"Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."
G. K. Chesterton
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
to restart the deconstruction...
it's been a horrid year as i tried to be more than i could be on my own... my mind is too confused, my will too weak, and my heart barely beats sometimes. i thought i had faith, i thought i was living my life as God wanted... but obviously, my thoughts are not His.
but nonetheless, this hollow waste of good time must come to an end: the new year beckons ahead. i must somehow find that resolve to respond to God's grace with real fervour. i must abandon my old ways of slipping into sin - hubris, hedonism, hypocrisy, hatred, hard-heartedness, hopelessness, hesitation. i have to own my will again and fight to live my life for God!
and the only way is through Christ - surrender, serenity, simplicity, sensibility, sincerity, satisfaction, submission. i shall repent, seek the Lord's forgiveness, forgive myself, and embrace the future, just as i once was accustomed to doing.
i shall restart the deconstruction, dedicating this humble struggle to Jesus, who reigns in my heart.
and why not? do my previous grievous sin make life too hard to bear? is it impossible to witness change now that i realise i have only sank deeper into darkness for the past year? the old adage comes to mind: 3 days to break a good habit; 3 years to kick a bad habit.
why the hopelessness? let's do a simple analysis. what kind of good habit takes only 3 days to break? it doesn't seem to make much sense if a really good habit - the kind from which one may derive satisfaction from - is so easily broken, no? it seems that this broken-in-3-days "good habit" is merely something prescribed by others which the person who broke it never really identified with fully... or that this person, in spite of enjoying the good habit, was tempted by the greater enjoyability of breaking it - s/he was unable to handle temptation. thus, i have identified at least two ways to understand why some people need only 3 days to break such so-called good habits; and thus possibly clarified two ways to prevent such a sad end.
the first part of the adage might still ring very true to many who have once walked in the light and yet then stumbled - not everyone would find it easy to identify with discipline-demanding good habits, even if one is convinced of the eventual rewards. temptation often proves too great! in such cases, community comes to my mind... it seems we might do better if we had someone to push us when we're slowing down, to steady us when we wobble, and to lend a hand if we hit the ground.
yet, the second part of the adage only serves to push us to the ground! the inherent hopelessness of this ending phrase condemns the sinner to a seemingly bottomless pit - three years is plenty of opportunity to stumble and fall yet again! who can endure this torturous struggle to meet the light again? who would dare to believe, what with society upending its end of the deal, instead lending a hand when we're slowing, pushing us when we're wobbling, and steadying us when we're stuck on the ground?
therefore, i deconstruct these sinister elements of society. not every adage was formed out of compassionate wisdom; not every norm out there rewards us when we conform to them. some have become twisted - whether by the forces in society which work towards evil, or by the weakness of the individual's solitary mind subtly rationalising its way to the floor - and these need to be exposed.
it takes a sinner to know another's struggle. i believe i have fallen through the depths of the valley of darkness on my pathway to God; now i continue to struggle humbly, always looking up at the peak which bathes in the light of the sun. let me share my uphill exertions in this new deconstruction.
but nonetheless, this hollow waste of good time must come to an end: the new year beckons ahead. i must somehow find that resolve to respond to God's grace with real fervour. i must abandon my old ways of slipping into sin - hubris, hedonism, hypocrisy, hatred, hard-heartedness, hopelessness, hesitation. i have to own my will again and fight to live my life for God!
and the only way is through Christ - surrender, serenity, simplicity, sensibility, sincerity, satisfaction, submission. i shall repent, seek the Lord's forgiveness, forgive myself, and embrace the future, just as i once was accustomed to doing.
i shall restart the deconstruction, dedicating this humble struggle to Jesus, who reigns in my heart.
and why not? do my previous grievous sin make life too hard to bear? is it impossible to witness change now that i realise i have only sank deeper into darkness for the past year? the old adage comes to mind: 3 days to break a good habit; 3 years to kick a bad habit.
why the hopelessness? let's do a simple analysis. what kind of good habit takes only 3 days to break? it doesn't seem to make much sense if a really good habit - the kind from which one may derive satisfaction from - is so easily broken, no? it seems that this broken-in-3-days "good habit" is merely something prescribed by others which the person who broke it never really identified with fully... or that this person, in spite of enjoying the good habit, was tempted by the greater enjoyability of breaking it - s/he was unable to handle temptation. thus, i have identified at least two ways to understand why some people need only 3 days to break such so-called good habits; and thus possibly clarified two ways to prevent such a sad end.
the first part of the adage might still ring very true to many who have once walked in the light and yet then stumbled - not everyone would find it easy to identify with discipline-demanding good habits, even if one is convinced of the eventual rewards. temptation often proves too great! in such cases, community comes to my mind... it seems we might do better if we had someone to push us when we're slowing down, to steady us when we wobble, and to lend a hand if we hit the ground.
yet, the second part of the adage only serves to push us to the ground! the inherent hopelessness of this ending phrase condemns the sinner to a seemingly bottomless pit - three years is plenty of opportunity to stumble and fall yet again! who can endure this torturous struggle to meet the light again? who would dare to believe, what with society upending its end of the deal, instead lending a hand when we're slowing, pushing us when we're wobbling, and steadying us when we're stuck on the ground?
therefore, i deconstruct these sinister elements of society. not every adage was formed out of compassionate wisdom; not every norm out there rewards us when we conform to them. some have become twisted - whether by the forces in society which work towards evil, or by the weakness of the individual's solitary mind subtly rationalising its way to the floor - and these need to be exposed.
it takes a sinner to know another's struggle. i believe i have fallen through the depths of the valley of darkness on my pathway to God; now i continue to struggle humbly, always looking up at the peak which bathes in the light of the sun. let me share my uphill exertions in this new deconstruction.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
on glory
the promise of glory!
the lure of eternity!
the meaning of purpose!
it swells the little man, until he bursts at his seams.
it consumes the proud man, finishing his existence.
it worries the humble man, upsetting his balance.
glory is only one vanity away from pride.
and i call that danger!
glory is only fitting for the prideless.
to godly beings who have no need for pride.
glory is only a vague shadow in the world of man.
for our language only does it injustice.
but what is glory?
it is that which accrues to the person one serves.
therefore, a master of many may seem glorious;
but only the Master of all truly deserves glory.
it is that which accrues to the person who has achieved perfection.
therefore, many men are subjects of poems and epics,
but only the Son of Man is the Good News.
it is that which accrues to the person radiating inspiration.
therefore, great men crowd the books of history;
but only the Holy Spirit fills Creation.
o humankind!
you who are confounded with limitation!
you who seek revelation with imperfect vigour!
you who are attracted to the masquerading glories of vanity!
will you see yourself with brutal honesty?
will you look upon your utter nakedness?
will you yield to the One who is Glory?
o sons of man!
look no longer in the clouds of confusion
look no longer in the crowds of endless chatter
look no further than your own hearts
and you will find that glory is to be given
to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be -
and then you may finally have a foretaste
of the real glory in heaven.
the lure of eternity!
the meaning of purpose!
it swells the little man, until he bursts at his seams.
it consumes the proud man, finishing his existence.
it worries the humble man, upsetting his balance.
glory is only one vanity away from pride.
and i call that danger!
glory is only fitting for the prideless.
to godly beings who have no need for pride.
glory is only a vague shadow in the world of man.
for our language only does it injustice.
but what is glory?
it is that which accrues to the person one serves.
therefore, a master of many may seem glorious;
but only the Master of all truly deserves glory.
it is that which accrues to the person who has achieved perfection.
therefore, many men are subjects of poems and epics,
but only the Son of Man is the Good News.
it is that which accrues to the person radiating inspiration.
therefore, great men crowd the books of history;
but only the Holy Spirit fills Creation.
o humankind!
you who are confounded with limitation!
you who seek revelation with imperfect vigour!
you who are attracted to the masquerading glories of vanity!
will you see yourself with brutal honesty?
will you look upon your utter nakedness?
will you yield to the One who is Glory?
o sons of man!
look no longer in the clouds of confusion
look no longer in the crowds of endless chatter
look no further than your own hearts
and you will find that glory is to be given
to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be -
and then you may finally have a foretaste
of the real glory in heaven.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
epiphany #8
the sociological imagination.
history and autobiography.
for the most intriguing of modern disciplines, the tepid besotment with what is in past tense dismays me!
it is not who we were that matters, but what we make of our future.
and how we make ourselves makes our future!
the lessons of history may still await our proper learning - as always.
but the throbs and pulses of today already begin foretelling our tomorrows!
do we reminisce for the sake of misty eyes?
do we harp on ages-old regrets for the sake of brooding and sulking?
while the exhiliration of taking the next breath can scarcely penetrate our flexing psyches!
the heart beats not for aching has beens - but for the hope of what can be.
so let us march forward.
maju-lah, Singapore!
history and autobiography.
for the most intriguing of modern disciplines, the tepid besotment with what is in past tense dismays me!
it is not who we were that matters, but what we make of our future.
and how we make ourselves makes our future!
the lessons of history may still await our proper learning - as always.
but the throbs and pulses of today already begin foretelling our tomorrows!
do we reminisce for the sake of misty eyes?
do we harp on ages-old regrets for the sake of brooding and sulking?
while the exhiliration of taking the next breath can scarcely penetrate our flexing psyches!
the heart beats not for aching has beens - but for the hope of what can be.
so let us march forward.
maju-lah, Singapore!
