fully and do ourselves the best favour by killing yourself. If we are to rid all our desires as that would end all suffering, accept that fact fully and convince a Jew that he should not feel any saddness of his ancestors at all because the pain of the holocaust was a mere illusion. If pain and suffering in this world is a problem big enough to be deemed as 'sin', and the concept of sacrifice close enough to define the meaning of 'grace' - accept that fully, and consider how exactly that is demonstrated in Christ.

To rewrite what I wrote two years ago -

The search for what to do has always been a matter of utmost importance. We wake up, remember our agendas, do what needs to be done, and then update our agendas again. And perhaps sometimes, just before bed- we stare at our ceiling being unable to sleep, and ask ourselves - 'And why am I doing all this again?' Even when we're young, trying to figure out what we like and thinking about who we are- the question does sometimes return to us: Who exactly are we and why exactly are we here?

Maybe its something we can think about before going back to consider the next sixty years of our lives.

It had ended

2007-11-28T21:06:00.000+08:00

Am still in the midst of rushing into boxes the final details so I can move out, as I have to head back to camp tomorrow after packing.

In that midst, I grabbed my school collar pin and the Classleader pin from where I normally retireved them. Then I stopped, and gazed hesistantly at them..

And then, I placed them into the box with the rest of my old collar pins.

The little things that are invisible, seemingly insignificant and not worthy of attention - Life always trys to teach us something by showing us that they're the ones that capture the most essential.

Almost done.

2007-11-10T20:51:00.000+08:00

Time teaches everyone things, the best of which seems to be when it invovles one falling down.

By that logic, it should mean that if one lived a life of constant regrets, thus having emerged into more mature realities ever so frequently- he is. nearer.

And yet, they say that the only thing we learnt from history, is that we don't learn from history.

Beyond the Bracelet and the Cake

2007-10-19T20:17:00.000+08:00

This is a post on romantic love :P

It started of as a question (um. posed to guys.) - Lets say that there suddenly appears a girl who in your terms, is 'perfect'. From personality to interests to attractiveness, you know intellectually that she is -meant- for you. Everything clicks, the chemistry is right and it is exactly as your dream girl should be. And, she likes you.

But, for a certain reason, you don't like her. Somehow, the emotions don't come along with the analysis that your mind figures out.

What would you do?

I asked two friends.

The first answered by refering back to his first basis of love - that it is unconditional. Hence, it doesn't necessitate a criteria of who you are, where your from and what you do. Its a force that goes beyond that. Hence, he would handle it by telling her that he really appreciates everything that she is, but that he can't love her.

The second found the scenario itself questionable, but obliging to the question, refered to his basis of love as an intellectual willingness to conciously do the best for the other person. It is possible to will oneself to love someone. So he says he will try to like her and hence, love her. The emotions will come in time.

I then added an extension to this question - Say, this girl is one who doesn't share a context with you. She does not know your immediate social environments, is not associated to any of your close friends, and has not and will not be in contact with you on a long term basis. It was a sudden chance meeting that you met her, and by no means will there be future opportunities for both of you to meet.

This background seemed to add sense to why such one would give such a response to such a situation, and got both friends pondering the issue more carefully. And if readers are emotionally sensitive enough, they would have gotten my drift too.

First, I must qualify- to clinically dissect love, especially if we were to do it in a psychological or philosophical fashion, is not something any sentient being will enjoy. I don't. Love is too grand a concept to unpack into simplified variables. Yes, its holistic and a complete entity that should not be broken up. As much as this is a rational analysis, I will try to do it from an emotionally sensitive perspective.

But anyway, in raising the above two questions as well as my friends responses to them, it would present us with a few components of romantic love, essentially - the mind, the emotions, the will and the context. The question is really, what is the superior component over the rest? A cliched question, some may think. Because there's always the cliched answer of - everything matters. Even hollywood's principles of romance: guy meets girl, swoon over each other, get into situations that lead towards more situations and finally, they get together seems to be a package of mind, heart, will and context. The common man's wisdom has also educated us about the need for the mind in all this raging passion. Don't rush into it, think about the implications. If you are not ready, and you really love her- Stop. Wait. And while at it, think about it. Yes, the world today does have a grain of such morals in the midst of the 'love is blind' factions. And even if they don't, the society's conscience knows somewhat that such is the right thing to do.

So, enough has been debated over the mind and the heart, and there are enough stories about which should take the superior seat. The component we're to consider in this post is the context.

Society has created functions to allow for the elements of each component to come into effect. But within each, the context seems to be the outstanding one that is attempted to be created. Of course maturity plays a role - whether we give that bracelet to prove a worth, or to express care. Whether the flowers are bought to impress a crowd, or to brighten her day. Whether that cake is made to show devotion, or because you are devoted. But when society allows such gifts in courtships - from the significance-attaching soft toys to the painstakingly folded cranes that allow us to be sentimental, to build memories and create emotional attachment, what they provide ultimately, is a context. Guys who aren't assholes (we do exist girls. lol.) all know the tacit principles of how to treat a girl well (okay, maybe we're still figuring out. But you know, we do try.) Even the societal device of dating itself - to meet at a set time, in a set place, to do an activity together was somewhat there to allow individuals to build up a context.

And perhaps its because we're finite, changing beings that means that we're ever so dependent on the context with regards to romantic love. While stuck in it, we employ our trying-to-control-our-lives means of dating and getting to know the other better. But, even hollywood knows that a great romance story means a lot of chanced upon situations that is probably only possible with a divine hand that has a sense of humour.

So as aftermentioned, the second question I asked, led to the third of 'So which do you think is the most important component of love if you were some cold, mechanical, unfeeling creature that is willing to do no justice to it by ripping it apart?'

My first friend answered that, aftering thinking about it - it would be the context. Every else will fall in place when the person is in your proximity and in the right situations.

My second friend answered that, he would still think the mind is the superior indicator. A union of two minds, and thus a blossoming of love will be possible.

And well, as my first friend said, we all don't disagree with each other - be it the criteria or the conditions. We know the signifance of each factor.

Hopefully, years later when we get a deeper grasp of such a concept will we finally look back, read this thing and laugh.

And may I decide that I shall not write a sequel about it, because I can't.

Relationships are like glass. Sometimes it's better to leave them broken than try to hurt yourself putting it back together.

I have had worse partings, but none that so

Gnaws at my mind still. Perhaps it is roughly

Saying what God alone could perfectly show-

How selfhood begins with a walking away,

And love is proved in the letting go.

-- Last stanza of Walking Away, by C Day Lewis

Truth

2007-10-11T21:09:00.000+08:00

"I'm sorry..."

"Alright..."

"I'm fine. Really."

Should this even be reduced this to a concept when its essence is something that is not fit to be contained within the boundaries of a description? Well, technically such a question need not even occur since that applies to many things - especially so when they collide with one's heartstrings and emotional irrationality. But then again, without confining this within such boundaries, there is no issue anymore.

Truth is desired in argument, logic and reality. When we formulate a theory or design a model - we demand certanity. When we seek to find out the details to an insurance policy - we question reliability. When we explore metaphysical theories and soundness of man beyond his existentiality - we grapple with its soundness in whatever possible way our mental faculties will allow.

But at this level - there is no need to prove that its universally accepted. Our rationality searches for it until utter clarity, and it is only impeded by illusion or apahty.

But beyond this level, our search for Truth is but in another dimension when we grapple with it in emotional terms. The self and the other - both with different backgrounds, mindsets, influences and in KI terms, subjective inquirers. What causes pain, what brings joy, what causes hurt, what musters fear, what summons irritation; all different. All not indicated. And in the process of a realtionship are these vunerablities and weaknesses revealed. With mistakes. In concious effort. In unexpected chance-upons.

Can the self ask the Other -What is Truth? Is it supposed to? Is it allowed to? Does it have the capacity to? And if it does, how does it do it? Would the Other know what the self means if he describes a particular situation. Does the values the Other ascribe to an issue contridict with the self's?

At such a level, it is as rigiorous a search for the Truth but its different now because it does not concern one mind. It is about two individuals within a context - two intersecting and dynamic contexts. There is no good approach in the collective eyes of the beholders. Saying too much, leaving things unsaid and not saying anything at all - are all mistakes.

Ultimately, it is the fault of neither because of the 'everything else'. Something that both rely so much on can't be faulted.

"Then you will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free." -- John 8:32

The philosopher's sigh

2007-09-20T19:51:00.000+08:00

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. -- John 1:1-2 (ESV)

To some extent, ours lives are defined by the Other.

Because of the ones who are there to appreciate us, to respond to us and to allow us to respond to - we can react, and thus we are defined. It is from the Other that we will draw our opinions. From the other that we can discover preferences and find reasons for such opinions. The other gives us the scope to love and to hate. It gives us value enough to assess dignity. The power of the other is even enough to persuade one's religious orientation away from God, towards the humanist agenda. I respect and appreciate such human nobility of course, it is definitely not something to be just undermined because of my faith. They can decide that, when it concerns the Other that when things start to become important, and value, becomes worthy of some meaning.

What allows all this translations towards the reality of true value is in the lowest and highest sense, language. And in this area- the musicians, the poets, the social workers, the psychologists, the economists, the teachers, the scientists, the doctors, the pastors, the art curators, the writers, the builders, the architects, the lawyers, the singers, the historians, the artists, the RPG designers, the soliders-

They can express, fight for the value they think is of worth, and speak in their language that will mean something to the Other.

And philosophers- They waste paper.

If we can just stop turning life into a debate..

2007-09-16T03:23:00.000+08:00

... whether or not an individual emerges a believer or non-believer in the process, he would have been through a Damascus experience anyway-- one where he is granted with a deeper sensitivity to the questions of life itself. The significance of dealing with religious knowledge lies in its nature, and my opinion here is echoed in the words of Charles Davis, "Religion is the drive towards transcendence, the thrust of man out of and beyond himself, out of and beyond the limited order under which he lives, in an attempt to open himself to the totality of existence and reach unlimited reality and ultimate value. "

Those lines were how I concluded my Independent Study for KI.

Uneasily though, I know how superficial my study really is when I really look at the world of religions and their various schools of thought and feeling. Not really in the academic sense (I mean cambridge should understand that a mere 3000 words can do no justice if I were to discuss all forms of human thought to religion)

I'm uneasy in the existential sense... That I know in the world today- There exists the athetists that decalre that there is no such supernatural interference in our lives. There exists the religious zealots that share ethusistically about their faith with people around them, imposing pieces of informations to interrupt the routine of their listeners. There exists the humanists that are angry with Christians who are against abortion and stem-cell research. There exists Christians who are self-righteously certain of precepts that their denomination preaches. There are free-thinkers who are hopeful that the irrationality of believers will fade, so that the world can be safer place. Those who blatantly ignore the questions of life, caring more for their immediate meanings. Those who live in fear because of the state's law that is 'according to God'. Those that are so faithfully devout, piously praying moment by moment, and painstakingly reading the bible daily. Those that are fustrated by the arrogance of believers in their know-it-all attitude and hypocritical community. Those that are worried about certain doctrines, that are considered the crux of the theology for some, a peripheral issue for others...

No exact pattern of course, all those people. But in that diversiy of examples I've raised... I guess you can make out the gist. Its not only about the propositions and oppositions - there are those that hope. Those that seek. Those that die.

Discrimination gets worse when its complicated. When it concerns an issue that can integrate race, ethnicity, ideology, intellect, language, culture... the voice that shouts for the equality of mankind since his on a level playing field can only remain as a hesistant thought.

Its too confused to be otherwise.

Hero

2007-08-26T18:07:00.000+08:00

"My father.

I don't remember ever seeing his face-- But because of my uncle Ben, I will always remember his words. That with great power-- there must also come great responsibility.

Heroes.

The way I see it--

--when most people think of heroes, they think of larger-than-life patriots. Men and women who have dedicated both their personal and professional lives to represent a symbol of hope to those whose life might seem hopeless.

A colourful embodiment of selflessness.

But, of course. that's not the only form a hero's life can take.

...and there are so many places that our heroes can come from. So many worlds within our world.

Worlds of magic. Worlds of Technology. Worlds of intrigue. A world where a family of adventurers can bond together in the fight for the underdog.

And when speaking of the underdogs of our society, one can't help but think of mutants.

People whose entire existence is defined by their unique genetic birthright.

And like every civil rights embattled minority before them, some mutants have come together using their celebrity and powers to fight for their cause...

...while others wade through life's persecutions and misunderstandings by attempting to live their everyday lives with nobility and grace.

But a noble soul can, whether they want to or not, find himself on a warrior's path.

Sometimes I wonder if being persecuted and embattled because of who they are makes the choice of becoming a warrior predestined. Predetermined.

And that it's the choices made there-- when faced with the unthinkable-- that defines them...

...because we do not live in a black-and-white world. Cliche but true. We live in a world where around any corner is an act of violence waiting that can change your life forever.

