| Peaceful Isle | ||
|
11 : 59 AM
 Domain Master The Transcendent One The Burden of Freedom Choice and life are intertwined. We cannot choose not to be born, because the unborn has no life and thus no choice. And so it is when we come to life through birth that we can then make choices; the life we choose to live, or not live. This is existential freedom, a freedom that is part of what it means to exist as a life; as a human, as a person. If life is a gift from God, then existential freedom too is a gift from God. Yet, while freedom is a gift, it can quickly become a burden. To put it in more optimistic terms, if freedom is a power God has bestowed to humankind then freedom is a responsibility, because 'with power comes responsibility.' In a great part of our lives the "burden" of existential freedom does not greatly affect us, usually we just go with the flow of things, listen to our parents, and operate from beliefs, values, and habits, ingrained in us through social indoctrination. There always seems to be the "right" thing to do, and the "wrong" thing we should avoid doing. But when we have finally gained our "freedom" from our parents and usher in the season of adulthood, we soon realised the responsibilities that come with the choices we shall make. Existentialist call this anxiety of having to be responsible for the consequences of our choices and actions "Angst". No, I don't mean teenage angst, but existential angst. The anxiety that comes with having the freedom to choose, where it is fully in our control as to what we shall do and knowing that we are fully responsible for the outcome. More often than not, when we are face with a myraid of options, there is no right choice or wrong choice, only what we think is the better choice or the not so desirable choice, and even then whether the choice we eventually make really is the right or best choice depends on its consequences, and consequences could unfold for and affect the rest of ours' and others' entire lives. So whenever we freely choose, whenever we, out of our own free will, decide on a course of action, the consequences/outcomes will stay with us, quite literally, for our whole life. It is this life-long, lingering, repurcussions of the effects of our choices that result in much regret and anguish. And yet, it is a gift from God, one that we cannot shrug off, one that we cannot relinquish, (and even to 'not choose' is a choice in itself.) But it is not all gloomy, because together with existential freedom, God gave us another gift, which is "Wisdom". Simply put, wisdom is the understanding and application of knowledge to life; to understand what is right, good, and true. As such, with the wisdom given to us, and through divine wisdom from the Holy Spirit in us, we make our choices in life. Freedom we shall always have in full measure, but wisdom is an area we are always lacking. This then is the dichotomy of the gift of free will and the burden of the gift's responsibility. the transcendent one speaks 2012-01-03 3.08GMT +8hrs Alone Aristotle famously said that humans are political animals; they have to live in society to truly function as human beings. This comes as nothing new really, to anyone who is human, which means all of us. We have a deep emotional and spiritual need to be close to other people; to want to interact with, and form relationships with other people; a willingness to love, trust, help and care for each other. It can even be argued that living in community counts as one of the few basic needs required by humans. But even though it is in our nature to live in community, it does not change the fact that we all exist as different individuals. Spatially, we inhabit different bodies, different minds, different spaces. I am "I", and you are "you"; we are all different, unique individuals that can be differentiated one from another. As such, while we seek to understand the Other, it is an impossibility. If we could fully understand the other, then either the Other is a part of our individuality, or we are part of the Other. Since we acknowledge that individuals are separate entities, not just separate physically, but also separate in thought, behaviour, character, values, etc., we can never fully know what is not "I". We might get really close to understanding a person, knowing his or her character and thinking, but once you reach the point where you think you have got the person figured out, you realise just how little you really know. All human relationships reach this same point when pushed far enough: when we come to a stark realisation that our best friends we thought we understood seem so alien to us. The most we seem capable of doing to empathising with the Other. Even though we might share certain things or experiences in common with others, our individual differences complicates the dynamics so much that we will never be able to understand the Other. The most we can do is empathise with their situation, recalling our similar experience, but beyond that we have no knowledge of what they really do feel inside. In fact, people don't completely understand their own thoughts and feelings, but while the person in question might not understand his feelings, he is still the one feeling it. Outsiders can try to understand what he is going through, but they will utterly fail. Being separate persons, we are forever alone in our own problems and circumstances. Even if others can empathise and render advice and help, it is still up to the individual to take responsibility for his own choices. We might live our lives in community with others, but when it comes to being an "I", we are alone in our own skin, in our own thoughts, in our own emotions. The difference is the difference between you and I; between one individual lone soul and the next. the transcendent one speaks 2011-12-25 17.26GMT +8hrs Hope "Hope" is an adequate title for the Christmas season; the message is a message of hope. When Jesus Christ came in the form of a baby, hope was born on that very first Christmas Day. Romans 5:1-5 is rarely often linked to the Christmas message, but reading it made me realise just how appropriate it is. The sub-heading for the chapter is titled, 'Peace and Hope' and the verses touch on two aspects of the same hope; the first being 'the hope of the glory of God' (verse 2) and the hope that comes from suffering (verse 3). Here, I bring into focus verse 3, "but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope." It is easy to say that joy is something from God inspite of our suffering, but what exactly is this hope that is produced through our sufferings that we have cause to rejoice about? It is easy to understand how we can develop perseverance through the trials and difficult circumstances in our lives. Suffering makes us more resilient, both physically and mentally, and as a result builds up our character as we grow and mature through being moulded and chiseled by trials and disappointments in life. But how does the moulding and transforming of our character through our sufferings produce a hope? I said earlier that the first aspect of hope is the glory of God, when Jesus Christ was born fully man and subsequently paid his life to cleanse us from our sins. This second aspect then is a natural outflowing from the first. We can call the first aspect of hope, the hope of salvation, and the second aspect, the hope of sanctification. When we rely on God's strength, providence and grace in times of our trials and suffering, He uses them to transform our character into one that closer resembles His own. We have this hope that one day we will all be made perfect in Christ when we meet Him in Heaven. But Godly perfection does not begin only then, the journey begins now: sanctification. Without trials and hardships in life, it is almost impossible for a person to grow mentally and emotionally mature, much more spiritually. So with every trial that we have to go through in life, God will surely use it be change and improve our character. Hence, this is the hope we have: that with each trial in life that we persevere through a reliance on God's providence our character becomes a little more 'Christ-like'. So even as life might seem bleak this Christmas season, whether you have been hurt deeply because of broken relationships or unkept promises, remember that it is precisely in such pain that we can find hope for our lives. We can rejoice in our worldly sufferings because it produces a hope within our souls. Whatever earthly ties or possessions we lose in this world is infinitely less precious than the eternal treasures we gain in our spirit because of them. I have made Romans 5:1-5 my theme scripture passage for the year 2011, let it be a passage that ushers you into the new year as well. the transcendent one speaks 2011-12-25 17.25GMT +8hrs Epistemic Freedom Freedom, universally agreed upon, is "the ability to do otherwise". This formulation of the definition of freedom presupposes our intuitions of freedom as being one of action or will. And rightly so, since the dispute about whether humans are truly free agents hinge upon our ability to act or will. But it is not uncommon to hear someone raise the issue of epistemic freedom in a free will debate. While it often seems misplaced in an argument concerned with our actions/will, the matter of "whether we can still count ourselves as free when we act upon incomplete information or worse still, misinformation" is an important one in it's own right. So this will be the main thrust of my post. Beyond just incomplete and wrong information, I would extend the issue concerning the lack of epistemic freedom to our imperfect human knowledge of ultimate reality. If you are discerning enough to notice, I smuggled in a premise: Deliberation of action is dependent upon how knowledgeable we are about everything. Take the case of choosing between taking the bus or the train to work/school. Let's say that the bus fare is cheaper than the train fare, and so based on this piece of information you decide on taking the bus. But it happens that the train takes half the time to reach your destination than the bus, and this might prompt you to take the train instead. Then you find out from your friend that at the time you leave for work/school, the train is usually packed full with people, while the bus is relatively empty. The more knowledge you have of a situation, the better able you are to make the "right" decision. It seems only fair to decide upon a course of action only when we, so to speak, "know what is at stake". Yet there is much in life where the "stakes" are unknowable to us or kept secret from us. If we knew, then we would have lived differently. I am not saying that a life with perfect knowledge is better than one which is incomplete; I make no normative claims about the quality of life. All I'm committing myself to is this: true freedom is having the perfect knowledge for deliberation of action We can't call our action a free action if we acted without knowing the full consequence of our action, because if we did we would have chosen to act otherwise. Just having the ability alone is insufficient to our conception of freedom; knowledge is a necessary condition for us to call ourselves free agents. Do you call the man who has the ability to do anything and everything he so fancies, not knowing he is plugged into a computer simulation, as truly free? In one sense, he truly is. But intuitively, we want to hold a sense in which he is not; he is epistemically not free. the transcendent one speaks 2011-01-28 4.56GMT +8hrs Seeker What does it mean to be human? What is this essence in us that if taken away we cease to be a human being? Is it rationality like the Greeks and analytic philosophers believe, or something else? To me I believe it isn't rationality or compassion that defines us, but our seeking nature. To be human is to seek. But I do not mean seeking out food, shelter, or a mate like animals do. By seeking I mean to hunger for, or to long for; our spiritual appetite. It is not just about being happy, but finding happiness. Not about satisfying hunger, but finding enjoyment in eating. Our emotional and physical needs and desires admit of our spiritual nature, because while "being happy" is an emotion and "satisying hunger" is physical, happiness and enjoyment are intangible abstract states. No one can define exactly what happiness, love, peace, joy, fulfilment really are. Some people seek such abstract states in material objects, others in ideas and beliefs, and still more in religion and God/gods. Regardless of where they are seeking, the fact of the matter remains, human beings are seekers. We are familiar with the phrase" life is a journey" and why is that so? This is because seeking what can fill our spiritual appetite is akin to the journey to a destination. It is a necessity, as human beings, that we can only live if we are continuously seeking. Purpose and meaning in life is not static, it is always changing, either being refined or redefined. Even if a religious believer has found God or salvation, he or she doesn't stop seeking; the believer will continue seeking something more, greater understanding in God or pursuing a deeper conviction or faith. In hide and seek, we all know that there is a seeker and there are those that hide. To say that we are in essence seekers admits of something (or someone) that is to be found and may be hidden, obscured due to the distractions in our lives or with creature comforts. Our nature to seek is not just important, it is a necessity. No human being can ever suppress this hunger and longing for something beyond the circumstances of this physical world. Be it gods or abstract ideals, hopes and dreams, truth and justice, human beings cannot help but seek. But the further question remains: what is to be found? I don't know about you, but personally I found this relationship with Jesus Christ and now I continuously seek to always walk close with Him daily. I believe that God made us seekers so that we will all one day seek him out, the greatest treasure there is to be found. the transcendent one speaks 2011-01-12 4.23GMT +8hrs Control All humans desire freedom. Children want to be free from their parents' authority, oppressed citizens want to be free from the tyrannical rule of their dictator. Freedom is seen as one, if not the most, important aspect of human life. As such, a restricting of a person's freedom, even if it is self-imposed, is seen by some as bad and wrong. To them, religious beliefs and moral values are but restrictions that threaten to control and inhibit a believer's actions. Yet it is interesting to note that such people who believe that religiosity and morality constrain freedom end up having their own freedom restricted as well. For example, a smoker or a gambler might believe they have freely chosen to smoke or gamble, but eventually they have no power to choose not to smoke or gamble. Excessive freedom leads to an addiction. And yet society hides the inability of the individual to choose to stop, and only portray them as having the ability and willingness to choose to continue. Thus what seems like unlimited and uninhibited freedom for a person to act is actually slavery to the activity which controls their life. The person who holds religious convictions or moral values though restricting his or her freedom to act is still wholly in control of what choices he or she makes or does not make. By freedom of choice, I mean a choice that is not coerced or influenced by someone else, a choice that one has deliberated upon as the good and right option to choose. On the surface, it might seem as if the uninhibited person is more free than the religious/moral person, but while the uninhibited person is controlled by his actions, the religious/moral person is in control of his actions. Self-control is true freedom. In being able to choose what to do and how to act, and more importantly what not to do and how not to act, the individual is in control of his or her own life. The uninhibited person might be free to act, but he is not free to live. Even though he freely chooses, his choices are a result of being swept away by the waves of what the world portrays as pleasurable and desirable. In having no restrain on actions and beliefs, all action and all belief become permissible, and whichever seems most attractive them becomes part of one's lifestyle. Control is the only way a person can draw out the boundaries and limits of one's life, the beliefs that define him and the actions that reflect those beliefs. Indeed, all humans desire freedom, but this freedom is not of action but of life. I might have imposed upon myself that I cannot have pre-marital sex, go clubbing, or gamble, but these limits define how I freely live my life. If I do not choose how I want to restrict and control my freedoms, be it freedom of choice, freedom of speech, or some other freedom, something or someone else will. the transcendent one speaks 2011-01-04 9.15GMT +8hrs Peace The idea of world peace is just that, an idea. Activists and governments utter the words from their lips, sealing them with empty promises they could never have kept. The answer to a world plagued by conflict will be found in the reasons why conflict arise. Conceptually, world peace is not an impossibility. If conflict among men arises only when people come together and interact, then maybe the only way we can achieve peace on earth is for the whole world to live in solitude. While world peace is conceptually, and may even be realitically, possible, the one and only solution denies us our nature. Just as Aristotle said, "humans are political animals." We would cease to fully be human without interacting with other human beings; we could not function as such without society. And if society is necessary to human functioning and life, then so is conflict. To champion world peace is to both deny the essence of what we really are, as dependent beings, and to aim to become a species other than our own, be it god or robot. Before we can even talk about peace, we have to understand that conflict is a part of our human nature and to some extent necessary to our existence. We hear often that the way to ease tensions between parties is through mutual understanding. Yet the first step to understanding is through conflict. All good relationships, be it family or friends, face their fair share of conflicts. And the strength of these ties are not determined by all the great times your have enjoyed together, but the conflicts that your have gotten through together. At this point, you might say that world peace can still be realistically achieved if the relations between countries, between governments and their citizens, were like that of our personal ties. Of course that would optimistically be so, but as some of us might know, it already takes so much out of us to reconcile differences with a friend and come to some compromise, what more between many parties with large numbers of people? Thus, world peace is realistically impossible due to the exponential difficulty of reconciliation every additional individual there is in the group. But while we might not like conflicts, like every bad thing it has it's purpose. External conflicts can create internal peace. "Conflicts" with nature in the form of natural disasters brings peace to nations as they put aside their differences to bring aid and relief to the disaster area. Conflicts between different cultural and ideological groups causes the members in the group to bond together more closely to face the external threat. Many alien and zombie movies have portrayed how humanity will stand united in the face of conflict with an external threat or species. It is ironic how only through conflict can there be any glimmer of peace between all nations, and yet the world is still not peaceful at all. All opposites are but two sides of a coin; on one side is world peace, on the other is world conflict. Only when the whole world is in conflict with the same enemy can they finally be at peace with each other. Who might this enemy be? Aliens, zombies, nature, the devil, or maybe the end of the world... the transcendent one speaks 2011-01-03 3.43GMT +8hrs Beautiful But it takes a significant transformation for vicious character to become virtuous." I have made two observations about girls in general these few months: 1. There is a substantial number of attractive and beautiful girls; either being uniquely different and beautiful in their own special way or having a certain universal homogeneous standards and/or traits of beauty. 