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.
Showing posts with label food for thought. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food for thought. Show all posts
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
politics is emotional
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.
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.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
smells like religion
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.
"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.
Friday, July 28, 2006
another (old) theory
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?
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?
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
zionism? what the hell?
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.
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.
Friday, May 26, 2006
sunday best
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."
"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."
Friday, May 05, 2006
singaporean myths
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?
Friday, April 28, 2006
opposing for the sake of opposing
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.
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.
Friday, April 07, 2006
cursory concern
"hey."
"sup."
"life sux man... my girlfriend is giving me trouble."
"geez... poor you."
"it was only making eyes at some babe across the street. what's the big deal really?"
"yeah."
"she does that with cute guys, so i'm entitled!"
"mm hmm."
"not like i'm gonna go pick that girl up or something, you know."
"nah."
"ogling is perfectly normal practice among guys."
"i guess."
"i'm just being a normal guy."
"of course."
"so it's her being oversensitive! girls..."
"tsk tsk."
"dude, thanks so much for clarifying with me!"
"sure, anytime."
and so girlfriend-trouble guy goes on ogling. what do you think will happen to his relationship?
there is a socially imposed requirement to "care for others", even when one does not really feel like it. when someone requests for small acts of concern, it is duly given out of obligation, and the requestor is thus placated patronisingly. what then, is the point of such cursory concern?
to the cursor's benefit, not everyone is in the right mood or mode to give advice or listen. it's a tough life and everyone is busy dealing with their private sorrows. isn't it good enough that i bother to listen? unfortunately, it may result in further sorrow, where concern turns sour. what if you received cursory concern? the cursor, so long as such response is doled out consistently with no explanation or disclaimer, is not in benefit but ought review such lack of responsibility.
to the requestor's deficit, most problems ought to be dealt with personally. or should they? why are we a society if we are supposed to feel so alone? if we are capable of social relations, why not make the most of it? the requestor, so long as the requesting is genuine, is not in deficit although greater caution should be taken when approaching others for advice. yet, such stability of thought may not be present, so greater onus rests on the acceptor to be attentive.
are you guilty of cursory concern? or have you been a victim?
"sup."
"life sux man... my girlfriend is giving me trouble."
"geez... poor you."
"it was only making eyes at some babe across the street. what's the big deal really?"
"yeah."
"she does that with cute guys, so i'm entitled!"
"mm hmm."
"not like i'm gonna go pick that girl up or something, you know."
"nah."
"ogling is perfectly normal practice among guys."
"i guess."
"i'm just being a normal guy."
"of course."
"so it's her being oversensitive! girls..."
"tsk tsk."
"dude, thanks so much for clarifying with me!"
"sure, anytime."
and so girlfriend-trouble guy goes on ogling. what do you think will happen to his relationship?
there is a socially imposed requirement to "care for others", even when one does not really feel like it. when someone requests for small acts of concern, it is duly given out of obligation, and the requestor is thus placated patronisingly. what then, is the point of such cursory concern?
to the cursor's benefit, not everyone is in the right mood or mode to give advice or listen. it's a tough life and everyone is busy dealing with their private sorrows. isn't it good enough that i bother to listen? unfortunately, it may result in further sorrow, where concern turns sour. what if you received cursory concern? the cursor, so long as such response is doled out consistently with no explanation or disclaimer, is not in benefit but ought review such lack of responsibility.
to the requestor's deficit, most problems ought to be dealt with personally. or should they? why are we a society if we are supposed to feel so alone? if we are capable of social relations, why not make the most of it? the requestor, so long as the requesting is genuine, is not in deficit although greater caution should be taken when approaching others for advice. yet, such stability of thought may not be present, so greater onus rests on the acceptor to be attentive.
are you guilty of cursory concern? or have you been a victim?
