| Peaceful Isle | ||
|
Marilyn
Constance
Sze
Cherlyn
Alicia
Heyao
Hong Wei
Samanntha
Miao Yu
Agape Youth Hilary Lois Jessica Shermain Keith Abigail Natasha Tabitha Tracy Terry Angeline Jody  Domain Master The Transcendent One Name:Bethuesa R RakkanoX 辈途飒 = Transcended 1986-09-05 = = Residence in Peaceful Isle = = The Philosopher = = The Writer = = The Collector = = The Blue Pig = = "I am Gundam!!" = = Melancholic Sentimental = = Suffers from Acute Melancholia = = Figures/Models, Art, Craft, Anime, Novels = = Mecha, Sci Fi, Thriller, Slice of Life = = Otaku I am not = = Loves God = = Loves His Applecorn Muffin! = = Loves His Best Friend 凌慧 = = Loves His Kawaii Spunky Gal! = = Loves Mizutani Sakura (水谷さくら) = = Loves Family & Friends = = Loves Blue, Silver, Orange, Pink! = Vinistic Fanfic Gunota Headlines MAHQ KKnM HobbyLink Japan The Symposium HungryGoWhere Good Smile Company (Max Factory/Alter) Mizutani Sakura Official Site Gundam's Room Danny Choo MG Online Catalogue Jappydolls TV Tropes Penny Arcade! Friendster Blogger Tokyo Toshokan Serebii.net Wikipedia Photobucket Dictionary/Thesaurus Chinese Dictionary Chinese Tools Chinese Culture Bible Gateway 
 ;;;;;
 Pessimism I present two questions: 1) Is pessimism bad? 2) If so, then are "pessimists" really being pessimistic? Pessimism is defined as "the tendency to see, anticipate, or emphasize only bad or undesirable outcomes, results, conditions, problems, etc." It would be logical to conclude that a definition that emphasizes bad cannot be in any way a good thing. Yet, is being pessimistic a really bad character trait to have? Most individuals in emphasizing how pessimism is a vice would borrow a famous phrase coined by sociologist Robert K. Merton: "self-fulfilling prophecy". This comes about due to the relationship between our beliefs and our behaviour. For example, we believes bad things then somehow our behaviour would serve as a catalyst to bring about this bad result. Likewise, optimism works in the same way, only for the opposite effect. As such, we could safely conclude that being pessimistic can have bad consequences. Not just merely because it results in undesirable outcomes but more so because it is caused by the self. But are those whom society consider "pessimists" really pessimists? I've been labeled a "pessimist" for predicting that the odds of succeeding are low or that there is more suffering in life than happiness and that maybe death holds more hope. So does my outlook and behaviour towards various situations mean I'm being pessimistic? I don't think so and this is my argument. An analysis determines that the success rate is very low. If a person believes that it would fail then he is just being realistic; a person who believes it would succeed is overly optimistic. Similarly, many situations in life are like that. If you are a human being then you obviously know that life has more suffering, temptations and trials than it does happiness and love. Taking into consideration the bad odds of most people being emotionally and mentally frayed from hectic work life and the limitations of humans' mental and physical capabilities to cope with existence, it would be a realistic to bet on bad outcomes. At this point I believe some of you are itching to say I'm just being pessimistic, and this is where I say you are solely mistaken. Think about this logically, since the odds are always staked against you, then expecting the best has a higher chance of disappointment and a small chance of marginal satisfaction. But if one has little or zero expectation then there is a high chance of not being disappointed and a small chance of being pleasantly surprised. If you knew from experience that a dice is bias against the number '6' then you would have reason to bet on any number but the number '6'. I guess we "pessimists" are just being realistic about life and I have to say we are probably more fulfilled and satisfied than all those optimistic individuals (whom I believe are just delusional). So don't call us pessimistic just because you are jealous of us rational realists who can cope with the myriad of bad situations that plague life better than you. the transcendent one speaks 2009-12-31 10.47GMT +8hrs Aitiai Aristotle believed that the universe was made intelligible for human understanding and that as human beings we were meant to understand our cosmos. Yet sometimes Aristotle's view on this is called into question as a result of our bewilderment of human nature, which ironically Aristotle covered extensively in the Nicomachean Ethics and his other works. Humans have a capacity to use reason in tandem with the rest of their functions. But it does seem that there is more to human kind merely being more intellectual and rational than other animals. It is uncertain but findings strongly suggest that what makes humans unique among animals is their faculty of belief that spawns from reason. A fox sees a rabbit, this evokes some chemical stimulents that fire off certain brain signals and gets transmitted into action: to hunt the rabbit. It is straightforward; the process is clean and smooth. No so with beings with reason. We are constantly in a state of contradiction and to prove that we have even celebrated it through puns and ironies from theatres to advertisements. Many of us probably attribute this as a sign of being human. The struggle of our conscience with our carnal desires. We see it as special because while animals cannot defy their instinctive actions we can deliberate about them and choose to be rational. Rational. A consolation for our kind. Our beliefs and actions never seem to concur making it seem as though incoherence is a feature that makes us human, and understandably so. Whenever we struggle with dealing with mistakes, temptations and decisions it's always accompanied by a common refrain: "I'm only human." But is being incontinent and weak-willed a part of what it means to be a human being? We are caught between doing what we believe is right and what our hearts desire. I believe many think this is an important feature of being human, but I beg to differ. Take the example of a virus infected computer which does the opposite of everything u tell it to do. Are not human beings also afflicted by a similar virus? This virus is sin. Sin causes us to be incontinent and to act a way opposite from what we believe to be right. Something that causes a contradiction cannot possibly be natural. If the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) is true and there is harmony in the universe, then human incoherence being a feature of human nature must be false. Sin is not incontinence, it is merely the agent. Sin in a Christian context is a result of man's disobedience to God; a rejection of what God intented as our true nature. Our pets disobey us from time to time, but at least it can be said that they are obeying God's divine plan for them which is their true nature. I am not going to advocate as to what this nature is if human kind even has one, but if decision making in life becomes a daily struggle then maybe you are rejecting what it means to be naturally a human being. Struggling with incontinence is not our human nature, but prove of our efforts to understand what truly defines our human nature. P.s.: Principle of Non-Contradiction: A function, F, cannot both have the properties, p and not-p, at the same time. the transcendent one speaks 2009-12-28 10.46GMT +8hrs Every Little Thing We have all heard how a smile goes a long way. Saying a "thank you" or "you're welcome" with a smile on your face always brightens someone's day. Acts of kindness and generosity; care and concern. Good cheer. These are little acts out of a generous heart. But while such small actions can have such amazing results the converse is true as well. Little acts, minus the kindess and add on selfishness, jealousy and disdain. As opposed the grand schemes of world domination, homicide and torture, these are the small and mean cousins which might almost be half as bad if we just count the number. What they lack in quality, they make up in quantity. Such little acts of malice, or petty acts, are pervasive in a myraid of forms and it affects everybody one way or another. More than half the human population can stay out of commiting great evils against others but not one person is safe from the lures of spite and vengeance. As much as the promotion of courtesy through courtesy campagins go, the fault does not lie in the lack of courtesy (all right maybe it is true since we go to the extent of Singa the Courtesy Lion,) but the rampant nature of petty acts. The moral degradation of society does not make us less courteous and kind, it just makes us all the more vicious. It's really unthinkable how such accusation or comment made in spite can have a snowballing effect on a person's identity and confidence. You can go kill all the people you hate and though their numbers decrease their resilience only grows stronger. But tell them that no one likes them and how everything they do is worthless and combined with their inner self conflict they'll be "eaten" inside out. Some of my consistent readers may have realised a certain trend in my post: "it's not about doing more good stuff, it's about reducing the bad stuff if we want to make the world a better place." You can do ten good deeds and one bad deed and people will only remember you for that one bad deed. We can be more gracious, give up our seat to the pregnant lady and become more chummy with our neighbours but evil has that much lasting a sting than the honey of kindness. Criticism and slander will affect a person more deeply than kind words and concern can cheer somebody up. Even the greatest birthday celebrations only last as long as the booze. Bitterness is a companion to the grave. Just as forgetting the pain someone cause you is difficult so is stopping ourselves from hurting others out of spite. We do it all the time, consciously or subconsciously. But knowing the it is those petty acts that affect people so much longer and harder than kind acts, maybe it would be wiser to reflect on how we can be less petty than try to be more generous. So maybe Singa should change his occupation from "Courtesy Lion" to "Magnanimity Lion", telling people to hate less and forgive more. Smiling comes naturally thereafter. the transcendent one speaks 2009-11-23 8.10GMT +8hrs Truth Cultural diversity has led us to hold different beliefs, adopt different lifestyles and influenced our perspective of right and wrong, good and bad. The problem for most people is that this results in war and strife: conflict arises because some individuals cannot accept ideas and beliefs different from their own. If crime is a result of selfishness, then conflict is a result of intolerance. In order to achieve world peace, there is a sense that we have to begin to understand and most of all accept different beliefs held by others. In this post modern era, relativism is taking centre stage. What is good or bad, right or wrong is merely relative or subjective. Relativism seems like the way towards world peace: I think x is wrong, you think x is right, but we just have different beliefs and hence different views about x which are both true. But while many see the problem of cultural diversity as the tension of strife, maybe some others who are like me see it as the death of truth. Taking a less cultural sensitive topic to make my point, there is a saying, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and also, "there is no such thing as an ugly woman but only lazy women". Beauty and ugliness are properties of things that most of us would readily agree to them being relative because they are based on subjective opinion. Yet, if we grant that the most ugly thing in the world can be the most beautiful thing to someone else (and here I mean specifically for human beings and not aliens since we are talking about humanity,) then are we neglecting truth? If as a collective human race everything is both beautiful and ugly, then what weight to the words "beautiful" and "ugly" carry anymore? There is no truth in physical appearance since beauty is relative and telling somebody she is beautiful is merely an opinion and not the truth. It seems like in different circumstances we were willing to concede that she is not beautiful. While not the same as science, aesthetics and to a greater extent beliefs must draw the line between truth and falsity. If not our beliefs would become trivial and unimportant. While we would be expressing something when we agree or disagree it would mean very little because you would be right no matter if you agreed or disagreed. Truth of belief would become trivial at least with respects to non-scientific facts, and even those aren't set in stone. It is tempting indeed to take the relativist approach because it seems to paint such a rosy picture where everyone can get along; where everyone is right and true. But there can only be one truth. Some beliefs are just incompatible or contradict some other beliefs and thus both cannot be true at the same time. If we believe in the Principle of Non-Contradiction: x cannot both be F and not-F, and believe that there is truth in the world which we can know, then the relativist picture is one we cannot embrace. It is precisely because of the many differences in beliefs that the quest for truth becomes all the more urgent. (P.S.: Aristotle's exact quote, "...for though we love both the truth and our friends, piety requires us to honour the truth first." -Nicomachean Ethics I.6 1096a16) the transcendent one speaks 2009-11-16 2.04GMT +8hrs Conviction What is a human being? What is its purpose; its function? What is a necessary condition that makes someone human? Without first answering these elementary questions, we are in no position to begin answering those pertaining to truth and falsehood, praise and blame. Even if we have come to a decision on our own humanity, it is contentious. Even if there is a unanimous consensus, it only takes one deviant to bring it under contention. It is not a big problem, at least not to those who give little thought to their actions, because they know it is right and right does not need to be questioned. But here I pose a question: "How can we know if indeed an action is the right course of action for a human being by a human being?" Now don't jump the gun and tell me the answer because the only thing we can be certain of is the uncertainty of truth. Instead, stop and think. Give me an example of something true of all humans? All humans need to breathe and eat. True but trivial. All humans have a will to live. Controversially true. All human life is meaningful. True but only for those who believe that life itself is inherently sacred. Not being able to come to a unanimous consensus about the truth of human nature and life, it is no wonder the world is filled with much strife and war. As I have mentioned the the previous post, from birth we have been subjected to habituation. From our parents to our teachers, from the mass media to social stigmatisation. We have been habituated by others to believe the "right" (and hence, the "wrong"). When ask why we think all these is the "right" we have no other reason but answer that it comes naturally and it is logically compatible. But natural to whom, and logically compatible to what? To the people we live and grow up with, with the culture and values that have been inculcated into us. There is a country known as the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, in northwest Africa, that has a practice in which they force feed their girls so they would have voluptuous figures which indicates beauty and wealth. The girls are forced by their mothers or grandmothers to overeat and are physically punished if they do not comply. The people of Mauritania believe that it is best for women to be full of fat and stretch marks are a sign of beauty. Men there prefer such females and those who are slim are shunned upon. So is this wrong? We could possibly say that exposing the girls to health risk is wrong but what about the culture of fat as beautiful and desirable? Can we say that risking one's own heath to achieve such perceived beauty is wrong? If the Mauritanians are right, then all of us in developed countries must be crazy. And why can't they be right? Who are we to say that they are wrong? Just merely because we are the majority or that this is the "truth"? I'm not having any of those superficial answers. The point is our beliefs and values are subjective to the context in which we live and grow in, there is no escape. If we do make the impossible escape from the clutches of society and habituation, we can objectively criticise and judge, free from subjectivity. But we would lose everything that ever made us who we are; everything that made us human, and objectivity of humanity becomes a mere novelty. There is no way to reconcile the differences in taste and preference, if we cannot even reconcile our differing views of the truth. But at least next time when we are tempted to impose our valued-added views onto another person or community, let us remember that truth depends on how one constructs his or her humanity. We cannot praise someone who's action is consistent with our beliefs but not theirs, and we cannot blame someone who's action is consistent with their beliefs but not ours. Praise and blame, truth and falsity depends on an individual's genuine belief in the meaning and purpose of life as a human being. the transcendent one speaks 2009-10-09 1.58GMT +8hrs Habituation We think that truth and value are the two pillars supporting the meaning of life. We strive for what is true, we yearn for what is valuable. And we see that love is true and virtue is valuable. Yet there is a truth more frightening than the truth itself. It is not some outlandish hypothesis I make but something anyone who has lived long enough would come to realise. If we do something enough times, if we are exposed to certain things in life long enough, we would internalise it and accept it until it becomes a part of us. This is known colloquially as "a force of habit", but it is really more than a "force", it is our whole being. This is the power of habituation. You may ask, "what can be so frightening about habituation? I mean we may pick up some bad habits but they are merely problematic." Consider this, being exposed to a world where killing others was the norm and deceit is the only way to protect one's self. Would a person in such an environment soon become just like one of them? Obviously such a fabricated universe is just absurd but think ponder it over just a moment longer; there is no reason why a human being couldn't come to rationalise vices and evil as something normal. Yes, the keyword is normal. Once our hearts and minds come to terms with a phenomenon, be it mainstream or alternative, then right and wrong, good and bad are of no consequence. The pillars of truth and value crumble in an instant. Has it not become clear that all that is needed is to inculcate a habit. Once a person is habituated into being vicious, or being immoral, or apathetic and unloving, then it becomes a part of him and he doesn't question whether it is right or wrong, he believes it is right. You may say in reply that we have an inherent natural conception of truth and value, habituation into what we know is wrong is impossible since our conscience would prevent us from doing so. But it could it not also be the case that we have merely been habituated to hold all these we believe as the truth as what is valued as a human being? Could it not be that if we were habituated to accept a totally alternative system or lifestyle it would also be the case that we would find no fault with it? Here I make a distinction between habituation and addiction: an addiction is following our desires against our better judgment, but habituation is our better judgment, if anything, our only judgment. I believe it is possible to truly love someone we have no love for, or believe that we are right even if it is evident we are wrong. Just like how practising a musical instrument daily helps a musician play his instrument as if he were naturally born to do so, whatever we habituate ourselves with soon becomes a second nature. Is it not frightening then how easy it is to become cold, heartless and vicious? Is not a habit so thoughtless and natural? What is truth? What is value? Nothing, when we realise just how simple it is to believe in something. After all, whatever he believes becomes the truth. Whatever he treasures is its own value. Sometimes I wonder if indeed there is a reason to doing anything at all, or if really why we believe or act in a certain way is a result of mass social habituation. the transcendent one speaks 2009-09-25 2.28GMT +8hrs f(x)(x: human) What is human nature? We can begin to answer this question when we consider what functions are unique to us as a species. A human being has some primary functions (as is commonly agreed by all): nutritive, perceptive, locomotive and reasoning But the function of plants is nutritive and animals have the first three as well which leaves us to believe that our capability to reason, or perceptive understanding, is what makes us unique. As such it has been an age old tradition in the science and to a certain degree the arts that the key function of humans is as rational being. Our ability to reason and make decision is the fundamental difference that sets us apart from all other organisms of nature. With the advent of capitalism, the increase in rationality among individuals has resulted in backlash. People sometimes become hyper-rational when making decisions and executing actions that they sometimes neglect their own feelings and expression of emotions. We become so caught up with productivity, profits and efficiency that humanity and compassion is being sacrificed. The irony is how the word humanity, which means kindness and benevolence, is also a term for the whole of humankind. It seems that our definition of the human function is incomplete; as much as we are rational agents, it seems to be the case that we are also benevolent agents. Humans are not only unique for their capability to reason but also their ability to feel empathy towards others (even if the being is in no way connected emotionally to us). If this were the case, it would be erroneous to believe that all our decisions and actions should be made under strict rational conditions without some humanitarian considerations. As such a re-definition of the human function seems to be one of reason and benevolence. Here I would like to amend Aristotle's definition of the human function: "Rational activity of the soul in accordance with benevolence or not without benevolence" and "Charitable activity of the soul in accordance with reason or not without reason". You may wonder why the revised function has two clauses when the original only has one, after all isn't it suppose to be the function of a human being and not functions? Technically this would be right, but the two clauses are more accurately a complete circle of balance: a certain amount of benevolence is needed when executing rational decisions and when deeds of altruism are involved we have to exercise some reason. The revised human function is a balance between us as rational beings, and us as benevolent beings. the transcendent one speaks 2009-09-17 8.12GMT +8hrs Analgesia Hedonists believe that pleasure is the greatest good, and hence every individual should strive to maximise pleasure in their respective lives. Utilitarians on the other hand are only interested in the maximisation of aggregate happiness, even if sometimes this is at the expense of inequality and unhappiness of a minority. Taken out of context, certain indviduals are so swayed by the proponents of these arguments that their pursuit of pleasure and happiness comes at the price of morality and others. This leads us to a very fundamental but easily overlooked problem: "Why are we so caught up in maximising pleasure, when the world is in such great pain?" Pleasure and Pain are two sides of the same coin. Some could say that if people strive to maximise pleasure they would avoid pain and ultimately they would be happy. But this is an argument that can only go in one direction: by maximising pleasure it does not mean pain is going to be minimised. Take for example a boy believes that his pleasure would be increased if he could eat whatever he wanted but this results in a stomachache or a toothache which brings him pain that outweighs the initial pleasure of enjoying the freedom of eating. While it's true that his satisfaction rises, it is also the case that his post disatisfaction rises. Whether he experiences a greater net increase in satisfaction or a decrease is secondary. The point is, sometimes the pursuit of happiness invariably results in the wake of pain. The correct direction as I suggest is not the maximisation of pleasure but the reduction of pain. Intuitively, if we minimise situations in which pain is a given or bring relief to those who are suffering then it follows that pain would be minimised and sometimes this would give birth to pleasure. I believe the crux of the matter is the latter consequence. Indirect pleasure would come about as pain is reduced. Hungry people are given food to eat, their suffering is reduced and they are grateful; happiness goes up. Of course it stands to reason that sometimes reducing pain results in even more pain; more grief, more disappointment. But the greater issue is how ignorance or escapism is an agent in reducing of pain and many a time the happiness or pleasure gained is fleeting and delusional. That is not to say there isn't a case against the Utilitarians. In fact, I believe it is a strong one. What then should we call such a position? I will call it the "Analgesicist" view (from the word "analgesic" which is the scientific name for painkillers which is used to relieve pain, i.e. achieve analgesia). Analgesicism seek to relieve pain but not merely in a superficial sense of numbing one's emotions but actively removing pain to make way for happiness. the transcendent one speaks 2009-09-01 8.50GMT +8hrs Action! "It is right, then, to say that a person comes to be just from doing just actions and temperate from doing temperate actions; for no one has even a prospect of becoming good from failing to do them. The many, however, do not do these actions but take refuge in arguments, thinking that the are doing philosophy, and that this is the way to become excellent people. In this they are like a sick person who listens attentively to the doctor, but acts on none of his instructions. Such a course of treatment will not improve the state of his body; any more than will the many's way of doing philosophy improve the state of their souls." -Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book II (1105b10-19) Many have misconceptions about Aristotle, thinking he's just some Greek philosopher with no bearing in the present. But the aforementioned paragraph are words of wisdom. We often think that virtuous actions are performed by morally righteous people and good deeds by saints. But Aristotle believes that it is the actions that make you who you are. Thinking that you or someone else is kind, loving or generous is really because we witness those respective actions or we hear feedback from others about our own conduct. Aristotle might not have known Christianity or Jesus Christ, (he probably only knew gods like Zeus and his cronies on Mount Olympia,) but he does make a valid point for Christians. We can attend chruch; never missing a sermon. Attending every bible study class and earnestly taking down notes. Singing enthusiastically during worship and praying devoutly during prayer. But if that is all we do as Christians then Aristotle's words ring true (and I paraphrase), "they are like a sick person who listens attentively to the doctor but heeds none of his instructions". What does the Bible, the word of God, say about our role as Christians? To love our neighbours as ourselves and to bring the gospel to every corner of the world. Do we do that? Personally, I am lacking. Being all religious and pious does not make a man holy, praying fervently and attending church regularly does not make one faithful. Only the Christlike actions we practice amongst those around us makes us holy; our unwavering focus on God even as life is trying makes us faithful. I'm not saying it's wrong to be religious or fervent, I'm just saying it's not enough. To be Christian we have to be doing Christlike actions. It is not enough to be contented with being baptised a Christian and believe that what we do is acceptable in God's eyes. We do not want to fall into the same trap as the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus' time. A philosoper to nothing if all he does is indulge in argument with other philosophers. A true philosoper is one who practices the philosophy he advocates and believes. Similarly, a true Christian teaches what he lives by and advocates what he believes. A nominal Christian, (which is a Christian in name), without action is no Christian. the transcendent one speaks 2009-08-23 9.58GMT +8hrs Blueprints When expounding upon the topic of perfection there is no perfectly simple explanation to it. Perfection is simply a condition in which everyone strives or dreams of but no one ever reaches. There seem to be two main categories of perfection by which people subscribe to, I shall call them 1) circumstantial and 2) human. Since it is probably a universal truth that humans and therefore their knowledge is not perfect, we cannot ascribe humanly defined perfection as we would attribute to God. In other words, we can only consider the condition of humans striving for perfection as merely a quest for improvement or the fulfillment of their greatest desires, which apparently seems next to impossible. 1) Circumstantial Perfection is a condition by which an individual wishes or hopes that his or her circumstances or surroundings are more desirable than it presently is. It is normal for us to wish our parents were wealthier, or that we were born in some relaxed foreign land instead of this urban pressure cooker. Or it could be in the form of a simple wish of dating a girl or guy out of your league or being able to own and drive a convertible. Situations in which you exclaim, "if I had such-and-such my life would be just perfect!" Such a condition is not inherently detrimental, in fact it is quite the opposite. It gives us the motivation and the direction in which we increase the chances of such dreams of perfection into certain reality. As it is said, if you want it badly enough then you'll do all you can to get it. Of course, a perfect dream and the harsh reality we live in is akin the the great divide between heaven and hell. To merge the two together may result in a endless fall that one can never recover from. 2) Human Perfection is a condition by which an individual wishes or hopes that he or she had certain aptitudes and/or characteristics that would otherwise be incoherent with nature or logic. In comparison with the circumstantial version this may seem outlandish; childish even. It doesn't take us long before we grow out of wanting to be superheroes and soak up our human falliblity. Yet in places where a thirst intelligence and physical beauty drives the society, it is difficult not to hope we were more mentally and physically appealing. Just like the perfection above, it can be a driving force for us to improve ourselves but there is one glaring difference, it is much easier to change our circumstances than it is ourselves. We are created unique and different. Subscribing to what the world deems as the best is having a fixation on us turning into a kind of android. With one worldly standard of perfection creates a androgynous person. Indeed, if everyone became humanly perfect then we create a singular army of clones. Without our flaws and shortcomings to handicap us, how then can we possibly develop our own unique strengths? It is only human to want our situations and surroundings to be perfect, and for our body and soul to be perfect as well. Yet how can we reconcile the fact that no matter what we do we can never attain such perfection? We can buy a car, but we cannot buy true love. We can subjugate thousands, but are powerless against the wrath of nature. How do we reconcile our hopes and the reality we live in? Let me suggest a third kind of perfection humanity is missing but wholly divine: 3) Godly perfection. 3) Godly Perfection is a wholehearted personal relationship with God in which an individual has renouce his or her sin which keeps him or her away from the loving grace of Jesus. Jesus promises us circumstantial perfection, but this perfection is within our hearts. When we accept Jesus as the Lord and Saviour of our lives, he lives within our hearts and there we can find circumstantial perfection. Knowing the peace of God in our hearts, we find contentment in our imperfect situations and find comfort in knowing that God is in control of this wayward world. Human perfection is made a reality when Jesus promises eternal life in which we are born again through the cleansing of his blood. The closer we are to him the more he will change us in his perfect image. Though we would not become omnipotent or omniscient, he gives us something far greater that supercedes physical and mental strength: omnibenevolence. The greatest and most difficult commandment is to love because love encompasses all. Intelligence and power causes dissension and strife, but love gives birth to empathy and kindness, forgiveness and peace. If we can live life dreaming about perfection, should we not live life for God, the perfecter of our lives? the transcendent one speaks 2009-08-10 2.36GMT +8hrs Shuffle "I see my fate of marrying at the age of eighteen as a result of underage pregnancy, I see my fate of being knocked down by a car and living the rest of my life in a coma, I see my fate of becoming an unemployed nuisance to society who lives off my wife's income, I see my fate as an atheist going against the church and breaking my parents' hearts, I see my fate as a salaryman, struggling with bills, a dominating wife and noisy kids, And many other of my own fates. I see them all but I choose only the one I want as my own." Fate can be seen as our circumstances. They are absolute and they are permanent. Many fatalistic people would believe that no matter what they do (or don't do) their lives would still gravitate towards the life fated to them, be it by God or some force of nature. And they are right because our beliefs are translated into the choices we make and the outcome we expect; something like a self-fulfilling prophecy. But the human race has the power to choose otherwise. It is true most of the time that if calamity seizes us it would result in a great sadness in us that translates to rage which brings about more calamity to others. But this only one of our fated lives. We can apply the concept of "possible worlds" to the concept of "fate". Possible worlds are really just worlds that could have been or may actually be. From a possible world where Peter Pan existed to be possible world where I remain a bachalor for life. Similarly, the concept of Fate is really like a possible world; in other words, we can have vastly many different fates, lets call them "Possible Fates". It may seem like we a fated to have a "bad" life or an "unfortunate" life, but that is merely a possible fate that we have come to accept as an absolute. Yet, we can choose to stay optimistic in light of bad report or even proactive when it seems like life is in the slums. As such, more and more possible fates will be born from the initial circumstance; new possibilities would branch from an otherwise absolute fate. Sometimes we question if the choices we make are actually fated by some higher being, but as Christians we believe that God is sovereign. What is sovereign? It means that God is in control and he knows all the possible fates there are to a person but he doesn't interfere with which "fate" a person chooses. Fate is really just a kind of circumstance on a grander scale. Hence like circumstances, it is up to us how we want to view the fate that ha been thrust upon us. We could accept it and be bitter about it or exercise our free will and reason to resolve the issue at hand. Though we cannot escape fate, we can always change it. the transcendent one speaks 2009-07-18 7.53GMT +8hrs Fate In the beginning, God created 12 angels. Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, Righteousness, Self-Control, Hope and Fate. Fate didn't like being the youngest of her siblings. She was not allowed to go out of the Garden of Eden without her master's permission or made herself heard at the dinner table. Even her twin brother Hope could go with sister Faithfulness to see the lower world and she wasn't allowed too. Whenever she tried to sneak her way out to follow Faithfulness and Hope, brother Patience would catch her by the shoulder and tell her to play quietly in her room. It was simply infuriating. Sister Kindness was heartwrenched to see Fate so crestfallen so one day she brought her down to the lower world telling her not to touch anything. But Fate being the inquisitive and headstrong girl she was felt it would be fun to dictate the actions of the citizens of the lower world causing quite the mess. If not for the other ten siblings coming to the rescue, the fate (no pun intended) of the human race would have come to an end. While her 11 siblings didn't seem to mind, (being the loving, joyful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, long-suffering brothers and sisters they were,) God didn't seem all too pleased. So he summoned Fate before him and asked her why she was being disobedient. "Those people of the lower world do not know better," she protested, "they use their freedom for evil. They should be punished for their wicked ways instead of giving them all the love and kindness they do not deserve." "The what do you think I should do?" God asked. "Instead of sending my siblings down to the lower world, send me in their stead and I will give them what they deserve," Fate replied conceitedly, eager to prove her worth in her master's eyes. To her surprise her master relented. "All right Fate my child," God said, "I will give you a God month to prove to me what you're capable of. You can take away anything from the humans except their freedom of choice." With that Fate was banished to the lower world without the aid of her brothers and sisters. Fate thought to herself, "this would be easy." But everytime she dictated retribution for an individual another two parallel dimensions materialised. Everytime she planned a life route for a person to follow it would branch out into four or five different paths. She could not understand. "I thought my powers were absolute! Why then do these lower world people seem to be able to open more and more new possibilites everything I give them a dead end?!" At this moment the voice of her master descends from the clouds, "my dear child, what have you done to the flow of the universe? Why are people's lives becoming more complicated?!" "I do not know what went wrong," Fate replied fearfully, "I thought I had dictated their future but it only seems to cause multiple futures to appear!" "Have you forgotten?!" The voice of God boomed. "Humanity has a freedom of choice and he can use it to choose otherwise the path you have dictated him to go." Fate lowered her head in shame, too embarrass to look up at her master. Instead she never returned to Heaven, resolved to seal the fate of the world in her hands to make up for the mess she has caused. Unbeknowst to her, God had compassion on her and sent her siblings down to look after her and clean up her mess whenever she made one. Fate is stubborn and pushy but with the help of her brothers and sisters the human race can live to choose another day. the transcendent one speaks 2009-07-18 6.32GMT +8hrs Discrimination A fine line is drawn between taste and prejudice. It might seem perfectly fine to commend a fine piece of art or criticise it. But when the focus shifts from inanimate to animate; general to personal, all that about taste gets thrown out the window. All of us would agree to disagree on some level; you keeping your own opinions while I hold my own. But it becomes a touchy subject when the object of our opinions is a person. In a world where harmony and peace is championed, discrimination has been ingrained into our minds as a devious act of ostracising and stigmatisation. I'm quite sure we do not excute violent acts against people we don't like which leaves only non-violent discrimination, or simply just discrimination as we know it. For example, we comment on those we're adverse towards as such, "he's just too slow and stupid for my liking," or "she's so bimbotic it's painful to just be around her," and many more to such an effect. We would be made out to be discriminating against those different from us, but are we really practising discrimination? Like I said earlier it's only a fine line. Sometimes we like a work of art, sometimes it just irks us out. There's nothing wrong in distancing ourselves from those we aren't comfortable with or even telling them what we dislike about them if they resolve to get all friendly with you. Honestly, it's not very different from telling someone I like blue over red or chocolate chip is better than butterscotch. We are all entitled to preferences and that doesn't exclude the friends we prefer. Sometimes we can try very hard to be friendly towards another, but if both of your are just incompatible, (and I use incompatible in a friendship sort of way,) then there is just no way to avoid seeing the blindly obvious shortcomings. Of course as caring and nice human beings it would be too heartless to tell that poor chap who ask to be your friend "No!" right in his face. But neither should we give in and try to make something of a incompatible friendship. There are practical reasons to do as such. Firstly, we all need people who understand us so that one can support the other in everything he or she does. Secondly, there will be no peace and harmony between two conflicting individuals. A certain amount of discrimination cannot be avoided because we are all different. I call this structural discrimination. Personally, I'm a thinker and an intellectual and hence I just can't stand being around those simple-minded carefree individuals for the simple reason that we cannot hold a conversation on the same level of severity and tone. So is disdain the reason for a lack of understanding or the lack of understanding the reason for disdain? I leave you to decide own your own. the transcendent one speaks 2009-07-14 6.51GMT +8hrs Dimensions Humanity is a species of three dimensionals proficient in one dimension. The uniqueness of each individual object coupled with the finite capability of the human intellect may have resulted in this oversimplification of things. Slowly as we grow up we make a list quite like Santa Claus, but everything between naughty and nice and counting it over more than twice. I call this the List of Stigmatization. The Stupid Bimbo. The Perverted Bangla. The Rich Spoilt Kid. The Camwhoring Twit. The Socially-Challenged Geek. The Troublesome Minority. The Wussy Bootlicker. The Pathetic Losers. Etcetra. As we are add more categories to our list, we fit each and every person into these categories. If he or she doesn't fit into a pre-existing one then we create a new category for the person. It sounds very much like the Dewey Decimal System for classification of books, just that this time it's the "Derogative Definitions" System. Of course there are times when we classify others into more virtuous categories. Those times apparently don't come as often as the public holidays on a Singapore calender. We come to realise that as one begins to truly understand an individual, we learn a multi-dimensional aspect unbeknowst to us when we first size him or her up. Just like how "The Idiot's Guide to Philosophy" shouldn't share the shelf with "A Treatise of Human Nature" in the non-fiction Philosophy section, some individuals thought to share that one defining feature suddenly do not seem to be so similar as we learn more about them. For example, the two aforementioned books are both on Philosophy. A stranger to the subject may think it perfectly understandable to put those two books in the same section. But an philosophy enthusiast would soon realise upon scrutinising their contents that besides the commonplace of philosophy they share nothing else in common; neither their tone, audience or detail. Similarly, two "geeks" may both embrace gaming and sedentary lifestyles but may have different temperaments, intellectual aptitudes and ethical morals. We categorise people because we have no time to begin to understand each and every person we come into contact with, much less every simgle person in the world. But that shouldn't stop us from doing our best to understand others more instead of labelling them and leaving it as that. Simple is good. A simple life is good too. But simplification at the expense of adding a new dimension to understanding someone is a pity. Understanding someone is like a kaleidoscope: on their own you only see mirrors and some colours but put together it reveals a beautiful pattern. Understanding others is like peering into a kaleidoscope; you'll be awestruck by the multi-dimensional beauty you failed to see in one dimension. the transcendent one speaks 2009-07-08 2.27GMT +8hrs Necessity "Less is More" describes what society desperately needs. The self-centred human condition coupled with social consumerism gives birth to a dying need to gain more, rise higher and live longer. There is truth in saying that a man with $100 dollars a day is better off than the one with only $10 a day. Stands to reason that having more physical, emotional and financial security leads to a more stable and fulfilling life. Then what has gone wrong? More people are staying in posh estates, buying more big ticket items and yet at the same time more people are seeing counsellors over broken families and depression as a result of bankruptcy. Why? Did Maslow's not say that only when a person's basic needs, like food and shelter, have been met will he then find the need to be emotionally and spiritually fulfilled? Why then do the materially wealthy not have an equal abundance of emotional and spiritual wealth? Maslow's isn't the least bit wrong in his assessment, in fact we can see the problem using his Hierarchy of Needs. A person who has his basic needs met would concern himself with fulfilling his basic emotional and spiritual needs, but only in balance with his material and financial status. In other words, the more financially rich one is, the greater the level of emotional and spiritual sustanence needs to be fulfilled. For example, a man has a wife and owns a cow; he has to worry about the well being of himself, his wife, his cow and the income they get from the cow's milk. A few years down the road, the same man now has two children and has acquired a plot of land to plant crops and three chickens; now he worries himself with the aforementioned considerations plus the welfare of his land, his chickens and the productivity of the land and fertility of the chickens. It should be quite blindingly obvious that the more you own the more it takes out of your emotional (and sometimes even spiritual) reserves. Of course I'm not just referring to material possessions alone. It could well be emotional investment in a friendship or spiritual investment in a cause or idea. It is good to have one more chicken or one more duck; one more idea or one more friend. But there is a threshold that once crossed would only subvert on itself. Aging Population, Overpopulation, Over Mining, Deforestation, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Traffic Congestions, Poor Sanitation, Poverty and War to name a few. The world has too many of everything: too many people, cars, buildings, roads, pollution which leads to too many births, deaths and wars. What we are in need of is salvation, forgiveness and solace for our souls. Money can't buy that and neither can Freedom. The less we control, the less we own; the less to be stressed about, the less to be worried over. Giving us more time to appreciate life as it should be. The familiar refrain "life sucks!" is probably one we have used many a time. But are we really referring to life as it really is? Maybe we have traded life for survival; fulfillment for success. If having one less penny would bring back one more smile, how many would pay millions of dollars for it? Sadly, we keeping hording millions of dollars in hope of gaining that one more smile... the transcendent one speaks 2009-07-03 2.53GMT +8hrs Departure Approaching the automated glass doors, I was greeted by a blast of cold air. Hustle and bustle materialised before me as I walked through the threshold. For a moment my feet stood motionless on the polished tiles as I heard the glass doors rattle to a close. Surprisingly there wasn't a queue to check in despite the liveliness of the evening. I reconfirmed with the staff across the counter, "no check-in luggage, only hand-carried." Two hours to kill, but these last two hours before I depart was not to be squandered. As I thread through the crowds of people with their crying babies and parked trolleys, I realised their last-minute purchases and enormous baggage. Catching a glimpse of someone familiar in this sea of faces lifted my spirits a little. Making a beeline for the rows of departure seats, I plopped myself comfortably beside her. It took a moment, okay maybe two moments before she registered my presence. This was followed by a rather confused look on her face which eventually broke into a sheepish wide smile familiar to those who knew her. "Hey! I didn't think I'll see you here," she exclaimed, "where are you going?" "I'm going back home, plane leaves in two hours. You?" I replied. "I'm not sure; it's suppose to be a surprise destination." "What?!" As the words sank into the far reaches of my mind, my face held it's contorted shock. "It'll be all right. See? All these people are getting on the flight," with which she proceeded to point out the successful professionals within our midst. "So no worries!" "But even so, how can you just fly off on a plane without knowing where you're going?" My voice becoming louder over the chatter of the crowd. "I don't know. It just seemed like a great idea when my friends proposed it. Anyway why are you so worried?" Despite her somewhat dense character, my alarmed reaction was becoming too obvious for her to overlook. I checked my watch. Another hour to go. I inched forward in my seat. "How about you come with me instead. It would be great if you could join me." "I couldn't. The plane is flying off in about an hour and the luggage has been checked in. Besides, I couldn't just leave my friends." She waved at her friends who return the greeting. "It wouldn't matter because where I'm going there is no need to bring anything. Everything will be provided for." I could sense the edge in my voice. "But I know nothing about you hometown and wouldn't it be awkward if I came uninvited? What am I to do there anyway?" She seemed only vaguely amused. I was at a loss for words; I wasn't sure what to expect either. Taking a moment to think, I realised that just like these people here I didn't know what to expect at my destination. "At least you'll know where you're going!" Though I had no logical good answer, I was far from giving up. "Why are you so persistent, Daniel?" Now she was beginning to feel uncomfortable as she furrowed her brows her lips purse into a pout. In the past I would find that sweetly attractive, but now it just annoyed my patience. I consulted my watch again. 