Sunday, August 10, 2008
how to communicate #1 - accusation
when you want to convince someone else that his POV is erroneous, it may be wise to avoid using accusations. why?
1.
when a person is accused of something - anything - the accused usually becomes defensive immediately. a person who is defensive is also usually closed off to others' POV, since he is more concerned with defending his own POV. this means that a defensive person is almost impossible to convince - he is only convinced of his own convictions. in fact, putting a person on defense may have the opposite effect: he becomes more convicted in his original beliefs.
2.
accusations tend to suggest some form of moral authority. this may instantly nudge the recipient of your accusation to counter-accuse you of something in relation to your statement. assuming nobody is perfect, this may degenerate into a battle of accusations, whereby both parties simply turtle into their POVs and become hopelessly entrenched in their respective defensive positions. hardly anything worthwhile may be communicated in this case!
3.
the accuser tends to exude an aura of arrogance rather than humility. a humble person would not accuse - she would tend to "question gently" or "make an inquiry", lest she herself be proven wrong and fall flat in the face. yes, when you feel someone else is wrong about something, that does not mean you are correct! pointing out an error requires patience and humility, rather than rash smugness. if the accused perceives you to be arrogant, then your cause in pointing out a possible mistake is immediately lost.
4.
the above three points also tend to lead the accused towards an emotional response. while being passionate about your beliefs is not a bad thing, being passionate about an erroneous belief tends to be rather bad. so since you are already presuming that person to be wrong, the better strategy should be to avoid touching off emotions and focus on logic and facts. if someone's POV is erroneous, it should be possible to show that through a frank discussion of logic and facts without ruffling any emotions. this way, the person in the wrong may also find it easier to convert to the correct position without being subjected to humiliation.
5.
lastly, related to point 3, you need to be open to your own position being wrong. the human condition is imperfect, and we are at anytime only availed of imperfect information and knowledge, so it is always possible that we have missed something in our judgement of another's POV. while the ideal is that what you felt to be wrong is wrong, but you do not know the particular circumstance which the other person has to face - i.e. a win-win where both can accept each other as correct, save for the missing information - it is also likely that you were mistaken about someone being wrong. bearing this in mind, know that your approaching someone about his mistake is already taking a risk - since you might be proven wrong in the end - hence it is important to have a good 'exit strategy'. knowing the above four points will allow you to back off easily without worsening the situation.
the act of accusation itself already communicates certain ideas, including but not limited to: "i am right and you are wrong", "i need to correct you", "you need to be corrected", "my position is superior to yours" or even "i will change you". generally, most people would not enjoy hearing such messages - unless some priming is done prior. the feeling of being identified as "wrong" immediately sparks off feelings of vulnerability and invalidity - possibly even an inferior complex - as such, i would say that anyone who is possibly in the wrong needs to be treated delicately rather than harshly. this is especially important if the purpose of identifying the error is to correct the person for the person's own sake, rather than some self-righteous zealotry. if you want to correct someone, are you doing it for the right reasons? that is an equally important question to think about before rashly going ahead: it will drive all your body language and methods of going about it.
here are some relevant passages from the Gospel of Matthew:
Matthew 7:1-5 "Do not judge"
Matthew 12:33-37 "Words betray the heart"
Matthew 18:15-18 "Brotherly correction"
Matthew 23:13-32 "The sevenfold indictment of the scribes and Pharisees"
2 Timothy 2:14-26 is also very instructive!
so there. just some easy to remember points about communication. my theory is, that if such points were remembered, the world would be more peaceful already! and you are welcome to accuse me of being over-idealistic =)
1.
when a person is accused of something - anything - the accused usually becomes defensive immediately. a person who is defensive is also usually closed off to others' POV, since he is more concerned with defending his own POV. this means that a defensive person is almost impossible to convince - he is only convinced of his own convictions. in fact, putting a person on defense may have the opposite effect: he becomes more convicted in his original beliefs.
2.
accusations tend to suggest some form of moral authority. this may instantly nudge the recipient of your accusation to counter-accuse you of something in relation to your statement. assuming nobody is perfect, this may degenerate into a battle of accusations, whereby both parties simply turtle into their POVs and become hopelessly entrenched in their respective defensive positions. hardly anything worthwhile may be communicated in this case!
3.
the accuser tends to exude an aura of arrogance rather than humility. a humble person would not accuse - she would tend to "question gently" or "make an inquiry", lest she herself be proven wrong and fall flat in the face. yes, when you feel someone else is wrong about something, that does not mean you are correct! pointing out an error requires patience and humility, rather than rash smugness. if the accused perceives you to be arrogant, then your cause in pointing out a possible mistake is immediately lost.
4.
the above three points also tend to lead the accused towards an emotional response. while being passionate about your beliefs is not a bad thing, being passionate about an erroneous belief tends to be rather bad. so since you are already presuming that person to be wrong, the better strategy should be to avoid touching off emotions and focus on logic and facts. if someone's POV is erroneous, it should be possible to show that through a frank discussion of logic and facts without ruffling any emotions. this way, the person in the wrong may also find it easier to convert to the correct position without being subjected to humiliation.
5.
lastly, related to point 3, you need to be open to your own position being wrong. the human condition is imperfect, and we are at anytime only availed of imperfect information and knowledge, so it is always possible that we have missed something in our judgement of another's POV. while the ideal is that what you felt to be wrong is wrong, but you do not know the particular circumstance which the other person has to face - i.e. a win-win where both can accept each other as correct, save for the missing information - it is also likely that you were mistaken about someone being wrong. bearing this in mind, know that your approaching someone about his mistake is already taking a risk - since you might be proven wrong in the end - hence it is important to have a good 'exit strategy'. knowing the above four points will allow you to back off easily without worsening the situation.
the act of accusation itself already communicates certain ideas, including but not limited to: "i am right and you are wrong", "i need to correct you", "you need to be corrected", "my position is superior to yours" or even "i will change you". generally, most people would not enjoy hearing such messages - unless some priming is done prior. the feeling of being identified as "wrong" immediately sparks off feelings of vulnerability and invalidity - possibly even an inferior complex - as such, i would say that anyone who is possibly in the wrong needs to be treated delicately rather than harshly. this is especially important if the purpose of identifying the error is to correct the person for the person's own sake, rather than some self-righteous zealotry. if you want to correct someone, are you doing it for the right reasons? that is an equally important question to think about before rashly going ahead: it will drive all your body language and methods of going about it.
here are some relevant passages from the Gospel of Matthew:
Matthew 7:1-5 "Do not judge"
Matthew 12:33-37 "Words betray the heart"
Matthew 18:15-18 "Brotherly correction"
Matthew 23:13-32 "The sevenfold indictment of the scribes and Pharisees"
2 Timothy 2:14-26 is also very instructive!
so there. just some easy to remember points about communication. my theory is, that if such points were remembered, the world would be more peaceful already! and you are welcome to accuse me of being over-idealistic =)
Friday, July 18, 2008
out, damn sloth!
sloth really eats at the soul... it becomes progressively easier to neglect what is worth doing, and progressively harder to neglect the phantom need to rest or indulge in pointless activities.
as i return to this old blog, let me share a quote i found. this hit me hard, as a slacker...
