nothing is complete until it is deconstructed

SONG OF THE YEAR!!!

2011-01-27T22:25:00.003+08:00

我问天 a.k.a. Wa Meng Ti

翁立友

(Capo 1 = F#maj)

F Dm

风也真生气 Hong ya jin siu ki

Bb C

雨也真生气 Ho ya jin siu ki

F Dm Bb C

气我哪会无志气 Ki wa na eh bo ji ki.

F Dm

爱也消失去 Ai ya xiao xi ki

Bb Dm

情搁来斗缠 Qin ko lai dak ni

Gm C F

想妳想妳不知有啥意义 xiu li xiu li mm zai wu sia yi yi

Gm Dm

四界置探听 Si gei de dam tia

Bb Dm

叨位有妳的消息 Do wi wu li eh xiao xi

Gm Bb C C7

我的感情乎妳绑甲死死 Wa eh gam qin ho li bang ga si si

F Bb

我问天我问天 Wa meng ti wa meng ti

Dm Am

甘会冻麦创治 Kam eh dang mai chong ki

Bb Am

搁再爱妳 Ko zai ai li

Gm C C7

折磨是我甲治 ziag moa si wa ga ki

F Bb

我问天我问天 Wa meng ti wa meng ti

Dm Am

甘会冻麦创治 Kam eh dang mai chong ki

Gm Dm

想要放袂记 Xiu beh bang buay ki

Bb Dm C C7

我不知不觉醉十年 wa bu ti bu ka zui zap ni

F Dm

窗外的雨 Tang gua eh ho

Gm Dm

甘讲是男人的泪 kam kong si lam lin eh wi

Bb Am

不愿面对现实 Mm guang min dui kek si

Gm C7 F

梦中醉十年 mang tiong zui zap ni

It's not MY fault

2010-07-05T20:29:00.002+08:00

eating McDonald's causes global warming and child exploitation.

is that shocking? but let's break it down a little. yes, McDonald's, due to its less-than-stellar corporate social responsibility (especially pre-McLibel) would not ensure that the beef it uses does not come from ranches which eat into the Amazon, hence each hamburger eaten (which figures into their projected hamburger sales for next year) [in]directly contributes to deforestation, destruction of carbon sinks, and increased greenhouse gases - ergo global warming. yes, McDonald's advertises to prepubescent gullible toddlers and hires teenagers who do not qualify for minimum wage rights - ergo child exploitation.

but we can break it down even further. it's pretty probably that not ALL McDonald's franchisees indulge in such corporate evils - there are store managers who go beyond their own prescribed standards out of personal conscience. still, the argument goes that as an entity with a certain unity at the highest levels of management, with a profit-based ethos squared solely on scientific efficiency, and accorded with certain superhuman legal privileges as a multinational non-human corporation, these minority managers would not likely ever buck the trend.

yet, there's still more to break down. as a consumer, it can't be my responsibility to prod a multinational into producing a conscience and acting accordingly! even if said entity is rather immune to traditional national regulatory bodies or even certain regional organisations. what can my eating one less hamburger do?

the truth is, it's rather simple. you are either with McDonald's or you're not. if you eat there, you're enriching them. no matter how small a margin the S$6 meal enriches them, you have quite simply shown your support. this is very very falsifiable: if you don't support McDonald's, you simply won't eat there. and btw, it's not the paltry S$6 that enriches them (much) - it's your abject apathy and/or nonchalant ignorance. consumers beget consumption: you either habitually continue in your buying patterns (often without much thinking) or you're likely to influence others to join in (e.g. eating with friends). your S$6 has a multiplier effect in a very real sense.

but then again... you might not know that McDonald's is such an enterprise. doesn't that absolve you? how can it be your fault if you didn't know... and certainly didn't do anything on purpose? i have a few other examples:

A toddler touches a hot kettle and get scalded. Is the negligent mother at fault?
An adolescent gets drafted into a gang while playing truant. Is the school at fault?
A heartlander buys $1 tissue paper from a disabled man who was actually enslaved by an exploitative syndicate. Is the buyer at fault?
A Sunday Catholic receives communion every week despite not having gone for confession in years; but she does not know she needs to receive communion in a state of grace. Is she committing double the sin? Is her parish priest at fault?
An uneducated hobo voted for George W. Bush because they share the same first name. Is he at fault for Dubya's mistakes? Is the minister for education at fault?

let me expand this further.

sometimes certain parties are responsible while others are not.

sometimes some parties are more responsible than others, but all are responsible in part.

sometimes many are responsible but only a few are culpable.

sometimes few are responsible but many are complicit.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

usually the parties who are responsible do not want to be responsible.

usually those who are more responsible blame those who are less responsible, and those who are less responsible claim they are not responsible

usually the many who are responsible absolve themselves by hanging the culpable.

usually the few who are responsible cause disproportionate harm to the complicit, who have no idea that they themselves had contributed to their own suffering.

there is only so much time for us to remain in denial. at some point the self-destruction would become too obvious to deny. by then it's probably too late.

i'm facing it. it IS my fault.

sashiburidane

2010-06-17T14:33:00.002+08:00

it has been a while... do i still care about sharing my thoughts? that is, the possible unidirectionality of this endeavour notwithstanding...

i have found myself lost - in my own sea of seemingly pointless thoughts, no less - on one too many occasions. having attained a state of self-debate where the self disappears into the debate, where the truth melts into infinite relative specificities, where existence and despair shake hands and make friends... i think it is time to give thinking a rest.

but what is resting? "taking a break from it all" carries such a nasty connotation. yet both are equally akin to "escape": a will-breaking hiatus which serves to deny everything that is existence - truth and doubt alike. a free-floating phase of nonchalance, utterly despondent to the flow of reality passing by; yet simultaneously dependent on that busy frenzy so as to identify itself.

i am not busy doing; but i am not busy being either. what does that make me? a contemplator of sorts? i should be too humble. the placid observer? a self-contradiction: cue the observer effect and schrodinger's cat. it is all too simple, and perhaps a little shocking - i am impaired.

my apparent break from what goes by the alias "life" was nothing short of an obtuse deflection of responsibility. it is heavy, and i am not ready - both statements of facts eternal. there was no way around it except a form of ludicrous stasis; schemingly staged to present itself as a distraught distracted disengagement. therein this hibernal farce, the mind goes into negative overdrive, seeking pleasure by escaping it; a form of masochistic torture. what truly did happen... only the insane could empathise.

nonetheless, in exiting this quasi-possession, the seat of self finds itself unaccustomed. was this what it was like to be in control? to make crucially thought-out decisions? to default on turning away and seize the day? i presume to know... but like all who are caught in life with their pants down, who knows? God knows! it is certainly time to embrace uncertainty as the crux of bearing life's crosses. make no mistake: i will be making fine mistakes.

at yet another precipice overlooking the horizon of possibilities, i stand, cowered, in awe... but this time, unassuming. do i dare say i have found myself? nope... but this time, i care.

opinions

2010-02-03T23:34:00.003+08:00

i have many opinions.

some are based upon the emotion of the moment.

most, however, i would say are logical sentiments.

of course, there also exist the special ones which straddle both categories.

some opinions are important.

some, i think are important.

most, are probably just fragments of one person's perspective.

so then, why have opinions?

what can they do to the great big reality of the world?

what place can they have among the myriad theories, ideologies, and morals?

what am i to do with my opinions?

what will they do to me?

i'd like to think of my opinions as having some value.

some have great value.

many are probably small in that area.

but i can't imagine any of them having no value.

much less being of negative value.

if an opinion is in danger of having no value to me, i should not hesitate to eliminate it.

in fact, i cannot but expunge it from my soul.

but that's just one person's perspective.

i believe in my own judgement; but nobody else needs to.

i trust that the opinions i keep are good and useful.

i would even like to have them serve the great big reality someday.

someday... that perfect timing... but it seems, that someday is not today.

oh no, it does not seem anywhere near the horizon, that fateful someday.

until that day, my opinions seek shelter in my heart.

i have faith in them, that they will do great things for the world.

i look forward with fervent hope to that fateful someday when they are manifest.

until that day, my responsibility is to be patient.

the timing must be perfect for these valuable opinions.

the place of their revelation, as if foretold by prophecy.

the ears who would hear them, chosen by providence.

i have many opinions.

my many opinions have me.

but for now... all they can have is the safety of my heart.

where i will ponder over them, night and day.

where i will treasure them, for what they are.

where i will nourish them, until they are ready.

and when the great big reality finally calls upon them, they shall be afoot.

their candles ready to be lit, their lamps filled with oil.

when the ordained moment shall arrive, i will present my heart, strong and faithful.

her patience having paid off, she shall be renewed with radiant joy.

these pearls of wisdom nurtured to perfection shall then find their place amid the theories, ideologies, and morals.

and then we shall recognise that all along, we have shared these very same opinions.

the imagination

2009-10-21T00:10:00.002+08:00

anyone can change the world.
each person is a part of the world.
how large a portion? that is a matter of perspective.
whose perspective? do certain persons' perspectives matter more?
that too is a matter of perspective.

i don't think it matters - every perspective matters.
these especially matter to the person from whom they originated.
a scholar or professor may say a certain thing, in how ever many words.
but the individual who listens only receives what s/he digests.
that is the perspective that matters to her/im.
that is the only perspective that matters.

so are we a fragmented hodge-podge of discrete realities?
are we really just a bunch of vaguely connected but ultimately separate bodies?
far from it.
so long as we can understand, empathise, and synthesise...
so long as we can interpret, intuit, and appreciate...
we are helplessly and utterly one.
it matters not the material matter that is discrete - not that much!
it matters that what this material matter carries can communicate.
and thus, we are all -
from the ones with least self-esteem or have lost all sense of dignity
to the ones towering above in awesome stature or full of pride -
an equivalent part of the world.

we make up reality.
we live in this reality.
we affect each other's reality.
and so we all have power - some seem more powerful, others seem less so.
but that is all merely seemingly so, for all of us are equivalent after all!
she who can change the lives of 1 billion may seem relatively influential,
yet she may not be able to change the heart of one daughter.
he who could barely love another person wholeheartedly
might have most deeply touched that person and most truly loved her without knowing.
we could all try our very best, thinking that the everyday is our responsibility;
that what we seem most capable of doing is what we should - or even must - do.
yet despite the immense planning and consolidated effort,
it is often that which is simplest which is most powerful.
we can be complex...
but we don't have to be so.

and with such a perspective...
can i change the world?
most definitely.
will i change the world?
i certainly hope so.
how will i change the world?
you tell me.

a thought on thought

2009-08-24T00:46:00.001+08:00

why do you want me to think less?
or worse still: stop thinking?
did you think that i could?
did you think that i might somehow want to?
that thinking less or not thinking is somehow justifiable in my condition?
that my mission in life could do with less/no thinking?
or my vocation could somehow reason itself with less/no thinking?
why do you think i bother thinking in the first place?
was it all in vain?
do i ever only think vainly?
am i nothing more than a vain thinker?

question:
is this called "thinking too much"?
or is this called "the thinker stuck in an unthinking and unfeeling world"?

i do not know.
i do not dare claim to know.
you tell me.

Culture Unplugged Video

2009-06-14T18:08:00.001+08:00

View this movie at cultureunplugged.com

the burden of experience

2009-05-26T14:02:00.002+08:00

Senioritis.

once upon a time, i believed that seniors simply needed to be more involved, more visible, more acquainted with juniors, so as to pass on their experience, provide guidance in times of need, and keep CSS (or any ministry in Christ's name) faithful to her mission.

it seems i have underestimated the nuanced difficulties embedded within this seniors' call to continue serving.

once upon a time, i believed that the generation gap is a mere phantom menace created by burnt out seniors who can't be bothered to deal with younger people. unfortunately, it is also likely to be true that juniors themselves, embedded within a slightly different cultural milieu, with their own idiosyncratic judgement of the world's operational values, are indeed a distinct gap away from seniors.

it seems i have ignored one key issue in trying to bridge the senior-junior gap: that of cultural dissociation. and as my own less-than-gentle demeanor at times may have proven, it is still the senior's prerogative to modify his/her own demeanor and go to the junior's level. for how could we expect the young to mould themselves spontaneously and accomodate the old?

indeed, the burden of experience is such that an invaluable resource must be transferred onwards intact as far as possible - so that CSS (or others) maintain a form of consistent growth - in spite of resistance or reluctance on the part of either the senior or the junior. failing which, the growth of CSS is most guaranteed to be stunted; the aggregated progress of human wills thus faces stagnation.

in the case of advise on practical issues, seniors must vigilantly stand guard so that major pitfalls be avoided. it is possible that failure is needed to mother success; but catastrophic failure can obliterate any chance of future success being birthed. the burden is on the senior to be gentle, firm, assuring, and also custodian of practical progresses.

in the case of ministering spiritual growth, seniors must similarly stand vigilant guard: subtly mistaken ideas and the temptation to mediocrity are perpetual enemies. in gentle affirmation, we must not prostitute our Catholic values in false consolation to our fellow siblings' weak moments. we persevere as one Body, we help each other climb from our falls, we stand and continue marching forth.

in the case of crisis, of misunderstanding, of failure to communicate, once more seniors must stand guard with vigilance. we are called to be stalwarts of peaceful stability in a social world prone to (unnecessary) mutual judgement. in other words, we remain fiercely objective in our own judgement of events and history, always only admonishing the act and yet profoundly loving the actor. no malaise may afflict Christ's mystical body that it cannot heal herself with love.

and so, senioritis is not a mere symptom of slack leadership among the seniors; it is a wake up call to serve with greater intensity in especially the background departments. senioritis is a Weberian ideal type against which we measure our own actions; a modern pericope parallel to Christ's "plank in our own eyes" (Mt 7:4) which implores the sensitive soul to seek perfection in service.

we do not yet have senioritis; but we must be vigilant and Christ-like so we may yet give Him glory.

emotion and reason

2009-03-21T03:42:00.002+08:00

i have a theory, and most may agree, that we humans generally appeal to emotion before reason. in any given situation, the heart asks, "do i feel like it?" before consulting the mind, "does it make sense to do this?" this sequence usually functions quite well, since ultimately the person does appeal to both faculties. my theory here is that while emotions are appealed to first, it does not always follow that it decides the final choice.

yet given this simple sequence, it is already likely that many are won out by their emotion before they reach reason: "i don't feel like it" is as good as a stopping point in any train of deliberation.

emotion has a crucial purpose. it allows us to "empathise intuitively" - i use the terms loosely, echoing lay perceptions. when a person feels like doing something, driven by any of a plethora of "categorised" emotions (fear, anger, hate, love, joy, etc.), that person tends to be driven towards said activity for some implicit purpose. further deconstruction may make this little exercise excruciatingly detailed, so i'll suffice for now to leave this as a brief assumption thusly: emotions imply purpose, which may be empathic for self or others.

yet therein already lies the possibility that emotion is "abused" - not all empathic intuition necessarily ties in to its assumed purpose directly. sometimes, feeling like doing something may not necessarily mean the action attains what it was intuitively supposed to attain. this is especially true when the drive is an extreme emotion - thus, abuse of emotion. alternatively, such extreme emotion can be said to purify the purpose (or motive) of the action to the point where all other considerations are ignored.

this is why reason is of utmost importance. in fact, humans who function solely on emotion (i.e. make most decision on a whim) are not likely to do very well, all things considered. intuition may make a good leap from assumption to proposition sometimes, but otherwise, its reliability is not grounded. tempering that emotion with reason helps to avoid absurd extreme reactions rather effectively. reason challenges the person to prove the assumptions, to demonstrate veracity, and most importantly, to judge the plausibility of causality in any given situation.

reason thus grants analysis to intuition - a rather potent combination for self-aware creatures to find their way around any environment. unfortunately, there exists a third case: that of reason without emotion. in many situations, emotion allows the person to skip a few steps of analysis, substituting trust, courage, or determination as "proof" of causality/motive/purpose. in such cases, emotions help individuals to gauge other individuals without the need to deconstruct them on the spot. it also allows us to believe firmly in induction (unlike a certain Hume). overanalysis leads to a state of rationality which would appear "irrational" to those who use emotion as a placeholder. hence, bureaucracies and bureaucrats may seem inhuman at times.

so, are emotions rational? given a social context, where webs of meaning intertwine, it would be an excessively laborious task to analyse certain human intricacies (cf. private investigators, investigative journalism, the uncertainty of social sciences), hence substituting the intuitive judgement would not only be rational, but even necessary, for society to continue functioning. doubtless, the desired mix of emotion/reason in any given scenario may not be attained by the present actors - especially if stress levels are excessive (i.e. wars, deadlines, modern capitalist families) - and so many emotion-reason-deliberated outcomes may seem utterly irrational or unpredictable. this lack of calculability, counter-intuitively, should be anticipated, because of the given contexts. there are few ceteris paribus situations (or they are highly improbable) in human agency.

i initially intended just to explore how a mainly emotionally-driven person differs from a mainly reason-driven person, and then to suggest that a balanced application of emotion-reason may be the most efficient - especially in the earlier suggested sequence. however, it seems that the many terms i've skimmed have turned out to be key assumptions which need to be inquired. here is a list of blatant assumptions employed thus far:

the link between emotion and intuition: are they necessarily tied together? could they be different in practice?
different types of emotions: these lead to vastly different outcomes. should they still be considered under one header? should there be various classes?
emotion implying purpose: this is the most unsatisfying claim of all - yet very central. do emotions necessarily imply "purpose"?
definition of purpose: i use this word as a clear equal to motive and cause. is there a need to fine-tune this usage? should distinctions be drawn?
the link between reason and "being analytical": is that the only way of using reason? iow, are non-analytical persons less reasonable? what is the precise connection?
similarly for "proof", "demonstration", "veracity", etc. do these words merely sound rational, as opposed to being sui generis aspects of reason?
reason and rationality: are these two necessarily paired? which causes/leads to which? are they necessary for each other?
the use of examples need to be more thoroughly thought out, of course. especially "social" examples in lieu of their presumed complexities.
can emotion or reason be used parsimoniously as categories? can this topic be inquired in a satisfying manner approaching from top to bottom?

kwik kwoth

2009-03-13T01:28:00.002+08:00

it's easy to teach - it's difficult to teach with humility.

life is short. and then you die. THANK GOD! (and do it quickly.)

making decisions:
when choosing between 2 bad choices, be a realist.
when choosing between 2 good choices, be an idealist.

if you're lamenting that your life has no meaning,
if you're feeling trapped and everyone's out to get you,
if you're jaded by everything around you,
if you've lost faith in your own country and its people,
if you've given up your dreams...
try migrating.
to a third world country.