15 minutes to go! Suddenly over the PA System, I heard the female voice do a last call for my flight. There was no time. I caught my best friend's arm by surprise as I made a dash for the departure gates. Yet she was tugging fiercely away, appalled at my irrational actions. No matter how irrational I seemed there, I knew if I didn't try with all my might I would regret all my afterlife. How I wished I had arranged with her to go to my hometown together and tell her exactly what was installed. Now as my knowledge of my hometown failed me and there was no time left, I pray God just gave me five more minute. But maybe that isn't enough time for a change of heart. It may already be too late; the plane was to depart. the transcendent one speaks 2009-06-23 1.30GMT +8hrs Specific Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs categorises human needs into 5 separate levels: - 1. The base level is that of the physiological needs of people, in other words the physical needs for human survival which encompasses food and shelter. 2. The level above is that of security needs; personal security, financial security and health concerns. 3. The next level up is the need for personal belonging which is the need for love and affection be it from family or friends. 4. The second last level regards the need for self-esteem. A personal need for recognition and respect which in turn builds confidence and identity. 5. Finally the top most level is a need to self-actualise (which I have covered in an older post). A stage where one ponders the meaning of existence and one's own unique place within the scheme of life. Locally, most people's physiological needs are mostly fulfilled. Yet in such times of economic crisis and the emphasis of globalisation and capitalism, there is a growing need for security and belonging within the framework of society. While it does seem like a pressing need for unbelievers to accept the salvation of Christ, it is not a priority for most of them now. As Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs suggest, there is no way an individual who has yet to meet the needs of personal love and security would be interested to begin self-actualising since they consider Christianity as merely a belief; an idea. If this people in need are not receptive to the idea of Jesus Christ then why do Christians still turn them towards the Bible or church and tell them it is the answer? Indeed Jesus Christ is the answer to their needs, but if we impose such a belief onto someone who is merely looking for a practical solution for their problems then as Christians we are not loving enough. We read in the Bible the Jesus was more interested in answering the basic needs of people; curing illness, feeding the multitudes, keeping a lonely tax-collector company, showing his love to children, calming the fears of his disciples in light of the storm. Jesus did not tell the people who seeked him for help to believe in God and they would be saved. Instead, he helped them overcome their problems and through his actions people saw an undeniable testimony; the birth of Christianity. What does it mean to be a Christian? Is it not to love your God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself? If a friend is struggling with esteem issues and is sliding into depression, we do not thrust the Bible upon them and tell them the Word will set them free. No. Instead, we treat them with tenderness and warmth, with patience and sincerity as we overcome the issue of self-esteem with them. A story was told of a dying man in the hospital. He had three children out of which one was a Christian. This Christian's siblings and friends were puzzled at a group of people who visited this elderly man in bed everyday; more often than even his children or family. So the Christian replied, "they are from my church." It is not the opportunity of salvation that should drive us but the genuine fervour to want to love the community. Jesus Christ is only relevant to unbelievers when they realise just how their needs are being met so personally by those who profess themselves Christians. So let us answer the needs of the community in a practical and personal way and through this they would know that Jesus Christ cares about their basic needs as well. The world doesn't need quotes from the Bible, it needs the security of a true friend. The world doesn't need to hear about the love of Jesus, it needs to experience the love of Jesus through people like you. the transcendent one speaks 2009-06-17 7.19GMT +8hrs Evasion "The greater trespass is to deny or downplay one's transgression." Self justification is a natural reflexive instinct of the human mind. So as to protect the fragility of our sanity or remove the mental obstacles hindering our success, the mind eliminates or weakens the clout of one's conscience. As much as it seems to be beneficial, it is at most only self beneficial. Coming up against a hard wall especially one in which we ourselves have a hand in creating, we seem to instinctively minimise it's severity. Putting it against a more serious case or just finding a way to explain why such an outcome is acceptable and even sometimes inevitable, For those that seem more situational and nature-driven we have a habit of blaming the first person (or even community) that comes to mind. Today it's the government, always putting their people at a disadvantage in favour of foreign talent. Tomorrow it's the devil, hanging temptation too good to resist at your doorstep to ensnare poor souls like us. Sometimes it's hard to tell just whom the target audience is in our bid to justify. At times we seem to have more problems convincing ourselves and we don't sound all that persuasive. Basically that is because we are wrong, and we know it! The crux of the matter here is not that we are wrong. It is because we KNOW we are wrong. Someone who doesn't know he has committed a wrong deed does not need to justify his action because it already stands justified in his mind. None of us needs a "truth consultant" is tell us each and everytime we trespass against someone. In fact we already have an in built "truth consultant", our conscience. Yet we rarely want to come clean, and I'm not talking about some big time crimes mind you. It is those little small slip-ups that end up causing the big problems. Self-justification can become habitual. Soon enough it matters not the severity of the mistake because any mistake will become no mistake at all. Is admitting to our wrong and apologising really such a difficult thing? What holds us back, pride or fear? Embrace one's imperfection, know that it is human to falter and it is human to fall. If we forever justify our failures as unfortunate coincidences then would that not makes all your successes merely fortunate concidences as well? We can rise up to the challenge and put in the effort to succeed and accept the credit when it is due. Should we not challenge ourselves to accept the punishment and consequence too? I am justified by Jesus Christ who's blood has washed me clean. I stand justified because of what God has done and not by my own merit. What sort of weight does the justification you give have in the greater scheme of things to come? Is a criminal the appropriate person to judge his own transgressions? To scrutinise our own transgressions and admire the merits of others, one can avoid self-justification which eventually leads to arrogance. the transcendent one speaks 2009-06-15 3.25GMT +8hrs Kaleidoscope Barely visible through the first light of dawn, her faint silhoutte against the warm glow beyond the horizon. As I get closer, the crunching of sand beneath my feet, I barely startle her; her composure unbroken. With sand between my toes I peer down pensievely as though I were afraid to frighten a little mouse deer hiding between the bushes. Her expression is unfamiliar. I can scarcely claim to know this girl so full of energy and spunk with the sun in her eyes. As I gaze upon her face, eyes that now reflect the sun remain transfixed along an imaginary line joining up to the horizon. Courtesy begs me to stand and wait, but impatience gets the better of me. I implore. She replies with her defining grin and makes known to me her bouts of contemplation of late. Before I had formed a coherent sentence in my head her eyes seem to have trailed back toward the horizon like the reunion of long lost family. I must admit that the light breaking the horizon is a beautiful spectacle, yet her unusual silence leaves me in wonder. How it is that such a jovial and carefree girl could seem now so lost in her own thoughts? It would be far too arrogant to assume she is going through a rough patch. Maybe it is merely a phase of maturity into adulthood. Soon enough she is back to being the girl I remember her to be; silly and noisy, as she explores the rocky beachfront. She doesn't share with me the thoughts going through her head and so neither will I ask. Camera at the ready I steady the frame. Her face fills the screen oblivious to lens and shutter. Upon realising herself within the camera's capture range she strikes a pose and smiles. On my computer, the warmth orange glow fills the screen. Yet the warmth I felt wasn't from the glowing ball in the sky but the radiance I see in her eyes. Those same eyes that convey both happiness and sadness, love and hurt, warmth and loneliness. It is not a different person I see now but a more complete person. Like a child keeping a secret I felt this pride of knowing something not many would have seen or known. Sometimes it's painful to just watch and not be able to be of any substantial aid. But maybe being of good company is support enough. So there I shared a memory with her, in idle banter and mundane talk but knowing that deep inside so much more was said than words could convey. A spunky teenage girl she is, but a contemplative mature woman is fine as well. Discovering a different side to one's loved ones doesn't mean we have to learn to love differently. It just means we can begin to love them in the areas we never knew we could. the transcendent one speaks 2009-06-13 2.54GMT +8hrs Lucifer The Bible does say that we should have nothing to do with the evil one; either to discover what he is like or know who he is. Yet the multitude can be chastised for not knowing quite enough about the enemy to defend against Satan and his legions of demons. I do not know if you believe in the existence of the devil just as you would (or would not) that the existence of God. I do not claim to know anything more about who the devil is as any of you. But I do know that the evil that we attribute him is quite different from the one we would a mortal. Sometimes we see all the suffering in the world; how people are dying and how countries are killing ones another and we pass the verdict that this is all the devil's doing. Interestingly, why does the blame of such incidences, that obviously fall squarely on humanity's shoulders, get pushed to Satan? Instead of pinpointing our enemy we are in fact in alliance with him. Why you may ask, after all we believe that he is the cause of all the chaos and strife in the world? No he is not the cause of all the chaos and strife in our world. It is us, and for us to push the blame to someone else (devil or otherwise) we end up compromising our own integrity. The compromising of our morals and the corruption of our hearts is actually the real evil that the devil puts into us. I mean you could say, "it is the devil who influenced me to commit this act of evil." And yet do we not have a freedom of choice? Physical death is not the devil's priority unless it furthers his own wicked ends. Satan is primarily interested in our spiritual death, the dying of our morals and principles and the suicide of our virtues. If all things, chaos, strife and enmity, can further this end then he would be eternally grateful. Millions of people dying in a natural disaster is of no matter to Satan. Yet one murder is enough to interest him. The guilt and evil within the murderer's heart, the vengful thoughts held by the loved ones of the deceased. Let us not veil ourselves behind this belief that all bad things can from the devil. Let us see our own sin and evil as clearly as our reflection in the mirror. Remember that Satan is really only concerned with the hearts of men. When men rob the income of others, the devil robs them of their heart's conscience. When men destroy the lives of others, the devil destroys the empathy within their hearts. Can it then really be said that Satan is the sole culprit in all these? He is so successful because he has you as an accomplice. Satan has not caused strife, humanity has. The devil has only caused strife within our hearts. The strife in the world is purely our own undoing. Evil exist only because we let it. Satan exists because our hearts allow him to. Satan's power isn't merely in the world we live in but it affects the hearts of those who live in it. He may instill hate, fear or lust into our hearts and minds but at the end of the day it is up to our own free will to choose what we should do. Stop blaming the devil, start examining our lives instead. the transcendent one speaks 2009-06-08 8.06GMT +8hrs Aesthetical Induction Regarding aesthetics, it seems there is no one standard of taste. No one it seems is a far better judge, with quantity or quality, to decide upon what is the right or better aesthetic judgement. Yet if we held each person against their own standard of taste then the problem of aesthetics disappears. The Principle of Induction (POI) states that if A's are B's then all future A's will be B's. I believe the POI can be used as a means of gauging the standard of taste with respect to the individual. Here I am not arguing that we would be able to assert what is the right standard of taste but at least we could understand with reason why someone's aesthetical inclinations is as such. Take for example food, if a Chinese man enjoys eating spicy food then it would be inductively strong that he would enjoy Thai Curry or Indian Masala. Similarly, through the aesthetical judgements one makes we can predict with fairly good accuracy whether he would find a piece of art or the lyrics of a song as pleasing or repulsive. Thus, for the same reasoning involved in aesthetical judgment A, the same measure can be accorded to B, C and so on. But we all know the problem of the POI. There will be times that future A's are not B's; we just cannot be certain that all A's are B's. Just like everything human, it is subjected to change and something for seemingly irrational reasons. How then is it possible to tell someone that he is being dishonest toward his standard of taste? Anomaly in one's taste could either be a result of blurred judgment but it could well but a genuine change in one's aesthetical taste. We see that as we grow up, our taste for things change quite drastically as our minds develop and ideas are absorbed. It does seem that age and external influence does affect one's standard of taste. The ability of the POI to aid disputes regarding aesthetics is useful insofar as the problem of induction is concerned. But the laws of induction is not completely impotent when aesthetics is in question. Taste and preference like certain regularities in nature are unlikely to change too drastically. Just as we continue to apply the POI to our lives despite its evident problem, similarly our standard of taste conforms to the POI and we too cannot stop adhering to its advice. While there seems no way we can criticise one's aesthetical choice we can critique his frame of mind as being delusional or heavily influenced. The POI is only concern as far as predicting what informed choices an individual will make regardless of his mental states. Aesthetical judgment, not being right or wrong, bad or good, does not mean that there exist no universal standard of taste. It just means that the standard of taste (together with the POI) can only decide if one's aesthetical judgments are true or false. In other words, honest or dishonest toward our passions. the transcendent one speaks 2009-05-28 6.06GMT +8hrs Prescription Modernity has brought with it secularisation; post-modernity, relativism. "Our purpose in life is to live fulfilled and to die contented." There is no God, there is no divine purpose or meaning. The only meaning is human construct. If such is the case, for how long can individualism stand up to the world? I see the lush rainforest of the tropics, the great expanse of the Pacific Ocean. I see the mysterious lunar eclipse, the magical Aurora Borealis. If I believed all of these came into existence by mere chance, then what is the meaning of my existence within a framework of chance? Such beauty I can admire but in no way can I understand its complexity. Here the human race fights for their rights and freedom, under the banner of individualism and post-modernity. But what is an individual when beheld in the universe gaze? Is he not just an insignificant speck whose existence is random and meaningless? Individuality is its own god. One man may be able to shake the whole world, but when the world shakes no man is spared. The rule of relativity, the way we input different meanings into the same word; the way we have different justifications for the same actions. "Nothing is right or wrong, nothing is good or bad, everything is relative." Are we seriously buying into this? In one hand we massage the idea of individuality, in the other we choke the seed of non-comformity. If we championed individualism and relativity with which to prescribe meaning to our lives are we not admitting that life has in fact no intrinsic meaning? I believe in a God who is constant, who is definite, who is forever the same. Knowing that he controls the turning of the planets and know each of us by name, I am comforted. Is there arrogance in my tone? Is it not human arrogance that have led us to believe that life's meaning is for us to define? Is humanity so far gone to not realise that accepting relativism is rejecting a law of morality? Just like any post-modern indvidual, you would think I am entitled to my own opinion as you are with yours. But the important question is: "What assurance is there in what you believe?" An atheist has only human assurance, and human assurance doesn't amount to much. Some may say an assurance in a uncertain God is irrational. But I think it beats the certainty of humanity's fallible assurance anytime. the transcendent one speaks 2009-05-27 1.55GMT +8hrs East of Eden The limits of our knowledge gives birth to the angst of our youth. The question of identity to which we can find no answer, only because there is no answer to find. Like a jigsaw puzzle dashed on the floor, picking the pieces that fit nicely into the empty spaces of our hearts. In a world we do not belong; like a sapling uprooted in the storm. So we float and as the wind blows so we go. Indeed here is not where we belong, an alien living within the skins of our souls. Not recognising the fuzzy image within the mirror which was once of a young child and tomorrow might be a grown man. Our brainless hearts frustrate the logic of our minds; our unfeeling minds saddening the empathy within our hearts. Who is this I play today, is it the sunshine or the rain? Have I forgotten who it was I saw back there in the mirror, whether it was of sunshine or black rain? My actions, they contradict everything spoken; my beliefs, are not reflected in all that I preach. This confusion within, is it a conflict of heart and mind or the restlessness of this soul of mine? To find ourselves amidst this wandering, in the desert sand we wallow in our undying plea. If only we realise that right where we fell is where we left ourselves, then we wouldn't have to scour the earth just to find something we have left behind. If one can find acceptance in his breast and conviction in his heart, then blow the winds of a thousand nights would change not his zest for life. Where we wonder about about the nature of the self and wander the wilderness of our lonely hearts... This is the land of Nod. But in God we know just where we belong, come rain or sun weathers not the cornerstone of his promise to us... This is where our new Eden is found. (P.S.: Genesis 4:16: "So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden." "Nod" means "wandering" in Hebrew.) the transcendent one speaks 2009-05-21 8.45GMT +8hrs Babel Even though we speak the same language, we fail to understand each other. It is more than just an intellectual linguistical problem at its root. It is a socio-cultural problem with huge implications. Situation, not knowledge; circumstances, not vocabulary. An American mother who has lost her son in the Middle-Eastern War. An Afghanistan woman bereaved by the death of her son in an air raid. So what if they're on different sides, speak different languages and do not have a clue who the oher female in question is? Both of them understand what it feels like to grief; both feel the same anguish of having their flesh and blood ripped away from them. Speech is unnecessary. We only need to feel. Clarification is disrespectful. We only need to empathise. Understanding is not merely about having the same point of view. Holding a different perspective and yet appreciating another: now that is genuine understanding. Verbal communication can only advance us so much in developing human relationships. We can only hear what is meant to be heard but not what should have been said. Values and Morals; Principles and Ideas. Like a playful chimpanzee and a laughing hyena, both are laughing for a different reason. What use is there in speaking the same language when we mean different things? Friends are not individuals who have many things in common or even many shared memories to bag. Friends are persons who can converse in the same "heart" language as yourself. From soccer fans to ex-classmates, it would be no surprise if we can find no one that understand us quite as well as the bookworm girl-next-door who you are at loggerheads with. Opposites attract, but not in the superficial way of finding their differences amusing and novel. Instead, in a way where the differences between individuals can be neglected because of a solidarity one has found with another on a much deeper level. Know that you cannot use the Bible in an argument against an Atheist, and neither can you use the rules to reproach one who doesn't live by any. We often forget that language is just another way to convey the message. The weary undertone of the eyes, the subtle quiver of the lower lip conveys far more than the overly cheerful tone of assurance. Language is a vital tool for understanding, but it isn't the most important for understanding. Compassion is. the transcendent one speaks 2009-05-17 2.58GMT +8hrs Shortchanged In life, one can never tell which end of the straw he has until it is too late. It would be best if relationships with others are balanced and equal, but one realises soon enough this is virtually impossible. Since we can never know beforehand, it may be best to wager as Pascal advocated. To wager the more favourable side or at least the side we have more reason to believe. The lover and the loved; it is not always easy to know which side has the higher pay off. I wonder how many of you would choose "the loved"? To be loved by someone we do not fancy or waiting in vain to be loved. What is worst would be the inability to reciprocate the same amount of feeling and affection the other person gives. At least for me it would weigh heavily on my conscience; for the other person to get the shorter end. (Not that it happens very often.) Hence, instead of feeling the guilt of maintaining half-hearted relationships, feeling the anguish of unrequited relationships is better. Not better in the emotional sense, both are equally painful in their own ways, but knowing that my conscience is clear and my motive is true. The saying goes, "victims can still sleep at night, but their torturers lose sleep to their nightmares." Sometimes even though I know I am losing out and even foolish to invest so much into a relationship that will not bear fruit, at least I can account to myself that my concern has been appreciated; my presence has touched lives. I guess this is the only way I know and maybe the pains of rejection and loss are more familiar to me than I dare to admit. But taking the initiative to care and love opens greater exposure and chance for more people to reciprocate the feeling. Of course that would also mean its far share of pain and sadness, yet would not the joy of one true friend be worth many more times all the hurt and pain? Relationship is so much more intimate than you and the other; it is you and yourself, your actualise self. Being true to one's self is the only way someone can hope to become a true friend to you. No matter how well loved you are, bein someone other than your true self would mean other love who you are not. In other words, no one loves you since no one knows who "You" really are. So if being loved meant carrying myself in a way that the majority accepts but causes me to forfeit my self identity, then it would be better not to accept such love. If I showed love to others in my own special way, I would know for sure that my true friends are those who return that love with a genuine heart. To want to be loved, the chances of gaining more friends is higher but with a much lower probability of finding true friends. What more, it sometimes forces one to compromise being their true self. While taking that initiative to love others may leave us more empty than we were initially but the chances of gaining that true friend is so much more certain. Unless you care not for friends that last or matter, choose then to take the chance to love others through showing care and concern. In the process of loving I'm sure you will be loved in returned; loved for the person you really are. the transcendent one speaks 2009-05-09 9.53GMT +8hrs Double Society equates skewed standards to hypocrisy. How we expect such high standards of our family and friends and yet we ourselves do not bother to improve in those respective areas. Is this not being hypocritical? To ask our others what we ourselves do not advocate? 1. Self Interest I would say no. After all how is it different from a person who is undeserving of a reward and yet longs for it? Even though we are so flawed, undeserving of any recognition or reward, we'd still expect our friends to be that much more understanding toward us. Sometimes we feel that others are just not on the same level as us, in their taste, their skill or just the level of conversation. When values and opinions clash, it always seems to be the duty of one to convert the other. It is not merely about our expectations of others but how as humans we naturally want people to share the same ideas and values as ourselves. In a way, we'd prefer our loved ones to be like-minded so as to lessen confrontations and uneasy situations where there is a clash of interest. 2. Succession But sometimes it is not always about self-interest. Have you ever just sat in the bleachers, be it a sports game or computer game, to watch your favourite player or team compete and feel as if you have won when they do? Well I have. Not being atheletic or a "gamer", I would prefer to seat by the side and watch my brother or cousins play and consider their win my win as well. In this way, one can live out their hopes and dreams in someone else. Just like how some parents who could not meet the mark want their children to succeed where they have failed. Yet does it not happens often, when the player or loved one we support makes stupid mistakes or is not performing as well as we expect them to and we end up scolding or swearing? If you would like to call it, sometimes this is just a spontaneous reaction for supporters. We are all supporters of our loved ones and as such we can become very judgemental toward their performance like one is when watching a game. It is a competitive spirit placed on someone else instead of the self. 3. Love But I believe for many when someone is so close to our hearts we just want them to do better. Somehow our love for them just translates to expectation. Hence, the more we love them, the higher an expectation we have of them. I admit I have double standards because I are more motivated to see others improve than care about my own self improvement. At times when friends are going through a difficult situation, you want them to have a little more of your resilience or maybe a little more wisdom. Seeing them commit mistakes you yourself would not can be very aggravating. You want to step in and take control of their situation but it is not our place to do so. Self Interest, Succession and Love are all interconnected. Basically it is a struggle between standards for ourselves and standards for others. Towards our loved ones, we impose both our own self interest and succession. For them to succeed and what we could not and be as competent in the areas we find success in. Thus, double standards are but a reflection of our we view ourselves and those around us. It is not being hypocritical. It is just that the distribution of our affection for things that matter are different from the next person. the transcendent one speaks 2009-05-08 5.34GMT +8hrs Ex-Change Circumstances make a man. How true is that? Some of my friends are returning home while others are preparing to go over for Student Exchange Programmes (SEP). It may only be half a year, but I believe so much would change. Them and me. Being exposed to a different society and culture, it would broaden their perspective and knowledge. The presence of unfamiliar surroundings and the lack of familiar aid would force one to grow more independent and stronger. But it is not merely something that happens to those thrust into a foreign land. Even individuals in the comforts of their home might experience certain discomforts. It must be nice to have a smooth-sailing, trouble-free life. No pain and even less heartache. Almost like a fairytale. But even fairytales has that plot climax where the characters grit is tested and courage put under fire. Happy people don't grow up/develop as much as troubled individuals. Happy events may help us to grow, more happy obviously, and maybe grow more physically. But sometimes our mental and spiritual growth is frustrated. Without trials and temptations, it is almost impossible to build character and perserverance. Maturity does not comne with age, it comes with experience and circumstance. It would be needless to go on since most readers know all these already. But would you prefer the good life over spiritual maturity? Does material and creature comforts worth more than one's mental and spiritual development? I'm sure my friends who have gone and are going on SEP would return a changed person. Maybe not a drastic change but at least a change of perspective and more new ideas. That is not to say that there is no ample opportunity of growth in the comforts of your home. I'm sure that right now everyone has his or her own problems to deal with. How we deal with them helps or hamper our personal growth as a moral and virtuous human being. Our virtues and values, morals and principles, were all built upon how the trials of life and the myriad of experiences have impacted our hearts and minds. You will change and I will change. But we want to grow spiritually and develop as more mature individuals. Only pain and suffering makes us stronger, wiser and better. Money might make a man but only as far as his clothes and arrogance goes. There is no problem of evil, only the problems that evil bring and the improvements that come with surmounting them. the transcendent one speaks 2009-05-01 5.59GMT +8hrs Love Command Theory "Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?" - Euthyphro, Plato This question is the Euthyphro dilemma that has been troubling Divine Command Theorist, those who advocate that God's command dictates what is morally good. The problem lies in the fact that it seems purely arbitary that God could well have chosen "thou shall murder" as a moral commmandment and it would be right. I agree with William of Ockham, who agree that if that is indeed what God chooses then murdering would be moral. It only seems absurd because we are moral agents. But being made in the image of God, who is omnibenevolent, then it follows that if God was a God who dictated immorality as right then would we not be born immoral agents? If such reasoning seems to unfazed you it is only because you view the argument in light of the Ten Commandment, or something equivalent. It is the moral law. And a law such as this should be impartial even to God. But undermining God's sovereignty in such a way would mean that either there is no God or it is untrue that God commands actions because they are morally good. The Atheists can keep their view on the former but they are in no position to postulate that the Divine Command is falsified as a result. We read in the new testament of the Bible that we are no longer subjected under law but under love. When asked by the Pharisees what was the greatest commandment, Jesus summarised all ten commandments into two commandments which all the law and the prophets hung on. First, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Second, "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:36-40, The Bible) If God is merely Law, then it would seem unfair that just because he commands that it shall be. But thankfully our God is a God of Love. Having the omni property of omnibenevolence, it is out of love that he advocates our moral behaviour and the commandments. During the Passover, Jesus gave his disciples a new commandment, "Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35, The Bible) It is a love by example and a very practical love indeed that as a result births moral actions. The reason for a divine command is not merely as a law to obey but as an action of love by God for all of us to love one another. Thus, there is no Euthyphro dilemma here since after all, "An action is morally good because God's love commands it." We should not judge God's morality based on what is right or wrong since his morality is no instituted like laws in human courts. His morality is founded in love. I think maybe "Divine Command" is the wrong term for God's commandments and it would be more accurate to call them, "Love Command" since after all it is his love, his perfect love, that commands of us. Hence, we should not pursue morality wholly on what kind of actions are morally befitting but what sort of actions shows love for one another. If you love one another as God loves you and love your neighbour as you love yourself then I believe that is true morality. the transcendent one speaks 2009-04-30 3.30GMT +8hrs Divine Foreknowledge There seems to be an inconsistency between the idea of human freedom and preordainment, the idea that God has decided your future for you. Yet, it is quite clear in the Bible that God gives us the freedom to choose. And not just to choose to do something, but also the power to choose to do otherwise. As such, preordainment (which is in fact fatalism) is false. If God champions humans freedom then he does not preordain. It would most probably be true that a world with human freedom is the best possible world God can create. With that said, the issue of reconcilling human freedom with God's divine foreknowledge is more difficult. To say that God knows before we were born what would happen to us in the future does not seem like we have freedom at all. If he knew what we would choose to do, then how is that true freedom at all? The ancient philosopher Boethius has suggested that maybe God is time transcendent, as in he is not bounded by the notion of time like humans are. Thus, his knowledge of human past and human future events is known to him like it were the present. It does somewhat redefine the definition of foreknowledge, but does very little to actually reconcile it with human freedom. At least from God's perspective, would humans still not have freedom since he already knows what they would do eventually. The problem probably does not lie in a mere inconsistency between the two concepts but our lack of understanding of what this foreknowledge is. After all, we attribute the property of omniscience to him, that he is all-knowing, and hence it would be fair to say he knows what will happen to us in the future. But what really does it mean when we say, "God knows before we were born what will happen to us in the future"? It is the understanding of foreknowledge that is faulty and as a result cause the inconsistency we are now faced with. Take a case of a person with an ability to accurately guess correctly on all counts what you would do next, mutually independent of any information leak between the two persons. Does it the follow then that we do not have any freedom just because this amazing person knows all our future actions? Of course not, he is merely tapping upon his skill of guessing and not in any way, directly or indirectly, influencing my actions in a certain way. What more then for a God who is omniscient to not be able to know if we would do something or otherwise? We have been putting two and two together. The origins of human freedom comes from the property of God's omnibenevolence while the origins of divine foreknowledge from his omniscience. If we agree that his omni-properties do not come into conflict with one another, then we have to agree that whatever follows from those omni-properties are not inconsistent with one another. In our human mind, we may not be able to see how the pieces fit together, but who are we to impose our limited knowledge to judge God's sovereignty and wisdom? We have the freedom to choose, it is just that God has this amazing ability to know just what it is were are inclined to choose. The more important point is that because of his omnibenevolence he would not preordain us to do good but allowed us the freedom to choose to do evil even though he knew we would freely choose rebellion against him. The freedom that comes from God's omnibenevolence does not dwindle his foreknowledge that comes with his omniscience (P.S.: With that said, the responsibility of freedom is upon us and any misuse of this freedom will be answered with its consequences and punishment.) the transcendent one speaks 2009-04-26 4.35GMT +8hrs Proximity Paradox In relationships, it is not uncommon to hear one partner call the other the "missing half" or "the one who makes me complete". It may sound like such a beautiful conception of two individuals being really close to each other, but it does carry with it some unintended consequences. Being in a romantic relationship with someone is indeed akin to being one person; two parts that complete a whole. In a way, the other person becomes a part of your being. Hence, your beliefs, values and ideas are also enforced upon him or her whom you view as an intrincate part of one's identity. It is not merely being overly emotional or controlling, it is a mere consequence of being so close with one another. How would you feel if your mouth or one of your limbs began to act in a way contrary to what you would do; deciding to say something you do not advocate or walk somewhere you do not want to be? The absurdity of the matter aside, I believe you would feel exasperated and infuriated. Similarly, it would be only normal to feel uncomfortable if your significant other, a person that is like a part of you, were to act in a way that you do not condone or appreciate. This does not only pertain to romantic relationships alone, any kind of person-to-person relationship can sour because of such a problem. Don't we wish that we were not affected by that disobedient mouth or unco-operative limb? To appear less "controlling", one has to care less about every little detail in his or her significant other's life. But do you not see the paradox? To be more magnanimous toward another we have to become less sensitive toward them. Wait a minute, how did I jump from that to this?! Sensitivity is develop only when we are close to the person and understand every little detail. But sensitivity tends to lead to over-sensitivity; every little detail that does not go down right with us gets on our nerves. To be more accepting and understanding toward the actions and decisions we may not approve, it would be easier to disassociate with the matter altogether than try to come to terms with it. You could obviously tell him or her you disapprove, but that is precisely the definition of being "controlling". In the end, to ensure one does not need to deal with such complicated cases of personal opinion conflicting with public freedom the best solution is emotional detachment. One can see just how the desire for humans to be close to one another can result in such strife. If one is concerned over every aspect of another person's life, he will be disliked for being too controlling. If one doesn't voice his opinion and let the other person decide freely, he will be disliked for being uncaring. Where then is the balance point between sensitivity and magnanimity? Wanting to make sure she doesn't get hurt and yet not wanting to see her stay undeveloped forever. Such a painful decision. the transcendent one speaks 2009-04-18 2.50GMT +8hrs Sanctification Saturday 10th April 2009 1200hrs. I didn't see him hanging on the cross, at least not in person. I saw the cross on the wall of the sanctuary, it was a beautiful cross. Varnished mahogany wood, or maybe it was birch. But unlike him I was no carpenter; what did I even know about what wood crosses were made of? Even if this was the only friday church service in the year it was worth missing to have been at calvary's hill. I wasn't there, I wouldn't know. I only heard, heard from my place in the pews. 1300hrs. There he hung, I presume, heaving his dying breath while I was enjoying my lunch oblivious to his cry to heaven. The cross was that way, yet I walked the other way. Nearer to my earthly destination, further from my heavenly destination. The sky was dark, but I suppose it would have been pitch black over the skies of Golgotha. 1500hrs. When he finally took his last breath it began to rain in Singapore. It was no local showers, but a nationwide storm. Torrents of rain accompanied with flashes of lightning. The sound of thunder resounding in my head, and yet I found it merely a troublesome inconvenience. While I purchased my merchandise from over the counter, he purchased my life with his blood. 1600hrs. I thought the rain would have gotten lighter, but it didn't seem to be giving up, pouring down heavier and stronger than it has been in months. Suddenly, it came to me just how much rain it takes to have washed my sinful life clean. And yet this showers of rain signify the tears of the Father if Golgotha had weather like Singapore. I couldn't run away. I was stranded; stuck in a building I have no reason to stay at any longer. But would I have stayed longer at the foot of the cross to hope the rain could drench the my tears when I see him suffering for my sake? 11th April 2009 1500hrs. Saturday. Again it rained, a little less than the day before and yet still turning the sky dark as night. I sit in my room, thankful I am not outside in such omnimous weather. But what really should I be thankful about? Should I not be thankful of the clear after the storm; the light the pierces the darkness? Between Friday at Calvary and Sunday's empty tomb, for this day with no name, the tears of God rain down on both the good and evil, the saved and the unsaved. For it is by God's tears that we are cleansed, by his son's blood that we are saved. Like how rain from heaven washes away all the filth of the earth. Today the 11th April 2009 is Sanctification Saturday: The day we are assured that even in mourning we will find comfort, in death we will find new life; a new beginning. So Holy Spirit, rain down... the transcendent one speaks 2009-04-11 10.42GMT +8hrs Complete Verse Far back enough to call her a childhood friend, but then too unacquainted to call her my friend. Only years later in secondary school would it be accurate to say that she was not just a friend in school but a friend of mine. In all honesty, our temperaments are probably polar opposites. More times than not, I seem to be threading thin ice around her while she tolerates my lack of tact. I have to admit that it is sometimes really uncomfortable. Yet it is this awkwardness between us that shows just how much both of us treasure our friendship. Both of us continue to try, both of us never gave up on each other. Sometimes she can be overbearing and demanding of people and I mean it in no vile way since it's this mark of a leader that gets lazy individuals like me off their bums. Though I must admit it does get on my nerves. But people change, I have changed and her as well. It's refreshing to see a more relaxed and uncertain her, reminding me that no matter how much she seem like she has everything under control, deep inside, she's still a girl at heart. There have been many times we have soured our friendship in the past but only one occasion, that up till this day, I still hold close to my heart: how she's been like an older sister to me. Though out of my own selfish convenience I chose to dispense with the "sister-brother" relations and stick with just being friends, I still really see her as a big sister. I've been a bad brother to her because I always expect her to be that ideal older sister to me and it puts a greater strain on her. I do not know how what she thinks of this "brother" of hers, but personally, I know that I could never have been the person I was meant to be without her. As her birthday approaches (a woman's age is sensitive, but if you know my age then it's no secret), I want to take this opportunity to wish her all the best and apologise for the many years of ungratefulness. You know, maybe we're not as close as I hope we could be or as loving as real sibling should be, I still want to thank you for all the times you have made me remember just how wonderful your presence has been. I know now you may be far away from here, but it doesn't change the fact that at this very moment you're at the front of my mind. I guess if I said anymore I'd just sound all mushy and I bet you won't like it; make it even more awkward. So... Happy Birthday Big Sis! Even as there's so much I cannot help or support you with, I'll continue to pray for you. "Happy Birthday to you! Happy Birthday to you! Happy Birthday to Big Sis! Happy Birthday to you!" the transcendent one speaks 2009-04-10 6.20GMT +8hrs Beautifulistic Interpretations of beauty hinge on two concepts of value: aesthetics and taste. Taste is an institutionalised education by society on a certain standard of beauty. Body of model, voice of a singer and elegance of a princess; we can sum it up as disposition of a Hollywood star. This is the standard of beauty of the 21st century. Big breast, slim waist, firm buttocks, smooth long legs, big eyes, well defined lips and the list goes on... But Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Judgment writes that such a standard of beauty is no based on innate qualities, but rather on cultural specifics and individual interpretations. The Judgment of Beauty he claims is sensory, emotional and intellectual all at once. When we make a judgment about someone or something as beautiful, it must evoke not only our five senses but also our emotions and reflective contemplation. Obviously there has been much of societal taste that has infected our innate ability to judge what we deem beautiful but it is not altogether lost within us. Personally there are many girls out there I deem as beautiful by standards of society, but only a few that can cause me to do a double take and spend the rest of the day in reflective contemplation. The senses in the case of beautiful people require our eyes and ears (and to some extent the other three senses, for those who get what I mean). For example, on first impression one could feel that a person is beautiful and alluring but once he or she sees and hears the manner of speech and the refinement of actions may think otherwise. Sometimes due to our acquired taste in people, it would sometimes be better to shut off our senses to judge. What do I mean? It is common and almost a standard set-up to use online messengers to chat with friends. Such an indirect way of acquaintance would block out preconceived notions and starry-eyed emotions. Instead, based on linguistics and content of the conversation it will in a way evoke certain emotions that are not based purely on sensory intuitions. One may feel a sense of warmth or comfort, or even camaraderie. Feelings of being able to find someone who understands; feelings of knowing there is someone who has gone through similar pains as yours. It is heartwarming and encouraging all the same. This sort of emotional upwelling is often complemented by reflective contemplation. So what is "reflective contemplation"? After all I have used it three times so far. It is how a person's beauty causes our minds to attend to it even though it has been days ago that one has experienced such beauty, and seriously contemplate what makes him or her beautiful enough to evoke such emotions inside of us. I do not mean fantasising or day dreaming. It is a reflection of various aspects of beauty more than skin deep. Emotions that well up because of intrinsic nature and not physical characteristics. There is a deeper meaning to such beauty. Now this is true beauty: when it causes us to question the foundations of contemporary beauty and when we find that no other can rival it but unconditional true love. Her beauty is more than just skin deep. It comes from inside through the words she write and through words that escape her lips, to her every movement and mannerism. There is beauty far more than physical bodily beauty that defines someone has truly beautiful. To me, her compassion for others, her deep thoughts and her sensitivity towards those she loves evokes so much heartfelt emotion and introspection into my own life. A beauty that can affect me this deeply as to question my beliefs and values. Now that is truly beautiful to me. the transcendent one speaks 2009-03-31 4.03GMT +8hrs Silence I present two views on prayer: "Maybe God answers prayer as his silence is certain" "Certainly God answers prayer but maybe we do not hear it" God's silence seems to imply this hiddennes of God from us, but maybe like the latter statement it is only because we do not bother to seek him. It seems wholly irrational to me that individuals who believe their fervent prayers have not been answered by God begin to lament and blame God. If indeed we believe that God is who he is: omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good; a perfect being, then why do we for a second think that God would have been mistaken to not have answered our prayers in the way we hope for? There is an epistemic gap; a rift between his perfect knowledge of what is good for us and our own fallible knowledge. As Christians, when we lose hope in God we end up blaming and get frustrated at him like we would our parents who had forgotten to buy us our birthday present. But why is this so? It does not make any sense. The God and creator of everything is merciful enough to hear our plights and we take his response to our problems as unsatisfactory. We have no right to be disatisfied; we have no right to be angry at God. If we think there is no answer to our prayer then it would seem far more logical to assume that no such God exists. But the emotional upheavel against seemingly unanswered prayers show that for a moment we do not doubt God's existence and capacity. We place a high standard for God is meet our needs, but it is only by human standards and unbeknownst to us our expectations of God are laughable by Godly standards. Yet God does not mock our selfish expectations we have of him. Only hoping that by faith we would trust that nothing we fathom is quite as perfect as what he has installed for our lives. Seeing our own disappointment and frustration that God doesn't answer of prayers the way we hope means that we do not doubt his existence and his power to answer. That being so, should we not also accord to him the reverance that he is God and his answer to us is perfect; that even Godly silence is a perfect answer? Just because we have a personal God doesn't mean we treat him as we would a service helpline expecting