2. Very ordinary and imperfect girls can easily be turned into beauties through make-up, slimming, plastic surgery, or just a change of wardrobe. Let me first explain (1). But before I do, I want to qualify what I mean by substantial: having a fair amount that any average rational person would sit up and pay attention to. As such, I do believe we all come across different people, with many different areas that attract us to them, some their elegant facial features and others their cheerful disposition. With the advances of science and technology, (2) is rather self-evident. Most, if not all, physical flaws can be remedied. And usually, there is only that one physical barrier, from too big a nose to an unshapely body, that causes a person to look less attractive. It's just like the chinese proverb says, "Drawing a Dragon and Painting in the Eye." It only takes that one small minor detail that makes something go from normal to beautiful, and from beautiful to perfect. With all that said, (1) and (2) is evident of just how superficial beauty and attractiveness is metaphorically and literally only skin-deep. With so many beautiful girls and the ease of changing an average girl into a beautiful one, it comes as a challenge as to which one is better. And I don't just mean girls, but guys as well. What sets one person apart from another, and makes him or her more choiceworthy if the shortlisted individuals are all equally beautiful, in their own unique ways of course. This is where a person's "inside" counts, his or her personality, character, beliefs, values, and disposition. In contrast to superficial appearances, character is not homogeneous and rarely even similar from one person to another. Even if two people share certain character traits, taken as a whole they might be rather different after all. A person's character is not as easy to change as one's physical appearance. You can refine certain minor details to turn a sculpture into a work of art, but it takes substantial moulding to turn a lump of clay into a statue. Good looks might sell a man, but it is his character that seals the deal. A virtuous and good character takes much time and great effort to cultivate. Investing so much time and effort into its cultivation means that a person's character is built upon sincerity. Something is only as valuable depends on its rarity and how difficult it is to procure or provide. Superficial beauty is becoming more common and technology has made it more easily attainable, but a beautiful character is rare because of how much time and effort one has to sacrifice in order to cultivate it. In a world where beauty is only skin-deep, the value of virtuous character is priceless where superficial beauty is the necessary commodity. the transcendent one speaks 2010-12-24 5.46GMT +8hrs Defining Love "What is love?" A familiar question that any rational being would have asked at least once in their lifetime. A question asked when relationships or friendships don't work out; in times of breakups, betrayals, and disappointments. But this question is not a definitional or a factual type of question. It cannot be satisfied with some dictionary definition or some scientific explanation. Many people have attempted to unravel the mysteries of love; they come up with concepts and ideas, big theories and grand arguments. But love was never meant to be explained and understood as an ideal theory. In fact, the only way we can truly learn to understand what love is, is through showing it and receiving it in return. Compassion is love in action, apart from action love doesn't mean a thing. That is why people are confounded by love and ask what it really is because they do not realise that love can only be understood when it is put into action. There are those who realise this but are not willing to act in a manner that love dictates because the answer demands too much of them. Christians will be familar with the commonly quoted verse from 1st Corinthians 13:4-7 from the Bible: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." It is not that we do not know what love is, but that we are living in denial because of how tiring and demanding it is to love. We ask the question because we are hoping there would be some other answer, some easier alternative. But alas, true love is not self-gratification nor sensual pleasure, it is both reciprocal and unconditional. As such, the concept of love goes against everything our human nature desires. But human beings need love, and love is what gives meaning to our lives and the relationships we have with our family and friends. Thus, we usually come to a compromise where our personal desires masquerade as love; when we deceive ourselves into thinking we love someone when actually we're doing it to satisfy our own desires. When the relationship doesn't work out, we blame it on love, saying how it isn't worth loving someone and how we only get hurt when we love. But truly, we only have ourselves to blame. As written in 1st Corinthians 13, it is clear how important love is, what it is, what it entails. Love is not some fuzzy feeling rising from the navel, or some magical pixie dust that makes us better people, or causes the world to seem wonderful and lovely. Love is action, not imagination. It is pragmatic, not idealistic. We keep on asking what exactly love is because we are not satisfied with the answer we find, in denial of what it really is, and fooling ourselves into mistaken our desires as love. So what is love? The answer will present itself to us when we accept it's unconditional and selfless nature, and when we put it into practice. There is no way we can tell someone in words what love truly is, but through our actions others will come to understand just what it is to love. Love is not a feeling, not an idea, not some supernatural force. It is an action; it evokes an action. God is love. And just as we cannot fully explain and understand God, likewise we cannot fully explain or understand love. But we can know God through loving him and those around us, and through knowing him, we can learn how to love. the transcendent one speaks 2010-12-17 11.50GMT +8hrs Beliefs "Practice what you preach" is a common phrase that most of us know. Those who don't adhere by it we label them as hypocrites. But is it really possible to not practice what you preach? Before I answer this question, we have to distinguish between what it means by "preaching" and "teaching". In teaching, it is (supposedly) value neutral; the teacher does not prescribe any view as more privileged than others. But in preaching, it is based on favouring a certain view or way of life; the preacher is presenting one view or way of life as the truth, what is good and right, and that his audience or interlocurs will come to accept it as part of their way of life as well. A teacher does not have to believe in the truth of the subject or view to teach it, all that he needs is the knowledge about the view. Hence, it is possible to teach about a way of life even if you do not believe it, but to preach is to believe. Yet, there are two levels of belief: epistemic belief and genuine belief. Hypocrites are guilty of having merely epistemic belief about the views they "preach". Epistemic belief, which is what people think they belief, and unbelief regarding a certain issue amount to the same thing, it has no influence or impact on one's life. As such, it is impossible for a hypocrite to practice what they preach since they are not preaching at all. On top of being hypocritical, such people face a greater charge of deception. Deceiving themselves because they think they are preaching something they believe to be true when in fact they don't truly believe it because genuine belief will naturally be reflected in one's actions and lifestyle. Deceiving others because their audience think that their preaching comes from their way of life, when in fact all they expose themselves to is a teacher who is being biased. And let me reinforced that point, people who do not practice what they preach at not merely hypocritical preachers but deceptive teachers. Deceptive teachers who posite a view as the truth but they themselves in fact do not genuinely believe any of it. People who think that they can preach a belief or a way of life just through teaching deceive themselves and others who listen to them. Preaching, the act of trying to influence people to hold onto a certain view or belief, is only genuine and true when one preaches through word and its corresponding action. Everytime we advocate something as true or right, we have to reinforce our position by acting in that corresponding right and true way. If we cannot live by what we preach, then we do not believe what we preach at all. Because how we live and for what we live is based on our beliefs, and if our lives do not reflect those beliefs then we face the charge of deceptive preaching. Hypocrites are but people who's genuine beliefs are very consistent with their actions but inconsistent with what they think they actually believe. If you ever realise you seem very hypocritical it is really because you have some doubts about following the views and values you profess to believe in. We are all hypocrites until we can find coherence between genuine belief and epistemic belief, between what we truly believe and what we think we believe. the transcendent one speaks 2010-12-17 4.35GMT +8hrs Life Humans have the tendency of trying to sum life up in a phrase or a sentence. If they didn't, they probably couldn't handle the magnitude of it. Yet, the notion of life itself betrays and dillutes our understanding of it; it creates an illusion that it resides in us. Science tells us that life is an organism's biological existence.And we believe that this is so. But far from it. Not because science is wrong (because there's is no mistake in their definition), but because in our haste to find meaning we unconsciously equivocate the definition of life. When we talk about our life, or life in general, we're not referring to a biological existence, we're talking about an existence of social interactions with other living beings and the environment. When asked the question "how's life?", the common answers of "it's great!" or "it sucks!" admits to something more than our own existence. Our positive or negative opinions of life usually have nothing to do with whether or not we ourselves are perfectly functioning human beings. To be able to deliberate about whether our life is good or bad means that biologically, or at least cognitively, we are as good as a human animal can get. Life is good not because we are healthy or well-fed, though they might be as means as to why we should think our lives are good. The quality of life hinges not on our own biological existence taken in isolation, but its relationship to the society we live in. Whether we think we're beautiful or fat, intelligent or stupid, esteemed or disgraced, holds no significance without the contextual relation we hold with others like us. It is this social life then that we find so insurmountable and overwhelming. It's a life that in our speech sounds so personal and individualistic but is actually connected in a wider web of events and people with causal repurcussions and consequences that far ellude our imagination. Yet this does not stop us from talking about it in such a simple fashion. But it would be a grave mistake to think that life could be simple, because evidently it can't. One's biological existence could be simple: you sustain and survive through nutritive, perceptive and locomotive functions. But humans live not just to exist; definitely not in the way plants and animals do. What makes life meaningful is the interactions with we have fellow human beings, the people and shared experiences that give us a purpose to live and also a longing to die. Life is difficult and we hate it because our the circumstances and the people in our lives that are contrary to our wishes and which we cannot control. So next time when someone tells you that life isn't worth living, they're not referring to their biological existence but the social context in which they live in and with. A biological existence is only sacred and meaningful if it resides within a social context of acceptance and nurturing. Why think that a simple life, a biological existence, is worth living for if there were literally nothing worth living for? Survival is just not good enough a reason. Life's complexity is a double-edged sword, with it we struggle and hurt to make sense of it, without it we lose the meaning and purpose of existence. But it is a necessary evil. Existence is simple, but life consist of a multiple network of existences, and thus life is complex. the transcendent one speaks 2010-12-02 3.06GMT +8hrs Praiseworthiness We're usually full of praise and admiration for those we sacrifice their material comforts and sometimes even their own lives to help the impoverished and oppressed. Such moral acts of compassion and selflessness are attributes worthy of applauding and recognising. But honestly, the motivation behind our admiration is not soley because their actions are praiseworthy. If we truly believed in the championing of praiseworthy moral actions then it would lead us, not to just admire these saintly persons' actions, but want to act in such a manner as well. If we had to choose between keeping the comfortable lifestyle we have or flying off to India to help children in the streets right this instance, it will be a tough decision. The real reason why we admire and commend these selfless individuals is because they are doing what all of us should be doing and wished we had the courage to do. We praise them, not just because they are praiseworthy, but mainly because they have done what we feared and failed to do. As moral agents, we can definitely see aiding the impoverished and the oppressed as the morally right things that we should strive to perform. It is our weakness of will and lack of courage that makes the actions of these saintly people that much more worthy of praise and admiration. We can all agree that no one admires morally good action that they themselves will perform; sometimes those actions are even seen as actions of social norms. Thus, it is not morally admirable actions that we applaud, but the morally good acts that we could never bring ourselves to perform. To the selfless people who have done so there is nothing great and amazing about giving up everything to help the impoverished and oppressed children in India, for example. Others see their actions as morally commendable and praiseworthy actions, to them, they see it as their obligation as a moral human agent. So instead of just being awe-inspired and amazed by such selfless moral action, think about why we ourselves are not doing likewise. The motivation to being selfless moral agents is not admiration for others but compassion that flows from within. As much as those saintly people are worthy of our praise, it is not praise they seek and definitely our praises do nothing to help the situation of the impoverished and the oppressed they work with. The world needs workers, not cheerleaders. We might think we can never be like these saintly people as we see their actions as amazing and selfless, and this can incapacitate our first step to following in their footsteps. Selflessness comes from love and compassion for others which supercedes our self-centered concern of our own needs. Instead of admiring and praising these moral saints, let us learn to be more loving and compassionate to those who are desperately in need. Moral saints are not born from following some moral role model, but born from the outpouring of their heart's compassion to the needy. We should stop admiring selfless moral action and cultivate a heart for the