(p.s.: just a bunch of random thoughts coming to me during my moment in the bathroom. of course, they're lessons for me, above all. epiphany toilets rule!)

the point of social theory

2009-03-09T14:36:00.010+08:00

how does society function?
how do humans interact within certain overarching environments?
what are norms and why do they compel?
why education? why freedom? why Catholicism?
can there be humans with no society?
...does society function?

social theory is [the remarkably serendipitous attempt] to describe, in a language [just the layman term] which is [usually only somewhat barely] internally rational [as opposed to universally rational, or internally irrational, or plain utter gibberish], the causes [as temporarily determined by the philosophical study of causality], or the processes [i.e. chains of causes and effects] which then result in particular social facts [as observed by the theorist to be observed/observable by everyone else, no less].

as already observable, each word [used so laconic ally] above could be supported by its own literature of formal theory. in other words, for a good sociologist [in the sense that s/he actually understands others hermeneu-... i mean, properly] to begin engaging any text, s/he must be rather linguistically talented [terminologically ill, verbosely endowed, suffer lexophilia to a less-than-annoying degree].

in themselves, social theories are generally composed, through herculean effort, to remain "neutral", "parsimonious", and "valuable". unfortunately [often also purposefully, for humanity's sake, or neurotically], these "ideals" are never standardised [are un-standardizable, indefinite, or simply piss too many people off with endless debate] such that all other serious sociologists [self-professed, self-qualified, or just selfish] would be compelled to critique it to bits. this does not exonerate the failure of the effort, no matter how herculean.

few social theories are truly compatible with one another - their genesis usually being "in response" to some other assumed-defective theory. occasionally, like-minded theorists may put aside their bickering and actually form a "school of thought" to rally behind and support a favourite theory. inconsequentially, said favourite theory does not thus become "canon" in sociology [or most social sciences], but instead, it simply becomes more widely read, greatly expanded ad nauseum, and create its own school of denigrates.

do theories become better? yes they do - to those who think they do. [no they don't - to everyone else.]

do theories advance our understanding of society? in an oblique way, but ultimately someone has to shirk off the old herculean efforts and actually begin formulating a "methodology" [kind of has its own arena of theory, really] to investigate actual social reality [systematically, formally, in some manner satisfying to the editors of would-be journals] before the theory can produce something fulfilling said purpose to non-sociologists. [certain theorists appear completely vindicated through efforts to simply theorise for theorising's sake - sola theoriae.]

where does that leave us - students of social theory? well, what doesn't kill us can only make us stronger. i just hope that those among us who may work on theory in future do something truly "neutral", "parsimonious", and "valuable" with their publications. [my powers of hoping must be phenomenal, however, judging by the social facts available to me in the form of sociology journals. it is akin to madness: doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.]

social theory isn't always intellectual masturbation. [but it almost seems like it.] even then, you don't always need to reach orgasm. [but someone almost always proves relentless in such pursuits.] and ultimately, life moves on. [to other so-called pursuits of less "folly" - as defined by who again?]

existential fatalism! what a way to approach this 15-week module! no no, gerg the pseudo-theory-hater would not appreciate your patronising applause. he would like a good grade instead. the hypocrite.

scattered thoughts... DOGMA (1999)

2009-02-24T01:18:00.002+08:00

seclusion is never the antidote for any kind of remorse. when one's soul quietens, one either goes to a place of light to await ecstacy in joy of knowing God... or it goes to a dark place. a very dark place. and time does not heal such wounds... the darkness sears at the gaping flesh until it festers. "it is not good for man to be alone." Gen 2:18a

but how does a human "know" God? is that something any person can say with certainty? yes, we have the fruits. we have 5 CS's (from the Alpha programme). we have priests to confess our doubts to. we have... quite a bit of logic and reasoning to work things out really. but what is hardest to obtain is that certainty which comes from self-control (Gal 5:22). a certain discipline which, at some point, means giving up the freedom to sin, the freedom to eat that expressly forbidden fruit, the freedom to cave in to that emotion which courses through the flesh like a tsunami bent on knocking everything over.

order. the one simple value which has become so rare today. the one indulgence which could prove our similarity with the Creator. yet... order has become compulsive - a disorder in itself - or it has become antithetical to our existence: synonymous with bureaucracy, rationality to the point of irrationality, an iron cage of oppressive mania.

but chaos... cannot be good, can it? chaos is the mark of the hypocrite, the hopeless, the hedonistic, the hesitant, those filled with hubris, hatred, and hardness of heart. chaos cannot be ideal... for it has no type? and yet... chaos theory predicts well. there is randomness everywhere... and that has actually allowed things to work in some form of order!

God is not dogmatic - religion is. so Kevin Smith got a few details wrong (plenary indulgences are never obtained via simple actions: the penitent has to receive the sacraments of reconciliation and communion on top of it), but he captures quite a good angle with the eclectic mix really. the many fantastic/ludicrous questions (why do angels have no free will? how can these 2 get kicked out of heaven then? is God gendered?) cheapen the premise for bringing up good ones (can an abortionist still be a practicing Catholic? why are we here? is God mad?) but ultimately it strikes the fundamentalist hardest (NT God became nice because the angel of death resigned... Jesus had blood siblings... Catholics are really just hypocrites...) which leaves it with little wiggle room in reality, really. not that the incessant swearing or the awkward juxtapositioning of the sacred with the sexual matters.

many things are going on underneath even when the surface appears serenely calm. beneath the layered pretenses of words, meanings, and symbols, the soul struggles to eke out an existence. every action, every thought, every interconnectible morsel of non-nothingness... is evidence of so much more - if only we knew how to look, how to listen, how to interpret. yet we hardly even try. all we think of is the doing, not the being. and even then... we forget to thank God for the gift of existence.

we dream... of nothingness.

what's it to you?

2009-01-28T22:12:00.003+08:00

a man is drinking at a lonesome bar
his bruised knuckles are primed for more alcohol
his wife is at home, trembling, flipping through the phone book
his children lie in bed, fighting their nightmares

a phone rings at an attourney's office
his specialties are domestic abuse and divorce
his secretary is taking down notes for him
his daughter lies about homework and sleepovers

a foetus is growing in her abdomen
his father's favourite pastime is pornography
his mother, the attourney's daughter, is walking to an abortion clinic
his abortionist-to-be goes to church sometimes

a pastor is preaching about the meaning of life
his parishioners think the answer is meaningless
his cousin is staring at the water below the bridge
his brother, the attourney, is crying in his office

a soldier adjusts his rifle strap in Iran
his sergeant has just shot a bomb-strapped child
his sister, the secretary, is judging the wife-beater
his professor spends his saturdays sleeping with the attourney

a drug-pusher flicks his cigarette butt into the trash
his mortgage and debts forced him into the trade
his girlfriend, the abortionist, has liver cancer
his uncle, the soldier, hates all Muslims

a politician is calling the fire brigade
his home was set alight by the cigarette butt
his aunt is a discreet elections officer
his grandson is about to be aborted

the man drinking at the lonesome bar gets a call
his in-charge wants him to get into his fire rescue gear
his inebriated driving will run over the drug-pusher
his accident will be the topic for tonight's tabloid

a society is going through its motions
what's it to you?

on technicalities

2009-01-09T00:11:00.002+08:00

just an hour earlier, i literally had one of the rides of my life... okay maybe i'm exaggerating a little, but i really hope i learn my lesson for life!

it's the end of a long day (especially so for me, since i've been having problems coaxing myself to stop doodling around and go sleep), and Alvin was kind enough to drive us halfway around Singapore and send 5 of us home after the MM picnic. unfortunately, the few of us from CAW banner painting had earlier on accidentally (or not!) drifted onto my pet topic of SG politics, and i was still in the mood for argument...

well, suffice to say, i learnt that i'm still not very good at listening to another person's argument. or to be specific, i may have heard some of it, but i end up dismissing someone else's argument using a completely unnecessary sardonic tone. i may like irony, but when i use it on others in this manner, i should be hit with a block of iron!

either ways, another point did surface: many arguments (incl. those that end up affirming major decisions in people's lives) are predicated on terms that have subtle double-meanings. these under-appreciated technicalities often make or break the argument; and often, also the camaraderie which may have existed prior to the point. if the argumenters agree on technical definitions, it can save plenty of empty arguing, which often degenerates into a form of quid pro quo ad hominem. context really is everything!

like today's gospel: Jesus heals a leper who simply falls face down in front of Him and begs Him to cure his leprosy. many an atheist might ask: why then does God not cure everyone? why does He cure a leper who begs Him, but leave thousands upon thousands of other sick and suffering people to their own devices? is it because He felt good when He was begged? of course not! some technical definitions include: it was not just any form of begging - the leper identified Jesus as the Son of God who could heal him if He chose to; Jesus knows the beggar's life, heart and mind thoroughly and He also knew how His healing him is in accordance with the will of God; leprosy was also not entirely a physically painful affliction, but pain from the cold ostracism of the Jewish community, which Jesus came to reform with His message of love. with these 3 points of context, the characters of both Jesus and the leper are fleshed out and their exchange no longer one of mere "begging" and "receiving", but one of "submission" and "mission".

in making an argument really work, instead of merely argument for argument's sake, one ought to be aware of technicalities, empathising with the opposing argumenter and listen to hear his/er point - not simply because one can pick up weak arguments and turn them inside out at his/er expense, but because basic respect is one simple presentation of the love which should motivate all arguments.

argue for the love of God! not for the love of arguing or winning!

time to flee to God!

2009-01-07T00:15:00.000+08:00

05 Jan - Monday after Epiphany of the Lord

"Come now, little man! Flee for a while from your tasks, hide yourself for a little space from the turmoil of your thoughts. Come, cast aside your burdensom cares, and put aside your laborious pursuits. For a little while, give your time to God, and rest in him for a little while. Enter into the chamber of your mind, shut out all the things save God and whatever may aid you in seeking God; and having barred the door of your chamber, seek him." - St. Anselm of Canterbury

- Taken from "Quotes and Anecdotes - An Anthology for Preachers & Teachers" by Anthony P. Castle

what a timely reminder! but will my pile of lazy bones really get down to keeping quiet?

on the purpose of purpose

2008-12-31T02:20:00.000+08:00

"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

to restart the deconstruction...

2008-12-30T02:17:00.002+08:00

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.

on glory

2008-08-14T19:00:00.002+08:00

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.

epiphany #8

2008-08-13T18:17:00.002+08:00

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!

how to communicate #1 - accusation

2008-08-10T15:45:00.005+08:00

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 =)

out, damn sloth!

2008-07-18T02:43:00.003+08:00

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.

epiphany #7

2008-05-08T14:50:00.003+08:00

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.

4 days late...

2008-04-20T03:26:00.005+08:00

...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?

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.

yup. i will be starting my next thesis (for masters) in June (jon ah, you better don't back out of this! it won't be like our jogging plan yea?) and i may begin reading stuff like the year 1s in CL-Ref. you kiddos are an inspiration!

better late than never. it is better to be late so you can learn a lesson forever.

the problem of suffering

2008-03-27T08:53:00.002+08:00

the problem of suffering is the lack of theodicy. According to Wikipedia:

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".

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.

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)

The Happy Easter

2008-03-23T11:40:00.002+08:00

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!

the question of faith

2008-02-27T12:55:00.002+08:00

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!

the paradox of man

2008-02-26T01:44:00.000+08:00

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...

the mind can doubt

2008-02-20T00:16:00.003+08:00

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?

more from thomas a kempis.

2008-02-05T22:32:00.000+08:00

did you know it was all typed out manually by volunteers, using printed copies as reference?
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.

God of the Hopeless

2008-02-04T18:05:00.001+08:00

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.

lost and found

2008-01-21T22:48:00.000+08:00

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!

Avoiding Idle Talk

2008-01-13T23:33:00.000+08:00

*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.

Ch 2: Having a Humble Opinion of Self

2008-01-07T00:26:00.000+08:00

... 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.

mewwy xmas~

2007-12-30T14:46:00.000+08:00

for those who are edgy abt the 'x' in x'mas, it's not really a Latin X |eks|, but a Greek X or 'Chi' |kai|. in Greek, Christ is spelt Χριστός (Christós), which literally means "The Anointed One", which also means X is a legitimate shortening of Christ in Greek, rather than merely "reducing our Lord to a diminutive x". this usage of Chi is also seen in the Chrismon and Labarum, or "Chi-Rho" symbol (☧), often found on liturgical vestments and altar frontals.

... but on to the main show! mewwy xmas!

reason for the reasons

2007-12-26T17:10:00.000+08:00

i like looking at the essence of things.
i despise fixation with forms.

however.

the reasons i employ seem to be for convincing others.
myself, on the other hand, seem less convinced of them.

do i merely reason to throw others off?
do i use reason for their shock value?
am i employing reason or hypocrisy?
do i believe or do i simply lie?

dear Lord...
i need you to be the reason for my reasons
- nothing less would do.

free rice!

2007-12-04T23:11:00.000+08:00

ever fancied an expropriation of sesquipedelian locution for the emancipation of the profligate penurious? (i.e. play vocab to feed the poor!)

it really sounds too good to be true... but some nouveau entrepreneur with a heart of gold, thought more for the "least of Christ's brothers" (Mt 25:40) and spawned this amazing little self-running donation.

still not a believer?

me too. and if there's anything on the net which i suspect to be a scam, i trust Snopes.com to talk about it. and they did! the article says it all. for the Wikipedia fans, yup, there's a little article there too. or perhaps you'd rather take a look at what GoogleNews can find.

still skeptical?

well, all it takes is a few clicks to test your own vocabulary (the site donates 20 grains of rice per correct answer) so why not just take a look? use a public computer to test it if you're fearful of hackers - nothing's gonna happen anyway.

http://freerice.com/

or start by checking out their FAQ.
geez, you could really do with less skepticism sometimes.

now go buff up your vocab!

form, essence, cause.

