4 days late...

...but a lifetime early.

there is nothing too late until death comes for you. there is no regret so final you cannot act on until you breathe your last. there is no final judgement until you finally face the Judge. you can choose to move on because you are still alive - so treasure it!

the thesis was a harrowing experience. for the last week or so, i slept on average 4 hours a day (still pretty good, but considering i usually sleep 7-8 hours...) and for the final 4 days, i practically didn't sleep. i learnt the ironic side of life for us middle-class folk: living off coke and coffee and self-imposed sleep-deprivation is our version of starvation. and on Friday, 18 April 2008, my thesis: The Class Experience of Migrant Workers in Singapore, was finally submitted to the NUS Dept. of Sociology (estd. 1965).

but unlike the bourgeois loners, i had my middle-class friends! jon (with carol) and alexis sensed that i was going to bail on the thesis - 12 MCs, 7.5% of my flat 4.0 in-between 2nd upper and lower CAP - at this final stage. honestly, their instincts were spot on: i had nearly wanted to give it all up. i'm that crazy - or un-middle-class - sometimes. they baby-sitted me during the day, taking turns when necessary... it was John 15:13 in real life.

then there was the parents. my mom dumped all the herbal teas, bird's nests, and chicken essence she could find down my throat. my dad (who's usually non-interventionist) called me up one night i was thonning in sch to check on me, and he took a huge detour to send me to school on my submission day (his camp is in Yishun).

well, we saw a rainbow on the way! God was showing off again =) if anything, He was the most constant person throughout this learning process: everytime i got sick of the work, He nagged at me; everytime i got paranoid and depressed, He affirmed me; everytime i went existential and thought it was pointless, He gave me reason. so when i look back at the footsteps in the sand, i know that truly, "it was then that He carried me."

so what did i learn?

1. 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.
   
2. 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.
3. 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 =)
4. 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.
5. 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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.