And whether we want to admit it or not, it is at those times when we need someone who is willing to cross the line of what is technically, or morally, right and wrong.

But with that comes the risk that the world can become dark... and so compromised.

... that there can be no escape-- no chance for happiness.

So in my search for the hero I most admire... In my search for the definition of what a hero is...

the one thing I realised is that I will eventually have to make certain, choices that will define me and my life.

Or maybe I already have and don't even recognise them yet. But I guess I don't have to worry about it too much because of all the people in our everyday lives--in the news--in sports--in law enforcement--teachers--musicians--and yes, larger-than-life superheroes--

--all the people who stand for something bigger than ourselves.

For me, only one man... a man I never met...

has given me words to live by that I know I have to hold my life up to. I know they are the words that define a hero...

...That with great power, there must also come great responsibility. And the man who told them to my departed uncle who told them to me...

my father."

-- Peter Parker's take on a class assignment on 'Heroes', Ultimate Marvel Team-Up Vol 3.

A man named Dick Hoyt

Yes, I was inspired by these two men.

And I think, instead of having the last word like some self-righteous psycho-analyst - I'll let them speak for themselves.

Man

2007-08-23T23:27:00.000+08:00

"If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment--or, as the Nazis liked to say, "of blood and soil." I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers."

- Viktor Frankl, The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy

Not because of security, not because of comfort, not because of a need to escape.

Perhaps we have tried to escape - perhaps we have sought ways to escape, but thats in every path.

I believe in Christ - because man is something more than mere matter. Our transcendence for an ulimate meaning and value beyond the limited order, I refuse to believe that it is a conincedience.

And, not only do I have Reality - The atheists, nihilists, agnostics and skeptics - They're all on my side.

Or at least, the sentiments that led them there are.

New World, braved

2007-08-10T00:08:00.000+08:00

"Much of the restlessness and uncertainty so charateristic of our time is probaly due to the chronic source of unappeased desires from which men, naturally religious, but condemned by circumstances to have no religion, are bound to suffer." - Aldous Huxley

That was Huxley's time perhaps. Not that I'm saying our time is in anyway different... but.

I guess there is by no means an accurate measure of what one's 'time' is like, and philosophers are perhaps the last people to ever have credentials to critique on it since they never do grasp the naunces behind that the psychologists, scientists and politicians are capable of wielding to some extent. Still, this guy's Brave New World drew circumstances of the 'future' - prophetic in essence - of how man has discovered the way out of this suffering. By themselves of course.

Huxely does indicate disapproval of it... through the 3 levels of 'loneliness' that I attempted to describe during a literature class - Bernard the miserable. Helmoltz the distant. John the alien. Implictly, he agrees - as strongly as he has shown his view to be in this statement, that mere distractions are pointlessly painful. They remove the drive towards transcendence and the search of the ultimate reality and ultimate value - plunging man into the depths of his own arrogant constructions, folding him into a simple mechanism that thrives for the society it seeks so much from.

Our time - Its not the soma, the conditioning, the simple gratifications, the reduction of the individuality so much so that it doesn't matter.
Its the achieving, the learning, the desires, the elevation of the self so much so that it doesn't matter.

But you know. It does.

And it would probaly take a Savage to understand that.

The Religious Sense

2007-07-25T20:14:00.000+08:00

A book by Luigi Giussani, and is part of a three-part series meant to communicate the reasonableness of "the Christian fact". In this volume, he does it more precisely through one's experience of one's own humanity.

Some parts from it which I noticed, and decided to point out :)

---------------

Structurally man waits; structurally he is a beggar; structurally life is a Promise.

"You know I don't believe in a God, Grandmama."

"You don't know what you talking about. Ain't not way possible for you not to believe in God. It ain't up to you."

"Who's it up to then?"

"It's up to the life in you - the life in you. That knows where it comes from, that believes in God."

The human being- the concrete human person, me, you - once we were not, now we are, and tomorrow will no longer be: thus we depend. And either we depend upon the flux of our material atecedents, and are consequently slaves of the powers that be, or we depend upon what lies at the origin of the movement of all things, beyond them, which is to say, God.

The awe, the marvel of this reality which imposes itself upon me, of this presence which reaches me is at the origin of the awakening of human consciousness.

...the very first sense of the human being is that of facing a reality which is not his, which exists independently of him, and upon which he depends. Empirically translated, it is the original perception of a given.

There is a hiatus, an abyss, a void between the intution of truth, of being - given by reason - and the will, a disassociation between reason, the perception of being, and will, which is affectivity, that is to say, the energy of adhesion to being. Because of this, one sees the reasons, but still does not move, that is to say, lacks the energy to be coherent... It is this coherence that initiates the human being's unity. Coherence is the energy with which man takes hold of himself and adheres, "fastens on" to what reason lets him see.

------------

Random Quotes from Brave New World

2007-07-25T00:25:00.000+08:00

He was as miserably isolated now as he had been when the service began- more isolated by reason of his unreplenished emptiness, his dead satiety.

He had emerged from that crimson twilight into the common electric glare with a self consciousness intensified to the pitch of agony. He was utterly miserable, and perhaps

perhaps it was his own fault.

Sensitivity is not enough to allow one to do well in literature. One still needs to be able to express what he senses and mash it into something understandable by the others.

Sometimes.... such can't be achieved until someone actually comes to you and say that, He understands.

Do you hate Christians?

2007-07-22T18:49:00.000+08:00

Well, not that you need to in this la. lol.. but in any case -

Please help with my survey on the Impressions of Christianity! Annddd, bug all your friends about it on msn (Christian -haters are especially welcomed!*)

I extend my thanks and grattitude in advance =) *bows*

*Eh. Let me qualify - I haven't renouced my faith -_-

Injustice

2007-07-02T23:32:00.000+08:00

What prompted me to think about this about two days ago, was my mom's account about the newly admitted Indonesian girl patient at her hospital who came for treatment. Robbers had climbed into her home through the window and demanded for money. Her grandmother had helplessly given them everything, finding for all that they wanted in the house. Then the robbers noticed the girl and then they assulted her... ignoring that they were ruining the life of this twelve year old, ignoring that they were doing it in front of her own grandmother, ignoring that they were doing it in her own home. Argh.

It is very, very clear in the finite human perspective - life is not fair.

From what was given or not given at birth to the situations that chance upon individuals regardless of how bad a person they seemingly are - there doesn't seem to be any indicator that theres a force which is moderating the bad guys and policing the evilness. Be it a moral injustice, a personal injustice, an academic injustice - different degrees of intensity and importance towards humanity perhaps, but ultimately, we still don't like it.

It is betrayal. But betrayal on the level of something higher than an explict agreement - it is the betrayal of the ideals of our humanity. The betryal of the concepts which we recognise and respect as a person.

Injustice is ironically done by passing a flawed judgement onto something - thus mainfesting into a flawed action. But ultimately.. Perfect Judgement will be the one that will appease those flawed actions in the end.

And beautifully, by the Cross - it was the injustice itself that revealed the superiority of Justice and the clear indication of Hope that Justice will be served in His time.

"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked.
They all answered, "Crucify him!"

"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"

All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

-- Matthew 27:22-26

A sad Irony

2007-06-14T18:25:00.000+08:00

They had loyalty, a sense of justice, cheerfulness, unity, were sacrificial, were willing to swallow defeat in the face and move on - they were a bunch of good kids. And however they may appear in front of the teachers, the vulgarities they sprout and the unruly behaviour they exhibited at points - those are but just superficial impressions of 'bad' boys. The outlawic gestures do not define them, and even as society demands expectations of such cosmetic changes, thats easy to deal with.While easing myself into their lingo and befriending them, I realised again the feeling of uncomplicated sincerity. And I acknowledged, they had good hearts.

The boys were a mix of Secondary 1 and 2 and were from a mission school's Basketball team, taking part in the second division's matches as they had won 1 and lost 2 matches the previous day. Another lousy defeat to a team younger than them and the way they handled it, an opponent's team jeering at them which caused mutual retaliation (it did not escalate due to the presence of teachers) Such events did allow me to have a deeper appreciation of how the boys stood together as a team. But the event that stood out the most for me was when I had tried to find out their response to the gospel.

I had kept in mind that Chapel service at school, the constant empahsis on aspects of the gospel message and the insistutional Christian atmosphere which encircled them each day probaly already hardened their hearts to the message - but still. While I could converse with them with everything else, the gospel message was what they are put off by and 'closed' to. And if it were explained just simply, it was an instant conversation ender with faces all frowning or sianed.

It is just saddening that when they had heard it so many times, they never really listened to it before - and in this way, the very repitition of such a structure positions those who are so close to it so much further away.

Familarity breeds contempt perhaps.

A different angle at the 'look at creation' argument

2007-06-01T23:38:00.000+08:00

Just academically speaking, the 'look at creation to figure out there is a creator' theory is the one that convinces me the most that God exists. I think most Christians would agree, by itself it is pretty strong. The argument as brought up by Paul in Romans - "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." when reduced to a textbook point level is simply that mankind should be able to deduce that there is a God by looking at everything that exists in theworld. The principle is that you look at a building, you'll know there is a builder. From things of the physical, intangible, moral and metaphysical dimensions - the world is much too complex to be without a creator, or at least (in sticking with my academical position for this entry sake) an intelligence that would construct it. Of course there exists the anti-thesis - with their own logic through observation, with claims that it is logically possible to see that the world came about without a God as well, like through evolution. And because of the immense academic content that is avaliable in this area of study as well as its expected connection to the field of science, it is easy for anyone to appear like some religious fantatic when writing against it (Yes, personally I think that the theory of evolution and the world's origins being due to some explosive bang of no reason is ridiculous.) where people of higher knowledge who don't require the human gratification of grasping for a 'God' will look upon , sigh and tolerate (-_- sigh.) But anyway, I think there can be a closer look at this usual argument beyond the baseline that 'complexity and utility of a watch indicates a watchmaker' to look at the nature of this complexity and praise the skill of the watchmaker if he really is blind.

First a disclaimer - if the arguments below are reasonable enough to convince one's logic (in postmodernistic light that is, though seriously speaking - logic is logic -_-) that there is a God, it might be tempting to say that perhaps its not God as in God but maybe a mystical force or conciousness or something else - but if so, we must examine whether its logical to think that this intelligence who crafted all can be limited by his craft. One should conclude that the 'intelligence' should be one that is ominpotent, ominsience and ominpresent as its only logically that the creator of all will not be restricted in such a manner.

Necessity of Order
Actually this one is quite a causual follow-up when one announces skepticism of big bang cum evolution -how could chaos generate order? The means that it can be done in this universe through deliberate effort all requires a direction - someone needs to be in control to produce and end result. A long period of time seems to somehow provide the ability for this to happen - but logically speaking, why should it? We deteoriate with a lack of action and can only change with effort and if we desire improvement, we need ability. At least thats the way the world works now and if we were to claim it to function differently or intelligently, a force has to be behind this very change of function.

Existence of Errors
Which show that there is a perfection, or at least somewhere where humans look to as perfect. Be it in beauty, physical form, morality and whatsoever - minus the relativism and that society made it so first and generalise, we can see that humans have standards. Where and how did such an appreciation which demonstrates exclusitivity, negetive/positive emotion, discrimination, whimsical selection and other random elements originate from? And note that cultures were developed, universal human rights could be generally agreed on and people hate each other and the situations in the world most of the time when they are asked.

Necessity of Laws and Relationships and Structures
To take a twist on a KI question - Why is knowledge constructed? Not the practical reasons, but reasons within philosophical boundaries? Why is the world as it is? The laws of physics and chemistry to just be? Why does the food chain of plant eaten by plant-eater eaten by meat-eater have to be this way? If some random pool were to explode randomly into an existence, wouldn't it be much easier to evovle into homogenous creatures that did not require the behaviours of eating, sleeping and drinking - why create such dependendcies and inter-relations and a very community in the first place if the randomness could randomate otherwise? Why responses and relationships of all fields work in such a way anway?

Formulation of Logic and Sequencing
How were thinking faculties formed? Why was rationality allowed? How did we get the concept of a linear progression and develop the anti-thesis of a cyclical existence instead? How did diverstiy through discourse actually come about? Essentially how did this thing just burst into existance like that.

Concept of Competition
We all understand competition and I think the surivival of the fittest theory is derived from it - but why this very concept in the first place. We understand the concept of harmony too, and evolution did not progress us by cooridnating us to harmonise and be unified in the purposes - instead, we are divided and diversified in interests, ability and inclinations. All creatures, even man.

And the other Abstract Constructs...
The other stuff like why the sky is above us. Why are we in such a human form. Why the world jigsaws itself to fit us. And in a nutshell, complexity is much more than just complexity.

And as the argument goes, is it really possible that the world can exist like such without a creator?

-----------------

On a side note, I've updated Zone 127. (Yeah.. its been loooong since I have, I know) and have renamed it Unneeded Theory .