impoverished and the oppressed that will spur us to moral action. the transcendent one speaks 2010-11-11 4.15GMT +8hrs Discontentment Contentment is being satisfied with what you have in life and not desire for more than is necessary. My folks always told my brother and I that instead of comparing ourselves with those who have more, we should be grateful we have more than those who have less. To which my brother would ask what was wrong with wanting to compare with those more affluent and wealthy. It's true isn't it, that whenever someone complains about their situation being terrible others tend to jump the gun and chastise them for being discontented and "money-minded"? Discontentment is usually seen as someone wanting something they do not possess. But why can't it just be a matter of not having something that most people around the person possess? The former I call wealthy discontentment, the latter, poverty discontentment. Many people I know tend to go about with the wealthy discontentment discourse. "I got an A minus grade for my essay and not an A, that's so bad!" Or, "what's the use of having a driving license when my Dad has no money to buy me a car?" Or, "this year my red packet money is less than last year, this year I only got $2000 when last year I got $3000, why my relatives so stingy?" Or, "Oh no, I'm so fat! My weight has increased from 45kg to 50kg! Need to go exercise and diet already if not will not look pretty anymore!" It's condescending. When my own financial situation falls short of their own and my grades don't even match theirs, I have to hear them say they don't have enough, or didn't do well enough. I, and many others like myself, have a greater case on our hands. If such wealthy discontented people have the right to want more, why should the rest of us poverty discontented people think it ungrateful to voice out our grievances? People ask me why I don't get a driving license or go on the school exchange program, or just go for short overseas trips during the holidays sine everyone does that. That's precisely the problem, it's not about wanting more, but not having what most people around you have. The pressure poverty discontented people face is not that of trying to possess and achieve more than others, but a pressure to at least attain a level of affluence or achievement of those around him or her. The true bane of the capitalist society isn't about making individuals greedy and self-centered, but making everyone feel that there's more they need to do be respected as a worthy individual in society. True discontentment is really poverty discontentment. When one feels that he cannot self-actualise and be the person he or she was meant to be if one doesn't meet the standards that society has impose deliberately and that people around us have accepted and imposed unknowingly. People feel disempowered, feel worthless, feel stupid, because they cannot seem to reach a certain level that the majority seemingly have reached. It's like being a student failing his examinations while his classmates all pass with flying colours, or the boy who's mother did not turn about for his performance when all the other performing students' mothers did. We can never be satisfied with what we have, because what matters is what others have. If everyone was equally poor no one would complain, but once more people start getting richer than those who are poor would become unsatisfied. Discontentment is not a condition caused by some selfish desire within us, but by the impact of living within society. the transcendent one speaks 2010-11-04 5.04GMT +8hrs Expression Everyone has a right to have their own set of opinions; their taste and preferences. We also know that discrimination is morally wrong because everybody has a right to be respected as a autonomous human being like ourselves. But nowadays the lines between the two have started to blur. Sometimes while voicing our opinions, we get criticised for being racist, or elitist, or bias towards a certain interest or a certain inclination. When we're asked about what expectations we have of our prospective partner, for example, the criteria we have listed gets flamed. Saying you prefer tall girls gets naturally linked to you discriminating against short ones. Saying you prefer girls who are more gentle and more accommodating of their husbands, and you'll be labelled patriarchal or chauvinistic by the feminists. If you said you didn't like a girl who was say, sporty or geeky, or had hobbies you didn't approve of, your listener will reply that everyone has a freedom to what they pursue in life. Suddenly opinions were not enough, you had to justify why you were entitled to holding such an opinion. Before you know it, the once free opinions you held have evolved into either justified arguments or worse still, a resigned form of relativism. Justified Argument: "I have good reason to hold the opinion that I don't like people who have characteristic X, or does activity Y." Resigned Relativism: "Personally I think it is bad to have characteristic X or do activity Y but I guess everyone should be entitled to their view of what the good life is, so who am I to judge?" There is obviously a difference between the definitions of opinion and discrimination, but in practice they may become one and the same. This problem has probably arose because people want to discriminate but don't want to offend and they end up passing their discriminatory remarks as their own opinions. Also, the individuals who didn't like the opinions people had of them referred to the most serious charge of discrimination as their most effective defense, sometimes in a joking manner but other time in a spiteful one. This has resulted in a culture where we end up sieving out implications that might be discriminatory in people's opinions when they weren't consciously being discriminating. We might be able to infer certain biasness in people's words or prejudices in their actions, but that is not strong enough to accuse them of the charge. Humans by nature have a way of dealing with the unknown or that which is different, covertly, it's known as respectful disdain, overtly, it's known as unkind discrimination. It is only natural to feel disgusted or abhorred by what we dislike or hate, and there is nothing wrong with expressing that in our opinions. The real problem is when people actually express these opinions of disgust without any respect or tact towards those whom it may pertain to. So many times the tripwire between honest opinion and intended discrimination can be avoided by just thinking through what you say and do. Don't abuse the right to free speech if all you want to do is violate the rights of others as free and autonomous human beings. the transcendent one speaks 2010-10-10 5.38GMT +8hrs Sacrificial Lamb Most friends are seasonal. They appear in our lives for a period, a period in which their significance in our lives are at their highest. When we have graduated, changed jobs, averted the crisis, faced with different situations, or met new friends who we have more in common with us, those friends before go out of season. It's not to say they cease to be our friends anymore; only that their role in our lives have faded into the background. Said in this way, it does seem a very mutually amiable picture. But more often than not, it is heart-wrenching, painful, and bitter. Only because human relationships do not work in the same mechanical way as the seasons in nature do; emotion is invested. One party devotes herself wholeheartedly to help him in his time of need and patiently tolerates his bouts of frustrations and melancholy, sacrificing her well-being to support and encourage him. Before he was a introverted, ostracised guy with low self-esteem, thanks to her he is now more confident and assertive of himself which attracts more friends to him and also a sense of integration with society. Now that he has the knowledge and acquaintance of a wider demography of friends, he realises that she is not the one for him and he distances himself away from her to be with someone else who is more compatible with him. Would you think that this guy is heartless? That he is a jerk for not treasuring the girl who did everything for him? If the answer is "yes" it is because we are emotional, if we thought it was "no" it just means we are clear how human relationships work. Relationships are not contracts, they are not binding in any sense of equal reciprocity. Just because much of our heart is invested into it doesn't mean that the other party has an obligation to do so as well. In fact, a true relationship works on a mutual love for one another; both parties invest their emotions independently of the other. Feelings that stem from gratefulness or because one feels in debt are insincere and an insult towards the true love shown by the person. True love is interesting because it isn't self-centered. If you are unable to love or trust others anymore because of the fear and experience of betrayal, then all we're thinking about is the potential cost in a relationship. If the happiness and well-being of the person we express our love for is what is our priority, then regardless of whether we are left heartbroken we have done what we set out to achieve: showing true love towards the person. It does seem like we're always on the losing end, but loving is not about what we gain from it but what we can give to the person we love. Just because people in your life seem to treat you instrumentally shouldn't be a reason why one should stop loving people sincerely. There is a saying "it's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all", which people take to mean that it's better have been in a relationship ended in breakup than never been in one before. But I believe it has a deeper meaning of telling us that it is better to have loved with all our heart despite our feelings being eventually unrequited than living in the regret of never having given our all into loving someone who truly loves us. Some people are there in our lives for that short period. If they were going to leave anyway, would it not have been better to leave with them the beautiful memory of your sincerity towards them and all that you had done to help and support them in their greatest time of need, than let such an opportunity to play a significant part in shaping their lives for the better be lost because of our own selfish fear? For the girl I truly love, I would rather risk getting hurt by her if it means I can protect her from any harm. the transcendent one speaks 2010-10-07 7.11GMT +8hrs Anon Question: "What is the best defence in the world?" No it's not Kevlar armour. No, it's not Adamantium alloy. No, not even a force field. It's the screen of anonymity, right in your face now, separating you and me. Human nature has been ugly since the beginning of time, and only made worse by the invention known as the "internet". Humans by nature are self-centered, inconsiderate, hypocritical, judgmental, uncaring, insensitive, bad-mouthing bastards. Before the advent of 21st century technology, people interacted face to face, or at least voice to voice. The stakes were much higher because if you decided to commit yourself to insulting, offending, mocking, pranking, or saying anything at all, you were immediately liable. The time it took for a right hook to your face was faster than you could say "You suck!" Once you were in such a situation you couldn't just get out without offering some kind of formal apology or compensation. The natural law existing between one person and another suffice for us to be careful with our words and actions; we kept our human nature in check regularly. But thanks to the advancement of technology, it has helped the human race to go into moral regression and given our human nature a new platform to run amok. The power of anonymity is probably even greater than the powers of Spiderman since even Peter Parker has to take responsibility for his actions. Being anonymous on the internet, people can commit themselves to anything they wanted and leave as and when they felt the heat. There is little to no cost at all when it comes to free speech on the internet; you can exit as fast as you entered with no extra charge besides your internet bills. This encourages the full extent of humans' disgusting nature to be unleashed. In online games, people freely utter vulgarities and blame other players for all the hiccups when they deem them useless "noobs" and are better off not playing. On message boards and online forums, people criticise and put down the opinions of others to the extent that it becomes a vicious attack on the other forum users. If the power play is unequal it becomes internet bullying, if they are more or less even it turns into a war. Besides it being virtual, I don't see how this actions and words are very different from their real life equivalents. With anonymity, human beings not only take advantage of being invisible, they also inevitably forget that the other online players and users are human as well. Of course, you could argue that we have the freedom to speech and the internet is just an extension of that, those who have been "hurt" in the process can exercise theirs as well. But is that truly what freedom has got us? A celebration of our vile human nature? Indeed, we have no responsibility towards these anonymous faces to treat them in a certain considerate manner. But it's not a matter of internet protocol, it's a matter of being a fellow human being. How can we ever say that humanity has progressed because of technological advances when our hearts are rotting away? What's the use of taking care of the planet and animals when we can't even care for each other? Humans argues with other humans about the protection of blue-fin tuna and sharks, humans flaming other humans because they take offense at the remarks against their idols. Maybe technology isn't the catalyst but the revelation of how bad human nature really is. It's showing us that the cordial and organised life we live is but a big sham, because deep inside every individual is the ugliness of human nature that manifest so evidently online. the transcendent one speaks 2010-10-05 5.16GMT +8hrs Goldilocks I believe most of my readers would roughly remember the story of "The Story of the Three Bears", where Goldilocks will only settle for porridge that is "not too hot" or "not too cold" and a bed that is "not too big" or "not too small". Goldilocks embodies the pursuit of balance, in which we as human beings should settle for what is "just right", not excess or deficiency of anything. But even though such an analogy may be made with the Goldilocks, children are well able to see that Goldilocks was just a spoilt little girl. Not only does she trespass upon the Three Bears property, she is also picky and fastidious about the temperature of the porridge she preferred and the size of the bed she would sleep on. It is difficult to see Goldilocks as the protagonist no matter how beautiful later variations of the story made her out to be. Besides the fact that she trespasses on private property, Goldilocks' picky behaviour and personality alludes not to balance but discontentment. Goldilocks, in fact, personifies our discontentment we have with and high expectations we have of people and society. For example many times, a friend asking you about what is wrong because he or she cares is seen as being too intrusive and inconsiderate. Then when that friend believes that probing would be inconsiderate and think it better to leave you to cool off for a while, you think your friend is being apathetic or unconcern with your situation. It happens not just between friends; family, society, life, God. We're never quite satisfied with the help or the resources we are given. It's either never enough, or it's just too much to bear. We forget that at least we have been given, we have been cared for; so much we have taken for granted. There is nothing wrong in pursuing a more balanced life where we knew the right amount of care to show, but imposing it on others when we ourselves have failed is just hypocritical. If we want people to care about us, then we should be thankful when it happens, regardless of whether we feel it isn't enough or when we feel it's overwhelming. Indeed, something or someone may be "too hot" or "too cold", "too big" or "too small", and there is always room to improve and change, but we should first come with a grateful heart that we have that something or that someone with us. The next time before we start pointing fingers at others for being too optimistic or too pessimistic, too perfectionist or too slack, too emotional or too rational, stop and recall how those traits of theirs have accrued to your benefit. Being too particular itself is a problem for a discontented person since it is an extreme, and thus achieving balance should start from the self. An excess or a deficiency of a trait is not treasured until it is gone; where even that little would now seem a lot and that much is better than none at all. Goldilocks might have only eaten porridge that is "just right" and sleep in a bed that is "just right", but I believe the moment the Bears chased her out of their house, any temperature porridge and any sized bed would be "just right" for her. the transcendent one speaks 2010-09-30 7.25GMT +8hrs Inconsistent It has been thought that holding incompatible beliefs is a result of our us not having critically analysing and scrutinising all our beliefs and thus ignorant in the areas where they conflict. But talking with two mutual friends made me rethink this hypothesis; maybe the problem of inconsistency is not a result of ignorance but of deliberation. Friend A recounted sentence X that friend B told her. On a separate occasion, I verified with friend B if he indeed said sentence x which he quickly denied and justified himself. The justifications that people give when their position is jeopardised is deceptive. What would seem like a justified belief on their part is a masquerade for an ad-hoc defence. We might think that it is just the person's ignorance of holding two inconsistent beliefs, but really, it is just a deliberate