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
criticism gone awry
today i shall critique the practice of essay-writing for 20-30% of a typical arts module's grade. to be fair, it's a pretty established standard of grading, with much proven results in its efficacy. however, various intrinsic problems do exist and these are often exacerbated by the extenuating factors unique to nus.
intrinsic problems
essay grading depends on subjective objectivity - i.e. the objectivity of one single marker such that this person represents the yardstick and determinant all rolled into one. the subjectivity stems from individual bias, assuming that the marker (if there's only one) is either a) not exposed to sufficient broadness in the field/module, b) holds personal prejudices/preferences where opposing views are pertinent, c) susceptible to moderating judgment based on personal relations (or the lack thereof) with the student, d) inordinately influenced by environmental factors (emotions, memory, fatigue, comfort, stress, etc) at the time of marking, or e) unable to "sufficiently understand" the expression used by the student. these 5 factors represent some of the more common pitfalls of subjective grading in general, but are neither exhaustive nor meant to be significant simply due to its multiplicity. each factor may exist in varying levels per different markers, though an objective way to measure these biases may not be possible thus far. put more simply, the marker's objectivity is often dubious and little transparent effort is invoked in most grading; whereas for instances of transparency, it is not standardised and may contribute to inter-module/field/faculty systemic biases.
whew. what a mouthful. just think about it... some markers are affected by the standard of the student's language (esp. in FASS) while others demand elaboration/conciseness all in one bite. another common problem is... that more often than not, it is more than one marker grading the papers. even when the marker's demands are understood, is that then an objective standard? of course, that's assuming that objective grading is desirable in the first place!
systemic bias, as touched on above, is an even more insidious problem with even lesser attention paid. what if faculties are getting disproportionate grades? but yea, i do see that this argument truly borders on being alarmist and unnecessarily sceptical. the only problem is that such doubts hang in one's mind until disproved.
extenuating factors
the most prominent one is the fact that we are doing an average of 5 modules per 13 week (lectures-tutorial) semester. essay questions are usually only released from the 3rd week onwards, where in any case most are not able to choose a proper question until more immersion in the module is properly acquired. deadlines are usually around the 10th-12th week, owing to administrative deadlines imposed upon the teaching staff. this equates to about 6-10 weeks at most for 5 essays (assuming each module requires one essay). the workload in itself is not necessarily asphyxiating, but most students are also called to participate in extra-curricular activities, i.e. hall stuff, society matters, church/temple, family commitments, part-time jobs, friends and lovers. coupled with most arts modules being only marginally related to each other (most departments do not offer sub-field specialisation) with an emphasis on broad-based learning, quite a lot of odds are stacked against us!
personal factors also play a large role. students are only nominally trained to do research for arts essays, while grading methods are not often availed to them. the lack of knowledge, skill, support, and confidence are very debilitating personal factors which often conspire to throw students into fits of absurd panic, wailing stress, and pitiable depression. are we trying to make these students feel worthless?
quid pro quo
so why go nuts for an institution that simply oppresses everyone indiscriminately? lecturers and tutors also have to sift thru mountains of material just to give us that non-descriptive grade. if grading is only more or less arbitrary, does it matter how much effort you commit to lit reviews or referencing? do you have confidence in a system that saps you of your own confidence? or are most of us happy robots willing to be ordered by a system that operates on misdirection, ambiguity, and superstition?
quid pro quo, students are not inclined to produce top quality work. surveys are often fabrications, and some of these "innovations" extend even to citations and so-called interviews. the lack of scientific objectivity in grading is leading to a parched social science academe. grading constitutes a major source of socialisation for aspiring social scientists as they learn about the intricacies of producing scholarly research. if they spend more time exploring the system's kinks and working the bell curve, are they still capable of studying what they set out to study? or have we become rational pragmatists in the game of deconstruction for exploitation's sake?