"We don't need God. We can think of much better ways coming into existence."
"Yeah, and they sound smarter too!"
--Narrow-minded Atheists as presented by a Skeptical Christian :p

This House Believes.

2007-05-17T18:02:00.000+08:00

Being a Christian and relying on the Christian worldview(as much as its not a lobby in any sense, but that aside for now-) while you engage in debate is disadvantagous, not because the Christian view doesn't hold firm logic, but because of the associations that are so deeply attached to religious beliefs and standpoints. They actually might not be significant at all to what the believer believes, or are misconceptions that still hoover around even after explicit clarification. If we divorce all implications from possession of to the identity of a religious believer and just observe, arguing something while being a Christian presents one of the most difficulties and has perhaps one of the largest pitfalls of ridicule when one is defeated in terms of arguementation due to a bad manner in one's using of words to colour up your logical connections so it may serve to fit the academians circles. Academicians themselves have their differences when considering the religious believer as a subject - those that exclaim 'narrow-mindedness' are now of a lesser species once apologetics has been understood roughly, we usually get those with tolerance and psychologified understanding of one's mental inclinations and f course, there are those that go against the respect to religious beliefs totally using the logical-after-we-ponder-awhile-about-it-but-then-there-are-other-sides anti-thesis arugments to the presented rationalities of the faith, strongly reinforced by emotional rethoric. But all that aside - I shall attempt to roughly identify a few random factors of a believer's stance which turns things away from his favour.

Theological Mysteries
Amongst the several certainities we have, there are things we don't know about. Well, I guess it would not be so bad in the terms of other philosophies whereby they wouldn't be expected to have all the answers, but when a Christian explains that some things are not revealed by His creator and in his plans, the ignorance can be somehow linked to be stupidity.

'Holy' Image
While outlaws and people who bend conventions are a breath of fresh air, those that abide by the laws are naturally percieved as dogmatic and rigid (and therefore stupid?) Perhaps its the fact that it gives a 'follower' feel, that really destroys the 'leadership' and 'destiny is in my control' spirit and drive.

The world's problems
Misery, pain, suffering and blatant emotion to the big issues of the world and episodes of distress is sometimes just rethoric enough to persuade a person that the believer is insensitive and irrational and good enough to twist the arguements away from logical grounds into questionable lights.

Associations to 'god'
Someone in control of space, time and all physical and metaphysical realms to this universe indicates an accountability to Him - but that's not the image one would actually think of. Instead, there are alot of negetive images and associations, one of the floating around ones which aren't exactly justified by anything. For instance, one such idea roughly held by the 'religion is a crutch' people is that God is some conception of the mind and only for the weak-willed who can't live their lives without a handle of some sort to grasp. While people might not have the belief in their belief systems, the lingering academic presence of that conception is kinda like a tapped mana card that hints strongly, thus giving bad associations to Christian arguements even before the logic is tested.

Evangelical nature of Christianity
We share because we believe that it is true, of course without intentions of imposing although some may get zealous to that extent. But this act would offend the um, (no offense, lol!) weak-minded - either 1) afraid of the beliefs, 2) affected by the sharing or 3) insulted by the sharing, which is not exactly logical justified since the same person would probaly be amused if you tried to convince him the easter bunny existed and lived in Alaska, or apathetic/intellectually sitmulated if you wanted to give your reasons for the belief of how some war in history started. And well, maybe they could whine a little about it if they don't like the fact that information which they assume they don't care about is presented to them - sometimes, people do whine when we tell them excitedly about this doctor who found the cure to a dieasese since they're not that interested in that dieasese or bothered if they have it or not.

The people associated to us
Especially when we have a image that professes a lot, it just takes a few people who claim to be of Christian beliefs to do certain actions that make everyone seem bad. It would be reinforced by the fact that christians are supposed to be part of a community.

I didn't give a counter to every point up there - not because it can't be done, but rather because I don't think I need to -_- There are the valid points of arguements agaisnt the faith which can be taken and discussed so that we, as equal humans can try to climb over the big questions that existence throws at us together with the evidence we have at hand and the logic we can generate. Mankind should be more intelligent than using the impressions to judge no matter what the subject matter is and even if we don't want to bother about the burning house because sleeping is good for health, we should still find out if fire hurts us.

When death is the one that binds

2007-05-12T22:55:00.000+08:00

I watched the Virginia Tech graduation ceremony on TV today where it was really a bitter-sweet rememberance of those that died in the shootings rather than a celebration of being free from the education system to be chained to another one. There were also the deaths of the soliders that had died in the military training overseas. It got me remembering the funeral I went through last year too, and in reaction "why die already then show so much respect. *and I guess the effect would be perfect here if I could swear*"

Its a common ponderance, this irrationality. But I think that whatever psychological/sociological justifications for the actions after a death is never emotionally justified. Its only by death that the emotions are somehow activated. Only by losing it that we somehow are awakened into a reality. Only by destruction of something that we can finally look at the past and discover a value in it.

And perhaps its with feelings like that, that mankind is moved towards a truer humanhood. Death's power breaks away all tensions and conflict in the relationships of any parties as the energies are re-focused onto this new grievance. Sudden death has the additional power of shock that disarms everyone into submission of cooperation - everything else doesn't matter for now, let's do this because its whats important.

Whats important? When are the emotions of saddness, regret and remorse ever important? They waste time, money and energy and amount to nothing at all in the humanistic sense and if we ignore the psychological necessity of crying to appease youself.

Yet, its only at this point that people finally acknowledge stupidity, reconcile, renew tight tensions and have a paradigm shift. Only at this point, do we realise inefficiencies, muster courage and resolve to help. Only at this point are things in a deeper clarity and rationality...

All things, except perhaps the things of death itself.

Why superheroes wear masks

2007-05-08T15:54:00.000+08:00

Spiderman 3 wasn't that great. But still, it did remind me of those symbols of ultimate altruism, the ones who fight for justice without redeeming honour, the ones who put their lives at stake and not expect glory, the ones who give so much of themselves and fly away before the applause - So as the mainstreamed quote goes, with great power comes great responsibility. Just like spidey has his burden from the radioactive spider, so many other superheroes take their burdens from a gift.

Spidey's justification for the mask was that he didn't want his enemies to know who he was, lest they came to hurt his loved ones. I think the Ultimate Spiderman comics give a clearer picture of this injustice to him as he struggles with deleting the voice messages so his Aunt would not hear his teacher questioning why he had skipped school while he was trying to survive a mob at chinatown, and his loner tendencies at school even breaking up with his girlfriend, Mary Jane to protect her from his heroship, vengefully ignoring her plea that "you can't go on living life without any friends..." (Eh.. that was for that issue #80+ I think. I know I'm quite backdated considering that the series has reached about 200+ already? -_- Well, blame Singapore for a lack avenues to purchase them) Its unfair, one would feel, that spidey has to save people without anyone knowing anything about the one behind the mask. Actions would define the person, but when its demonstrated behind a mask, the actions wouldn't really matter...

Although no superhero would see things in such a psychological perspective - but perhaps, on a deeper level, superheroes wear masks because its hard to have dual relationships. Like a consellor who have to establish artificial relationships with his clients, a hero establishes a similar 'moment of empthy' with the people he saves. To be a hero and a friend, to be a disciplinarian and a buddy, a teacher and a relative.. For both to be existant at the same time is difficult.

I sigh at a scene when spidey chats with his Aunt, unable to tell her things because his unable to reveal his identity. As much as he has a close and argubly, deep relationship with her, he still is unable to express certain things because of his mask. Yet, perhaps sometimes thats the way everyone is like. We might not have a tangible mask that gives clear indicators of what we hide, but because of circumstances of a particular nature, there are things we are just incapable of telling someone, not because we don't want to, but just because we're not supposed to - we can't. We need to wear that mask.

And I guess when spidey flys around the city in the night, swinging up to perch onto a building so he may suvey the cityscape, recalling how his fighting this battle with pain and blood, perservering through the struggles while knowing that no body will ever appreciate Peter Parker but only Spider-Man, remembering that he is doing it all alone... It would be because sometimes, he needs the moonshine.

Is your eraser trying to tell you something?

2007-03-31T07:07:00.000+08:00

Inanimate objects can teach you things - and acutally, the way they do can be viewed to be even better than the alive, simply because without having the ability to make a decesion and to define even a tinge of rationality in that choice, the nature of its lessons become especially objective and without some necessary baggage which the ones who feel have to put up with (on both sides). The most obvious and direct example, would be books as compared to human teachers, for the fact that the books won't care so much about your welfare. They do not have that conciousness, only merely being able to account for things in a clean, generalistic fashion that does not yell for the student to commit.

But there are other inanimate objects that can be teachers of course, and this time i refer to my computer. Not that it has great educational CDs and wikipedia- its act was not that related to data generation. All it did, was simply to die. I suppose the motherboard was overheated or something due to the countless number of times I left it on and went to sleep. There was also once when I got up and rushed for school, without turning the guy off and coming back only to use it again before I allowed it rest. Significantly, the first time the com died on me, I pleaded with it to allow me to use it since I had about 3 major things to complete before the next day - well it worked, and then I left it on and went to sleep again -_- . This time, I came back to find that the com has really died. Any hope will be found in the computer shop whose salesman recongises my dad and myself as the annual visitors who formatted our coms close to 4 times.

My com is probaly tired with constantly giving me the benefit of the doubt, constantly ignorning any abuse and working as apathetically as I am while I use it, its tired of my criticisms of its lag, tried of my sigh at its not going faster while I do not attempt to buy it new cards or clear up its disk space, tired that I ignored its visible grievences and worked as a utilitarian, tired that I made no apologies and moved on just as things were even after it was weakened. Yes, just because I always did it, it doesn't mean I can always do - there is that breaking point. As cliche as it is - second chances don't come easy, and to ignore the significance of that attempted revival.. my Com probaly couldn't take it anymore.
All those lessons, from a sacrifical death of my Com. Thank you.

And yes, I do believe that the eraser is trying to teach me something to. Well, I'll try.

Because i never am I AM

2007-03-09T13:52:00.000+08:00

Actually... when I look back and take things in a quantitative light, I am quite a new Christian. The memories of the exact actualities in the before and after, probaly cannot be recounted by me in purest of the emotions, but counting in mere years alone - 3 years. 3 years that I can consider myself as a believer. 3 years where I have constantly been re-challenged with new insights and revelations. 3 years that I have come to understand what repentance and grattitude and living for His glory is about, and as the cliche goes - theres still so much more to learn and appreciate.

Somehow, as mystically sounding as it may seem, its no more just about the reasons that I believe - not that Christianity cannot put up a rational defense for itself. Its not the sense that it makes which has me believing in it, although perhaps I was appealed to the rationality of things at the start. Its more than the simple logic of christinanity being a reasonable take on things. Its the reality of Christianity. That makes me live for it. Many have 'founded' (The inverted commas not for the sake of me mocking the truth of how they find it, but instead the definition and degree of it. From lets say, a study to a scrutinising to a discovery) religion and associated it to dogmas, senselessness, needed-human-gratification, illusions, evilness and whatever it may be - but in such a paradigm, the actual analysis of the spiritual dimension can be so taken for granted. The moral values are measured in indicators of implications and effects; the human being is seen in the light of his psychology, social functions and behavioural patterns; the concepts of accountability and answerableness can be taken away so easily with a shrug of agnostism and apathy. When we measure the world so much by the constructs we create, how do we expect to ever understand what constructed us in the first place?
The expectations, merits and dependences that drives humans today - we aim at them at angles only to hope at solutions and contentment.

But what was, is and will be the problem?

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” - C.S. Lewis

In certain cases, giving up has no ability of being an option

2007-03-05T21:51:00.001+08:00

When the attention one spends is shifted away from yourself, and towards the lives of others, trying at means to ensure their welfare and directing yourself to be more relevant to be able to teach in a way that is hopefully more impactful, being invovled such that the concerns you have fade into theirs - the best reward is probaly a sincerity. Sincere willingness to learn, sincere attitude in change, sincere feelings that show out. Pouring out of yourself is just, tiring. And when one finally gets back to focus on his own life as well, it is only to be realised that its not the best in the first place anyway.

While trying to grapple at a sincerity from another party which cannot be done anyway since he is the one possessing it, the ironic feeling that one gets when such tests are reapplied to himself that he realises the need to grapple at his own sincerity to enable the change.

Of course one can't do this by himself, and by no means I am.
But I still am tired.

If you don't know what I mean

2007-03-04T00:33:00.000+08:00

You can ask.