move to withdraw temporally from the obligations of holding a certain belief. Beliefs by nature are supposed to be objective and situation-independent. If beliefs changed depending on circumstances or whom we relate to then it is no different from opinions. Yet it is this very convicting nature of beliefs that traps us in situations where holding the belief is harmful to our interest or the interest of those whe represent. We can say that we believe wholeheartedly that we should, for example, 'care and help those in need.' But what happens when the caring for someone demands you to sacrifice more than what you can allow or even worse that you should care for the people who caused you trouble all the time when they are in a pinch? The conflict is not between incompatible beliefs but between one's true beliefs and one's capacity to see those beliefs through. As such, we find justification for our action or non-action when the situation demands more than we are willing to sacrifice; be it sacrifice our esteem, time, money, reputation, etc. Hence, people are being inconsistent deliberately; not wanting to have to commit themselves to every single aspect their beliefs demand of them. Of course I'm not saying that inconsistency is never a result of ignorance but that fundamentally it is a result of our own personal agenda. Even when someone points out our ignorance of two incompatible beliefs, which one we choose to keep is dependent on which conflicts less with our self interest. Thus, it is not so much inconsistent beliefs as it is just deliberate double standard. "Killing a life is wrong" and "Eating animals for food" seem like incompatible beliefs, but many of us hold them both knowing full well that they conflict. Besides choosing one or the other, philosophers can argue that they are in fact compatible or reformulate those beliefs in a way that is consistent. Regardless of what is being done to solve this incompatibility, at the end of the day it is whatever serves our purpose better that matters, be it for altruism or self-interest. On this reading, it seems that suddenly beliefs are not as important as motives. Incompatible motives are more problematic because it is difficult to rationally analyse our emotions and desires. Humans are quite clear that they hold incompatible beliefs, they are just oblivious that the motivations for those beliefs are inconsistent as well. the transcendent one speaks 2010-09-24 6.43GMT +8hrs Unanswerables There are many who have a misconception of philosophy: that all philosophers do is ask questions that have no answers. More precisely, it is not because there are no answers but because the answers are 1) beyond our finite knowledge and therefore we have no certainty, or 2) controversial and always normative. Even though there are many who dismiss philosophy saying that we shouldn't bother about questions with no answers, the truth of the matter is we cannot help but ask such question. No, it is because we want to ask. The desire of knowledge, the desire to be in control of our own lives and the world we live in, was so evident when Adam and Eve gave in to temptation and ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. It is true that we can never have absolute certainty about certain phenomenons in nature or the meaning of existence, and yet we never stop wondering why. It is true that morality is subjectively hinged upon culture and beliefs, yet it does not stop us from debating about what is right or wrong. In our pursuit to know, it fuels our deep desire to believe. Life without beliefs is like a hermit crab without the crab; all that is left is an empty shell. To live is to believe, to believe is to live. When we say they are unanswerable we do not mean there is no answer but that we either cannot be certain of it or come to a consensus about it. So that is precisely why we continue to ask them because we actually do believe in a particular answer. If we stop asking such questions, though humanly unanswerable but so vitally important to our being, then it means we live in resignation. The day we stop wondering about the truth of our existence and the meaning of life is the day we stop believing. So it is imperative that we continuously ask ourselves this unanswerable questions over and over again because without striving to believe there is no hope in living. It may seem like a lost cause, a route to despair, but asking such questions about existence or morality is not about finding the answers. It is about doing all we can in pursuit of the truth and at the end find contentment in knowing we had given our all with no regrets. I don't know if questioning our existence is the sole purpose of our existence, because if it is then life would be quite a cruel joke. But I believe that there is some state of ultimate reality there whom embodies the Truth, the truth of everything. I call him God, Lord, Jesus Christ, Saviour, Heavenly Father, and friend. Like any human being, I tend to pair doubt with belief but God is gracious and merciful, and every time I question my belief in him, his answer will quell this raging doubt within me. Belief doesn't stop you from questioning; questions arise when you start believing. But we can take heart to know that there is a God whom we can not only believe in but seek the truth in. the transcendent one speaks 2010-09-23 2.19GMT +8hrs Free Will Some more passionate Christians might go berserk reading the aforementioned sentence, but of course I have good reasons for saying so. Many who are not believers, tend to see Christians in a stereotype: a fanatic that is trying to convert non-believers to Christianity by any means possible. Indeed, Christians are called to help in the conversion of others to Christianity but it is not by any means possible. It is evident that God himself sees the utmost important in human free will and the freedom to choose; whether to obey or disobey him, whether to take him as your personal Lord and Saviour or not. If it was the case that salvation is more important than free will, God would not have create human beings that had the potential to rebel against him and his plans for them, which of course they did. Likewise, respecting an individual's freedom of choice is more Christ-like than incessantly pestering him or her about the Gospel. But the further, and probably more important, question is what does it mean to respect a person's freedom of choice? Some people might think that it is simply giving a person the freedom to choose within a basket of options. But I believe it goes far deeper than that. It is not just letting individuals make their own choices but making sure we do not constraint the choices that are available to them or restrict the freedom to exercise those choices. Peer pressure, instilling fear, emotional blackmail, emphasizing on the blessings one can get, being really persuasive. The first three I would call them threats, and the last two, incentives. For example, you want to evangelise to a person, who under normal circumstances, rationally does not want to become a Christian. But you intentionally make this person feel fearful of Hell and feel guilty because of sin so that she will see it as imperative to accept salvation. Yet, the motivation behind why this person has chosen to accept Christianity is not form her actually wanting to but because of the fear of Hellfire and the guilt trip of sin. The cost, being the fear of going to Hell and being guilty-stricken for the rest of one's life, severely restricts what this person, under normal circumstances, would rationally choose. If someone pointed a gun at your head and tell you Christianity or your life, any rational person would choose Christianity. Constraints or restrictions on one's free will is almost akin to not having freedom at all. Regardless, if one's rational judgment has been impeded or subtly coerced how then can we say this person is choosing freely even though she does in fact have the options of choices? Even if Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, it is still up to the person to freely choose him for themselves; to truly want salvation. the transcendent one speaks 2010-08-20 1.48GMT +8hrs Distinction Subcultures and generation cultures are the result of various groups and individuals trying to set themselves apart from the masses. Different. Unique. Special. But some of you readers might have already picked up the irony in this phenomenon. A subculture group or a generation is itself a mass of people, no doubt smaller than the community or country but a collective of persons no less. It seems that the approach humans take to try to be different is to be the same. It might seem like an illogical method but the issue is not in that it contradicts itself but that its a herd mentality masquerading as a individual motivation. "Different" and "special" have nothing in common besides admitting to being unlike the majority. While being special means being different, being different does not in any way allude to special. While most people would boldly claim that they are "finding their true self" or "doing things their way", they really mean to find a "true self" that people can accept and a "way" that others condone of. The motivation of such human behaviour is pure and simple: acceptance. The plan is to sacrifice the anonymous majority in the hope of finding a niche group of friends whom share their somewhat unique and at times radical ideas. How many of you would actually actualise your true self, your own taste and preferences, if it conflicted greatly with that of the masses? Very little. And that little, some by choice and others by birth, live to suffer the scorns of the disapproving collective. Truly those who are different from the rest can attest to the difficulties they face while growing up; the rejection, the disapproval, the rehabilitation. Weird. Deviant. Aloof. It's a painful lonely struggle because there is no core group of like-minded individuals cheering such persons on as they face the big world alone. Uniquely special is not being different, it's just being what everyone wants to be but is not able to. Of course different can change to special one day, but at what cost? At what price? So the next time you want to be different from the rest, what kind of different are you talking about? A different that all your friends wish they could be, or a different that no one could ever understand? Don't lie to yourselves when what you truly want is acceptance and not difference. the transcendent one speaks 2010-07-29 3.40GMT +8hrs Inception Ideas are divided into two main categories: independent and induced. Independent ideas are ideas that we formulate in our minds independent of experiences in the external world. Induced ideas are ideas formulated as a result of sensory experience, using our five senses, of the external world. Induced ideas can be further broken down into primary induced and secondary induced. Primary induced is one where the external idea is experienced by the senses and thus the person formulates the same idea. Secondary induced is when the experience of this external idea generates another idea within one's mind that is separate but related to the external idea. Now that we have the definitions out of the way, I want to talk about the notion of induced ideas, in other words ideas of external influence. Our senses are the direct connection between our mind and the external world; the perceptions in our mind are directly related to the experiences we have. Thus being influenced by ideas is not merely confined to times when we consciously acknowledge it but every time our senses interact with the external world. What we read on paper, what we watch on the screen, what we observe from our surroundings, what we hear from other people, how other people make us feel. Induced ideas have the potential to influence our values, beliefs, character, identity, aspirations, our future. It can influence what we believe is good or bad, right or wrong, truth or fiction. Hence, what we use our time to experience will have a definitive impact on who we are and what we do. Ideas can only be formulated in the mind and understood by another mind. Thus, interactions between fellow human beings become the primary and most important way we develop and change our ideas and beliefs. "Inception" (as defined by the film) is not some fancy concept of going into a person's dream and planting an idea there so that he believes that idea originated from his own mind. "Inception" is about reason and persuasion; mind manipulation. It is really secondary inducing of ideas. Showing someone that they have good reason to believe an idea or act in a certain way and make them see that subconsciously they held this belief in the first place. Telling someone that in such circumstances they have a number of options and persuading them that one of them is logically better and will ultimately give the outcome they hope for. You suggest an induced idea which subconsciously matches their belief set causing them to consciously formulate another idea as a result which is the idea you wanted them to believe in the first place, but just that now that idea is generated by their own minds and not explicitly told by you. You can think an idea but you cannot unthink it. You can choose to reject an idea but it just means you have accepted the idea contrary to the one you rejected. Sometimes we have little control over what ideas infiltrate our minds and influence us but we have full control over what materials to peruse and the type of friends we make. The only reason why our surroundings in the past have such a great impact on our identity now is because of the ideas we developed as a result of the surroundings have grown into the beliefs and value of the person we now are. It may sound cliche but the only way to not be influenced easily is to be influential. Just as everything has the potential to influence us, so too we have the potential to influence everything, and that potential is almost infinite. the transcendent one speaks 2010-07-27 3.44GMT +8hrs Roots We live such solitary lives that solidarity suddenly becomes such an important aspect of life. In the past, life was communal; spirit was communal. One's identity, whether you liked it or not, was intricately woven into the fabrics of one's community and family. If you are born into the "Lim" family, then you lived like a "Lim", you thought like a "Lim" and you were seen as a "Lim". It had always been that an individual problem was the same as a family problem, a community problem. The community was one heart, one mind. Trust, security and support need not be earned; they were one's birthright. As families have evolved into the nuclear unit we are familiar with and the economic situation steals time away from family bonding this communal spirit and solidarity is lost. Now an individual problem is really an individual problem; the fear of rejection if you tried to help someone, the fear of ridicule if you sought help from someone. In the past, trust was from birth, it was instantaneous and it was unbreakable. At present, trust is something that takes forever to gain and in a second can be destroyed. It seems like the logical solution to this problem would be to strengthen the bonds within the family and develop one's identity and bearing through it. But apparently many try to solve this loss of family and communal solidarity by replacing it with a pseudo version between friends and acquaintances. We try to develop our confidence and self-esteem through our friends and society. We put our security in friends we believe will be there when we're in a pinch. Yet time and time again we are always disappointed. Best friends do not confide in you their deepest problems, loved ones just cannot seem to understand the pain you're going through. All this time we've been approaching the problem of solidarity and belonging from the wrong angle. Trust, security, esteem, confidence, identity, love... Their beginnings are at birth, their root is in the family. If we do not realise this and begin to address the insecurities we face as a child or the lack of understanding from our parents, then the problem will always manifest in all other relationships. By thinking that issues of solidarity, acceptance and belonging are individual problems then we run the risk of imposing our expectations of family on our friends. The disappointment is with much certainty since no friend, regardless of how close, can replace and meet up to expectations meant for one's real family. Friends can cease to be friends, but family will always be family. Family identity is unchanging and thus we will always feel we belong to it if we make an effort to be a part of it. Even if people reject us and friends forsake us, we know that our existence still has meaning and purpose which can be found in the family we belong to. The pursuit of personal identity goes beyond individualism and stems from one's need to fill the void where family belonging and identity is eroding away. It's with cruel irony that we see how the degrading of family belonging has given rise to individualism which further destroys one's attachment to the family. the transcendent one speaks 2010-07-26 5.28GMT +8hrs Knocking On Heaven's Door It is precisely because much of life's situations and circumstances are beyond our control that all the more we strive to control what little of it we can. We find ways to reduce the odds in our favour and close the margin of error in our predictions. Genetically designed babies, irrigation systems, genetically modified food, cloning, birth-control, geomancy (feng-shui), horoscope. It seems as though we want to take over God's job of creation, sustenance and evoking change, whether we know this "God" as the omnipotent being, mother-earth, the universe or a group of gods. We humans who have little to no control over circumstances and "God" who controls all, past, present, future, within and without. But humans are not trying to take on the role of God as people usually believe. It would be too overbearing on our finite minds to even comprehend what such a notion would entail. Humans are not trying to be