BUT! this critique does not represent a rejection of the system. just a long-winded lament for the countless hapless students who have been indelibly scarred by the ruthless hopeless impositions of society. yes, we are eulogised, so now let us march forth with valiant honour till we meet an untimely aneurysm. god save the undergrad!
intrinsic problems
essay grading depends on subjective objectivity - i.e. the objectivity of one single marker such that this person represents the yardstick and determinant all rolled into one. the subjectivity stems from individual bias, assuming that the marker (if there's only one) is either a) not exposed to sufficient broadness in the field/module, b) holds personal prejudices/preferences where opposing views are pertinent, c) susceptible to moderating judgment based on personal relations (or the lack thereof) with the student, d) inordinately influenced by environmental factors (emotions, memory, fatigue, comfort, stress, etc) at the time of marking, or e) unable to "sufficiently understand" the expression used by the student. these 5 factors represent some of the more common pitfalls of subjective grading in general, but are neither exhaustive nor meant to be significant simply due to its multiplicity. each factor may exist in varying levels per different markers, though an objective way to measure these biases may not be possible thus far. put more simply, the marker's objectivity is often dubious and little transparent effort is invoked in most grading; whereas for instances of transparency, it is not standardised and may contribute to inter-module/field/faculty systemic biases.
whew. what a mouthful. just think about it... some markers are affected by the standard of the student's language (esp. in FASS) while others demand elaboration/conciseness all in one bite. another common problem is... that more often than not, it is more than one marker grading the papers. even when the marker's demands are understood, is that then an objective standard? of course, that's assuming that objective grading is desirable in the first place!
systemic bias, as touched on above, is an even more insidious problem with even lesser attention paid. what if faculties are getting disproportionate grades? but yea, i do see that this argument truly borders on being alarmist and unnecessarily sceptical. the only problem is that such doubts hang in one's mind until disproved.
extenuating factors
the most prominent one is the fact that we are doing an average of 5 modules per 13 week (lectures-tutorial) semester. essay questions are usually only released from the 3rd week onwards, where in any case most are not able to choose a proper question until more immersion in the module is properly acquired. deadlines are usually around the 10th-12th week, owing to administrative deadlines imposed upon the teaching staff. this equates to about 6-10 weeks at most for 5 essays (assuming each module requires one essay). the workload in itself is not necessarily asphyxiating, but most students are also called to participate in extra-curricular activities, i.e. hall stuff, society matters, church/temple, family commitments, part-time jobs, friends and lovers. coupled with most arts modules being only marginally related to each other (most departments do not offer sub-field specialisation) with an emphasis on broad-based learning, quite a lot of odds are stacked against us!
personal factors also play a large role. students are only nominally trained to do research for arts essays, while grading methods are not often availed to them. the lack of knowledge, skill, support, and confidence are very debilitating personal factors which often conspire to throw students into fits of absurd panic, wailing stress, and pitiable depression. are we trying to make these students feel worthless?
quid pro quo
so why go nuts for an institution that simply oppresses everyone indiscriminately? lecturers and tutors also have to sift thru mountains of material just to give us that non-descriptive grade. if grading is only more or less arbitrary, does it matter how much effort you commit to lit reviews or referencing? do you have confidence in a system that saps you of your own confidence? or are most of us happy robots willing to be ordered by a system that operates on misdirection, ambiguity, and superstition?
quid pro quo, students are not inclined to produce top quality work. surveys are often fabrications, and some of these "innovations" extend even to citations and so-called interviews. the lack of scientific objectivity in grading is leading to a parched social science academe. grading constitutes a major source of socialisation for aspiring social scientists as they learn about the intricacies of producing scholarly research. if they spend more time exploring the system's kinks and working the bell curve, are they still capable of studying what they set out to study? or have we become rational pragmatists in the game of deconstruction for exploitation's sake?
BUT! this critique does not represent a rejection of the system. just a long-winded lament for the countless hapless students who have been indelibly scarred by the ruthless hopeless impositions of society. yes, we are eulogised, so now let us march forth with valiant honour till we meet an untimely aneurysm. god save the undergrad!