"Never be hurried by anything whatever - nothing can be more pressing than the necessity for your peace before God. You will help others more by the peace and tranquility of your heart than by any eagerness or care you can bestow on them." Saint Elizabeth Seton
sometimes, what is worth doing is simply being still and knowing that the Lord is near.
other powderful quotes here: http://hometown.aol.com/fatherpius/quotes7.html
and who says priests do not change the world? their own little worlds, maybe.
as i return to this old blog, let me share a quote i found. this hit me hard, as a slacker...
"Never be hurried by anything whatever - nothing can be more pressing than the necessity for your peace before God. You will help others more by the peace and tranquility of your heart than by any eagerness or care you can bestow on them." Saint Elizabeth Seton
sometimes, what is worth doing is simply being still and knowing that the Lord is near.
other powderful quotes here: http://hometown.aol.com/fatherpius/quotes7.html
and who says priests do not change the world? their own little worlds, maybe.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
epiphany #7
about 3 hours after waking up, i suddenly remembered this awful dream i was having.
i was queueing up for some strange photo-taking session - i think it was for some admin stuff, like for some club or something - and i was getting quite bored. talking to the others in line only amplified that desolate sense of boredom. i was rapidly getting vapid and drowsy (yes, it was weird), and i imagined myself to be dreaming. or daydreaming.
next, i was in this swimming pool with the people i was queueing with. ostensibly, i had daydreamed myself through the queueing process, or i was actually dreaming this - while dreaming of queueing up. yes, it felt like a dream in a dream. i was getting even more repulsed by the people around me... they were insipid and merely lazing around in the pool. realising that this was a dream in a dream, i suddenly felt this awkward sense of power. i conjured a weapon - it was a knife, i think - and began surrealistically stabbing everyone in the pool. as the water turned a slightly more delightful shade of red, i could imagine the facial impressions of each victim - many were nonchalantly surprised.
and suddenly i had a doubt. what if i hadan't been dreaming? a tinge of horror pinched my throat, which halted the imminent nausea. i started running, and found myself dressed in military fatigues, escaping from some kind of SWAT team (even tho i was doubting the dream in the dream, i was still dreaming overall). i dreamily realised that i had killed some 30 people in that odd oneiric stupor while queueing up for something that didn't seem to matter. but this realisation was drowned out by the megaphone-commands from the cops - "FREEZE OR WE'LL SHOOT" - i began ducking bullets like in a Die Hard movie.
last thing i remember, i was confessing. to who? i had thought it was to some policeman who had poofed beside me, but that didn't seem too plausible - it would've deformed the action sequence. so i thought/dreamt that it was like a flashback thing.
"i thought i was dreaming! it was all so unreal... the sun's rays frolicking on the scarlet pool, the floating faces with their accusing upturned lips, the knife's handle didn't even evoke a feeling in my dreamy hand. how could i have killed anyone? i was queueing... indoors... in some quaint cinema... or was it a waiting room? it was simultaneously dark and bright. i couldn't remember. isn't that a hallmark of dreamdom? a delusional illusion hatched in the back of a brain which was registering alpha-wave activity? the indeterminate nonplussed scene-change - boy, that had to be imagined! it was REM! i'm guilty of REM!"
and then i woke up. or so i believed.
what if i had lost my suspension of belief? what if i had doubted the overarching dream itself? would i awake in the dream? or would i awake in this so-called "real world"? was that even a dream in a dream, or just one single-layered dream? would there be any difference at all?
so i made this conclusion. the suspension of belief keeps reality intact. faith keeps one sane. even if faith proves to be unbelievable.
i was queueing up for some strange photo-taking session - i think it was for some admin stuff, like for some club or something - and i was getting quite bored. talking to the others in line only amplified that desolate sense of boredom. i was rapidly getting vapid and drowsy (yes, it was weird), and i imagined myself to be dreaming. or daydreaming.
next, i was in this swimming pool with the people i was queueing with. ostensibly, i had daydreamed myself through the queueing process, or i was actually dreaming this - while dreaming of queueing up. yes, it felt like a dream in a dream. i was getting even more repulsed by the people around me... they were insipid and merely lazing around in the pool. realising that this was a dream in a dream, i suddenly felt this awkward sense of power. i conjured a weapon - it was a knife, i think - and began surrealistically stabbing everyone in the pool. as the water turned a slightly more delightful shade of red, i could imagine the facial impressions of each victim - many were nonchalantly surprised.
and suddenly i had a doubt. what if i hadan't been dreaming? a tinge of horror pinched my throat, which halted the imminent nausea. i started running, and found myself dressed in military fatigues, escaping from some kind of SWAT team (even tho i was doubting the dream in the dream, i was still dreaming overall). i dreamily realised that i had killed some 30 people in that odd oneiric stupor while queueing up for something that didn't seem to matter. but this realisation was drowned out by the megaphone-commands from the cops - "FREEZE OR WE'LL SHOOT" - i began ducking bullets like in a Die Hard movie.
last thing i remember, i was confessing. to who? i had thought it was to some policeman who had poofed beside me, but that didn't seem too plausible - it would've deformed the action sequence. so i thought/dreamt that it was like a flashback thing.
"i thought i was dreaming! it was all so unreal... the sun's rays frolicking on the scarlet pool, the floating faces with their accusing upturned lips, the knife's handle didn't even evoke a feeling in my dreamy hand. how could i have killed anyone? i was queueing... indoors... in some quaint cinema... or was it a waiting room? it was simultaneously dark and bright. i couldn't remember. isn't that a hallmark of dreamdom? a delusional illusion hatched in the back of a brain which was registering alpha-wave activity? the indeterminate nonplussed scene-change - boy, that had to be imagined! it was REM! i'm guilty of REM!"
and then i woke up. or so i believed.
what if i had lost my suspension of belief? what if i had doubted the overarching dream itself? would i awake in the dream? or would i awake in this so-called "real world"? was that even a dream in a dream, or just one single-layered dream? would there be any difference at all?
so i made this conclusion. the suspension of belief keeps reality intact. faith keeps one sane. even if faith proves to be unbelievable.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
4 days late...
...but a lifetime early.
there is nothing too late until death comes for you. there is no regret so final you cannot act on until you breathe your last. there is no final judgement until you finally face the Judge. you can choose to move on because you are still alive - so treasure it!
the thesis was a harrowing experience. for the last week or so, i slept on average 4 hours a day (still pretty good, but considering i usually sleep 7-8 hours...) and for the final 4 days, i practically didn't sleep. i learnt the ironic side of life for us middle-class folk: living off coke and coffee and self-imposed sleep-deprivation is our version of starvation. and on Friday, 18 April 2008, my thesis: The Class Experience of Migrant Workers in Singapore, was finally submitted to the NUS Dept. of Sociology (estd. 1965).
but unlike the bourgeois loners, i had my middle-class friends! jon (with carol) and alexis sensed that i was going to bail on the thesis - 12 MCs, 7.5% of my flat 4.0 in-between 2nd upper and lower CAP - at this final stage. honestly, their instincts were spot on: i had nearly wanted to give it all up. i'm that crazy - or un-middle-class - sometimes. they baby-sitted me during the day, taking turns when necessary... it was John 15:13 in real life.
then there was the parents. my mom dumped all the herbal teas, bird's nests, and chicken essence she could find down my throat. my dad (who's usually non-interventionist) called me up one night i was thonning in sch to check on me, and he took a huge detour to send me to school on my submission day (his camp is in Yishun).
well, we saw a rainbow on the way! God was showing off again =) if anything, He was the most constant person throughout this learning process: everytime i got sick of the work, He nagged at me; everytime i got paranoid and depressed, He affirmed me; everytime i went existential and thought it was pointless, He gave me reason. so when i look back at the footsteps in the sand, i know that truly, "it was then that He carried me."
so what did i learn?
better late than never. it is better to be late so you can learn a lesson forever.
there is nothing too late until death comes for you. there is no regret so final you cannot act on until you breathe your last. there is no final judgement until you finally face the Judge. you can choose to move on because you are still alive - so treasure it!
the thesis was a harrowing experience. for the last week or so, i slept on average 4 hours a day (still pretty good, but considering i usually sleep 7-8 hours...) and for the final 4 days, i practically didn't sleep. i learnt the ironic side of life for us middle-class folk: living off coke and coffee and self-imposed sleep-deprivation is our version of starvation. and on Friday, 18 April 2008, my thesis: The Class Experience of Migrant Workers in Singapore, was finally submitted to the NUS Dept. of Sociology (estd. 1965).
but unlike the bourgeois loners, i had my middle-class friends! jon (with carol) and alexis sensed that i was going to bail on the thesis - 12 MCs, 7.5% of my flat 4.0 in-between 2nd upper and lower CAP - at this final stage. honestly, their instincts were spot on: i had nearly wanted to give it all up. i'm that crazy - or un-middle-class - sometimes. they baby-sitted me during the day, taking turns when necessary... it was John 15:13 in real life.
then there was the parents. my mom dumped all the herbal teas, bird's nests, and chicken essence she could find down my throat. my dad (who's usually non-interventionist) called me up one night i was thonning in sch to check on me, and he took a huge detour to send me to school on my submission day (his camp is in Yishun).
well, we saw a rainbow on the way! God was showing off again =) if anything, He was the most constant person throughout this learning process: everytime i got sick of the work, He nagged at me; everytime i got paranoid and depressed, He affirmed me; everytime i went existential and thought it was pointless, He gave me reason. so when i look back at the footsteps in the sand, i know that truly, "it was then that He carried me."
so what did i learn?