our problems to be solve as we so please. He is God! Is there anything more to say? Either you believe that he is and stay faithful or conclude he does not exist. God's silence should not evoke your complains. Instead it should evoke repentance as it may mean our pride and sin is keeping us from hearing God. God always hears you, but do you even try to hear him? the transcendent one speaks 2009-03-29 4.34GMT +8hrs The Author No one thinks its their good fortune to have chanced upon their neighbourhood library. Even then as I was perusing the shelves I never thought the entitlement of being in one was in anyway a privilege in the least. Browsing soon got old; my disobedient eyes slipped across my hall of my vision and escaped into the peripheral. They alerted me of something quite unsual which snapped me out of my soliloquy with the shelves in question. No sooner had my eyes scampered off did I realise my legs following after. Probably couldn't compare with a gig by a movie star or a preview of a book getting its Hollywood treatment. Arranged systematically while trying to appear aesthetically appealing, the panels were inviting for a class of other reasons. Upon closer inspection did I give some assurance to my perplexed mind that its initial inquisition was not in vain. They were essays. Essays good enough for the library to put up; essays that I expect no less of. In all honesty, as I scan and eyeballed along the adjacent panels I had to say I was much disappointed. Apart from precise grammer and wonderfully articulated words, none was quite as interesting to read as was it interesting to stare at white sheets of paper. As I was about to write it off as an experience no different as that of shelf-perusing, a couple of black printed letters suddenly jumped from the paper grabbing hold of my attention; not letting go. It didn't have quite as much technical perfection as its precessors before it but such a humble paper wrote with such magnanimous grammer and colourful vocabulary kept me from passing judgment far too quickly. Like a willy fox, the essay had such a lively aura to it that it was difficult to put my finger on exactly what made it so entrancing. Before I could come to a unanimous consensus with all my senses, I found myself standing shoulder to head with a girl. Before I realised, I was half an inch away from her judging the proximity too uncomfortable. But as I took a peek out of the corner of my eye, her beauty held my gaze. Even before I could break the spell, my gaze had caught her attention and she smiled meekly at me. "How do you find this essay? I don't think it's very interesting is it?" I didn't know why I felt insulted, maybe it was because my taste had been insulted or maybe I was disturbed by the prospect that even this wasn't good enough for others to peruse. "I don't think so, I think it's great. The ideas are all captured in colour and delivered in such a dreamlike manner. Maybe you think I am not worthy to judge such a work as good, but I feel so touched just by reading it and I know that's truly how it makes me feel." Now I've done it, did I really have to be so honest toward a person I only got to know the last couple of minutes? She must think I'm weird. But she dipped her head and smiled from the corner of her lips, turned around and disappeared amongst the shelves of books. A week of school pass before I found myself in the library again, just that this time I had a purpose for coming. Walking in the direction of the long hallway, I was greeted warmly by the panels all eager to show off their new designs of pen and paper. It wasn't long before I noticed the same author of the paper I enjoyed last week was back with another one. I was apprehensive yet dying to know what it was going to be about. As I digest the beautiful phrases I was glad that her writing had not let my expectations down. Finishing the last few lines of the paper, I noticed the same girl standing at the same spot she was last week. This time I didn't jump. This time I confidently look her in the eye and said smugly, "so are you here to critique the quality of these essays again? I hope at least this piece would have met your standards." "It will never ever meet my standards..." I was quite infuriated and for the lack of more composed words I could say, I asked, "Why?!" "Because I feel what I have written is still not good enough for me. But I really appreciate that you enjoy my essays enough to come to back again to read. I was afraid I'd not see you again." Indeed, don't judge a book by its cover but by the depth of its content. I learnt that full well that day. Many years have passed since then and she has continued to write more essays, but this time she wasn't writing for the library but for me. I would never have thought that through a piece of writing, two persons can come to appreciate and understand each other. Today, she is the closet person to me, and like her essays, she is just as beautiful to read and just as wonderful to be with. Who says it's not one's good fortune to have access to a library? the transcendent one speaks 2009-03-21 8.00GMT +8hrs Linguistics Words. Phrases. Sentences. They are used for communication between people, and translated into many different languages, taking on different meanings across different generations. Obviously we're not stupid nor mentally incapacitated. The words and phrases we use, day in and day out, are those whose understanding we have come to grasp firmly. For if we could not understand its meaning, how then can we use terms to their proper effect? But sometimes, understanding is not enough. Even if we can understand a phrase's meaning and develop the ability to apply it accurately, we do not always know what it really means. When I use the word "know", I mean to have experienced and understood it both through sensory and intellectual perception. In this scientific age, more often than not, our understanding of words will always have that intellectual dimension to them. But it is the experiential definition to the linguistics we use that causes a sudden dawning on our conscious thought; causing us to gain a new awareness to something old from a new prespective. For example, phrases like "absence makes the heart fonder" or "familiarity breeds contempt". I'm sure most my readers will have fully grasp their meaning and usage. But have we also not at a point in time felt the context of their meanings etched fresh upon our minds and hearts? This is the power of language; the power of words. The english language may only consist of 25 alphabets. And over the years, all the possible permutations between those letters have birthed the formation of every phrase and sentence possible. And yet, it may surprise one to know just how a phrase we have internalised into our daily lives is known and yet not fully known. A lot of good advice has become cliche, but much of good advice we can give are sometimes the advice we most need. Circumstances and situations, humanity and nature. These can causes us to look at a familiar refrain and look at it in a totally different light. Everything has been said, but not everything has been meant. Everything has been heard, but not everything has been felt. Sometimes, we think all talk is empty. And that is right. But talk, not just as one who knows all the meanings in the words he says, but as one who means all the words in the knowledge he says. Just because we don't say it doesn't mean we don't mean it. But if we don't say it then who would know we meant it? the transcendent one speaks 2009-03-17 10.30GMT +8hrs Incomplete Why do you think life is a finite phase? Going back in Christian history, the book of Genesis talks about the fall of man when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Their disobedience led to sin which is separation from God. This imperfect life filled with suffering and strife, sin and death is the phase in which God is changing and making us into people without sin; a process of reconciliation back to him and to Godly perfection. I believe some of you might have wished we could live longer, or even wish we were immortal. Christians, and maybe even some other theistic religions, believe in life after death; a new life in a perfect heaven with God. We know that life is a process by which God is refining us to become worthy of his heavenly banquet. Immortality on this earth would mean that humanity is a hopeless race, fated to live in sin and condemnation. If you think taking your own life will quicken the process to heaven then you are quite mistaken. God in his time has arranged a time when he feels one is ready to enter the kingdom of heaven. Escaping the arduous and painful process of refinement is similar to cheating in a race to get the prize. There is no true justification for our victory, only deceit. Which leads to the next question some people ask... Why then do good people die early and bad people live long? I believe some after reading what I have written above can answer it as well, but I will extrapolate for the benefit of the majority. Probably, good people have reached a stage of spiritual maturity and Christlikeness that God has completed the refinement process of their souls and so their purpose on earth is complete. God is giving bad people a chance to repent and change from their wicked ways and embrace Christlikeness so that one day they too may become spiritually mature as well. Basically, the duration of our life on earth is determined by what purpose God still has for us. I believe that if God is not done with me yet, he will preserve my life until I have fulfilled my purpose for him here on earth. Another question to this would be, "why then is the purpose of a baby who is born today and dies tomorrow? Is there any point in the baby's suffering?" I'm inclined to say yes. Not knowing what purpose the baby has does not mean there isn't one. The death of the baby could positively impact the parents and the community in ways no one would have thought possible. Furthermore, is it not better for the aforementioned baby to enter the knogdom of God without enduring the suffering of this world? An epistemic gap exist; a gap difference between God's knowledge and ours. One could never know the true purpose of life or death. But knowing we have a God who knows all is the best consolation. the transcendent one speaks 2009-03-12 1.34GMT +8hrs Gender Balance: What Women Want... Really! Personally I would want to protect, support and lead the woman I will come to marry. What is a man without chivalry? What then is one with pride? Let us not mistake male chivalry for egoistic pride. Feminist have influenced many to embrace an idea of equality among gender and that is perfectly fine. But what of feministic pride if it burst male pride and more more importantly destroy male chivalry in society? Denying males their chance of chivalry is only the lost of women. And maybe the complaints of women the men are not gentlemen is their own undoing. Why should men be gentlemen to women who in no way behave like ladies? The problem is not in the patrichal state of things. The real problem lies in the consequences society has to bear when there is a change into an gender egalitarian state. If my future wife wants to exercise her "chivalry" and decides to protect, support and lead me I can either agree to some and disagree to others. Is there really a need to see it as a moral breakdown of the social order? Women who want to have an equal footing as men then deserve a similar treatment as men. No? If equality in the general sense is all there is, then there is little dispute. But in the stricter sense, it would seem unfair to fight for only the positive points of men and avoid receiving the negative ones. Such is the irony that when women strive to gain equality with men, an unequal system transpires when females want to hold onto their privileges as women while haggering for those of men. If by choice, we become matrichal it fine. But if what we seek is a perfect gender egalitarianism then would that not lose the whole meaning of man/woman? In a group there will always be a leader, natural or elected. The same goes for a couple or a family. Either the man or the woman should take on the more dominating "male" traits. Besides fighting for a world where traits like "dominating" and "leader" one day attribute also to women, everything else is fighting for something more radical than feminism itself. Actually, it is more than radical, it is just crazy. Feminism is quite conservative in nature. But it is an idea of balance more than equality. Maybe the problem really lies in the misleading use of the word "equality" when feminist meant balance of genders. the transcendent one speaks 2009-03-09 4.17GMT +8hrs Unborn "If you had a choice, would you prefer to have been born or never born into this world?" I had no choice. Did you? It would definitely have been different: to have existed versus never existing at all. But one would not have been greater than another. A fatalist or realist would argue that since this world is full of corruption and vices, one would only be worst off if he or she is born into this world. An optimist or clergyman may say in return that even so there is beauty and value in the interactions and experiences one born into this world can have. If it isn't already evident to you, let me spell it out: there is equal opportunity cost in existence and non-existence. Think about it for a moment, only existing allows us to even question existence itself. A non-existence cannot have a "existence questioning" experience. Even if someone in this world believed that non-existence were better than existence, his ability to even construe that is what supersedes a state of non-existence. Believing it were better to never have existed is equivalent to believing in the notion of existence. Why? Choice can only be made in existence. Having preferences even about existence or non-existence is itself declaring our love of existence. The converse then would be those who have no preference, or at least, feel that both existence and non-existence have equal value, i.e. equal opportunity. All this talk can go on, but it should come to an end. It must come to an end, because keeping at it does not change the fact we exist. Yet it is important; important for bring forth the next generation to come: Children. Those who are about to come into existence are similar to non-existing beings: they have no choice. The choice lies in us, and a little divine intervention, whether or not a baby to brought forth into this world. Be it possible worlds or other dimensions and the many multiple existences of the same person, the stakes are the same; while not in the same form, at least in the same weight. Only through loss can we gain something; in our gain we lose something else. In Full Metal Alchemist, this is known as "Equivalent Exchange" (Touka Koukan). Maybe in some context, choosing non-existence is the same as choosing death (ending existence). But I beg to differ. From where we come to where we go, it may be the same place, it may be different places. Maybe we just disappear and slip into non-existing. But even so, there is a difference. A non-existing being will forever stay non-existent. But a no longer existing being will continue to exist within the hearts and minds of those in existence. I guess immortality is more tangible than non-existence after all... the transcendent one speaks 2009-03-05 10.11GMT +8hrs Clear Skies I've not seen a rainbow in years. Actually I can't even remember the last time I saw one. Soon rainbows will join the same category that unicorns and dragons fall under; mythical. There will be no rainbow without rain. At least a rainbow that doesn't follow from the end of rain is but a colourful-striped bow. But all I see is rain, and I meant it literally. I don't like rainy days. Why do you like rainy days? For a rainbow after the rain? Now I know why I dislike rain. I'm always denied the opportunity of seeing a rainbow. I know how it looks like, in pictures; in the imagination. But only a real rainbow could evoke more than a mere good feeling from me. If you told me the literal parallels the figurative I would call you dishonest. While I've yet to see a physical rainbow in the sky, my life's sky has seen countless rainbows accompanying all the worst storms. Rainbows are reliant on rain, but not the other way around. Rain and storms come and go as they like and so it is with those in our lives. While I berate the rainstorms that dampen the air and puddle the streets, I probably wait in eager anticipation for the rains in my life because there will always be a beautiful rainbow. I don't know how it feels to see a real physical rainbow and be awe inspired by God's wonderful creation. But at least I know I continue to stand in awe of him for all the rainbows he has created through all the storms in my life that never disappear. A rainbow in the sky will fade away, but the experience of a rainbow will not. Likewise, the rainbows in my heart will always stay to remind me that God is able. I don't have to see rainbows to be reminded of God's power because I will continue to hear the pitter patter of the rain that comes before it falling down. For those who have been seeing rainbows in the sky lately, it is your fortune that you can see and believe. But blessed is he who does not see and still believes. The rainbow in the clouds is God's promise ot mankind to never flood the earth again. A promise to me that no matter how hard the storms rain down in my life, he will always bring me above the floods. It'll be nice to see a rainbow in the sky after so long. But even if I don't, I would not be any less fulfilled. the transcendent one speaks 2009-02-27 3.09GMT +8hrs Power Rules Biggest guns. Highest risk. Top priority. First to go... Such is life; at the top, you can shoot at anyone, but remember, everyone can also take a clear shot at you. Office Politics. A more potent form of guerrilla warfare. Terrorism does not even begin to compare... The victors scarcely realise they have already won when their aggressors decide to wage war. Better to be killed clueless than fail to kill with fierce intent. While the hasty charges into the heat of battle, the slow reaches in time to collect the spoils. The earliest to reach are also the earliest to be gone. Just because the shadows have the element of surprise, and the light is just too blindingly stupid... the transcendent one speaks 2009-02-25 3.48GMT +8hrs Evolution Bliss causes us to look forward, but it doesn't make us move forward." The problem of evil. This problem is explained in a simple question, "If God were omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good then why does he still allow the existence of evil in this world?" While my interest lies in answering this question I will not attempt to do so directly. Instead, I propose a real-life analogy. Having lived across two decades, while not claiming myself wise beyond my years, I experience life with eyes of greater clarity than ever before. The people I grow up with, those who I watch grow up and those whom I'm growing up with. The change, be it drastic or minute, is no less amazing to see it happen. One who used to be weak now exude the strength to support others; another who lived life aimlessly is now striving towards realising a future. Physical growth is fascinating down to the telomere level but I think growth of maturity far supercedes that. Though I'm not a supporter of Darwinism, the theory of evolution, at least with regards to mental maturity, finds its truth. Suffering and pain; setbacks and misery. What are they? Without them do you think it were possible to mature? To improve? To exceed; to supercede the previous self? I look back and how I thought I must have been the most rotten and incorrigible person ever. And I see now just how the self I was in the past would never have fathom I'd become who I am today. I believe that only through God's help could such a miracle come to pass: to reform those ingrained vices of mine to embrace much detested virtues. While God could possibly achieve turning vices to virtue without allowing the suffering that plagues me, what will be the significance of the change without the gruelling experience? What worth is it to me if improvement came easy? What worth is it to me if there was no process to which I work to an end? It takes the meaning out of what it is to live as a human. Maybe to some of you, the notion of living is devoid of such tragedies. I guess I'm a sentimental person through and through, and what gives me hope is how I'm reminded when I'm faced with a mountain how I braved the hill before. Setbacks are but springboards that fall under our weight so that it might propel us when we are ready to leap. So, "What is the purpose of evil?" Maybe it is just that: a question of life that we answer as we live. the transcendent one speaks 2009-02-22 9.11GMT +8hrs Holiday Destination The sun hangs lazily amongst the puffy clouds as it warms the Mediterranean Sea. Would it matter so much which particular island this was as long as one could overlook such a tranquil sea? Suddenly I catch myself staring off into the distant waters, contemplative. I snap out of it, adjust my composure, turned back to look at her. Across the table, her eyes meet mine for a second before being awoken from her dreamy trance by a pang of embarrassment. I'm flattered. The waves crash hard in jealousy. I enjoy the draught as it tempts to take me away into another trance, I break its spell, promptly tracing my eyes along the line of her lips. She puckles them up before settling them into a purse. She looks up at me, smiles pensively; looks back down, her head to one side. No one knows when breakfast materialised but it was in front of me the next I checked the white patch before me: Poached Eggs, Ham and Toast for her; Sausages, Bacon and Scrambled Eggs for me. No sooner did I realise that I've only placed the second sliced piece of sausage to my lips. Food for thought? My movements retard, synchronised to the slow pacing of island time. My mind continues to wonder, free from the bonds of time or space. I watched her sip her glass of orange juice; carefully holding it with both hands, making sure she doesn't spill. She bites into her well buttered toast as it breaks crisply leaving a trail of crumbs around her lips. Relaying this information to her ensues in a flurry of serviette magic followed by a pout of self disapproval. Silly, but sweet. I smile. I've kept the waves long enough. No sooner had I turned towards them does she call me, stealing me away. I hear the sloshing of the waves in the background; their fate accepted. A slice of ham follows the glint of the cutlery as she holds the fork toward my mouth. I reciprocate. She smiles, with which I do the same. Or was it the other way around? I'm not sure. As I licked my lips her smile turns into a toothy grin, assuring me I have not made a wrong decision to bring her here. But I guess it doesn't really matter where or when we have a meal together. Everytime I look across the table into her eyes, it were as if I had been transported to a magical place such as this. Maybe I owe the sand and sea no credit for the lazy ambience to which I have succumbed so utterly to. The sea in her eyes takes me so much deeper than the depths of the Mediterranean bed. I run my fingers through her flowing hair, slowly caressing her cheek as I do so. Maybe what everyone needs isn't a overseas vacation but that special someone who appreciates them for who they are. A million holiday destinations, only one person I what to share them with. the transcendent one speaks 2009-02-18 12.50GMT +8hrs Same Difference "World Peace!" Such is the stereotypical and somewhat satirical refrain of Miss Universe fame. Equality; Egality. In some way or other we desire a fair world: between sexes, between class, between countries, between races. But would we actually trade our consciousness for true equality? This is because there is really no way for equality to be attained unless all of human kind were the same. When I say "same" I mean exact replicas; copies of the same mold. Reploids, Machines, Zombies (and not clones since two clones from the same origin will be very different in nature). So one shouldn't hope for a life of true equality and fairness amongst all men unless they would conceit that a life as a robot is most ideal. In fact, no one really wishes life to be fair. Only that life were not unfair. Humanity is not driven by intentions of altruism but of self interest. Even the inclination to help poverty stricken people may rise from a deep need to satisfy our own feelings of irk and guilt towards their situation. I don't doubt altruism, neither do I rule-out self justification. But really, what we strive for isn't equality but advantage because being merely equal is not enough. Unequal rights gives one the right to complain, but equal rights amounts to no rights at all. Diversity and uniqueness comes with the cost of inequality; it is inevitable. Conflict is a by-product of glaring differences between unique individuals. We are drawn to what is novel to us, and at the same time this novelty sparks friction between both persons. The day mankind can see eye to eye in every matter is the day all of us cease to be human anymore. Like harmony, strife is something that defines our humanity. The opposite of war isn't peace. It is congruence. How can we call it true peace if it forces us to sacrifice our identity for comformity? the transcendent one speaks 2009-02-08 13.49GMT +8hrs Comic Relief Humans have their ups and downs. We can have both positive and negative emotions; anger and sadness or happiness and excitement. When a good friend is sad, we'd want to cheer him or her up. Maybe by bringing them to a party, a gathering or even to watch a comical movie. Our intentions feel so right, to change a frown into a smile. But there is a time for everything, and just maybe it is time to feel sorrowful. Just maybe the person in question just wants to feel sad. Sadness and anguish find their appropriate circumstances. Don't rob the valid reason away. Just because we feel that being happy were better than being sad doesn't give us any right to snuff out negative emotions and replace them with positive ones. It is insensitive. It is selfish. The truth is happiness has no priority over sadness. Both are genuine emotions, therefore both deserve their time to show. Why do you think the living require time to mourn the dead? Or simply, why don't sorrowful individuals want to enter a cheery place? Definitely not because those individuals hate joy and love pain, but because feeling the pains of sorrow would be feeling right. Staying true to the emotions deep within ourselves is a way one self actualises; to be who one really is. Bringing good cheer to people in sorrow may bring them some respite but it'll elude their deep and desperate need to come to terms with their pain. I don't know about you, but I prefer not to watch comedy. Not because I don't like to laugh, but at least I wouldn't want to end up laughing when in fact there's much to feel somber about. You could say I take life a little too seriously. I guess I just live seriously. It must really be healthy and enjoyable to have a life full of laugh and joy. But would it be fulfilling just because it were happy? Does happiness really equate to fulfillment? There are times when we don't want to feel sad and hope someone would cheer us up. But other times, we want to be alone to make sense of the sadness we are experiencing. "Laughter is the best medicine." But the best medicine to cure what? No doubt in allievating the pain but in no way resolving what is causing this emotional pain. the transcendent one speaks 2009-02-07 8.26GMT +8hrs No Doubt Danish Philosopher and Theologian Søren Kierkegaard thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. There is no faith required to believe that material objects such as tables and chairs exist, since through sensory intuition we can see and touch them. As Kant wrote in The Critique of Pure Reason (and I paraphrase), "every rational being has an sensible part and an intelligible part." Just as the belief in objects in the physical world raises no doubt, belief in God and spirituality should evoke all doubt. It may sound intuitive to some and proposterous to others, but let me explain myself further. The part of us that is sensible (in other words our physical self), in its intrinsic nature believes what the five senses can interact with and doubt that which eludes them. This is where the line is drawn between true faith and blind faith. Blind faith disregards our rational doubt within us, believing as easily the existence of God as they would tables and chairs; in other words with zero doubt. Then what makes such a faith so special, or may I even go as far to say what makes it even faith at all, if we can believe the existence of God as we would the physical world we live in? Our rational doubts of our mind is somewhat directly proportional to the level of faith we have within our hearts. But is not God';s greatest commandment, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37, The Bible)? Of course as Christians we strive to love God with everything, but realistically we cannot lie to ourselves that we are fully capable of that. To not acknowledge doubt is to let it run rampant. For it seems that whatever I doubt about God in my mind, he has proven himself in my experience. Though my senses cannot explain logically how God's existence is true, without a doubt my mind and senses have experienced his presence. Doubting God in the sense is not a disbelief of the Gospel but doubting our own belief in the Gospel. Our logical and rational part holds a skepticism about God's existence, because it cannot reconcile how God can be both logical and illogical at the same time. This is true faith: to believe in a God that our hearts, minds and souls have so truly experienced even though we can never understand and explain how it were logically possible. Faith is more about doubt than no doubt at all. A man with no doubt needs no faith since everything he understands and believes. But a man who doubts requires the utmost faith in believing the things he cannot see or touch and an existence he cannot logically comprehend. Our faith is not measured by how much less doubt we have but how much more faithful God is to us even as we doubt. What marks faith is how through sensible doubt intelligible belief is born. We can believe or disbelieve; doubt or not doubt. But only through God can we have faith. So do we doubt God or doubt the faith we have in him? the transcendent one speaks 2009-02-01 5.32GMT +8hrs Omnibenevolence We can probably see life in two ways: fatalistically or human-willed. While I claim to take the stance of the former, I do not disregard the latter. Over and above the rights and wrongs, belief is a powerful attribute of mankind. Sometimes all it takes is strong belief to generate catalystic results. Yet, no matter the number of miraculous instances nudged by belief they are but instances and in the great scheme of life fate seems to play a more significant role. There is a time and place for everything and as such while a fatalistic mindset tides one across matters beyond one's control, a strong belief to humanly "will" the desired results may be more prudent in times of desperation. As it is with life's scales, everyone knows there is a pivotal point just that no one is capable of locating it; even if they could it would be almost impossible to maintain. There is perfection in balance. Actually, balance is perfection. Maybe it seemed more perfect if we had more control or more power to bend fate to our cause. The "Omni" properties of God show his perfection. Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence. Would it not be just perfect if we could be everywhere at the same time, know everything there is to know and to wield all power? This seems like a legitimate definition for Godly perfection until we consider the last "Omni" property: Omnibenevolence. Omnibenevolence brings forth balance to the other three "Omni" properties. "With great power comes great responsibility!" Actually more accurately, "with perfect power comes perfect responsibility." Being all powerful and all knowing, it is not difficult to see how greed and lust can enter the front doors of our lives unhindered. All of us at one time or another have wished to be just like God. But wishing we were God isn't to have the power to do what we desire but to stop what we desire to do. An all powerful being coupled with the desires of a human being is the "devil" incarnated: Malevolent. All ideas of perfection stem from our inperfect heart which desires for more power. Christians strive to be Christlike; not to appear more pious or more holy but to be less boastful and selfish. It seems that while aptitude and ability is predetermined, benevolence is something we can freely will. It is difficult to comprehend the paradox of the will of God and our freedom of choice, but this much is true: I chose to believe in God's will for my life. Einstein once said, "God does not play dice." I am fatalistic in God's will and maybe that is better since I probably have more confidence in being omnipotent than omnibenevolent. the transcendent one speaks 2009-01-27 16.25GMT +8hrs Void Kinship between family and camaraderie between friends are what draws us closer together in community. ; Humans were not made to be solitary being, and "loneliness" could well be as serious a disease as leprosy. Present day society in promoting the notion of acceptance among peers has indirectly caused the outbreak of this "disease". While socialisation brings people closer, it results in differences among individuals becoming glaringly obvious. What is meant to encourage the fostering of community has instead led to societal dissociation. To feel even more lonely within a community than one would without it; such irony. But we have to make a distintion here. Without a community, one would feel alone but not necessarily lonely. In community, it is definite that "alone-ness" is eliminated but the condition of loneliness may continue to linger or get worst if not assimilated properly within the community. If you're reading this blog then you are no recluse living in isolation. All of us are beings of society. With the amount of socialising and networking in our daily lives we will feel a sense of loneliness in our heart; an emptiness or void within the heart that not even the closest person can seem to fill. Many mistake this "emptiness" for "loneliness" and make an even greater effort to integrate and assimilate with others, but since treating the illness with the wrong medicine the condition of "emptiness" is bound to get worst. It is this threshold between mere socialisation and a deep need for others to truly understand us that creates this rift. "So close yet so far!" Don't we all feel this way? When we believe we have found the one friend who could ever understand our deepest needs and the next thing we know this friend lets us down completely. The greater the expectation, the greater the disappointment. But we have to know that there is no one human being that can cross that threshold to understand our true heart. Not our parents, or our friends, or even our spouses! It is like putting a square peg into a round hole. The solution for societal loneliness isn't the same for the loneliness one feels in his or her heart. There is certain comfort in knowing that no matter how hard we try we will never be able to fill the loneliness within our heart completely. We are heartened by individuals who are so in sync with our thoughts and feelings, but there is greater joy in knowing that none of them will ever be able to completely comprehend us. This joy comes from the knowledge that we are unique. Our uniqueness is the reason why no other human being, however like-minded, can ever think and feel the same as anyone of us. You may think, "now wait a second, my uniqueness is causing me to feel empty? Now why would I want to be unique if it makes me lonely?" If you prefer humanity being mass-produced copies from the same blueprint then so be it. But I value my unique existence over mindless assimilation. But uniqueness does not prevent us from being completely understood and accepted. God is not a fellow human being, he is our creator and who would understand us better than the maker himself? The loneliness deep within our hearts is a cry for an understanding God and not many other friends. the transcendent one speaks 2009-01-24 5.16GMT +8hrs Sense and Sensibility In pursuit of good etiquette, sensitivity and tact are basic requirements to good human relations. But we also learn in sociology that such qualities may only be prescribed by society, and also the fact that I'm a philosopher and not a humanitarian. There is nothing wrong with being sensitive, it is amiable of human nature, but yet I am not in any haste to defend it either. Sensitivity towards others help maintain harmony between individuals or communities. But it also causes interpersonal barriers and discord between individuals. The latter of which it is suppose to prevent. This argument may seem somewhat forced and counter-intuitive at first, but by exploring the nature of "sensitivity" it will become clearer. As I said before, sensitivity is prescribed by culture within society. When I say sensitivity, I mean being sensitive towards an individual's feelings, preferences and customs when interacting with him or her. "Sensitivity" is a social norm and while not easily deconstructured is not an axiom of existence. Being a philosopher, I am more interest in the metaethics of etiquette more than the various actions of right and wrong. Hence, while sympathy and justice are commendable in their application no such acclaim can be attributed to sensitivity. The veil of sensitivity, created by plesantries and goodwill, hampers relationships and communication between individuals. Dispensing with sensitivity, it could become easier to practice "openness"; with no fear of appearing overly-critical or the possiblity of others taking offense. "But it is only ethical to be sensitive towards others!" I am not suggesting one or two individuals, I meant the whole of society dispensing with this notion of sensitivity toward one another. The world will be a more open place if not a more honest place. Yet we know that it is ingrained deep within our culture and values to be sensitive towards others. With the preconceived expectation of others to be sensitive towards us, it just infuriates us when they're not. When has sensitivity turn from a virtue to a norm? Over "sensitivity", we fall out with family and friends over trivial matters which should evoke no hard feelings. Sensitivity turns perfectly objective opinions and advice into subjective ones that are taken to heart. Do you not agree just how "sensitivity" is more harm than help towards the improvement of human relations? It is ridiculous to believe a time will come when "sensitivity" is thrown out the window by society, but at least from a philosophical angle we can come to appreciate a world without it. Just think of how decisions and actions can be performed efficiently and effectively without the deterrence and censor that comes with sensitive comtemplations. Is not insensitivity but the consequence of a culture of sensitivity? The salvation of humanity isn't in exchanging pleasantries but in the openness of painful honesty. the transcendent one speaks 2009-01-23 14.04GMT +8hrs System Paradox To those who aren't interested in philosophy, the "dream argument" by Rene Descartes may be unfamiliar to you, but the concept is not. Having been popularised by movies like "The Matrix", the concept is simply questioning whether we are in fact living in a dream. But before we look at the argument, what exactly is a "dream"? Dictionary definition: 1. a succession of images, thoughts, or emotions passing through the mind during sleep. The important term in the aforementioned definition is the word "sleep". The antonym of the term "sleep" is "awake". The "dream argument" is staked on the fact that we are stuck in a dream we can never wake up from. But here is a point of contention, or should I say irony? Can we consider our existence a dream if we can never wake up from it? After all, we are tinkling with the possibility that we would "wake up" if we describe existence as a dream. But if we cannot wake up from it then can we even hold the possibility that life is merely a dream? All other variants have this point in common with the "dream argument": the "matrix" case (David Chalmers) and "brain in the vat" case (Hilary Putnam). Both philosophers explain in their papers respectively and I summarise, "a being living within a system is subjected by the system and unless he or she is outside of the system the being cannot say anythig objective about this system." We can doubt and be skeptical about the world we live in (or whether we even live in the world), but skepticism is as far as we can have a justified stand for. Defining knowledge as justified truth, there is then no way to know we are living in a certain system (be it a dream, matrix or a vat hooked up to a computer), and thus not be able to say anything objective about it either. Unless we have "woken up" from this "dream" of a world, there is no way we can say that we live in a dream. Hence, since no such "awakening" amongst humanity has taken place we can never claim existence as a dream. If we cannot wake up then it means we're not asleep, and if we're not asleep then how can we be in a dream? Go figure. But even if we did wake up, the phase of waking up from the dream and the phase of dreaming prior to that still encompass our existence. Therefore, life is not a dream or a matrix; existence is just a life where a really vividly realistic dream came to pass and now we have awakened from it. Either way, we can never have knowledge of the system we live in and even if we extracted ourselves from this particular system, our existence is still encompassed by an even larger system. After all, existence requires a system to which beings exist in. If we could actually objectively comment on the system we live in, then we in fact do not exist. A paradox of existence nonetheless. (P.S.: A point to note that my argument is similar to the "chicken and egg" argument.) the transcendent one speaks 2009-01-20 4.29GMT +8hrs Vanilla Salt According to Immanuel Kant all rational beings have this imperative: to attain happiness. Even without Kant or any philosopher for that matter for one to come to a similar conclusion, though maybe not the same reasons for it. It is true. Humans all wish to be happy; more accurately to find certain contentment or fulfilment. But this truth, after all the warping of society's influence, has been somewhat misconstrued to merely suggest an ideal. Happiness as an ideal. It no longer stands as an emotion of elation or a good feeling welling from within one's body that evokes warmth and comfort. In turn, the status quo of our humanly existence seems to be negatively charged. Mass media, art and politics prefer to play on sadness and angst more than happiness. (Or at least they try to evoke negatively charged emotions in individuals whom hope for that absent happiness.) At least in the Asian context, the popularity of movies and drama serials can almost be rated using the "tear jerking" counter. But on a more serious note, it seems that any happiness that is too good to be true or too easy to acquire is really just that: too good to be true. Such is the misconception: Happiness as an ideal. As such, life without it's greater part being plagued with hardships and followed by sadness just does not feel real; just isn't reality. Happiness equal ideal. A life of happiness is an ideal life. Ideals are not real, hence life isn't realistic when it is mostly happy. Some may jump to the defence and say that's just being overly pessimistic but can one really doubt how we feel a little too comfortable in pain and anguish? While no "happiness" is misfortune, too much of it just isn't real. A human reality seems to be staked on a life of suffering and work not satisfaction and joy. But that is where we have been mistaken. It may be true that reality only seems real if life constantly plagues you with trials, there is nothing unreal about it giving you a streak of happiness sometimes. Sometimes we feel like we're sinning if we indulged too much in the happiness in our lives: our family and friends, intangible and material pleasures. There is no reason to feel that way because there is a time and place for both sadness and happiness when the occasion requires it. Happiness may be potrayed by society as an ideal but it is by no means idealistic. Happiness like the rest of our emotions follow our heart's feel and not our mind's ideals. the transcendent one speaks 2009-01-17 16.18GMT +8hrs Surrealism Existence. Such the moot point in life. I think; I exist. Maybe I don't exist. Maybe nothing exist. But looking at the trees, the cars, the sky, I'm sure everything exist. The premise of the argument has been myopic to say the least. Existence. Everything we believe naturally exist. Even if it were under false belief or through the deception of our senses, existence is real. Be it in a dream or a hallucination, existence is real. Sitting on a bench in the park, most likely awake, I believe the trees that surround me exist. When I am in bed asleep, I see these same trees in my dream, not for a moment do I doubt they exist. The trees in the park exist. The trees in my dream exist. Does it really matter which set of trees are real and which are virtual since they both exist? We believe a virtual perception to be non-existent. But it does exist. It exist within the mind just as it exist in the physical world. God created life; an existence in reality. Reality. The difference between existence and life. I think; I exist. Am I real? Birth, Age, Illness and Death. Would it matter if I skipped the inbetween and jump from birth to death? Life is the inbetween. Without life, I still exist. In birth I still exist; in death I still exist. ; But now I am living the inbetween. The trees I see are part of this inbetween. Does that mean they are real? They look like the same trees in my dream. But those are not real. They exist, but they are not real. Then is this life real? I know I exist and so does everything around me. But how much of what exist is real? Are the things that exist in my dreams real, or are the things of my waking hours unreal? Maybe reality does not exist in life. But I will never know. All I know is, life feels less and less real... I know I exist. I just don't know if it's real... If it's life at all... I exist; you exist. Trees exist; cars exist. Birth exist; death exist. This post exist. But does life exist...at all? the transcendent one speaks 2009-01-15 12.10GMT +8hrs Today Tomorrow Some believe that today is all we got because we never know if tomorrow might never come. Life is fragile. As surely as we, surely we will die. But such a mentality somehow feels secular to me: making sure we live to the fullest today so we have no regrets. I might regret not having the opportunity to share the gospel with more people I loved, but then this is something I have no control over. The intention is good natured as it there is little room or regret and individuals will give their best and all every single day. But the underlying consensus is "if there were no tomorrow" and not "as there is no tomorrow". It is interesting that the negative clause of using tomorrow doesn't change the fact that the notion of tomorrow motivates us. There will be more reason to give our best today if there were a tomorrow than none at all. Why? Even with the idea of motivating procrastinators and the laidback of society to act in a more purposeful manner, nobody seriously lives with the skepticism of the occurrehce of the next day. Just like we do not question the laws of gravity or the rising sun, it simply slips our minds as it becomes more of customary convenience to presuppose the existence of tomorrow. Knowing that the consequences of our actions today will be realised in some tomorrow, we act in a more beneficial way as opposed to drastically insane. Fear of death (or no tomorrow) may motivate meaningful action, but so does the fear of tomorrow. In the latter case it deters us from executing detrimental actions of meaning. Examples range from deciding to elope and marry your girlfriend in a nice quaint town in the countryside to making a statement by blowing up the white house in a suicidal attack. We want to see the fruits of our labour (and not see the consequences of our misgivings) in the days to come. The most painful thing about failure is not the failure itself, but the fact that when the climax of the news blows over one realises that life goes on. In a more Christian sense, eternity with God in heaven is a tomorrow for our life here on earth today. Death itself has no power to give the drop on time. The best we give of ourselves today is motivated by the best we hope to receive tomorrow. Without a tomorrow there will be no today to regret about yesterday. Hence, only the promise of a tomorrow encourages us to live with no regret this day. While it is logical to fear a situation where tomorrow doesn't come, I believe most of us don't since we have our minds and hands full with worrying and fearing about the coming of tomorrow, and what it brings. Yesterday's memories have meaning because of the recollections today. Therefore, today's actions are purposeful because of their effects tomorrow. the transcendent one speaks 2009-01-12 7.48GMT +8hrs Pain Stake Sometimes the agony of being betrayed or the anguish felt in disappointment is too much for us. But we forget just how it is more painful for the loved one who has betrayed or disappointed us. A victim can find joy in his pain; a perpetrator can find no peace in his guilt. If I suffered for the mistakes of others, would I not be seen as a nobel man? But if others have to suffer for the mistakes I make, all I am is a failure of a man. It would be better to feel hungry even though one is deprived of food than have a sumptuous feast placed before him and have not the appetite to consume. It would be better to feel sleepy even though one is deprived of a bed than have a place to rest and yet find himself not able to manage even one wink. If I suffered I know it's a test the Lord has placed before me; if I make others suffer, it is a justification of my own wickedness. Would it not be easier to have the freedom to forgive than be shackled in one's own guilt? While the heart of the afflicted is open to forgiveness, the mind of the guilty can never forget. The pains of affliction are halved when shared while the pains of guilt are doubled instead. It is human nature to want vengeance upon those who harm us, but let us not forget what greater pain there is in the guilt of doing so. For we know that the afflicted can experience peace and joy in Jesus Christ. But the guilty are estranged from it until they reconcile their relationship with God and others in repentance. It may be difficult to forgive others, but remember it is even more difficult to forgive ourselves. the transcendent one speaks 2009-01-11 9.08GMT +8hrs <;br> Evangeline The Gospel is a message of God's love and not of human wrong. But why are we pointing out the sins of men instead of embracing them in love? Faith is a personal encounter with God's faithfulness and not about how pious a human one is. So why do we scrutinise man's disbelief instead of letting God make himself real to them? Salvation is a relationship with our Almighty Father and not merely eternity in heaven instead of hell. Why then are we so hung up on life after death instead of the eternal life we receive when we invite the Holy Spirit into our heart? Evangelism is not about telling others how bad they have been but how good God has been to them. Evangelism is not about what God can do but about what God has already done. Evangelism is not about changing how others