A reason why I write such convoluted pieces sometimes, is probaly because - such is probaly the nearest possible way I can try to get across what I'm trying to express. I like language for the ability it gives us to articulate our thoughts and crystalise them into some form, but as I said before, its not enough to ever justify yourself through mere words. Its not a matter of ability although in some sense, when we see language to be a means of communicating ideas to someone else that it would work better when you have a command of the language that can mutate itself to satisfy the intellectuals to the masses. But if its not about the scope of who you are trying to tell what you mean too, and if its more about the intention of bringing your understanding and emotions into a something that exists in sentences, to form up an essay, then its not really about pleasing people/insistutions. Its about, saying it. And in way, there needs to be a certain context and identifications that another party has to experience to get you - its not an understanding in the form of a reconginition of the ideas the sentences build up to mean but rather, an emphaty that the other party feels while appreciating the ideas that reveal themselves in the text.

It can wondered if the emotions are just merely that - and that they are meant to stay that way, without having the form to enter the dimension of words. Just a understanding of a picture, just a smile at a poem, just a sigh to a story.

But of course, simplicity is always beautiful. And appreciating it after everything else without grappling with the need to try to find an order in everything. We don't need the answers to all of life's questions, and as much as I know that there are the assumptions, interpretations and irritations at such a conclusion, I say it because its true - God is enough.

And I can try.

The Dawkins Delusion

2007-02-22T21:48:00.000+08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis

Well, heres a usual christian apologetic arguement for once. (although its abit exaggerated.. can't be helped la) At least the believers in such have their views respected and tolerated, like every other believer who is nicely housed in this diverse world of many ideas, lol.

Other People

2007-02-17T16:51:00.000+08:00

About five years ago, when my Dad shook his head at my not knowing who certain authors and 'important' people were, my justification was that - I cared about the ideas and the concepts, not the people who created them.

But soon enough, with the very nature of how education was like, I found that it was needed to consider the persons behind the ideas. The world did think that associating the ideas with the people were important - and yes, they are a large part of the context by which the idea is created anyway. Still, I found worth in concepts rather than the people. Not that the latter was just a mere shell and channel of the thoughts to be conveyed, I did associate much esteemed psychology, emotion and other forms of constructs unto such a species. However, there was soon the inevitable future realisations of what persons really were, and how relevant they were besides the cold and dry constructs that the academic knowledges built up. When thoughts that chasing the academica for academic sake was possibly a bit selfish since it only invovled hot air and wasted paper - no changed lives.

If changed lives were the thing to matter, the knowledge to be expressed need not reach the vocabulary of the exclusive thinkers - and to come with such, the emotional appreciation of something need not be so deeply analysed. Things could be simple, like they always are. Yet, its only when one realises the simplicity that he does know how it is to be grappled with in his complex terms. Even when it concerns other people.

Religious Certainty

2007-01-21T22:37:00.000+08:00

Even at Church, it is easy to feel uneasy about the reaction of a smile.
Smiles - even sincere ones that express nothing of sadistic pleasure, can qualify as an insult in these days. For the skeptical thinker, an insult to the intelligence. For the humanist, an insult to mankind's welfare. For victims, an insult to their pain.

Complex, unanswerable questions - seemingly appeased by a faith, resolved by the belief in a God, tackled by the sercurity of a knowledge. And then a smile. Everybody thus hates the person.

The 'effect' of religion - the assurance and comfort onlookers determine it to bring and the peace and truth that believers themselves decided that they have found, is not so bad. It harms no one, and in fact brings joy, so we may let them continue. The real source of disgust probaly comes from observation of the behaviour after faith. Perhaps its the unmentioned arrogance, or the irrational joy. Maybe its the decesive exclaimations or the peace in the midst of all. The exclusiveness as crafted by the faith and the distinction that will eventually divide induces some of such unhappiness.

But, down to the most simplistic of equations, we're proud, and we don't like being wrong.
But if everyone is wrong in the first place, pride doesn't have a place in the sum of things anyway.

Away with the Manger

2006-12-25T22:20:00.000+08:00

Barnabas stared silently at his camera. Sighing, he could not help but found himself pondering over his role again - The art of photography, looked upon most pessimistically, is afterall the most depressing of all of the other translators. The artist could create. The actor could dramatise. The writer could show. But the photographer... he was only one that simply translated the image that was seen onto a paper. No tale of creativity behind it.

But at least, Barnabas comforted himself - it was the only translator that conveyed the truth. Yes, although the tilts and adjustments tried to capture the subject in its best glory, the image taken was still the a real copy of the original. A fake, yes. But.. the real-lest. Barnabas sighed again as he felt the irony of this comfort. Still, he know he had that power. He can translate the truth... or at least, he is supposed to translate the truth.

Shaking his head, he looked around and adjusted his stand, narrowing his thoughts on the necessary assignment - a photograph that showed the true meaning of Christmas. He turned to face the front of the stand, and smiled at what he saw in front of himself - Baby Jesus in a manger.

"Perfect picture."

The digital camera beeped as Barnabas tapped the swtich, standing behind the camera, he zoomed the focus to clarity, turned on the flash and...

"Ho Ho Ho! How can you take a picture of Christmas without me?"

Alarmed at the voice, Barnabas spun around and was face to face with Santa Claus.

"Christmas is all about presents- Be it the innocent children that wants a figure to represent this season. Be it the shop-owners that know all about commercial value of this period. Be it the warmth that can happen when we attach a spirit of giving for the good of mankind to this time. All these elements are needed for mankind's christmas! Yes, giving gifts! The idealistic can see it as man's necessary generousity, and those politically correct will take it as the necessary courtesy. Soo... I shall stand here, next to the manger."

Barnabas narrowed his eyes and hesistated on voicing his scepticism to the symbol of 'giving' just next to the manger. Can they ever stand, side by side?

Shruging it off, Barnabas readied himself again, "Okay.. look here Santa. 1... 2..."

"Wait... Wait! How can you take a picture of Christmas without us?"

A group of carol singers showed up and sang the first stanza of "Away in a Manger".

"You see, Christmas is all above singing songs. How can the season be right without the touch of music? Mankind loves performances and song, and we have to give them that necessary entertainment! Be it to be the one on the stage to impress, or the one on the other side making merry - Christmas needs us!"

With that the Carol singers jumped behind Santa Claus.

Frowning, Barnabas begun again, "Okaaay. Ready up guys... 1... 2..."

"Wait! Wait for me! How can you take a picture of Christmas without me?"

A lady carrying a lot of shopping bags walked towards the manger and stood beside it too, "Christmas is all about buying things. People just love walking in the crowds, using their money in the malls and feeling the festive celebrations! Come on!"

"Okay. Lets go again, 1... 2..."

"WAIT!"

This time, it was a cook. Clutching onto her turkey, she exclaimed, "Christmas is all about food! You cannot forget the lovely necessaries that is needed for this festivity. People would want to feel their stomachs and celebrate with each other!"

"Alright. Fine! Get in. 1... 2..."

"Waitttt!" A family stormed into the place - a father, a mother, and a little girl in tow. The father declared, "Christmas is all about spending quality time with the family. It being a holiday, the family comes back into the picture. With the year coming to a close as well, it becomes the perfect time to reflect and think back upon how much we have not thought of each other, and resolve to have better relationships the next year!"

"Right. So... um.."

With the family in the picture, the scene suddenly became very crowded. There was pushing and yelling, as if all the elements were trying to outshine each other as which was the better representative of Christmas. Each gave their own speeches of how they captured the essence of Christmas from the angles of the young to the old, the consumer to the organisations, the happy to the poor...

"SLIENCE!"

Everyone stopped and turned to look at Santa.

"This manger is taking up too much space! We need to shift it away!"

Within seconds, everyone grabbed hold of the manger and threw it out of view.

"Hey, Cameraman! We're ready now."

Barnabas blinked a few times and saw that the crowd of people were in their positions.

"Good. Lets go now.. 1... 2... "

Three.

but, I only passed by

2006-12-17T18:14:00.000+08:00

The best speeches ever made, are probaly those done in heart.
A sincere, truthful telling of the simplest conception can be the most profound piece of conveyance one can make to another. While everyone grows up to learn to construct speech in all its style and impact, and to form sentences in their political correctness with appeal - no politician, debator or professor will ever defeat the words that will proceed from the mouth of 7 year olds =)

When Seeing is not Believing

2006-12-07T08:03:00.000+08:00

While the title hints very strongly at a theological article and some apologetics to the matter, the issue I'm writing about here is actually much simpler. I have a reason behind not wanting to help girls carry their bags, not to give up seats for them - basically, to discharge the 'gentlemanly behaviour' unto them, unless I see a situation when the girl is in a need of such a gesture. I shall answer why, at the end of this entry.

Laws alone are unable to assess a key factor in the behaviour of a subject - the subject's intentions and motives. The severity of a crime is considered without associating the motives of the crime to the action, but eviler motives and more poisonous intentions would probaly increase the offence of it. Still, if we were to make such factors a consideration, the court will be in disorder from the value judgements that it will be going into. With the law as the attempted basis of morality, society is sercure enough to know that a certain degree of justice will be served. Mankind is more or less satisfied by such a justice.

But on matters that concern the principles, the morales and the observations - issues that are not big enough to demand its own organised institution, the process is not that detailed. Nor is it that obvious. Most of the time, its probaly just a response, not a concious effort to make a judgement. And thus, we face much more disorder then a court. Its only that the factors of motives and intentions are now considered thats the problem - its more of that motives and intentions are interpreted. And the set of laws that lie in that person's heart, transcend beyond a function of appeasing the masses. In fact, it has no such desire. The laws are crafted to serve his purposes and philosophy. Therefore, the basis is destroyed. A community of diversity only intensifies this problem.

It is because that man does not have the perfect perception of judgement that he has no choice but to live by impressions. A vision that can pierce all layers to reveal the truth is impossible, even if one wishes to slice up his own position and behaviour. Everyone, in same way or another knows this - the angst calls them facades. The thinkers muse over people's masks. Society understands the needed courtesy before each man. I have broken the ice a couple of times by acknowledging and laughing along with the person that we have to go through some small talk first before actually conversing.

Knowledge of the defense of impressions changes the social situation immediately - its not how you are like. Its how you are percieved to be. And instead of building character and values, one can execute behaviours and gestures. The irony is that the very element behind what started this disorder is forsaken - Sincerity. It is difficult for mankind give judgement in truth, and due to its nature, it probaly will be dificult for it to gain such an absolute in return. The ease by which someone can create an impression (be it conciously or unconciously) is based upon the careless judgement we give. There is an attachement to certain gestures to certain traits, and what I suggest, is that we rethink these gestures to mean something with sincerity.

And thus ladies, the reason why I do not wish to help carry your bags is not because I do not appreciate your character, nor is it because I am lazy, nor is it because I do not want to help.
Its simply because - I see no need to impress you.

The problem with question and answers

2006-11-25T00:04:00.001+08:00

Well, yes. Its pretty obvious. The failure of the academicians lie in the fact that they aren not really providing answers. But I'm not saying that theology or any 'spiritually-related' content does such honours. Afterall, at the very end - what is established through relative classifications end up as concepts or theory. And purposes drawn around them are made not so much with respect to that concept, but rather how it meshes with the other aspects such as one's heart and experience.

Questions - without any emotional attachements to them should not be taken as anything else, they are dryly indicative of nothing other than a statement that requires answers. The question behind the question, and the perspective hiding behind the curiousity renders such a statement, but answers might not appease the actual disorder. The formulated statement may seem similar to a trend of questioners, but persona that choosed to hop upon that bandwagon of queries is one that wields a different 'logic'.

Thus, the answer really shouldn't be an answer to the question - not the academic perspective that oversees the entire picture and submits to deciding objectively and professionally how reasonable the proposition is. Rather, the answer should be answer directed at discovering where the person is coming from - destroy paradigms. banish perceptions. crush opinions. -
Our real purpose, is really to answer the question of the person, not the person's question. And every question, being a different one from everyone else, all require a different way of answering.

But all in all, the answer, is still... an answer.

Sensitivity

2006-11-06T22:00:00.000+08:00

Are we chained to sensitivity - that sensitivity creates us? Because of our sensitivity to time, we may possess memories that formulate who we are. Because of our sensitivities to circumstance, we may react and respond, to potray our identities. To be who we are within this space and time, we need the sensitivity of what is around and of what is needed to be done. We can call it purpose. We can attach attainments of wealth or spirituality with it. And this burden-like nature of sensitivity exists in so much more depth and so much more scopes: The sensitivity to language either impedes us from free expression - or is so heightened to the extent that we can crystalise what is it that we feel, and thus intensifying with greater clarity what our emotions and fears. The sensitivity to people that we cannot simply exist without our purposes intersecting with another's defeat or triumph, neither may we live on without having others becoming sakes for the process that we go by, because they are that process we go on for. The sensitivity to structure gives us the inevitable groan to confrom and abide. The sensitivity to appearances, the power to ignore the facades. The sensitivity of self, the devising of worlds that revovle around a personal perfection. The sensitivity of pain, the ability to dream up persistence and determination. And so on.