2007-11-28T00:20:00.000+08:00

i like complaining when people seem fixated on the exterior. perhaps because it makes me seem slightly wiser, a less skin-deep person interested in what lies underneath. perhaps this is the impression i'm attempting to create for myself, so that my own exterior becomes more attractive.

therein lies a certain question, very primal in nature: why is there an exterior? what makes up the form? does this "exterior form" have anything to do with what lies beneath?

this is one reason why those who are concerned about appearances find it hard to swallow when someone like me tries to ignore the exterior - while i may geniunely be trying to "go deeper", i have also managed to ignore the link between the exterior and the interior.

no form is completely without essence - indeed, some kind of essence must exist in advance to cause the form to appear at the surface. just like every bubble that pops on the surface of a pond tends to have some underlying source, be it biological, chemical or geological.

of course, this does not mean that all types of concern for the exterior is legitimate or acceptable - there may be many different causes for those concerns. some are more acceptable: i want to satisfy my spouse, i want my appearance to bring joy to others, i want to look presentable. others are less acceptable: i want others to think well of me, i want to seduce someone, i want all eyes on me. there may be no straightforward manner of grading the "level of acceptability" these various concern-causes; it seems largely quite a subjective matter at first glance. one would need to apply some manner of moral system to begin such comparisons.

evidently, not all these causes may represent the very essence of a person yet - causal chains can go quite long before the essence is reached. how can one tell if a certain stated reason is the root cause? well, without proper contextual clues, it's probably quite difficult, if not impossible, to be certain.

hence we learn that passing judgement is not good practice. the reason is very simple: we can't be sure most of the time, what someone's causal chain is for connecting a certain form to part of that person's essence. if one can't be sure, then will not the judgement be unfair? if it is unfair, then why judge?

one possible exception does exist. for your own person, it is much more possible to understand the causal chains - you set them up, after all. of course, there are times when even our own reasons have become fuzzy, and that is when we need to sit down and reflect - to clarify our own internal moral systems which we want to subscribe to. ultimately, you're usually still the best person to judge yourself, precluding supernatural powers.

yet, a few conclusions can still be made. for one, most exterior forms have a proper causal chain connecting it to a certain essence - though sometimes what appears to be some "essence" really may be a further front that conceals some other deeper essence. therefore, it is not fair for me to completely discount the validity of forms in general, since some may firmly be connected to real essences.

a cynical disenchantment with appearances is also an unfair judgement.

what's with the music?

2007-11-18T22:56:00.000+08:00

Komm, Susser Tod
by Arianne

I know, I know I've let you down,
I've been a fool to myself.
I thought that I could live for no one else,
But now, through all the hurt and pain,
It's time for me to respect.
The ones you love mean more than anything.

So with sadness in my heart,
I feel the best thing I could do,
Is end it all, and leave forever.
What's done is done, it feels so bad,
What once was happy now is sad.
I'll never love again - my world is ending.

I wish that I could turn back time,
'Cause now the guilt is all mine.
Can't live without the trust from those you love.
I know we can't forget the past,
You can't forget love and pride.
Because of that, it's killing me inside.

It all returns to nothing,
It all comes tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down.
It all returns to nothing,
I just keep letting me down, letting me down, letting me down.

In my heart of hearts,
I know that I could never love again.
I've lost everything... Everything...
Everything that matters to me matters in this world.

this song is played at the climax of The End of Evangelion - when everything gets 'destroyed'. it's songs like these that comes to my head when i realise i simply can't find it within myself to finish an essay on a sunday.

more music for the mood

2007-11-17T12:35:00.000+08:00

Some say love it is a river that drowns the tender reed
Some say love it is a razor that leaves your soul to bleed
Some say love it is a hunger an endless aching need
I say love it is a flower and you its only seed

It's the heart afraid of breaking that never learns to dance
It's the dream afraid of waking that never takes the chance
It's the one who won't be taken who cannot seem to give
And the soul afraid of dying that never learns to live

When the night has been too lonely and the road has been too long
And you think that love is only for the lucky and the strong
Just remember in the winter far beneath the bitter snows
Lies the seed that with the sun's love in the spring becomes the rose

Bette Midler, anyone? this song (The Rose) was one of those played during that showing of JP2's The Jeweler's Shop at Jubilee Hall - truly lyrics for the tear ducts.

music of the mood

2007-11-16T01:21:00.000+08:00

a fantastic jazz rendition of a Sinatra classic by Jamie Cullum...

in the wee small hours of the morning
when the whole wide world is fast asleep
you lie awake thinking of the girl
never even think of counting sheep

when your lonely heart has learnt its lesson
you'd be hers if only she would call
in the wee small hours of the morning
that's the time i miss her most of all

2007-11-12T15:18:00.000+08:00

You Should Be an Artist

You are incredibly creative, spontaneous, and unique.
No one can guess what you're going to do next, but it's usually something amazing.
You can't deal with routine, rules, or structure. You're easily bored.
As long as you are able to innovate and break the rules, you are extremely successful.

You do best when you:

- Can work by yourself
- Can express your personality in your work

You would also be a good journalist or actor.

What Should You Be When You Grow Up?

i completely do not believe in BlogThings... but since alexis managed to get Social Worker, thought this one might be fun to do - turns out it's merely based on what image you choose... sighs.

i doubt i work well by myself. besides, how can an actor work alone? i'm quite a bad actor anyways - i can't lie well. and i might make a good journalist... in a country where you won't get sued the pants off of ya.

back to work, then.

how knowledge works

2007-10-25T23:54:00.000+08:00

just wanna type this down before i forget (again). my recent ruminations considering the slippery subject of 'knowledge'.

knowledge, often casually defined as true beliefs, can be purely psychological, but is also undeniably impactful on social relations. hence, there is a sociology of knowledge, built upon some fundamental philosophical understanding of the definition of knowledge.

let's charter the course of knowledge across a social structure. knowledge almost always comes from the particular; i.e. it is created and first encountered at the individual (or agent) level. here, it already has immense potential to shape that individual's reality (and consequently the social reality of those around him/er) even before it is transmitted. within the agent, knowledge can produce manifold psychological impacts - justifying one's actions, inciting one to act, igniting various passions and emotions, impeding an ongoing action, or even just creating interest. of course, trivia (as a form of knowledge) can be of near-zero impact, but generally speaking, the agent's contact with knowledge preempts, and is causative of, action and change.

here, we also already have a layer of interpretation. when any raw data is first imputed to any individual, there may be some knee-jerk responses (especially sense-data of particular jarring nature). these would tend to be labelled information rather than knowledge. the key difference being that knowledge requires some "personal consideration" or interpretation of that information's significance, some level of decoding so that the data is useful rather than "noise". at this level of interpretation, it is already apparent that how a person interprets depends much on his/er prior socialisation and disposition. depending on which cipher one uses, information can decode into vastly different knowledge, and thus lead to drastically different action. yet, this layer of socially-assisted decoding is not purely undirected - the agent is capable of moulding both the cipher he learns and the cipher he wishes to use; apart from choosing what action to take subsequently. the agent thus is an active (and creative) moulder of knowledge.

nextly, things get exciting: the agent is never alone. knowledge gets passed on from agent to agent, both actively and passively. one may choose to transmit one's honest interpretation of some knowledge, or choose to embellish it, or choose to omit/distort parts of knowledge. he may do this in full knowledge of the receiving end's cipher (hence actively shaping the receiver's interpretation) or he may do this hoping to shape the receiver. there may be any number of other intentions for the transmitter at this point - it only depends on one's creativity.

the receiver, of course, is far from unfiltered. she has her own layer of interpretation, her own ciphers to choose from, and her own moulding to participate in. subsequently, she has her own psychological space within which to react to this received knowledge - which may result in further interpretations or tranmissions.

individuals are up till now, assumed to function independently. however, that may of course, not be the case. groups of individuals may choose to interpret knowledge together, consolidating everyone's ciphers and resulting in greater permutations of interpretation. however, the net interpretation may not be completely received by all in that group - the subsequent absorption is more than often differentiated. these groups may also disseminate knowledge as one - both allowing a new entity to assume various responsibilities while allowing the composite individuals to diffuse theirs. as a loose affiliation, dissemination may often be less detailed than transmission, and such knowledge may also contain more interpretations.

these loose affiliations may be coordinated in hierarchies - thus becoming an organisation. here, we can talk about information flowing through various branches of said organisation - but what is often neglected is the grouped interpretation and individual interpretation concurrently going on when information reaches any subordinate entity. depending on how the ciphers are socialised throughout this hierarchy, decoding may be selective and uncontrolled - the net interpretation of such a structure is almost always greater than that allowed for by a single cipher, owing to the individual creativity of each agent and group. there may be both apparent interpretations and (perhaps multiple) latent interpretations of the same knowledge disseminated across such hierarchical organisations. control of information flow is never a guarantee of control over interpretation; hence subsequent actions may vary widely.

not all organisations are coordinated through hierarchies, however. some do not attempt to control information or interpretation, perhaps tacitly admitting to the ability of creativity to thwart these efforts. such networks may spontaneously generate ever increasing amounts of knowledge, often in uncontrolled amounts, yet still encapsulated in a form acceptable for interpretation. here, even though the mode of transmission is uncontrolled, standards of interpretation may spring up, either from a need for mutual understanding (which requires some standardisation, and thus control, of interpretation). of course, standardised interpretation is still not guaranteed to spontaneously emerge from such loose networks, although it generally has to happen if the network is to continue functioning as a disseminator and interpretor of knowledge.

the two (ideal) types of meta-groups described above are of course by no means exhaustive. but both demonstrate the ability of larger social groups with varying levels of coordination to further interpret and disseminate knowledge. thus, at the societal level, knowledge may be interpreted any multitude of times before the next entity encounters it - and adds her own interpretation to the mix.

questions:
- can society spontaneously create knowledge above and beyond its composite agents?
- could such creative non-human entities thus be said to have a conscious will?
- which steps should the process of 'translation' encompass?
- what other types of processes can be described? how useful are these ideal types?

notes:
- need to differentiate raw information from processed knowledge
- account for integrity of information/knowledge within great multiplicities of interpretation.
- account for different intentions and their effects on transmission.
- relate this mapping to creation of reality.

there. just a rough draft. for sc4209.

"Everything" video on GodTube

2007-10-24T10:48:00.000+08:00

some people were sharing this video kind of a while back... just thought i'd revive it a little. it's a very re-enact-able skit for any ministry - well worth considering!

gerg, the gay supporter

2007-10-11T17:51:00.000+08:00

i just signed a petition to the prime minister supporting the repeal of the infamous statute 377A. did i turn gay? whoa... of course not! in fact, sad to say, i still consider myself to be somewhat of a homophobe... i'm cautious around gays, inclined side with homophobic language, and highly uncomfortable with discussing gay sexuality (talking about lesbians is fine tho).

of course, the main issue here is:
how can i support the repeal of an anti-homosexual act law as a Catholic?

that's the point worth discussing in this post. i shall start by mentioning what i consider the proper stand a Catholic should take on the issue of homosexuality:

identifying oneself as gay; i.e. that a male is sexually attracted to other males, is not in itself sinful - just as a sex maniac is not sinning until he acts. this does not exclude lustful thoughts, of course! thus, a gay man who lusts after a man is as sinful as a heterosexual man lusting after a woman.
the act of anal penetration (or to use an archaic term, sodomy) is, however, condemned by the Catholic church as a "transgression of nature". God Himself is demonstrated as offended by such acts (the word 'sodomy' stems from Sodom and Gomorrah, cities said to commit such acts in mass orgies), thus it is a safe bet for Catholics to steer clear of such sex acts (even if it is heterosexual). here, i would like to compare the much more 'acceptable' act of masturbation: the two are probably equally detestable in God's eyes.
"Love thy neighbour as thyself." (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 5:43. 19:19. 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, 1John 4:7. 11, James 2:8) is the one law which sums up one's faithfulness to God. John the Evangelist says it the best: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." these words of God clearly tell us how we ought poise ourselves for our homosexual brethren - the same way we treat any other sinner, with love and acceptance.

now that the stand is clarified, the next question comes:
how does repealing 377A support that stand in any way?

here, i shall simply paste the comments i added to my petition... do read on:

I am a practicing Catholic and I continue to believe that homosexual acts are against the natural order and offends God. However, God did give us the freedom to make our own choices, whether to commit sins or not. Among the many sinful choices which the Law punishes, I would consider 377A to be excessive - the Law does not punish people who masturbate, does it?

Decriminalisation, however liberal it may seem, however it may imply homosexuality as acceptable, remains the only fair way forward, as particularly poignantly laid out in Para 5. I do not think conservatives wanting to keep an old law simply because it seems "too progressive" can be considered reasonable; neither can Catholics be considered good Catholics if they choose to support such an oppressive law as their preferred method of serving our homosexual brothers.

further to those comments, i believe that leaning on the power of a secular court to deal with homosexual acts usually only leads to either, i) over-punishment, ostracism and stigmatisation, or ii) apathy due to non-prosecution. the latter is what seems the trend today - and while it makes a mockery of the legal system, it also insulates Catholics: non-visible homosexuality = no need to care about them or talk to them. for us practicing Catholics, s377A only either torments our lost brothers, or keeps us in an impenetrable "comfort zone" of ignorance and inaction.

an additional point to note is this: our more fundamentalist Christian brothers may be far more intolerant and oppressive in their gay ministries, employing peer pressure and guilt rather than Christ's way of gentle compassion - inviting conversion as a response to love. the result is their disillusionment with the church and often outright rejection of Christ himself. if us Catholics remain entrenched in our "comfort zones", Christ's ministry suffers! (this is not meant to diss Protestant efforts to reach out to gays: at least they try.)

the way to approach gays, for us as Catholics, must be the same approach we endorse with all other sinners (genocidal murderers, incestuous paedophiles, corrupt politicians, money-worshipping idolators; your brothers and sisters): the way Christ moved the world by becoming the Lamb led to the slaughter. we must put our lives on the line to listen to our brothers and be a channel of God's grace for them instead of merely relying on punitive laws. that is why i signed the petition - as a commitment to loving my gay brothers.

i shall end off sharing this hymn - note the irony!

God Is Love
Love it was that made us and it was love that saved us.
Love was God's plan. When he made man; God's divine nature is love.
Born of God's love we must love Him, that's why He made us to love Him;
But only when we love all men can we partake of God's love.
But only when we love all men can we partake of God's love.

Love is a wonderful thing, joy in our hearts it will bring.
Where there's true love there is God and where there's God there is love.

Christ said: "Love must be the sign by which men will know you from Mine.
A new commandment I give: each other love as I did."

quoteses!

2007-10-09T23:53:00.000+08:00

found a nice page with some great quotes (while searching for that first one on the list)... just share a few with you:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.": - Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."

- H. G. Wells (1866-1946)
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.": - Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
"Don't be so humble - you are not that great.": - Golda Meir (1898-1978) to a visiting diplomat
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners.": - Charlton Heston (1924-)
"Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.": - Saint Augustine (354-430)
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.": - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.": - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.": - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.": - Galileo Galilei
"The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing without work.": - Emile Zola (1840-1902)
"The full use of your powers along lines of excellence.": - definition of "happiness" by John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.": - Yogi Berra
"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have.": - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.": - Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
"Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right.": - Henry Ford (1863-1947)
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'.": - Yoda ('The Empire Strikes Back')
"I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves.": - Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)
"There are no facts, only interpretations.": - Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.": - Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
"Dancing is silent poetry.": - Simonides (556-468bc)
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.": - Plato (427-347 B.C.)
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it.": - George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
"Whenever I climb I am followed by a dog called 'Ego'.": - Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.": - Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.": - H. G. Wells (1866-1946)
"Talent does what it can; genius does what it must.": - Edward George Bulwer-Lytton (1803-1873)
"The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'.": - unknown
"Women might be able to fake orgasms. But men can fake a whole relationship.": - Sharon Stone
"If you are going through hell, keep going.": - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
"He who has a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'.": - Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
"Many wealthy people are little more than janitors of their possessions.": - Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.": - Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.": - Voltaire (1694-1778)
"I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them.": - Ian L. Fleming (1908-1964)
"Facts are the enemy of truth.": - Don Quixote - "Man of La Mancha"
"When you do the common things in life in an uncommon way, you will command the attention of the world.": - George Washington Carver (1864-1943)
"How wrong it is for a woman to expect the man to build the world she wants, rather than to create it herself.": - Anais Nin (1903-1977)
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.": - Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

"There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it.": - Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.": - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

whoops. that's quite a long list huh? well the whole page is way longer... go read if u have the time =) btw, i also have some of my own quotes somewhere on this page...

imprecision

2007-09-15T02:19:00.000+08:00

this was inspired (partially) by Fr Kenson's RCIA session last thurs. he was supposed to lecture about the order of the mass (think GIRM), but when he touched on the Eucharist, he kinda side-tracked into this tirade against English.