live but about living as people changed by God. Evangelism is our life testimony about our relationship with God. Salvation is this relationship. Our motivation to share Christ is because we want others to experience this relationship with God as we have. For them to feel the peace and joy that Jesus offers. We are not preaching a religion. We are sharing a relationship. Saving a life is a lot more straightforward and simple. Saving a relationship is more complex and sensitive. Preaching Christianity is as delicate as the relationships that bind us. It is true that salvation is imminent, but one cannot forget that because it is about a relationship with God, it should also be accorded the due respect. Before we act in zealous preaching and sharing remember that we first ought to emulate the character of Christ Jesus. Being sensitive to their discomfort, showing respect to their beliefs and most of all being genuinely concern as Jesus is to us. the transcendent one speaks 2009-01-06 13.55GMT +8hrs Residue Witholding aid to a victim of a crime is as good as being an accomplish of the criminal. Maybe that doesn't seem justified. After all, a person has a right to preserve their own lives first. A medical malpractice is guilty as charged of an unjustified ignorance on the part of a doctor. But is the ignorance of a non-professional who believes he is aiding a dying man but in actuality aggravating the man's condition justified of manslaughter? No intention may be unjustified bad intention and much less good intention. Yet, people are only interested in the consequence. Not because individuals prefer consequentialism over deotology, but because the consequences are all that they are left with to grapple with; to content or suffer with. With good intention, we execute an action with his or her interest at heart but it results in irrevocably bad consequences for both you and the person in question. With good intention, we withold an action with his or her interest at heart and similarly it results in these irrevocably bad circumstances for all parties involved. Depending on whether we chose non-performance or performance, the other would always seemed to have been the right choice if the resultant outcome turned out worse. But sometimes it may just be that doing something and doing nothing about it would still result in a bad outcome, the only difference being the magnitude of it. I always second guess my own decisions, wondering if maybe the alternatives would have been more prudent. But all we humans are capable of are predicting patterns and following customs and trends. There is little basis of certainty in any of our actions much less decisions. Sometimes I would prefer living like a hypocrite than an apathetic bystander; a traitor than a misguided teacher. All advice is good advice, but best advice is no advice at all. I mean advice may only be worth two cents, but the influence it exerts sometimes has an impact that no two million dollars can contain. So much easier either for apathetic seclusion or world dominaion. But we will always be somewhere in the middle; always vying for control over our situation (and others' as well) only to realise how little of it we actually have. We have all the freedom and capability to influence actions and affections in whatever direction we fancied. It is only a pity we are impotent to dictating the consequences that follow. In cause and effect, the cause is always easily predicted and justified but the effects are rancid and far beyond our expectations. Which is worst, to be condemned by one's own heart or all the tongues of men? We want to be able to execute the desired consequences, but all we are capable of is acting on an intended consequences and hope they turn out as desired. It sucks because life just doesn't work in our favour most of the time. It sucks even more because we know it full well. the transcendent one speaks 2009-01-04 15.49GMT +8hrs Change Null The turning of the new year was anti-climax to say the least. Every new year is. It's a wonder just what magic a change of the last number of the year has for humanity to wait in eager anticipation. To some it may be a time portal, to others an eraser. It is disappointing when the clock strikes 12 midnight and the only change is the second hand only the clock. Everything was as it was last year and the change of year is no different from waking up the next day. There is no magic. What makes it even more disappointing is the fact we actually held the hope that there would have been some miraculous change knowing full well it will not come. The year can continue to change but if the hearts of men do not then nothing has changed. We know time changes man, but we also know it is not the change of time that effects this change but a man's change in focus and attitude. Just because the whole world begins to make new resolutions for the year doesn't mean humanity has improved one step as we cross the threshold from 2008 to 2009. The change we make in of minds and hearts on 31 December 2008 2359hrs is superficial. Our resolve then is fleeting and its confidence boistered by the anticipation of a new year. Yet it is not like we live the painful memories behind or suddenly take on the form of a saint if we resolved to do so. We'd have to work toward it over a stretch of time and this time is the year we have entered. Resolutions ahd hopes are not merely ideals we pin to our walls to remind us of an impossibility. It is a practical and viable course of action we will work towards. Resolutions are resolute actions not reserved ideals. At the Watchnight Service at my church last night, my Pastor took his sermon from Ephesians 5:8-10. He points out how a testimony of goodness is seen in what we do, a testimony of righteousness in how we live and a testimony of truth in what we say. So let us resolve instead to "do good, live right, and speak truth" so that we might shine as a light to this dark world. For we know the magic is not in the year but in us all. How we choose to live and what we choose to do and say this year, are going to effect that miraculous change we so hope to witness. Of course we know that our life and this year is in God's hands, and everything we hope for we commit to him in prayer. Let me share this misconception my Pastor shared with us, "Christian Perfection is not equivalent to Human Perfection. Christian Perfection is a Perfect Relationship with God." Everyone strives for perfection in the new year: a more perfect body, a more perfect intellect, a more perfect disposition, a more perfect holiday, a more perfect lifestyle. But Christian perfection is a lot simpler and a lot less idealistic: a close relationship with God is when we act in the goodness of others, live a life of righteousness in God's name and speak the truth of the gospel from our lips. Since time is a continuous flow it is no wonder that a new year is anti-climatical because a turn of a year is no different from another day. Man (who was inspired by God) created a year for the purpose of renewal and a change of perspective from the vile and confused ways we have taken in our lives. Hence, if only one's perspective changes to put resolve into action, there will be a new year for him or her and not merely 2008 changing to 2009. the transcendent one speaks 2009-01-01 4.25GMT +8hrs Mould Per Annum It takes little to make a year and far less to break it. What it is does not determine anything; what is believed is everything it is. To see, hear, smell, touch, taste and live life. The greatest trial can be seen as the most significant live changing event of the year. The most beautiful sunset may evoke the most excruciating pain of heartbreak ever felt. The irony of life actually lies in its freedom. To give free rein to emotions we can control, and on the other hand, stereotype the unpredictability of human nature. We'd rather wished we could control tropical storms and volcanic eruptions than the storm of our sadness or the eruption of our anger. When I said it only took a little, I didn't mean one little tiff on new year's eve to start the year bad. I meant attitude. But before that we have to get our focus right: Events in the year are thing we cannot change; sentiments toward these events are things we can. To me every year is the same in itself: 365 and a half days of life. All filled with events significant and mundane. To nobody's benefit is there to attribute such honourary qualities of "awesome, fantastic, great" among other adjectives to a transcendental notion much less a time frame. Indeed, the year constitutes of events and memories, but these cannot possibly be part of the year if not the passing of the year would mean the passing on of these events and memories. They continue to reside within the human mind and continue to live on in their journals and auto-biographies. A past is only as good as the present. Do you not agree that the past year is only as good as the present man? If over the course of the year, an individual learnt more kindness and generosity; overall improving in moral character as a gentleman, should he not deem it a good year? We tend to judge the significance of our years in the excitement and thrill levels of events that have transpired. But the feelings of happiness and excitement felt then would fade with time and all that is left in retrospect is the kind of person one has become because of it. We forget that all that remains at the end of the year is the individual; all events have become memories, all feelings have turn to sentiments. The pain we can forget with time, but the lesson learnt we remember for life. Similarly, we live across 365 and a half days and at that moment we ask ourselves, "what gives?" What we seek are not memories of past high but the adrenaline that pumps us forward. That present adrenaline comes from the growth in the year gone by. Be it spiritual growth or holistic growth, a change of life for the better is an indicator of a good year gone by. After all, the past is only as good as the present... And the present only as good as the future. We can make and break it, but what matters is whether the year has made us more loving and broken down the walls of enmity between loved ones. The more God has used the trials in the year to mould us to be more like Him, the better it has been; the more thankful and fulfiled we should be. the transcendent one speaks 2008-12-29 16.30GMT +8hrs Postmortem We stay joyful and hopeful for the entire month of December running up to Christmas Day and the day after Christmas that festive mood evaporates as quickly as the change of day. While that elusive Christmas Day is still out of our reach, we continue in anticipation and hold our spirits up looking forward to it. Like the thrills of life, once we have experienced Christmas we throw it aside and continue our search for the next step of happiness. Christians are no different. We celebrate Jesus and suddenly are more conscious of our behaviour and remember more clearly that God sent his son because of us. In the most cliche terms, it's almost like in the month of December Christians become more "Holy". Doing more good deeds and spreading more cheer. Once they wake up on Boxing Day, last Christmas is a thing of the past and the next one is too far to see. Where has all that zeal and energy for God and his son gone? Before I answer that, I'm sure most of us know why the day after Christmas is known as Boxing Day. No, not because aunties throw punches at each other for the last Post-Christmas deals. It is because it is the day we unwrap the boxes of presents we received on Christmas. While not many follow that tradition anymore, regardless, the wrapped boxes are opened anyway. But interestingly, while the presents are taken out of their boxes the festive emotions are put in their places. Just as Christians tend to admire the gift of Jesus Christ for that Christmas Day and put him back into the boxes in their hearts, so do they put the Christmas peace and hope of Jesus with him and wrap it back up till Christmas next year. I guess Boxing Day is really the day for us to organise and pack our joyful spirits of the season back into their respective boxes and continue the less "festive" phase of life. But why do we, unconsciously or consciously, segregate Christmas Day from non-Christmas days? Is good cheer and happiness only reserved for the events that warrant them? As I mentioned in the post before, Christmas happens everyday. Knowing we have eternal life because of Jesus Christ death and resurrection, his birth should be celebrated just because we can live another day free from the penalty of sin. Unlike festive joy that ends with the festival, the joy of God's gift to men has no end. There may be no more parties or presents, good food or good company as the festivities come to a close. But Jesus is the reason for the season. We celebrate the birth if Jesus Christ who lives ever more and not the death of Christmas Day on Boxing Day morning. So let us not box up those emotions of pure joy and peace because the work of the Saviour doesn't end when the festival is over. In fact, that is when it truly begins and all the more reason for celebration. Post-Christmas deserves more celebration and joy than Christmas Day itself because it is prove of God's promise that we live another day in his grace and mercy. the transcendent one speaks 2008-12-26 11.40GMT +8hrs The Season for Sin Gifts we don't need; gifts we don't want. I just received a gift I didn't want this Christmas. It was a gift given without joy and definitely with no warmth: my examination results for the last semester. I viewed the results in utter disappointment; in vain hope that somehow I could "gift exchange" them for better results so as to make this festive season of giving a more joyful one. Likewise, we want to exchange bad results for happy ones and even though we know its futility we hope and pray for the irreversible. Yet it is interesting just how in our lives, there is a “present” causing us misery which we could freely exchange for one of greater joy but we choose not to do it. The first ever gift exchange in Christmas history is the exchange of a human gift for a Godly one. All we as humans can give is our sin in exchange for eternal life from God. Jesus Christ death and resurrection is proof of this exchange that took place during Christmas. All the bitterness that we do not need; all the sadness we are better off without. Why do we continue to cling onto the “gifts” which God would gladly exchange with peace and joy? While we cannot exchange the results and consequences of life so we might be happy. We can exchange our human sorrow for God’s joy to fill our lives instead. Shopping for Christmas gifts with my best friend the day before, we were wracking our brains for the perfect gift for those important to us; the more important the person, the more difficult the task. We buy presents in the hope that it will be appreciated. We hope to receive presents that have been chosen specially for us. Indeed, it is the thought that counts. But that "thought" results in more headaches than if one didn't have it: Making sure we have put all thought, heart, soul and mind, into getting gifts for our loved ones can be very taxing. Expectation in giving; expectation in receiving. Yet, as humans what do we have to give God? Is there a present that we know will exceed his expectations? Quite unlikely. But God knows that the only gift we could ever bring to him is the one gift he doesn’t have; a gift that he would gladly exchange for. You mean we have a gift God doesn’t have and he wants it?! Well that gift is sin. God is not masochistic or anything to want our sin. But so that for our benefit we could receive eternal life and escape the penalty of sin which is eternal condemnation. This is because just like how we want to present the perfect gift to those important to us, God also does the same because we are most important in his eyes. The amazing thing about God’s Christmas gift to us (Jesus Christ) is how it doesn’t need to be Christmas before it can be given or received. As Christians we can remember and celebrate God’s love to us and Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins whenever we want, as such Christmas isn’t really all that special to us. What makes Christmas so worth celebrating is how this Gift of God we have received continues to be made available to our loved ones who have not received. Christmas continues to exist, not merely because of the secular reason of holidaying, but more because there are still many who have not accepted the gift of Jesus Christ. < The reason for such festivities and gifts is Christmas. The reason for Christmas is Jesus Christ. The reason for Jesus Christ is us. We are the reason he lived, died and rose again. Without sin, there will be no Christmas. No Good Friday. No Easter. Christmas is not an excuse for celebration but a reason for our sinful nature. Sin is the most perfect gift we can give to the Lord. (P.S.: This is the Christmas post in case you have not realised.) the transcendent one speaks 2008-12-23 4.55GMT +8hrs Service Charge Everyone desires good service. Be it in restaurants or boutiques, everyone waits in anticipation that the service they pay for will be good. Of course, good service is rather uncommon among the non-committal working youth of today. But before one begins to ask of good service, maybe we should first question what good service really is. How is it defined? In more seculars terms, it comprises of a courteous, humble attitude coupled with prim and prompt motions. Yet, there is a type of human service that goes beyond merely client-company relations and that is service between loved ones and people close to us. It may seem that while love is associated with family and friends, srvice on the other hand is restricted to strangers and acquaintances in the public sphere. But one finds that in the Christian context of love it requires that we serve one another in love. The simplest and probably the most familiar type of love in srvice is a parent serving a child. Feeding a baby; bathing a child. Our parents have "served" us all the years of our dependence; sad to say for some even in their days of independence. It may sound foreign to the majority of us who know it better as "upbringing". But while the context seems to vary, the principle does not. At my church youth camp that has just ended, there was a special activity on the first night that, I believe, left a very deep impression on many of the campers. Our youth leaders washed the feet of all the youth campers in an act of servitude and humility as they emulated Jesus who washed his disciples feet at the Passover. For me it made me feel really uneasy and somewhat taken aback. I came to a realisation that night just how much more humbling it is for someone to serve you in an area you can manage on your own than to serve then instead. I mean, it's washing my own feet! I believe anyone is more than capable of doing that without so much as a blink. Having to begin to let someone else do it really does prick at our conscience even if they were willing. It dawn on me just how we can feel this way pertaining to our friends but not our parents. After all, parents are also serving the areas of our lives that we are well capable of performing, so why? Simple; because we treat their service as their duty and taking for granted that at a certain age of independence this obligation becomes more of a priviledge which we indulge and take advantage of. Washing the dishes after we eat, ironing our own shirts for a function, cleaning up our own room and even extending our help to run errands for our parents. Can we really not feel guilty when we let our folks serve us in areas we are but lazy to perform? There should be no distinction between the services by our parents and friends. No; the services by our parents to us should prick our conscience even more than the ones done by our friends to us. One should feel a greater uneasiness when our parents serve us compared to that of our close friends. Humans are by nature selfish. While we enjoy services from others we do not want to appear reliant on anyone. A paradox of independence and dependence so perculiar and yet not foreign to our nature. While we wants to appear capable and reliable, we would prefer that others did all the menial work for them while they claimed all the credit. And yet even with our self-centred human nature we are after all still sympathetic creatures. Sometimes we feel that as much as it is the duty of those lower down the rungs to serve us, it is also our duty to serve those in need. But service is not so much a duty as it is a priviledge to those who receive it. Even though waiters and waitresses are paid to serve us, there is no harm to extend our aid as a customers to help them with organising our table so that they might have an easier time serving us. It is true that we pay that extra 10% for it, but true service is no quantifiable by all amount. Let us learn to define service as a kind of priviledge we can be thankful about instad of an obligation of duty we expect others to perform for us. Good service should be sincere. And sincerity comes from a heart that loves. If we profess to love our parents and friends, let us reflect it with our actions of service. We know that the love of God is a pragmatic love as much as it is divine; it has to be put into action, and what better way than through serving one another? Servitude with salary as its reward is a mere job, but servitude in love to one another is a reward unto itself. Written on: 2008-12-18 0200hrs (SG time) the transcendent one speaks 2008-12-18 12.52GMT +8hrs Nobility Friendship thrives on the nobility of pure foolery. Sometimes. As a friend, there is a need to learn what problems are tormenting our friends emotionally. A need to know what ails them; a need to understand their pain and suffering so that one might share some solace and comfort with them. As a friend, there is a need to not encumber our friends with more problems than they already have with our own. There seems to be a need to protect them from knowing what they're better off not knowing; a need to prevent them from worrying unduly. So much nobility, even more foolery when you put the two sentences in the same context. Sometimes. A double standard ensues: how we would want to hear but not tell; how we want to know but not let others know. Noble as it is fails on all counts of pragmatism. In the end, nothing is said thus nothing is resolved and friends only become more remote as they keep their problems to themselves. When one looks at friendship with such objectivity one sees the foolishness of it all. Sometimes. But a friendship that does not have a hint of foolishness of noble proportions is not friendship at all. Since the heart is no brain, more times than never, heartfelt feelings and sentiments translate to seemingly foolish actions. Sometimes. That sometimes is not now. Now it is something else; now it is every other time. When a friend tries to keep a problem that bothers him or her so much that we begin to pick up bad vibes about it. When finally the situation has gone out of control and external help is desperately needed. It is right to responsibly keep our own problems to ourselves and not worry anyone else if we can resolve it on our own efficiently and effectively. It would be wrong to think ourselves a noble friend to keep secret a problem that we have no ability to keep from becoming worst over time, while tormenting our friends who end up second guessing what it is that's getting us down. Tragic heroes only work in movies. In reality, trying to be that tragic hero is foolishness; trying to be a tragic hero and failing is pure stupidity. I believe it is not uncommon to know of individuals who put on a brave front of reliability but are bursting at the seams from their own afflictions. Could we blame their stupidity? Maybe not since we're all only human. But should we reflect on such stupidity? Definitely. So we know we cannot rely on our friends because even the most reliable one may actually be the most unstable. But there is a friend we can rely on no matter what happens and he is Jesus. The words of the hymn "What a friend we have in Jesus" accurately depicts this perfect friendship of Jesus Christ. This friendship with Jesus can aid us in overcoming the foolishness of frienship. We learn that even if we do not know all the details to the problem we can be sure to give it to God in prayer because he knows just what problems they are going through. We also learn that this friendship with Jesus is shown by him giving us human friends to share our burdens and comfort us in time of need so it is all right to tell them the problems we are facing. While it is true that Jesus Christ is our spiritual friend, we are still living in our earthy material bodies and hence Jesus has shown his friendship for us in a very practical human way: giving us friends to love us. For our problems that God has made known to our friends, let them help every way they can; for their problems which God has not made known to us, let us leave it to God in prayer. Now that is truly what makes friendships noble. the transcendent one speaks 2008-12-10 3.10GMT +8hrs Autobiography There are times when we're made to recall certain events in our past; some of them insignificant to us, others life-changing events in our lives. We admit readily just how those mundane times escape our memory and confidently boast a "blow-by-blow" account of those events that shaped our present lives. But those of us who have photos and written accounts of those past events know that no matter how sure we are about certain happenings they are never quite accurate; sometimes even wrong. It is inevitable that we exaggerate as we recount and for a start our human memory is not a work of perfection. Some things we forget; memories that blur and fade with time. It isn't to say that our memory is failing us. Only that it becomes more difficult to recall memories as they grow in number across the years. If the only memory we had is of our parents then that is all we call recollect and maybe even all that we know. But year on year, our lives fill up with many incidents both trivial and important. So our brains weed out the repeated events and those that would serve no higher purpose and seek to prioritise the crucial ones above them. Yet there comes a time when so many memorable and important people, dates and times have saturated our minds that our ability to recollect begins to dilute. Plato believed that the human mind had every knowledge locked within it and through recollection could one unlock certain knowledge of ourselves and the world. While this may sound absurd to individuals who believe the mind is like a clean slate, for those who fall inbetween the two this idea is not all that improbable. After all in the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge (or good and evil). It would be possible that we have perfect knowledge, but an imperfect recollection ability and hence the belief that we do not know as much as we actually do. Whatever the case, it is a reality that only as we begin to recount past events in our lives do we see just how inaccurately we have actually remembered them by. It wasn't a rainy day but a sunny day. It was a blue dress and not a purple one. Her name was May not Mary. David Hume talks about our minds using constancy and coherence to fill the gaps of our perceptions with the aid of fiction and imagination. Similarly, our minds also employ imagination and fiction as we continuously renew and organise our memories (which Hume would consider "memory" perceptions). But imagination, or the imagined perception to be more exact, can differ very much with reality. Unconsciously when reconstructing events from memory, one tends to remember the skeleton of perceptions that hold the event together and then call in the aid of imagination to fill in the gaps with what we perceive to be the truth. With a nature to prefer the beautiful and lovely over the painful, it is natural for our imagination to exaggerate the interesting and exciting parts while mellowing those which are sad and tragic. That is why memories are always more beautiful than reality because even if it were a painful past it still looks pretty tied in a bow. Humans are beings of recollection (so maybe Plato was right). We reminisce the good old times as we try to cover the trying times we are experiencing at present; we try to forget those painful years of our past with filing our minds with many activities of the present. But does one really want to forget? And likewise does one want to remember that which we are on the verge of forgetting? I guess what is important isn't whether we can recount the incident detail for detail but whether we can still acutely remember the essence of the memory. Even if we fabricate the details or snuff out the ones that form them, the skeletal architecture of perceptions will always exist in the recesses of our minds. To realise what one has forgotten, one has to try to remember; to realise what one remembers, on has to try to forget. If not we will always believe we have remembered that which we have forgotten and think we have forgotten that which we can never forget. The essence of our memories will forever stay within our hearts. Our minds can only choose to shun it or embrace it; in forgetting, in remembering. the transcendent one speaks 2008-12-08 5.08GMT +8hrs Wake Attending a wake of a church member today made me think about the notion of death afresh. All we have been preoccupied with is discussing about death in a personal way. One sees dying as a subjective thing; a human thing. We grieve with the living and sympathise the dead. We sympathise with the living and grieve the dead. But no one begins to grieve the living and sympathise with the dead because we are still alive; all we do is try to second guess what life would have meant to the dead and what death would mean to the living. No one bothers to ponder of the possibility of death for the dead, or what life now holds for those who continue to live. One of my church youth was telling me that they were praying to God to take this sister in Christ to be with the Lord quickly so she wouldn't suffer in her cancer stricken body any longer. The next day she passed on. Indeed God answers prayers, and more than that he is telling us that there is a higher calling to letting some die and others live. What is the meaning of death to the deceased? And what of that for those who live on in wake of those who have passed on? There is no all encompassing answer, but personally I believe that once our purpose on earth has been accomplish then God will take us home. The thought of my own death has never really scared me since I know where I'm going. I still told a close friend that when I died do etch, "death a sweet respite to life" on my headstone. But just the other day, I though about the possibility of the world and everything in it to pass on before my own life and that really shook me. The feelings I felt were loneliness, abandonment, betrayal, panic all at once. If the feeling of one's own death is frightening, I believe the death of everyone else we know but our own is multifold times more horrific. A loved ones death is more bearable because of the others who share that same bonds of love. But the reality of having everyone we know dead is disturbingly frightening because who is left to comfort us? Who is left to share the grief? ; The rapture. Whether it is true or not, I am not very optimistic about it. Being left behind is terrible, leaving someone you love on the earht alone is worst. Maybe the process isn't as important as the transition itself. Life to death; death to life. The soul comes into the world as easily as it would leave, but the memories, emotions, feelings and sentiments will take forever to fully separate from this world to the next. This is because sentiments and the likes belong to this sensory world we live in. Once a person dies so does the senses and also the sentiments of attachment. While for the living, their sentiments for the dead cannot never truly go over with the spirit of the deceased. Mourning is the name of this period of finding a place in this world to put the memories, sentiments and feelings for the dead since they do not follow the spirit of the dead over to the other side. Be it coming to terms with their death, having a grand funeral, keeping some mementos to remember him or her by, or just cry our eyes out for those who have left us all alone in this world. One slowly realises that the true sting of death comes from the loneliness it afflicts on the living more than the knowledge of someone we love dying. So next time when we learn of someone's death, don't put ourselves in the place of the deceased. Instead, ask ourselves what is there left for the loved ones they have left behind. the transcendent one speaks 2008-12-05 16.10GMT +8hrs Darkside Lager That is the name of the beer I drank with my friend at Brewerkz. It's name strikes me for various reasons. Primarily because it sounds so Starwars with the whole "darkside" of the force thing. "These are dark times Luke," Obi-Wan Kenobi, Starwars Episode IV. Obi-Wan said it well. The times we live in are dark times; times of strife, suffering, immorality, corruption, injustice. The "darkside" of life will slowly fill us up with a bitterness that would threathen to consume us. We no longer believe; we lose hope, we lose confidence. One succumbs to pressures and frustration; grief and distrust. In all aspects of life one faces trials and situations far beyond our own control. We try to overcome it alone with out own strength but eventually we fall exhausted in failure; we come to be bitter about life. The "darkside"; can fill us with great bitterness, but once we have acquired a taste for the bitterness in our lives we can taste the subtle sweetness within the bitterness of the beer of life. When we know that God is in control of our situation, whether it is sailing smoothly or in a storm, we can see our suffering as a blessing in disguise. James 1:2-3 writes, "Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance." Perserverance is nurtured and with it comes character and through the building of one's character there is hope. The sweetness of life then is hidden within this hope that is born from our lives being molded by the trials we face in life. Even as God has let these "dark times" seize us, he does not leave us to writhe in the deepest miasma alone. He is always there when we need him and he has sent family and friends to be there to lend a shoulder or a word of encouragement when we need one. Knowing that we have God and other loved ones with us through the dark times of our lives helps to dispel the bitterness we may feel when we hit setbacks. Just like how the bitterness becomes part of the appreciation for the taste of beer, when we take the trials in our lives in our strides we do not think them bitter but instead feel that they complement to the fullness of life. The "darkside" of life is ever present, there is no way we can ever escape from it. But having God in our lives gives up a hope that even though we are stuck in a world of pain and suffering there is respite and joy for those who trust in him. Like Darkside Lager, once the bitter taste no longer stings your tongue it is free to pick out the subtle sweetness of the toffee that is brewed into the beer. Also, beer is a "cooling" drink and even though it may seem otherwise has a healing effect on my mouth ulcers. It is always the initial bitterness that throws us off and keeps us from holding our "darkside" in submission. Beyond that bitter taste of frustration, there lies a taste of floral, fruity, sweet, smooth and sometimes even spicy hope our life. One has to begin to appreciate the bitterness of life's dark times, not because we enjoy the pain and suffering but because we look forward to the sweet hope that is infused within even the most seemingly insurmountable problem. It is what we search for and what we hope to accomplish when we tackle our "darkside" that matters. Who or what do we place our trust and hope in? Is it something far stronger than the bitterness that causes us to reel in disgust? Obviously, not everyone can begin to appreciate the bitterness which beer offers, but that is a matter of preference. Life's taste cannot be "preferred". If life throws us a bout of bitterness then in order to come up above it then we have to appreciate that it is meant to teach us how to savour the subtle sweetness of hope. Appreciation and liking are two different things. We don't have to like bitterness to appreciate its powerful effects and perserverance-forging ability. Those who cannot appreciate bitterness are filled with bitterness as they taste it. But those who appreciate this bitterness are not ensnared by its bitter taste but instead savour the lingering sweetness of bitterness. So if life were a brew, what kind of beer would yours be? And more importantly, how would you learn to appreciate its bitterness? I'm quite sure Darkside Lager is a good metaphoric allusion for my own life, very bitter (beer plus coffee's bitternes) but yet has helped me taste the (toffee) sweetness of hope in God. the transcendent one speaks 2008-12-03 6.43GMT +8hrs Satisfaction Guaranteed One's emotional state is largely determined by the hypothetical emotions as a result of the outcome expected. The actual emotional sensations evoked when one experiences the incident is merely a sensory reflex and a subconscious gesture towards the situation. Through pre-meditation of the outcome we desire our minds establishes a foundation of emotions to which we ought to feel at a certain magnitude. Naturally, the greater the expectation, the greater the fulfilment and also the greater the disappointment. If our friends decided to go see a dumb movie and dragged us along, we would have preconceive notions of our boredom and irritation; ultimately we know we would come out of the cinema worst off. But when our initial expectations are proven wrong, we would come to enjoy the movie more than if we had preconceived expectations about it. Of course along with being plesantly surprised there would come humility and embarrassment. But I am concern about the overall emotional experience one has in light of expectations of approval and blame. There is quite a simple formula that explain how it all works: (Pre-meditated Emotions of Expectation x Emotional Satisfaction of Pre-meditated Expectation) + Actual Sensory Emotions = Resultant Emotional Satisfaction Which can be simplified to: Resultant Emotional Satisfaction of Expectation + Actual Sensory Expectation = Resultant Emotional Satisfaction (a negative value should be placed before the magnitude of any negative emotions involved; a negative resultant value translates to the magnitude of Disappointment) I should believe my readers are acquainted to formulae using sign convention in mathematics or physics. As one would see from this formula, surprises do not seem to work out. Since there are no pre-meditated emotions of expectation when it comes to surprises, then would it not mean that a surprise generates less satisfaction than one that has been heavily hinted to an individual? I believe that subconsciously or consciously, we have dreamt and played over in our minds different scenarios that could happen and some which we believe would never happen. Though they are not expected they are still pre-meditated and hence should be viewed upon as the same. While the effect is different, primarily that surprises evoke pleasant shock while anticipation evokes pleasant expectation, the magnitudes concerned are high. Since we are talking about emotions, it is not only impossible to accurately calculate but also difficult to ascertain in individuals. Yet with a formula to gauge just maybe it would be easier to avoid disappointments and attain more satisfaction in our interactions in community. Know that with regard to the highs and lows of emotions, it is mutual trust that acts as the coefficient to plot our levels of happiness (or lack thereof) in our daily lives. To have a greater expectation of someone would equate the level of trust we have for him or her. This expectation we have is based on the assurance of reliability and accoutability between individuals. In some situations, it would really be better to hold no expectations; in a state of neutrality. It may be unwise to take a wager where the odds are against you. Whether the outcome is favourable or otherwise, let us not hunger for a hypothetical satisfaction without considering the probability it may be a disappointment instead. In the realm of emotions, we win some, we lose some. But do not stake our happiness on unreliable bets and seek fulfilment in impossible odds. God is faithful and he is the same yesterday, today and forevermore. Would it not reap us great satisfaction to put our expectations in a God who will keep his word no matter what? He did not promise blue skies and smooth seas, but Jesus promises a life of satisfaction and contentment in him. My trust in him is equivalent to maximum returns in resultant emotional satisfaction. the transcendent one speaks 2008-12-01 2.53GMT +8hrs Till Death Do Us Part None of the living have seen the face of death, and not many have chanced upon its silhouette. For none of us know exactly what dying feels like, is there no merit in a person's sincere claim that they would sacrifice their life for the one they love? Up until the point it happens we'll never know; if one takes the bullet, or stucked frozen in one's human nature of self preservation. With that in mind, such hypothetical promises hold little conviction and as such should not be taken seriously. But just because true bravery (or stupidity) can only be tested at the crux of the moment does not mean there exist no latent motivation to give up one's life for another. As David Hume would say, one should look at the motivation of a person and not the non-performing of the action. But it is not intrinsic motivation or chauvinistic words that matter when it actually happens. Reality is very different from our perception of it. We can say so easily that we would die in someone elses place because at the end of the day no life is lost. A love so great that one would die for another, only Jesus had a love as great as that. No one else but Jesus could claim to be willing to die for those he loved because the fact is he did; on the contrary the living cannot. Yet, not many realise just how much more priviledge it would be to die for someone than live with a death. I am not saying that dying in someone place was a easier option than running away; I am talking about what happens after the incident. If we fulfilled our promise and took the hit for our loved one, that is where our stream of consciousness ends. We cannot regret the decision; we cannot mourn our own lost. Our death is a death in final fulfilment. But what about the living? The person you died in place of? The body would be grateful, but his or her mind would be tormented by guilt and sorrow. While we have preserved this precious life of our loved one, he or she has to continue to live on with the lost of a precious loved one: you. So next time when we tell someone or think about wanting to sacrifice our life for theirs, remember exactly what the implications are. It is not as noble as the media potrays it; how can something noble cause so much hurt and suffering to those who love us? The pay off is clear: a life for a life; our dreams for theirs and in doing so our regret for theirs. At the end of the day, would this sacrifice be worth the cost? Is a life too expensive a price to pay to buy someone else's future? But what then is a future without the one who loved you enough to preserve that future for you with his or her own? Call it selfish, call it noble. Selfishness and nobility are but two sides of the coin of sacrifice. In light of dying for someone else, what matters isn't the incident but its aftermath. I guess maybe humans don't think further than their own protective instincts: be it for themselves or others. What is worth living for? What is worth dying for? I don't think it worth living a painful life without you. But then again, I don't think it worth dying for you if I return you a life worst than death. The dead don't tell tales, but sometimes we wish they would. Tell us that they are all right; console us, reassure us. But their death is evident and all we can do is blame ourselves for being loved to such an extent. We feel so heartened by this love but there we will have no way of reciprocating it ever. So I guess the hypocrisy of those sacrificial promises while they are convey a certain hypothetical extent of love, no one would want to see if indeed it were so. Because humans are selfish, and while we want to be sure that someone loves us enough to die in our place we don't want to live a day without him or her. I'm just glad I have Jesus because while he has proven this sacrificial love, he has also conquered death so that his love in death is not in vain. (P.S.: For all the other girls I would die for, but for my special you I will live on.) the transcendent one speaks 2008-11-29 9.57GMT +8hrs Cuppa Preference Stereotyping in relation to proximity is a very interesting thing. The difference between an individual and a group is personalisation. With a group, especially one which is distance away, there is no face to them. All we see and know are the general traits and stereotype characteristics enforced by media and society. Without a face, there is no way to see the humanity sans the sympathy evoke knowing they are fellow human beings of the same species as ourselves. But beyond that there is nothing to motivate us to stick our neck or arm out for them. If it comes down to it, we cast aside sympathy to hold onto personal well being. This may be due to the lack of understanding for those whom are estranged from our peripheral existence. But maybe it is precisely because we consciously choose to detach ourselves from people unlike us that a vicious cycle ensues and generation upon generation one accumulates contempt for a people they know nothing of. It could well be the state or the society that imposes such an influential stranglehold on our opinions, but do we not agree that the onus is on us to decide if indeed we condone such a view? But the reality is set in front of us and with the prejudice and stereotyping of society it can go both ways; either we make friends with an individual from the alien group and embrace that group because of our friend or segregate the opinion of this friend as independent from the opinion one has for his or her alien group. Holding the convention for social norm groups, I use this example: Geeks think Jorks are brainless imbeciles; Jorks think Geeks are deprived losers. But if a "Geek" made friends with a "Jork" then would this view change. I don't know about others, but for myself, I believe that my view for the group doesn't change even if I had the fortune of making friends with an individual from that stereotyped group. You may wonder how this could be possible since if accepting one would be accepting all. But if so then you hold onto the preconceived notions of stereotyping too tight. Sounds like a contradiction? The people unaffected by such group classifications can continue to accept individuals however they are, yet it does not mean the opposite. Just because we can accpet a hold group base on an individual we know does not mean we would be able to embrace the whole group. Our love for a well endowned women or a hunky men does not mean we embrace all of them but only subjectively those we see to soothe the eye. Hence, while not being prejudice to a group, embracing it as a whole is consenting with the notion of stereotypes. As I come to know more individuals from that group, I may have a more favourable take on them. But it does not constitute the same as it would the groups I belong to, for the simple reason that man is selfish and protective. In that same vein, I would always be wary of those unlike myself and only accepting those whom I have come to experience. Spouting mindlessly that we should embrace the differences among people is being overly idealistic, and to a certain extent simplistic. How could you ever feel true compassion for the victims of poverty in the Middle East or the starving in Africa if We don't even know them? We can embrace the idea of suffering and pain but not the group itself. If the reverse happened and instead they were doing so much better while we were in the lurch then would we not hate them as vehemently as we sympathised with them if they were suffering? Harmony between groups and communities is the best way to foster greater stability and growth for a country, but as individuals we do not need to subscribe to that. Try as we must, there is no way we would have the ability to magnanimously welcome another distinctively different group into our courts and believe we could all ive in harmony. See that while this is desirable and in line with what Christianity preaches and God desires, it is an ideal. Until it can become our reality, and in no measure our own effort, embracing the likes of a differing group is but an ideal we work towards. It's true that I have reservations about some groups and scrutinise those that are unlike my own. But anyone honestly tell me they do not? I know some may criticise me for not trying, but until we see the effects of our actions how then can anyone have claim to come to an understanding about someone vastly different from one's self? To know an individual we put our heart and soul into a friendship; to know a group we use our eyes to see and our ears to hear, and our minds to think through the information learnt. It is not the same, and should not have the same treatment. My distaste for a group is unrelated to my association with a person from that group. Why is there a need to put both individual and group within the same basket when we champion individualism and not stereotype? the transcendent one speaks 2008-11-28 5.25GMT +8hrs Othello Come to think of it, there is not very much difference between the ignorant and the vile. In a world where the outcome is the verdict and the result of the action is all that matter, it can be very harsh on those who blunder and fall. David Hume believes in the motivation that leads one to act instead of the action itself. Even if someone did not perform a moral action, as long as he had the motivation to then we should judge him of good moral character. Similarly for all other aspects of life, the motivation deserves all praise or blame and not scrutiny of whether there was a performance or non-performance of the action in lieu of it. Yet, it is a shame to say society has no regard what it cannot see or what is cannot verify. Personal motive and intrinsic character is impossible for imperfect humans to judge and assess, hence the actions reflecting this motivations are the next best criterion. Like I said, it is cruel to those who of little faith or carelessness lay blame to a category shared with the evil and immoral. What category am I talking about? The Disappointment of Society. I could think of a situation where the most noble person were condemn for the one wrong action that reaped irreversible consequences. It is always the case that infamy has a more lasting effect than good reputation. A reputation takes years to build, but a moment to destroy. I'll use a relationship case. A guy is the perfect gentleman and is always sensitive towards his girlfriend, but one day he realises his feelings towards her are those of an older brother and so he breaks up with her. More often than never, he would be deemed by all her friends as evil; bad and heartless. Like those who cheat on their girlfriends and play with girls feelings, an honest ignorant man is hung on the noose with the likes of these jerks. And why such "injustice"? All because in the action of breaking up with her, he broke the girl's heart and made her cry. It did not matter that his motives were noble