- a thesis is no ordinary essay. it demands extraordinary clarity and precision - or your 12,000 words will look like a trashy magazine rant. no minced words, no fudged data, no self-righteous claims. a good outline is not enough - one must start with extensive literature review. and i mean REALLY EXTENSIVE: every book/journal article on the topic for the last 6 months at least, plus influential (note: often cited) works. a biblio of under 30 books is simply unconvincing.
- get help. a thesis being the first real academic work most students would be doing, many pitfalls await such amateurs. use your supervisor extensively - s/he owes you that. bug them until they give you the help you need - especially tips on how to start off. use your friends too - they know how you think and when you might deflate. they can keep you from going under.
- start early. i know i've "learnt" this many many times... but this time it's different. i've seen the other side - those who have to suffer with you when you drag your feet. it is not for myself that i start early... no, it's for those who i may end up imposing upon. also, if you're early, you can help others who are late! i love helping others =)
- begin with the end in mind (S. Covey, 1989:95-144); the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step: and that step is to plan ahead - you'd try not to take the first step in the wrong direction. know what is going on, which stage you're at, what your mental state is in, and whether you REALLY need an extension of deadline.
- keep praying. even a rosary would at most take 15min. no earthly pursuit should steal away your time with God - who is the ultimate reason for all your exertions. when things seem tough, the devil has an easier job of tempting us - and all the more do we need divine intervention.
better late than never. it is better to be late so you can learn a lesson forever.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
the problem of suffering
the problem of suffering is the lack of theodicy. According to Wikipedia:
if there were more theodiceans, we would know how to reconcile these seemingly clashing notions of a benevolent God and a world full of human suffering.Theodicy (IPA: /θiːˈɒdɪsi/) (adjectival form theodicean) is a specific branch of theology and philosophy that attempts to reconcile the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God, i.e., the problem of evil. Theodiceans are those who seek to reconcile the co-existence of evil and God; a group of theodiceans may thus be called "a theodicy".
at this stage, i am still very much a slave chained to this world, thinking of suffering as a direct result of man's sinful ways. this thinking is probably not very wrong, especially when adjusted to deal with specifically "unnecessary evil" - that sinfulness leads to surplus, unnecessary suffering. however, the trick here is determining between evil that is "unnecessary" and evil that can actually be called "necessary". are worthless, corrupt politicians necessary?
anyway, check out what Thomas a Kempis' contribution to theodicy:
The Twenty-First Chapter
Sorrow of Heart
IF YOU wish to make progress in virtue, live in the fear of the Lord, do not look for too much freedom, discipline your senses, and shun inane silliness. Sorrow opens the door to many a blessing which dissoluteness usually destroys.
It is a wonder that any man who considers and meditates on his exiled state and the many dangers to his soul, can ever be perfectly happy in this life. Lighthearted and heedless of our defects, we do not feel the real sorrows of our souls, but often indulge in empty laughter when we have good reason to weep. No liberty is true and no joy is genuine unless it is founded in the fear of the Lord and a good conscience.
Happy is the man who can throw off the weight of every care and recollect himself in holy contrition. Happy is the man who casts from him all that can stain or burden his conscience.
Fight like a man. Habit is overcome by habit. If you leave men alone, they will leave you alone to do what you have to do. Do not busy yourself about the affairs of others and do not become entangled in the business of your superiors. Keep an eye primarily on yourself and admonish yourself instead of your friends.
If you do not enjoy the favor of men, do not let it sadden you; but consider it a serious matter if you do not conduct yourself as well or as carefully as is becoming for a servant of God and a devout religious.
It is often better and safer for us to have few consolations in this life, especially comforts of the body. Yet if we do not have divine consolation or experience it rarely, it is our own fault because we seek no sorrow of heart and do not forsake vain outward satisfaction.
Consider yourself unworthy of divine solace and deserving rather of much tribulation. When a man is perfectly contrite, the whole world is bitter and wearisome to him.
A good man always finds enough over which to mourn and weep; whether he thinks of himself or of his neighbor he knows that no one lives here without suffering, and the closer he examines himself the more he grieves.
The sins and vices in which we are so entangled that we can rarely apply ourselves to the contemplation of heaven are matters for just sorrow and inner remorse.
I do not doubt that you would correct yourself more earnestly if you would think more of an early death than of a long life. And if you pondered in your heart the future pains of hell or of purgatory, I believe you would willingly endure labor and trouble and would fear no hardship. But since these thoughts never pierce the heart and since we are enamored of flattering pleasure, we remain very cold and indifferent. Our wretched body complains so easily because our soul is altogether too lifeless.
Pray humbly to the Lord, therefore, that He may give you the spirit of contrition and say with the Prophet: “Feed me, Lord, with the bread of mourning and give me to drink of tears in full measure.” (Ps 79:6)Sunday, March 23, 2008
The Happy Easter
i had wanted to post this right after mass, but email already kept me up till 4am (!) so anyway...
"Happy Easter!"
it's a joyous refrain you might hear from many of your friends and family throughout the day (and hopefully for the next few weeks as well) simply because it was infectious enough to last in their psyche. what else lies behind this innocuous sounding greeting?
well, for one, we remember, we celebrate, and we believe that Christ our Lord is risen. it didn't happen today, but as part of the yearlong liturgical practice of the Roman Catholic Church (and also within many other orthodox and protestant churches), this week is dubbed the Holy Week when we specially commemorate our Saviour's heroic crucifixion and ressurection - the most central belief of all Christian faiths.
roman catholic liturgy differs in some fundamental aspects as compared to (especially) the protestant commemorations: various iconoclastic churches have such a developed phobia of "according worship to material figures" that they may steer clear of all symbolism as well. roman catholics on the other hand, revel in symbols and imagery - and the holy week liturgy follows that same tradition. we have the washing of feet on maundy thursday (a direct analogue of Christ's actions as at John 13:1-15), the (sometimes overnight) adoration of the blessed sacrament (a direct analogue of Christ's request to his apostles in Gethsamane as at Matthew 26:36-46), the symbolic absence of musical instruments in church until easter, the stripping of altar adornments and suppression of sacraments to accentuate the feeling of Christ's death and departure from earth, all the way until the lighting of candles during easter vigil (and re-adornment of the altar) to symbolise Christ's rising from the dead - the Morning Star that never sets!
these liturgically significant symbols are "enacted" with the priest in persona Christi, a concept that must be profoundly unfamiliar to protestants (perhaps to the point of blasphemy). but what it means is that the priest, as an ordained minister tracing his lineage back to the apostles (and also having received at least 8 years of training prior to ordination), is in service in the person of Christ during a Catholic service - he not only "role-plays" but is an actual symbol of Christ's real presence with us, especially during the Eucharist. now i will not pretend to be familiar with the theological technicalities, but as i understand it, God the Father knows us so well - He knows we need actual physical symbols and signs (which is a translation of 'sacrament') for us to perform our faith and truly feel His presence. of course, these symbols are not merely soulless 'representations' since Christ's very spirit is infused with them. a common analogy is that of a nation's flag - it is such a strong symbol of a nation that it is treated with respect - but the priest in persona Christi and the consecrated Host are not mere political symbols: they are spiritual.