Friday, August 05, 2005
think more, talk less
this is a perennial goal of mine - to stfu and just appreciate others' ideas. greg, everyone has heard your piece abt singapore politics, noone needs be updated on how you still like to be all-talk-no-action abt arts club, and by doubting god to the itsy-bitsiest details, are you trying to prove something to us? honestly, even i have had enough of myself - why can't i just pipe down?
that is, unfortunately, only the second half of the problem. talking less is really nothing compared to thinking more. what is thinking more? in purely quantifiable terms, thinking in greater variety and integrating oops (out-of-points) into the thought process would qualify as thinking more. but of course, that's more like thinking uselessly more. and i had just shown you how i think - uselessly and oop-ly. FOCUS, dammit!
here i am at the crossroads once again... will i ever satisfy this self-improvement project? or will i simply talk more think less...
that is, unfortunately, only the second half of the problem. talking less is really nothing compared to thinking more. what is thinking more? in purely quantifiable terms, thinking in greater variety and integrating oops (out-of-points) into the thought process would qualify as thinking more. but of course, that's more like thinking uselessly more. and i had just shown you how i think - uselessly and oop-ly. FOCUS, dammit!
here i am at the crossroads once again... will i ever satisfy this self-improvement project? or will i simply talk more think less...
Saturday, July 09, 2005
desperate cockroaches
amazing as it is, even i have succumbed to watching that dreaded show abt desperate american women living broken lives even with all their wealth. but the key point was running into a cockroach on the way to the toilet during a break. the cockroach seemed startled, and was trying to squeeze itself thru one of the small holes in the kitchen drain cover. i duly smacked it and got its carcass flushed down the toilet, but not without wondering why God created these tough little guys. just so you know, they've survived on this planet for 300 million years, approximately 100x more ancient than the first human. but aren't they just pests now? in terms of ecological significance, cockroaches aren't important - ants do a much better job clearing up leftovers, and few animals consider cockroaches a major part of their diet. God, why'd you make these gross creatures then? i ruminated on these silly thoughts as i returned to desperate housewives.
it then dawned upon me. these vectors of various diseases, these motifs of ill hygiene in the modern urban setting - they merely serve to remind us how beneath all the pretty pretenses we put up, the filthiness and dirty secrets we ignore are only multiplying.
aren't we little more than desperate cockroaches?
it then dawned upon me. these vectors of various diseases, these motifs of ill hygiene in the modern urban setting - they merely serve to remind us how beneath all the pretty pretenses we put up, the filthiness and dirty secrets we ignore are only multiplying.
aren't we little more than desperate cockroaches?
Friday, June 24, 2005
scenario A
scenario A: the burning banquet
it is your wedding dinner. you decided it was more impt to invite all the people you know than to only invite a select few, thus the dinner is to be held in an old warehouse (with appropriate decor of course). everyone was having a good time - it seems having 50 tables of family and friends wasn't gonna be a headache after all! indeed, things were going so smoothly, you quickly realised you were almost drunk. no worries! a breath of fresh air would do. thus, you slipped out for a really short moment.
unfortunately, things took a turn.
the old warehouse no longer had any fire safety measures, and a fire broke out just as you exited. the flammable building effortlessly stoked the flames, and within seconds, the entire building was fiercely ablaze.
would you rush in to save any of your loved ones?
if you only had enough time to save one of them, who would it be? why?
remember: you managed to invite everyone you know and they all turned up - therefore the person you save may very well be your sole relation after the disaster.
it is your wedding dinner. you decided it was more impt to invite all the people you know than to only invite a select few, thus the dinner is to be held in an old warehouse (with appropriate decor of course). everyone was having a good time - it seems having 50 tables of family and friends wasn't gonna be a headache after all! indeed, things were going so smoothly, you quickly realised you were almost drunk. no worries! a breath of fresh air would do. thus, you slipped out for a really short moment.
unfortunately, things took a turn.
the old warehouse no longer had any fire safety measures, and a fire broke out just as you exited. the flammable building effortlessly stoked the flames, and within seconds, the entire building was fiercely ablaze.
would you rush in to save any of your loved ones?
if you only had enough time to save one of them, who would it be? why?
remember: you managed to invite everyone you know and they all turned up - therefore the person you save may very well be your sole relation after the disaster.