God, they are only trying to be LIKE God. The book of Genesis in the Bible tells us of the creation of man and woman which is in the likeness of God. It is then no surprise that all our lives we try to mimic the being of God, regardless of how imperfect it is. And it is in this imperfecton that we come off as wanting to act like a God ourselves. But we know we can never be God and so we try to push the limits of our mortal existence; by trying to control nature, by trying to change the world. Since ancient times, people have tried to influence the hand of God in their favour, thinking that they can bargain with this all-powerful God with sacrifices that he does not need. If we have a God who listens to us and grants us what we ask from him then we become greater than mortal. If we can control God do we not also control everything? We might not consciously see it this way but in essence we create religion so as to become a demi-god through the favour of God's power. Even borrowed power is power. Yet when circumstances are not favourable and things do not go as planned, we blame God. It is as if being demi-god is our entitlement; by blaming God for the troubles in our lives we're saying that he ought to obey our wishes. King David in Psalm 8:4 writes, "what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?" How can a servant tell his master what to do or bargain the terms between them? Some people have greater fear and reverence for natural disaster and the supernatural than they do for God. Yet wanting to borrow the power of God to control one's life makes the all-powerful God, who can create and destroy all life, seem no more than a genie in a bottle. Our desire need not be as outrageous as wanting to be God before we undermine God's sovereignty. All it takes it a small but deep desire to become greater than the next human being. In essence, has our desire to control life by borrowing God's power made God appear less powerful and awesome than he really is? the transcendent one speaks 2010-07-21 6.42GMT +8hrs Compatibility Incompatibility is a common and easy reason to give when a relationship doesn't work out. In our minds we believe that there are certain types of people we can never get along with, much less forge a friendship with. But is the true incompatibility a matter of differences as human beings or as persons? All human beings have the same needs and probably the same motivations (with expected exceptions). While not being a perfect example, arrange marriages serve this point pretty well. Two individuals may not love each other or even know very much about their partner, but through the years the younger generation can see the love that has developed. In a modern context, these two old people might well be incompatible but yet their marriage has survived the test of time and they love each other more than ever. The problem is the idea of personhood; individualism and identity. Upbringing and societal factors contribute and influence the promulgation of developing a distinct personal identity. Ethnicity, socioeconomic status, aspirations and priorities, beliefs and ideologies. These are no longer just factors of attraction but have slowly become the barriers to entry. Think about the reasons upon which you broke up with your last partner or stopped keeping in touch with someone. The reason is mostly like going to be based on many sociological factors and nothing else. If exterior beauty was never a social phenomenon then it would never have been a factors for relationship or a reason for break ups. If economic status was never so heavily publicised, it would never have been a factor for relationship or a reason for break ups. If individual freedom was never this celebrated, it would never have been a factor for relationship or a reason for break ups. Society has introduce this new set of vocabulary that creates such a stringent criteria that maintaining friendships or relationships become painstakingly tiring. As a human being we need food, shelter, clothings, love and acceptance. As a person we need financial stability, individual freedom and control, instant gratification, our ideas and dreams... The list goes on indefinitely. Whether we seem to have great affinity with a person or none at all, remember that it is all a result of these societal factors and upbringing. Every male swallow is compatible with a female swallow. Every male fox compatible with a female fox. Likewise every male human being is compatible with every female human being. But the day we establish society and politics was the day "being" became "person" and each person is a distinct species altogether. We are never incompatible with someone's human existence, only our "social", the ideas, beliefs, values and principles, is incompatible with their "social". the transcendent one speaks 2010-06-25 9.44GMT +8hrs Perversion Many people see right and wrong as a matter of preference. Just as different people can have a differing opinion on a piece of art or cuisine the same seems to apply for truth. In fact, this might be a result of them believing that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. While the existence of an "absolute truth" is debatable, the repercussions of believing there isn't is grim at best. A lack of some predetermined truth would mean the premise to create and manipulate truth. As much as it is up to individual agency to discern that which we feel is right or wrong in light of societal influence, the individual is just not strong enough. Years of indoctrination, sometimes even a whole lifetime, can shackle us to believe certain things are if not right are at least permissible. People strongly believe in the "harm principle", loosely defined as all action being acceptable as long as it does not harm others directly or indirectly. Civilisation has come a long way, and in the name of liberty taboo of the past is presently celebrated. One wonders how acts that were vile and vicious can suddenly change so drastically within the mindsets of people to being the best and most coveted ways of life. Perversion has many names: liberalisation, art, freedom of expression, individual agency, modernity, progress... If it's in a person's nature to be selfish then he or she would see selfish acts as justified; that one should protect one's own interest. Similarly, a perverse world would see all perverse acts and immoral practices as rightfully justified. If you grew up believing that murder is a way of life then it would be inevitable that the act of murder would become right to you. Of course murder, being an extreme example, could give way to the argument that one's empathy as a human being would conflict with his beliefs about murder. The problem of course is the more subtle cases where there is no strong moral conviction opposing them. Vulgarities, pre-marital sexual relations, gossiping, lying, pornography, cohabitation, wearing revealing and provocative clothings... They may not violate the harm principle, but how can these acts which were in the past deemed as morally wrong and bad now become good and right? Is it just a matter of being more liberal? Is this what is known as human progress? Just as light cannot become dark and dark cannot become light, right cannot become wrong, wrong cannot become right. Truth is different from preference which admits to a scale of degrees; truth is conclusive. Either something is right if not it is wrong, (unless it doesn't apply to the case.) If we claim that vulgarities and pre-marital sex is justified and right then by implication we are saying that our forefathers were immoral to think such acts were wrong. The right and wrong of morality is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of truth. the transcendent one speaks 2010-06-22 5.50GMT +8hrs Testimony of a Philosopher It seems unthinkable to be human and not give a second thought about the truth of our existence, our purpose, and where we will go when we die. Socrates was right when he said that the unexamined life wasn't worth living. Contemplation and hypothesizing about those questions revolving around and about life became, literally, my life. Such is the catalyst that directed me to a path in philosophy in the university. It gave me a premise to organise my thoughts and also gain more knowledge and ideas in the area of existentialism. Yet, philosophy only provided at most strong arguments for or against some idea and how best to reason or persuade someone to see that your point of view is more justified. Philosophy could only give the best reason to believe or accept something but it will always fall short of the truth. Thinking about issues regarding the evil of human nature and the failure of humanity despite being such rational intellectual beings always got me pessimistic and melancholic. Even though I could rationally explain and postulate the reason for certain events happening in this world it never could provide a solution of aid. I prayed hard daily for a few months asking God to tell me how could I break free from this disillusionment and melancholia. During the second night of my church Youth Camp, the pastor spoke about knowledge and how as humans we tend tobe very rational about our circumstances. We tend to measure God's greatest with by our human standards and end up undermining his power. In our human wisdom we arrogantly think that we know of a better way for God to work so that the problems of the world would be solved. As I listened I realise that it was talking about me. All this time I've been rationalising and formulating arguments to justify all that has been happening around me. The pastor went on to talk about the solution to our overly rational nature and that was to replace our thirst for an intellectual knowledge about the world with a hunger for an experiential knowledge of God. All the intellectual knowledge in the world would only leave us dissatisfied and disillusioned but knowing God is experiencing a fullness of him. I knew so clearly in my heart that those words the pastor spoke was God answering me directly to my months of prayer. God offered me that night a way to break free from the frustration due the limits of human intellect. He offered me a fullness of himself, a fullness of his love and joy that one could only know through experience. Immediately I stood up and went up to the altar because deep down inside I hungered so badly for that experience that would satisfy. Now even though I still contemplate just as much about the issues of life and tell others of my love for philosophy, if someone asked me whether I have found the truth I would not hesitate to tell them it is God's love. If they ask me how I can be so sure I would tell them I cannot formulate an argument because such knowledge transcends intellect into the realm of experience. I am not a philosopher who happens to be a Christian, but a Christian who happens to be a philosopher. the transcendent one speaks 2010-06-17 3.40GMT +8hrs Speech In the book of James in the Bible, James describes the tongue with three sets of analogies. Firstly he liken the tongue to a bit in a horses mouth that can turn the whole horse and a rudder of a ship that can turn its massive weight. Though the tongue is a small organ it has the power to effect change; influencing people's views and manipulating their actions. Secondly, using the analogy of the tongue being like fire and deadly poison, James shows just how the tongue has the power to hurt. Careless and critical words can hurt the feelings of those around us and sometimes the damage stays with a person for many years haunting their lives. Thirdly, James akin the tongue to a spring of water that refreshes and a tree and its fruit which shows us how the condition of the heart determines the content of our speech. James tells that it is impossible to tame the tongue. No matter how hard we try there will always be times when we slip up and say the wrong things that hurt others. It is an inevitable consequence of our human nature. The tongue is a consuming fire and a deadly killer and we have to acknowledge this fact lest we cause unrepairable harm to our loved ones or even ourselves. But James has also written down the solution to this impossible problem: the condition of our heart. Just as a fig tree cannot produce grapes and a vineyard cannot produce figs, so it is with our hearts and tongues. If our hearts are turned towards God and we allow the Holy Spirit to dwell within it then there is absolutely no way that our speech will contain anything unwholesome or critical. Instead of malicious or undesirable talk, our speech would be filled with words of life and love that springs forth from our hearts to bless and refresh others. Many times we keep thinking that we should always have self-control and watch our tongue but this proves not only difficult but tiring. But the power of the tongue comes from the wellspring of the heart. The words that come forth from a person's mouth reveals his or her heart and beliefs. When God's love and word fills one's heart then naturally it produces speech that glorifies God and builds other people up. Sometimes we think the solution is to speak less to avoid making blunders or hurting people unintentionally, but speech is a gift from God. And this gift of speech was intended for singing and praying to God and also to spread his Word to the ends of the earth. We cannot speak what isn't within us. If we remove all unclean thoughts and beliefs and fill it up with ones of love and grace then our speech will follow likewise. the transcendent one speaks 2010-06-13 9.45GMT +8hrs Society Individualism and Relativism have worked hand in hand to establish the reign of post-modernism. Right and wrong, good and bad, have become nothing more than personal opinion. We seem to think that as long as we hold firm to our own ideas and opinions on taste and preference it doesn't matter what others might say or believe. The war for truth has fizzled into an unsettling ceasefire; to put it nicely, we accept that truth is relative to different people, to put it bluntly, we tolerate their ignorance because they know none the better. But whatever the case, most of us have been lured into a false sense that our own opinions and those of our loved ones define our identity. For Christians, we might say that God defines us and that society has no part and therefore we should not care what they think. But Paul says in 1st Corinthians 9:22 that "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." We cannot avert our eyes to the influence of social pressures. As long as we live in a society, in a community with a system of governance, social standards and norms matter, some important, others imperative. At some level we all have to conform to the standards set but society and follow certain norms. Paul knew that if he wanted others to accept his God then he had to act in a way that they would accept him (but of course in a way that does not go against God's commands). In this postmodernist era, conforming is like a bad word. To conform is akin to showing weakness and not being in control of one's own life. Conforming and agreeing with certain social norms and the majority's opinion may conflict with certain ideas you hold, but I believe it's a small price to pay to avoid getting ostracised or sanctioned. Society and the majority that make it are definitely not always right nor are they always wise in their judgments. But it remains a fact that their opinions, good or bad, set the standard. You could discount societal opinion and set out to create your own personal standard. To do that you will have to become a hermit and live in the mountains away from society, if not what you conceive as wholly your own might well be subconsciously influenced heavily by society. Indeed, self-esteem is a result of one's own confidence and beliefs, but just because we shouldn't let society's opinion affect our self-esteem and identity does not mean we reject it entirely. Societal norms and opinions can be seen as the social rules of living in a community. We might not agree with them, but we have to understand them in order to integrate and socialise. This is social science. the transcendent one speaks 2010-06-07 6.41GMT +8hrs Knowledge It is natural for humans to possess a basic intellect; a rational mind that is capable of practical reason. And then humanity assumes that intelligence is a unique feature of the human race and overly emphasises on it. Resulting in a elitist system where those with more knowledge and a higher intellectual capacity stands higher on the social ladder. But superior intellect is not naturally human. If you believe the story of the fall of man in the book of Genesis in the Bible then you would agree with me. Disobeying God and eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve gained superior knowledge and understanding of their surroundings and themselves. Basic intellect aids us in survival and living in community. Superior intellect on the other hand results in much strife and conflict. Intellect is directly proportional to pride. Just like the Israelites coming together to build the Tower of Babel to Heaven, we too think that we can fit the infinite knowledge of God and this universe in this finitely small brain of ours. Those of us who understand the pains of intellect will tell you what kind of humbling experience it is. Reaching the limits of our knowledge we still have no way to grasp truth. So near yet so far. The more knowledge we gain, the more we realise just how much more we can never know and this hurts our ego. God only made humans with a basic intellect so that we might find fulfilment in life through the guidance of his perfect will. He also gave us the freedom to choose. We chose to disobey and pursue greater knowledge. Now with the superior intellect we humans have, the awareness of having all the questions but none of the answers leave us thoroughly unfulfilled. For those who suffer such a fate day after day, it is the punishment we have to bear for priding intellect as important in our lives. Intellect breeds pride, but once this intellect has reached its human limits that is where our pride is dashed and