hence, for me the holy week services have helped me to get a sense of what happened 2,000 years ago at Calvary through the Passion reading (John 18:1-19:42) - the fifteen minutes spent standing in rapt attention, listening to every detail as though it were unfolding in front of us - and the veneration of the cross has helped me feel so much closer to Christ's agony of that moment which changed history. while i did not spend the rest of Good Friday and Holy Saturday in deep meditative contemplation, it helped me tide through my schoolwork (lotsa catching up!) as i considered all my labours to be part of an earnest wait to see God's glory unvieled. and what an unveiling! during Easter Vigil last night, i heard, once again, that glorious proclamation in the Easter Exsultet... "O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so marvelous a redeemer!" and the Easter readings which very much summarised salvation history up till the new testament... it all reaffirmed my faith, that there indeed IS something more to life than the average humdrum... the people dying unjust deaths, the wanton destruction of the planet by unrepentent consumer capitalism, the untold swathes of human and animal populations in unspeakable suffering, all the cycles of violence and evil in our history... for that one second, it all made sense - because God has a plan beneath it all. God knows each person He has created for His very breath is in everyone. God has blessed every inch of creation when He breathed on the waters in Genesis. God has saved all of us in spite of all the sins we have committed, are committing, and will commit in future by sending us His Son, who died the Messiah's death as foretold by the prophets so we may have life to the full.
and all of that... taking half an hour to type... is to me, what a 'Happy Easter' is about! the gleeful partying, hugs all around, end of Lenten abstinences aside... Easter is happy because i have found my Saviour once again, in my heart where He knocks ever so gently, and now i can live with meaning.
and for a sociologist assigned to read post-modernist consumer culture writings... it truly is a breath of fresh air. something i sorely need as i head into the 21st day before my Thesis deadline. but even if i fall short of this standard, i already know where i can go next... for Jesus is there with me along the way.
Happy Easter, my fellow siblings! live for Christ, for He has risen!
"Happy Easter!"
it's a joyous refrain you might hear from many of your friends and family throughout the day (and hopefully for the next few weeks as well) simply because it was infectious enough to last in their psyche. what else lies behind this innocuous sounding greeting?
well, for one, we remember, we celebrate, and we believe that Christ our Lord is risen. it didn't happen today, but as part of the yearlong liturgical practice of the Roman Catholic Church (and also within many other orthodox and protestant churches), this week is dubbed the Holy Week when we specially commemorate our Saviour's heroic crucifixion and ressurection - the most central belief of all Christian faiths.
roman catholic liturgy differs in some fundamental aspects as compared to (especially) the protestant commemorations: various iconoclastic churches have such a developed phobia of "according worship to material figures" that they may steer clear of all symbolism as well. roman catholics on the other hand, revel in symbols and imagery - and the holy week liturgy follows that same tradition. we have the washing of feet on maundy thursday (a direct analogue of Christ's actions as at John 13:1-15), the (sometimes overnight) adoration of the blessed sacrament (a direct analogue of Christ's request to his apostles in Gethsamane as at Matthew 26:36-46), the symbolic absence of musical instruments in church until easter, the stripping of altar adornments and suppression of sacraments to accentuate the feeling of Christ's death and departure from earth, all the way until the lighting of candles during easter vigil (and re-adornment of the altar) to symbolise Christ's rising from the dead - the Morning Star that never sets!
these liturgically significant symbols are "enacted" with the priest in persona Christi, a concept that must be profoundly unfamiliar to protestants (perhaps to the point of blasphemy). but what it means is that the priest, as an ordained minister tracing his lineage back to the apostles (and also having received at least 8 years of training prior to ordination), is in service in the person of Christ during a Catholic service - he not only "role-plays" but is an actual symbol of Christ's real presence with us, especially during the Eucharist. now i will not pretend to be familiar with the theological technicalities, but as i understand it, God the Father knows us so well - He knows we need actual physical symbols and signs (which is a translation of 'sacrament') for us to perform our faith and truly feel His presence. of course, these symbols are not merely soulless 'representations' since Christ's very spirit is infused with them. a common analogy is that of a nation's flag - it is such a strong symbol of a nation that it is treated with respect - but the priest in persona Christi and the consecrated Host are not mere political symbols: they are spiritual.
hence, for me the holy week services have helped me to get a sense of what happened 2,000 years ago at Calvary through the Passion reading (John 18:1-19:42) - the fifteen minutes spent standing in rapt attention, listening to every detail as though it were unfolding in front of us - and the veneration of the cross has helped me feel so much closer to Christ's agony of that moment which changed history. while i did not spend the rest of Good Friday and Holy Saturday in deep meditative contemplation, it helped me tide through my schoolwork (lotsa catching up!) as i considered all my labours to be part of an earnest wait to see God's glory unvieled. and what an unveiling! during Easter Vigil last night, i heard, once again, that glorious proclamation in the Easter Exsultet... "O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so marvelous a redeemer!" and the Easter readings which very much summarised salvation history up till the new testament... it all reaffirmed my faith, that there indeed IS something more to life than the average humdrum... the people dying unjust deaths, the wanton destruction of the planet by unrepentent consumer capitalism, the untold swathes of human and animal populations in unspeakable suffering, all the cycles of violence and evil in our history... for that one second, it all made sense - because God has a plan beneath it all. God knows each person He has created for His very breath is in everyone. God has blessed every inch of creation when He breathed on the waters in Genesis. God has saved all of us in spite of all the sins we have committed, are committing, and will commit in future by sending us His Son, who died the Messiah's death as foretold by the prophets so we may have life to the full.
and all of that... taking half an hour to type... is to me, what a 'Happy Easter' is about! the gleeful partying, hugs all around, end of Lenten abstinences aside... Easter is happy because i have found my Saviour once again, in my heart where He knocks ever so gently, and now i can live with meaning.
and for a sociologist assigned to read post-modernist consumer culture writings... it truly is a breath of fresh air. something i sorely need as i head into the 21st day before my Thesis deadline. but even if i fall short of this standard, i already know where i can go next... for Jesus is there with me along the way.
Happy Easter, my fellow siblings! live for Christ, for He has risen!
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
the question of faith
today's readings helped me think of something... why should we believe in something that happened so long ago with only scant archaeological proof today? how do we know if God really did those amazing things in the Old Testament, that Jesus really lived and died as the New Testament described - if we only have some textual proof?
historians may tell you that the Holy Bible represents some of the best preserved ancient texts in the world, with such an abundance of corroborating scripts that the Historicity of Jesus is probably the most textually supported case from ancient times. if we can believe that Socrates, Zheng He, or Alexander the Great existed, then Jesus' existence shd be equally acceptable.
what comes next is whether he really said all he said and did all he did in his 3-years of ministry. this is less textually provable, since details of a person's actions are often embellished by his supporters or detractors according to their whims. this is where having multiple sources from the same era (i.e. near to that person's lifetime) is important: the assumption being that people who have personally met this person or witnessed those events would either corroborate the textual representations or deny them. if a text about a person's life is well-accepted and well-propagated (in those times, replicating any papyrus meant painstakingly preparing the canvas and laboriously copying the text word by word), it is generally taken as reasonable historic proof. this is how we know of Socrates (through Plato's work; he himself never wrote anything), Zheng He's adventures (he is recorded in many different cultures), and Alexander's exploits (vast armies have obeyed him and nations have fallen beneath him; kinda hard for all that to be faked!) - and this is how we come to know Jesus, who was relatively obscure and did not do any travelling or conquering, only a 3-yr ministry around the area of Galilee. the fact that his small footprint in life has generated so much testimony is in itself already unprecedented in history. the rather widespread acceptance of his teachings and even miracles give the strongest possible reason for us, 2000 yrs later today, to accept his work as real on the basis of the ancients' testimony.
next, one naturally tends to ask: why does God not do all that in modern history (i.e. today) when everything can be so reliably preserved for ages to come? if Jesus came today instead, there would almost certainly be no problem proving to non-believers (even aliens) that he is really the Son of God and has performed amazing miracles. yet, this would completely negate the need for Faith - that utter abandonment of the material world, where the spirit needs to struggle in order to find God. providing everlasting physical proof of Jesus' divinity not only drives man to further reliance on material proof, it mat also drive man further away from relying on God's spiritual sustenance - the Word of God, the sacraments, prayer, etc. besides, perhaps if Jesus had not come, we wouldn't even have all the spanking technology we now have - his teachings on spiritual ethics remain a cornerstone of enlightenment and morality, which may be necessary historical precursors to freedom of thought and science itself (in spite of the dark ages!). illogical alternative-history speculation aside, this question remains one which our finite minds and experiences, even as the whole of humanity, may not be able to answer to the fullest satisfaction. we must have the humility and self-awareness to admit this fact.