"English is a very poor language. it is simply unable to capture so much of the meaning that Greek, Hebrew and Latin expressed." he then proceeded to tell us how in English, the sentence "A is B" is a much weaker expression of 'being' than the Latin "A est B". "A is B" could mean that A is like B, or B is an attribute of A, or A is a symbolic representation of B. but "A est B" is precise: A is equals to B - in its entirety. so when Christ said "This is my Body" He did not mean the bread is like His body, or the bread is partly His body, or the bread represents His body. He simply meant the bread is equal to His body. which makes the Eucharistic celebration all the more profound!

anyway. i pondered over this exposition of English's one major flaw - imprecision - and realised that this multimodal form of expression is really quite innate; hence the problem of imprecision could actually be underlying the least scrutinised expressions! are we even able to mean what we say when the combination of words allows for 3 different readings? and have these 3 different meanings become so conflated now that we are no longer able to even distinguish them when we wish to? how has this affected our communication?

and when you think about it, English being the most widely used language these days, especially in academia and politics, could it mean that all the cool theories and so-called advances we've made so far in understanding various ideas (in fact, any idea!) have been tempered by this level of imprecision? did we misunderstand anyone somewhere along the way? is that why so much human suffering has dominated modern history since the English empire? or has the conflation of similar meanings actually led to a less rigidly one-track world able to enjoy more satire and parody? is that even a good thing?

language lies at the heart of all communication. communication lies at the heart of all understanding. understanding lies at the heart of all learning. if the language is poor, then the learning cannot get much richer. is that why the Church had resisted translation of the bible for so many centuries? is that why the Protestant Reformation has led to cafeteria Christianity? have we lost our heart in all this mess? learning is the best way for a sinful person to move away from sinfulness - are we failing to utilise the most important advantage of learning?

good stuff for a theological thesis eh? throw in bags of literary criticism, sociolinguistics, and dialectic historicism - poof, you have a complete historical commentary which challenges its very own basis of exposition. how about that.

singapore, o quaint, lovely, orwellian city

2007-09-10T12:07:00.000+08:00

haven't been bothered with local news for quite a long while now... been more concerned with everybody's spiritual growth most times. it brings nostalgia paralleling independent news reporters for my quaint city's news!

the latest intrigue comes from cops responding to Ultraman and friends. apparently some anime lovers were protesting with their toys (what an idea! skirt the laws!) at *Scape (i think it's that grafitti place in orchard) and that managed to attract 4 police buses.

ROFLMAO!!~

what the biang, activate police bus free one or what? action figures also can activate! what if some real crime was happening elsewhere... oh right, what was i thinking? this lovely city never has crime to deal with anyway.

as mrbrown points out, the local media maintains radio silence on such quirky (and i believe, newsworthy) events - but Reuters has no govt muzzle (well at least it's not muzzled here la) so check out their article!

boy, i miss all this online jounalism man... it so makes me feel like i'm making a dent on the ideological superstructure without laying my arse on the line... har har har.

the myth of the slow computer

2007-08-29T00:33:00.000+08:00

do you know how fast a computer actually is?

that old 486 which says it's running at 66kHz... that actually means it's capable of executing 66,000 instructions PER SECOND.

so why in blue hell are we always waiting for the computer to stop hanging!?

what is going on behind that beguiling "rolling hills" wallpaper which windows xp likes to display?

i think i do believe that today's gigahertz processors ARE really capable of billion calculations per second. i think it's the PROGRAMMING which i'm not so sure about.

especially windows.

what a deceptively simple name! i wonder what kind of programming mess lies behind that. the jumbled code which takes on a life of its own by jumbling itself up each time the clueless user attempts to click something. haven't you ever wondered why we need to defrag the harddisks and why we need third-party registry clean-up apps?

your computer isn't slow. it's not trying to screw you over with blue screens of death. no... the computer is only as slow as the programming installed.

microsoft created the myth of the slow computer.

playing guitar

2007-08-04T01:41:00.000+08:00

i've a little resolution to make after listening to Corrinne May's fantabulous concert (i'm a fan now. awkwardly, but i'm a fan!):

i shall learn more guitar songs and especially hymns/p&w stuff so that i can be a better guitar player for my friends!

so if you have any song which you want me to play for you, please let me know k? i shall begin to build up a proper repertoire in earnest - on Corrinne's account =)

oh btw here's a shot of the concert i sneaked =P
Corrinne... you're a real inspiration. a drop of golden sunshine emanating Christ's boundless love in this loveless world. conquer this world in His name o superhero girl!

presumptions

2007-08-03T01:11:00.000+08:00

this morning i tried to call ryan, hoping to check if i should go straight to the matric fair or not. he didn't pick up. the first thought that came to my mind was: he's a guy - why doesn't he pick up the phone? perhaps he's driving and still on the way? then isn't he quite late?

all those questions are examples of presumption - presumed assumptions. our eager-to-blame minds often accords blame to people even in the absence of concrete proof.

if someone's phone does not get through, would you say that that person had purposely switched his/er phone off? perhaps you might even take it more personally and say s/he is switching the phone off just to avoid your call! but really, without further information, it is just as likely that his/er phone simply died either due to a flat battery or poor reception. that phone might even have been lost, stolen or spoilt - less likely, but still probable given the lack of concrete evidence! why is it that we automatically take things personally?

let's say a friend is late. perhaps s/he's stuck in a jam. perhaps s/he's got a wardrobe malfunction. perhaps s/he's got to attend to some family matter first. there could be an infinite amount of perhapses, and yet, more often than not we find ourselves condemning that friend for purposefully choosing to be late so that we have to wait for him/er. some friend we are! instead of being worried for the late friend's well-being, we are content to simmer in our private anguish.

how about when a sibling says something hurtful? silent treatment. no more sharing. immediate retaliation. do we know in that instant whether s/he actually meant to hurt us? or was it a mere slip of the tongue? does it have to snowball into a cold war?

presumptions, presumptions. i'm very tempted to link such reflex think-the-worst mentality to that arduous political philosophy of realism, but that wouldn't be very fair since i won't be bothering to write a full essay here. indeed, if i made such a negative claim without proof or even argument, then i'm merely making yet another presumption!

so - difficult as it may be - let's try a different kind of presumption. the positive kind. next time a car overtakes you with a crazy manouvre, give that driver the benefit of the doubt - you'd be doing that too if your boss was gonna fire you for being late that time.

reductionism

2007-08-01T14:37:00.000+08:00

reductionism - the idea of reducing large, complex situations into simplified, more understandable models - is one of the few philosophies which are truly multidisciplinary. reductionism is, in a sense, a significant cornerstone of fields as diverse as mathematics, literature, the sciences (both physical and social), philosophy, engineering, business, and history. i could give examples in each field, but let's just settle for these three: in math, long functions are reduced and simplified into equations - some of which then describe relations between natural phenomena via physics; in philosophy, much of logic is similarly reduced to equations, while "cause and effect" commonly becomes descriptive of any sequence of events; even in history, where attempts are made to understand an event from different perspectives so as to capture its complexity, most reports end up emphasising bite-size fact-nuggets, or else there may be no readers.

why does this "reductionism" fascinate me? i just watched part one of The Corporation (available for download at www.thecorporation.com) and throughout, i was reflecting on what a friend told me about doing business. you reduce a good concept to something which "the masses" can understand and appreciate, so that they would buy into it. initially it sounded somewhat logical, although some part of me felt uncomfortable with this proposition. it's true, isn't it? "the masses" can't be expected to think for themselves, can they? voluminous reports, no matter how meticulously done, would still never be able to capture the details of complexities in (especially) social circumstances - much less convey the most important messages to the client.

so what then are these "most important messages"? this is cynical, but in the business world, it's usually about how the presenter is competent, the proposition will definitely work, and both parties will make money. that scenario is presented many times over in The Corporation. one queasy point which is often left out in reductionist reports is this big word: externalities. now it doesn't necessarily always have to be negative, and yet since by definition externalities don't result in direct profit, they are usually left out even if they're positive - unless a spin can be put on it of course.

in our modern reductionist society, individuals no longer appreciate any form of complexity. in fact, some no longer consider the world complex to begin with! what with all the breakthroughs in every field telling us more than we can ever know or understand... haven't we already covered everything? or rather, isn't whatever externality being dealt with by someone else already? here, we see how reductionism, when misapplied, can easily result in evasion of responsibility. why should i bother with recycling? i'm not wasting much anyway. even if i do go the extra mile, someone else is bound to waste that mile for me. why think about the next generation and how they would suffer in a world parched by us? i'd be gone by then. i have enough worries for tomorrow as it is.

to admit, for the individual the above statements do hold some truth: recycling 10kg of paper isn't going to save even 1% of a tree. however, The Corporation showed me how such thinking could quickly blow out of proportion when it dominates a group of individuals - culminating in the perfectly amoral and profit-driven corporation of today. when a large company wastes resources, who is to blame? every individual within? even so, how do you stop these behemoths with their gigantic litigation departments?

reductionism has brought us much progress in science and technology. yet these multifarious progresses are not in themselves simple or one-dimensional - we cannot even begin to fathom how amazingly complex their impacts can be. however, this does not mean we completely ignore the externalities and reduce them away. in our list of priorities when making choices, each one of us must retain that awareness of others and pinpoint at least those externalities which are most harmful. the urban setting may alienate each individual to the point of mutual ignorance, but everything we do as individuals continues to impact society at large - reducibly or not.

when subjecting humanity to reductionism, pray do not let moral responsibility and empathy be reduced away. we can be simplified - but does that mean we are no longer complex? are we still human or mere "masses"...

a progress update (with not much progress)

2007-07-24T01:43:00.000+08:00

the holidays began on 6th May - and it's been 80 days since. i've managed to scrape myself through an orientation camp, a couple of retreats, and some exco stuff. other than that, i've also managed to NOT start my driving lessons, read up for my thesis, get a job for money, arrange get-togethers for at least 3 groups of old friends, catch up with my own family (how about that), pack up my room, work on the bad habits, communicate more with God, and... i should stop lambasting myself.

the hols thus far have really been great. many, MANY moments to be thankful for. and i can really live with all my shortcomings so far - sorry to my friends and family who have to live with them too - all except one.

i need to love.

once again, i find myself atop that breathtaking precipice. a great panoramic view of the Garden God has created surrounds me and fills my being - i brim with pride and joy. the boundless blue sky daintily pettered with shades of cloud alluring beyond human imagination. the rugged beauty of a jagged landscape replete with forest, mountain, river, and plain - all unspoiled. the warm sunshine... the clear air... the uplifting breeze... all will remain as it is - cold perfection which humanity can only wonder about in complete amazement - unless i make a choice. i could despoil it: like my brethren, or i could fulfil it: by embracing it as i was created to do so. i know fully well which way i would like to go and how appropriate it would be.

and yet. i am stuck. a sore thumb ill-worthy of the God-given title: beloved. the serenity around me is all at once frozen - expectant. all it takes is a choice... to take one step forward... an exhilirating plunge into reality... a little leap of faith... but i am frozen in fear. uncertainty. doubt. self-lambasting.

i need to love - and i need to start with myself.

an amorous affirmation

2007-07-13T00:24:00.000+08:00

g: Lord?
G: yes, son?
g: my God, do you love me?
G: of course, My dear - without a doubt.
g: as in like, really really?
G: yes, My precious - really really.
g: forever and ever?
G: until the end of time.
g: um... Father?
G: I'm still listening.
g: Dad... I love you too.
G: I know! even before I made you. I knew.

the time is now to fulfil each vow for i may never pass this way again

2007-07-02T00:39:00.000+08:00

Remember, too, that "they who are ever taking aim, make no hits; that they who never venture, never gain; that to be safe is to be ever feeble; and that to do some substantial good is compensation for much incidental imperfection."
-Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman

this quote is the near-miraculous answer to my recent argument with my dearest marc (bless your soul) about "when to act" - it is NOW. where did i come across the quote? well... today i read for 7.30am mass and between 8.30am and my lectors' meeting at 1pm, i attended stachoir's practice (which was extremely uplifting btw) and legion AF's meeting (boy i miss jr legion mtgs) and the quote is from the Legion handbook, under Chapter 32 "Objections which may be anticipated", Point 11 "Obstacles in the way of starting, there will always be". if you can get a hold of any Legion handbook, look for that chapter and read it - you will then be (more) ready to serve in any vocation.

or get it from the handbook of Life itself!

today's Gospel (13th ordinary sunday)
"Once the hand is laid on the plough, no one who looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Luke 9:62, Jerusalem Bible*

next sunday's (14th ordinary)
"Start off now, but remember, I am sending you out like lambs among wolves."
Luke 10:3, JB

and for the lucky ones who still remember our CAW Rally...

i'm good at being sardonic with these words: are your hearts still on fire? do you remember when the time was now? but let's not be harsh la... until we finally meet our maker, he has given us all the time we need to find out what his teachings truly mean. and believe him: the truth will set you free (John 8:32).

*in case you didn't know, our missal uses the Jerusalem Bible, which includes J.R.R. Tolkien as one of its co-editors. so far i haven't been able to find an online version of the JB, but Universalis.com quotes from it for mass readings. the full New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) tho, is available online at Knights of Colombus - just that they protect the html so it's a bit difficult to copy n paste from there (you have to view source and search from there). yes, i'm a lector alright.

rainbows & orientation

2007-06-18T23:39:00.000+08:00

i don't know why God is such a showoff, but everytime we try to orientate freshmen (2 years in a row at least), he comes along and throws us huge rainclouds, thus forcing us into frantic prayer lest our Sentosa plans collapse. he then takes the trouble to show us he listens by blowing those rainclouds away and painting rainbows in the sky - right over the beach in Sentosa where they are most easily visible.
shrugs... i dunno why you do the things you do, Father, but i guess i'm still pretty thankful for that. whoever said beauty moves people was right after all!

SMRT ad

2007-06-02T23:34:00.000+08:00

seen on bus 853...

"when in doubt, tell the truth."
- Mark Twain
to advertise with SMRT buses, call ###.

advertisers... please don't remove those inspiring quotes from the SMRT bus windows... sometimes, it's simply not worth the extra profit.

save the world?

2007-05-22T10:05:00.000+08:00

after a hellishly hot night of rolling around in bed trying not to sweat, I'VE HAD IT.

i'm gonna save the world from climate change!

are you one of the bushies who don't believe in it? well, here's the proof:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century.
The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4°C (2.0 and 11.5°F) during the 21st century and that:

Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm.
There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.

Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years.

[more or less verbatim from the wikipedia article on IPCC.]

anyway, back to saving the world. here's my little manifesto:
- switch off ALL appliances when i'm not using them or around them for 2 minutes or more. i.e. if i'm taking a shower, i turn off all the lights and fans in my room until i get back. in fact, i will also AT LEAST switch the laptop to low power mode. if not i can't bathe in peace.

- save water. i don't have the figures now, but i do know that water purification is probably a very energy intensive process. maybe i'm saving 10kWh for every 10 litres i save, which would translate into maybe 10 moles less pollutants? it's worth it to me.

- buy less. of EVERYTHING. you know what's consumption? that's eating the world away, one small piece at a time. i will not purchase anything for pure fickle pleasure until the capitalist mode of production is able to at least recycle >50% of its products. i will also try to read up on each manufacturer's history to determine if they are eco-friendly or not, and avoid products from companies who have a bad history. this INCLUDES FOOD. they are consumables.

- i will enjoy my public transport. damn, singapore is so small, public transport is barely an hour from anywhere to anywhere! AND you save the world too... what's not to enjoy man? the tv-mobile? heh... maybe.

- i will preach relentlessly about this. i know that my own efforts can barely make a dent on climate change... unless i also do my part in promoting MENTALITY CHANGE. will you change your mentality about saving the world and walk with me?

now... if anyone is free, please help me check up on the power usage ratings of the common daily household appliances... is there a way to tally how much we're saving the world? i think this is quite do-able and might actually be fun!

more distance

2007-05-21T16:14:00.000+08:00

it's finally a day to slack since the exams ended and jon gave me the mission to go serve css... but all i can think about is how i've tried so hard to be loving (i really did) and only ended up feeling distance.

it strangely started with a love letter from steph & fel... it was a cheesy thingy la, and i was really quite happy to get it still (being my usual crappy self), but now that i have it, i dunno... it's not like they don't uncheesily love me or that i only love them cheesily, but i just... feel... distant. how do you love someone if you have no idea what's going on? how do you love someone if they are merely people you go out with or do css projects with? what kind of love is it when you're happy to see them just because they're at a meeting with you?

and furthermore i have been bugging half of css these days - the projects need manpower. while thinking up names to call, i was ever so aware of each soul's fragility - for some, this could be a huge opportunity to turn back to God, while for others, simply another annoying Christian to ignore. and even as i knew i had to push only in all gentleness, i heard a voice scream silently in my head: YOU are so fragile! that was when i knew i really needed Christ to be beside me in every little thing i do... or I will end up fluctuating again. but even if i'm not distant from my Lord... i still felt so far away from my dear friends whom i'm trying to contact...

but am i really trying? or am i merely hoping for more tools to help prop up the cantankerous machinery of css? am i pushing gently for people to help out or merely pushing them further away? there is no fear in love... then why am i so seized?

i went blog-visiting in my spare time (3-5am) hoping i could see a little warmth and closeness. i ended up posting the weirdest of posts: "i feel like i'm losing touch with you." amidst all the meetings i've been attending, the only thing i feel really close to is the work - having been there and done it all. the people are ever just out of reach... a sliver of translucent material just obscuring my grasp... i see them and i call out...

but only my voice comes back to me.

ascension @ novena

2007-05-19T00:29:00.001+08:00

didn't really like the priest's sermon... too accusatory. may leave bitter taste in many mouths. however, his words do make sweet meditative fodder. this hymn, however, i had to take home:

Chords for "O God, You Search Me"
Psalm 139, tune by Bernadette Farrell
Duration: [X] = [Y] [Y] = [Z] [Z] [Z] [Z]

O [D] God, You [G/D] search [D] me [A/D] and [D] You [A] know [D] me. [D/C#]
[G/B] All my [Dadd9/F#] thoughts lie [G] open [Bm] to Your [Asus4] gaze. [A]
When I [Bm] walk [Bm/A] or lie [G] down You [A/G] are be-[F#m]fore [Bm] me: [Bm/A]
[G7M] E-ver the [Em7] ma-[D/F#]ker and [G] keeper [A] of my [Dsus4] days. [D]

You know my resting and my rising.
You discern my purpose from afar,
And with love everlasting You besiege me:
In ev'ry moment of life or death, You are.