Its difficult to break an equation down, when it deals so much with elements like pain and hurt. Yes, we can push the details into the shadows of statistics and analysis, but ultimately, when the rational persona is faced with situations that tug at the emotions - he will run by the function that the heart dictates. The degree and intensity of it is a different matter.

On a side note, sometimes I regret not practicing being a poet much earlier on. To express through a compact and meaing-showing means is so much more meaningful.

Re: Time to Stand Up - by Richard Dawkins

2006-10-10T21:52:00.000+08:00

I am not declaring an heavy-fire rebuttal, nor am I doing a aggressive counter-attacking critique. By position and standards, I am no way on par with his credentials, nor expeirience he has within the academic realm. Thus, I do not suppose I am academical ready to attempt such a feat unto such an article, nor do I suppose the case is academically appeaseable in the first place - that shall be my main crux - so, it is not a point-by-point debunking to the raised propositions, as of course, I would like to explore the implicit mindsets and views behind the prose, and speak on the issue rather than the article. By no means am I trying to put up a stance for any side, although personally, I have no qualms nor shame about admiting that I am belong to the ones cited by Dawkins as the 'religious lobby' - I am a Christian, and one who believes that christianity is not something to live with, but to live for. Of course, the arguement will be that christianity is not a lobby, nor an opinion to be considered by the same barometers attached to assesments and perspectives - but lest I infuriate by the skepticism that will inevitably come through the observation of such as 'mystical' and in Dawkins' terms, 'unscientific', I shall have no dispute with that.

A truth will go through a few stages of skepticism - Laughther. Mockery. Violent Objection. Ending finally with the nice ending of meek acceptance through an a-ha revealation, or an ending that sees a rejector that floats around agressiveness to fear. Not limited by any boundaries - it can be a domestic truth. A historic truth. A scientific truth. A truth that has major consequences, a truth that doesn't really matter if anyone knows about it. However, possiblities and doubt have reduced humans into being creatures uncapable of such attainment - reducing them into creatures that can only believe . We all have indicators for such a phenomena to happen, we have our justifications: structures, systems, models, senses, observations, experiences.. Justifications have been placed into the jars sometimes and then assessed on have strong they are, and within that scope, we have built up another perpection to what is justified-justified, and what is not-really-justified, to what is ridiculously-justified. We have used some abilities (abilities, which I will question how they came to be constructed in the first place) we have to do this - the power of common sense. The strength of reasoning. Logic. Rationalising. Thinking. Working it out. These handles are perfect to hold onto because everything makes so much sense (a deeper construct that was crafted within us that respond towards the excercising of these abilities) when we apply them to situations.

But what are these abilities really about? What is logic? What is reason? What is working it out?No, I am not moving into the sceptic's arguements and fuzzing out the justifications that are by 'observational standards' concrete and hard truth. By no means am I saying science contridicts religion, nor am I saying that they are at odds at each other - they can fit perfectly without any dispute over the fundementals of science, besides a few infuriated scientists that may cry heresy due to their immediate assumptions of the associations it will have to higher beings, and that that can't be - but to adopt such a framework, if A's mental capacity is appeased by a certain forumulation of logic and reason, while B is only able to accept another type of logic by his 'mental standards' - which is the one who is higher on the intellectual bar? If both justifications are reasonable, and can be explained to the point of logical soundness, why should we favour one faith over the other? Why would we want to be only appeased by a certain way of academics, but not another way - when one cannot claim a superiority over the other, unless man enters to impose it?

Perhaps, a speical 'respect' is dealt to religions. Maybe, a particular aura of prejudice is allowed because one claims that his or her religion says this and this. But, we can't really help it if people don't question the rationales and claims behind them and instead, hold an assumption of the rationale and claims. But then again, thats not my point in this, afterall the ones involved in 'religion' as we see it today, are people = humans = man. Religion can be but a structure and a system, rather than a philosophy adopted based upon one's mental acceptance of reasonable justification. One can blame religion for the pain if he is allowed to be removed from the gel of political corretness. My point is really, why assume that we assume a certain manner of approaching the situation. Religion in today's context is not playing its politics well, I agree. Some insistutions and organisations and people that weave their way in it are not doing a healthy job, I agree. But it is behind all these 'organisations' that the cruxes of the religious beliefs exist. Behind all interests, intentions and actions that all the meanings behind the beliefs stand for.

There is more behind the facade of religiosity - and I were to do my own 'Time to Stand Up' I'd do it against just that. Why does religion get the stares? Why do such beliefs get thrown into a corner and considered 'narrow-minded', unthinking or the easy way out of things? Why does the 'religious resoultion' and the looking-towards God get considered as not wanting to think, when it is probaly easily appeaseable in many's mental capacity that man are unable to help himself in things he doesn't have control over. Why does it suggest laughter and ridicule? Why does it get looked upon as bothersome, and then ignored?

Yes, religion probaly looks very cheesed up now, and as much 'respect' that it may get, such is only a surface swipe to appease. The inner sentiments, the deeper appreciation and actual thinking-over-it is really what matters. And in such a case, I don't think the popularity polls will generate good results.

In any case, what I suggest here is not to assume that another party is assuming something, and thus attach a label to it. Really, it can work the other way anytime.

Now - for a breath I tarry
Nor yet disperse apart -
Take my hand quick and tell me,
What have you in your heart.

Speak now, and I will answer;
How shall I help you, say;
Ere to the wind's twelve quarters
I take my endless way

... a mind forever
Voyaging through strange seas of thought, alone

-- Some poetry by A.E. Housman which was in the book a Devil's Chaplain by Richard Dawkins

The moronic Irony

2006-10-09T18:43:00.000+08:00

Though I never did the entire 'action' of joint sticks presentation (I did hold onto a few for awhile..) the world still seemed like it was engulfed from smoke by burnt incense in the span of those 3 days.

Like the smoke and dust that hint so strongly at delusion and attempt to blind harshly so one can close their eyes and silence their visibility to what will happen next, the rituals seemed to be trying so hard to serve such a purpose.

And so is Respect, the purpose's representative concept. Excuse, till the coffin is burnt away in the fires.

So eventually, humans do attempt to convince themselves to accept....
Or at least, they try to.

Vital vs Peripheral Interests

2006-10-07T10:12:00.000+08:00

Man, the rational creature. Man, the emotional being.
Thousands of times, the creature has mused over himself.
Thousands of times, the being has questioned its being.
To live by purposes. Abide by directions. Order
to dictate choices.
Sakes
to dominate decesions. To find value. Assume standards.
Wants to satisfy. Needs to appease. To discover truth.
To align paths. Rules to follow. To break. To recreate.
Moronic ironies like respect after death. Finding
appeasement. In culture. By tradition.
Excuses.
Vital. Peripheral. Confusion.

The Hospital

2006-09-23T22:31:00.000+08:00

Place of twisted virtues. self-justifying delusions delivers hope
unto those that may not need of that warmth
Yet some claim of the temperatures. Of the degrees that are not
appropirate. and need to see justice. to see cool down
For a sake that does not demand it, a sake not of bodily desires but of self.
And what is self?

but why is it self that wants? or
needs. The fundementals of the creature's concern is not mere constructs for existence.
but constructs for being
A being that does not deny its existence. A Being that will allow its wants.
A Being that will satisfiy its needs.

And not needs alone. but needs altogether
for needs do not speak of space and dimension. nor time nor place
nor whether. nor object.
nor circumstance

But of Hope.

Judgement

2006-09-19T00:15:00.000+08:00

Judge judgement, and you end up somehow fuzzily in a definational muse. And argue about human conventions of it. And dispute over consensus affirmations of it. And tumble over perspectives about it.
Relatively. Absolutely. Hesistantly.And don't-really-care-about-it-ly.

We can let it flow. Seep into the frameworks of ethics and morality. To barge into the preferences of decesions and tests. To saunter upon the fascades of living and being. Roar upon the percieved wrongs and grey whites.

Debate.

And then, let us not debate. To dish it out without the laws of reason and logic. Purpose is enough. My reason is sufficient - no, my reason is it.

Feel.

And then, let us not sense. To coldly figure out statistics and digits. Purpose is enough. Once achieved, we have it.

Choose.

And then, let us not select. The world has its choices I have mine. No one should be able to judge something. But its not a matter of ability in this - its a matter of my measure.

Sensitivity to things aren't appropirate. These things aren't appropirate-d.

Of course. I believe that justice is not a mere concept. Fairness is not just a consensus. Righteousness has a master.
There is a ruler.

And He decides.

"If the man was fooled into doing wrong and thus sent to be executed, he is but stupid. But curb his stupidity and give the fool intellect - such will generate notority that gives him but the concious effort to do wrong. Thus he is also executed." -- Logic derived from one of those Hell judges in the channel 8 10pm show, lol.

Memories

2006-08-31T21:34:00.000+08:00

We bruise ourselves through lives, and while we live through the passing-fulness of time and the boundaries of space, as we scramble through the changes and grapple uncertaintly with the constructs that mankind have created to classfiy knowledges into knowable fields - this is pretty much what we get out of it, in the ultimate end.

Lasting impressions perhaps. Half-remembered images maybe. Surely, our minds are probaly not capable of capturing the entire moments, no matter how significant or emotion-inducing they are. Yet. Memories stay on. As fragmented as they get, we still want to cling on those shards of importance. To look back and breathe in that old air- There still is value in the old. A meaning that remains in the ashes that have burned up.. and as the pheniox soars up to higher skies, the fragrance of embers remain a distant comfort.

Yeah. I do miss CTSS. LOL.

Seriously. On more pragmatic terms, anyone who claims that the school has no relevance or leaves no impression on them.. hm. Well, then at least you left the school with its culture strongly ingrained :)

How is one able to come to terms with such?

2006-08-18T02:07:00.000+08:00

Does God exist?

Perhaps its a mistake on my part to consider this a 'done to death' topic. Not that I am baffled by any theories, not that I am reconsidering my stand on any solid arguements.. No. I am just, perhaps awed at the stance that can be taken by some, and after some thought, perhaps many more in the world, of this.

The basic arguement that exists in any thesis against God's existence: What caused God? If one says that God is the first cause, then something else must have caused it. Yes, there is the infinite-finite arguement. Yes, there is the logicial working-it-out one can do to finally try to to show that God is not contained by his own creations, be it time, space or dimension -or even the concept of causation. But the next arguement to this: If we say God is the first cause, why can't we say the universe is the first cause too?

How can it be. I mean. Okay, we can argue it to soundness in by logic, by reasoning, by whatsoever, but how can one actually believe that the universe was the first cause? The movement of the planets around the sun, the intricates of the sun and earth, the biological make-up of the human body, the complex laws that govern our earth, the beauty of trees, stars, sun, sand, rain - to the possession of the knowledge of this beauty. The capacity to reason, justify, theorise, discuss - the gift of language.. music. food. animals. land. mountains. shapes. everything. Yes. We can argue that they just came to be, theres no logical problem in that. But how is one actually able to come to terms with it and assume that there is sense in such?Does no one control the clockworks? Is no one responsible for dictating the laws of the living? Is no one around that actually establishes the earth and all in it and allow man to probe into everything - from the geography to the landscape, from the savouries to the scenaries, from the breaths of great moments to his very own mind- all just came about. As, a first cause?

A lot of arguements For God. All can be found easily at any apologetics webbie. Here is my own:
The Possibility Theory
"God Exists" is found by deduction. The rest of how the world began, and how mankind started are pure possiblities. In the sense that, a dog talking is a possiblity. A cat flying is a possiblity.
But. The sun will rise tomorrow is a deduction.

And that someone will read this post, and remain apathetic. Is another.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." - Romans 1:20-21

gust of wind-

2006-07-28T22:55:00.000+08:00

rhue gazed at the stars that dominated the vastness of the sky.
he took out a brush and after dabbing it paint, he drew out the vastness that he could percieve.

and he drew.

To shout out something offensive at those who do not understand

2006-07-23T22:38:00.000+08:00

Humans tend to fear what they do not understand. Perhaps some don't call it fear. Maybe they identify it as something else, like irritation or fustration. But the naturally expected behaviour to one that does not understand a particular issue, especially one that concerns his very well-being - is to either be curious about it, and seek deep to find out more, or to be in some sense, offended by it.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And for a matter like christianity that has a nature which is offensive, its only acceptable that people who have a bit of knowledge of what this religion thing is about, loom over dangerous waters - in the sense that they are entertained by pre-concieved notions that paint a picture of something laughable, mockable, stupid or etc.

Whacking the grass only alerts the snake. And the more elaborate your whack, the more aware the snake will be. The louder effect you make, the easier it is for the snake to identify your location. The more enthusistic you thrust, the faster the snake can flee. Or well, maybe he wants to come and poision the idiot first before fleeing.