another way to look at this is how the early christians believed in Jesus after the first few centuries - i.e. why did christians in the middle ages believe Jesus was real? the christians of the first 3 centuries were still chronologically close enough to the event to know someone associated with the disciples of the apostles, so some personal form of testimony was available. what about later on? they did not have the benefit of carbon-dating, the dead sea scrolls, or even the archaeological knowledge! did they simply believe because someone charismatic preached to them? no... i highly doubt it - at least not for the majority of christians, who displayed keen wit, if not outright skepticism. the saints are good examples: many have written lengthy, learned discourses to illustrate their logical understanding of Jesus' teachings. yes, above and beyond human testimony, we all have God's word in Jesus' teachings - which have stood the test of time and centuries of human scrutiny, within and without the Church. his articulations, although familiar beyond pastiche to most humans today, continue to strike our hearts, minds and souls with its clarity, forcefulness, and simple wisdom.
still feeling doubtful? i think it's time you pick up the Bible and flipped thru the Gospel. no doubt, there are portions which may bring some controversy, but those passages aside, the Gospels show remarkable consistency both as historical texts and presentations of teachings and arguments.
i believe because i am sufficiently persuaded in these ways - and i pray that my heart can now be fully converted. praise the Lord for loving us enough to give us free will, so we may choose to follow Him in response to the salvific graces He has given us!
historians may tell you that the Holy Bible represents some of the best preserved ancient texts in the world, with such an abundance of corroborating scripts that the Historicity of Jesus is probably the most textually supported case from ancient times. if we can believe that Socrates, Zheng He, or Alexander the Great existed, then Jesus' existence shd be equally acceptable.
what comes next is whether he really said all he said and did all he did in his 3-years of ministry. this is less textually provable, since details of a person's actions are often embellished by his supporters or detractors according to their whims. this is where having multiple sources from the same era (i.e. near to that person's lifetime) is important: the assumption being that people who have personally met this person or witnessed those events would either corroborate the textual representations or deny them. if a text about a person's life is well-accepted and well-propagated (in those times, replicating any papyrus meant painstakingly preparing the canvas and laboriously copying the text word by word), it is generally taken as reasonable historic proof. this is how we know of Socrates (through Plato's work; he himself never wrote anything), Zheng He's adventures (he is recorded in many different cultures), and Alexander's exploits (vast armies have obeyed him and nations have fallen beneath him; kinda hard for all that to be faked!) - and this is how we come to know Jesus, who was relatively obscure and did not do any travelling or conquering, only a 3-yr ministry around the area of Galilee. the fact that his small footprint in life has generated so much testimony is in itself already unprecedented in history. the rather widespread acceptance of his teachings and even miracles give the strongest possible reason for us, 2000 yrs later today, to accept his work as real on the basis of the ancients' testimony.
next, one naturally tends to ask: why does God not do all that in modern history (i.e. today) when everything can be so reliably preserved for ages to come? if Jesus came today instead, there would almost certainly be no problem proving to non-believers (even aliens) that he is really the Son of God and has performed amazing miracles. yet, this would completely negate the need for Faith - that utter abandonment of the material world, where the spirit needs to struggle in order to find God. providing everlasting physical proof of Jesus' divinity not only drives man to further reliance on material proof, it mat also drive man further away from relying on God's spiritual sustenance - the Word of God, the sacraments, prayer, etc. besides, perhaps if Jesus had not come, we wouldn't even have all the spanking technology we now have - his teachings on spiritual ethics remain a cornerstone of enlightenment and morality, which may be necessary historical precursors to freedom of thought and science itself (in spite of the dark ages!). illogical alternative-history speculation aside, this question remains one which our finite minds and experiences, even as the whole of humanity, may not be able to answer to the fullest satisfaction. we must have the humility and self-awareness to admit this fact.
another way to look at this is how the early christians believed in Jesus after the first few centuries - i.e. why did christians in the middle ages believe Jesus was real? the christians of the first 3 centuries were still chronologically close enough to the event to know someone associated with the disciples of the apostles, so some personal form of testimony was available. what about later on? they did not have the benefit of carbon-dating, the dead sea scrolls, or even the archaeological knowledge! did they simply believe because someone charismatic preached to them? no... i highly doubt it - at least not for the majority of christians, who displayed keen wit, if not outright skepticism. the saints are good examples: many have written lengthy, learned discourses to illustrate their logical understanding of Jesus' teachings. yes, above and beyond human testimony, we all have God's word in Jesus' teachings - which have stood the test of time and centuries of human scrutiny, within and without the Church. his articulations, although familiar beyond pastiche to most humans today, continue to strike our hearts, minds and souls with its clarity, forcefulness, and simple wisdom.
still feeling doubtful? i think it's time you pick up the Bible and flipped thru the Gospel. no doubt, there are portions which may bring some controversy, but those passages aside, the Gospels show remarkable consistency both as historical texts and presentations of teachings and arguments.
i believe because i am sufficiently persuaded in these ways - and i pray that my heart can now be fully converted. praise the Lord for loving us enough to give us free will, so we may choose to follow Him in response to the salvific graces He has given us!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
the paradox of man
No man appears in safety before the public eye unless he first relishes obscurity. No man is safe in speaking unless he loves to be silent. No man rules safely unless he is willing to be ruled. No man commands safely unless he has learned well how to obey. No man rejoices safely unless he has within him the testimony of a good conscience.there is just so much wisdom bursting forth of this little book...
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
the mind can doubt
the mind can doubt everything... except itself.
before the mind invokes any form of logic to dispute the validity of any argument, it needs to believe it is capable of doing so - i.e. it must assume it may invoke logic.
before the mind phrases its proposed method of disputing the imagined argument, it needs to believe it is capable of doing so - i.e. it must assume it may phrase sentences.
before the mind considers its ability to coin sequences of meaning for any imagined purpose, it needs to believe it is capable of doing so - i.e. it must assume it may consider.
albeit seemingly a mere paraphrase of Descartes, this negative postulation - that "i cannot be if i do not think i can be" - is so much more absolute and compelling. it illuminates an ineluctable precursor to human reasoning: that of Belief in Thought. how can one think if one does not believe it possible? and yet, that very thought is, in itself, remarkably self-contradictory! even if i do not believe it possible that i am thinking, another part of me squirms in protest: are you not caught in the very act of "thinking" there and then? it thus seems that the only way to nullify this strident statement is to deceive oneself.
thusly, the entire statement seems to cave in on itself - declaring its self-contained argument rather moot by any standard of scrutiny. yet, one cannot help but revisit this quaint declaration and note that faint scent of Truth: can the non-believer execute that which he does not believe in? can the mind operate if it were to doubt its very existence? would any of this messy collective of verbs and nouns persuade you should you doubt they could?
... could you say "there is a spoon", when you are empty-handed?
before the mind invokes any form of logic to dispute the validity of any argument, it needs to believe it is capable of doing so - i.e. it must assume it may invoke logic.
before the mind phrases its proposed method of disputing the imagined argument, it needs to believe it is capable of doing so - i.e. it must assume it may phrase sentences.
before the mind considers its ability to coin sequences of meaning for any imagined purpose, it needs to believe it is capable of doing so - i.e. it must assume it may consider.
albeit seemingly a mere paraphrase of Descartes, this negative postulation - that "i cannot be if i do not think i can be" - is so much more absolute and compelling. it illuminates an ineluctable precursor to human reasoning: that of Belief in Thought. how can one think if one does not believe it possible? and yet, that very thought is, in itself, remarkably self-contradictory! even if i do not believe it possible that i am thinking, another part of me squirms in protest: are you not caught in the very act of "thinking" there and then? it thus seems that the only way to nullify this strident statement is to deceive oneself.
thusly, the entire statement seems to cave in on itself - declaring its self-contained argument rather moot by any standard of scrutiny. yet, one cannot help but revisit this quaint declaration and note that faint scent of Truth: can the non-believer execute that which he does not believe in? can the mind operate if it were to doubt its very existence? would any of this messy collective of verbs and nouns persuade you should you doubt they could?