where God begins to humble our hearts. In a world that thrives on knowledge, intellect is the fuel and priority of society. But God made us with just enough intellectual capacity to understand that love and compassion for each other is the most important and unique feature of life. The world says that intelligence and knowledge would solve all our problems. Apparently, it has created more strife and problems than it can fix. In his word, God says it clearly: Love. Humans were never meant to understand the Truth in our own mental capability, if we try only torment awaits us. Superior intellectual capacity is our sin, not being able to realise its perfection is our punishment. the transcendent one speaks 2010-06-03 3.00GMT +8hrs Love When you love someone with all your heart, you just cannot it inside. You would want to tell the whole world just how much you love this special person and daily show your love toward this person. You want to make him/her happy; give surprises, buy presents, bring him/her to beautiful places and spend every waking moment enjoying his/her company. When this person is sad or angry, you will be compelled to do everything in your power to appease or console them because it breaks your heart to see them in pain. Those of you who are or have been in a relationship before know what I mean. At the least all of us have people in our lives we love with all of heart: family, friends and even someone we secretly like. But my purpose of writing about it is not merely for us to reminisce about the amazing and wonderful experience of a relationship, but for us to relate such human relationships with the one we have with God. Becoming a Christian is acknowledging God's existence and power in our lives and accepting Jesus' sacrifice on the cross to give us eternal life; to know, to believe, to accept. But what is more important is what it means to be a Christian. Christianity unlike other religions is not just about accepting and believing in a God. Being Christian is having an intimate relationship with God. As a Christian we all know that God first loved us and he will keep his covenant for eternity; he will never stop loving each and everyone of us. If we profess to be Christian and say we love God then it must definitely compel us to act in such a way. Just as a person in a relationship reciprocate and show his or her affection for the person he or she loves. No one would believe we love someone if we never show it or do anything to prove that we do. Similarly, if we do not strive to do the things that make God happy and long to always to by his side, how would anyone believe that we love God? And if it does not seem like we love God and want to be close to him and make him feel loved, then how can we call ourselves Christians? True love for God will spur us to action. Doing the things that please him and make him happy: reading the Bible and praying daily, helping the poor, sick and lost, forgiving those who have wronged us, fellowshipping with other Christians especially in a church setting, wanting to serve in ministry in church, and most of all telling others about his love for them. And of course stop doing what makes him angry or sad: stop committing the sins we keep falling into, stop thinking that God is not bigger than our situation, and stop letting pride keep us from submitting our lives to his will instead of our own finite minds. God is not as concern with what we call ourselves, whether Catholic or Christian, but what he deeply cares about if whether or not we are a people of love. A people who love him, a people who love all his creation. If we truly love our Heavenly Father, our actions and our speech will naturally show and testify to that. the transcendent one speaks 2010-05-25 7.54GMT +8hrs Volition Freedom and Order. If you had to pick one, just one of the two, which would you choose? If you chose freedom, then it would be at the expense of control; it risk individuals acting in ways that are detrimental to society and committing all kinds of vicious acts. If you chose order, then we would be choosing the life of socialism or robots, which ever preference resonates more with you; a perfectly virtuous and beneficial society but as a result of program and not choice. Presenting this question of choosing one over the other already betrays my stand on the issue. But why freedom over order? A society that has order is a society which is efficient, effective and organised. Don't governments and the law serve the purpose of maintaining peace and order? An ordered society is a perfect society. Perfect in the sense that everything goes according to how it was designed with no discrepancies. Everyone contributes to society and there is equality amongst all people. There will be no crime, no war, no strife, no discrimination, no vice. If all earth's resources were shared evenly across the world and there wasn't a need to maintain the military budget because there is no premise for invasion, then every single one of us would live in considerable bliss and comfort. It would be quite idyllic. A Utopia. But what then would be life's purpose? What would be the meaning of such a mechanical existence? If all being alive meant what to be programmed to obey and conform then how would human life be any different from animal life? A life void practical reasoning and in its place primitive instinct. We would be perfect specimens of "human beings", but I'm sure we won't be all that interesting. What makes life and living in general interesting and worthwhile is precisely its unpredictability and its susceptibility to change. Knowing that we can face the challenges of uncertainty with the autonomy of change empowers us and gives meaning to our own identity. Freedom. The knowledge that we have the power to do otherwise. If you ask what is important for defining personhood, I'm quite sure it will fall somewhere along the lines of individuality, rights and beliefs. Without individual freedom to act, think or feel we could never develop our own personhood that we can call our own. There is nothing more precious or empowering than being able to seize hold of life and call it our very own. To breathe, eat and sleep. That is to exist. To have the freedom to think, act and feel the way we so choose. Now that is living. the transcendent one speaks 2010-05-11 9.20GMT +8hrs Words Actions speak louder than words. We are all familiar with such a saying and practice in our culture. So we believe that as long as we behave in an appropriate manner, never committing any crimes or done any immoral deeds, we are virtuous persons. Actions are seen as consequential and concrete, while words are cheap and easy. Unlike actions which have consequence of praise for virtuous acts and blame for vicious acts, words have none of these. We can speak what we like, how we like it, whenever we want to. Due to the nature of actions having us to sacrifice and put in effort, we are more restrained by our motives to act. But words are free and cheap and requires as much effort as our tongue can muster or our fingers can type/write. As we know the tongue almost requires no effort; after all other parts of our body get tired, the tongue is usually the last one standing. We speak without consideration and end up offending someone and then writing it off as a joke. With the relative ease of what is spoken we also feel that the responsibility for what we say is just as light. We couldn't be more mistaken about that. "But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken." (Matthew 12:36, The Bible) In fact, every single word we utter reflects who we are, and we are as responsible for the consequences of those words just as we are of our actions. The saying "actions speaks louder than words" is telling us that words without the corresponding actions reflects a person whom is not serious and cannot be trusted, but that is not to say that words have less impact than actions. Ironically, words without actions speaks much greater. Though it speaks of our irresponsible and immature attitude towards others. Don't think that what we say to others in person or through chat windows, or write on our Facebook pages, blogs, twitters or online forums are not our responsibility. Every single word we say, write or reblog reflects acutely on our character, values and principles. Words are so dangerous precisely because we think them otherwise. Just because it is easy to speak or write we think it is of little consequence. For every word we speak in jest that hurts someone deeply, it takes great amounts of action in the form of repentance, forgiveness and counselling to heal. For every idle word spoken that tarnishes our character, it takes much effort to prove ourselves to others and correct their impression of us. If you still think that words are your freedom to speak and other people's opinions or well-being do not matter how is that different from a vicious person enslaving an innocent group of people? The difference is that one is with words and the other with actions, but the severity is the same. Let us not speak without careful thought. Say only what edifies others and builds them up and not what stumbles them. Words might not be able to build bridges, but they can build a person's confidence. Words might not be able to change circumstances, but they can change a person's heart. Words might not be able to support concrete columns, but they can support and give comfort to those who weep. Who says words cannot speak louder than actions? the transcendent one speaks 2010-05-03 6.00GMT +8hrs Pride Superiority. Conceited. Egoist. Elitist. Commonly understood as a belief that you are better than others in certain areas or attributes to the extent that you do not value others advice on the matter or become unwilling to teach them. Yet this common interpretation though correct does not address a more prevalent but subtle form of pride. The fundamental question: "How can a person feel superior or better than another?" Firstly, a person has to have substantial knowledge and skill in various areas of life to count as being "good enough". But the catalyst for our pursuit of knowledge and skill comes down to two reasons: interest and necessity. In a world society where one's livelihood depends on staying ahead in a knowledge-based economy, knowledge and skill acquisition becomes a necessary part of life. Knowledge is needed. To survive, to be independent, to be self sufficient. Hence, the root of pride actually comes from our need of self sufficiency. Sometimes it manifests itself in the more commonly understood superiority complexion, other times it manifest itself in the belief that we do not need other people to survive. An unwillingness to see that we need counsel or assistance in certain areas we believe we are more than able to work out by ourselves is the most subtle and dangerous form of pride. The reason it's dangerous is precisely because we think that it isn't. Each one of us believes that self sufficiency is a natural phenomenon. This sense of sufficiency coupled together with exercising our freedom of right and opinion spawns into a many head hydra known as stubbornness. Even though good advice and counsel is given, we feel that the person is just judging us or putting us down so that he or she can feel self-righteous. In modern lingo we call it "cramping our style" or "putting us in a box". Indeed, we should be opinionated about matters and not let our lives be influence by whatever others might say, but are we becoming so obstinate and fastidious about it that we have become impervious to words of wisdom? It's such a joke. Sometimes even though we know it is wise advice for our own benefit we would rather cast it aside just so we can make our own mistakes. There nothing wrong with learning from your own mistakes. But it is foolish to ignore wisdom just so we can feel good about exercise our own autonomy. Is it so important to have that satisfactory feeling of knowing we are in control of our own life? That our actions are not influenced by others and our thoughts are our own? The fact of the matter is that we are not in control of our lives. Call it fate, call it destiny, call it God. We live in a world that lures us into believing a lie of self sufficiency; that we need to be independent so that we can protect ourselves from the influences of this vile world. Ironically, the lie of self sufficiency is probably the vilest influence the world can have on us because we can never be self sufficient. God gave us other people, family, friends and mentors, so that we can form relationships of inter-dependence with one another and feel its joy and warmth. The next time we don't feel like submitting ourselves to someone's advice, let us ask ourselves if it is because it is bad advice or because we are too proud of our own self sufficiency, our opinions and rights, to consider another person's goodwill. Pride does not only encompass our aptitude and abilities, but also our individualism and opinions. Individualism and Pride have a directly proportional relationship, while pride has a inversely proportional relationship with fellowship. The more individualistic we become the more pride we would have, and this pride will cause us to fellowship with others less. Identity is important but so are the relationships we have with our loved ones. Let not the establishment of our personal identity be founded upon the sacrifice of those treasured relationships. the transcendent one speaks 2010-04-26 6.17GMT +8hrs Bondage Consciousness, being, soul. Call it by any other name, but each one of us has a soul within us; mind, emotions and will. As we go about our daily lives, we attach our soul to people or objects involving both thought and feelings (mind and emotions) and the choices of our will. We spontaneously think about them, our feelings and emotions are affected by them and they influence the choices will make in our lives. This soul attachment to someone or something is known as a "Soul Tie". Each of us has made many soul ties with the people in our lives, be it physically, emotionally or spiritually. Some soul ties are healthy and good like unconditional mutual love between a married couple, parental love for their child, true friendship between two persons, and most important of all the love that God has for all of us. Likewise, there are numerous destructive and unholy soul ties in our lives as well. It could be voluntary, where one partakes in consenting sexual or immoral acts with other people. Or involuntary, as a result of rape, abuse (physical, emotional, verbal, spiritual, etc.) or even generational, where grandparents' or parents' force their beliefs and customs on you. It could also be a betrayal or wrong done against you by a person whom you are in a close relationship with. Destructive soul ties can even be as simple as parental criticisms that haunt us till this day. Memories of that terrible event we cannot seem to forgot, fresh and vivid as though it was only yesterday. Emotions so controlled and affected by it that all we can feel is negativity and defeat. Choices made that we regret as a result of our incontinence (weakness of will) as we succumb to those terrible memories and negative emotions. Such soul ties shackle us to a life of guilt, shame and pain. Guilt for the immorality we have committed or the pain we have inflicted. Shame as a result of being sexually defiled, being physically, verbally or emotionally abused and manipulated. Pain of betrayal, disappointment, hurt and loss. Guilt, Shame and Pain have bound our souls to death causing it to decay as we wallow in self pity and self condemnation. But God meant for us to live a life of freedom and not one of servitude to death. On our own we cannot break the chains of these destructive soul ties because we are under their influence; all we feel is hopelessness and defeat. Till now we have been living in the shadow of those destructive soul ties which has such a firm hold of our lives, affecting our present and influencing our future. So let us now come to God's throne of grace to seek him so that we can find freedom to live life more abundantly. With joy, with hope, with purpose. the transcendent one speaks 2010-04-24 2.50GMT +8hrs Repress In a world where money is trusted more than people, rationality replaces feelings; reason replaces emotion. During our childhood days, most of us would have felt at one point or another as if the world revolved around us. We could freely express our desires and vent our frustrations. It was not so much a matter of whether our parents, or anyone for that matter, took heed of our heel and cry, but more so the right as a human being to be recognised. Ironically as we grow more human, at least cognitively, our freedom to express our feelings and emotions begin getting suppressed by society. Society subtly coerces us into conformity, and why should it not since that is the only way to maintain a structural order? Whenever we seem to feel the urge to complain or express our disdain, unhappiness or frustration about certain aspects, issues or circumstances in our lives we end up hyper-rationalising. We think, "what makes it right for me to lament about my problem when probably a million other people around the world experiences it on a daily basis and probably another million have worse issues than I do my whole lifetime combined?" When I think about just how petty my problems seem in comparison with another, it just seems unreasonable and pointless to even mention them. Taking an everyday case of a student: school work piling up, classmates and teachers have been giving you a hard time, mother's been a bitch, kid brother is making you tear out your hair. Is one entitled to scream, feel indignant and think one's whole life sucks or should one just brush it off as commonplace issues and tolerate it instead since getting angry wouldn't solve the problem? Where do we draw the line between feeling life has been exponentially unfair towards us and rationalising that this is just how life is and sulking doesn't make it better? I will leave that decision to you. But the more important question, "have we become more rational than a human should