Friday, April 29, 2005
apologetics I
why am i so anal about the minor discomforts of life?
i'd like to propose 2 general reactions to experience minor discomforts in everyday life: the accepting approach and the rejecting approach. by minor discomforts i refer to stuff like lousy weather, crappy rules, poorly designed structures - disappointing encounters which may or may not be typically ignored. generally non-life-threatening pecularities that could otherwise be rather easily improved upon (in my opinion).
accepting approach - "why bother complaining?" "it's not that bad, just tolerate lor." "that's normal what." "don't be so anal lar." "get over it. move on." this approach has various merits. its adopters need not spend any time or effort troubling themselves with whatever's "not really wrong anyway." purporters may appear "cool" and "unaffected," perhaps choosing to ignore what may be off their list of priorities. hence, such persons may also appear prioritised and wise.
rejecting approach - "why is this not fixed?" "it's such a simple detail - and they can't get it right." "so screwed up." "why don't you care?" "i can't believe i'm paying taxes for this." this approach seems unpopular. fierce advocates tend to be social critics with no social life - spending too much time trying to fix (or suggest strategies to improve )what may not even be broken. everything seems to be against them, and they appear stressed out over the most anal of things.
so why do i tend to take the latter approach more? there is a crucial variable that i omitted on purpose: knowledge. what if i choose the second approach based on knowledge? that i simply know something to be wrong whereas others simply do not know it? may seem a wimpish excuse to most who adopt the first approach, or may even seem like an insulting retort. but the next time i am anal about something, perhaps it isn't that i am taking the rejecting approach for the aim of being anal, but for the sake of improvements that acceptors can't be bothered with.
maybe i am not anal, just observant!
i'd like to propose 2 general reactions to experience minor discomforts in everyday life: the accepting approach and the rejecting approach. by minor discomforts i refer to stuff like lousy weather, crappy rules, poorly designed structures - disappointing encounters which may or may not be typically ignored. generally non-life-threatening pecularities that could otherwise be rather easily improved upon (in my opinion).
accepting approach - "why bother complaining?" "it's not that bad, just tolerate lor." "that's normal what." "don't be so anal lar." "get over it. move on." this approach has various merits. its adopters need not spend any time or effort troubling themselves with whatever's "not really wrong anyway." purporters may appear "cool" and "unaffected," perhaps choosing to ignore what may be off their list of priorities. hence, such persons may also appear prioritised and wise.
rejecting approach - "why is this not fixed?" "it's such a simple detail - and they can't get it right." "so screwed up." "why don't you care?" "i can't believe i'm paying taxes for this." this approach seems unpopular. fierce advocates tend to be social critics with no social life - spending too much time trying to fix (or suggest strategies to improve )what may not even be broken. everything seems to be against them, and they appear stressed out over the most anal of things.
so why do i tend to take the latter approach more? there is a crucial variable that i omitted on purpose: knowledge. what if i choose the second approach based on knowledge? that i simply know something to be wrong whereas others simply do not know it? may seem a wimpish excuse to most who adopt the first approach, or may even seem like an insulting retort. but the next time i am anal about something, perhaps it isn't that i am taking the rejecting approach for the aim of being anal, but for the sake of improvements that acceptors can't be bothered with.
maybe i am not anal, just observant!
Saturday, April 23, 2005
am i trying too hard?
there's a feeling inside of mewhere am i going with this? when i squeeze my neurons to shoot the next one-liner, who am i trying to impress? when i spend inordinate amounts of time trying to right my hairstyle, who am i showing it to? when i decided to turn my life topsy-turvy all in the name of mugging, whatever for?
beckoning to be set free
an impulse of unkown origin
yearning to stretch me thin
and there are those times when i wish i hadn't said something lame... times i wished i didn't step forward... times i wished to banish those wily impulses and commend myself to inaction. even if it were my destiny/responsibility/calling to do whatever, be wherever, act whoever, i seem to have forgotten the real question: why even?
and now i realise... that not only have i been trying too hard; i've been trying too hard without qualifying.
...
or maybe it's just stress and all this is crap!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