... could you say "there is a spoon", when you are empty-handed?
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
more from thomas a kempis.
did you know it was all typed out manually by volunteers, using printed copies as reference?
http://www.ccel.org/newsletter/3/2
http://www.ccel.org/newsletter/3/2
The Sixteenth Chapter
Bearing with the Faults of Others
UNTIL God ordains otherwise, a man ought to bear patiently whatever he cannot correct in himself and in others. Consider it better thus—perhaps to try your patience and to test you, for without such patience and trial your merits are of little account. Nevertheless, under such difficulties you should pray that God will consent to help you bear them calmly.
If, after being admonished once or twice, a person does not amend, do not argue with him but commit the whole matter to God that His will and honor may be furthered in all His servants, for God knows well how to turn evil to good. Try to bear patiently with the defects and infirmities of others, whatever they may be, because you also have many a fault which others must endure.
If you cannot make yourself what you would wish to be, how can you bend others to your will? We want them to be perfect, yet we do not correct our own faults. We wish them to be severely corrected, yet we will not correct ourselves. Their great liberty displeases us, yet we would not be denied what we ask. We would have them bound by laws, yet we will allow ourselves to be restrained in nothing. Hence, it is clear how seldom we think of others as we do of ourselves.
If all were perfect, what should we have to suffer from others for God’s sake? But God has so ordained, that we may learn to bear with one another’s burdens, for there is no man without fault, no man without burden, no man sufficient to himself nor wise enough. Hence we must support one another, console one another, mutually help, counsel, and advise, for the measure of every man’s virtue is best revealed in time of adversity—adversity that does not weaken a man but rather shows what he is.
Monday, February 04, 2008
God of the Hopeless
amid torrential visions of torment; the demonic deluge of despair; the throes of the hopeless thrashing...
g: there is so much evil... so much suffering... and i am helpless!
G: and there I am.
g: there is no good, only utter evil! the believer is squashed, the saintly are finished!
G: but behold, there I am.
g: the innocents continue to bleed unfettered... the tainted continue to feed their bloodlust, continue their abhorent bloodletting...
G: lo! there I am.
g: it's pointless! we're utterly defeated!
G: there am I.
g: it's useless! nobody will be saved!
G: there am I.
g: it's hopeless! the impending doom has consumed us!
G: listen, you who have ears. I am.
g: you're listening to yourself?
G: add the quotes, that much you can do.
g: "I am"...?
G: I am God.
g: god! what ever for? your pacifism... your justice... your love... "vanity!"
G: and still, I am.
g: and so what if you "are"? so what for your omni-whatever? "vanity!"
G: indeed, so what. but yet, I am.
g: spite? is that it? in spite of it all, you "are"? in spite of what you are, and who you are, is it not mere "vanity"?
G: aye... in spite of you. in spite of all who are evil. I am.
g: what... okay, time out. i'm lost.
G: glad you could admit it, dear. who am I?
g: you are god.
G: and so what! being god is no big deal, I assure you!
g: you are... almighty?
G: yeah yeah... omni-blah blah blah. like who cares, really.
g: you are...
G: 1 John 4:16.
g: ... Love?
G: now THAT I am!
g: Love... God is Love... and that is not "vanity"?
G: many are the vain objects of human adulation. indeed, many they are. for one day, these objects will prove to have been in vain.
g: and what about Love... is not Love in vain as well?
G: Love is as I am. and I am beyond decay.
g: is that it? Love is timeless? and You base our salvation upon that one insignificant factor?
G: singular it is, but insignificant it is not!
g: look at Your creation, o mighty One... look at the senseless murder! look at the accelerated decay! look at the merciless evil! how significant is love? what love?
G: I do see, o little one. remember, it is part of My omni-gibberish.
g: and You see love?
G: I am the God of the Hopeless. and in each believer, saint, innocent, the bloodthirsty, the vile, the pointless, the defeated, the useless, the unsaved, the consumed, and the vain, I see Love.
g: ... this is beyond me.
G: you are off by a few centimetres, little one. this is in you.
g: it is? what is?
G: the Hopeless. the Love.
g: a Love for the Hopeless?
G: yes, my child.
g: i can Love the Hopeless?
G: as I am, you are.
g: and... through my paltry Love, i can show the world who You are?
G: and you already are.
g: ... man... i was so... hopeless!
G: and I am your God.
g: thanks G-man.
G: for what?
g: for bothering to listen to lil ol' me whining. You indeed are my God.
G: you're too kind. now get Loving.
g: there is so much evil... so much suffering... and i am helpless!
G: and there I am.
g: there is no good, only utter evil! the believer is squashed, the saintly are finished!
G: but behold, there I am.
g: the innocents continue to bleed unfettered... the tainted continue to feed their bloodlust, continue their abhorent bloodletting...
G: lo! there I am.
g: it's pointless! we're utterly defeated!
G: there am I.
g: it's useless! nobody will be saved!
G: there am I.
g: it's hopeless! the impending doom has consumed us!
G: listen, you who have ears. I am.
g:
G: add the quotes, that much you can do.
g: "I am"...?
G: I am God.
g: god! what ever for? your pacifism... your justice... your love... "vanity!"
G: and still, I am.
g: and so what if you "are"? so what for your omni-whatever? "vanity!"
G: indeed, so what. but yet, I am.
g: spite? is that it? in spite of it all, you "are"? in spite of what you are, and who you are, is it not mere "vanity"?
G: aye... in spite of you. in spite of all who are evil. I am.
g: what... okay, time out. i'm lost.
G: glad you could admit it, dear. who am I?
g: you are god.
G: and so what! being god is no big deal, I assure you!
g: you are... almighty?
G: yeah yeah... omni-blah blah blah. like who cares, really.
g: you are...
G:
g: ...
G: now THAT I am!
g: Love... God is Love... and that is not "vanity"?
G: many are the vain objects of human adulation. indeed, many they are. for one day, these objects will prove to have been in vain.
g: and what about Love... is not Love in vain as well?
G: Love is as I am. and I am beyond decay.
g: is that it? Love is timeless? and You base our salvation upon that one insignificant factor?
G: singular it is, but insignificant it is not!
g: look at Your creation, o mighty One... look at the senseless murder! look at the accelerated decay! look at the merciless evil! how significant is love? what love?
G: I do see, o little one. remember, it is part of My omni-gibberish.
g: and You see love?
G: I am the God of the Hopeless. and in each believer, saint, innocent, the bloodthirsty, the vile, the pointless, the defeated, the useless, the unsaved, the consumed, and the vain, I see Love.
g: ... this is beyond me.
G: you are off by a few centimetres, little one. this is in you.
g: it is? what is?
G: the Hopeless. the Love.
g: a Love for the Hopeless?
G: yes, my child.
g: i can Love the Hopeless?
G: as I am, you are.
g: and... through my paltry Love, i can show the world who You are?
G: and you already are.
g: ... man... i was so... hopeless!
G: and I am your God.
g: thanks G-man.
G: for what?
g: for bothering to listen to lil ol' me whining. You indeed are my God.
G: you're too kind. now get Loving.
Monday, January 21, 2008
lost and found
it's an amazing monday!
after a short intercessory prayer for CSS with FFM, i settled down at YIH for a while. however, i realised that to logon to the internet, i needed my NUS password. the new password. which... i can't remember... well, i changed my password a few days ago (can't rem when) cos IVLE says the old password was expiring.
i didn't believe i couldn't recall my password... so i sat there for a full hour trying to guess my own new password. and. it was to no avail... my memory is just bad.
finally admitting my ineptitude, i resigned to a fate of resetting my password at IT Care. so... in a state of self-inflicted despair, i jogged over to the computer centre in the mild rain. facing the counter girl, i told her i needed to reset my password in a monotonous voice... and then i realised that MY WALLET WAS MISSING.
i ran out of the building despite my bad ankle, frantically scanning every inch of the floor i just walked past for that old black leather thing. nothing. maybe i left it back at YIH? with a tinge of hope, i searched the CSS corner. nope. maybe i missed a spot along the way? no deal. it was nowhere to be found.