However. Sometimes the logic does not follow. It tends to tend towards an extreme - the onlooker either hates it a lot and wants to... do something about it. Or he loves it a lot and then showers the 'concept' with loves and respects or better still /sarcasm, he harmonises it with the rest of the the 'concepts'. Erm, why? Maybe its because sometimes, the ones who are supposed to be offensive aren't doing it justifiably - they either want to do it so as not to offend, or do it anyway and then offend in the wrong way. The former is done easily through the preaching of gospel lite and the propagating of happiness and love and joy and peace and the harmony of the human race. Easily, we can forsake key elements of the gospel that will anger - allowing ourselves to forget things like Sin. The severity of it, the actual finger pointing and telling the person that he has done wrong and needs to repent. The revelation to him that its not in his position and capactiy to eliminate these wrongs as he is not capable of doing so. The latter, done by knocking on doors to present them with a card that says 'John 3:16'. To smile at passerbys as you walk out of church and exclaim 'Jesus loves you!'. To mention Jesus and God in a context that disallows the further clarification of anything else. And commercialised gospel music.

Alright. Perhaps I am being too skeptical and harsh on my interpretation of the second one. But really.. Christians have in their hands something that will offend anyway, so why not we show hand and deal out the entire thing so we can offend them fully? Giving them unsubstansiated tidbits and exclaiming words that carry deep significances with no explainations seriously does no justice to anything. Its only a proclaimation of the kingdom when its done properly isn't it? And why not quality proclaimation then? To tell the story and point them to the kingdom, not say words in a hurry and celebrate your own experience. Its not worth it giving someone more fodder to be angry if his assuptions of what this whole 'christianity thing' is about are negetive.

The Mentor

2006-07-20T20:49:00.000+08:00

In the midst. Of everything. The human is drowned in a deep body of commitments, of distractions. The substance engulfs the being, the liquid binds the soul. There is some restrictions, some pressures, some fustrations, some stretches. He will be brought to dilemmas. He will struggle through uncertainties. And even when the truth of where everything will end up is understood, the direction that is to be walked on is ignored as the compass in his hands are placed in the sercurity of his pockets.

The christian will always face this adversity in time. The attraction to heed the ways of the world. The want to live as someone that is as normal as anyone else and fade into the routine because evertything else is too tiring to be bothered with anyway. To live the 'good' life as opposed to the right life. To take on roles and responsibitlies and sign it off as another duty to kill yourself over. To warrior off accomplishments and clench your teeth as another set comes your way. The theology we appreciate condenses to something numbing - something that is slowly, somehow justifiably, pushed aside.

And perhaps, the dynamics of a group or a seminar setting doesn't appease such a situation. The spiritual growth of one probaly needs a personal touch. Someone that can draw you away from the entire mess, someone that can take you out of the unreasonable piorities. To show you. To scold you. To tell you. To point to you. To teach you. To challenge you. To actually look at you in the eye and ask you specifically, 'How is your walk with God?'

The reason for all. All for the reason.
For my function, for the purpose.
For the reason. I live.

The tragic turn towards Relativism

2006-07-08T11:10:00.000+08:00

Its easy to host repeat telecasts of arguements for and against the philosophy of relativism. The re-inventing of this wheel is perhaps one of the more interesting, and thus exciting thing that amatuers and seasoned debaters alike, enjoy tackling. I take the latter stand, mostly due to my belief in a God that commands authority over all in terms of how the other entities he created would behave. Likewise, the laws that run the world (as observed through the lens of science, to the lens of history) would have to rely on the designer's desries. And such also includes the laws of human actions unto each other.

A refutation I heard of relativism basically cites that the philosophy is a paradox as when it is approached by itself, the very nature of it is contridicted. I.e. If 'There are no absolutes', the statement, when considered relativistically cannot be an absolute. But anyway, I don't really intend to get into this topic of why relativism is true or why it is not true. Instead, I'll talk about one reason why people resort to relativism. I suggest, that sometimes philosophies are followed not because of humans rationally reasoning that it is a truth. Rather, they can be choosen when it seems nice and warm to sit on, especially when theres no obligations for one to follow nor any consequences there appear to be.

We can parallel this with the 'flatness' of the world today, as proposed by some author whose name I've forgot (lol) He determines it by the mass of information and limitless content and connectivity we may purchase from the limitless sources and indications. Because of this variety and colour, we face a overwhelming degree of choices and sub-choices, each bearing their own set of pros and cons. However, each of these choices are not necessary all of equal quality - before we argue the necessity of relativity here, let me affirm that I am refering to quality by the most practical perspective and am not against the erm, idealistic(?) claim of 'preference-determines-best-for-the-oneself' - I speak of quality in terms of the nature of the choice, say its strength, its implications, its truth. And as the internet's mass of information blinds us from the usage of books, there becomes lesser and lesser assurance of that quality. Generally, anyone from anywhere can make themselves heard from tools like blogs. Anyone from anywhere can set up a point of creativity that can be viewed from anyone, from anywhere. As compared to the publisher's hand in the construction of books, the harsh quality control that writings have to go through, and the years and years and revision a piece has face editing - the quality has somewhat vanished. The very fact that I can type this crap here with no one caring proves it.

Likewise, the ideas about life and the big questions that concern exisitance have too, faded away into the big multitude of 'choices'. Yes, anyone from anywhere can make a idea. Anyone from anywhere can recive that idea. Lets add structure and officialtiy. Lets add systems and rituals. Lets add significances and concepts. Boom. Life theory #15432915 at your service, specially and uniquely mine - taken from all the great religions of the world 'cause I really think them all are cools and borrowed from #13532 and #36164 because their concepts were rather interesting, but I did my own designing and editing, and this is what I think. What? Narrow minded idiot! Shut up and respect my views please. Because everyone deserves a right to have their own view and preference and I the right for my own way! So life started my way, and life works my way, soley because its my way. I can hear your way and stuff, but for all I care, thats yours. --- If, fellow readers, you haven't discovered the problem with this yet: (-_-) Many choices and the ablity and allowance to make and create choices do not equate to that choice having quality and more importantly, being true. And yes, I was being sarcastic.

Romans 2:1-4
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

Perhaps, one reason for the assumption that one can escape punishment from God is because God has not punished one - one did not feel that judgement and thus don't feel the severity of their sin. They think its okay, because nothing happened.

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
-- frm Auguries of Innocence, William Blake

Life is Short

2006-06-29T18:57:00.000+08:00

Lets appreciate this- The classic quote is never really poured much thought into after the initial glance and perhaps a second-or-more superficial musing. But really, behind the numbness that was given to it because of the regular mentioning of the quote at instances when the true expression of such a sigh really needs a more worthy context, there lies a great message behind these words. And yes, it does speak for itself. Life is short.

'Short' perhaps by the way we define it to be. As men and women that look back, and forget the countless of details that drift away to a banished horizon, recalling only the moments of importance and significance, able to only contemplate the ones that store themselves fondly in our minds, not being able to enjoy the full memories, simply because the unnaturality of it all destroys the flavour of the nostalgia.

'Short' because we never have enough. Because the longings and waitings, the wastages and creations, the firsts and lasts, all provide for the craft that illustrates our existance.

'Short' as we have to give time to live life. To give time to the efforts we make, to give them into the failures we create, to give time and look at it after it ends to experience the final emotion that either regrets or celebrates.

This time that we give... did we ever question who crafted this time? Have we ever asked who made this substance? Do we ever care about the person who gave us this time so that each and everyone of us can possess this time?

Life is short - only when we look at it from time.

Into someone else's shoes

2006-06-12T23:43:00.000+08:00

Below is an extract taken from my reflections of this thing called service learning at my school. Basically, it is volunteerism that will help the community at large. My service learning team went to an Old Folk's Home to do short performances and interact with the old folk.

"Initially, I was somewhat skeptical about doing this as a ‘service learning’ as I felt that the ‘service’ aspect about it was not great. To me, some small, inexperienced performances displayed in front of the old folk were just a waste of their time, and an ‘eye-opener’ for us. However, through the interactions with the old folk, I realised that our presence could actually make a small difference. Observing the lives of them and understanding the dread of the monotony and boredom they had to endure through each day showed me that a slight difference in the situation that we were capable of doing could brighten up their day. A small piece of entertainment and a show of concern could actually splash some colour into these repetitions and rituals they had to go through. Looking beyond the apathetic feelings I assumed the old folk would have when we sang for them, I could place myself in their shoes and realize that just a bit of difference could make them happier. And we were able to give them smiles for that moment. But that led me to realise something else, that our acts, our concern and our performance was only momentary. We were just small sparks of lights that faded away almost as fast as we came to them. This implicitly taught me the sincerity and understanding that we should give to the elderly, continually. As much as the SL process taught me the circumstances of the old folk that I did not want myself to be in, the true message that this conveyed was that humans want security. A pretty far-fetched conclusion that can be perceived through the lines of observing children leaving their parents in a safe, secure and comfy place so that they would not get hurt and yet would not give them responsibility for the taking care of their parents. A silent portrayal that can be observed through the implementation of Community Involvement programs at certain period of times so we can satisfy the innate want to show that we have emotions and feelings about the ‘less fortunate’. A sad tale that can be seen by the way we try our best to do the CIP and reflect on the things we have learnt from it to get in touch with the human side of us. Of course, the final and most important thing that I have learnt is the importance of caring and giving concern for the elderly as it is necessary. Perhaps, it’s not something I have learnt as its already something everyone knows about. But definitely, I have gained a more profound understanding of what such means, and the true implications of it. "

Other people are the significant majority in this world, relative to oneself. One's presence is only a mere breath into the vast atmosphere, a slient drop in the deep oceans. One would be overwhelmed if he tried to argue this - perhaps not by those whom he lead, perhaps not by society which he accumulates a degree of respect, but just by his stance, he would probaly be defeated. So by that knowledge, other people will more or less get realised to be on the piority list for us at some point in time. Defintely, there will be some point in time when we figure out the others that populate the world as well actually exist. We do talk about caring for others. There is mention about rights and needs for those who don't get it because it is supposed. Once in awhile motions to make the place a better place and stuffs will be raised to the floor. To stablise things and to provide a systemised approach, there have been created bodies to expect coordinated efforts. There have been formality and analysis so as to deliever justice.

But maybe. Care does not need to go through that big of a process? Maybe concern need not be passed through such a big hurdle? Perhaps understanding the other party is not so complex, not so hard of an effort to try. Well, yes there is a form of complexity. Compassion is defintely more than putting coins into begger's bowl. But that is a complexity to be grappled by the heart - it is a complexity that is intricate to the will. Do the constructs of psychology, sociology and antrphology actually surface to help in the situations? Will the academic portion of relevance actually do relevance to the situation at hand?

Not for myself alone
I guess its a motto I respect.

Because it recongises that before everything, humans have to give a damn about themselves.

The Fortunate

2006-06-06T19:43:00.000+08:00

Every man in this world have needs. To take a very big step back and observe the whole situation, theres no barometer by which one can measure how much one needs as compared to another. Its not a matter of degree of needs - a rich man would have needs as much as a poor man. A child would have as much needs as an adult. A person living in the slums would have as much needs as someone who holds a decent income and stays in a HDB. Its just the different sorts of needs each class has.

This same concept probaly applies in the area of those we label the 'less fortunate' versus us. The less fortunate, as in say mentally disabled children. But of course, this is but a labelization that was commited upon society's consensus. Does a proper rationalisation of both groups actually agree that we are the more fortunate batch? Perhaps it depends on the way you look at it. Is fortunate-ness the attatinment of happiness, and the gain of contentment? If so, the former are defintely the more fortunate batch. Because of a lesser demand, less 'worthy' expectations, their contentment is found relatively easily. But maybe one would like to consider the mental faculties, the ability to reason and the power to rationalise as needed elements to satisfy a joyful existence. If so, then we are the more fortunate batch. Then again, humans have also sought for happiness in the first place. Perhaps not similar a kind of happiness, maybe not the same a kind of contentment - but its only a different fashion. In the end, its still a felt emotion.

But what is it that we attach to our demands and expectations that allows the spawning of this other perspective? A complexity? A complication? A devotion towards the issue that intensifies our worries? An attention to the matter that blows up our conclusion? A concern that keeps bouncing back to the situation so that we can consider its past and its future and strive on towards the greater futures beyond them? Somehow, there is a need to provoke a mental anguish. To suppose a more stretched out view of the circumstance...

Oh wells. Somehow lost the inspiration... I had a whole lot more on this topic while on the ride and walk home, but lost the train of thought over dinner.

"When I was young, I used to admire intelligent people; as I grew older, I admire kind people." -- Abraham Joshua Heschel

Perhaps.

2006-05-18T00:13:00.000+08:00

The process.

Something that has been vaguely negelected by humans, in whatsoever race that is to be ran. The focus is always on the end result. Always on the final objective. We're creatures that love to dwell on the past and aim greater at the future, yet rarely do we come to terms with an appreciation on the present. Yeah, many have realised this. And then they have moved on. But perhaps it stems from this ignorance of the essence of 'process' that potrays how mankind seems to lack a faculty to appreciate this essence - not only in terms of a race of course. It can be in terms of other things like, in the theology of sin.