Before a word is on my tongue, Lord,
You have known its meaning through and through,
You are with me beyond my understanding:
God of my present, my past and future, too.

Although Your Spirit is upon me,
Still I search for shelter from Your light.
There is nowhere on earth I can escape You:
Even the darkness is radiant in Your sight.

For You created me and shaped me,
Gave me life within my mother's womb.
For the wonder of who I am I praise You:
Safe in Your hands, all creation is made new.

had a really hard time finding the chords to this fantastic song... thanks to grace (law grad, yr of 2006) who transcribed this to me from scores... hopefully it's true to original! your creator knows you thru and thru... so there's no shame, only love.

this changed my life today!

2007-05-05T02:50:00.000+08:00

well, it's a pretty simple webpage, the content would go down for almost anyone. and the message rocked my world. haha. watch the video!

http://www.hollywoodblasphemy.com/

luckily spiderman doesn't swear! =)

i am liminal

2007-05-03T22:32:00.000+08:00

it's already my last paper... but like every other sem before this, the last paper is still the hardest to focus and revise for. aside from the exams themselves being so problematic and full of contradictions - not unlike my liminal self - i keep rationalising until i find this entire enterprise pointless. my head is truly a mess of fallacies!

i disagree with studying for the sake of grades. i should be enjoying my studies - it should be an endeavour aimed at enriching my knowledge, so that i may one day contribute to this growing mass... of trite, self-glorifying trivia? in enriching my knowledge, will that really amount to any sizable contribution in the future? besides... i don't think much of what i'm studying is truly worthy of respect anyway - much of it remains impenetrable to mere undergrads; the rest of it points at such obscure abstractions as to be barely useful in any sense.

some theories seem little more than attempts to publish so as to make a living. others seem like fiction which can't compete with real fiction authors. some are even like spiritual epiphanies from a higher realm, concepts which thrive upon so many interwoven hypotheses as to resemble theology or mythology more than a social theory based on real society. and of course... reality itself becomes hard to grasp.

where am i going with all this? so i'm trying to make sure i do a little better than if i had went for the paper without any revision at all... so i'm merely like the paranoid students i make fun of once in a while... so the grade does matter (i think) in whether i get to do my masters... well, the biggest 'so' in my head now is really... "so what?"

so what if i do do a little better? so what if i manage to maintain second uppers and end up doing masters? so what if i continue to feel so liminal, locked in a micro-universe besieged by endless, rationalising, discontinuous, ingenuous, pretentious, sanity-warping thoughts?

i will merely happen upon this feeling of liminality once more. damn you anthropologists - you think you figured out something about humanity, but you only got someone else planetstruck!

i am powerful

2007-04-21T14:47:00.000+08:00

did you know that...

every thought expressed in discernible means is the beginning of influence?

every spoken/written word represents an exercise of power?

every name called upon signifies the caller's right to summon the name?

every sentence constructed alludes to the constructor's grammatical and semantic competence?

every social being is an interlocutor of varying combinations of hegemonic forces?

every individual's existence contains myriad repercussions for society?

every communicated meme, every interpreted meaning, every fragment of knowledge, combines in unaccounted manners to form reality?

every attempt to appraise/encounter reality distorts truth?

... and now you regret, for i've screwed with your head. told ya i'm powerful!!!

epiphany #6

2007-04-20T00:19:00.000+08:00

i want to love!!!

but...

how?

not faith in
y o u r s e l f
but faith in
~M E~

tio virus

2007-04-17T11:47:00.000+08:00

i'm proud to announce: my lappy has kena virus! it's called worm.win32.small.r (according to kaspersky's antivirus). my original antivirus prog (AVG by Grisoft) suddenly stopped updating abt a week ago, and suddenly my com kena virus. how did i find out?

when the grad video refused to play last friday.

my heart sank as i felt my friend's hearts sink. a gigantic wave of pure wrath tsunami-ed my puny brain. i almost cracked my lappy in half there and then! but somehow, perhaps with the altar right beside me, i managed to cool it a bit. kudos to marc, gary, and aaron who were there to absorb my frustration... sorry guys.

we had prepped quite a bit for the video. we tried our best to plan the mass, making sure the bookmarks were there, the announcers knew what to do, the petitions had time to be written... but mass still failed to be on time. why huh? why the mad rush to save time? and how come the damned planning still fail?

maybe cos God wishes us to spend more time in Him?

geez. i'd like to see that one get broadcast to the community. i honestly haven't been honest enough, but sometimes, i feel we don't try enough to be Christian. so what if mass starts late? so what if the announcements seem neverending? i don't sense a shred of empathy for what we're going thru, much less the cooperation we're so desperately seeking. now i know how it must have hurt when i accused joel of not planning the new year goodies fundraising well enough (last year). o the rawness of the wounds still bite unceasingly - and i must cast them upon my Lord lest i explode one day.

perhaps it wasn't just the lappy that tio virus... perhaps the virus is more virulent than i expected. i want so much to serve... but if i can't accept the cross as He did, then perhaps i'm only trying to serve for my own sake. now i must disinfect this virus of mine and serve Him for His people's sake.

and let's hope i get my lappy back soon!

politics is emotional

2007-04-13T01:17:00.000+08:00

take heed: i'm gonna be lambasting emotion and politics in one bold stroke.

everyone has feelings. everyone has 5 layers of maslow-desires. everyone is an id, ego, and superego rolled into one. everyone performs that social role to the best they can because they feel it "fits". (i'm citing loads of random theories just to sound academic. don't cite me.) but basically, everybody lives their lives as if they're the centre.

nobody seems to see the Christ in anyone else but themselves.

how do you serve when you're emotional? how do you pray when you feel trapped in that powerful negative emotion? what is one supposed to do with anger, hate, disappointment, irritation, betrayal, jealousy, rejection, depression?

you become reactionary.

stemming from that internally justified rationale of righting the imbalanced emotion, you work on your self-esteem. you decide you shall stand down no longer and stand up for what you stand for. and in standing up, you cast mighty shadows upon your opponents. a line is drawn. the self and the other are created. it's me against the world - you are either for us or against us.

where's the Christ in this? how can one be Christian if they draw such bounding boundaries?

well, there's one simple way: by becoming political.

anger: i'm not angry with you. i'm angry with your ideas. which are thought of by you, so you get some of the anger-flak. i apologise if i seemed so, but really, i'm not angry with you. just the damned ideas.

hate: i don't hate you. i just hate the way you squirm about. stop being such a flip-flop; stand for something i can digest! don't do such hate-able things. even then, i won't hate you.

disappointment: you don't disappoint me. you had it rough. man is created weak and we only constantly weaken ourselves. i'd have done the exact same thing. it's really not your fault. i'm not disappointed.

irritation: you're not irritating, you're doing what you need to do. i understand where you're coming from and i know where you're bringing us. our perspectives may differ but i respect your non-irritating attempts at irritation.

betrayal: you didn't betray me. it was a mere miscommunication. the broken telephone line. the hustle and bustle of urban freneticism. the junk in the dna. you couldn't have betrayed me. i don't feel betrayed.

jealousy: i'm not jealous. i thank God that you're blessed in your special way. i'm amazed at His obtusely amazing plans. i'm glad He's created you unequal. now you don't get jealous of me!

rejection: i wasn't rejected. i wasn't brushed aside. my stand was weak - full of loopholes. my ill-conceived plan was rejected. i'm not gonna take it personally.

depression: i'm not spiralling. i'm free as a bird, strong as a tree! with my God beside me, inside me, between me, how could i feel such an odd emotion? i'm only mildly saddened.

now, now... how could that be political? you tell me. you say one thing and mean another. you judge, pre-judge, and re-judge, then claim you are objectively non-judgemental. you respect the almighty norm of formality and eloquence, but you think in one-dimensionally hurtful words. how could a Christian think such thoughts? noooo... to be one, you gotta swallow it all. don't throw Christ's face: be two-faced.

man is an irritatingly political animal - because he's emotional. but when he's Christ-like - i'm betting my life on this - the emotions all become positive, and the politics becomes a silly annoyance in the back of his head.

why disagree when you can try and try again? why have faith when you already believe?

when you pray, close your door. when you give, your left hand doesn't know. when you save a person, you don't make him twice as worthy of hell. when you fast, be happy. when you serve, turn the other cheek.

dare i feel?

2007-03-29T10:20:00.000+08:00

it's the precipice of depression... my veins contract nervously. soon, i would be a phantom shadowing what's left of my shadowy existence. it's serendipitous how i got here; and so it shall be as i leave.

drained - again

2007-03-28T12:19:00.000+08:00

and this time... by simply being unproductive. sine prole is really becoming me.

the essence of doubt

2007-03-14T12:12:00.000+08:00

doubts are everywhere. everyone doubts someone or something once in a while. now, that is a scary prospect! let me tell you why...

the person who doubts begins a journey, an exploration of unknown terrain. it's a good choice, really, seeing as how such journeys could bring the intrepid doubter across mountains and valleys into the promised land of Wisdom.

unfortunately, most of us have misconstrued the whole concept of doubt: we very often take it as an end in itself. this is where the scariness spooks. if the bulk of people travelling that journey of doubt believe the first step to be the end point, a sufficient reason to conclude that belief is unnecessary, then nobody would ever reach the promised land of Wisdom!

let me throw in a soci example. we pompous armchair critics like to deconstruct stuff and throw it in people's faces, like when we talk about religion, we say religion has a function in society. religion helps "maintain social cohesion and solidarity" through encouraging its adherents to attend rituals and ceremonies which evoke strong sentiments. sometimes, this encouragement can seem almost coercive due to people not wanting to be seen as un-religious or disobedient. these communal activities supposedly provide a sort of "social glue" where people then firmly subscribe to the ideals of that religion. the theory then goes on to assert that these "ideals of religion" are really what a particular society (sub- or unconsciously) considers to be the most important values. thus religion, while trying to assert the existence of God, is really trying to socialise individuals into good slaves of Society, which then assumes some dimension of godhood. now that the function of religion is somewhat deconstructed, i can imagine that many adherents would gasp with mouths widely agape, exclaiming, "the danged proselyters have screwed me over!" well, that's an example of taking the first step as the endpoint.

why? because the process (deconstruction, in the above case) is incomplete! take those claims above and line them up like this:
1. some of the impetus to participate in religious activities is actually based on guilt
2. rituals and activities merely serve to socialise individuals
3. religion's ideals are merely subservient to Society's ideals
4. Society is God

well, for point 1., even if the guilt stems from merely not wanting to be in the crowd, it's still not necessarily tantamount being "screwed over", unless you want to believe that. simply because, if everyone else is doing a certain thing, there ought to be some reason they're doing it, right? and if the acclaimed reason is one that sounds correct (worshipping God), then why not? the guilt can be seen as coercive, if you go on claiming that the "encouragement" is really a fear of judgement and ostracism. nothing illogical or problematic there, except that it's really quite difficult to prove that the individual is completely non-complicit in forming that judgement and/or ostracism. i.e., if you do something wrong, you can't simply expect the community to be saintly and instantly forgive you; there will always be those less saintly who will judge and ostracise. but you did something wrong first. and besides, this informal system of tit-for-tat is in itself proper, no?

for point 2., let's call it a tautology. if a social activity doesn't have any impact on the individual at all, then what the heck is for anyway? rituals and ceremonies help an individual understand their religion better (which incidentally is a function of rituals and ceremonies in the context of religion); does that mean religion is trying to psycho you? you make your own choices still, yes? granted, being in an environment of religiosity tends to shift people towards being religious - does that mean they are not able to exercise free choice any longer? and even if it does slightly feel like a restricted freedom, is not the end result of a congruous, positive religious community a good result? AND worth that restricted freedom? Singaporeans should know what i'm talking about =)

point 3. is really a coup for religion! if religions contain the most treasured ideals of a society, is that not in itself justified? only the best ideals should be worshipped, yea? as for their ideals being subservient to society's, it seems to imply that society is somehow "evil" or "unworthy". but really, religion serves society, just as politicians are supposed to serve their citizens (ouch). so if it seems as if some religious ideals are merely subservient, it may be because that certain religions do not want to wage holy war against society's infidels (no offense intended), but would rather try to dialogue. leaving the theory in typical socified airy-fairy style could distort a clearer understanding of intermingling social factors.

is society God? many times it seems so, truly. why follow norms? am i following social norms to please the society-God? it seems so effusive, isn't it? but we are over-generalising. norms are not evil laws to mandate your behaviour. no, society isn't out to control you simply for the sake of lording it over you. norms are constructed over time, through many intricate processes. individuals need to agree that murder is illegal and it's multitudinous varieties sorted out in different cases before it becomes binding statutes. biting fingers is seen as disgusting only after everyone agrees to it - and even then, you are still free to indulge in it if you can stand the constant nagging and ill-hygiene. exam grades are merely the simplest and most cost-effective way to stratify students by their performance - you are not being forced to mug. and of course, these 3 examples have a further option: if you feel these norms to be somewhat outdated or misconstrued, you are welcome to do your part in reviewing them. it takes a lot of effort to struggle against norms that seem unfair to the individual, which is why the abolition of slavery and the declaration of human rights are pretty recent history. if society is God, well, we could, with sufficient grit, move the hand of this God and write our own history or change people's lives permanently. the individual controls society, even though society has a lot of ability to influence the individual, simply because it's the individual that makes choices.

that's what i call taking more than one step in the journey. okay, it's a pretty long-drawn example, but basically the journey from doubt to Wisdom is a looonger one. i'm probably only making the second or third step myself...

the essence of doubt is not an end in itself - it requires tenacity and a desire for truth to complement it in order to achieve Wisdom.

*thanks to Joel Stanislaus for inspiring this.

a Lent picture

2007-03-01T13:52:00.000+08:00

the tree outside my window has decided to grow a huge bunch of new leaves. guess the same should apply for me now! thanks, all my angels who have been pruning me - check back for new shoots soon~

my greatest fear

2007-02-26T23:06:00.000+08:00

i like to think of myself as quite fearless. sometimes with a little too much swagger and almost no inhibition.

when people would say they have nightmares of their loved ones passing, i would do a private snigger - not that i feel these people are wimpish or anything, but that this fear i'd already have gotten over. yes, it's almost inhuman: i'm quite ready to face the loss of any loved one... it's true, i might tear a little, considering how final that loss could be - but in the Lord's lovely name i'm ready to commit their souls into His faithful arms.

guess you could call that "dealing with" loss rather than fearlessness, but neither am i very bothered by the fact that i could die any second. true, i'd not have the luxury of a last-gasp confession, but really, i believe God already has that covered. i'm more or less quite ready to be judged, in a sense (although more time would be good, definitely!). it seems death doesn't stump me much eh?

what about losing a limb? or sight? or all my material comforts? well... at the most these inconveniences would take a couple of months to get used to. i'm actually quite resigned to the fact that i will definitely need a wheelchair in old age, and my eyes will definitely go before i die. not that i don't do anything to prevent these inevitabilities, but part of that preparation involves imagining life like that and beginning to get used to it in bits - now. even accidental castration doesn't really faze me. honest.

looking through typical lists of fears, we see some usual suspects: arthropods; LOTS of bugs in a claustrophobic setting, maybe? eating a cockroach is quite icky to me... but if given a fear factor challenge, i believe i can down a few buckets of the vermin i hate most (puking notwithstanding). heights (think walking the parapet on a 100 storey building) would give me lots of jitters; but i actually can't wait to go bungee jumping! how about getting lost? in a dark haunted mansion? whew... that would be quite scary i'm sure... but you know, i do wanna talk to spirits - they are instant proof of the existence of an afterlife. getting lost in a jungle might be more horrifying. being eaten by some animal must be excruciating pain! how about this... getting hanged, drawn, and quartered? how much pain can i take before i will accede to any request? there is an amount of courage involved in this... although it is more tempered against endurance rather than raw fear (fear of more pain is really a way of saying you can't endure more pain, right?), though i reckon the sight of an iron maiden or the pyramid chair would send very pronounced chills down my spine...

and still, those aren't my greatest fears. this is:

i'm most afraid that one day i would discover that everyone i know is really pretending to be nice to me. that i am sealed within an airtight seal of pretence with completely no means of telling if what i believe about anyone really has any truth to it. that somehow a well-conceived conspiracy to keep me in the dark about how people really feel about me had spontaneously spawned, so that what ever i know about anyone's opinion is really false knowledge. a conjuration of deception so elaborately conceived, a web of impenetrable lies so finely spun, that my social reality is completely non-contingent upon any of my intellect. i cannot understand anyone's real feelings; my skills of interpretation themselves were products of this falsification. i am completely powerless and vulnerable emotionally. my impressions of myself from others' words lie completely shattered and meaningless. my purpose a farcical concoction. my life... utterly baseless.

that is my greatest fear. it's like some conspiracy-phobia, but it remains distinctly possible in small amounts. every time i see some secret look, a nuanced expression, hinted at someone else but myself, about myself... the fear grips me. am i being analysed outside of my awareness? it's probably the worst aspect of my (non-DSM diagnosed) OCD - i'm not obsessed about what others think about me per se, just paranoid that the above-described complete shut-out could exist. what if mum really thinks i'm just wacko? what if my friends really think i'm just full of it? what if that stranger already knows how contrived i am but is pretending not to know me? what if they are all pretending to be who they are to me - and i have no way to tell?

hmm. maybe that isn't that scary after all - now that i've typed it all out. i think i may be able to face that with some courage... and God's presence.