and his remorse genuine. Only in years to come would people be able to see it, but by then the label of a scoundrel would have hung comfortably around his neck. It is not to say that the aforementioned case is all encompassing but that sometimes ignorant and sometimes even noble motives can result in socially chastised actions. Many become backstabbers, traitors, heartless creeps and insolent fools but all because of that one mistake. The only charge they are guilty of is the crime of foolery. Foolishness does not escape punishment and consequence though, but yet the sentence is not quite fitting for the crime. Non-performing does not means heartlessness; Lack of expression isn't disinterest. But the lines are so thin and how could someone know beyond what they see or hear? I guess that's why trust matters. For a motivation within our love ones we cannot see, one just has to avert their eyes from those misleading actions and trust the reliability of his or her character. For if we never did trust someone base on their character then their actions good or bad, right or wrong would still be scrutinised with suspicion. But let us not lump persistent bad character and actions of folly in the same basket. It is human to be initially angry or sad and that is very much justified, but beyond that we have to learn to understand and forgive. The repentant deserve forgiveness; the foolish deserve our understanding. Living in this world, we have no means of escaping the labelling and condeming of society. All we can do is not be a participant of such ways and just maybe we'll be able to find the friends who'll do the same. Using the "wounded tiger" analogy, one should leave a route of escape for others to nurse their wounds so that when our turn arrives others would be considerate enough to do the same. A world where people marked each other in black disappointment or one where we could wash white those slates of foolish mistakes? the transcendent one speaks 2008-11-27 7.28GMT +8hrs Christmas Train Immanuel Kant writes in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals that all rational beings' motivation is happiness. While we can see how that may not be true, somehow personally we heartily agree how the desire for happiness drives us to do certain things, rational or not. Hence, even though Kant is the man of "reason", he does draw this exception that not all happiness comes from reason because happiness has natural necessity. A natural necessity in humans to want to feel the effects of euphoria through many different activities. People, places, objects and even illusions and self reverie. Maybe not exactly happiness, but self satisfaction or fulfilment. We can see how those can motivate us, but could it be possible that the happiness of others could influence the way one acts? Commuting on the train, it is inevitable that we lock eyes with others and then look away or scan our cabin as discreetly as possible while trying not to look amuse when we see something out of place. Behind those faces, the smiles and the frowns; the disenchanted and the pompous, is there more to them then what is presented? It is a rhetorical question, but it leads us to one not so easily answered. The rich wear their money on their wrist, around their necks and decked out in their apparel. It seems almost the epitome of satisfaction and fulfilment. Whereas in contrast, the middle-class citizen siting next to the rich pales in comparison; trying to get by ends meet but also trying to level the playing field with the wealthy at the same time. But then these are ouf perceptions of what our senses perceive. The rich may in fact be fretting over a lawsuit against him while the middle-class is blissfully looking forward to celebrating his daughter's 4th birthday. Just as clothing and accessories do not reveal the truth, neither do people's expressions. But yet, the facade of smiles and happiness in the world masquerades the pervading discontentment that consumerism and capitalism brings with it. Our motivation may well stem from the happiness of other people, or more accurately the lacklustre comparison of our own. We think it must be so much better to be able to own a car, buy a house, go on a vacation overseas or buy material goods to adorn ourselves. Indeed it would be good, but do we do all these because we are motivated by our own happiness, or merely a motivation of not losing out to the happiness of others? It would be so much more demoralising if everyone wore the pains and troubles of their lives on their faces and clothes; like mourning garb for their lost dreams and crushed hope. But we need no assumption to know such things just as one needs no assumption of human motivation. Just remember that as we walk down Orchard Road this Christmas and take the 10.45pm train back on Christmas Day, the happy faces we see are festive and not permanent. Those who laugh the most have cried the hardest; those who encourage with a wide smile have been utterly broken before. Jealousy and envy may creep up as we see the many faces of fulfilment during this festive season while our lives take a nosedive as it seems to slowly fall apart. But why does one look for the happiness of others? Why is the motivation someone else happiness? If the happiness is not our own then we will never be truly happy. Even the sadness we bear fills us with more contentment than the greatest joy of others. Humanity lives in a world of unfair advantage (or disadvantage). Next time we see elation and bliss around us as we go through life's downs, be reminded that behind the happiest faces lie the saddest times. While it is natural necessity to want to be happy, without a reason to do so how can we call that happiness our own? There is a difference between being motivated by happiness and being motivated to find happiness. Lets us not be driven by the happiness that IS but the happiness that WILL BE. the transcendent one speaks 2008-11-26 2.41GMT +8hrs Epiphany The opposite of loneliness is community; the opposite of emptiness is fulfilment. Without others to intervene, our lives have no accountability. Whatever we do, whatever we say; there is no certainty that it was done or said. It could just be self-delusional; it could also be that the self does not exist. In a world where only you exist, how can one be certain that such a world even exist? If so, how can it be that you exist? The inanimate world cannot assert one's place in it, slowly one fades away. Reality becomes surreal and truth becomes nonsense. So we fill the loneliness with community, and find fulfilment in interaction and union with other rational beings. Then we know we have overcome singularity; one will never be alone, one will never be empty again. Yet as we fill the emptiness around us, somehow the fullness of hope within us drains away. Rejection, disappointment, hurt and pain. The fulfilment from without reflects such a stark contrast to the emptiness within. The innocence and hope to find fulfilment in community is emptied as one continues to witness the inability and imperfection that community reveals. The once enthusiastic flames of love are smouldered by the cold rain of rejection and dejection. The hope of our dreams rising to take flight is shot down by the pessimism of inhibition and inability. Then we realise that we got our antonyms wrong. That loneliness is actually part of community, while fulfilment and emptiness could well be one and the same thing. Just as our friends continue to assure us that they will be there to understand us, the more we feel the lack of understanding. The more closely knitted we are with those we love, the more lonely we feel in the disappointment of our self worth; our love causes hurt, our care reveals vulnerability. The more strongly one loves, the greater the contrast between how much we want to love and how much we can actually love. The motivation is great, but the non-performance or letdown of the corresponding actions gives us no comfort; no fulfilment. One comes to see just how loneliness is the opposite of emptiness; community the opposite of fulfilment. It may sound ridiculous, but yet we know it's true. In solitude, there is peace of mind, peace of heart, peace of soul. We find fulfilment in the hope we have inside and maintain the possibilities of emptiness. Emptiness could take on as many forms and in as many shapes as one wills. It could be the truest love; the purest intention. Society only steals this emptiness and filling it with a shape of malice and a form of deceit. Community may assert one's existence, but only an existence that is accepted and approved by it. This conformed existence is not our true being; even as we embrace the fullness of life it is not our own. While we are no longer alone, we realise how lonely we have become. Until the reality of community stares one in the face, there was no way one could have seen just how a innocent wish to fill the space we live in result in a backlash of the emptying of that innocent hope within. There is a certain release when one is away from community; away from the pressures of friendships and the stress of protecting their smiles. In the emptiness, one can remember their true nature; their true motivation and purpose for living and for wanting community. One is not exactly chased by the fear of erasure as much as the anticipation of knowing what it's like to feel love's intervention. If so, then I would rather risk erasure of existence over the death of my true self in the sea of societal conformity. To say that I feel contempt for the emptiness is a lie. While I seek to find my place in community, the place in which I carry this hope is within the fullness of my heart; this fullness being forged out of the emptiness of life. It is this emptiness, so mistaken as loneliness, which gives one the hope to seek a fulfilment from without. Yet unbeknownst to self, this fulfilment was the possibility of the emptiness from the beginning; A peace of mind. the transcendent one speaks 2008-11-25 4.31GMT +8hrs Sanctuary What sets a best friend from the rest of a person's friends is the lack of barriers between them. Being the only other person to know about another's life, secrets, problems, pains and struggles is a real priviledge...and a huge responsibility. With knowledge comes the responsibility of having such knowledge. The less people knowing about it, the more the burden weighs on those who know. Sometimes in the hope that we could wipe those tears and return the smile back onto someone face, we say many things. In the hopes of encouragement we make promises and give reassurance. Obviously, the promises we make are not lies. The assurance we give not merely words of appeasement. And yet, when the time comes for us to make good those words our humanity may cause it to fall apart. Heartfelt Promises become empty ones; Genuine Assurance turns into patronising words. We know best friends don't hold it against us, but what hurts the most is the guilt we carry. It isn't enough to let the person content with seeing the motivation; without the performing of the action it is meaningless. Actions indeed do speak louder than words. Words by far let us down too many times. Knowing their problems we'd want to allievate all their pains, knowing their circumstances we'd want to be able to help find a solution. But then, what happens when we know something beyond our sphere of control? In the end, the futility of our efforts to aid only seem like feeble attempts to make up for our inadequacies, and who's to say we were but only human? <;br> Yet, looking our humanity in the mirror and making clear the most one could possibly do almost comes off as a reluctance to help; a letdown to the expectations held by the person we needed us most. Yes, as a important person to a despairing person we do not say such things, we do not present our limitations. For that moment, our resolve even for the most impossible of things is seen as the hope for their future. But I know I could never forgive myself if I were not able to perform the actions I vowed to carry out. It is not out of obligation; it is out of genuine love. Sometimes we're scared of not being able to meet expectations and hence pull out before we're sucked into the inner life of another person. As much as we would not want to hurt someone, we would not want to be the one to hurt another. It is foolish to think that our sacrifice is based purely in our altruistic nature to help those in need. If the recipient does not reciprocate the feeling then it would futile to continue. We only take a step deeper when we are invited to. A best friend is one who has allowed us to sit in the secret room of their heart for tea; we do not for one moment treat their hospitality lightly. We try not to fowl up not merely because it would inconvenience the host, but really because we do not want to be remembered as a bad guest. No one wants to be remembered as a unreliable friend whom make others feel uncomfortable. Making a best friend is akin to striking the lottery, but unlike lottery it was by no luck but destiny. Affinity is a priviledge that not anyone has the fortune of having and thus should never be taken for granted. With the priviledge of knowing the true heart of another comes the responsibility of sharing the burdens of this best friend's life. While your problems continue being yours and your best friend's problems become your problems as well. Indeed as human we may disappoint, but taking the problems of the one who puts trust enough to bare his or her heart to you as our own is the first step to always being there for him or her. Of course I wouldn't say we do all these with no hope of the favour being returned, but at least we'd want to believe that our best friend would do as much for us as we are doing for them as well. Not to return the favour of course but as an act of mutual friendship. What makes giving our all so worth the while is because the recipient appreciates it with their all as well. the transcendent one speaks 2008-11-17 13.56GMT +8hrs Price Tag Everyone loves money, or at least would not complain if they had more of it. But like all forms of economics and assets it comes down to one word: satisfaction. For example, a person who earns $6, 000 a month will not be satisfied if he wanted to acquire a $80, 000 car. But a person who only earns $2, 000 a month will be contended if he wanted to buy a television which cost $800. The case in point is: it is not so much the value of money as it is the value of our desires. It is a common mistake to assume that the value of money is hedged with the value of things. Money only has as much value as the country regulates; a dollar would buy you three bowls of rice here whereas that same dollar would only get you one bowl in another country, or in times of unrest and rice shortage for that matter. The value of things on the other hand do not fluctuate according to the price mechanism of the market; no war or recession would change the price we put on the value of something. A computer you really want to buy doesn't become less desirable just because its monetary value has fallen; in fact it is a blessing. This is because the value of things are determined by our desires and sentimentality within one's self. In other words, monetary value is dependent on external factors, while the intrinsic value of an object is dependent on internal factors. But still, we use the two terms so synonymously that the value of an object is as much as the price put on it. I would say that in a competitive global economy that is a pragmatic thing to do, but it is not exactly the wisest course of action. If we were indeed pragmatic, then would price not be a consideration for the worthiness of something. A branded product is more desirable because it has better quality and not just because using something that cost more exudes more personal "quality". I would argue that if it's worth the price then go ahead. But while the price is worth their brand, how often is it that the brand is worth the price? "The (insert object here) makes the man." It is really sad when our own self worth is represented in material possessions which apparently is valuated in terms of dollars and cents. Branding is fine as a marketing strategy; those who succumb to it are not. I have nothing against individuals who can afford branded and expensive items. But seeing how trends and fashion change; how the new replaces the old at an alarming rate, is it really wise to put our resources into things we know would fade in due time? That is why I say that if we valuated our possessions in terms of sentimentality, one would not be disillusioned by the lures of consumerism. It is important to consider the price of an item, but equally important to consider its quality, necessity, and relativity. Unless we had infinite cash (which no one does), one would have to earn more than one can spend to survive. If we calculated earnings in terms of working hours, then we could see a clearer picture of just how worthwhile an item is in terms of those hours. Since the value of money is superficial and illusional, it leads to the ease of availability of credit and loans, the misconceptions of winnings from the stock market and gambling. When they are converted to the hours of work, stress, suffering, guilt and shame, maybe the items we borrowed/gambled for are not so worthy anymore. It would be nice to take home a large wage packet every month, but if it entails toiling my guts out, sucking up to my boss, throwing away my human dignity or cheating and harming other individuals, what then becomes of the value of the money I earn? No more is it valued in dollars and cents but in shame, guilt and disatisfaction. What was supposed to be for one's own satisfaction has led to one's disatisfaction in one's own moral character and life. You can live a lavished life and enjoy the spending while it last. But after that, what? For that delusional moment of financial empowerment we pay with a lifetime of regret and suffering. Is luxury worth all the money we can acquire, or all the time we have to slog it out? God gave us life so that we might find contentment in living, not disappointment in trying to live it up. I would rather never be able to purchase a life of luxury than sacrifice life's simple pleasures. Life is priceless, why cheapen it by living with a price tag? 2008-11-14 9.16GMT +8hrs Simplicity Complex It is very much human to wish one were more intellectual; with a better memory, better learning capabilities, a more holistic life experience. Some lament their stupidity have led them to be tricked; their naive trust being taken advantage of in betrayal. Would it not be desired such outcomes be averted if only one had the aptitude or skill to overcome? Here I generalise: two groups of people; the simple thoughtless individuals and the complex analytic thinkers. Of course in reality there is no clear segregations of individuals, but only for the benefit of my argument. The simple individuals are actually the majority of any given population. Those who are contend with living within the pragmatic spheres of the physical world. It is not that they are stupid; they are only guilty of accepting the reality of life. The complex individuals fill up the rest of the population. The ones who think more than a mere fleeting thought about their existence, questioning the norms and doubting the status quo. They see what others do not; think through issues others would just accept. This fine line is bridged once a simple person meets a 'more than simple' problem. It reveals one's inabilities, one's shortcomings and weaknesses. A situation of inaptitude is commonplace for individuals who entertain introspection and retrospection. While the philosopher like the vulgar man may not reach a conclusive solution, at least he has come to terms with the fallibility of humanity. It makes senses that complex people only become more complex as they go on in life. Their complex web of problems and issues only serves to unravel greater complexity in life. Like pandora's box or a speeding train: once it starts, it doesn't end. If one hasn't emerge from the protective shell of life as being imposed, then there is no motivation to question it. Persecution, despair, regret, failure, delusion, among others is like a wake-up call from our contented slumber in life's conformity. As a philosopher myself, it is from experience that I say the complexity only gets worst as we become more sophisticated. The gateway of knowledge brings one into the pain of knowing. Maybe ignorance is bliss. But the jerking awakening by life's atrocities and depravity removes this ignorance and one realises that the simple bliss were but an illusion. When we come to know more we realise just how much we'll never know. It is regressive. The simple envy the complex; their inert abilities and high aptitudes. It is logical to think that if a simple person became more complexly competant, he or she would then be more adapt to solve more of life's problems. But it is clear, complexity is a path of no return. Naiveity once lost will never return; when our eyes are open we can never shut them again. I may seem to suggest that complexity is certain enlightenment, while simple ignorance is blindness. All I'm saying is, do the simple want to regret realising the sufferings of complexity? Be it simple or complex there is no sin. But are the simple ready and prepared to face the challenges of the complex? IS giving up one's simple ways and thinking really worth the pains of complexity's torment? Before I knew it, I was already complex. I do not know a transition, but being on the "moutain peak" I can tell those at the bottom that the view is anti-climatical. Besides the obvious difference in level of aptitude between the simple and complex, there is no other saving grace to wanting to know and experience more. Gaining more knowledge does not entail less afflictions, gaining more experience does not mean greater aversion from predicament; the contrary in fact. In the span of the moment, being more knowledgeable may rectify certain misgivings in one's life. But we live for more than the moment. When we come to a point we realise that no amount of knowledge or aptitude would tide us over the unpredicatable and uncontrollable. Would it be better to continue believing that all we need to solve our inadequacies is more knowledge or realising that no amount of knowing would ever be enough to eliminate our iniquities? While we wish for the complexity to solve our problems, remember we are wishing for the problems that come with the complexity. A simple wish by a simple minded individual to overcome a simple problem, with complex consequences that results in complex problems. Our problems are just about as compatible to our competancy. Like gaming: a higher level always means a bigger problem. the transcendent one speaks 2008-11-10 4.26GMT +8hrs Son, Sea and Satan (This is actually a three part post; to facilitate its reading without feeling it insurmountable, read a part at a time instead.) The Devil The human nature is only guilty on one charge. It will be unjustifiable to accuse it of being evil or corrupt. But we come to see how the valid charge brought against it bestows human nature with such malevolent characteristics. Fallability While one may not wish others suffering, the compulsion to fulfill one's own selfish desire far supercedes that of consideration for others. For the majority of humanity, we have no ill motives against others; then again we have no beneficial motives toward then either. But motive is a personal endeavour. One can never ever be postively motivated to act under coerecion. Our driving force springs from our well of unquenchable desires. There appears to be no problems since our selfish motivations only directly involve the consequences, good or bad, that one derives from it. But sadly, there will always be backlash on society. One cannot be selfish and selfless at the same time; one cannot be a morally good person if he did all sorts of immoral acts. A rational human would probably agree that he or she doesn't want to hurt anyone. But in a world where everyone and thing is so tightly connected, protecting one's self is essentially hurting soneone else. We fight with our inner demon; our pursuits, desires, motivations. Such strife arises because we love ourselves and we love others; we want others to love us. And yet, we cannot avoid of human defense mechanism that jumps to attack every potentially disadvantagous case, while greedily turning it into an advantage for our own personal ends. Hence, our human nature while always acting in the interest of the self is plague with the moral considerations with which it engages the society. The Deep Blue Sea Human society preaches conformity. While seeming to act on the common interest of the masses is but a facade to hide the selfishness of humanity to be accepted by all. If all we ever needed was to survive, then the human nature and instinct would more than suffice. But society has a complex meaning than merely survival; it is socialising. By socialising I do not mean increasing one's social network of friends but the act of interaction between people in a community. "Power is in the hands of the majority." Anyone who isn't the majority then is an enemy of the majority. Our stand and position would mean nothing if the majority undercut whatever we believed in and decided a new world order. While that would probably not happen, the fact that moral reason were replaced by a warped institution of immoral law would see us persecuted. Unlike our own motives harming others, now the collective motives of others are making us martyrs of our own cause. We fight to preserve the essence of our beliefs, but yet it becomes so difficult against a numerically more influential foe. Even as we try to assert our own purpose and meaning in life, we are "bribed" and "threatened" to give up our ways to embrace one more widely accepted by the masses. It may be a storm within one's soul but it aids in keeping the peace and harmony of social balance. But do we just placate the waves and the winds of persecution for a more peaceful existence? Since we live within a society, we ought to be a part in keeping the order of the social institution. Sometimes it compromises our beliefs but if resistence would only serve to provoke the unbelievers, then there is only futility. The Devil or The Deep Blue Sea The Self: The act of being able to self actualise and assert what we believe in while trampling others to achieve and effect these selfish goals and advantageous positions. The Society: The act of compromising our own values in the bid to keep harmony within the community and serve to extend our resources to helping others in need. It is clear. All of us are stuck in a battle between "The Self" and "The Society" (or as some call it "The State"). While we act in the good of others, we undeniably disadvantage ourselves. One can argue that if it were free willed then it would be of no disadvantage, but I meant the objective disadvantage toward our "Self". But truly it only becomes an internal conflict if we had to tolerate and compromise; if it were our willed choice to do so then there would be no contention to speak of. Yet, the human life is a contention. Contending between the how to give enough and yet not get taken advantage of while taking enough and yet not disadvantaging others. At the end of the day we choose. The only thing that makes us different from non-rational being is our ability of choice; Free Will. Usually it will always end in certain pain since there is always a lost on our side. The loss of actualisation or the loss of acceptance. Which would be worst? Demonising ourselves to prevent from sinking in the vast ocean of society or jumping into the deep end of society just so we can shut out our inner demon? This is good; this is bad. But this is good as far as it is bad; bad as far as it is good. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ has served to show that our inner demon, sin, has been destroyed by God and done to save the masses from the deep sea of falsity and lies. We need to find the median where we are not consume by the demon within us and yet continue to stay afloat above the sea of conformity. Jesus is the answer to quelling the our inner demons while not yielding to the treachery of the raging sea. the transcendent one speaks 2008-11-03 5.40GMT +8hrs Ugly Ducking Affliction: Pain, Suffering, Fear, Hate, Sadness, Melancholy, Anger, Betrayal, Vendetta. The older generation has a chinese saying, "we have eaten more salt than you have rice." Indeed, their suffering amounts to more than the joys of our youth that have been built upon it. But that doesn't mean that the afflicted have no right to lament of their plight no matter greta or small. Petty squabble have no place for wise ears and prudent lips, but who's to say that someone's angst is petty in comparison with one's past strife? While the pain of the flesh can be quantified by the blood that has been bled, there is no way to know the degree of affliction upon the soul unless one bothers to share his or her pain. But who would trade his sanity to add on the pains of another? Is there so great a dying need to increase one's own pain like a machochist? One life has enough of it's problems for an individual, no two hearts to accomodate another's penance of sin. Such irresponsible insensible attitude, and yet justified in whatever makes us human to shun what is not ours to bear and exploit that which gives us deliverance; however temporal matters not. In the end, we rob ourselves of an audience for our afflictions just so we can horde the seats of acceptance in our strides. Why is it that their pain far supercedes ours? Is it just that some were born to be articulators while the rest of us merely listeners to their plight like as if we overselves have none? Mine would just seem like a petty bout while theirs a dignified injustice. There be no grandeur in disrupting a perfectly tranquil evening with insignificant utterance that would make as much sense as a cultured man talking to barbarians! But enough of stooping to the levels of chickens and ducks, clucking and honking even as their brethens are served on the dining table. It is not that we do not want to air our grievances, but would they give us the chance to? No man is superior to the next, and so I have read though experience has proved contrary. The wise know that resistance is only met with more resistance; for the sake of peace I take the stand of a pacifist and yet they take it as a sign of weakness. Woe be to the man who thinks the world revolves around himself and humanity dances to the tune of his fingers. But like Copernicus, I have realised like how the earth revolves around the sun, so to each man only makes revolutions around his individual destiny insofar that he even treasures its balance. No he does not treasure this balance, for who treasures balance would upset its delicate nature by destroying the harmony that binds? While it may be justifiable to pour out our afflictions to our friends, it always either upsets the mood or just spoils the ambience. In doing so, we not only make others as unhappy as ourselves but does nothing to solve our own frustration. But could it be that our need for appeasement is just not being met by those who are close to us? That really we should vent our pent up frustrations but at someone willing to hear us out? Of course we should find someone who would hear, but even those who are willing are only as willing as they have sympathy left for the day. By and large, humanity is just too selfish to hope to share the hurts and pains of others, even if it were those closest to us. Can it be that harmony is a masquerade for tolerence? It is almost delusional of me to seriously think that there were somebody who wholeheartedly listen to my afflictions without springing theirs on me first, because one set of afflictions for one individual for one life. Those with the extraordinary ability to help others allievate their pains are commendable; the rest of humanity should be overlooked and forgiven for not being able to meet our own selfish demands. It seems we are in need of more grace than we believe others do. There is no consolation for our suffering; only a hefty price to pay for trusting human hearts so selfishly do we end up the ones experiencing the ugliness of human nature. Rarely, the afflicted sympathises with the afflicted; most of the time they are out comparing the severity of their afflictions to decide who deserves the most sympathy. Is all that we care about sympathy, when what we truly need is grace? the transcendent one speaks 2008-10-26 9.15GMT +8hrs Spacing Out Space does not exist. Time does not exist. I exist in a space; I exist at a time. But I cannot be sure that I exist in space and in time. Just like the "Matrix". Unless I can be outside of space and time can I be sure they exist, but while one exist within the framework of space and time all we have is an intuition of it. While it is said that intuitively we know there is space and time. But with our imperfect minds, we can only conceptualise space and time into a human defined "space and time" within limits of experience. Hence in our existence, only the concepts of space and time exist, but the intuition of space and time does not because it transcends our existence. What we know as space defined within limits of geometry is purely conceptual. What we know as time defined in years, days, hours, minutes, seconds is purely man-made. Hence, I call conceptual space "Space" and conceptual time "Time". When we relate with one another regarding space and time, we are really talking about "Space" and "Time", which is relative to our existence. We can never refer to the pure essence of space and time because our mind cannot coherently grasp it. While Kant believes it is intuitive and Hume believes it perceptions in our mind. I see it as representing space and time, which we know intuitively, as perceptions through our mind; "Space" and "Time". "Space" is not space, but it is an imperfect representation of space. The same goes for "Time". To characters in a game or people in a matrix, if time froze or the space was expanded would they be able to know that? For what mode of coherent "Space" and "Time" to them would seem like abnormalities to those outside of the system if indeed the aforementioned happened. Similarly, the only "Space" and "Time" we know is that which we represent the world we exist in. Even if actual space and time were changing we would never know and thus not affect us in a conscious way. Obviously intuitively, it may result in certain subconscious reactions, but all few and far between. Mostly because we would never know which were and which were not. Space and time is infinite. Just like we can only understand a concept of infinite not but truly know what infinite is like, the same goes for space and time. It seems that fundamentally, both space and time follow the same understanding and transcendence in existence. For which we can understand them by mere intuition may be a divine act of God. But that leads us to question if Gos created space and time, and if God lives within space and time constraints and thus creating a contradiction. Is there such thing as God space and God time? And if so, is space really God space while "Space" being human space? As being subjected within confinement of understanding we cannot know for sure, and yet we dare propose to relate with God space and time in the same way "Space" and "Time". We can only know space and time as it comes to us through sensory modality and we define it as "Space" and "Time", which is not space and time at all but a figment of it. To say that space and time exist is making a claim we can never prove. Thus I settle that space and time does not exist; "space and time" within existence is but a mere conceptual understanding from intuition of space and time, of which we can imagine and yet can never know. the transcendent one speaks 2008-10-15 12.50GMT +8hrs Caesura "Maybe death is just envious of life." Such is a analogical explanation to the fragility of life and more so the probabilistically high chance of dying. "Death", as potrayed as an entity, channels its enviousness into jealousy and malice hoping to pull as many into its own circumstance. A chinese saying goes, "calling the grapes sour just because one cannot eat of it." In a way, "Death" believes that since it cannot attain life then it would take it away. But it could be wrong to give "Death" such a human trait as envy and jealousy. I guess there is no more magic to the transition from life to death than the stopping of the heart. And yet, in our bid to defy nature and logic, our beliefs far surpass the realms of known science to embrace such unreliable myths of "Death" just so that some form of "hope" can be achieved. But while personifying death, we desecrate the sanctity of life itself. And just maybe, life does not deserve anything more than to be below death. To those who live a happy contented life, it would sound preposterous to bring the importance of death above that of life. But it takes a "mortality" experience before we see the inherent supremacy of death over life. A common case would be death within one's family; an ailing grandparent nearing the deathbed, a tragic fatality by unpredicted accidents. At that moment, our close ties with the deceased cause us to feel like "dying". I've never really felt like that before, but through enough exposure and I'm sure some of you know, the feelings of anguish and suffering can even be worst than "death" and hence death seems so much a better respite. Emotionally it is merely incoherent spurts of sentiment. On a more philosophical vantage, we feel a certain subconcious jealousy and betrayal towards the deceased who have deserted us in this cruel world. Whether it be the betrayal of leaving us to suffer the void they have left or the jealousy of the deceased's escape from tragic reality, it represents only one thing... "Maybe life is just envious of death." In Christianity, life, and eternal life at that, has conquered death when Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead. But it becomes a double-edged sword for me personally. On the physical worldly level, my physical death would give birth to this spiritual eternal life I believe in. And hence, physical death is still supreme over the physical life. But while I hold such a view, the importance and sanctity of my life does not come from the fear of death. And this brings me to my argument on the impact of death on life itself. Just maybe the notion of death up plays the significance of life. But in daily living, I believe the conscious efforts of living stems from our life's purpose instead of just the aversion toward dying. Death would indeed be envious of life because life has a purpose that death cannot emulate. While life envies death because death has fulfilled its purpose that life could never. Life and death play the role of "yin and yang" in this conflux of complex balance of our existence. To say death would be sweet respite for life is irresponsibility to the priviledge of existence. But who determines whether existence is a blessing or a curse in itself? "Maybe" has been used throughout mainly because to achieve a stanch certainty one has to have died and then risen again to tell that experience. But just "maybe", death is a door from life to the afterlife and holding such respect for death is futility in its application. <;br> In this life, we don't want the joy and the laughter to end. But for Christians, walking through the "door of death" brings forth a perfect joy, a perfect laughter; an everlasting Godly life with our Creator. Death is not a grim reaper, or an abomination and definitely not a disease to be feared. Dying is really the process in life that everyone fears; death is but a caesura (break) of the essence of life. Birth to death, life is the journey; life to afterlife, death is the transition. the transcendent one speaks 2008-10-13 5.50GMT +8hrs Judge Dread Standard is relative; is contested; is comparable. Hence, it would be pompous to believe one's self as a good judge of character or behaviour. Dispensing with the aesthetical judgements tackled in my earlier post, we come to the grounds of moral and ethical judgements of character and value. In all societies there is a system of law which governs and judges any who violates it. For that purpose it has fared well enough to warrant humanity relying on it. But on a more personal level there will be no such system, only many different individuals holding on to a belief system that may resemble another and yet deviates greatly in other regards. Who then is in any position to judge another when the standards between individuals are so vastly different? A blasphemous act may seem perfectly normal to another; a sexual immorality to one but common consensus to the rest. Besides this differentiated position, how are we of any capable measure to formulate and pass judgement over another human being quite like ourselves? There is nothing wrong with reprimanding a friend for the mistakes he or she has made, but passing judgement in our own hearts is a mistake unto our own. Not being the one who has determined the workings of this world and the standards of creation, we have as little weight in our judgements as a madman has in assessing fine character in a person. You do not go around telling people that the devil has cause you to succumb to temptation. One should not assume to know that every little wrong done is of the manipulation of the devil. The irony in it all is how proposing the aforementioned case could be a good platform for the devil to sour the friendship between yourself and that friend. It is because we can never be sure of anything that we have no right of judgement. It could well be divine prophecy to bring to light the judgement of God, but it is not our place to convey the judgement. God's judgement is not our judgement to speak of. Knowing the Lord's divine hand only gives us the opportunity needed to extend aid to a wayward brother to avert the wrath of God's judgement from him. Only the creator has the full right to criticise his own creation, at best someone else can give a consolation but they would never be able to argue the accuracy of the judgement from the creator himself. Likewise, God is our Creator and only He has that right to judge all men. The only thing we will do is speculate judgement. Due to the fallability and sin of humanity, it is impossible to stop our judgemental nature. We 'judge' the sins of others and in doing so commit sin. In effect, it's not to say we cannot judge, but we ought not to because of the consequences. Then again, what would human judgement matter since humanity is fallable? Is not everything we say truth today and myth tomorrow? I am always reminded of my own name, Daniel; God is my Judge. It is not ours to mete out judgement, vengeance or justice when our sinful nature denies us such. We have no right to judge anybody, not even ourselves. Probably the only area we can judge is our own judgemental nature. The conclusive verdict is that a judgemental nature is wrong and bad, and that in itself is the one and only true judgement we can possibly make, ever. (P.S.: In case you wanted to point out the spelling error in "judgement", I know its correct spelling is "judgment". I just seem to like it written that way, so now come judge me on that. Haha!) the transcendent one speaks 2008-10-10 10.02GMT +8hrs Kamikaze The Chinese saying goes, "to take one bamboo stick and capsize the whole boat." When one thinks fanatical they think terrorist, think martyrs, think highly exaggerated individuals brimming on the tip of certain insanity. But as much as the secular world is concern, there are active fanatics and passive fanatics. And just maybe you think "passive fanatics" sounds like an oxymoron. But it isn't. To peel away from the "passion-with-a-vengeance" type of fanatics, passive ones encompass certain fanboy (and girl) types and also those driven with the passion to acquire extensive knowledge and information regarding their interest. To say the least, everyone has a "fanatic" nature within them, but just maybe not used linguistically to define but a similar definition all the same. There are times when I would start raving and swooning over the hobby figures and model kits in the familiar shops I peruse. Gasping excitedly and eyes widening at the sight of my favourite toys. But such behaviour sticks within the context of the retail shops, my room, and sometimes with the friends who have this genuine interest. Even as I have this love for Japanese products and media, it has not brought me closer to the japanese cultural fanbase here. ON the contrary it has evoked a great disdain for their circle. Known more affably as "otakus", these self proclaimed japanese culture fanatics live, breathe, eat, sleep japanese popular culture and media. While their craze aligns somewhat with my interest, it makes no more than a slight overlapping of common ideas; never could it have intersected more significantly. My love and passion has never quite been philosophy, ("shocking to hear isn't it?") but but some aquired nature I now live, breathe, eat, sleep philosophy. So in this regard I could well be a philosophy fanatic. And yet the same problem arises as I effect no more than a friendly gesture towards my fellow classmates. Why such discrepancy? Moderation is wisdom. Life has so much more to it then the fanatical things we seem compelled to share with others and care about. To the "unbelievers" (outsiders to the circle), our efforts to spread the love of the things we feel passionate about may produce right about the opposite effect from what we hoped to achieve. Instead a a "conversion" we earn one more "detractor". From the sociological, such "fanatical" approaches will strain relations with love ones and friends-to-be who do not share such a passion for it; personally it encases you within the confines of your "fanatic" community which slowly develops into one's whole world. There are many who are passionate about what they do and what they love to do. What marks them as admirable is their spirit to excel at their passionate areas and yet leave enough room to live out the holistic lifestyle of coming in touch with the events outside of that circle. Such passive fanatics can engage in a conversation about their passionate area in an unassuming tactful way to bring out the essence of their passion and not the overwhelming information dump onto the interested party, and when conversing about other fields of life can hold his or her own independent viewpoints about general events and topics just as he or she would the passionate area. Such a passive approach may seem lazy and almost as if the individual is a pushover who doesn't fight for his or her own love for something. Many passionate Christians of the Faith believe that we should do it loud, big and "earth-shaking" to bring about a revival to our land. Their methods, I may not favour but see no reason to object towards. Yet, there has to be a clear line drawn between what God will do and what God wants us to do. Would He want us to harass unwilling individuals for the gospel? Or come down with the hard truth of our faith on people who are lost and seeking direction? Would He want curious seekers to be unsettled by the overwhelming "hospitality" of the worshippers? Just as in any area of our life, religion as the unbelieving crowd would see it, deserves to be exercise with certain tact and respect for those who do not share a same "fanatic" love for it. How would you feel if someone came up to you and told you all about Hello Kitty and how wonderful it would be if you joined their fanclub and help to spread the love of Hello Kitty far and wide? (this example with the assumption you do not like Hello Kitty; insert anything you may not take a liking to in "Hello Kitty's" place.) Maybe you had nothing against Hello Kitty and even accepted it's existence, but from the aforementioned experience we tag Hello Kitty with great detest and disgust. As fellow Christians, would we want such reactions from the love ones we evangelise to in the hope they would be saved? We can be fanatical about our faith but should never see other unbelievers are mere harvest but a soul we accord the respect and build a trust so that we might share the love of our belief with them. Be it radical in our approach or conservative, it is God who stirs the hearts of men and change them from the inside out. We are but vassel of that Will, not the Will itself. After all, showing a sensitivity towards unbelievers in our sharing of the good news is a way of loving our Father in Heaven. It would be great if others spoke the same "language" as us, but if not we should seek to learn to speak their "language" so that we might create a mediating bridge from which they would be more receptive of the Gospel message we bring to them. What separates the fanatical from the passionate is that while the former shares the passion with no regard for the individual, the latter see the individual important enough to want to share his or her passion with the person. ("Kamikaze" in english means God Wind; the Japanese fighter pilot who committed suicide attacks on the enemies. A pun on the word "God Wind", let our ministry not be a "sucidal" one in the name of God.) the transcendent one speaks 2008-10-10 3.55GMT +8hrs Gift Exchange The more humanitarian in nature would criticise the seemingly apathetic as heartless cold individuals. Putting the principle of judgement aside, the criticisms against apathy are not without its validity. But I have no interest in focusing on the nature of the humanitarian perspective. Instead, I would like to address the nature of apathy in humans from a sociological standpoint. Apathy, as discuss both on my blog and elsewhere, is how one has no sentiments or opinions regarding certain issues and most of the time issues that should and ought to evoke a sense of abject reaction in us. Starvation in Africa, Racial Discrimination of Asians and Afro-American people, Euthanasia, Abortion, Serial Sexual Rapist Murderers, Child Prostitution to name a few "heart stabbing-eyebrow furrowing" examples. Sympathy is in the nature of humanity, and just maybe apathy toward situations or scenarios that deserve our empathy is scrutinised so strongly because it is the "in-human" thing to do. Humanly, this would make a whole lot of sense; objectively, it would be meaningless. No matter how much of our heartfelt feelings poured out is not going to turn into the solution. Maybe a influx of donations would help in some way, and yet it is never enough to allievate this burden on our breasts. Such undue stress and headaches, like our own lives have not enough of them. Those who appear apathetic towards such situations are not heartless individuals; they are but the more pragmatic and logical people of our society. If I may even venture to say, many who are apathetic towards such tragic cases are in fact the ones who are the most emotional and sentimental. While the majority of the population can continue to give away sympathy with no regressive effects to their day to day activities, the more "thought provoked" and "emotionally intuned" individuals do not have it half as easy extending their sympathy to such situations. Being able to feel the hurt and pain more deeply and also those who have ever experienced a similar case as the one in question, the effects of "feeling" for such cases is almost intolerable and nerve-wracking. While sympathy can still be extended towards those close to them who matter like their family and friends, there is no point sacrificing one's own peaceful state of mind for world events that they have no hope of aiding. This "apathy" then is a protect mechanism of the mind and heart to retain whatever sanity is left of an individual capable to feeling the world's suffering as if it were their very own. This may sound grossly exaggerated, but it is by no means falsified. We learn that sin causes pain and suffering. Jesus