There is always this stark contrast between the good and the evil. A juxtaposition between beauty and ugliness. And as we come to terms to understanding goodness, we recongise it as none of the impure. There is a sense of cleansing and renewal, only because there are stains that can be contrasted to the really clean. Perhaps, it is because of this standard that we admire as clean that induces in us an ability to hate the unclean. The awareness of the impurities give us a more concerte understanding of what God is about. Thats probaly how the thing about a 'balance' came into the picture. An intensity that induces an image of a pivoted lever see-saw. Varying degrees that demand a stright line rather than a heavy bias. That's what order's about probaly. Thats how the excitement gets in. Wheres the story without the bad guy? Where's the resolution without the villian? They are needed to prove points. To convey concepts (worldy, or whatsoever) that make worthy lessons.

Can we understand mercy without the process of rescue? Can we understand grace without the act of forgiveness? We can't. The light is only light when it is around to destroy darkness. Forgiveness can only be forgiveness when one did wrong.

So perhaps, as much as my finite mind can see it, the concept of sin is really a lot more deeper than what we scantly say it to be.

"Wo se wei diao, bu se wei yu" -- from my chinese assignment.
Roughly translated: I do it for the sake of fishing, not for the sake of the fish.

Why Youth For Christ needs to exist

2006-05-07T20:33:00.000+08:00

Rarely do I pen blog entries that acutually form sense when percieved by the world (well, okay.. maybe I never do.) But I do believe this exception entry is well-deserved.

There is a key difference between the purpose of the Church and the purpose of YFC. Yes, both bodies function for God. Yes, both bodies (are supposed to) consist of God's people. Yes, both bodies are to be driven with God's direction. But there is a difference in them both.

First, let me clarify what a Church is not. A church is not a club. Its not a place that one gets social activity mates, not a place where one finds friends. As much as the building may be cosy, and there can be great music with great food - the point is not to have fun and enjoy yourself in the company of friends. Its not a place to socialise and exchange conversations with people around you. Not a place to engage in relationships and throw yourself into parties of bliss. A church is also not a company. Its not a place where people work together to achieve the best productivity of something. Its not a place where people aim to do the best bible study, to do the world's most earth-shaking worship, to be the most prayerful bunch. Its not a concentration on a product or products, its a focus on its people's relationship to God. Esentially, a church is a community. People not of this world, gathered together as a Body of Christ. Unified. (Eph 4:3-12)

YFC, on the other hand, exists as an organisation. Thus, it has a vision and an action. Very simply, the whole point of the organisation can be summed in the misson statement: To participate in the body of Christ in responsible evangelism of youth, presenting them with the person, work and teachings of Christ and discipling them into the church. Such is yfc's vision. And logic enables us to process its actions. Outreach efforts - the mechanisims and structures, the processes and groundwork, the failures and disappointments - all but just fruits of labor that this organisation want to achieve for the Lord. Of course, its not the organisation being personified as much as it can be considered the body of Christ moving towards fufilling the Great Commision. Rather, it is the inter-twined stories of several individuals, all ready to serve. Ready to tell the old, old story of Jesus and His love. Its about persons. Persons with minds, hearts and wills - reaching out to other persons with mind, hearts and wills as well. Each person engulfed with their own background, personality and inclinations. Each person with his/her own fears, secrets and desires. But the fundemental difference that seperates them both - One who belongs to God's kingdom and the other who does not. The very existence of this other party proves the need for evangelism. The need to make clear what exactly this christian faith is about -- behind the facade of religiousity. Behind the illusion of blind faith. Behind the obstacles of agnosism. And for a clarity, the best way to do it is for someone who understands what the Gospel is and to preach it in whole to the other person, while in engagement of his mind, heart and will.

Effectively, if all Christians were sharing the gospel in where they were. If all were sensitive to the dire implications of the gospel message and realise the need to evangelise - YFC can be closed down. Its purpose would be defeated most defintely.
But such a scenario, is sadly idealistic.

Of course. This is not actually not about YFC. I'm not propagating a pro-yfc stand. YFC is after all, just a platform that creates opportunties for the gospel to be shared. What this is about, is really the commitment to sharing the gospel. Afterall, with all the distractions, desires, materials, challenges - ultimately, who remembers? And at the finality, whats the most important?

Everyone now, perhaps Christians even, probaly will find this an extremely difficult question to answer.

Maybe, because they are too busy deciding what to trade their soul for to even care about such a question.

"An unexamined life is not worth living." -- Socrates

Fine Time. Go ahead and flow.

2006-04-13T01:43:00.000+08:00

But we're too distracted, too whisked away by this world of corporeal existances, to care. It would be a huge sacrifice to care, or make oneself able to care - thats what seperates the followers of God and the followers of Man. Man chases the schedule, the calendar, the economy, the politics, the desires. The followers of Man operate by those parameters...

And those of God cease to.

Knowledge: Fathom

2006-04-07T19:46:00.000+08:00

Damn KI. I mean, I guess it can be considered a more interesting subject relative to the other norms. But 'Knowledge' is seriously a pretty idiotic topic to go through. I'm sceptical about actually considering this stuff 'philosophy'. Oh wells. I get to experience being 'officialy philosophical' I guess. If philosophers are already considered to be the silly batch, I doubt rebels under its wing can do any better.

Anyway, much has been discussed over in KI class about how we can know things and whether we can really know things etc. I think I wanna rant abit about the part of us not being able to know. Since I'm lazy to dig up KI notes, lets just simplify the defination of knowledge to be:

Knowledge = Justifications X Experience

and ignore the worthless definative overkills. For this system, I borrow the secondary 4 physics chapter on heat. (hey, I miss science...)

Knowledge Capacity
This refers to knowledge in the generalistical perspective. Digits can't apply in describing this of course, but for illustration sake. If one's knowledge capacity is 800, (notice I have no means of creating a yardstick) he is unable to grasp a 900 and perhaps is able to vagely capture an 802. By a point of 803, he'll be grappling with ambiguities. However, I do not mean that knowledge capacity refers to how smart you are at grasping a concept, as the abstractness of it increases -let me get back to this later.

Specific Knowledge Capacity
As there lies an infinite number of fields of knowledge, trying to cite an example of a SKC will be pretty vague. I mean, its not just physics. It can be optics. Not just programming. It can be html. And as the field gets narrowed down further, one realises that digits can't measure anything in any 'specific' field, since 'specific' is but a term to show the intention beind this measurement. But to illustrate anyhow, yes, this refers to 'smartness'. Of course, it may not be an inate capability to grapple with it - it may be trained. And as one improves, the capacity will increase as well, allowing more knowledge to be easily poured into the specific pool. Of course, there will be integrations of knowledge and the rojak of fields - but then again, they may fall into SKC fields themselves. Just visualise a messed venn diagram.

Specific Latent Knowledge
The 'invisible' grappling required to attain a digit increase on the SKC field. There will be a certain 'number' to reach first before one can achieve the real 'knowing'. This effort is not considered official because it hides itself from the 'actual' knowledge that is invovled. The primary pre-requisites like language and math. The taken-for-granted abilities of logic and reasoning, all these will be passed upon first before one enters the arena to grapple with the 'real' knowledge.

Back to Knowledge capacity, the difference it has from actually knowledge is simply just the final capacity that humans are actually allowed to understand something. Beyond the level, the knowledge will simply overflow and we will not be able to know it. Perhaps we can try to continue pouring so as to wrestle with the ambugities and feel the twirling ripples stir ontop of our glass - but at the very end we will need to choose to either remain a skeptic, come to a compromise, or simply acknowledge our inability to understand. Afterall, someone had established that capacity within us, and He is the one who governs the rules of how this capacity will work and how much this capacity is capable of taking in. Note that this does not refers to the more intellectually inclined people - this refers to mankind in general. Even for SKC, it doesn't mean that more intelligent people have bigger capacities. Listen to the 'different kinds of smart' arguement. A someone whose in an environment A (school) can have a really great SKC, but he can die in environment B (community club) - just say if we have the factors of the people environment (notice is not just the academics or theoritical application here -- knowledge includes all fields and is without boundaries. If we deny the 'Social and communication skills' thingms and just see it in terms of relating to people, naturally. So, the knowledge capacity has lesser reason to create an elite class and a weaker people. They concept doesn't have a standard and condemns all man (perhaps those we think that they are able to know everything). Fact is, we can't. And its not about how smart you are. Its about you're knowledge capacity. If the knowledge can be filled in, it can't be filled in. The only one who is able to enlighten you on the unfathomables is the person who crafted the capacity, the person who made those questionables in the first place. God.

-

2006-04-01T23:51:00.000+08:00

There's a quote that ran something along the lines of 'the more you learn, the less you know'. Now, I'm begining to appreciate the essence of what it means..

If we take a certain science, get interested in that science, then later on discover that it is recognised as a field whereby it can be officially practise -- one should actually feel happy about it. Points of similarity connect people, and the very field that equates to your interest works by the same concept.

But of course, that is when one assumes such an ideal situation.

The science, when recongised officially, could operate in a different style from how you originally work. It could function with methods that you do not approve. It will probaly expect a pool of pre-requsitic knowledge so you are 'able' to do battle in its arena. To futher academise itself, it tends to a structure, follows an approval board and builds up a standard for all its output to obey.

And so one abides by its conditions so as to gain entry to the 'official practise'. The orignial drive and passion have been made into spurring points when the instructions of what to perform are told. One is aided and groomed so as to master the perfect methodology, as recongised by the body of that certain science. One might even be told that the ability to churn out the needed for the science is not in him/her - and thus he/she fails the tests and is commented to have deffective thinking.

Perhaps the above scenario only looks realistic to me. Anyhow, I hope that Knowledge and Inquiry will not destory zoneseekers and the ability I trust myself to have. In my own world, I own.

Phases and Experiences

2006-03-04T20:39:00.000+08:00

As creatures bounded by the flowing nature of time, man drift by this substance into new periods that can be defined roughly through significant events or changes. The more 'official' ones are probaly deemed by them (for the line is more easily seen) as the opening and closing of different chapters of one's life. Through each of these 'phases', the creature would learn, grow and change with respect to the circumstanstial input into his identity.

More commonly, these 'phases' are named as memories and stored fondly in the depths of a person's recall faculties, rising to the occasion with whiffs of nostialga when a certain memento activates the emotions. The degree of how many times this would happen or the intensity of how it will happen, depends of course, on the amount of change the creature has undergo through the phase. If world views have been shattered, perspectives have been realigned, enlightenments have been discovered and mistakes realised, one would have a strong sense of attachement to the process of that phase.

Much that is appreciated from the phases, are the things that are learnt. A loss always makes a much more powerful impact that a victory, simply because of the knowledge that can be discovered after one has been defeated. The moments of glory pay nothing to you besides a cheap relishing when one admires the dazzle of the trophy and then places it down to go back to his life.

There's also the process that very much appreciated as well. I mean it in a the abstract sense. The process oversees the entire phase as a whole, without giving special attention to particular moments. The moments do count, but the entireity of everything is the true essence of what the whole phase really is about, and that is something that testimonies and sharings can never reveal. As many examples and experiences are related to someone, even when the lessons are drawn out and taught in a more structured style, the very beauty of how the lesson is learnt would be destroyed. In fact, the whole lesson itslef might even be distorted simply because experiences cannot be shared and described in the highest truth, even if the speaker is able to command the language powerfully and honestly.

And I suggest, that this 'experience within the phase' really should be the experience that humans now should respect as a proper 'experience'. The phenomena of chasing after experiences in everything nowadays, from the material to the spiritual, differs greatly from this 'experience in a phase' (EIP) that I speak about. The former invovles more going after excitement, more seeking for feeling and a momentary bliss. Such experiences take after the nature of winning in a victory. They last only in moments, they exist only for an instance when you are in the mode of wanting that experience to happen. Whats more, they are very easily described, just so because it just happens. (Of course, the feeler can always say that the experience is 'beyond words' to describe. But relative to EIP, the complexity and significance of the undescribabilty is so much less)

Again, this refers very strongly back to the matter of our flowing substance, time. When we latch limitations onto the 'experiences' and give them a signficiance because of a momentary feeling, the mildness of the experience becomes something that results in a neglect to the deeper sense, the more intellectual sense by which the experience can actually become. I would say, that the solid defination of experience is really EIP. 'Experience' in everyday context has simply been reduced to reach such a level of 'moments'.

Of course, I am not saying that moments are not significant beings by themsevles, they are. But in EIP, the many moments work together with the whole mechanical thrust of the process, while in 'experiences', moments on their own take the whole stage. In fact, the moments in EIP need to depend on their context so that there is a basis in allowing the moment to be a significant one. The entire process does contribute to allowing that particular moment to earn its rightful prestige as a 'moment' within EIP.