"enlightened" praying

2007-02-22T16:10:00.000+08:00

just an observation i've been making for a while now.

we often pray in such a manner:
"Lord, send forth Your Holy Spirit!"
"Come, grace us with Your holy presence!"
"Be with us!"

... insinuating that either a) the Lord isn't with us, b) some sort of invocation is necessary, or c) that these words help remind us we are in His presence. the former two are actually quite absent-minded, to say the least, for Christ himself did say that He will always be with us, both at the Last Supper, before His Ascension, and physically manifest by the descent of the Holy Spirit. indeed, much of the spiritual theology discussed in the many letters after the gospels assures us of His continued spiritual presence with us.

maybe it really isn't that huge a consequence, but c) is, to me, a significant point in seeking personal holiness. the human condition is such that remaining crisply aware of our Christian-ness at all times is always a challenge - and central to this challenge is remembering God's presence in our lives. prayers with these so-called 'invocations', if rationalised to be words that remind ourselves of His nearness, do become erstwhile prayers.

the (lengthily protracted) distinction is that we need not ask/plead God to be with us as if He might not be so; but rather, such stylised pleas are really more like laments of our own human weakness in being unable to be mindful of His presence at all times. in a sense, praying for God's presence (as if He wasn't present before) is unnecessary, and may even reflect a little poorly on a Christian's faith; but praying that His presence may be made more palpable, or that we may be more sensitive/worthy of His presence - that is an earnest Christian prayer.

another "problem" with some prayers are the almost senselessly self-centred petitions. these are multitudinous and may be more common than realised: for example, praying for grades, health, that a loved one may recover, weather, traffic, being on time, etc. all these little things which bother us in life, but we know God is Lord over - why not ask Him for a little supernatural assistance?

well, firstly, such an attitude attempts to place God "in our service". even petitions generally supposed to be good such as praying for peace, happiness, good fortune, etc, could have a deeper selfish perspective wherein we are really hoping that God would simply make things better for us. the importance of acknowledging this negative attitude lies in the fact that investing our faith in God's "dependability" on resolving such matters could have the reverse effect: how many Christians have turned away after seeing God fail to answer their pleas? this method of praying also tends to obscure the individual's personal role in such matters - praying for peace could dilute your own role in working towards it. if you feel called to petition for some general goodness, never forget to pray that God may reveal His plan for you in that mission. chances are, noticing a certain petition could predispose you to being a key figure in bringing that petition to fruition!

secondly, we could look at the proto-prayer: the Lord's prayer. while Jesus spends the first 3 lines glorifying the Father's name (to remind us who's serving who, nonetheless!) He simply uses "give us today our daily bread" to summarise all our various particular petitions. the only 2 specifically-mentioned petitions then follow: "forgive us our sins", and "deliver us from evil". at the end (yes, we often forget these last 2 lines), Jesus goes full circle and praises the Lord again: "for the kingdom, the power, and the glory are Yours, now and forever", which doubtlessly also reminds the person who prays to be humble before the Lord and accept that "not my will but Yours be done".

so Christ's example, thru this extrapolation, indicates the right focus for our prayers: to pray for the Father's mercy and deliverance. as His children, we definitely ought to share with Him our daily problems as well, talking thru with Him matters which matter to us and bring us anxiety. however, this discussion, if it degenerates into a "child asking for prize" session, would greatly lose the dimension of two-way communication. when petitioning for something close to your hearts, do not fail to listen for His reply! prayer would be so much more enjoyable if it wasn't merely mouthing wishes into the air, you know. being open to His will and seeking clarity and discernment are much more fruitful and mature forms of prayer, don't you think?

besides, if He looks after the sparrows and the flowers, He is definitely looking after those needs of yours too. if it does not seem like He is, fear not! you don't have to suspect that God is abandoning you... but do listen and discern if this gift of pain is to toughen you up or to bring you in line with a greater plan of His. and be resilient: prayers for discernment often take much more time if you're not used to it.

know that the Lord is with you at all times, and He hears what you ask. now, all you need to do is listen and seek His will.

GAW

2007-01-19T10:02:00.000+08:00

g: Lord?
G: ya?
g: why did you make evil?
G: did i?
g: you don't know?
G: you think?
g: you can't not know... you're omniscient right?
G: maybe?
g: what do you mean maybe? you're supposed to be three omnis: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent!
G: sounds like it?
g: sounds like?? geez... has being God gone to your head?! there's got to be some law against such frivolously imprecise answers!
G: i could say the same for you... but first, let me flick your forehead for using Jesus' name in vain first. [a Godly finger twangs g's forehead with a mighty boom.]
g: OWW! now that's just childish!! when did i even say Jesus!
G: the "geez" which you so imprecisely used as cover-up for some other swear word - that's what a minced oath is - and that's against the second law...
g: rrright... and i was punished for something that merely sounded like Jesus...
G: ...and back to that "sounds like" part. do you have any idea what omnipotence is?
g: well, it's like you could do anything? no restrictions? like a genie?
G: hmm... which is why i only said "sounds like" it.
g: you mean there are restrictions even for you? i mean, i can get it that you're not like a genie...
G: haha... even the word "restrictions", understood here in this context, specifically - precisely - using the human intellect, would not completely capture my situation.
g: ah... the ol' "creatures won't understand me" escape route eh?
G: and to where can i run? every i go, i am there!
g: [pause] that's almost like a joke.
G: except that it's true too. dear, i know how hard it is for you to understand me. i don't wish to impose either, but in order to have any meaningful relationship, there must be something we can hold on common ground.
g: which is why we keep trying to understand you... the nature of God... theology...
G: that's all very heartening! i'm very proud of you for having come this far. but you see, just as you might never ever truly understand your future wife's nature, so could you still focus on what's important.
g: okay, i'm listening...
G: love me.
g: [longer pause] Lord, you know i do...
G: then...
g: feed your sheep...?
G: spot on.
g: i am trying... really hard, dear Lord.
G: and that is why there will always be some evil.
g: huh? you mean i actually got hold of a hint? i mean, i knew you wouldn't forget my initial question... but i didn't expect that... where's the link...
G: doubt.
g: ah... it's Mr. D again.
G: yup. it's the killer of all relationships. you can't truly love if you can't fully trust.
g: so because i'm only "trying real hard" instead of "be it done unto me according to thy will"...
G: yes, my child.
g: then so be it. i am your handmaid. just as Mary wasn't sure when she said 'yes', so will i not dwell on my doubts today.
G: then today, there will be no evil about you.
g: praise be to God!
G: aw, you're too kind.
g: not half as kind as you!

some growth and some retardation

2007-01-13T01:53:00.000+08:00

when u march forward in some area of your life, something somewhere will begin to swell, and once it swells, your view gets obscured. for every step one gamely marches forward in pride-induced blindness, one must tumble two steps backwards in the most humiliating fashion.

the rush of adrenaline from CAW is proving to be double-edged. am i zealously marching for God's glory or am i seeking my own pedestal? must what i consider good ideas in my head necessarily be broadcast? must what i detect to be oversights demand an audience with the overseers? when i exercise my gift of judgement, am i also committing the sin of judgementalism?

four words. patience, humility, appreciation, gentleness. let me indulge in this self-reminder for a moment: the thinnest of lines can be swayed towards the white simply by adhering to these four words, no? even in a fast-paced environment, how can being Christ-like not lead to doing the right thing?

and thus i look to slow my pace. patience requires objectivity in managing time.
and thus i look to quieten myself. humility requires solace in solitude.
and thus i look to decrease critique. appreciation requires pure positivity.
and thus i look to be understanding. gentleness requires sensitive chivalry.

obedience and tenacity, where art thou? if only my person could possess you two strangers by serendipidity, who could resist calling me blessed! o furtive Spirit, pray thee fly no more... but land upon my soul and clench Thy fiery talons deep into my heart - bleed me dry if need be! grant me the supernatural will to tenaciously obey my King - and so let my person be consumed with pure love of Thee.

my partner's right. the same excuse cannot apply more than once, since it then requires an excuse for using that excuse again - a recursive nightmare! it's time to straighten up once again. the new goal: all growth and no more retardation.

extra: firm apologies for all the nonsense spouted thus far. please feel free to calumniate me for them: i have prayed for the grace to desire that retribution.

fighting him

2007-01-09T01:24:00.000+08:00

i shouldn't be blogging... it's 1.30am and i'm supposed to wake up at 7am uh... today.

but i just wanna apologise for the lack of posts... been really busy with CSS work. yes, i'm working my arse off for the Almighty, even though i still have so many grouses for Him. heh. don't worry, it's not hypocritical; i just kinda disagree with Him sometimes (or He hasn't changed my mind yet).

more importantly, i implore you who have less of a doubt problem than i do to truly keep me in your prayers, along with my CSS compatriots. i can sense that we are attempting huge plans this sem, and somehow the temptation to slacken is growing. it may be his attempts to slow us, it may simply be that i'm not as strong as i believed. either way, i could use some prayers, whereupon Mr God can prove He listens =) sounds like a good deal to me...

oh, and thanks for watching over me. i don't like admitting it, but yea, i've felt Your presence. along with his. you watch my back while i fight him.

Christmas Thoughts?

2006-12-25T05:04:00.000+08:00

what do you think when standing alone throughout the 2-hour advent service? strange thoughts, i assure you.

It is always tempting to call a young man uninformed for his lack of wrinkles, and to call an old man wise for an abundance of the same.

Just as youth breeds pride, so does age invite negligence.
So shall communication end in conflict and history mire in hiccoughs.

Thus speaks a youth weary of speech: what despair awaits him in evanescence!
Yet if he persists in silence, who would hear his heart breaking?

Then pray you, cry out!
Suffer alone no more, O Solipsist!
Still, he may utter not an audible syllable until his hair grays and his digits tremble.

Whereupon he shall speak his father's tongue, and impress his son's quiet.
Praise, therefore, the Lord Almighty!
For all is but vanity.

am still struggling with norm-bending ideas... but really, i am tired. why does god bother to give me these ideas? why put them in this mind in such a country? sounds like sadist pleasure to me. i am always thinking "change" in a static society. i must bring god such joy.

how to disappear completely

2006-12-02T13:07:00.000+08:00

you know, life is really quite fun. you meet people, you laugh, you discuss deep far-out philosophical ripostes as if you understood them just for the heck of it. then of course, there's also the not-so-fun parts, where the challenge is really to just get thru with them as though they were fun too.

now, back to living my life.

no so long ago, when i was in secondary school, i had a thought experiment. instead of spending all that effort trying to enjoy life, making sense of things, looking for a reason to wake up tmr, why not find a way to disappear?

which brings me to radiohead's obscure song, "how to disappear completely". i don't even remember much about the song, other than rating it 4 stars in my mediamonkey, most likely for the title. in one decade, i have yet to think of a way to disappear completely, without a trace, without affecting anyone else who still wants to continue existing. i mean, if you just 一走了之, many ppl would be quite affected lar. how irresponsible! wanna disappear, should at least do it in such a way which minimally impacts others, especially those who love you. the effort would most likely involve one of those dystopian erase-all-traces kinda thing, but that is unfortunately unachievable for most of us. "eternal sunshine of the spotless mind" gave me a glimmer of hope too, but making everybody forget about me is just as tough eh? not like the mind-tampering technique even exists.

so now i realise one thing: there's no way (at least with our current technology) to disappear completely. which leaves us with either continue living or dying (which is excessively messy). to conclude, it is because of this mildly coerced choice which leaves most of us living, attempting to find some value in taking the next breath, commissioning the next thought with some grand meaning.

is this the root of all anthropic perspectives? the dilemma of being stuck with an easy choice which requires a lot of effort and constant exposure to insecurity, and a difficult choice with no security at all. thus, we force some sensibility out of this absurd reality. we invent logic. we create science. we worship gods. if not... what would we do? either way, you're stuck with life.

with reality already created and so strongly in place, "how to disappear completely" becomes a dream, a mere song for commercial profit. why bother fighting established principles of life? why, life is already full of difficulties as is - leave it alone. let go. let someone else do the thinking. feeling indignant about choicelessness is little more than being brash and emotional. you may not agree, but everyone thinks you should have better things to do.

and without so much as a sigh, i go back to living the life imposed.

smells like religion

2006-11-11T23:19:00.000+08:00

14 oxygens waiting to be read - bad time management can really squeeze God out. but now that the deadlines are firmly dead, what's next? i start sifting thru some of these oxygens, and the first thing i notice is how the message jumps out, but separated into two tracks. one, that nice fuzzy feeling of some higher being looking out for you; two, that strange dissonant ring of doubt.

"smells like religion."

that is what an atheist would say, no? i have been wrestling with some of these questions for too long... and every time i think of blogging about them, i have to stop myself. what if these words cast an indelible mark of insecurity upon my readers? this blog is not merely for myself. these are not simply ideas i wish to air. there are people - dear friends - who will see them. if i can see a need to exercise prudence as an exco member, then even more so should i not air these virulent doubts.

but... i already have aired a slight hint of these doubts. they are highly philosophical in nature. if i've learnt anything from 'Hume & Kant', it is that some of these questions can be debated for another 200 years and we will still not arrive at any greater clarity. yet i feel a strange connection with them... just like how the mind of an 'empirical realist' or a 'transcendental idealist' deals with existential questions fascinates me.

"smells like philosophy."

why does that not evoke the same kind of negative connotation? why does grappling with philosophical questions which concern the very state of reality itself seem more acceptable than dealing with questions of faith and afterlife? is God more certain than cognition? why do i feel academic about doubting my senses while doubting the bible reduces me to queasiness?

"smells like sociology."

norms. socialisation. peer pressure. monkey see monkey do. if you care about any person, you would care about that person's belief system. between attempting to deconstruct beliefs which are taken for granted and giving the believers due concern and respect, is there any path to tread? or is battling the comfort zone doomed to all-out war? i need more demarcation, yet perhaps it is something impossible to achieve.

and yet, this so-called concern for others still rings hollow. i believe my uneasiness is due to something deeper within - that fear of deconstructing faith itself. what if i succeed? what if i become the person i claim to be trying to understand - an atheist?

what ever it smells like, the only reason why "smells" is used instead of "sounds" or "looks" is probably because it is one of those senses which don't alert you all the time - only in times of sensibility. i pray the sensibility sticks.

unmotivatable

2006-10-23T00:46:00.000+08:00

is this one of those "lows"? i don't know. all i know is, i've tried what i believe to be "summoning some strength" but it never does materialise. am i barely hanging on? when my mind goes kind of blank and i forget - really forget - just what i am doing or the reasons for doing so, a part of me begins to give up. i surrender (not exactly to god) and i must admit (not because i'm humble) that i've overestimated myself.

i simply don't have what it takes to juggle all i'm juggling. i'm not delicate enough for this balancing act. i'm not capable enough to organise all those clashing thoughts. i'm not even stable enough to deal with these issues as what they are - separate issues.

i have to give something up. before i bloody crash and burn.

tired

2006-10-20T00:49:00.000+08:00

so tired of preaching.
i need to start practicing.
why are you holding me back?
that's what i really wanna do!
why do you warp my reality?
why fill it with wars?
i've had my fill; it's not what i wanna feel.
you've been defiled; and i'm concerned.
what are you concerned with?
my deep consternation -
with these condescending nations?
let them descend!
then send me to them!
when they've saved enough,
then it'd all depreciate.
let me save them - i was born for it.
let me appreciate it.
but you're a stubborn god, aren't you?
if society was god, you'd've stubbed your toe.
you'd've toed that line
between socialism and communism.
but you don't communicate with us -
you're just an export from the US.
quit practicing consumerism;
it's quietly consuming our preaching.

can you hear the spirit...