Christ took upon Himself all the sins of men on the cross, bearing not only the physically pain and suffering of men, but most of all the emotional anguish and mental anxiety of ALL men. Only an individual as pure as Jesus could ever survive that magnitude of pain and suffering without becoming insane or brain-dead. So to a lesser extent those who are more humanitarian can learn how it is that trying to heap the hurts of the world by sympathising with it can be detrimental to one's own well being. If indeed sacrificing our sanity to save all the afflicted would be noble indeed. But driving ourselves crazy or depressed does not allievate those tragic situations one bit. (Only results in a tragic situation in one's own life.) It is not to say that apathy is superior because that would take away the essence of our humanity, making us no different from machine. But one must realise the limitations of our own feelings and emotions toward world issues that are so much larger than ourselves. If we had the means to lend aid or participate in changing them for the better, by all means follow your heart. But for everything that we have no control over, put that burden onto God in prayer and continue on without woes. Sometimes we care so much more about dying babies in Africa than the dying family ties within the home. How ironic is that? To neglect the issue we can do something about to feel for one we have no control over? the transcendent one speaks 2008-10-08 16.20GMT +8hrs Tastebuds "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." If indeed this were not the case then either all the world will be segregated into perfectly beautiful and perfectly ugly or it would be a system of perfectly similar individuals. Either suggest that the words "unique" and "special" have no place in such a highly conformised "computer-like" system. But even as we embrace this whole notion of each individual having their own preferences and opinions on aesthetics, is there not any measure of rule to go by? Plato questioned the intrinsic essence of such aspects; "what then is the definition true beauty?" While such an "eye of the beholder" (EOTB) theory is true for the greater part of experiential life, it comes off as a means to shrug off the aesthetically dilemma to reach a perfect consensus of the benchmark of the essence of something. With moral entanglements and word definitions out of the way, aesthetical taste and value has only as much weight as the collective opinions of the masses; ie. General Consensus. When one's aesthetic judgements align itself with that of the general consensus then it would seem that the mark of true essence has been formulated; the EOTB argument is turned down in favour of synchronised thought. But there will always be that outlying individual who would argue against the consensus and then the EOTB argument is brought in to give way for exceptions. Not that it is merely the most convenient way to go (which in fact it is), but because it is the only direction to approach the ever unique and differentiated opinions and taste of men. Unlike moral issues, the code of religion or ethics would foster in us a sense of belief that far supersedes the mere chatter of human opinion, but aesthetics has none of that. It is not a "God" truth; it is govern by no divine law. The closest it has seen to coming to a perfect situation is only that which is of the majority. Shakespeare and Picasso, Napolean and Gandhi. They were "great" men. Obviously not every single individual agrees, and yet no less a reason to think them not as "great". It would be so different to say "God is great" because the notion and interpretation of "God" depends on the individual. It would mean "Such a God would be a great God" since the construction of belief in our mind about "God" is as fluid as the views of our aesthetical judgements. Indeed, "God is great" and "one plus one equals two" and "grass is green" are all true but on different counts and premises. What we want to establish is an aesthetical rule that operates based on reason and not taste. But then it would cease to be aesthetical on the basis that reason cannot operate in the realm of the passions. It is simpler to say "big eyes are beautiful" than "the girl is beautiful because of her big eyes". Or maybe to some there really is no difference at all. I believe that tagging aesthetics to morals and beliefs have its inherent purpose, even if Hume wants to make a distinction between them. For example, everything morally right is beautiful and all that is morally wrong is plain ugly. My detractors will amount to no small sum, but the point I'm making is that if anything the definition of essence can only be traced insofar as the Creator is concerned. The beauty of virtue; the ugliness of vice. The EOTB argument will result in beauty and vile being just two sides of the same coin, and if anything arbitrary in nature. I don't know about you, but having the standard of taste being purely arbitary gives little to no purpose in even having those aesthetical judgements in the first place. The only kind of aesthetics that aren't arbitrary are all those which are no aesthetical in nature. We can judge therefore that the morally right thing to do is aesthetically the rule of beauty. Aesthetics will always be EOTB, ie. arbitrary. But the essence of aesthetics lie in reason, religion, in moral and values, in nature and nurture. Maybe its just my liking for a more divine meaning in the choice of preferences, but leaving it to the EOTB is far too irresponsibly apathetic and arbitrary for my "taste". (Pun intented.) the transcendent one speaks 2008-10-06 6.15GMT +8hrs Insert Name Here What's in a name? Too often we neglect the importance of naming, taking it for granted that it is but mandatory for everyone. While names for people is never contested, why then is the naming of places place under such scrutiny? Do only living organisms worthy of being given names that non-animate objects have no right of? Indeed, names are meant to familiarise and classify. Locate and ascertain, and we know that countries and states, roads and streets are all named. But yet within the country, citizens do not see the need of naming their estates or constituencies. So there are addresses like "Blk 123 Bukit Batok St 34 #12-34" tagged to our units, that I give you. But then what kind of effect would it have on heartlanders, subtle or obvious? Clearly, it would differentiate Bukit Batok from Jurong East but would not make it anymore special than being another number within its own cluster. Maybe individuals find it embarrassing for their cluster of blocks to be given tacky names or converted into a HUDC with fences almost mimicking a private estate. A sense of belonging? Or a sense of estate pride? With unoriginal names like (insert estate name here) garden/view/green/heights/etcetra, it's kind of hard to cosy up with the names indeed. But personally, I'd rather have a tacky name for my cluster of blocks in my estate than a mere block number and unit address. The only thing that differentiates your cluster with another within the estate are numbers. It reminds me so much of recruits in the army or convicts in prison where all they had were numbers for identification and registration. Sounds cold and so without love. But buildings are but cold and without love aren't they? I do not disagree. Yet would it not be myopic in nature to just see naming as just a form of identification and branding? Naming estates definitely holds no benefit for in-animate brick and steel, but it does resound in people's hearts the uniqueness and defining quality of belonging to their cluster of flats. To give heartlanders a sense of belonging and closeness toward their neighbourhood and fellow residence, creating a greater cohesiveness and neighbourhood spirit within. But save the government's vision for afternoon tea; naming goes far deeper than merely that. You may deny it, but the presence of a name does evoke a sense of identity; and I'm not just talking about identity towards our neighbourhood, but the identity of our home. What's a home without a name? I know for myself, without any more originality (or lack thereof) than the naming of clusters, that my home by default is named the 'Seah's Residence'. Does not sound very convincing hedged against the importance of baby and landmark naming. But it has as much of a psychological as it has a sociological implication to citizens. I may be living in an estate with the most tacky name that I have not acquainted to memory, but at least I know where I'm staying is very different from someone who stays across that same street as mine. While we can love our estates, so can we nurture a familiarity and confort within just one's own cluster of blocks. A name superficial as it may be carries a far greater ideology of personal comfort and recognition. It may not foster a sense of belonging or identity towards our country, but you cannot dispute it's impact on reinforcing the cosiness and significance of our homes. Minute as it may seem to some, naming does not only act as identification but recognition. Where is your home? Be it Bukit Batok, Clementi or Yio Chu Kang, within those estates there is that particular enclave of home. "Home is where the heart is." So how can one have any heartfelt attachment to a place that doesn't even have its own name to go by? Even every little corner and secret haunt has a personalised name that makes it special. Is yours close enough to your heart to receive a name yet? the transcendent one speaks 2008-09-29 4.08GMT +8hrs The Defining Word The Tower of Babel has become a focal point for tracing the roots of our myriad of tongues used around the world. Uniting the tongues of men into one language and meaning would indeed be the unification of all men under one banner. Yet, even as humanity has strive to connect the world with the language of business and commerce; technology and science: english; within the english camp there is "defection" and "corruption". Internet jargon, parodic referencing, internal lingo, circle terms all in the fray of an already dilluted english language. One word, many meanings. One meaning, many different words one can use. Intonation, sarcasm, parodying, punning, wordplaying just to name a few ways in which words delve into alternative definitions. Just for one universal language it has presented itself troublesome in such a variety of ways. Though half the time, such "wordplaying" is purposeful and can even be artistically used. (I, personally vouch for it.) But misunderstandings and intentions are but a small part of the problem. Wrong by Definition, Right by Application. Right by Definition, Wrong by Application. Let's take love as an example since it's the number one favourite word in the world, and highest mentioned word in the bible if I might remind you. "Love is Sex." This has been an common underlying intonation in carnal relationships. By definition, this is not what love is, and through rightly and accurately applying such a definition it leads to premarital sex, underage pregnancy and many other undesirable consequences. "Love is self sacrificing." At least I believe it to be true. But some people may mistake all self sacrifice as being an act of love and in light of such it may be wrong. Sacrificing is a compromise between the couple and not merely one individual. How then can we get the right definition and apply it rightly, accurately and most importantly, truly? I believe personally that stringently building and selecting a good moral and ethical foundation of values and principles is vital to not fall prey to the lures of worldy definitions and warped applications. This argument can take a turn of what individuals base as morality. But I have a feeling through pure conscience and proper upbringing we have certain beliefs that we can never deny or reject. Standing firm by his or her definition of moral and ethical principle, one should not be swayed by the impressions and expectations of the definitions by others. In addition to that, living in a communal society, it is important we synchronise accurately the differences in defining meanings between words and understandings. God's existence is seen clearly in humanity's intrinsic conscience of good and evil. Even as unbelievers do not adhere to the gospel teachings, there exist areas in which align toward the actions of goodness and love. Just because individuals do not speak the same language or same definitions does not mean we give up on conveying heartfelt feeling to one another. As they say, actions speak a thousand words. If words become an unreliable medium to express ourselves, then actions transcends the mere wordly definition to bring forth a universal definition from the heart. Even before language was born, all words like love, joy, peace and grace could only be expressed through actions alone. To communicate intelligeably, we define the words we speak. To argue and fumble over the meaning of the words used to represent our heartfelt emotions defeats this purpose. Definitions lie not in the words we say but in the truth of the heart. The Word of God has been written in so many different languages, and interpreted in so many ways both good and evil, and yet the Gospel is not merely defined but truly felt in our hearts. For what we believe we hold true to our hearts and no matter how we define it, we would feel it truly and clearly all the same. Just maybe this defining truth will become the medium of unification for all mankind, just that this time not under men's but God's banner. the transcendent one speaks 2008-09-28 12.40GMT +8hrs Godlike Consumerism There was the Baby Boom, the Asian Depression, the SARS scare but none quite as pertinent to hit our shores like no other in history. So let us be clear on our definitions shall we? Consumerism: the concept that an ever-expanding consumption of goods is advantageous to the economy. Indeed a concept that has turned into a mentality and for some, an ideology to live by. If consumerism were the new religion then money must be its new god. From an econmist point of view, consumerism does indeed fulfill what it has struck out to accomplish; ultimately to use expenditure growth to increase the country's economic growth. Besides the fact that I've forgotten most of the explanation to the effect of consumerism from my JC years, it would be easier for the vulgar man to understand without the economics jargon anyway. But its glaringly obvious how consumerism is good for the economy. But honestly, do you think you actually support that reason with such a fervor, or would it just be a plain good excuse to continue purchasing the things we want? On the pretext of consumerism, individuals, both young and old, mostly women (not trying to be sexist here), they peruse the shops with such a noble air of elegance believing their personal endeavours would ultimately convey to the good of the nations. While the men serve the National Service in the army, the women serve theirs along Orchard Road and down the roads of City Hall. Sociologist may view such behaviour as a trend, a psychologist as a compulsive expenditure habit; to me, a newfound priority. (Or maybe just re-founded.) In itself, consumerism is not bad. An activity that helps the economy and welfare of the country at large cannot veer too far from being virtuous. But making it a priority actually changes its original intent. By far, consumerism is merely a market uptake that works on a local scale, but focusing it wholly on self turns it into greed. Consumer Greed. As a country becomes more affluent, it is only natural that the Gross National Product (GNP) will increase. Once individuals have more liquidable income, it becomes much easier to part with it in exchange for material goods. At least this is how it should work. But as an affluent society, our country fails on two accounts; both as a result of the income gap. The first being that the rich and even the not so wealthy produce great wastage of resources when purchasing mindlessly. Economic growth comes together with greater environmental hazards and depletion of non-renewable resource. God created this earth for men to commune with His creation, and in doing so fellowship with God Himself. Yet, such consumerism only serves to directly or indirectly exploit nature; a selfish and inconsiderate way of treating the sanctity of life. Maybe you're not such a pro-environmental lobbyist so here comes the second; those who fall within the mid to low income range end up spending 'future' income on present expenditure. In simple terms, buying on credit they have no means to pay for, or taking up loans with monthly interests they cannot afford to pay off. Owning a car with no means to keep it on the road. Newlyweds buying a condominium unit when a three-room flat will suffice. Purchasing diamonds when one can hardly secure rice on the table. This is a life of decadence. When greed takes a hold, and all that matters is the present with no regard for the future. Everyone knows the consequences, just that no one believes it'll happen to them; that's what they all say. Bankruptcy, Broken Families as a result of gambling, Loansharks and Creditors, Desperation, even Suicide. For Christians, we look toward a future Kingdom. If indeed we support consumerism then should we not think of how we can expand our consumption of 'goods' to the advantage of the Kingdom's economy? Through our tithes and offerings, through acts of service. Through evangelism and missions. In prayer and bible study. We want to buy into the concept of expanding the good that can be done to benefit the Kingdom's cause. Even a multi-milionaire doesn't have the means to give all he has to save the poor. But in the kingdom of heaven, even a child has the means to give her whole heart to saving the lost. Not many of us individuals have the ability to support a life worshipping a worldly consumerism of greed. But to give our all for Jesus, just like the 5 loaves of bread and 2 fishes, He will continue to multiply our heavenly treasure to continue consumerism for the Kingdom. So take your five cents worth of scripture and bring it out into the marketplace and purchase a little saving grace for mankind. Consumerism may be worth our whole life as long as one knows which economy he or she is expanding for. the transcendent one speaks 2008-09-25 16.08GMT +8hrs Elite Tease Lets make it clear before we throw terms around like confetti... Elitism: <;br> 1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite. 2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group. Those who know me know I'm an elitist. For those who don't, "I am an elitist!" By virtue of adequate schooling or pure distaste, I have come to embrace a certain elite quality of life. Or at least the life in Singapore: Academics. But pointing fingers isn't going to slove anything. The crux should be, "why is elitism even a problem?" I see nothing wrong with a system being governed by elites, in our home country that translates to the academically smart scholars. The problem lies in the backlash it causes. At best, a segregation of classes through social streaming; at worst, the tyranny and oppression of the weak and less academic. Realise that I use the word academic and never include the term intellectual, because they are not mutually interchangable. As I see it, personally, elitism based on academics is not elitism at all. True elitism is based on pure aptitude. Not just merely intellect, but in all other aspects of life. Intellect just happens to be my strongest suit to elitism. Due to all the collateral effects of an "elitist" stereotype, elitism has been put under great scrutiny and has caused chagrin amongst the vulgar men. But is there really cause to be incensed about it? Elitism is simply just that honing and natural selection in the various fields of craft. A man can be an elite in whichever vocation of work he chooses. Maybe by academic standards, those who fall short of it are labelled as failures and hence rank the bottom of the 'elite board'. But this is a myopic way of viewing elitism by and far. I am defending my position as an elitist and should not be mistaken that I condone the governments efforts to create a "greater academic elite sphere" within the country. But on a side note, you have to admit that such an approach is prospering the economy. Then comes the common refrain, "What about me?" For how much we talk about compassion and thinking for the greater good, we're caught in the tinted lens of selfish compassion and greater good for self instead. Of course this topic could be debated further, but it does not fall within my topic scope. It so happens that those being scorn also fall into a category of individuals whom have been deemed as under performers, academically anyway. A chinese saying goes, "one bamboo causes the whole boat of bamboos to capsize". To their own credit, there are many non-academic individuals who excel in various other industries. Car Mechanics, Electricians, Photographers, Artists, Cooks, Computer Experts. When it comes to their area of expertise, how can we not confer upon them the title of "elite"? In gamer speak they totally "pwn!" My Singapore Society lecturer said, "now we look down on those who go to ITE, but in future when our car breaks down and we need to repair it, who is going to repair it? Never once when you send your car to the workshop, will the mechanic tell you nothing's wrong. There's always something wrong... This is vengeance I tell you." Hence, we cannot undermine their abilities either as they are elitist too, just that for me is in terms of intellectual aptitude while for them it is more kinesthetic aptitude. So whom is being scorn? The drop-outs of society who do not pursue any useful and fruitful endeavours and the conceited individuals who sit comfortably in their throne of wealth and achievements. It is not that humans cannot become elites, it is just that some choose not to and accept the fact that they are not. Their berating of society's elitism covers their mentality of mediocrity and failure. Elites are not born, they are nurtured and self-made. I thank God that He gave me a little more natural aptitude than some, but a man isn't made merely on his birth but his lifetime. In the realm of intellectual thought and linguistics I am an elite. In another, everyone who tries will find their niche, their forte, their sky; a place where they too can be an elitist. Be an elitist; an individual who's lives one's own life to the fullest, to the most elite. the transcendent one speaks 2008-09-23 15.12GMT +8hrs Passion Fruit Let me begin with two simple case studies to elaborate my focus: I have a friend who has a rather simplistic way of thinking. She believes that what matter now is to love one's love ones, get a good degree and then a high paying and short hours job in the future. When I asked her about her beliefs and her purpose in life, she has no conclusive answer except the ones mentioned above. Her purpose in life is only latch to the social standards of right in the world. One of my ex-girlfriends is an overly pragmatic person. If you didn't know her that well, you would think she was a really loving and caring person. But in the time I have been with her I realise just how practical she really was. Her love was so pragmatic that it was hard to see how she was loving me with her whole heart instead of a notion that doing so would be the right thing to do. Somehow it felt so fake and robotical that I believed there were no true love involved. Simplicity and Pragmatism are prudent attributes to have in life. But having too much of anything as they say is not good either. David Hume has this famous phrase from his Treatise and I quote, "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve an obey them." He believed that passions were what drove us to act and live, and reason having a minimalistic part in deciding which passions were more dominating. As much as this sounds plausible, I will not downplay reason as much as he does. In the aforementioned cases, it can be seen just how reason has become a deciding factor on true purpose and mere obligation. A person appears "fake" when he or she has lost personal identity and seeks an identity that they cannot truly believe in thus causing a conflict between public and private persona. It may not present itself so clear to us, but all of us have this falsity between heart and mind. Whether be it society or self, we believe that certain things are right and good to do. Being filial to one's parents, caring for those in need, be matured and responsible, be role models for the young, be successful in life, loving our love ones, going to church and being a good model Christian. But do we choose to do them because it is the right thing to do or because we truly want to? Just performing this ";duties" is no different from "going through the motion". Indeed, we could develop some artificial passions to want to take action, but passions that stem from the mind have no hold on the heart. We would be like drifters in the sand, these passions merely mirages in the desert of our heart. Our conflict no different from those people we criticise for being "fake" in public. Is being "fake" in private any different? I wonder... Simplicity cuts off all unnecessary complication and pragmatism gets the job done, but while the world thrives on efficiency it is not so with our individual "hearts". We don't just want to BE loved, we want to FEEL loved. It is possible to care or be kind without love; as I've written in my previous post, it's called sympathy. Not putting our heart and soul into doing something is no different from not doing it at all. It may well work in business and one's job, but when it comes to the human heart, nothing has transpired. The mind may not be able to reveal it, but the heart makes clear all the falsity and lack of warmth in those actions. For Christians, we cannot love God and worship Him just because it was the right and good thing to do. Soon enough, one will lose his or her purpose and meaning and doing so. The same goes for any other pursuit. A time will come when we start to question why is there a need to try so hard against great difficulty to accomplish "duties" we don't even truly feel or believe in. We got the order wrong. We should first love the Lord with all our heart and soul before seeking to find reason and purpose through it in our lives. The Osmonds (1974) sang the song "Love me for a Reason", and they sang it well, "Love me for a reason, let the reason be love." I pray one day that these two friends of mine would be able to see the beauty of being more true and intuned with their hearts when they belief with all their hearts first. Now they may not understand or feel it necessary to do so, but when they do they'll see the divine wisdom in it. As much as passion without reason is suicidal, reason without passion is like being stillborn. Our roots have to be in the passions of our heart so that reason can nurture it so that our life might be fruitful. So remember, a reason for our passions and not passions for a reason; To drive our passions with reason at the wheel. the transcendent one speaks 2008-09-20 4.30GMT +8hrs Apathy Empathy Why flaunt "love" as if you have any love in you? The word "love" is used so liberally in our modern context but isn't "love" by any other name still just a word? As they say talk is cheap and it's sometimes reflected in the lyrics of love songs and ballads; talking about some great "love" that is purely illusional. There's a song by the Eagles titled "Love Will Keep Us Alive" which if taken with a grain of salt is very true indeed. But the "love" talked about here isn't the same love that most people delusionally think they possess. Such is this "love", so superficial; so circumstancial. Instead of keeping us alive, it's actually slowly consuming us from the inside out. In all sarcasm, is not the only things we love that actually keep us alive food? The love of eating would definitely keep us very much physically alive. But even a vulgar man would realise he is being mocked because he too searches for a greater love to satisfy the void of insatisfiable hunger in his heart. I do not doubt one's love for parents, family or close friends, and I would even extend this to one's significant other. But all too much we claim a slice of cake so much bigger than we can chew as we undermine the weight of the word "love". Mindless phrases like: "We are the love" and "I love you deep deep", or "I love you forever". In the end what people are doing is acting on their human instincts; misintepreting mutual human ties with the notion of love. All there is to it is mere sympathy. It may sound almost insulting to the "love" one so professes but I guess it's only payment in kind for trying to pose as the genuine thing. Retribution does exist. Sympathy: "the harmony of feeling naturally existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions." Sympathy is a nature of humanity. We feel a certain closeness and bond between other persons who share a similar taste or opinion, or afflicted with sorrow or pain like ones we have felt before. We can care and empathise and even begin to be concern for their well being but make no mistake, this isn't love. Or at least is not love in its fullest in the Christian context. Since God is love, why then do we blaspheme His name by extending mere sympathy on the pretext of love? Maybe I'm behind the times and lost somewhere within the traditions of age, and now love is very much secular; having no more meaning than a profanity merely relaying an emotion. Yet the fact doesn't change. All the time we claim to love others, we are actually showing our own love for ourselves. When one sympathises with another, he is not looking at another pain but seeing a reflection of his own pain in that person. There is no love in friendships of sympathy. It is only natural to have a positive inclination toward those who "love" us as well. Do not evil men and psychopaths do the same? <;br> True love is only seen when we can continue to love even when that person stops loving us. Such is God's unconditional love. God tells us in His word to "Love your neighbour as yourself" (Matthew 22:39). Being sympathetic to someone is really reflection on love for ourselves, so to practice God's love one has to begin to love our "neighbour", meaning everyone we come into contact with, as ourselves. Feelings of mutuality ain't love only mere sympathy: the simplest form of human ties that bind one human to another. So let us not confuse simple human social behaviour with the greatest form of interaction; love. Let us see sympathy for what it is and understand that developing true love is not without hard work and painful determination. Indeed, "to love is to suffer"; there is no such thing as easy love. Remember, the world is only filled with sympathy which is apathetic of love. Apathy Empathy; so much truth held in an oxymoron. Love is not something the world is capable of giving, but only something we are capable of sharing with the world. We are called to love, not sympathise with humanity. Are we living a life of love or merely extending simple human sympathy to the rest of the world? the transcendent one speaks 2008-09-14 13.12GMT +8hrs Afterthought Too often we allow the bodily human instinct to react. Jumping the gun; shooting one's self in the foot. It becomes difficult to stomach the words we're said when they come back to haunt us. Yet, self reflection and meditation is not without purpose. Processing actions through thought, we come to terms with the reality and rationality of our prior actions. Regret is more often than not a part of the dessert that accompanies the main course. To actually "live with no regret" in all purity amount to some epitome of self-delusion. In our imperfection we will make mistakes, and half of the time regret making them. Instead of ostracising the notion of "regret" we should embrace it like how we would the lessons from our mistakes. One should learn to never regret regretting. It may sound oxymoronic, but in essence a breakaway from the vicious cycle of Regressive Regret. A regret that causes another regret in our lives and the cycle goes on. Regressive Regret keeps harping on the areas where one went wrong and causes a degeneration of esteem and morale. It would seem there be no redeeming factors of regret and yet I personally feel that regret can be a progressive tool to improvement; Progressive Regret. Instead of thinking where one went wrong, think about what else can be done to make it right. In such a human sense, I can vouch for having "lived with no regret". Even though there are events in my life that I would like to change if I could, it is over the stage where it seemed to matter anymore. I believe regret only stays "regret" if one doesn't learn to let go of the past circumstances. When regret is seen as another lesson to be learnt instead of a grave penalty then a person would be more receptive to acknowledge it. I realise how when one lives to please humanity, the regret of not meeting expectations becomes very regressive. We end up lamenting, "if only it didn't turn out like this" or "if only I didn't say that". I have known of friends who are overly demanding and critical; I myself used to be too. Engaging such people in friendships or relationships leave you with the bitter after taste of "what went wrong". Focusing on what a person did not do is in itself no solution since there'll be no way to go back in time to amend the matter at hand. But once a relationship or friendship is centred around God, this bitter after taste changes into a heartening afterthought of "what can be right". As a Christian, living for the glory of God has made regretting a progressive affair. Why? Knowing God abundant mercy (1st Peter 1:3) and that His grace would be sufficient for me (2nd Corinthians 12:9), such forgiveness from the heavenly father makes past wrongs irrelevant to life at present. Living to the fullest and learning from mistakes in the present becomes the best way to make up for all that past wrongs and regrets our one's life. Therefore, my life can be filled with many regrets, but as long as I don't regret them and learn from these "regrets" then they become valuable lessons instead. I could reflect, regret and regret more. Or I could reflect, regret and gain certain enlightenment for the future. Such is the afterthought with no after taste. the transcendent one speaks 2008-09-13 9.00GMT +8hrs Stewards Do we indeed believe so surely that we have total control over our lives? That there is no binding fate or greater power directing our steps? It's been said how when "man proposes, God disposes". My version of it is how "man proposes, God transposes". Proverbs 16:9, The Bible puts it well, "In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps." I for one cannot have that much faith in my own human abilities to hold firm in the belief that I possess control over my own being. Human failures just sligthly reveals to us a future just reliant on humanity's own decisions. We have no ability to create because one is not God, yet man has a heart of destruction. Atheist believe wholly that they're their own God. Their life is shape by their own hands only. But then does one question who shapes those hands? Whether by God or a greater power or force, could we not see that our abilities are not instrinsic of our own but through whom or what created us? It is important to stop shunning the reality of human fallacies. That through our failures we see just how little control we have over our surroundings and sometimes even over the thoughts in our mind. If you believe instrinsically that your own strength and ability together with one's own existence came into being by one's own will, then do we not see we're trying to profess we are God. And obviously we are not. As the source of strength one cannot fail in any way. Yet time and time again, when we think nothing can stop us we fall. It says in the scripture that we are but stewards of it. Meaning that we're just keepers of these abilities of which God is the owner. How then can be boast of the riches that do not belong to us? Should we not boast only in the Lord? If then we are but a vessel of God, thr source of strength, then soon enough we will be depleted, exhausted completely if we do not go back to Him for renewal. Maybe we think that talismens and luck-bearing items or holy water can rejuvenate our abilities. But what more amazing ability can man produce for man, why rely on man-made objects and beliefs that is birth from fellow men? Christians believe that God is this Creator, this source of all our abilities and apititudes. All our success comes from Him who gives us the wisdom and strength. Being modelled in the image of God, it is only natural that we should thank Him for all the success that our mind and body brings us. Definitely we pat our back for a work well done but at the same time not forgetting the One who enabled and gave us the power to complete the task at hand. One should not be ungrateful. One should not be defiant. Failure is our punishment for not recognising the Creator. But not the failure of a task, but the failure of our minds and bodies. As it says in Romans 1: 18-32, and I quote verse 28, "Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." Depraved: "corrupt, wicked, or perverted". Without God's guidance, we would only fall into the lures of evil and sin. By spiritual definition, a failure in life. "There is no failure more disastrous than the success that leaves God out." -Our Daily Bread, 7th September 2008 God never promised clear blue skies for Christians, but he has clearly revealed the dire consequences of not relying on Him for strength. But yet, I rely on God not out of mere fear, but the reverance and gratitude for Him endowing me with such an amazing mental aptitude. the transcendent one speaks 2008-09-08 5.35GMT +8hrs Promise Amiss Such is the delusion when humans believe that the act of making promises was not for God alone. Back to root, a promise is of the nature that it can be kept, that is to be fulfilled with a perfect degree of certainty. The reality of the social situation; it has come to see that promises made are in the nature of mere appeasement and are highly uncertain. To emphasize, they are made precisely because it is highly uncertain. Making promises is almost like trying to play God. We might not lump it together with "The Tower of Babel" or cloning, but yet we perform so mindlessly this act that only God can do. Humans cannot keep promises. Whatever promises made if broken are not promises to begin with, if kept only because they were not promises in the first place. What do I mean? If I promised to study for my test or marry a girl in the future and I fulfill it then it would just have gone in accordance with nature of God's divine will that we would end up studying or marrying. Is there a difference between the absolute certainty of "promising" and "willing"? "I will study" and I do, and "I promise I will study" and I do. In both cases, the individual does fulfill studying so then the act of making this promise is redundant in the fullest sense. Adding the word "promise" gives an illusionary edge of certainty, but in fact the probability has not changed. IN our modern day context where promises are made so cheaply in the name of appeasement and deceit, adding the word "promise" just lowers the certainty a few notches. Everyone can make a "promise", but only some can deliver. Hence, I conclude only some people can make promises. Yet promises in the strictest sense is something we can only trust God to make. Christians put their trust in Jesus Christ and the salvation He brings, and this is the promise we believe in. How then can we lump a Godly oath to humanity with the likes of worldly promises? Preposterous! In a more secular sense, keeping promises is really not a moral obligation as people make it out to be. There is a consensus how breaking promises is just morally wrong, but do not realise that the reason is not because it would be moral to keep it but because breaking them would mean we are lying, and that is not just immoral but sinful. If it were to be in the image of the Creator, then our promises would be an imperfect copy of His promises. Imperfect in the way that due to imperfect knowledge one cannot foreknow the future, and hence promises are made on the context of the present certainty and cannot factor in its future fluctuations. I do not refer to promises of deceit and negligence because it would fall under intentional lie and is unforgivable. But those human promises that are broken due to the lack of knowledge needed to keep it perfectly. After such a vulgar "chicken run" of what promises are, it is glaringly obvious that making promises is a foolish thing to do. Expecting promises to be made and kept is pure delusional. Would simple agreements like "I will" and answers like "yes" not suffice? Why do we need to test the limits of our own human fallacy with "promise making"? A human agreement will be judged accordingly to the falliable standards of humanity. A promise will be judge according to the perfect standards of the heavenly realms. Do we indeed profess ourselves a god and have the burden of His wrath heaped onto our backs? Fool! If I break a promise too many then even heaven shall shun me, but for all the agreements in human err I make I know least the forgiveness of heaven I merit. But should we ever need to make promises for reasons whatsoever, then we should make them in God's strength and wisdom. Only with the God of promises aiding us might we hope to keep the promises we make. Promising to never make promises is probably the most difficult promise to keep, but the only promise we can ever make. Such is the divine irony of it all. the transcendent one speaks 2008-09-05 10.17GMT +8hrs En Trust A common understanding of 'trust' is concisely accurate, but somehow myopic. When we believe we can trust someone, we believe they would be able to protect the feelings and 'heart' we have entrusted to them. In this way, trust is based solely on the ability of an individual to live up to the expectations as a guarantor to another's heartfelt emotions that have been reveal to him or her. Trust becomes no more than a tool of a preserver and protector of our secrets and our weaknesses. On a one hand it sounds selfish to laden another person with protecting our 'heart' but on the other it just sounds plain foolish to make our weaknesses known to another. Indeed, trust is the medium in which humans can connect on even the most superficial level. If we are to live in a community then trust builds the bonds that tie people together. But what kind of bonds are those? Purely just manipulative bonds or selfish ones? Because we know we're not strong enough to carry our burdens by ourselves, we share it with those we can put our faith in to not fail to protect them. And of course to help share the weight of those issues bearing down on us. Then maybe those burdens we have are not so 'heartfelt' after all since we would risk it being exposed so that one may gain the respite even if it were temporal. Trust almost seems like a Central Bank for our expensive yet cumbersome emotions. Like bars of gold, they're too heavy to lug around but too precious to just give up. So we find a person we can entrust these emotions of gold, and we lock them within the vault of their heart with the 'Key of Trust'. But then what value would trust have between individuals but mere safekeeping? Imagine we had say a million dollars, if one had to entrust this to a person then who would he or she be? I'm sure it would be a person who we're sure can be good stewards of keeping it safe till we return for it. But that is not trust; trust is not just a treasury. Eventually, there would come to time when this guarantor of our emotions fail us and then what? Do we lose faith in this 'Key of Trust'? Instead, the criterion for people who we trust the most are not mere safekeeping individuals but those whom we would extend our forgiveness if they ever did fail us. Obviously, it would be important to find a good safekeeper. But that is the duty of that friend. Our own responsibility as a friend in turn is to be able to forgive this 'guarantor of our heart' if he or she would one day fail us. Now that is what true mutual trust is. Humanity can never give any peace of mind if we entrust our 'heart' to them. Instead of allievating our burdens it imposes a fear of loss within one's heart. One has to know that God is the only one who can instill transcendental peace that would lighten our hearts and minds. For He says in His Word, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30, The Bible) If it were something of such "life and death" importance if we were to lose it, then should we not put that burden of our in the heavenly treasury where the Steward of Heaven Jesus Christ guards it? Even as we can only trust God fully, a certain amount of mutual trust is required between His people. But then hw can we trust our own kind whom's weak-mindedness we know would fail us one day? Only by seeing the importance of our love ones over the importance of the 'heartfelt' emotions we entrust to them can we truly say we trust them. It may not be the same perfect trust as of Heavenly Father, and that is why human trust is not complete without forgiveness. Only those we can forgive if they should fail us can we truly have trust in. The term 'en garde' is used in fencing to signify a position of readiness. Trust is not mere passive preservation but an active restoration. An active defence of the love the binds the hearts of people. Therefore, "En Trust"! the transcendent one speaks 2008-08-27 5.53GMT +8hrs Preacher Practice what you preach. We've heard it umpteens of times and probably used it somewhat liberally ourselves. For something to be accorded such sagely emphasis, it would be our imprudence to look the other way. But while personally it bears personal meaning of truth, society has imposed it's own agenda onto the phrase. Being a Christian, living as living testimonies of God's Word is of key importance. Regardless, humanity value's the notion of role models and good examples to peers and juniors alike. Now this is where the discrepancy should not be further imposed. On the personal level, we should embrace practising what we preach but on a social level, community should not use this saying as a golden mean. A reputable person writes on or speaks about a pertaining issue which we read about or listen to. The general consensus is of approval and agreement to his or her words. One day, we happen by chance to see that this very same person is not acting in a way he or she has advocated before; hypocritical, and so we discount not only the person but the words of the person as well. It's all good and fine to blacklist the person alone. But very rarely do we separate the text from the person. If we deem someone a hypocrite then his or her words are hypocritical. It sounds rather logical but in fact linguistically it isn't. Hypocrites are people who do not practice what they preach. Words or text apparently can only be true or false, and whatever it shows to "preach" then it wil "practice". Text in itself doesn't have an incoherence like humans do. If it preach-practice what is true then it is true, if it preach-practice what is false then it is false. Let's say someone who's a hypocrite tells people to respect their parents and yet he or she does not. We cannot therefore say that their words are hypocritical because indeed we ourselves see no hypocrisy in respecting our parents; even if we didn't agree it as true, it would still be a coherent context. So it's almost pure discrimination to discredit or disregard a hypocrite's words, much less someone who does not exhibit a congruency of word and action for the first time. When someone speaks, we say we believe him or her. But when it comes to advice or doctrines, philosophies or theories, we are not believing the person but the text by the person. One does not wholly agree with the person but comes to an internal agreement to accept such text as true. So even if the person saying it were indeed found to be a hypocrite, his or her words wouldn't turn any less true. When our friend told us to respect our parents we found great truth in such a good advice. If one day this friend is seen to be rude toward his or her folks back home, this advice would not be any less false. As it is, hypocrites are like liars who deceive people into believing they practice what they preached. If we deemed a hypocrites words 'hypocritical', then we ourselves admit that we are fools for being 'tricked' by our own reasoning into believing it as well. "Respecting one's parents now that is right." But then saying it is hypocritical based on the person who said it to you, then we are saying "respecting one's parents is a lie my faculty of reason tricked me into believing till my hypocritical friend exposed through his incorehent action." Now it must be glaringly clear just how words, actions and individuals cannot just be lumped together and be shot. Just as how people advocate meritocracy and racial harmony (which ironically are two things advocated by hypocrites), scrutiny should never be implemented on a whole class or race, just because. Just because our parents are hypocrites doesn't mean their values they hold are false. Just because Christians are hypocrites doesn't mean the Bible is false. Just because humanity in general are hypocritical doesn't mean we should stop believing in anything. We have to see that as a result of imperfect knowledge of humanity, we would end of contradicting our own thoughts and having a rather asymmetrical standard as well. Why then can we hold onto our double standards and criticise others for being hypocritical? Maybe we should give a moment to think whether if indeed we are guilty of "criticising what is being preached instead of practising what is known as objective reasoning." If not one would be a hypocrite in that same vein. As much as hypocrisy should be weeded out and tackled by every person on a personal "self" level, it should not hamper the flow of information and knowledge within society. If I felt that something said is good and valid I'd adopt it regardless of the person being a perpetual liar, a conman or an actor. If we based what to believe on people then we'll come out quite a broken man. If indeed a deranged man told me something I thought was intellectual then I would hold it to the words and not of it coming from one so mad. There is wisdom in assessing belief than simply following the belief of the wise. The wiseman's words might not be wise, while the fool's words are not necessarily foolish. Believing the sagely words of the fool makes no fool of the perceiving wise. Disregarding the preacher, embracing the idea independently; a Meritocratic Ideology. the transcendent one speaks 2008-08-20 15.19GMT +8hrs Waste Disposal Which is more of a waste? A waste of time or a waste of effort? The more intelligent among you will no doubt choose effort. Simply because when you waste time you don't necessarily spend any effort doing so. But while you're wasting your effort on thankless or redundant task, time is trickling away as well. So as much as you can independently waste or spend time, you cannot do so with effort; effort requires time. Something all of us probably could have figured out given enough time wasting our lives pondering on this idea. Obviously I'm not telling all of us to choose to waste time and not put any effort into the tasks at hand, but in comparison, it is not as much a waste of time actually asserting the paths and goals we should take than say, blindly rush into what we assume would be the right paht only to find out eventually we've wasted effort, and so much more time. Much as some issues have to be dealt with with no time to spare, the greater part of our lives, urgent as it may seem, do not constitute to an emergency. Social pressures and advancement in physical age may affect how some of our circumstances become more dire. Yet when time seems to have defected from our camp, it sometimes doesn't change the fact that certain issues can only be resolved with time and not great efforts. You have heard how the harder we try to find a solution the more questions seem to appear. Life is one big pandora's box of question marks, and opening it is akin to playing with Russian Dolls; there's always another one inside. Personal Identity and the quest to find it are like Russian Dolls. We never quite know if beneath this layer there is yet another one to come; forget other people knowing. But to find this identity or our purpose in life, we cannot just forcefully open up the mysteries of our life just like one would Russian Dolls. It takes time, and with it perseverance, wisdom, enlightenment and sometimes even providence. Personally, it spells God for me. I believe God never intended for us to live our 80 odd years, or if you have the good fortune 100, in a fast whirlwind of activities to checklist everything in life before we pass on. 80 years, Long to Fatalist, Short to Wealth Horders, was meant to give us the time to truly understand the self, how the self relates to nature, and how nature relates to the self. It is a psychological and sociological journey into the unknown of existence. Existence really isn't merely about existing, but more of learning to understand and appreciate one's existence in relation with the rest of creation. So sometimes instead of going out to "chase wild butterflies and catch the falling leaves", it would be more prudent to relax. No not sleep or snooze, but meditate and reflect to slow the pace and capture the wind. The wind that brings ideas, realisations and revelations to life. If one is so hung up to making the most of time, bustling from place to place or attempting thing after thing, it may result in more and not less wastage. At the end of the day, we realise that much of it has been a total waste of energy and of course, a total waste of time. When people say they're wasting time, they really do mean an opportunity cost of effort. Or simply their effort could be spent more fruitfully elsewhere then not being used in that particular time frame. Yet what type of effort is considered worthwhile? <;br> We would think that exerting the effort through full utility of our time would be wise in understanding self and surrounding and hence one’s purpose and identity in life. Even as this is a given, without clear focus it would only cloud our perception of purpose and identity. Maybe it’s not time or effort that determines worthiness from waste but focus. Focus on the temporal or eternal would reveal worth from waste of time spent. And also effort accorded. Christian focus is eternal. Everything done in it would therefore be worthwhile effort to accord since the value of the effort would reap an eternal benefit. Knowing that our walk with Christ has an eternal value to our efforts to follow, there is little wastage to speak of. Maybe in the wake of preserving creation and the Great Commission, what we shouldn’t let waste are the souls of unbelievers. As we strive to bring salvation to the lost, we would minimise the wastage of effort and time on needless mortal pursuits to focus on lives of worthwhile eternal value. And just maybe in focusing on the eternal value of Christianity, we will also find our true identity in Christ alone. As well as dispose of the waste of temporal human pursuits. the transcendent one speaks 2008-08-15 4.38GMT +8hrs Hunger In this rat race of a world, people may tell you that ideas are dreams ain't worth having if you can't even secure your own rice bowl. I think that is totally absurd. Without ideas or beliefs, what would be the purpose of living? Just so we could continue to live day to day? If life unto itself was self evident or self inductive then I believe there isn't a problem. But it isn't. Everyday we see individuals in dilemmas and confusion on their true self and their purpose in life. We cannot just simply avoid coming to terms that indeed we even secure our own rice bowl so that we may live to realise those meanings. The intrinsic meaning of self and the ultimate meaning of life. It may seem futile to hold onto ideas when materially we are impoverished, but then what difference would it make if we could live in wealth and yet forfeit the beliefs of value that leaves a void within the heart of our life? Maybe rationalist don't see a point. Spending the finite amount of time we have on thoughts instead of actions sounds like a complete waste. Yet without thought there will be no action, without ideas there wouldn't be motivation. Even survival in itself is motivation but it lacks the a certain nobility. Then again what do we care about noble if it's survival we're fighting for? But if indeed humanity lived just to simply exist then would we not be no different from even single cell organisms or microbes; not even animals. It is almost interdependent, survival and ideas. The reason for survival is to live out our ideas and those same ideas motivate the survival instinct within us. On a more abstract level saying that animals exist with only the purpose of survival is way to crude. Theologically, we can see that animals exist for the glory and joy of God, similarly humans too. Which brings us to the crux. Is religion and in this case Christianity worth our cause? Does hungering for God take presidence over one's humane hunger? The non-religious or non-Christian parents will at least tell their children that going to church, attending prayer services and reading the bible is just a waste of time. Why not instead spend the time studying for the examination or take up some extra curriculum activities? As much as logic defines such an argument valid, the same logic as mentioned earlier also defines ideas as being paramount for the advent of life. One wouldn't say Christianity a mere idea, but it is more easliy understood this way to those who don't share the faith. It is amazing how our beliefs and ideas carrying us through hardship and inbue in us a determination against difficult odds. How much more the belief in a one true living God? Maybe in all worldly sense, such abstract and invisible God just doesn't cut for rational living. But personally, the power of God has kept and protected me through all the years of my life. Truth be told, the ability to score well in examinations rest on one's own aptitude and hardwork. But the concentration, the strength and the clarity when we study or while we're taking the examination itself comes not merely from a goodnight's rest or "essence of chicken" but a greater power. I believe that greater power to be the God we Christians believe in. As much as the will to survive, not just physically, but in our studies, career or family is driven by the human inert ability, we forget who our Creator is. God is so much more than an idea. We say we need ideas and the will to survive. God encompasses both. He made us with a heart that embraces life and a mind that is capable of living out those belief and ideas we hold onto. At times we grow hungry. Other times we fall asleep. But knowing that God doesn't let us go hungry or falls asllep on us, isn't that enough reason to believe? So maybe God doesn't directly feed us with quail and mana or grow a olive tree to shelter us, but indirectly through our will to survive and the divine ideal he has hidden within each of us. EVen if we turn our backs toward God, He has still given us the means to live. Just that with Him we do not just have a means to live, but a meaning to live by. the transcendent one speaks 2008-08-14 3.08GMT +8hrs ;