collapsing in a doubly dejected heap back at YIH, i started imagining horrifying possibilities: a bus had run over the wallet and its mangled body is stuck on a wheel! a foreign worker thought he'd struck it rich but upon discovering the meagre $4 had chucked it into his lawnmower! a bunch of as-yet-undiscovered bugs carried it off to their queen where it is now feeding slimy larvae! maybe i shouldn't be so negative... who knows? maybe someone picked it up? it's just a wallet anyway. at least i didn't lose my phone! what's the worst thing i lost... my atm card? my house keys? my matric card?? great. now i have no wallet, and no password. T.T
i picked up the phone to call someone i could whine to. but Cheryl and Brian beat me to it - they appeared in the nick of time! they walked me back the route i took to confirm the wallet isn't there, then walked me to NUSSU, OSA, and the Student Service Centre to try the lost-and-founds. they walked all that distance with me despite having just bathed after their jogging. Cheryl even walked me back to arts - and Brian eventually packed up the CSS corner! (it's unmistakably brian-ised now~) at the arts corner, everyone had that look of empathy on their faces. guess losing a wallet isn't unfamiliar to most ppl. St Anthony and St Jude kept coming up too - a little bit of CSS catholic culture right there. (St Anthony is patron of finding lost items; St Jude is patron of lost causes.)
i started thinking. i shouldn't be too sad la. i may have lost something materially valuable; but i've rediscovered something priceless - the CSS community! i could've sunken into deeper despair and wound up blaming God and praying with FFM, but thanks to these darlings, i didn't go further than blaming the system. i guess with all the "ministering" to everyone, i've forgotten how i could also depend on my dear friends for support.
and in a while, this guy emails me to tell me he has picked up my wallet! Brian thinks St Anthony and St Jude were working overtime. i think so too... but it wasn't so much my wallet that was lost and found - being able to depend on my friends was the much greater find!
after a short intercessory prayer for CSS with FFM, i settled down at YIH for a while. however, i realised that to logon to the internet, i needed my NUS password. the new password. which... i can't remember... well, i changed my password a few days ago (can't rem when) cos IVLE says the old password was expiring.
i didn't believe i couldn't recall my password... so i sat there for a full hour trying to guess my own new password. and. it was to no avail... my memory is just bad.
finally admitting my ineptitude, i resigned to a fate of resetting my password at IT Care. so... in a state of self-inflicted despair, i jogged over to the computer centre in the mild rain. facing the counter girl, i told her i needed to reset my password in a monotonous voice... and then i realised that MY WALLET WAS MISSING.
i ran out of the building despite my bad ankle, frantically scanning every inch of the floor i just walked past for that old black leather thing. nothing. maybe i left it back at YIH? with a tinge of hope, i searched the CSS corner. nope. maybe i missed a spot along the way? no deal. it was nowhere to be found.
collapsing in a doubly dejected heap back at YIH, i started imagining horrifying possibilities: a bus had run over the wallet and its mangled body is stuck on a wheel! a foreign worker thought he'd struck it rich but upon discovering the meagre $4 had chucked it into his lawnmower! a bunch of as-yet-undiscovered bugs carried it off to their queen where it is now feeding slimy larvae! maybe i shouldn't be so negative... who knows? maybe someone picked it up? it's just a wallet anyway. at least i didn't lose my phone! what's the worst thing i lost... my atm card? my house keys? my matric card?? great. now i have no wallet, and no password. T.T
i picked up the phone to call someone i could whine to. but Cheryl and Brian beat me to it - they appeared in the nick of time! they walked me back the route i took to confirm the wallet isn't there, then walked me to NUSSU, OSA, and the Student Service Centre to try the lost-and-founds. they walked all that distance with me despite having just bathed after their jogging. Cheryl even walked me back to arts - and Brian eventually packed up the CSS corner! (it's unmistakably brian-ised now~) at the arts corner, everyone had that look of empathy on their faces. guess losing a wallet isn't unfamiliar to most ppl. St Anthony and St Jude kept coming up too - a little bit of CSS catholic culture right there. (St Anthony is patron of finding lost items; St Jude is patron of lost causes.)
i started thinking. i shouldn't be too sad la. i may have lost something materially valuable; but i've rediscovered something priceless - the CSS community! i could've sunken into deeper despair and wound up blaming God and praying with FFM, but thanks to these darlings, i didn't go further than blaming the system. i guess with all the "ministering" to everyone, i've forgotten how i could also depend on my dear friends for support.
and in a while, this guy emails me to tell me he has picked up my wallet! Brian thinks St Anthony and St Jude were working overtime. i think so too... but it wasn't so much my wallet that was lost and found - being able to depend on my friends was the much greater find!
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Avoiding Idle Talk
*from CCEL; The Imitation of Christ
Shun the gossip of men as much as possible, for discussion of worldly affairs, even though sincere, is a great distraction inasmuch as we are quickly ensnared and captivated by vanity.
Many a time I wish that I had held my peace and had not associated with men. Why, indeed, do we converse and gossip among ourselves when we so seldom part without a troubled conscience? We do so because we seek comfort from one another’s conversation and wish to ease the mind wearied by diverse thoughts. Hence, we talk and think quite fondly of things we like very much or of things we dislike intensely. But, sad to say, we often talk vainly and to no purpose; for this external pleasure effectively bars inward and divine consolation.
Therefore we must watch and pray lest time pass idly.
When the right and opportune moment comes for speaking, say something that will edify.
Bad habits and indifference to spiritual progress do much to remove the guard from the tongue. Devout conversation on spiritual matters, on the contrary, is a great aid to spiritual progress, especially when persons of the same mind and spirit associate together in God.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Ch 2: Having a Humble Opinion of Self
... taken from the Christian Classic: Imitation of Christ (Thomas a Kempis)...
EVERY man naturally desires knowledge; but what good is knowledge without fear of God? Indeed a humble rustic who serves God is better than a proud intellectual who neglects his soul to study the course of the stars. He who knows himself well becomes mean in his own eyes and is not happy when praised by men.
If I knew all things in the world and had not charity, what would it profit me before God Who will judge me by my deeds?
Shun too great a desire for knowledge, for in it there is much fretting and delusion. Intellectuals like to appear learned and to be called wise. Yet there are many things the knowledge of which does little or no good to the soul, and he who concerns himself about other things than those which lead to salvation is very unwise.
Many words do not satisfy the soul; but a good life eases the mind and a clean conscience inspires great trust in God.
The more you know and the better you understand, the more severely will you be judged, unless your life is also the more holy. Do not be proud, therefore, because of your learning or skill. Rather, fear because of the talent given you. If you think you know many things and understand them well enough, realize at the same time that there is much you do not know. Hence, do not affect wisdom, but admit your ignorance. Why prefer yourself to anyone else when many are more learned, more cultured than you?
If you wish to learn and appreciate something worth while, then love to be unknown and considered as nothing. Truly to know and despise self is the best and most perfect counsel. To think of oneself as nothing, and always to think well and highly of others is the best and most perfect wisdom. Wherefore, if you see another sin openly or commit a serious crime, do not consider yourself better, for you do not know how long you can remain in good estate. All men are frail, but you must admit that none is more frail than yourself.
EVERY man naturally desires knowledge; but what good is knowledge without fear of God? Indeed a humble rustic who serves God is better than a proud intellectual who neglects his soul to study the course of the stars. He who knows himself well becomes mean in his own eyes and is not happy when praised by men.
If I knew all things in the world and had not charity, what would it profit me before God Who will judge me by my deeds?
Shun too great a desire for knowledge, for in it there is much fretting and delusion. Intellectuals like to appear learned and to be called wise. Yet there are many things the knowledge of which does little or no good to the soul, and he who concerns himself about other things than those which lead to salvation is very unwise.
Many words do not satisfy the soul; but a good life eases the mind and a clean conscience inspires great trust in God.
The more you know and the better you understand, the more severely will you be judged, unless your life is also the more holy. Do not be proud, therefore, because of your learning or skill. Rather, fear because of the talent given you. If you think you know many things and understand them well enough, realize at the same time that there is much you do not know. Hence, do not affect wisdom, but admit your ignorance. Why prefer yourself to anyone else when many are more learned, more cultured than you?
If you wish to learn and appreciate something worth while, then love to be unknown and considered as nothing. Truly to know and despise self is the best and most perfect counsel. To think of oneself as nothing, and always to think well and highly of others is the best and most perfect wisdom. Wherefore, if you see another sin openly or commit a serious crime, do not consider yourself better, for you do not know how long you can remain in good estate. All men are frail, but you must admit that none is more frail than yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