be?" Expression of negative emotions, like anger and sadness, are seen as being irrational and immature. The problems we believe are terrible and unbearable are seen by the world as insignificant and "no big deal". At first such rationality is applied to smaller issues, but before we realise its application has included some of the bigger issues as well. Failing an examination. No big deal. Someone hurting your feelings. No big deal. Relationship break up. No big deal. Betrayal by a friend. No big deal. Losing hope in humanity. No big deal. Suicidal tendencies. No big deal. Even as rationality helps us overcome the smaller matters in life that try to trip us up, it doesn't mean we discard our emotions for reason. Emotional problems, especially interpersonal ones, demand the out pouring of our emotions and requires us to be in touch with our feelings. Society may say that we should not let our emotions get in the way, but that doesn't mean we discard our emotions. To eventually think rationally about our problem and come to a viable solution, we have to release the pent up negative emotions that threaten to block our thought processes. Hyper-rationality in effect is a rationality that gives no thought for our human need to feel and makes us work like computers. How is being like a computer a reasonable life our a human being? As much as there may be good reason not to get emotional, there is an equally good reason to tune into the more emotional side of our human nature. the transcendent one speaks 2010-04-21 5.50GMT +8hrs Seed I didn't think much of it when a father entered the elevator with his two sons. In the time it took to reach ground, I unintentionally overheard their conversation. I did a mental double take. To one of his sons he ruffled his hair and called him "normal" and the other he did the same and called him "handsome". Like that wasn't enough to drive the point home, both for his sons and myself, he repeated it again, to which his "normal" son replied, "Never mind." Right there in that elevator, I wondered what impact such a seemingly trivial thing will have on both children. Their fathers word if not powerful at least would have been lasting. Whether the "normal" son would have grown to become more hardworking to find areas where he could overcome his "normal-ness". Whether the "handsome" son would grow up to be prideful and confident, believing in the sole importance of good looks. I think about my own childhood and faintly remember as my brother was always the "handsome" one, while I was the "obedient" one. It's shocking to see just how such a label twenty odd years back can have such a drastic impact on our lives in the present. A word, a seed. When a word is spoken, its seed is planted within the hearts of the listeners. If it's not rejected it germinates, grows and develops strong roots that become difficult to uproot in future. As I walk through those elevator doors into the light, I thought about myself and what I would say if my future sons asked me if I thoughts they were handsome. Without a doubt I would say yes. But once I tell them in what respects they were handsome, my description of them would inevitably play an integral part in forging their personal identities when they have grown up. It is a parental responsibility to mould your child in the way you see best. OF course, I do not mean parents should dictate their child's future and plan his life pathway step-by-step, because he is a unique individual with his own freedom and rights. But during their childhood years, children are most susceptible and impressionable to the things they hear and see. We cannot deny our words and actions as adults (and even adolescents) have lasting and influential effects on the younger generation, and because of that we have a moral and social responsibility. Think about how the words and actions that have been said to you has impacted your personality and identity you have today. Next time we speak to a child, be mindful that the words we say, be it in a serious or joking manner, will stick with the child for the rest of his or her life. the transcendent one speaks 2010-04-10 1.05GMT +8hrs Transition We are youth in transition; we are caught in the middle. A time from our parents era, a time of the baby boom, their ways are conservative; their beliefs traditional. Today a new generation, one subjective and liberal, a post-modern attitude of what feels good and right. We are youth in transition; we are stuck with no way out. To follow the social structure instituted by a patriarchal generation of strict rules and principles. To conform to the counter culture of adolescent peers asserting their individualism and voice. We are youth in transition; torn between two worlds. Adults reprimand us for our lack of moral and social responsibility, outraged at deviance and difference. Adolescents judge us as being narrow-minded and constrained, upset that we are not more receptive to alternative ideas and lifestyles. We are youth in transition; struggling to find ourselves in a sea of confusion. Striving to be responsible adults, we do our best to behave appropriately, act morally, speak truthfully and present ourselves respectably. Trying to fit into the group, we compromise our long held values, cast aside our guiding principles, and turn to self justification and our feelings. We are youth in transition; we don't belong on either camp. We are shunned by the older generation because we are seen as too frivolous and immoral. We are rejected by the younger generation because they think we are anal and killjoy. We are youth in transition; we don't know who we are. Do we belong to the side governed by objective rules and code of conduct? Or do we belong to the side influenced by subjective emotions and standards? We are youth in transition; are we a generation unto ourselves? If so, then we would forever be pressed on all sides by those who cannot see that we are trying our best to be who we were meant to be. Right or wrong, good or bad, which ever is chosen we will be condemned. We are youth in transition; maybe it's time to accept that we have nowhere to rest our weary heads. Till the day we finally become adults and escape this torment and conflict. The day we put our childhood behind us was the beginning of our guilt and suffering. the transcendent one speaks 2010-04-03 4.40GMT +8hrs Being What is existence? A state of being or is it some form of physical manifestation? Consider our own existence, what makes it unique and how we can be certain of its continuity. If I asked you to describe yourself, it would invariantly consists of your name, occupation, family, ethnicity, religious views, educational level, temperament, personality, hobbies and aspirations. If I asked you to define what makes you uniquely "You", then you would probably go on to share what memories, experiences, psyche, biological facts that asserts one's own personal identity and being. Yet, what makes us who we are and sets us apart from all other human beings as unique and special cannot merely be mental or physical. Amnesia results in the forgetting of memories and past experiences. Vegetative coma causes a total loss of all mental activity. Mental Illnesses can change and warp a person's mental functioning and even their beliefs and memories. If cognition is indeed the way in which we define our existence then the cessation, temporary or permanent, or the alteration of our mental states would mean the death of us. But you may say those are extreme cases and I agree. But it does admit that our mind, and therefore our existence, is in a state of flux. Derek Parfit wrote about how our past selves can be as different as our present selves just as two separate individuals are different. Since the differences between who we were as a child and who we are as an adult is akin to the differences between one person and another, how then can we even call the present self and our past self the same person? Here the problem of continuity crops up in addition to uniqueness. Imagine a solid with a set of basic properties: shape, material, dimensions, colour. The solid changes from "cube, oak wood, 2x2x2 cm, brown", to "tetrahedron, iron, 4x3x5 cm, green", then to "pyramid, paper, base of 1x1 cm and height of 2 cm, orange", then to "sphere, polyester, 6 cm in diameter, yellow", in a span of 4 years; changing once every year. Is the solid in the first year the same as the solid in the second, third or fourth? We are compelled to say it has not because it has only gone through a state of change and the solid has not been replaced with another. But at the same time we want to say that it is indeed different because all its properties have changed. The same seems to apply with human beings, we are always changing. Forgetting and Remembering. Experiencing and Growing. How then can we know we exists if we cannot even explain our own uniqueness among the rest and continuity through time? I believe the answer can be found in the problem. It is the observer that asserts the changing solid as the same entity even as it has gone through total change. Similarly, human beings, our family and loved ones, observe our existence and accounts for the changes and transitions of our individual lives. We could even go as far as to say animals and nature are witnesses to our changing state of being. Thus, what really defines your unique being and its persistence through time isn't your internal psychology or biological physique, but the interactions and interventions between the things around you and the self. But how can beings in a state of change but accurate measures of one's own changing existence? At best we can only be good approximations toward each other. That is why for existence to acquire any meaning there must be a being who is constant and unchanging to accurately explain our changing universe. This being is God, and so ultimately our uniqueness and continuity of being is defined by the existence of this one omniscient God. Hence, the only way one can find purpose and meaning to our own ever-changing existence is to focus our lives on the will of this never-changing source: God. the transcendent one speaks 2010-03-26 8.10GMT +8hrs Fuzzy With regard to the laws governing the Newtonian world and the quantum world they are very different. The Newtonian world describes the world we are familiar with where causality (cause and effect) and induction (predicting future results from past occurrences) work. The quantum world on the other hand is probabilistic; how particles behave and interact with one another is random and uncertain, and the results can never be reproduced. Newtonian Physics just break down. But consider this: Is there really such a difference between the Newtonian world we live in and the quantum world? We can never be fully certain of anything in life. We have a better chance at predicting the weather today than the mood of a person. We can know which day there will be a solar eclipse but we have no knowledge of the day we will die. We can predict the trajectory of a ball that we drop from the top of a building but we can only guess whether or not the stock market would rise or fall. Indeed, the physics of the Newtonian world is deterministic, we can be sure how nature would behave but with regard to society and individuals we are not so certain anymore. The social has more in common with the quantum world than it has the Newtonian world. It is shown that even if we perform the same experiment many times the behaviour of the atoms are always uncertain and random. Similarly, we can choose to interact with a person the same way all the time but the reactions we receive from them could be varied and unpredictable. Just like how we can only guess and assign probabilities to where an electron can be found, we can also only guess how another person is feeling. Even if they told us their feelings and thoughts there will always be some information we would never know that they keep locked away from us. Like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that states that if we know the momentum of a particle we cannot know its position and vice versa, relationship with humans is the same. If we know how they were feeling then we cannot know for sure their thoughts and if we knew what they were thinking then we cannot know for sure what they felt. We could make a good guess and put our bets on the odds but we could never truly know. Sometimes we cannot even predict what we ourselves would do because our thoughts and actions never seem to match. We expect that if we have a desire to do something then we would do so but often enough we do the exact opposite. Humans only have finite knowledge and thus we can never be absolutely certain of anything even those that have been proven by causality or induction. In fact, there are so many questions about our universe and society that we know we'll never have answers to. So maybe even the Newtonian world we live in and the social setting we are brought up in is just as probabilistic and uncertain as the quantum world for our limited human minds. But if we believe in an omniscient God who is all-knowing, even the quantum world to him would be deterministic; he would know exactly where every single particle would be at any time. The electrons might be reflecting just how humanity interacts with each other, in an uncertain and sometimes random way. Human thought and action is only as consistent as the behaviour and interactions that atoms display. the transcendent one speaks 2010-03-19 3.45GMT +8hrs Sincere Is it possible for humans to speak truth? Unlike God, our knowledge is not infinite. Unlike a computer, our minds are not coherent. At the dawn of a new year we make our resolutions, by the next three months we have already failed to keep them. The promises we make today we break tomorrow. The convictions we proclaimed before now turns at the bottom of our stomachs. I'm sure we made those promises believing we could keep them, I'm sure our convictions then were strong and real. But circumstances change, people change, we change. We can never truly be certain if we can love someone with all of heart. We can never be certain if we will be able to protect the smile of the one we love. There is no certainty in the contingent state of life, where today may be bright and sunny and tomorrow rain. Unlike God who has full control over his creation, unlike a computer that has total control over its operating system, we human beings have no absolute control over our lives. As such it causes us to be skeptical and doubtful about aspects of our lives, sometimes to the extent that we believe there is no such thing as truth in the first place. All we say and all be believe are contingent things that we do not date commit to: "Maybe..." "Don't quote me on this." "I think so." "Most likely..." "Most probably..." The worse part about the pervasiveness of doubt is how it takes hold of our minds. When we say we love someone, when we tell someone how much we care about him or her, when we tell him or her just how important he or she is to us. We are uncertain, but at that moment we are sure. It may not be the absolute truth, but at that moment we are sincere. As a philosopher there is a difficulty as to how much belief we hold is in fact true belief. The possibility that the person we actually believe was our one true love all those years is in fact not the compatible one. The possibility that when we said we hated someone and never wanted to see him or her ever again on hindsight really was just spite and not truly how we felt about the person. We have imperfect knowledge; we cannot know how the future will play out and we cannot foresee if one day we would change our minds. We have inconsistent beliefs; the conflict between our emotional and rational nature, the conflict between what we want to do and what we should do. The possibilities are always there. Uncertainty is always present. It might not be true under another context or at another time, but right here right now, if we are honest with our feelings and toward ourselves then it is true. What makes our beliefs true is not some external rational justification but our the genuine sincerity from inside us. We might be wrong, but we would never find out if it were true or false if doubt caused us to stop believing in the first place. We may never be able to speak the absolute truth of life, but at least we can speak the sincere truth of our hearts. the transcendent one speaks 2010-03-14 10.31GMT +8hrs Hush When we speak, we assert a set of contraries. By asserting something we bring it into existence, as well as bring into existence the opposite of which we have asserted. If some word or sentence exists, then it's contradiction will exists as well. The difference in their meanings is separated by a "not". I love you; I don't love you. I care for you; I don't care for you. I want to change; I don't want to change. By bringing into existence an emotion or a belief, it's contradiction is necessarily brought into being. That is why at the point when we speak, there is a possibility that we actually mean otherwise. Maybe at the point the thought materialises in our minds, we have already meant its contradiction. Emotional-driven words have mass; belief-laden words have volume. They are hard to swallow, even harder to digest. "In doubt, be sincere." But sincerity is at the mercy of change. Even promises cannot stand the test of time. How can we be sure that the contradiction of our beliefs are false? For our thoughts are always in conflict and our feelings as volatile as the weather. We end up saying whatever we do not mean, and end up doing whatever we know is wrong. So we keep silent, fearing we will regret; fearing we would have to eat our words. Those words we were so sincere about; words that we believed so strongly in. But when nothing is said, everything is asserted. Subconsciously, we have asserted both it and its contradiction. The only difference is now one is not committed to either. Sometimes, it's not a matter of not knowing what we should say or do. We just cannot speak, we just cannot act. We know full well the responsibility that comes with giving