Kinematic Linguistics It's ridiculous how we think love can be taught. Logical science tells us that the faculty of learning and reasoning is in the brain, in other words the mind. Only the brain is capable of processing information around us and categorise knowledge accordingly. The "heart", and I'm not referring to the one that beats inside of you but the more abstract idea of how a person feels, is but an emotional olfactory. Just as the language of the mind is through thought and knowledge, the "heart" converses through feeling and emotion. Now maybe you can see just how ridiculous it is to believe we can use mind language to convey knowledge to the "heart". There is a philosophical argument on a mind-body dualism, while that remains in contention it is clear there is no dualism between mind and "heart". Robots and computers prove it as such. Even though they have but a brain and not a mind that can reason as humans do, the fundamental idea is the same. The reason why humans are not mere brains but minds can be attributed to the fact that even as the mind and "heart" converse differently, they share an intrinsic bond carefully weaved into the fabrics of our being. It is not necessary, but of thoughts and ideas cannot be said to just be influenced fully by a neurological process. There exist the mind's "heart" for us to actually make logical sense of words like, happy, sad, empathy, hatred, warmth, care and most of all love. And so it is possible to teach love in a way that our mind can understand fully since that's what make humans so special. The mind is so intellectually powerful that it has the ability to comprehend both the notions of love and the feelings evoked by the "heart". In effect, I'm saying that the mind can understand the "heart" fully. The problem is that even as the mind's faculty to reason gives it the ability to understand the language of the "heart", the "heart" being a faculty that cannot reason, cannot comprehend anything the mind has come to understand. Maybe this theory sounds abstract. But this example should make it rather clear; a peer with more experience tell you that love isn't just all about romancing and yet you still feel that the bond you share with your lover is love. Only when you yourself come to a realisation through a breakup, that is when you fully understand what this peer meant in the first place. Since the "heart" cannot reason or think for itself, the only means of experience or learning is through feeling its way through. Almost like a blind person trying to come to grasp with the world around. Putting it bluntly, the "heart" practices the 'trial and error' approach familiar to us; by elimination. The "heart" tries out certain emotions and certain feelings and waits for a return ping to see if indeed this is the right "depth" to be considered as true love, much like a ship sending a sonar pulse down to the depths of the ocean to calculate its depth. ; All these time as the "heart" is going about its cumbersome task of taking "forever" to feel its way, the mind has long since come to a rationale and logical conclusion. But yet the mind is impeded to act because the raw emotions generated by the "heart" seems to have a far stronger hold on our actions. As much as the mind having the amazing ability to thought process great amounts of information, it does not have much of the ability to "psycho" our bodies into action. A reason why our words seem to always be louder than our actions; simply because our mind governs our mouth while the "heart" governs the actions. Such difficulty we think for us to relay those thoughts to our "hearts". But God made us this way for a very good reason. Our mind had to be more control over our "heart" so that we do not become irrational being. Our "heart" had to have more control over our actions than just the mind so we would not behave as robots do; objective and heartless. Our faculty of reason plays a big part in ensuring that the "heart" doesn't just blindly go knocking on just any other "heart's" door. Just as our logic determines intelligently, the "heart" can love wholeheartedly. We know that both the mind and "heart" can never synchronise perfectly, but understanding that we cannot teach the "heart" lessons meant for the mind is a step closer to the mind-"heart" integration. God demonstrated His love by sending His son to die for us on the cross, the perfect action that our minds could fully comprehend the meaning of unconditional love. Similarly, though we are unsure how to let our "heart" understand our mind, instead one can let the mind understand the "heart" through the actions of love. Teaching love through knowledge can only educate the mind. But through action and deed, the "heart" can come to understand love's meaning and in turn the mind is educated by the "heart". Philosophising about love never works out since the only way for the faculty of love, the "heart", to understand love is to feel it through actions. As the language of men is knowledge, the language of Jesus is love. An action, not a mere thought. (P.S.: The definition of love? Read 1st Corinthians Chapter 13, The Bible. Now!) the transcendent one speaks 2008-08-12 5.06GMT +8hrs Acknowledgement ; I believe one could live perfectly fine without God. Just that one could live perfect with Him. It's a common refrain; humanity questions the existence of God and why He forsakes us in our time of need. Yet no one questions the reason why the all mighty God created humans in such a way that we would not need Him. Would it not be better if humans were created to be the perfect being? Ones who would listen to God unconditionally and obey everything God said. But such committed obedience and loyalty would be no different from dogs or robots would it not? I believe just as human would not want perfectly obedient and faultless children akin to robotic loyalty, God himself wouldn't want His children to be just that. Humanity apparently was created with the ability to reason. In effect, we could doubt, we could disobey, we could rebel, we could denounce. God gave us a freedom as His creation to actually denounce Him, the Creator, and instead live independent from Him. Despite the ability that enable humans being to carve out a living with our own two hands and grit, our own limitations convict us to seek toward a higher power. This limitations apparently surface from our abilities, ironical isn't it? A specialist in his craft, say a doctor, can diagnose illness and treat patients. In his own might and knowledge, he can ensure his patients recover. But in light of an illness out of the scope of his knowledge or a condition his abilities are limited to treat, this doctor will realise his incompetence when taking on the whole of life. It is as such, God given reasoning spring forth knowledge and understanding. These gives us a control, and control is power. Like parents will let their children fumble through life and hit some hard spots till they feel their assistance is required or their children ask them for help. God is also like this. Most of the time, God in His perfect timing is providing His divine assistance. But being the invisible God that He is, sometimes these subtle acts of help go unnoticed. For example, stopping the rain for an event or giving you mental clarity during an exam. But in all the circumstances the power of knowledge and reason doesn't give us control over, we learn to see our imperfection and our need for God and we cry out for Him in our brokenness. See that God doesn't make our situations impossible for us just to make us see that we need Him. God doesn't want us to run to Him only in desperation but in acceptance. Of course, for situations so bizarre and uncontrollable, we come to Him imploring of His help in certain desperation. But like a child who understands the danger of fire and knows the fire brigade is better off handling one; God lets us come to terms with the insurmountable and understand that He is the only way to conquer it. Our faculties of reason and knowledge can probably become like a super computer; working out all the probabilities of the future or the best possible route or solution to any issue. But fatigue and depression will sooner afflict our human bodies before it can. With our own strength we can push our limits but it is exhaustingly tiring to. God shows us that with Him, we can go beyond that human limit and still stay strong and vitalised. As it says in Isaiah 40:29-31: "He gives strength to the weary and increases the power of the weak. Even youths grow tired and weary, and young men stumble and fall; but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint." God knows you can live without Him. He also knows you would probably choose not to if you knew the better life you could live with Him in it. Life without God is but unpredictable and filled with so much unnecessary pains, but still a life no less. No one forces us to choose a life in Christ, but being able to eliminate unpredictability and a truckload of unnecessary pain, would one not? Casting aside the imposition of the divine meaning to follow Him, Christ gave us the freedom that we might one day through our human understanding acknowledge Him as the unparallel choice in our lives. In omniscience, God knows our choice and yet He waits patiently that we fulfil His will through the discretion of our own free will. An acknowledgement of His perfect timing in our own time. the transcendent one speaks 2008-08-11 13.20GMT +8hrs Tangible Eternal What do we live for? A question by no means asked and answered a million times yet it never seems to lose its novelty of the present. Even if we "live to eat", the truth is that in order for us to live a life of gourmet fare we still had to "eat to live" so that we might have the energy and strength to acquire the means to enjoy the lifestyle of a food connousieur. In that same vein, many other things we think we live for are actually the things that help us stay alive; help us stay sane and keep us rooted in our reality. (Whether this reality is real or virtual that is besides the point though.) It is such a misunderstanding that leads people to believe in something very tangible yet temporal. It's like chasing after a fleeting dream that is right before our eyes and yet disappears as we get close enough; living day to day looking for another of life's thrills is just that. It does not add meaning to life, but only sustains a meaning to continue living. It's true that ideas cannot feed a hungry stomach, but at least it gives us a reason to continue to feed that stomach for survival. Such is the difference between the Tangible Temporal and the Elusive Eternal. All we have now, we confuse the temporary with those of eternal value and vice versa. We put aside our goals and dreams to obey the will of our parents. Give up the love of our life to gain acceptance by the rest of our love ones. Can we not see it? Even as we are doing the right thing, the proper thing, just who determines it? The society? The people who we have chosen to side with? We pride our decisions and sacrifices as the result of upholding our principles and morals, but do we not realise the trade off has already betrayed these morals and principles. To believe in love, we believe in responsibility as well as obedience. But in casting aside the one we love to obey the ones who brought us up, is that being responsible? There is no right or wrong when it comes to values, no should or should not when it boils down to principles. Only which we would prefer so that we might continue to live. If we chose to stick with the one we love even at the expense of our parent's disapproval, we have chosen to "live to eat" in effect. If we chose to listen to our folks and give up the one we love, we have chosen to "eat to live". It is just that cruel. In survival of society, we betray our own feelings for the feelings of others. This is then the sacrifice we really make when living within society. The sacrificing of our own individual ideas for the collective ideal of the majority. But then, life would exist no meaning if all we did was live to please, live to obey, or live to follow the plan. What would be the purpose therefore? Isn't there an absence of true meaning to being mere puppets of the community's will? Just as we don't live life merely for ourselves, we don't live it for others as well. Then what do we live for? Christians live for God. Paul said it well, "To live is Christ, and to die is gain." (The aforementioned verse above.) For others, we would live for an eternal idea that possesses enough meaning for us to martyr for it. That is the fundamental truth toward the reason we live for. If we could die for what we live for, then indeed it is something worth living for. If we could risk our own lives for something that we claim to live for, then it would be more accurate to say one lives by it. There's a saying, "live by the sword, die by the sword." Hence, living by something shows how one puts all meaning and value into a cause and one's willingness to die by in its place so that it might live. We could die for our parents. For our girlfriend. For our country. For freedom. For love. For justice and honour. We could only die for them because they personify something that we live by, the ideal cause of our life's purpose. And this cause is embodied within the social network of people. But this network isn't of corporate networking, but the network of heartfelt emotions created by the bonds of love and care. Conflicts arise when we do not know which we put down would end up killing the resolve for our cause. We could give up on people, but not the bonds that bind us with them. We could give up on our love, but not the love between your. Just as we would live by a cause, we would die by that cause for the people who matter to our cause. Just as I live for God, the instrinsic value to that is that I live by His Word. Therefore, to find out what we would live for we have to know the underlying purpose for what cause we would die by. In doing so we meld the Tangible Temporal with the Elusive Eternal, and our cause becomes one of Tangible Eternity. I could live for my sweet corn, but that is because I know I can live by faith in her that comes from God. So when I die, I will die by this faith for her. Maybe that's my tangible eternity. :) the transcendent one speaks 2008-08-06 3.43GMT +8hrs Sweet Corn for a Blue Pig This is the tale of a blue pig who lived in the Land of Pork. He wasn't half as blue as Eeyore, though he wa quite blue indeed if I may say so myself. Why you ask would this blue pig be feeling as blue as the colour of his skin? Precisely because he was covered all over in blue and stood out like a sore thumb amongst the other pink skinned pigs. He listened to papa pig and mama pig and tried to fit in. He eat whatever the other piglets ate, did whatever the other piglets did and even rolled in the mud with them! But even if all of them look the same brown, blue pig knew deep inside that he'll always be blue. One day he was being bullied as usual by the other piglets, who poked fun at him calling him the "pig of doom" because he was all so "blue". They threatened to skin him alive and sell him off to the market to be shipped as Air Pork! And maybe he could become the first pig in their Land of Pork to ever fly; as pork that is. Upon saying this the piglets erupted into fits of laughter. Blue Pig could not take this anymore and that night, he ran away from home, from the Land of Pork to a black unbeknownst to him. He ran and ran, and he ran some more, his throttles were all battered and bruise but still he ran. But eventually he could run no more and plonked exhausted on the ground. Taking in the swirling scenery around him, he realised that he didn't know where he was anymore. He was lost! Oh dear! Night was falling and Blue Pig was hungry, and this forest was really spooky. So despite the cries of his throttles to rest, he trudged on to find a suitable place to rest his aching tenderloins. When he almost thought he wasn't going to make it, before him he saw a flurry of bright yellow light. Blue Pig thought to himself, "could this be the light of heaven calling me? Oink! Have I finally died from exhaustion? Oink!" At that moment, Blue Pig collaspe in utter exhaustion right before the field of golden yellow. The glimmering sun was baking down, and Blue Pig felt like he was going to be roasted alive. "Hey wait! If I can still feel the sun won't that mean I'm not dead yet?! Oink?" Blue Pig observed. He struggled to open the lids of his eyes against the bright glare of the sun and behold he couldn't believe what he saw. In the midst of the little clearing he lay at, rolls and rolls of corn fields surrounded him creating an enclave within. He rubbed his eyes with a bruised throttle, "am I dreaming? Oink?" But upon rubbing his bruised throttle the searing pain caused him to let out a loud squeal. This was indeed no dream. About a moment later, he heard a rustle of corn behind him. Getting up from his back onto his four throttles, he came face to face with the most beautiful and lovely corn he had ever seen. Suddenly feeling hungry, Blue Pig decided to eat it. But before his snot could move another inch forward, the corn spoke causing him to fall backward on his bum. "OINK!!! Mother of Pork Chops! Who the heck are you?!" Blue Pig exclaimed in great shock. "Welcome to the Land of Corn. I am Sweet Corn, and it was me who saved you from certain death. This here is my cornfield and I am the Corn Fairy that guards this plot, so come no nearer if you are thinking of devouring me in one bite." Realising that Sweet Corn was his lifesaver he promise that he wouldn't eat her, but the initial shock had cause Sweet Corn to steer clear from those pig jaws of his. Even so, Sweet Corn was nice to Blue Pig, letting him eat all the corn he could eat and sleeping on a soft and cosy haystack within the enclave. When it rained, she created a corn shelter for Blue Pig. When he was thirsty, she gave him the water collected from the rain for him to drink. Even though there was only Sweet Corn and him in the cornfield, Blue Pig couldn't feel more happy and loved. Compared to the group of piglets back in the Land of Pork, this cornfield in the Land of Corn was so much more a home to Blue Pig. Soon, a month passed by and Sweet Corn and Blue Pig grew closer, having only each other in the fields all day. One day, out under the starry night sky, Sweet Corn finally sat beside Blue Pig who was gazing at the stars. Curious, Blue Pig asked Sweet Corn why she wasn't scared that he would eat her. "After this month of being with you, I've seen how much you cared for me and have no forsaken me. I feel really honoured that even though you're a pig, you show so much care for a mere corn fairy whom many who traverse my fields neglect; taking all the corn for themselves. I know I can trust you." "You are my lifesaver, I could never ever think of eating you. Even if there were no more corn but you, I would rather sacrifice my rumbling stomach then entertain the thought of devouring you. No one in my life has ever accepted me for who I am, and you have done so much for me. Knowing that pigs eat corn, you would risk your life to save me. Oink!" "I don't know. Maybe I felt that I could rely on you Blue Pig. In my loneliness in this cornfield, you appeared before me. Somehow in the depth of my cob, I knew I could trust you. Whenever I was sad you made me smile, whenever I felt alone you were there for me. You've made my life so much better. I could never thank you enough for everything you've done for me." "The honour is mine alone, Sweet Corn. Oink!" With this, Blue Pig held Sweet Corn's hand in his throttle, assuring her that no matter what he would never ever leave her and that he'll always be there for her. Blue Pig knew that Sweet Corn was the one for him. Even though they may be very different and society may not accept them, he knew that deep inside his heart and her cob were beating as one. Sweet Corn was the most caring and most understanding being he had ever encountered and also the sweetest person ever. No wonder she was called Sweet Corn; indeed she was the sweetest! She didn't care that he was a blue pig and not pink or that he was a pig and she a corn fairy. She accepted him for who he was. She may only be a small and insignificant fairy to the farmers who harvest the corn from her land, but to Blue Pig she was the most important person in his life; giving it purpose, giving it meaning, giving it warmth and love. Holding onto her hand in his throttle, Blue Pig wasn't going to let go. To him, Sweet Corn was his world, his everything. The sweetest name of all. The story doesn't end there. We are unsure about what happened to Blue Pig and Sweet Corn, but from what I have heard, they lived together happily ever after... Oink! ;) (P.S.: This is really in fact a dedication post but masked in storytelling. I sudden felt like doing one more after reading a "Friendships are Forever" post. I won't say who, but the person knows who she is. This post is dedicated just for you. Oink!) the transcendent one speaks 2008-08-05 5.23GMT +8hrs Synchronisation Dualism The question of identity leads one to wonder if indeed there is a self in all of us. Could we just be homogeneous entities made with a sole purpose of servitude to a greater course? Individualism is far more amusing then anyone would like to let on. It's existence so loud and vivacious that it stands out like a sore thumb. Individualism being perfectly unique in its imperfections would henceforth result in absolute imperfect synchronisation with any other personality expectations. In trying to synchronise our individualism with another's, it is akin to matter being cancelled out be antimatter. For example, an odd configuration individual synchronisaing with an even configuration individual will lead to the negation of their properties creating in effect perfection. The world strives to be perfect, not just as indivduals but as a species. Synchronisation is the means to which such perfection is obtained. But do we really want to lose our individualism for a perfect sync with the system? ; Humans ironically do not actually wish to synchronise to perfection. Just like every selfish sentient being, we want to absorb and transform, making others synchronise with our own to create a perfection stemming from our own imperfect self. If everyone were like you and thought like you then perfection has been acheieved on a individual level with your imperfection as the perfect benchmark. But humans require intervention to prove their worth and existence, so the battle rages on to absorb others or be absorbed by society. It is quite conflicting in itself to want to be an individual recongnised apart from society as unique and one which would prefer to meld into a system where acceptance through synchronisation takes place. Being apart, one retains uniqueness. Being together, one achieves acceptance. So is that balance so difficult to achieve so that we are uniquely accepted? Identity crisis contrary to popular belief is not an individual finding his or her individualism but one asserting his or her individualism within the acceptance of synchronisation in society. Confusion is the product of fighting to leave our mark of individualism within the homogenity of society. People who dislocate themselves from the system or meld themselves fully within the system have lost the ability to be confused. Like black will always be black and white will always be white, there is no confusion. It is clear. But siding in black or white destroys the colour fabric that creates individuality, staining it with black ink or washing it with white bleach. Confusion is not a struggle of the grey area but a struggle to maintain the colour in a world of inking and bleaching. Split personality is not the same as Dual personality. Split connotes conflict, dual presents harmony. Duality is a form of existence where one cannot exist without the other, just like mind and body, heart and soul. Identity Duality is this balance between individualism from and synchronisation with the system. One retains the individual within the synchronisation of society without losing it, and instead the individual asserts the social sync while the synchronisation within society makes one's individualism stand out with greater clarity. Identity is not a question of who one is, but who one isn't. Every section of society that we synchronise with becomes part of our unique individualism because everyone synchronises differently with the system. Duality means mutually interdependence. One personality cannot survive exclusively from the other, each has its role in forming the individual in us. Only when we confuse ourselves with the part of the system that was never synchronised with our individualism that results in an identity crisis and conflict. Split between voluntary synchronisation and forced acquisition, we have no ability to live in sync with a life that our individuality has not learn to coexist with. Dualism is the form of balanced synchronisation and it is the from in which individualism is allowed to coexist with conformity in society. Without an individual-system dualism, synchronisation will only lead to replication or cloning of a system template. But by exercising such dualism one edits and creates a new blueprint within the existing template of society. God formed the perfect example of it, not in duality but in a trinity. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, retaining their individualism and yet perfectly synchronised with each other. In a paradoxical harmony of three in one yet one in three. A trinity existence for our species is impossible, but a duality existence of individual and system, God and man, can be achieved if we know how to perform a perfect sync. As Christians, the favour of God and the favour of men are not fully exclusive. One may lose the favour of men for the favour of God, but yet when one is favoured by God he too is favoured by men. Our identity is Christ, whether we have a dual personality, even a spilt personality, as long as this personality reflects the Christian individualism then in dualistic sense we can maintain who we are with who the world wants us to be. Doubting our duality of individual and system is the result of us holding onto a double standard. We see our own expectations and the ones others expect of us due to their self-synchronistic nature and feel that we should synchronise the two. But what we ought to synchronise is not the standards and expectations set, but the individual with the system. The individual being the world we are, the system being the world we live in. We don't live in an individual system but a system for individuals. Humans adapt and evolve our thoughts and persona to accept the system, to interact in the system. But it should not be mistaken with adjusting our personality for the system to accept us. For that purpose, humanity struggles against the systems perfection by synchronising their individual imperfection to make the system variably imperfect. Hence imperfection gives humanity that chance to exist as an individual within a perfect system that would otherwise erase us from it. <;br> By deceiving the perfect system that it is imperfect, it prevents our imperfect existence from being erased and absorbed and thus allowing our individualism to coexist within a perfect framework of expectations. This is Synchronisation Dualism. the transcendent one speaks 2008-08-02 5.55GMT +8hrs Singularity Point Everyone seeks perfection. Just maybe I'm a perfectionist. Yet, it does sound logical for imperfect being to crave after a perfect life. For humanity, whatever is unattainable the more we're drawn to it with the hope of one day changing that impossibility. What misplaced hope that is. My question, what is so perfect about perfection? Is there any intrinsic qualities that make perfection perfect? There must at least be a benchmark of what perfection looks like, if not we wouldn't have the slightest clue what we're pursuing. If our model of perfection were in the things of this earth, then they would not be perfect at all since nothing in this world is perfect. The only source of perfection would lie outside of our imperfect realm, because nothing born of imperfection could possibly hope to be perfect. Religion opens the avenue of a perfect being, God. To be perfect means to be like God, or more accurately be God. So in effect when we pursue perfection, we're really trying to become God or maybe we truly believe each individual is their own god; in control of their own fates. If one day there were one perfect human, he or she would be the perfect unique individual. But if another exist, then it would cease to be perfect since now we have two identical individuals. The word perfect can mean no other, two perfects will be congruent because there is no different perfect. A case of two perfects would mean one is perfect while the other is less perfect, in a sense imperfect in comparison. Or both being identical would mean total imperfection. Bringing us to the point that perfection is singular, there can only be one perfect and any more will result in the loss of perfection. If we believe God to be the one perfect being, then it stands to reason that no one else can become perfect. But we still haven't answered to question of what qualifies as perfection? <;br> Obviously, anything that have no qualities of imperfection is perfect. But that leave us with nothing we can qualify perfection since all knowledge is imperfect. It could be that the perfection we pursue might be vastly different from the perfection of God or Mathematics. One quality of perfection is that is must be self evident and intuitive. Just like God and Mathematics, we do not doubt it's perfection and it comes naturally to us. Taking into consideration the limitations and imperfections of the human mind, we can judge perfection solely based upon what would be less imperfect than the current level of imperfection known to us. Under such human imperfections, one can say Antonymous Identification will lead to perfection. Life itself is imperfect this we know because some people are richer and others poorer, some blessed some cursed. Every aspect of life we see it's imperfection in the favouritism it shows arbitrarily to individuals. But if indeed life is imperfect then won't you say the opposite of life would then be perfect. Death is this opposite, and indeed it is perfect because it does not show favour, because rich or poor, blessed or cursed, we cannot escape death. So we may die earlier or later, peaceful or painful but that still lies in the realm of imperfection since dying is still part of life. Death is a singularity point between life and the afterlife. Another quality of perfection is seen in Multiple Emulation. God is love, hence love is perfect. But human love is not. Conditional love results in jealousy, envy, pride, selfishness, lust, immorality, vengeance, death (which we have mentioned is perfect). The more something is perfect, the more we see its imperfection. Agape, unconditional love, brings to light just how inadequate humans are at loving. We know love is unconditonal because only then can it be considered love. But human imperfections can only copy as much as the imperfect heart can emulate. Love is that perfect exception in the sea of many claims of what true love really is. Love as defined by God and love as defined by man; the gap of imperfection only widens. Both Antonymos Identification and Mutiple Emulation only serves to show how perfection and imperfection cannot coexist. Just like heaven and earth, God and man. So why then do we consciously chase after perfection if it is intangible? Precisely because we are imperfect. Perfection will see no reason to pursue anything at all, because perfection is the end just as death is the end of life. In itself, human's imperfect lives will always be just that, imperfect. But just as perfection is imperfect in a world of perfection, would ou not agree the opposite would be true as well? The final quality of perfection lies in the fact that imperfection is perfect in an imperfect world, Perfect Imperfection. We were all created unique, no two people are the same hence our imperfections are also wholly unique to us. It is our imperfections that define who we truly are. Perfection has no need of life because there is no purpose of it's existence, both within perfection or imperfection. We are therefore perfect in the sense that our individual imperfections are perfectly unique from the billions of other individuals. If we try to seek the aforementioned sort of perfection, all we're doing is becoming less perfect in our imperfections. But humanity still pursues a perfection, but not the antonymous definition of our imperfection but a divine perfection in death. For Christians, maybe Antonymos Identification and Mutiple Emulation don't seem so bleak in the light of Perfect Imperfection. As we seek to be like Christ, our lives take on Multiple Emulations to model after Godliness. And when it is time for us to return to our home in heaven, in Antonymous Identification of death we see the divine perfection of a new life. Our individualism is made perfect in our unique imperfections God had design us with. Perfection is far too perfect to identify with imperfection, and hence it lacks individualism. After all perfection is a point which exist along the line of imperfections, and when that line meets the point it creates a singularity point. Individualism is that singularity point. (P.S.: Do we love perfection because it is perfect, or is perfection perfect because it is loved?) the transcendent one speaks 2008-07-31 3.48GMT +8hrs Traders Pain is such an interesting thing. Not only does it remind us we're alive and real, it can also keep our sanity or break it. Physical pain and emotional pain though uniquely different do not seem to function independently of each other. To some, physical pain helps to allievate emotional pain; to other emotional pain cause physical pains too. Seriously, people do not slit their wrist just because they want to feel alive, though that is one of the resultant effects experienced. It is to ascertain if they're dead. Pain is the very sign of life; everything with life can hurt, will bleed. Life sometimes become so surreal that "living" seems non-existent and to feel life, "dying" seems like the only way out. It is not death they seek, just an alternative form of living to which the surreality and apathy of life has not sunk its fangs into. They look for peace but all they find is the unsettling surreality. Many who have played the video game "Burnout" understand the term "trading paint", the act of which two cars shove at each others sides in the attempt to knock the other off course which results in their paint jobs being scratch off by friction. Not so much trading paint, but "trading pain". It is inevitable we live our days with burdens that pain us emotionally, and we trade these "pains" with other people's "pains" as we let it affect our work attitude or influence the atmosphere of the place and in the same way people's moods also rub off on us. There's this saying that goes, "no pain, no gain." Truth be told, that isn't all too accurate a statement to make. Indeed there are important life lessons and knowledge gained through persevering through our pains, but not until we actually overcome them. Should be rephrased as, "no pain overcomed, nothing gained." Not as catchy, but what matter is it's accurate right? Yet looking at pain with that much optimism does seem a little masochistic. Obviously, since whether we're angry, sad or happy, our lives will always have its trials and problems, it would be better to endure the pain it brings us with open hearts and all smiles. But then how human is that? There's no commendation for the award of "superhuman", all we look to the world is deranged or too far gone. So instead of taking optimism or pessimism toward life's pain, I go neutral. The basis is simple, everyone just wants to attain peace. Peace with themselves, peace with theor love ones, peace with their neighbours, peace with their love ones. Sometimes to mute that incessant buzzing sound in our heads, we find peace in our pains. So when happiness becomes unreal and fake then the only reality to bring peace of mind to this genuine pain we feel that doesn't betray us. And because it doesn't betray us, we can be at peace with it as we're sure that pain will always promise just that, pain. So to facilitate such "real" living, humans begin using pain as life's currency by "trading pain", and I don't mean the menial types that you rub shoulder to shoulder day in, day out. I mean the type of emotional pain that comes with decisions. Just as we weigh the decisions, we also weigh the respective "pains". Here is where the subject of pain is at its climatic interest. One would bear all the pain himself just to avoid her suffering any of the pain, yet as she sees him burdened with so much pain, she is filled with immense pain. (See that I'm using the word "pain" as a rather liberal synonym to prove the point.) Pain: Burden, Sadness, Suffering, Yoke, Anguish, you name it. Pain has a way of multiplying itself just as we try to suppress its spread. Such an uncanny resemblence to a virus isn't it? The more we try to prevent the pain from spreading, more people get hurt, more people suffer. More experience pain. So then how can that be remotely peaceful? But no finger should be pointed at "Pain"; for one thing it is but an emotional signal transmission. The problem lies in the fact that we think our pain is the most noble pain necessary to save the other person from unnecessary pain. We believe that pain is the only means through which we can see world peace; all the wars and political conflicts, and they all seem to want to promise peace. Again we see human's pride rear its ugly head again. If you've watch enough television drama serials or since enough romances, it's become so cliche for the males to assure their girlfriends that they will not make them shed another tear or to protect their smiles. What beautiful yet foolish promises! There is no way we can prevent pain and suffering. But yet, I could "trade pain". God sent His son Jesus Christ to die for our sins and that is His way of trading our pain for His painless heart. This is how the joy of the Lord works, because even as life throws more burdens at us, we can give them all to Jesus and he will turn your sorrow into joy. Having this joy instill in us the peace of God, that regardless of circumstances or afflictions we can rejoice in our Lord who has traded away our heavy burden for His light one. Christians seem to feel more pain and suffering also because we have taken upon ourselves to be like Christ, and in effect share the pains and burdens of the world He loves. This is because we have learnt to adopt a heart like Jesus to care and to bleed for the people of this world. But then even through the pains of others we gain a sense of peace, and not the artificial peace that is created through pain but through joy. Apathy is becoming more prevalent because it becomes painful and burdensome to have our hearts keep going out to all those who're suffering and dying in this world while we already have so many of our own hurts and regrets. But then that's when we can trade all these pain up to God in exchange for His joy! The stock exchange for pain fluctuates even more than Wall Street. So much pain being traded, transferred, changing hearts and rising and falling in varied degrees. Why subject ourselves to the unsettling shocks of the "stock market of pain" when we can content ourselves with the everlasting value of the gold of God, the joy he puts in our hearts and souls? It is true that happiness isn't as reliable as pain and sadness. But we base of happiness on a source not just reliable but which is stable and does not fluctuate, that being joy. While pain has a fluctuating human value, joy has a constant Godly value. You know my sweet corn, personally with you in my life I don't hurt so much anymore because you are the bandage for my wounds. So let me trade my little pains with the growing pains in your life. Or maybe, it would just be better if we both gave them up to the Lord? The more pain to Him, the more joy we receive! With such eternal joy, won't your heart be at peace too? ;) Trading my Sorrows (Verse) by Darrell Evans: I'm trading my sorrow I'm trading my shame I'm laying it down for the joy of the Lord I'm trading my sickness I'm trading my pain I'm laying it down for the joy of the Lord the transcendent one speaks 2008-07-29 15.08GMT +8hrs Voyager 'The destination isn't as important as the journey we took to get to that destination.' Such has been said of life, and I believe many a familiar with the aforementioned saying. But do only those who have reached their destination look back on their journey and reminisce in passing or those who fail to reach their destination utter with regretful consolation? Mem aim far and high and go through much lengths to achieve the goals they have set. So much knowledge is acquired, many mistakes learnt and more experiences gained. Yet it's either unconsciously remembered when we finally rest our feet on the grounds of our dreams or consciously recounting as we savour the bitter taste of defeat. There is no doubt that there's so much we can benefit from in the process of achieving our goals, but somehow they pale in comparison to the ambition within our hearts for the prize. If we but see everything as only the destination then the journey we take isn't as critical. Savouring the benefits of our journey always seems to be an afterthought. As we strive toward the end, everything became a means to an end and not an end in itself. Whether the journey is glorious, honest, commendable or fruitful meant nothing in the wake of the pursuits of our ambitious nature. And then the rewards of the "journey" experience is but a consolation prize or a complementary gift, forever overshadowed by the importance of the end result. And rightly so since it was for that end, that destination, that we set out on a "journey" in the first place. Obviously all emphasis would weigh heavily on a final victory, otherwise everything else would be futile obscurity in that light. I remember my lecturer talking about how philosophy to many seemed like men sitting down to argue over questions with no answers. A journey with no destination. How can there even be a journey if there were no destination to begin with? Isn't it absurd? Asking questions with no answers, or strictly no clear answers, seems like a total waste of time. But yet, such questions are asked in the bid to derive at new perspectives and ideas that are born through thinking through such controversial and ambiguous issues. By asking questions like, "what is the meaning of life?", no doubt we may not derive at an answer we find new ways to live more abundantly. Asking ourselves "why life is so unfair", one's pondering over the subject can evoke a greater determination and morale toward life itself. But the issue remains, we would still not go on a journey with no destination because it's just total irrational for all human logic to do so. But that is because we're looking at life with a mistaken analogy. We usually see life as some high mountain and we work hard to scale the cliffs to attain that peak. But maybe life isn't like mountains but like the oceans. Early european voyagers set out to explore the new world with no destination in sight; they were just going to see whatever there was on the other side of the globe. While journeying across the atlantic and the pacific, they discovered so much more than they set out to discover. Every new land they set foot on was another great beginning for the sailors who have sailed seemingly aimlessly, being tossed by th winds and the waves, their morale slowly waning. The sighting of the next land mass along the horizon always brought cheer and hope for the exploring sailors. Eventually, they did reach a destination and settled down to start their own families. But the ship's crew all sailing on one journey all ended up at different destinations throughout the course of their travels. Some saw great wars and decided to become soldiers, some heard the cries of the wounded and became doctors, and even more craftsmen and teachers. Instead of seeing life's goals as scaling Mount Everest, view it as a voyage over the Atlantic Ocean. The whole journey consist of many destinations. If we're always looking toward the top, it would always