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.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
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 =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