2006-10-16T16:49:00.000+08:00

...calling come away?

if you hear about it,
and you think about it,
even talk about it,
what would you do?
what would you do about it?

if you read about it,
and you write about it,
even sing about it,
what would you do?
what would you do about it?

i've heard your calling -
a fire raging in my soul,
a slight tremble in my fingers
as the images fill my mind.

i've witnessed your glory -
the undeniable fruits of faith.
but my heart continues to doubt;
these thoughts escape my control.

when you see mountains of obstacles
take heed my friend, recall his words:
all you need to move them is a mustard seed of faith!

are you sinking in your sorrows?
are you worried about tomorrow?
are the pressures of this life too hard to bear?

try to cast your cares on him
he'll give you perfect peace within
can you hear the spirit calling come away...

capitalist greed... or feudalistic greed?

2006-10-11T19:07:00.000+08:00

i have a new habit of making short posts.

would you prefer a world where materialism and petty capitalist feuds ruled the headlines... or a world where religious wars and ethnic conflicts are the norm? so long as selfish greed is endemic to the rich/powerful, capitalism would just be a less physically violent presentation of outright warfare.

obedience & tenacity

2006-10-10T21:53:00.000+08:00

why stop at being a phag?
now i can be a phagot.

to be Obedient to God and the authorities He has placed in power over me.

to be Tenacious in accepting the trials He has entrusted me with.

Amen.

courting controversy

2006-09-24T03:00:00.000+08:00

with new roles comes new responsibilities. was about to blog my sincere, heartfelt, radical comments about the pope-quote-byzantine-emperor saga - but i have second thoughts.

as a representative of css, how should i behave? as a lector, could i doze off in the front pew during an excessively boring homily? as a close friend, do i simply do as i like and ignore his/er feelings?

if being myself means being a pain in the ass, being a relentlessly repugnant rebel, being a n impropmptu challenge to a person's beliefs, is that still a "self" i'd like to call myself?

society exists for a reason. people do not generate and follow norms for fun. not all these justifications may be acceptable for me, but being a Phag means 4 norms straight to follow.

Patience. it is not always the time to court controversy. take a step back, and two forward may follow.

Humility. don't court controversy just to hear your own voice ring out louder than others'
thoughts.

Appreciation. controversy tends to criticise and dismiss instead of appreciate. court appreciation.

Gentleness. court whatever - but how gentle is the spirit? things will get across better if done gently.

so the only controversy i shall court tonight is making this prayer:
Lord make me a PHAG.
Amen.

who am i to judge

2006-09-18T10:13:00.000+08:00

g: dear god...
G: yes, dear?
g: whoa, that was fast!
G: *rolls eyes* so, what's up?
g: ah well, nothing much really. just something bugging me.
G: uhhhh-huh.
g: i uh, kinda pissed a friend off.
G: *chuckles* you knew you had it coming, didn't you?
g: right, right. with free will everything's my fault...
G: "...even though You planned everything in advance." dude, you don't have to trail off, i know what you're thinking.
g: really? then you know i'm stumped.
G: yes, of course you are.
g: i mean, i don't understand how it happened at all.
G: mm hmm.
g: okay so i was going on with my self-righteous bullshit and shooting my mouth off like a deranged kid in a high school shootout.
G: *pause* that seemed unnecessary too.
g: hey, i get emotional too. you're the god, you deal with it.
G: easy boy. i could still zap you.
g: whatever. i still don't get it. what exactly did i do wrong? when did i piss her off?
G: you weren't wrong. even if you ever were, you won't admit to it. you've already made up your mind about yourself.
g: yea... glad you agree with me.
G: actually. no, not really.
g: *pause* oh. it was sarcasm.
G: more like i'm echoing your thoughts.
g: fine. so i was stubborn. she was too.
G: she was more of exasperated, i'd say.
g: and what, i'm not? do i look like i'm enjoying this?
G: now, now. it's not always about you.
g: ah.
G: remember your commitment to PHAG?
g: fag? i thought i gave up smoking.
G: *pause* very funny.
g: oh. oh you meant Patience, Humility, Appreciation, Gentleness.
G: there, you got it.
g: let's see. i think i failed in all four huh.
G: no need to be that harsh, dear. you keep trying.
g: i did not wait. i did not check my pride. i did not see her point of view. i did not care.
G: that's somewhat of a more accurate appraisal...
g: man, i feel really lousy now.
G: ...except for the unnecessarily large amount of guilt involved.
g: okay, so what do i do now?
G: you know.
g: apologise?
G: arboh? what else?
g: buy her sweets?
G: you know, that humour of yours can make crocodiles cry.
g: ouch.
G: you talked about being judgmental in your little soliloquy with her.
g: yep. i am still very much convinced that the reason adults expect people to be well-dressed and formal is simply to extend their pretentious work-lives to church. it still sickens me that i have to dress up when lectoring just to avoid their judgmental remarks.
G: who are you to judge?
g: i... what? did i judge?
G: you clearly did.
g: i uh, was only "very much convinced"...
G: so what?
g: am i not entitled to personal opinions?
G: that privilege came with free will.
g: so what, i shouldn't have told her all that?
G: you could. but you didn't do something.
g: like... talk to those 'adults'?
G: that's one.
g: there's more?
G: think PHAG.
g: right... i could've waited for the adults to explain themselves. i could've respected their opinions. i could've seen the value of their points. i could've loved them more.
G: you don't sound very convinced.
g: because i know they won't bother to explain! because respect is not for me to give, but for them to earn! because their points would only be overturned by my arguments-
G: because you can't bring yourself to love them?
g: because... oh my goodness...
G: who are you to judge?
g: *long pause* indeed...
G: now that you are less muddled, you could go repent.
g: yes, Lord.
G: good boy.
g: okay, one last question.
G: shoot.
g: am i supposed to simply not judge, then?
G: kind of.
g: and have no opinion at all?
G: nah, that goes against the rules of free will.
g: then what?
G: patience, my friend. leave the judging to me, and in time you will have worthy opinions to share.
g: i see...
G: go read Proverbs and Wisdom.
g: that sounds like penance.
G: haha... that one, i like.
g: thank you, Lord.
G: welcome.

coming to terms with decklessness

2006-09-13T15:35:00.000+08:00

the grime and caked brickwork
cheesy colours and non-existent ventilation
smokers under the watchful glare
chatters usurping the reserved-for-staff chairs
a weird layout designed to confuse the crapping crows
the quirky, the naggingly irritating
nobody loves the deck anyway

the food so oily, the drink so dilute
here a bit tasty, the rest makes us puke
queues which discriminate
queue-cutters who infuriate
sometimes we exalt this non-descript experience
other times we are simply too busy
nobody would miss the deck anyway

heaven, earth, and hell
to whom would these words ring a bell?
hawkers, one friendly, one faceless
i do wonder if they care about us
are these friends or just grade-thirsty singaporeans?
the countless nonchalant rendezvous
nobody thinks about the deck anyway

a place of worthless memories
a place to satisfy the hungries
a place where muggers mug
a place where slackers slack

a place whose flavour OED wants to retain

but seriously, who really gives a damn?
nobody cares about the deck anyway

except us who have fallen
for all its senseless flaws
do not accuse us of taking you for granted
just because we eat with you everyday
every morsel, swallowed, spilt, or spat out
you have been our non-judgmental abode
you are somebody to us nobodies

for 25 years,
everybody who has savoured the deck
has savoured fass culture
like the artz babes this lady's getting new clothes
see you in '07
in heartfelt gratitude
au revoir

title inspired/plagiarised from our very own HOOKED. techno edge, anybody?

commissioned!

2006-09-08T23:20:00.000+08:00

it's something i've been thru before... yet it still feels so fresh. with an expectant community bearing down upon the few of us, only God's grace can pull us thru!

now, lest i forget, let me put down the commissioning prayer.

Almighty Father,

We thank You for gathering us together today as one family in Christ. You have called us here to begin our journey in the service of Your Church. Grant us the wisdom and the love to deepen the faith of Your community here in CSS, and may we always remember that we are called to be humble servants to every member of our community.

Keep us focused on the mission that You have given us, and constantly remind us that it is by Your immense grace that we stand before the community. We are many parts in one body, and through Your greatness, bring us together as one community and help us remember that we are salt of the earth and light of the world.

We make this prayer through Your Son Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, One God, forever and ever. Amen.

God bless our ministry... may we resolutely march forward with this prayer etched into our hearts. alleluia!

'plagiarism' taken to new heights

2006-08-23T16:42:00.000+08:00

Were you good at spelling as a child?

Even so, leukaemia, lymphoma, or heaven forbid,
Habdomyosarcoma would've been a challenge.
Even if you were a spelling bee.

Now imagine having to learb new words not in a school,
But in a hospital.

Just because you can't spell it doesn't mean you can ignore it.
Just because it's not in your vocabulary doesn't mean
It's not in you.

All you know is, it's something that makes you sick.

It makes grown-ups cry like children.

It makes children more grown-up than grown-ups.

Cancer can happen to any child.
Almost all types of cancer in children happen
Spontaneously, for no apparent reason.
Whether you've been bad or naughty or nice.

There's absolutely nothing a parent can do to prevent it.

The child is usually put on a combination of
Chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery for
At least one year. Hair will fall out.
School is also out; the risk of getting an infection
Is simply too high.

What happens then?

Repeat. Remission. Relapse. Repeat.

No wonder they say living with cancer can be worse
Than dying from cancer.

About 250,000 children are diagnosed with cancer each year
Around the world.

But the truly appalling statistic here is, only one in five
Children receive adequate treatment.

We won't let that happen in Singapore,
Where half of all children with cancer are no older than six.

There is hope.

Most childhood cancers are curable. Especially with
A positive attitude and sheer determination.
A strong mind helps when the body is weak.

Many of our young patients do return to school.
(Where they learn the more conventional ABCs.)

The Children's Cancer Foundation has helped over 1100
Children and their families cope with cancer since 1992.

It is a non-profit organisation funded solely by the public
And well-meaning sponsors. The money is put
To providing emotional, financial and medical support.
You can make a donation of any amount at www.ccf.org.sg
Every dollar helps.

Everything we do, we do it for the children.
Nothing else.

We only want to help improve the lives of children
Living with cancer. Not their spelling.

(direct transcription from Tulip Hearts Day poster @ CSS Corner YIH)

obsessive-compulsive

2006-08-23T07:29:00.000+08:00

did i recently announce that i have some mild form of OCD? i might have. it's really quite similar to what brian described on his blog... and i realise how mad it can get, like when i do some powerpoint slides i end up spending more than 5 hours in total? or like how i can rename each of my few thousand mp3s just so that they follow the same naming convention? or the classic eat-my-plate clean now extended to the scraps which fall off the plate?

but none is as jarring and disconcerting as my obsession with css. on the surface it seems a good thing, to be so concerned and active. however, i have my misgivings. yesterday i just kinda blew steph (and artz comm) off for the slight miscoordination regarding calling freshies for cg. i wasn't at their meeting so i didn't know what their plan was, but it simply seemed wrong/ambiguous. so i self-righteously "made comments" (if i could use a euphemism). the blundering forward of candle with regards to our handover is making me so jittery i even lost some sleep over it. indeed, the heart-in-mouth adrenaline rush i got while replying those nerve-racking emails stand in mock testimony to my obsessive excesses.

looking back, i have grown a little over the past year in css. however, i have also made countless mistakes... poking my ugly nose where it is not wanted, extending my ominous shadow over every conceivable css activity/role/thing-to-do. in my quest to become the ultimate administrator, have i not lost sight of service? look at the effort i am putting in - is it equal to the fruits i am seeing? have i gone off the straight end and landed myself in a perpetual state of nitpicking, criticising, and chastising other servants of the lord? what ever happened to patience, humility, appreciation, and gentleness?

forgive me, lord, for the empty promises of self-control, and for needlessly adding to your immense workload. forgive me, css, for the selfish narrowmindedness i have inflicted your poor members with. jesus, please rein me in with your sacred heart, let me love like you do. mother mary, pray for me that i may imitate your example.

now to find the litany of humility.

2006-08-03T02:51:00.000+08:00

光良 - 童话

why am i posting this? hmm. shrugs.

broke up, but not broken up

2006-07-30T23:07:00.000+08:00

all bets were off!

and indeed... after just a month, we realised how difficult it was for us to simply reconcile the differences. it didn't help that we rushed into the relationship so eagerly - like two people who have been single for years. but after an extremely honest 3h conversation, yvonne and i now believe we can love each other much better at a slight distance, where the hedgehod dilemma ceases to be so significant.

anyway, i feel really silly for screaming to everyone "I'M ATTACHED!!!" two weeks ago only to now start saying sheepishly "we broke up"... so i'm not gonna go tell everyone we broke up because it just sounds unnecessarily sad.

we moved on and our relationship has developed further now. the openness we experience now is what we've always treasured from before. being so close has only stifled this most important aspect of our relationship.

for those who have showered me your generous concern thus far, from the bottom of my heart i am grateful! your steady support has given me the courage to grow in this relationship with yvonne.

for the rest who are simply eager to know - yes, greg's single again.

another (old) theory

2006-07-28T01:29:00.000+08:00

this is the theory: most people spend much of their personal life (i.e. alone time) dealing with one very general topic: managing their addictions and obsessions.

these may come under the larger schema of 'dealing with weaknesses' but then again, one could be said to be obsessed with that same 'dealing with weaknesses'. the management of these virulent attributes may range from attempting to stop biting nails, overcoming some phobia, improving grammar/vocab/inflection, disciplined time usage, or the proverbial "being more positive" about things.

perhaps they can be summed up as that perfectionist streak in most of us to brand certain less -than-savoury patterns of behaviour we have as 'bad habits', 'afflictions', or 'weaknesses' so there'd be an odd assurance that we can become 'better'. could all these bitter accusations and self-deprecation actually point to some deep-seated hope for improvement? or are these labels a remnant of oppressive activity once rendered by authoritative figures in our childhood? maybe they are just idle processes which keep our minds working and sane when we're alone!

but one thing is for certain, whatever the reason for one to obsess with addictions, they never seem to go away. one could substitute addiction A for addiction B, but inadvertently an addiction remains after an entire chain of substitutions. and that is if addiction A was truly substituted in the first place, lest it resurfaces! yet substitution is a sensible strategy, assuming addiction B to contain less undesirability than its predecessor. perhaps eliminating addiction A in one fell swoop is too large a step to take and hence the strategy to go step-by-step down.

the tough-minded may prefer the bold approach of going it all at one go anyway. perhaps by smoking less cigarettes a day or administering self-punishment for each alcohol sipped, or by attending self-help groups, or simply going cold turkey. yet these bold-sounding tactics risk becoming a new "addiction" in itself... the penchant for catching oneself in the act again so as to dispense admonition. or worse... failure may result in damage to self-esteem and even social relations - guilt and remorse may lead to anti-social/isolationist behaviour and downward spiraling depression? indeed, self-help groups or voluteer watchdogs could turn into victims as well... in a number of ways.

so with all that random rumination out of the way, i believe that in order to successfully drive out any addiction or obsession one must know why that behaviour is there in the first place. a deeply rooted behaviour may require tackling the root cause before it is truly uprooted for good - roots have the uncanny ability to spawn new shoots. then again, when do we know if we've identified that root or not? it is largely guesswork... trial and error until something hits the spot. that is assuming this whole 'trial and error' business does not itself degenerate into a new addiction...

or maybe... we have addictions to simply remind us of God's great love for us? that even in our unwavering weaknesses, he still loves us for that... sappy eh?

it all began at the padang...