seem menacing from down there. But as we continue on toward the horizon, it fills us with a hope of anticipation for a blob of dry land emerging. The destinations are but part of the great journey of life. Life is special this way because unlike computer programs that are slated to run it's course from start to finish in an orderly expected manner, life is unpredictable and exciting this way. God has given us the ability to decide and reason for ourselves. Our setbacks and failures are not caused by embracing a life that follows in God's footsteps but caused by the sinful nature in us that impedes us from walking toward the goal of Christlikeness. Even so, Christ didn't set that one journey toward that one heavenly destination for all of us. Each of us Christians hold a living testimony uniquely ours, of how God has been faithful in our lives. Our many differently journeyed lives. You see, all our destinations in this mortal life are the same. It is the death and expiry of these mortal bodies. But even with the same end for all humans, we were given the choice to which fate we would choose to live by, our own goals and dreams to accomplish. And that in itself is the journey; a journey where every single day we arrive at life's many destinations. So many people only start to put value on the process of experiences and failures when everything is over. It would always be on hindsight, in retrospect. Why do humans always like to look back, be it good memories or painful regret? Were we created with necks so we could look back at what we left behind? Well we have necks to carry our heads high, so we do not lose ourselves while looking down but focus on our goals and execute a purposeful journey forward. Maybe it is not the destinations that mark a journey, but the existence of journeys that give birth to destinations. I may not have a clearly marked destination, but I've still embarked on life's journey through which I will find that final destination for my life. The question isn't what your destination is, but what your journey is going to be. The true goal of life is to live the journey of purpose for our life. My God isn't only waiting at the finish line but He too is with me every step of the race. Journeys begin only because destinations need to be found. God is our destination that accompanies us on our journeys. Will you not journey with me to see your destination in Jesus Christ as well? the transcendent one speaks 2008-07-28 10.30GMT +8hrs Hero The strongest, the most powerful and the best. Would that be an accurate assessement of a "Hero"? So if one isn't strong then he or she isn't heroic? The entertainment industry potrays the protagonist as being able to beat the villains up to save the damsel in distress or at least take the beating for her. It is such a fantasy blown out of proportion that males want to become like those protagonist and females look for such ';protagonist' in their man. Heroism always seems to be equated with power and sacrifice. I would not disagree, but the type of power and sacrifice we're talking about is very different. In film, the hero always seems to possess some latent ability or supernatural power so that they can overcome the enemies. At least they can fight well right? Also their sacrifices are almost noble and always altruistically orchestral. There are variable versions to appeal to the less "chavunistic" men, but all in all it makes people believe that heroes all need to be powerful and sacrificial, almost a total embodiment of goodness. But is that really what heroism is? If not then what is true heroism? If indeed that were the truth of heroism then many of us fall short. We don't possess immense power to effect great changes, so what can one normal individual do? Yet the greatest of heroism is birthed from the most insignificant individuals, or does their insignificance make their deeds so much greater? A heroic spirit really comes straight from the heart. A person may possess great power but he uses this power for selfish gain or evil deeds, or worst, not using his power at all when confronted with a person in need of desperate help. Also, we are no hero if we take life lightly and promise people we will die for them or sacrifice our life to save them. It almost sounds masochistic, and not at all heroic. So would our definition of hero spring forth from a heart of selfishness and pride? Or are we truly selfless heroes willing to risk our own livelihoods, health, possessions, freedom and reputation to unconditionally help the outcast community or those whom no one cares about? Putting it like this is quite the tall order, but we can start small. We can be orphans' heroes by bringing joy to their lonely lives, playing their new family. We can be patients' heroes by helping them recuperate and showing them care and concern. We can be outcast's heroes when we purge our prideful self to help reintegrate them back into society. And yet we won't get a medal and sometimes we are even ostracised from our community by mixing with these groups of people. One heroic act of fending off thugs to save the damsel in distress may indeed be fondly remembered by her. But what makes you truly a hero in her eyes is not your ability to fight but your deep sense of justice to protect others. And that comes from one's heart. Only in danger and trouble can we see the true heart of a man. How true indeed. Such heroism isn't confined to such big issues, even the small ones demand the "hero" in us. To help our mother with the household chores instead of playing computer games. Or volunteering our time to help the needy instead of taking up that part time job. It could even be holding the lift door for a wheelchair bound lady to push herself out even if you knew that would cause you to miss the bus. Suddenly, it does seem that heroism is much like moral ethics and values, and not all too surprising at all. As the chore gets smaller and the sacrifice bigger so does its "heroic" value. Indeed there's no praise or recognition for our work, but yet we do a good job of it. Now that is true heroism in my opinion, being responsible and helpful. In Christianity, such is known as being a "humble servant". Just as Jesus Christ came to this earth as the Servant King, we too should emulate His example. Jesus was a hero not because he went around fighting bandits and apprehending evil doers, though he did exercise justice, but more so because he served the people through teaching them and healing them. I have never been one to chase fame, though it's inevitable one hopes people will admire and look up to you. The hero always seems like the one who speaks up for the rest, and pull the punches against adversity. It is much regarded that fame, good or just infamous, must follow the wake of a hero. But then how selfless would it be if all these "heroic acts" gain one only more popularity? Can we then say it is heroic when this acts seem like acts with motives? Pacifism has its draws that way, when we put the focus on the issue instead of ourselves. When we take a step back to ensure peace or say one less phrase to avoid a conflict. The humble hero. In practising humility we place others above us instead of ourselves above the rest. The hero who isn't singled out from the masses, but a hero who unites the masses as one. It would be nice to charge out in fierce bravado as someone's knight in shining armour, yet would there be more value in taking a more subtle and sensible approach as a solution? Radicals think that Pacifist are cowards who achieve very little because they are not proactive. But maybe this proactive radicals take is actually being reactive; true proactivism comes from being able to do very little to achieve much more. The Son of God, the Son of Man, did not come down to earth with lightning and fire but in the stable in a manger. Such a humble descent followed by a mass revival throughout the land. Indeed as Christians we can learn from Jesus, using a humble peaceful approach that reaps miraculous results. In a realistic world, I believe some do not appreciate such "heroes" as myself, who seem to run and hide more often than stand our ground. But as Ephesians 6:12 talks about, our fight isn't of flesh and blood but our struggles are against the spiritual forces of evil. To be taunted into a fight is to succumb to sin, to exact our own justice is to let the devil take hold of us. If we only wear our "hero" on our shirts, we would only gain empty praises from fair-weathered men. But by hiding this "hero" within our hearts, we can find a greater fulfillment in protecting the smiles of the truly grateful people. There's only so much muscles can do to change the hearts of humans. Only another heart can touch the heart in a way that the blade of submission could never graze. the transcendent one speaks 2008-07-27 7.05GMT +8hrs Wayang Kulit Interesting. Each of us has a life to live, but why do some choose to live someone else life or live their lives for someone else? I'm sure terms like replacements and substitutes are familiar to all of us. Without another moment to consider, our fingers point in the direction of the person adopting a substitute; most of the time a substitute girlfriend, and we feel indignified for the poor girl. But rarely if ever do we see that sometimes it is no fault of the accused. The "victim" does not mind and even volunteers to be a substitute for the "accused". Even as it may be the "accused" who has chosen him or her as a substitute to fill the loss, the "victim" is more than happy and contented to. So we ask ourselves: "Is this right?" What could possibly be right about it? Act of noble sacrifice? The fact that it is of two willing parties? Yet, the rest of us being abhored by such a situation already signifies that it must be wrong somewhere. In the last episode of Channel U's Chinese Drama Serial "The Perfect Cut" (一切完美), a line I fondly remember is the main character, Dr Alex Tan telling Eve in mandarin (and I translate), "you should be the shadow of the man you love and not the shadow of the woman the man loves." Regardless its context, the idea made much sense. Why do we continue to model a shadow of the person your love one loves just so we can be loved? In the end it is obvious even to the "victimised" that they will never be truly loved by the person this way, and yet they persevere. There are two fundamental reasons why people do something as foolish as this. Firstly, because they are envious and jealous of the love being given to another person by the one they love that they want to become like him or her to receive it also. But then we know that in doing so, one is only a shadow of the real person and any feelings directly at you was meant for that someone you were playing shadow of. The feelings and emotions may be strong and passionate, but it will always feel empty and surreal to person it was not meant for. The second being those who take pity or sympathy on someone who has lost a love one, to death or to love. To lessen his or her pain, they try to play a substitute of the lost love one as a way to comfort the person in grief. But in doing so one has encouraged delusional lifestyle and this may spiral into something worst, misplace affection. The grieving person may see and embrace this substitute as the image of the person he or she lost. The cases being unique, both similarly allure to the outcome of misplaced emotions and disregarding individuals. We may feel the violent urge to purge this land of such "manipulators of love", but for starters this "manipulators" have themselves been manipulated, betrayed and stepped upon. What they need is psychological and emotional respite, but not in embracing another person as a shadow of their lost but in professional help. The ones that should really be reprimanded are the ones willing to play someone else's shadow. The intent is wholly selfish, but the repurcussions do not seem like something selfishness would ask for. That because it's not the rational selfishness of the mind that most of us are familiar with but the selfishness of the heart hungering for love and affection. Doesn't matter if it is misplaced affection or non-committed love, the selfish heart in us just needs to feel the space inside. What makes it foolish is how much our heads know that such a method isn't ever going to fill the emotional void within us and yet we do it anyway. Indeed, we should never live as a shadow of someone else, and that also means as a shadow of the one we love too. No matter how well defined and dark a shadow is, it will still not be more real and visible as a fading silhouette. Even as we lose sight of ourselves at least we still see a little bit of our true self, as opposed to playing a shadow of someone else, in effect casting away our true self entirely. Silhouettes no matter how dim still exist even if the darkest of times. Shadows disappear once the light goes out. God is the light of our lives, and he brightens even the dimmest of silhouettes. But only a silhouette can house a light, a shadow is but an effect of light and it can never become one with the light. Nobody would ever genuinely love us if all we did was play someone we're not. In the end who they love is the character we play and eventually we will lose everything that defines us, that being our uniqueness. No matter how much we play someone else, we can never be that similar to that person much less become the person. If there is one person we should live for, let it be God because as we live for Him we do not become His shadow but His light to the world. Instead of shadowing people's ways, isn't it better to illuminate their paths? The more we try to become perfectly like someone else, the more we see just how imperfect we really are. But God helps us see that in our imperfections that we are uniquely and specially made, and that is perfection in God's eyes. As Psalms 139:14 reads, "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well." Human's imperfections constitute this wonderful creation of God's perfect plan. As others see us do they see God, or so they see only a shadow of someone else? I know I've always played second fiddle and that's dumb in itself, but at least I was never any less real. As much as I was a stand in, I was a true stand in; I wasn't being somebody else, I was myself. Sometimes we fumble up and we lose sight of who we really are in the sea of external expectations. We have been stretched and pressed the wrong ways till we cannot seem to mold ourselves back. It'll hurt less being a mutable shadow, but then what would be our real shape? Shadows have no real true shape. A shadow cannot help support the fallen, it cannot carry the tired, it can never lend a shoulder to cry on. For all the actions of love we can provide only a truly real individual is tangible enough to hold on to. A shadow may be able to make you smile, but it can never give you that warm and fuzzy feeling within one's heart. Externally, we have so many human resemblances that make us suitable substitutes of each other. But with a heart that beats in its own special rhythm, that is something no one would ever be able to replace. Humans were created to love one another and not play shadows of others. The only way to love and be love is with a true heart as a real individual for that special someone. The Dawn: Shadows are everywhere, they're cast on us unnoticed, created unintentionally, a light borned entity. When the light is no more and darkness falls, shadows there will be no more. But in that darkness we find a hand to grab onto, one quite like mine. It does not matter if I cannot see it at all, as long as the warmth it brings envelops me till this darkness is gone. And when your light shines forth, in you I see this love shining brightly like the rising dawn. the transcendent one speaks 2008-07-26 1.17GMT +8hrs Ignorance is Bli... Blitzkrieg! Ignorance. Many have this misconception that it just meaning not knowing something or innocence to the truth. It is more than just being a tad clueless about happenings around but of neglect. Neglecting to know what we should and ought to know. It is common place to mix both ignorance and prudence together. One would not tell young children the cruel realities of life. Neither do we divulge the painful truth to a love one who has already suffered a major emotional blow. This is because the person isn't ready, psychological and maturity-wise, to handle the burden of such knowledge yet. As he world becomes more frivolous, so do their practices and that includes how people handle information. In this information age, it is important to realise that everyone has a certain responsibility for the knowledge that has been entrusted to us. Whether it pertains directly to us or the people around us. Knowledge in the wrong hands can result in chaos, knowledge in the hands of someone who cannot handle it is destruction. As opposed to the belief that the whole point of knowing less means bliss, the truth of why we do not just deciminate information indiscriminately lies in the fact that we are answerable to the consequences of knowledge being imparted. Hence, it would mean less knowledge means less responsibility and thus we would be happier not being chained to the misery of accounting for it. But that sole purpose of knowing less was never to stay happy but to stay protected. If indeed the less we know the more happy we would be, why then are stupid people still sad and intellectuals who have learn to live in contentment? Humans still pursue more knowledge because it gives us more power to create our own happiness. And with more power we require more control and to learn that we continue to acquire more knowledge. So then won't we say that knowledge is bliss? For indeed, one may say that the opposite of ignorance is knowledge. But then again are we defining ignorance wrongly? AS opposed to the prudence of being accountable with what we tell others, ignorance reflects an irresponsible attitude to not caring about knowledge at all. Putting it bluntly, it connotes a person who hates education, who hates to study or work hard to improve. A person who is protected from information or knowledge they are unable to handle isn't ignorant, not even the slightest bit. It is not by their choice or unbothered attitude that they have no knowledge of a certain issue. In fact those who deliberately filter away information they believe would not potentially be able to handle are not only not ignorant but wise. I do not doubt the fact that ignorance is bliss, though if I may add the bliss is a foolish bliss. Blissly unaware of the things they should have known that now due to their neglect slowly eats away at their life as they're oblivious to the grim reaper stalking their backs. It will cause certain paranoia to me if I knew all the many possible ways I could die right now. But turning a blind eye and ear to all of it would eventually seal my fate when I do not take precautions to avoid certain death. Obviously for the many things not within our control, it may be for the best if we didn't know them. But most of the time, we run away and hide our heads in the sand to avoid seeing the problems and circumstances we have a duty to handle. So ignorance isn't just not bliss, it is cowardice! One not daring to face a situation just because it would make him or her sad is plain spineless. One day those who are protected will mature to be ready to learn the knowledge that has been witheld from them. But for the ignorant, they will never be ready to accept even the responsiblity of the truth that they have an obligation to accept. Ignorance may seem like a better options in such a complicated and depressing world but in the long run, there is no way we can stay ignorant if we want to carve out a better life for ourselves. I mentioned that humans are being of improvement and thrills, sooner or later even ignorance gets boring because it stays in stagnation of knowing none the better. So then should we just embrace a life of wanting to know everything? To become an information freak?! We agree that not all information is beneficial and even more that one doesn't have the maturity to handle. It would prove so much more effective to learn what we ought to, put a hold on what we can't handle yet and ignore what we have no control over. As Christians, we know that everything is in God's hands, He knows our goings and comings and nothing from alpha to omega is not revealed to Him. Therefore we can trust in Him completely, yet it doesn't mean to live in ignorance because God is in control. God made man a being of reason so that we can make our own decisions and decide for ourselves our own path. So as we mature both spiritually and mentally to handle more knowledge, it is in the understanding that God will make up for all the knowledge of the things we have no control over. AS the Pirelli's tyre advertisment resounds in my head once again, "Power is nothing without control." Similarly, knowledge is nothing without control. As we learn greater responsibility with the knowledge imparted to us, let us ask the Lord for greater wisdom and strength to know when to use it and when not to divulge it. So when somebody tells you how ignorance is bliss precisely because one would be saved from the hardship of knowing the truth, we can refute him or her by revealing the truth of the matter. I mean, for a person who advocates this slogan then they must really be ignorant, and the lives of these ignorant can only be saved through those hardships they avoid. Personally, I feel more comforted to know whatever is going on in and around my life regardless the pain and discomfort I have to get used to, as opposed to being cluelessly helpless; just waiting for a death I'd never see coming. Jesus Christ is my Lord, and He does everything in His time. Through His perfect will for my life, everything I know is according to His divine timing. It is not my place to accelerate it, neither am I to ignore in disobedience. For those who are unbelievers, you can se it as fate. Do we really believe we can go against fate? Do we think that pretend it doesn't exist mean it's not there? Don't stay ignorant till we're hit be a "German Lightning War" in our lives. the transcendent one speaks 2008-07-24 10.35GMT +8hrs Benchmark People disappoint us. We disappoint people. People expect more from us. We expect more from people. Sometimes when we're trying so hard the last thing we want and expect is to be run down by others; telling us we can do better, telling us that isn't the best we can achieve. Such circumstances don't only hit the underdogs and black sheeps exclusively; they affect both the less intellectual and the more talented. Even prodigies are not spared from the mental and emotional stress caused by human expectations. And why is this so phenomenal? For a while, the skill level at which our forte and abilities lie are much appreciated and even held in awe by the people around us. But just like all humans, one inbued with such a spirit of improvement and thrill seeking do not like stagnation. Once they've seen something, they want to see more. Once they're done raving over something, they want to be presented with a more interesting feat to feed their renewed boredom. Indeed the learning curve continues to get steeper as we perfect and improve on our craft. And it does not necessarily need to be a marketable craft; everything from our capacity to be magnanimous to the maturity of our souls cannot escape the rising bar of human scrutiny. This bar only seems to rise more rapidly over the years. Could it be attributed to economy? Or maybe just the increasing competition in the business world. But such cruel reality has extended its arms far beyond the working world, with schools in their clutches. We have seen how academic standards have been increasing year on year. Cut off points to the next level of institution gets lower. Homework increases as outside curriculum activities multiply. Secondary School work in Primary School classrooms, Primary School work within the walls of Kindergartens. Children are deprived of their childhoods, students lose the joys of education. So is this what was meant to be? To impose such pressures on young minds where they learn what disappointment is at such a tender age? Why do we kill the hope of the young and dash their dreams? We expect that if we did something in the interest of others then we would be commended and rightly so. But as people expect more of us, our best is not enough. Sometimes even the task we complete in good favour become expected of us as a duty. And once again humanity's advantageous nature rears its ugly head. Just as social expectations of us increases, the moral expectations begin changing. Or should I say decrease. At the peak of the golden age of morals, there was chaste, there was pure, there was good. In the 21st century, we have forgotten the meaning of those words. The moral and social standards expected diminish as increasing success is expected of an individual. The title of an American Drama Serial, "Dirty Sexy Money", says everything. It is even more incorrigible to think that society actually embraces such decadence and immorality as second nature, or even first nature to man kind. Isn't it presposterous that as the bar for success rises, the bar for morality lowers? Showing no mercy for individuals struggling with survival in this dog eat dog world, we're throwing all form of ethical morality to the birds and giving way to all forms of social ills. And we think that's the way to humanity's improvement? There are times when it is our own fault for letting our love ones and those who care down, but we have to realise that not all the time are people's disappointments in us ledged solely on our failed efforts. Expectations may not always be what is realistically expected of us and sometimes just wishful thinking on people's part. There are times I've heard where parents tell their children they have failed them just because they couldn't reach as high as their siblings in terms of academic achievements. So who should we leave to set the standards? Our parents? Our siblings? Our friends? The government? What about you yourself? In a world with such warped standards of morality and such detrimental pressures with regard to success, shouldn't we be the auditors of our own standards? On a side note, what then is truly success anyway? If anything, personal success far supercedes any socially accepted form of academic or secular success. It is not to say we totally disregard all other forms of expectations from people and live irresponsibly. What it means is how we can learn to accomodate the expectations others have of us yet not let it hinder our own personal goals and dreams we want to achieve. Like if our mother expected us to take care of our brother or sister when she goes out, we probably do not have the capacity to do it as best as she can, but we should still do the best we could. Like the control freaks humans are, people in our lives will try to control the outcomes and plan life's route for us. But that is when we have to be firm in mapping our own life's journey, albeit still according the respect and responsibility toward our love ones. Sometimes we are being blamed for things we didn't do when they think we should have, or things we did but not well enough. And that is life, because only as more is expected of us then can we continue to progress and prevent stagnation. But as this world tends to accelerate this phenomenon, it is in our own best interest to keep a tight leash on it. With so many people expecting so much of us, we cannot possibly live to please every single one of them. We have to remember that even as people expect of us, we do not always have an obligation to please them. As much as humans are demanding they are forgetful too, as I've mentioned they get bored easily, and eventually what becomes important is the here and now. Past failures are easily overlook with present success. Now they ask about your results and want to know which school you come from, but when you get where you want to, they'll be asking for your autograph and wanting to know your phone number. So then, why do we even care so much about this temporal expectations from society when we should be concern of a more eternal self expectation for our purpose in life? As Christians, our expectation is God. We are expected to live a life of Godliness and to model after Christ example. But even as it is expected of us, God is a merciful and forgiving God. We may not succeed but yet he continues to give us more grace to fulfill this eternal "expectation". (Written on 2008/07/22 at 8.40GMT +8hrs) the transcendent one speaks 2008-07-22 23.19GMT +8hrs Ricochet It's interesting how things come to haunt us at our finest hour. Don't you find that very telling? Whenever we think life couldn't get any better we'll be so right about that, because the next moment we're falling right down from the stars. Is it simply just ironic or does it suggest some sort of conspiracy ensuing? But it couldn't just be all coincidence or pure foul play going on. The world works on a balance, whenever we take we'd give something away. It's the principle of conservation. Our decisions, good or bad, comes back at us right smack in the face. You can expect on the whole that good decisions produce good results and vice versa, but how wrong that is. Sometimes even the most altruistic and pure choices suffer the most indignant backlashes. Helping our parents with the household chores and we end up with a scolding for messing up the proper order. Protecting a friend by reporting his or her misdeeds to authority only to be labeled a traitor. Taking the brunt of the pressure and being scorn by unappreciative members. A point to bring up is that if we used selfish or malicious methods to achieve the raving popularity or success of our present, then it would only be payback when malice turns its head to bite us. Retribution in kind if I may say. Yet, when one plays the "behind the scenes", the unseen and unsung heroes, we may be neglected but worst still receive impetuous comments from the jealous. Obviously in a selfish and power strifing world the meek and self sacrificing stands out like a sore thumb. Our kind intentions get trampled by the people who label us 'mummy's boy/girl' or just call us plain stupid. It's just odd how the majority can get so uncomfortable with honest goodwill. This just goes to show how corrupt the face of society has become, it's decadence like grafitti on whitewashed walls. And goodwilled citizens are just seen as annoying government agents whom cover the grafitti in white. No revolution is successful with such mild mannered folks, no campaign effective with such lacklustre spirit. And so the meek are seen as weak, the good are seen as oppression. How has such inherent good been look upon with such impundence? Then we ask ourselves, if there still reason to be good, selfless, honest, considerate, helpful when the consequences of backlash seems imminent? I would say the logical answer would be of course not. To beat the masses at their game, one has to be fiercer, more shrewd, more wicked, more devious, more cunning, and less merciful. We you would survive, and yes you probabl become rich, materially anyway. But as I mentioned, no matter the decisions there will be a recoil of consequences. Looking at this situation from a grim point of view, personally since there'll be a rebound, in whatever form it takes, what is holding us back from doing the good right thing? It boils down to same age old issues of self gain and acceptance. Good in media is often potrayed as the "white angel", but in reality it is the ugly duckling of the lot; popular but in the infamous sense. Most of the time, the majority has no appreciation for our efforts to practise goodness in life but what would we gain if they did? Only accumulating greater self pride which obscures the initial desire of altrusitic intent. We've never thought that if indeed our good efforts were all so commendable then it would just spiral wildly purely into profit and gain. What indeed makes good deeds good is it's certainty that it may result in backlash but is done anyway in the hope of a better tomorrow. At times it really doesn't pay to stand as an ally of justice, but then we're not all alone in this. As much as there are detractors reminding us of the odds against our favour there still exist a community who have dedicated their life for God. (I know it almost sounds propagandish.) It never should have been this way where humanity wars with God and each other, and this is further reinforced by the fact that world peace is still very much sought after. If our goodwill bounces back from the people around us just continue to volley it back at them. Spreading salvation through one kind act at a time is both painful and exasperating at times but it is not altogether thankless. For all the many people who have run me down and over in my bid to do good, the one appreciative soul is more than enough to make this endeavour worth the while. Really, our defining moment is seen in the defining hour of the people we aid. Humans continue to believe in intrinsic good even as the world destroys itself, one still hopes when there seems to be no hope, love in the most loveless of places. In a world where bad is good and good is bad, the good are seen as weak and stupid. But aren't the weak the ones who give second chances? Aren't they the ones who are hospitable? The ones who are the peacemakers and counsellors? If we do not first extend a hand of goodwill first we'll never find one that shakes that hand. Even if our hand gets slapped we'd still have made contact otherwise non-existent in this cold world. For me, I'm just glad there's this one hand with a wrist not too different from my own gripping tightly to mine. ; the transcendent one speaks 2008-07-22 5.17GMT +8hrs The Joker Sometimes we imagine clowns as people in the circus who make children laugh by performing tricks and being funny. Other times they just seem like the scariest personification of madness and fear. Coulrophobia. After watching "The Dark Knight", it dawn on me the role of the clown. Indeed The Joker was a real lunatic. But seeing as to how clowns appear or happy while inside they may feel hurt and pain may not be very much different. In every class, there naturally seems to be a class clown. And in every stage of society, there's always that one person playing the 'class clown'. But whatever it is, the 'clown' in a community is there purely to raise the morales of people and keep them laughingly healthy. But you don't suppose I would just mean a stereotype of a clown did you? One who is obviously either a social misfit or extremely humourous persona to crack everyone up? Personally, I've been a clown for many people. Suffice to say that's because I'm naturally melancholic, and at this point you would go, "whoa whoa! Wait a minute!" It does indeed sound ironical how a clown, the embodiment of fun and laughter, had anything to do with melancholy. It's just crazy. Well it is sort of crazy akin to how "The Joker" is potrayed. Pessimistc, low self-esteem, and melancholic people often end up worrying and burdening their love ones with their whole lot of problems. Eventually, they become the problem. Before you stand up to protest, I want to make clear I know far better than you would. By and by, their pessimism rubs off, their spirits just dampen the cheer and it sours relationships. Not wanting to worry our love ones, not wanting to becoming one of the major problems revolving around your family's and friends' lives, one masks the pain and sorrow. And what better medium than to appear jovial and funny, easily throwing most of them off your bad scent. I wasn't referring to a select group of people, but to humanity at large. Everyone is a joker, everyone is a clown in life. To make sure our enemies not mock us, our friends not worry for us, the world does not pity us, we put on a face of smiles. Not many people can tell I'm a serious person because I behave otherwise in public and with my friends. But long time and close friends know I'm melancholic by nature. They know my smiles and laughter do not always equate to how I feel within. Similarly, for the rest of the world's population, albeit to a lesser degree. Everyone has own bowl full of problems and sharing another person's bowl of problems may prove insurmountable. We all have our own issues to cope with and when we're in the relaxing company of friends, isn't it just inconsiderate to bring our problems to the table? Even though children love clowning around, not a single one of them is a 'clown'. If they're angry you know they are, if they're sad or happy it would show on their faces. No masquerade, no mascara, just purely who they are. But to emulate such innocence is almost impossible to pull off as our maked up emotions do not match the true ones deep inside. Once in a while when love ones are having such a smashing good time, we join in the good cheer even if in fact we were feeling down. But it sort of gets over the line when we're putting on a brave front to help and encourage a friend when we ourselves suffer from the exact same problem. It's comforting, but it's hypocritical too. It's reallt tiring to keep up the pretense of appearing a jolly good fellow when all we need is a pat on the back. Sometimes we cannot help it; so difficult to break out of this habit, this addiction. The 'Clown' becomes the very mask we wear to protect our fragile broken self. Not only do we hide our weaknesses, but we put on a bravado of strength to others. Being told to entertain, was like a slap in my face. Like my existence was just so I could make people laugh and smile when they were bored or down. Right there I understood that giving the impression of cheerfulness and euphoria while not actually feeling it was such a stupid thing to do. Yes, crazy if you like. It is true that comforting a sad person while you're sad is not all that effective. But at least it's using the real you instead of some false persona similar to a paid clown. Right then I knew maybe I would never be able to cheer her up by being sad myself, but at least I was truly myself as I heard her cry out her grievances. Comparing to my 'clown' attending to her in my absence, this by far was so much more considerate and honest to a friend in need. When we want to cheer someone up, let it be straight from the heart and not out of any formality or mandatory action. Obviously you would do that if you were paid like clowns, psychiatrist, social workers and comedians are. But when it comes to relating with people we love, we are not. What we're paid in kind is the love between two special people. God never said one of the gifting is sense of humour. Happiness, good cheer and laughter all derive from one of the qualities of the fruit of the spirit and that is joy. Joy does transcend through our circumstances. But that does not mean it causes us to be hypocritically joyous when cheering someone up. It just means even in our own trials and circumstances, we can extend a loving hand to those crestfallen and relate with them in a gentle manner. Not always is fun and laughter the best ways to cure broken hearts and ashen faces. Patience and perseverance are needed to slowly understand and nurse age old wounds and traumatic scars in life. And through trials we learn perseverance, and in love we can develop patience. It's time we stripped the mask of the clown and wear our smiles on our own faces. Sometimes those smiles turn to frowns, but at least we know that sooner or later it'll turn rightward up again. Smiles are only for the happy times, hearts are for all times. Care can nurse all wounds, laughter only a few. the transcendent one speaks 2008-07-21 9.03GMT +8hrs Same Same... But Different Conformity is nice the way jam goes with your bread, or sugar goes with your coffee. Who decides what conforms with what anyway? Society comprises of many sub-categories of people, trends and disciplines. We see that the mass majority decides in a universal unplanned poll on what becomes the social norm. Taking fashion for example. Locally, there is a code of acceptable dressing. It doesn't take a fashion expert to know what outfits and getups suit this present age and time. All it takes is some observation and common sense. So the trends of fashion are set into motion. But obviously the market doesn't require so many variants of a similar blueprint, and for fashion designers to excel they need to come out with outrageously new designs that appeal to the masses. But how would that work out knowing that humans have this code of comformity stuck in their heads? Invariantly, humanity favours the uniform similarity and ostracise any irregularities within its ranks. Teacher's pets are always the ones who listen and follow whatever they say, the class outcast are the ones whom never follow the marginal conduct of the rest of the class. The root of the problem returns to a much neglected but crucial facet of human nature: Control. You might think it has as much to do with conformity as chilli with 'Coca Cola'. But our human need for control has resulted in the formation of this conformist system, because if everyone was the same or at the least similar to us then it makes it easier to understand and relate with them; not total domination over a person mind you, but a certain control over the predictability of someone else's nature. It is almost political. Like how we don uniforms in school and in the army, pledging ourselves to a common cause and vision. It really does reduce the spread of dissidence and sublty coerce everyone into believing the same belief through propagandish messages. A nation who shares the leader's ideals will make an easier country to govern no less. And then along comes a rebel with a cause who blows this status quo of life high into the sky. (I'm I hearing a Holy War here?!) Obviously such a disruption of the "peace" in society's almost robotic workings and choices sounds alarm bells for the conformist majority. Almost like giving them a real good heart seizure. Then they all have to get up from their beds and wrack this brains just to find a way to conform and condone such outlandish behaviour. Let us probe more into the cogs in the human condition that really makes us tick. Do we not realise that the more we conform with something, the more we see the glaring difference between ourselves and that something in question? We all want to follow in the steps of a successful student, both academic and socially, but as we embark on that road we see just how inept we are at succeeding such a persona. On the other hand, as one tries not to conform we end up realising the similar problems and challenges we face with the vast majority. As we try to seem aloof, inside we realise our deep need to feel connected. When we effect rebellion, we understand how much we need to be at peace. "It doesn't matter what others think of me, as long as I'm true to myself." But what then is true? Isn't it true that the more we consciously try to be "true" the more we are affected by the scrutinising stares of others? Now we're stuck in between because both conforming with the majority and rebelling against the norm produces such detrimental effects. But here I was talking about how people conciously and purposefully try to be or not be something. Would we not be more at peace with ourselves if we let our lives conform with and rebel against society's normal? Back to those hip fashion designers. They play on man kind's inquisitive and curious nature to capture their short attention span using such loud tones and unique designs, but at the same time retaining a few basic features familiar to the human sensory so that what is perceived is acceptable. A clever move isn't it? Similarly, to be able to stand out beautifully in a sea of uniformity we have to proudly wear our striking difference and controversial opinions on our sleeves to get others to take notice; so people will be attracted towards this unique novelty. But at the same time retain certain values and principles that bridging the social connections and make others feel comfortable. But would it all be to tedious if it were all a show? God created all of us in His image no doubt showing us the conforming nature of the human race, but he made each and everyone of us uniquely different from one another. Like how even two clones are never the same, humans all share the same attributes that make us human but we differ so drastically in personality and character. Just like our fingerprints, the blueprint of our creation is exclusively our own to keep. In God's Kingdom, everyone whether socially conforming or otherwise have a unique purpose. Maybe we do not feel special enough or have been ostracised by the world, but let us not be ashamed of the unique and different abilities and traits God has given us to further the work of His kingdom. Only those who have experienced rejection can reach out to the outcast. Only those who know ugliness can relate to the untouchables. Indeed, one may never be understood by society but such is not a curse but a gift for one to understand those whom society has oustered. Surely, world peace is not achieve by bringing everyone under a common belief like how the anti-Christ would, but through our human differences can we work together in harmony as the body of Christ. The similarities of life draw us into a communual with each other where we can support one another, just like the church. Our difference on the other hand are there to use the skills unique to ourselves to complement the other skills within our community, that being how different people have different spiritual gifts to help one another. If I were no different from you, then there will only be a need for you or me. If I had not one think similar with you, then we could never relate with each other on any level. Such will be the reality if humans were created that way. So let us thank God for how our similarities with one another helps us to bond, and our differences make us uniquely special. Just as we are all made in one body, that being the body of Christ, that we may use our different spiritual giftings to further the work of God through the different avenues in life. The Great Commission was meant for Christians with the same Godly heritage to reach the unchurched with different abilities and giftings. (P.S.: What makes my sweet corn unique and special from every other corn is the fact that she is sweeter than all the rest.) the transcendent one speaks 2008-07-19 4.42GMT +8hrs Loss Humanity have a great selfish love to keep, to have, to possess. Technological improvements prove only one thing, not that humanity has the amazing capacity to develop but it confirms our unlimited desire to gain and acquire more. It's not like we don't have enough to achieve a state of contentment. Just not enough to fulfill our own human contention. That is just how markets are driven, with this booming demand for products being answered by suppliers who use their profits to satisfy their own demands. In effect the economic demand-supply chain. But this chain is not purely material, it overrides into emotional jurisdiction too. Feeling of give and take; whether we give everything for love or take all the love others shower upon us. And everywhere else in between. No matter for love or money, the more possessions material or otherwise, we have or think we have then the more we have to lose. Such consumerism has developed a fear in us of loss. But this is nothing new to the human kind when it's emotions we're talking about. It may almost seem noble to give every part of ourselves for love, yet underlying, it's in the effort to reap multifolded what we have sowed. What part of market economics and relationships not have in common? Besides the bartering items differ, the techniques play out more or less the same. And so for the effects, either gain or loss. But when it comes to love, not every person is a shrewd "investor". Naive and idealistic lovers tend to withold nothing in a relationship, giving their purest heart and truest feelings. And more often than not, they end up being the party who's hurt the most, who suffers the greater loss in break ups or long drawn soured relationships. The more experience in the field scorn at such, the specialist view them with mock regret. But who has never gone through such a phase of "loss innocence"? Of course when we've been bat and biten we learn to give less because we don't want to lose more. The most drastic enbodiment of such sentiments lies in a person who becomes selfish and heartless. Before any situation where others try to take advantage of him arises, he has gone one step ahead to snatch that advantage. Or maybe more than just a step. A middle ground where economics and emotions meet: Economising Emotions. It's really a crude way to put it, but in reality that's what people actually do. Friends are there only as tools of convenience. If one needs their company or their resources then their friends become useful, otherwise they are kicked to one side. Meaning one is no longer a friend to such a person when he or she has come to the end of his or her usefulness. Loss in effect? In social economic terms not at all. But people who live like that suffer a different kind of loss. Of course they will rarely suffer the backlash of being transparent, being subjected to betrayal and manipulation. After all they're the ones doing it. But they would lose the trust and closeness of their love ones. Their lives are shrouded in a miasma of falsity and deceit that nothing left is real about it. Living a life of pretence, there is loss of emotional security, loss of genuinity to life. Eventually, will there be anything more to live for than material gain and profit? So then who is the greater losers in this whole "love" economy? The "Overall Givers" or the "OVerall Takers"? Usually and in this case holds true, no extreme side ultimately gains. And hence, prudence is required to find the balance to perfect the art of relationship. Unlike economics, feelings and emotions do not profits most from just high returns. As much as we're concern with total gain be it emotional or economical, wisdom comes from assessing the opportunity cost of the pros and cons. The net resultant gain reflect truly how successful we have been in managing our emotions and to a smaller extent relationships. The formula which isn't so different from general templates being: "Total Gain - Total Loss = Net Resultant Gain" Sometimes in our bid to acquire the most material or emotional sustanence we lose a lot more than we consciously realise. Or we see our losses as if it were our wits end but fail to see the long term benefits reaped as a result of long suffering (ie. perseverance). THe prevalent issues in our lives will reflect our current emotional state but it is never a clear reflection of our life in actuality. Losing a friend, we gain a precious lesson. Experiencing failure, we learn humility. Picking the shorter straw, we learn how to treasure what we have. In suffering for Christ, we gain eternal treasures in God's kingdom. In a world where losing is seen as weakness, how can we show that sometimes experiecing loss is the only way we can actually gain anything truly important for us to keep. Furthermore, the lessons gained from material or emotional loss are gains that are guaranteed returns. So is loss really loss? How can we grow through loss instead of suffer from it? If indeed I lost everything precious and worthwhile to me, what is left isn't emptiness. On the contrary, everything is left. This everything being my life to live. the transcendent one speaks 2008-07-18 9.53GMT +8hrs Paint The beach was rather quiet despite the arrival of the school holidays. I scoured a nice spot facing the open sea and plopped myself on the sand. The breeze on my face gently bidding me a cooling welcome. As I internalised the breathtaking scenery before me a tug on my sleeve threw me out of my reverie. Little did I realise that in my state of captivated awe it slipped me that little Angela had mooted herself right next to me. "Kor Kor Daniel, why are both the sk | ||