Indeed, I am a bit tired with people claiming 'experiences' to matters, allowing such testimonies to overtake their entire existance in terms of who they are and why they believe in certain views. (Especially, the spiritual matters.) When we understand that theres a substance called 'time', whose properties hold us together deeply while we tumble through it experiencing the whole of life, we should factor in the continutity that this time would mean to the 'experience'. Of course, this would affect the way many things function. And for 'experiences' that consistute the majority of life, dependent on this flowing property of time... I favour EIP.

To Test - The fury of the education system's rules, expounded.

2006-02-16T21:08:00.000+08:00

Amongst the many traits of mankind, the one attribute he posseses which I find a bit distasteful (I know that is an understatement in itself) is his nag to test. Man are creatures of measure, and they use whatsoever yardstick avaliable to do a gauge on whatsoever field that can be (at least by human terms) improved at. Of course, in terms of the fundementals of the different skills and the basics of the several academics, testing would be needed to ensure that the former is learnt. Afterall, one needs to use them for them are qutie necessary platforms to surpass first before approaching bigger hurdles that the world has to offer.

And it is about these hurdles that I associate my distaste towards. I do have nothing much against the general act of the academcial assesment, although the education system and ways of defining a student's ability have been condemned and complained about many, many times. Yeah, I do share similar sentiments with those who exaggerate the system's flaws and have circular arguements over how things can be improved. There are the loopholes in a written paper supposed to be the pathway one has tread carefully upon, in order to reach a more respectable position on the prestige ladder with respect to that field of study. Perhaps my distaste does preceed from this idea's essence.

However, it is more about the relation of testing a person something and having him interested in it at the same time. Being passionate at subjects, say like chemistry would probaly result in you doing well in the subject by scholary terms. Yet, the points on the script would not show the love, enjoyment and pride you take whilst exploring chemistry's finer points and perhaps a faculty within the subject that you prefer to indulge in. When you partake of this knowledge in a manner of interest and passion, the test would restrict where your interest wishes to go. The test will tear at your desire to absorb the knowledge as a knowledge. With competition coming into the picture as well (for tests will defintely beget this element), one's interest in something is distorted into an unhealthy struggle to determine his capability in the field. It becomes a mere clashing of blades to prove your superiority in the arena where all intruders look upon you, unsure of whether to provide alliance, survivour-style. Its almost as if, you love someone. Yet because of the position of the positon, because of the needed official reality that one needs to experience to affirm his love for that person - one has to love fiercely. To love while kicking at whatever means it takes to stride up and force out a style that potrays and concretely nods your love is an authentic love.

And such is how my distaste originates. The attachement tests has with the subjects of interest. The association of a degree of bettering someone in a field which someone has a passion in. How is one better in something than another person anyway? What sort of yardstick can define the capability of somebody in something he likes is more 'good' than a someone else also with a liking of the same something. Yes, the world wants practicality because it needs it to survive. Yes, we do need the better skills to establish a more runnable society. But before that distant effect, is it really necessary for this cause to interfere with someone's liking? What is the fun in having a passion in something and suddenly realising you have to sit a test for it? Perhaps the process is. But I think being told that you are not as capable as someone else in that something and then rejected because of that premise, is not fun at all.

And then again, that sort of feeling that this whole testing system creates irritate my sentiments of distaste once again. Although I know I will sincerely acknowledge this results from the whole matter. But still, when tests define boundaries of elites and averages, even claiming the wisdom to label the weak - a arrogance of prestige meddles with the whole band of students who are either willingly or unwillingly classed into 'the better' and 'the worst'. The competition remains in the field of outdo-ance instead of a spur to one's own search of wisdom. (I do realise, wisdom and knowledge are very different)

Perhaps what this prestige has done is not so obvious in a mankind's distress. Thats probaly why it'll only remain as a distaste of mine. Afterall, the academics require much more rigor, reasons, arguement and persuation to essay such an objection.

And someone will probaly want to outdo me in something like that.

Quiet

2006-01-30T23:07:00.000+08:00

Something interesting my dad noted today while walking along the shops below my place was the peaceful silence that dominated the whole area. The chinese new year period in singapore means that shops and businesses close for the celebrations, thus giving the neighbourhood a silent feel. (Except for a few places that want to operate) Sadly, theres plenty of reasons (mostly economic) for such a scenario not occuring very frequently.

The stillness and quietness is indeed something quite soothing. God had created the quietness as well, as much as it may be an emptiness - simply a null of all sounds, the space that it spans out and the peace that it infuses seriously is something worthy to be deemed a creation. If nothingness were to be enjoyed, the quietness would be something that should be savoured first. As my dad put it, (he heard it from a friend who resides in Australia whose capable of accessing a natural environment that is quiet) the place is quiet to the extent where you can hear yourself think. I think, that is seriously cool.

Consider above this physical realm of quietness, and wonder about the silences of the realms within- when one thinks about things. Or perhaps is unable to think about things because of the constant rush of thoughts that gulf him up, or the consistent flow of messages from all angles, aimed to sway his perspectives. There may be no physical interruptions, but when there's an interal racket, it can't be any better that pure quietness right. Perhaps the latter would aid in resolving the racket, giving one an opportunitiy to untie the tight ends and loosen the tensions on the rope. There would be the escapists who just clutter up themselves in the physical realm so this inner conflicts are busy-ed to obilivion.

Wonder about the deeper significances of this silence. The emotions that grasp on it usually being shock, fear, sadness... or usually a tight mix of all. It being described as the 'death in the night' - the signature of anhilination of any creature or any process. The suspenseful darkness that holds onto its hand, giving stabs of awaitances to everyone who desires sight. The uneasy heart that does not know the answer to the question, can only subscribe to this path. (That begets an uncertain consequence)

Think about the void that this quiet promote. The emptiness that it does not (should not) fill. The blankness that it demands. The lack that it demonstrates.

Quiet.

Excuses to Celebrate

2006-01-29T23:35:00.000+08:00

As much as the title may sound negetive, I'm actually giving praise to the issue - or rather the fact that celebration is made possible through those 'excuses'. Of course, 'reason' sounds a whole lot better (although its similarly as engineerical), but 'excuse' gives me a warrant to need not be apologetic about negetive feelings, if they arise for any matter.

Occasions are crafted by time and chance, gelled within customs, traditions, supersitions and the like as they are oiled by the movements of history. Perhaps, some occasions deserve a celebration very obviously (like the welcoming of the new year with respect to the several calanders or the party after a big project has been completed or say, a victory achieved), some are placed akwardly, but seemingly politically incorrect if labelled as unneeded (mother and father's day). Then we have the religious festivals and also valentine's day.

Well sure, you live in the world long enough and you'll realise that each occasion is hooked on by coporations to work as income churners, and while their at it pollute the world with their media messages and questionable influences - but any idiot can blog about this, and I shan't bother.

So what sort of praise am I giving to those excuses? Very simply, they are an avenue for family gathering. In the sense that, the family has an excuse to meet up because of the occasion.(whatsoever it is) I know it doesn't sound much of a big deal since it always occurs now... but think about the ability these 'rituals' actually posses in drawing the whole family together. It is because of the occasions that the family can meet and relate. They act as indicators to remind us of when to meet each other again, because humans on their own are unable to actually plan a gathering for no apparent reason very naturally. To trigger the celebration, an excuse is needed, and because of that excuse, the family may be connected. It works its magic in the same style like sleep. Both being ritualistical beings, allow humans to carry out a certain activity at a certain time because its apt at the moment. I do realise that looking at the 'excuses' in this way seems really simplistic, and thats probaly because it is already in our programing. The family gathering is but just a bonus that comes along with the rest of the occasion's goodies, but the main point is to celebrate that event anyway.

And anyway, happy chinese new year!

Question

2006-01-17T21:17:00.000+08:00

Questioning a person is useful for gaining information, learning about his/her thoughts about something, gauging the feelings behind a certain phenomena thats occuring and other matters that exist by those styles. Lets not consider the element of sincere concern and just observe 'questioning' as a mechanical process of gandering data or achieveing a specific result (i.e. discipline, so that questionee will understand his/her need for repentence on his/her own accord). Defintely, it will be an art that takes time to master, and dramatically dependent on circumstance and differs from person. In terms of how basic the question would go, and how judgemental you would like to be in sieving out your data or fufilling your purpose; the question can be designed in several ways. But thats not my point today anyway, I'll zoom in now to the commonly asked question, which all guys will get to hear about in some point in time... (maybe not the literal version, although likely, but perhaps a cousin of similar form)

When both your mother and your girlfriend fall into the river and are drowning, which one will you save?

Flaws galore... and question plot holes immediately get hitched onto by all the guys, claiming that both their loved ones know how to swim. Either that, or that he'll talk about calling people to help him, or throwing a float to the more abled victim while saving the physically weaker one. Practically, their perfect answers, but answers that avoid the question anyway. It is very obvious to any reader that what this question attempts to do is to measure the love the guy has towards both parties - which love is greater, that to his mom or to his gf? The sweetalking liar could give answers favorable to each person while in the person's presence alone, but that is a problem of morality and has nothing much to do with the expected singular answer of the man. That in mind, we'll keep to being relevant to the questioner's intentions, no bother how illogical the physical scenario is. Lets asses a few responses and their arguements..

My Mother, she has been with me for a longer time and I need to appease filial piety
Aruguement of time = greater love cultivated and stronger emotions baggage; and the need to fufil the morals of a righteous being. This is seeing things at a 'stright-forward' love kind of scenario. The love of the mother was decided and not possible of determination, of course the guy will have attributes of the mother from genes anyway. The girlfriend's love was a love of choice, one that the guy decided that he would go for, and thus is more un'stright-forward'. To argue in terms of time of bonding is reasonable, for simple reasons like the love builds with time and space. The burden to lose that relationship would thus be a lot more stronger, especially when mom was the one who saw you through your growing years. Society's moral standards by the average at least, still see caring for your parents as a necessary thing to do. If we were to ignore emotions and aim to be politically correct, a 'spending time with parents and not forsaking them' would be very much respected and desired of the world. Simply because of an idea of repayment and, well emotional attachement as well.

My Girlfriend, she is the only one for me and my Mom has spent time with me already
A bit on passion here, a sort of love that burns rather than the appreciative love that motherly love has form upon. Love for a girlfriend can be done fierecly, aka Troy. And one claiming exclusively that the girl is your dreamboat wouldn't get much objections besides the simple advices and rethinks that elders will impart (perhaps your too young) There is another arguement of time here, citing that Mom has already spent time with you. What about the need of repayment? Depending on the questionee, this factor might not be applicable, may be ignored, or may even be overlooked.

My Mother, I can only have one mother, gfs can be seeked
Logic thats reasonable, but strongly hints that the love between your gf and yourself is questionable. This tends towards the guys not having a proper comitment made to the gf, and thus having an unfixed attitude, swaying back to the one his is assured with. He might even think, mom will never forsake. Gf has high possiblity of leaving or getting -insert negetive results here-, thus he is better sercured to stay with mom.

My Girlfriend, mom would want me to be hapy and I do love her alot
Hoovering between a logical honorable decesion and a selfish undeserving choice. It could be just a delusion that mom wants it that way to you as your blinded by the love of the girl, or it might be that your mom sincerely wants you to be happy. Of course, all moms want us to be happy.. its the kind of 'your happy, i'll be happy' thing (another crazy logic that drives guys crazy) and certain actions that seem sacrifical so as to sustain your happiness will be enough for that. Personally, I do that it also matters on how you want to appreciate the person. Not only fufill what she wants you to do, but beyond that into her welfare.

I would be overwhelmed with indecesion and let both drown
lol... "This is the real man" says a guy whom I've forgotten where I heard this from. And that has some truth in it. One reason, is because girls (lets use them as a varaiable now, so other subjects that can control a similar illustration can be used) give guys (variable 2) such a choice to make in the first place. Helpless, we mess up as we have no idea what to do. A concept like Love (the principle of the illustration) is difficult to be measured in such a sense anyway. The love towards a mother and the love towards a girlfriend and different types of loves. They both function in different styles, command different languages and play on different playing fields. Placing both 'loves' together and asking them to do battle in a cage is simply not understanding this concept of love in the end. A human being who can carry out the ability to love can do so in several styles, and it just so is in happenstance that love to the mother and love to the girlfriend are significantly noticeable.

Questions then, aren't reliable in gathering anything about the measure of love. Probaly because, love wasn't a concept that was meant to be measured.

"Water... It is shapeless and eternal... It cannot be destroyed. When scorched, it turns into steam and fly into the sky. When it is touched with extreme cold it forms a solid crystal amour that is slippery to grasp. It changes its very nature in order to survive. No sword can harm it... No force can wound it. Water absorbs all... even the illest of poisons... Yet it suffers not. It lives on despite those who invade it. Do you understand?" -- Kavax, The Way 6: Truth Hides Nothing

2006-01-02T18:45:00.000+08:00

2006, welcome.