2006-07-24T00:39:00.000+08:00

two years ago (roughly), we met while working part-time as drinks servers at the rugby sevens tournament. i still remember the careless way she drank from her bottle, leaving a stream trickling down the corner of her lips. it was that fortuitous overflow which piqued my interest.

then we went out once in a while... in fact, it was so sporadic that it felt more platonic than anything. we dined at unique locations, explored a fair bit of underexplored singaporean destinations, and even smoked our first sheesha together. we talked about social issues and sparred philosophies as if it were a normal thing to do. we talked about life's niggling problems.

and then we planned to go backpacking! for two weeks in june, the 4 of us (+ 2 other rugby sevens colleagues: soffia and vienna) went to bangkok, macau and hongkong. it was the most exhilirating adventure of my life thus far! the fact that 4 of us split into 2 twin rooms (soffia & vienna, me & yvonne) notwithstanding. and under the constant betting of our fellow backpackers on which day we would finally go official, we got attached inevitably.

so now it's been a month... we're discovering more about each other day by day, and learning more abt our eccentricities has been fulfilling at least. how would this relationship turn out? i can only say that all bets are off!

zionism? what the hell?

2006-07-18T15:35:00.000+08:00

while i am still struggling to understand why human beings blissfully place so much authority and power into the hands of lethally armed and suspiciously unrepresentative governments, the news keeps pummelling my thinking space with jarring bad news. as we all know it, the eternal battle between "good" and "evil" now wears a new label as the unceasing Arab-Israeli conflict. some questions burn in my heart as i read abt the goings-on...

what is zionism?

what is arab solidarity?

what are the people on either side really dying for?

why are their leaders so willing to cause destruction and loss of life?

who gets to call whom good or evil, and on what basis?

what would i do if i were caught in such a situation as:
a) an "innocent" civilian caught in the hot zone;
b) a soldier called to "defend my country";
c) a political leader in a position to make impactful statements;
- and for what agency?

what else can i do, just as who i am right now?

people around the world are getting sick and tired of how power politics floods our senses with senselessness. the light-hearted try making bad jokes of missiles, pointless bravado and their leaders' intellects. the religious pray harder and harder at the expense of some of their faith. the young grow up either associating patriotism with wars or they simply become apathetic. miss universes and their calls for 'world peace' are becoming increasingly bimbotic statements with no relevance to reality. where is the love?

i want to change the world.

i want to impose my optimism on these dark times.

i want politics to stop invading our private lives.

i want our dreams to exit impossibility and appear in reality.

... and perhaps one day i will.

where am i?

2006-07-11T00:38:00.000+08:00

i can sense the danger lights flickering yet again... i guess i'm on the threshold of exhausting myself yet again.

right after the exams (which i loathingly revised for) a jolly bunch of us were thrown into the frenetic business of planning the orientation camp. right after this camp, i had a couple of days before leaving for my 2 week trip through bangkok, macau, and hong kong. unlike the camp, i didn't really plan much of the itinery for this trip, and many a surprising turn characterised my first attempt at backpacking (including getting myself attached!) and before i could realise i'm back in singapore, it was foc follow-up, lined up right before the life in the spirit seminar. well, here i am after catching a bit of a breather for one day, but mm is having their retreat soon...

am i missing the point?

i know i have a pathological need to keep myself occupied with the business of entertaining others, sharing myself with people. but in all this outpouring, have i neglected those dearest to me? yes, i guess i enjoy self-deprecation a little too much for my own good, but even then i also realise - from the question 'where am i?' - that i have probably neglected my own needs as well.

and embedded in all this misdirection, is one gigantic scandal: what if my under-managed efforts to 'minister to others' are a sham? what if in my enthusiasm to reach out and impress/debate/entertain, i am actually nourishing a spirit of pride more than anything?

am i developing a complex?

even then... amidst all my self-doubting, the foc had been a resounding success - largely due to an amazing team of exuberant workers serving an unbelievable posse of freshmen; the overseas trip was nothing short of fantastic - a collection of wondrous experiences i can never forget; and LISS truly refueled my thirst for the spirit's gifts. i had learnt to cling less to my doubts and allow belief to blossom. i have had reminders aplenty that all is in good hands - God's mighty hands - and all i have to do is love as he has commanded.

so then... where is the love?

then let me boldly affirm this: love is where i am - I AM IN LOVE!!!

and now... all i need is to get these warning lights to dim. world cup is over, time for a disciplined sleep cycle.

a new bad habit

2006-06-19T23:50:00.001+08:00

i'm beginning to sadistically enjoy telling people not to judge... being the almighty perceptive mind-reader that i assume myself to be, i even pinpoint the exact moment where a person is supposedly 'judging' so that i can crusade in and break the accused judge-a-holic's spirit -kachow!-

"it's easy to judge eh? why don't you put yourself into that person's shoes?"

such great advice... always pertinent, always applicable. people never learn, do they? what kind of communication do we pretend we have when we don't even try to empathise? and with that, old gerg transforms into the indefatiguable Defender of the Misunderstood.

so what? am i really that great an empathiser? do i truly bother to step into the shoes of the oppressed? what is the purpose of me attempting to impress guilt upon those who fail to do so?

shallow me. i was merely attempting to avoid my own hard-pressing guilt. i am he who has failed to see the first sign of tears welling. i am he who has festooned poorly expressed concern as judgmentalism. i am he who has fomented shaky esteem issues into outright suicidal intent. like my accused, i have been easy on my judgment and my ugly feet will never fit anyone's shoes.

prejudging... sounds so familiar? your speck or my log? against whose standards shall whom be judged by who? his words ring despondently in my poor soil... when will i ever learn? for as soon as i hit publish... i may very well continue to judge myself poorly.

my new bad habit i lift it up to you o lord. may your abundant blessings be upon the collateral.

sunday best

2006-05-26T23:54:00.000+08:00

just as you realise how late you are, an obstacle looms before you... what to wear for mass? shirt? jeans? yellow? green? don't worry, i'm only going to miss the entrance hymn, let's get this outfit perfected first. slippers? accessories? bag? perfume? and by the time you feel confident enough to walk big strides out of home and into church, the priest had just finished with "my dear friends, the good news of the lord." while you're still trying to murmur "praise you lord jesus christ" in mock response to an unheard gospel, the priest has already continued:

"i am very disappointed with the way some of us are dressed today. slippers? spaghetti straps? might i remind you that this is the house of god? when you go to an important function, do you choose your most comfortable clothes? no! you make sure that you are at your most presentable. and yet we gather here for worship in singlets! berms! miniskirts! the weather is no excuse... that's one of the reasons why we have air-conditioning! back in the old days people wore suits even in summer and those churches didn't even have fans! yada yada..."

luckily you've worn your sunday best and were not among those accused in this week's sermon. you heave a sigh of relief, but out of the corner of your eye, you catch a glimpse of someone whom the sermon is targeted at. he's an old man, probably over 70, his wrinkly limbs poking out of an almost tattered singlet and what looks like unwashed boxers. he slumps over his spot on the pews, with a 50cm radius of empty seats around him in the packed church. a voice begins to say "aiyo, why can't he dress up when he visits jesus? if it was some other priest, he might kena thrown out already lor." so unglam, right?

didn't that all sound somewhat wrong? punctuality issues aside, why does nobody ask this question: what is the sunday best? to me, it's straightforward. it's nothing to do with what you wear on the outside, but how you dress up spiritually. Matthew 5:23-4 goes "if you are bringing your offering to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar, go and be reconciled with your brother first, and then come back and present your offering." if you need to mend a broken relationship, repay a certain spiritual debt, or even just say some words of encouragement to someone you know needs it, then do so before going to mass and you'll be dressed in your sunday best. regardless of what you have on your back.

it goes some way beyond this too. Matthew 7:3 asks "Why do you observe the splinter in your brother's eye and never notice the great log in your own?" "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; because the judgments you give are the judgments you will get, and the standard you use will be the standard used for you." i always harbour some resentment for priests who preach with so much fire that every line becomes a pronouncement of judgment. is that really how we behave as christians? jesus forgave mary magdalene, whom the pharisees wanted to stone. Matthew 23:4 records jesus' sharp tone against them "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people's shoulders, but will they lift a finger to move them? Not they!" are we in danger of becoming pharasaical?

and then it reaches out. Matthew 25:40 "In truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me." Matthew 19:24 "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for someone rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven." Matthew 19:30 "Many who are first will be last, and the last, first." so when you see one of christ's brothers needing help, do not waste time judging the hypocrites forming the 50cm perimeter around him - go straight up to him and offer him your best. yes, stepping out of the comfort zone isn't easy, but that is how christ's mission for us looks like. start by just saying hi, getting to know the person at least, and then build up from there!

... so now mass has ended and everyone is squeezing their way out, some trying hard not to blurt vulgarities while exiting the carpark, others simply waiting to call the next person to honk "unchristian". the heaviest irony is that the so-called christian community is really little more than a farcical bunch of middle-class snobs trying to fulfil their sunday obligations and book a place in heaven. are you going to leave your christian mission behind in the pews? or will you heed the lord's calling and tend to his sheep?

i'll end off with Matthew 6:28-34:
"And why worry about clothing? Think of the flowers growing in the fields; they never have to work or spin; yet I assure you that not even Solomon in all his royal robes was clothed like one of these. Now if that is how God clothes the wild flowers growing in the field which are there today and thrown into the furnace tomorrow, will he not much more look after you, you who have so little faith? So do not worry; do not say, "What are we to eat? What are we to drink? What are we to wear?" It is the gentiles who set their hearts on all these things. Your heavenly Father knows you need them all. Set your hearts on his kingdom first, and on God's saving justice, and all these other things will be given you as well. So do not worry about tomorrow: tomorrow will take care of itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

pomo greg I

2006-05-14T10:26:00.000+08:00

just wondering... how is it that i can both believe that the one worth waiting for is worth waiting an entire lifetime up till the final breath while also acceding to every opportunity is love in its infancy... why beauty is only as deep as the observer while goodness tends to show on one's countenance... the proverbial do unto others as thou wilt have unto thyself even as justice and fairness to all regardless contains similar amounts of moral righteousness... even the easily accepted logic breeds reason and persuasion in the interest of rationality and utilitarian equity faces contradiction with rationalisation begets mind-numbing bureaucracy and ends-serving amorality in the service of status quo.

these truisms have a simple similarity: they are expounded proudly in the absence of context.

contextualisation (note its subtle differences with rationalisation) brings form to essence; it gives a love story sordid details, it matches quantum mechanics to the world, it allows political rhetoric to blossom into war. the human experience is but an unfathomable sublime abstraction if not for the expressive agency of language, and thus communication. your feelings are truisms, up till the point your expression contextualises it for me, whereupon i see through your glasses, thus your experience is empathised into a common reality between us.

context is very much an inextricable nature of reality (i will critique reality some other time), and in saying that different contexts varies the commonality of experiencing realities between different entities, i concede that reality is very much subject to relativism. in one context, truism A may apply, yet in another, its complete opposite truism B makes marvelous sense, even if these opposites are as contrasting as black and white, or even mutually exclusive pronouncements of morality. killing a person for his money is wrong, so is killing out of jealousy, although killing in a fit of rage seems slightly more forgivable; in a war we kill each other fairly; a cop is allowed to kill if the suspect is substantially dangerous while killing the unborn child in defense of the mother's life is almost universally faultless. in this one subject of taking life, myriad contexts already present their fervent cases: could you live happily if thou shalt not kill crept into your mind (and held you back) when you had the chance to kill the eventual murderer of your family?

so i wonder if the postmodern critique of objective reality and absolute truths could hold more than just some water. indeed the entire paragraph on killing above reeks clearly of modernistic rationalisation either way. neither does removing the absoluteness of morals dilute its capacity as some of life's greatest pieces of advice. in this case, can we say pomo is attempting to move closer to the truth? that contextualisation is a more apt appraisal of reality than fundamentalism?

watch out for pomo greg.

automatic typing

2006-05-12T00:19:00.000+08:00

a mind is a terrible thing to waste... and mine is one of the most terrible. this week was supposed to be packed with activity... straight out of the exam panic and into the css/foc delirium. yet strangely, i found myself settled aimlessly at home... a bored and dazed phantasm fiddling with this bizarre yet oddly cognizant surrounding. has it been too long away from my own room, that i actually need an entire week of stupor to reacquaint myself?

nonetheless, work is piling. after skipping one mm practice and a games comm mtg, i find myself slipping back into discordant anonymity with my responsibilities. granted the dizziness is overbearing, but the consonant effort is sorely lacking. why? don't i wish to help out? isn't that my sole purpose in life? to be at the service of others?

and yet this listless illation about purpose only serves to beguile. why ought i serve? when i mutter "purpose" like a prairie dog, do i really care about it? have i got a clear grasp of that exceedingly abstract and sublime concept? what is my purpose? and why must i have a purpose?

it may seem like effusive dawdling, and indeed it might prove to be so. for even if i have yet to completely demystify the grand paradoxes in my psyche, i could still get on with what i have to do. and so here i go again attempting to nudge myself into action. so much inertia in here, so many tasks awaiting accomplishment...

this is definitely not the time to ask more questions eh? sighs.

singaporean myths

2006-05-05T02:54:00.000+08:00

so... are we apathetic or not?

will the govt really fire opposition voters?

is the secrecy of our vote truly compromised?

are there myriad isa agents eavesdropping on our every phone conversation?

will our swat team snipe us from range if we suan lky?

is sph filled with pro-pap journalists?

does temasek holdings make good economic sense?

will we really get back our cpf one day?

is the opposition bad for singapore?

is pap good for singapore?

talk about conspiracy theories... is it even possible to know any truth about such issues? perhaps we've all been duped! perhaps we are not trying hard enough to search for clues. perhaps we are not being critical enough. perhaps we have succumbed so long to mental imprisonment that subsequent freedom would be so shocking that we end up choosing to remain incarcerated.

we are the myth, and we are unravelling before our very eyes - but are we aware of it?

opposing for the sake of opposing

2006-04-28T16:13:00.000+08:00

i'd like to spend a few minutes ruminating on this strangest of singaporean inventions - opposing for the sake of opposing. we do many such similar actions: believing for the sake of believing, breathing for the sake of breathing, and living for the sake of living. but what makes opposing for the sake of opposing so worthy of disapproval? isn't the gahmen ruling for the sake of ruling also?

philosophically, this is probably a special case of the utilitarian proposition - the ends justifies the means - where the means and the ends are the same, i.e. it is recursive or reciprocal, hence illogical and absurd. in such a reading, members of the opposition are chastised when they use the means of opposing to achieve nothing but the ends of simply having opposed. this allegation strongly discredits the opposition's various objections against gahmen policies - how can an illogical argument hold any water? another implicit allegation within this label is that the opposition is serving no useful purpose other than to oppose.

however, this assertion has some implicit flaws as well. when the opposition "opposes" any policy, it does not simply "oppose"; it has to raise a movement during parliament and follow some procedures, or seek agreement within its party members to include such an objection within its manifesto if parliamentary objection fails. this would be the means to achieve the ends of opposing - albeit just a technical definition. those who believe opposing is a straightforward urge which immature children are likely to indulge in, well, opposing as a member of the opposition is definitely not something like that.

secondly, the opposing does not merely lead to more opposing - the gahmen is sorely mistaken if the opposition opposes various motions for no good reason. even the silliest of opposition measures (think dr chee's asking goh chok tong "where's the money") are directed at representing singaporeans. granted, not all singaporeans may feel so personally "represented" by some of their actions, yet the effort of our opposition politicians cannot be discounted: dr chee risked fines and jail for it. a slight reversal would look like this - why does the gahmen react so strongly to actions which merely amount to "opposing for the sake of opposing"?

this insight also extends to myself, strangely. today i ranted in objection about voting singaporeans who "don't know anything about singapore politics". my recommendation was a disdainful "don't know don't vote lah!" but! this would amount to a form of "opposing for the sake of opposing", attempting to bully some citizens into relinquishing their inalienable right to vote. especially so because i am easily incensed at pro-pappers who are simply so bought over by pap's condemnations and have lost all ability to respect the opposition. therefore to exemplify a legitimate form of opposition, i should be trying earnestly to show my fellow citizens what they might have missed; positive rather than negative action.

so here i would like to offer my sincerest apologies to fellow singaporeans whom i have taunted recently out of anti-pap exasperation. i would like to affirm that no matter how little you know about the gross fact-distortion which pap has committed against the opposition, you are entitled the right to vote even based on that lack of information. i am NOT (personally) accepting such a pap-advantage as legitimate electoral procedure, but to claim that these citizens do not "know enough" about singapore politics to vote is definitely out of line.

but all the same, i would invite fellow voters to visit the opposition's websites before unfairly judging them:
Workers' Party
Singapore Democratic Alliance
Singapore Democratic Party
Singapore Elections - a useful voters' repository
Check Your Poll Location - gahmen site

for those who suggest i am flouting the law against political blogging, i would like to emphasise that this is NOT party politics, but simply defending the opposition from the "opposing for the sake of opposing" fallacy. that's the main grouse i have against pap.