life to a sentence or a belief, and we are not ready for the repercussions. We are afraid what we speak life into would end up having "no life" due to our negligence; what has been spoken would continue to exists, but now exist as its contradiction. What we profess to love, we end up not loving. When we promise to change, we choose to not change. Yet, if we are not committed to one then we end up asserting both; true and false, right and wrong, yes and no. Indeed, silence is wisdom but prolonged silence is incontinent. We cannot assert that which we are unsure of; we cannot assert that which we do not believe. But for what we belief we have to assert, but remembering that we take responsibility for the position we commit. the transcendent one speaks 2010-03-12 8.22GMT +8hrs Selah From where do we come from, where are we going? The wheel of life begins to turn, sometimes it picks up speed, sometimes it slows down, but it is always turning. We think purpose is like a geographical destination; meaning is like the wheels on the road. Thats why sometimes we feel that we need to escape from this place that traps us with our past and suffocates our future. A soul searching journey; starting life afresh in a new land. A clean slate, a new beginning. So we continue in motion, the cyclic motion of the wheel. We believe that it is better to move forward than to stagnate. But eventually we find ourselves going in circles, coming back to the place where we first began. Square One; At the beginning of the maze. "I have been down this road before. Is this deja vu?" No it's not. It is a distant memory you are trying to forget. Even so, we feel that if we stop we're given up, that if we stop it'll all be over and life would lose it's meaning. One day, we come to a halt. Before, we could lawnmower hedges, jump over fences and manoeuvre curbs but today we meet the high brick wall. Everything stops, the wheel of life grinds to a halt. Meaning is lost, purpose no longer exists. The brick wall: all our burdens, all our pains, all our regrets and all our shame. Our past we want to forget, the future we try to fight against. Stop. Halt. Period. Rest. Still. How can the man who talks ever listen? How can the man who works ever enjoy the fruits of his labour? Wait. Wait upon the Lord. Only when we stop, when the distractions of this world have faded into the background do we begin to see what we are truly living for. The earth is a sphere and no matter how we run, eventually we would run out of places to go and sooner or later we would clash into the things we have been running away from all this time. The burdens, the regrets the shame. The brick wall. Sooner or later we collide head on into it. We feel tired, we feel burdened, we feel lethargic and disillusioned. God is telling us to seek him,to talk to him, to give him all your cares and worries. To wait upon him. As we wait upon him we would be sensitive to his will for our lives; the purpose and meaning for our individual lives. As we give him all our earthly burdens and listen to his still small voice, we will rise. Like a hot-air balloon that turns up the heat and releases the counterweights, we will rise. The gravity of our sins keep us down, weighing us to the ground where our regrets reside. Only when we stop accelerating through life and put on the brakes can we learn to rise over the brick wall of our life. The brick wall. The lack of conviction; the loss of inspiration. The Jabberwockey. Ourselves. When life turns surreal and everything seems to stop except an incessant buzzing in your ear, it means God is desperately trying to speak with you. Having always been on the move, God taps on our shoulder and gently ask us, "can I go to your house for tea?" Like Zacchaeus the tax-collector, gladly heed the call. Purpose is like the expanse of the sky; meaning like the beating of the heart. It's all right to wait, time may pass but it never ends. Till the day we can muster the conviction to turn the wheel of life again, be patient and wait. the transcendent one speaks 2010-03-11 1.30GMT +8hrs Denial The fear of death is not the same as a fear of dying. The fear of dying is being afraid of the chances that we might suffer in pain and anguish before we die. Dying is a process, it begins where the agent of death, be it an accident or illness, appears and ends in death. The fear of death is a different matter entirely. It's a fear of losing others. Unlike dying which we can experience, we cannot experience death because it is an event; a point where we cease consciousness. We cannot fear something if we no longer have the capacity to fear, or the capacity for anything at all. The experience of dying is ours alone, and it is a lonely journey. The experience of death belongs to the loved ones of the deceased. They are made lonely by the lost, but at least they have each other. At funerals, loved ones cry for the lost of the deceased. To some extent it is an expression of sadness for a life's potential unfulfilled, but most of the time it is a regret of not having appreciated the person enough or a feeling of abandonment as they blame the person for leaving them so suddenly. Potentiality: If the deceased had not died, then he or she could have lived such a fulfilling life and experience so much more. Regret: Only after we lose something do we treasure its value. Unspoken words of love and apology. Promises unfulfilled, excuses made. Now it is too late to make it up, too late to do everything we wanted to do but didn't. Too late to regret. Abandonment: As insensitive as this sounds, subconsciously the loved ones of the deceased will feel this way. They would be envious that the deceased has escape this life of suffering (and maybe found peace in death) and also betrayal to leave them here in this earth to cope without him or her. Fear of Death is then a combination of these three: Potentiality, Regret, Abandonment. (PRA, PAR, ARP, APR, RAP, RPA, you get the idea.) We can use one word to describe these mixture of feelings that the bereaved feel: denial. Interestingly, this same phenomenon of dealing with death is also the same way we deal with relationship break ups. Break Up is the death of a relationship. The potential of what the relationship could become, the regret of not treating our significant other better or differently, the feeling of abandonment and betrayal of all the emotional resource and effort you have put into the relationship. The difference here is that for relationships the other person is still alive, meaning that there can be a second chance, no matter how slim it might be. With regard to a physical death, there is no second chance. We can see a second chance as learning to appreciate those loved ones who are still alive and with us, but I guess it's not the same. The only way we can deal with denial is grief. Funerals are for the living not the dead; for the living to come to terms with death and move on. When humans fear death, it is not their own death they fear but they fear the grieving that comes with the death of a loved one or they fear the grieving that their loved ones will feel when they die. the transcendent one speaks 2010-03-06 4.52GMT +8hrs Naive Wolf. Sheep. The permutations are many, but really it's all about "Sheep" surviving in a "Wolf's" world. The wolves: They are many in society, having experienced betrayal and deceit from those they trusted, they have become scheming and constantly seek their own advantage even at the expense of other people's feelings and situations. Good manipulators and very careful not to reveal areas of weakness to others. The sheep: A small minority in society who are naturally caring and easily trusting. They are gullible and easily manipulated by others and used as a means for others own ends; their goodwill is often taken advantaged of time and time again. In a world filled with wolves, we are naturally drawn toward the sheep in society who we can be honest with without the fear of getting hurt, and who we can trust to always be there for us when we face difficulties in life. Yet, as we get to know these almost pure-hearted individuals and begin to care for them as they do for us, the real problem arises. We see them being taken advantaged of and getting hurt by being overly trusting and in a bid to protect them and their emotions, we usually advice them to be more cautious, to be less trusting. As they taken this advice upon themselves, slowly but surely, they will change to become more "wolf-like". They would withhold the amount of care and limit the measure of trust that they would normally give others. Suddenly you realise that the qualities that first drew you to them, their almost childlike trust and generous expression of love, are slowly disappearing. We love those sheep, but in loving them we don't want them to get hurt so we teach them how to be like wolves to protect themselves. This is really a struggle as a close friend or family to such unconditionally caring individuals. Is teaching sheep to be like wolves the best way for sheep to survive in a world of wolves? IS there no way they can preserve their unconditionally caring and loving personality without ending up getting seriously hurt emotionally and sometimes even physically? To this I can give no definite answer because I too am struggling with it myself. Yet from my experience I realise that it is precisely because this people are so trusting and accepting that "wolves" like myself are drawn to them and their genuine care actually touches our heart. As our hearts are being touched by their love, we can build up the confidence to trust again and to care for others instead of take advantage of them. The most kind-hearted and caring people are this way not because they have stupidly chosen to be but because it is in integral part of their identity. Just because the wolves always take advantage of the sheep doesn't mean the wolves are stronger than the sheep. In fact, the sheep are more resilient than the wolves because while the wolves have given up on trusting people on the first sight of betrayal, the sheep persist and continue to trust despite being betrayed. So before you take pity on your "sheep-like" and want to protect them from betrayal and hurt, remember that they have stood firm where you have chosen to run. the transcendent one speaks 2010-03-05 3.43GMT +8hrs Omega Ω Everything has an end; a terminus. The end is inevitable and eventual. We do not seen to have a choice and neither can be stop it's impending arrival. But even if we did have a choice we do want things to end. To say otherwise would be dishonest. Games have to end for us to know the final scores, work has to end so we can play, one activity has to end before we can go on to another activity. How can we appreciate a musical that never ends or survive a bus ride that never ends? All journeys are taken so we may reach our destination; find the answers to our questions, and find the purpose of our lives. Life is a journey; life is change. A journey has an end; change requires the old to end for the new to begin. Is immortality worthwhile? I believe not. It might be nice to have all the time in the world to try everything on our "To Do At Least Once in a Lifetime" list or accomplish all the dreams and pursuits we have. 500 years? Maybe 700? I believe there will be threshold age where a person could not possibly find anymore purpose to life. Life must end. But you must be wondering why so soon? At age 70 probably no one has reached their threshold yet. But there is another factor that comes into play: balance. It stands to reason that the duration of life and the significance/importance of life have an inverse relationship. If we have something we like in limited quantity, we would treasure it more than if we had tonnes of it. Knowing that life ends actually subconsciously drives us to work. "Carpe Diem!" To make the most of our day and in fact everyday in our whole lifetime. Furthermore, life is fragile. There is always a possibility we could die in an accident or of some terminal illness. Life is sacred and precious precisely because it is fleeting and unpredictable. Death is the End. Death gives meaning and purpose to what it means to live. How can we consider ourselves to be living if we had no notion of what it means to die? Life is like one of those high-strung climatic movies, great while it last but you wouldn't wanna go through it again if you had the chance. Some people feel one lifetime isn't enough time to enjoy everything life has to offer. For me, I think one lifetime of suffering, thanks to the incoherence and selfishess of human nature, is enough for me to hope in a better afterlife. Death sure would be a sweet respite from the craziness of life. the transcendent one speaks 2010-03-03 12.24GMT +8hrs Eyelash If I had one wish, I could wish for heaven on earth, I could wish for riches or fame, I could even wish for peace of mind In this world of sorrow and grief. Yet this one wish I have I would give it to you my fair maiden, My one and only queen. Even though I know I would regret it, EVen though it would cost me, Though the world may call me foolish, And condemn me for my stupidity, I would give you my one wish. Because at this moment No one deserves it more than you my angel, the blessing God has given me. Thankfully we have enough eyelashes Upon which to make our wishes To last us every day of our lives. the transcendent one speaks 2010-03-02 4.10GMT +8hrs Love Ultimatum In a typical romantic relationship we believe that what ultimately matters is love. Modern media and the market portray relationships in a way that as long as both parties truly love each other they can overcome all obstacles, ascend the heavens and change the world. And we believe them. Quite tragic indeed. Of course, I don't disagree that love is the cornerstone of any relationship and it's existence is a necessity for a relationship to even be defined as such. The problem is, "has the notion of love evolve from an important ingredient in a relationship recipe to the only ingredient?" The over-emphasis of human love seems to know no bounds that its pervasiveness is alarming. Filial Piety is thrown out the window when we cast aside parental approval for love. Social Practicality is lost when love is chosen over adhering to social norms. Yet the ill effects of over prioritising love are actually glaringly obvious. Couples who supposedly love each other find their marriages rocked by disagreements from everyday habits to moral values. Boyfriends suffocate in their girlfriends' emotional hunger, while girlfriends dehydrate from their boyfriends' negligence. Who can blame them? Who is worthy of casting the first stone? We are all guilty of their plight because like them, we embrace this new notion of love's jurisdiction over all of relationship. We become proponents of this notion by being active participants in valuing love's power. But maybe the question isn't so much, "what is?", but "is it?" Can it honestly be said that when we go against all social principles and moral values, all beliefs of right and wrong, it means our relationship is truly founded on love? God is love. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1st Corinthians 13:4-7, The Bible) In our quest to preserve love in a relationship, have we actually lost it? As a result of our so-called love, we burden our partners, disregard our parents, deceive ourselves and ultimately destroy the dream your significant other and you hold for your future. Love is patient. Are we? Are we patient enough to be certain that you would be able to embrace every small habit of your partners, especially the small ones? Patient enough to embrace and support his or her every quirk, temper, compulsion, complex, tendency, problem, trait? True love is considerate of everything beyond merely the romantic love two people have for one another. Let us not masquerade our selfish desires for true love in a relationship. the transcendent one speaks 2010-03-02 5.17GMT +8hrs Stalemate Many a time in life we meet an impasse. We're caught between the feelings of our hearts and the thoughts of our mind, Caught between the needs of others and the desires deep inside, Caught between the reality of what is and the counterfactual thoughts of what if. As the wheel of our lives come to a grinding halt, We realise the beauty of the whistling trees and their rustling leaves Appreciating that which in our haste we would have missed. We have been so focused on the things below That we cease to lift our gaze to the skies above. Right then I look into your gleaming eyes reflecting mine. All hypothetical situations subside, As the one counterfactual thought held my mind: "What if I never did meet you that day?" And so I said a little prayer, Thanking God that he brought you into my life. What seemed like a stalemate all this time, Was actually his divine way Of reminding me to cherish you each and every day For the rest of my life. the transcendent one speaks 2010-02-16 3.28GMT +8hrs Sacrifice Humanity as a species is incoherent and incontinent, as I seems to keep stressing. But how can you not when it is so prevalent and sometimes even so human to the point that some of us might dangerous embrace such a notion. I have no knowledge of it's historical beginnings from where our desires and actions began to divert but at least I believe I can posite where this is all going. Maybe this happens more so in traditional asian societies, but can just can't seem to shake away the idea of putting others first and respecting their interests, sometimes more so than our own. This idea has it's origins in virtue and should be inculcated if we want to nurture a gracious and compassionate society. But that applies to a more general level where all we are considering are actions to actions. On a more interpersonal level it is not merely about giving way. It is far more complicated. How so? Actions presuppose a certain social setting already in place. Our own inner desires do not factor into such a rational system and this is where the fallout occurs. Our desire is that our loved ones are happy and blessed and to achieve that we make decisions based on rational thought which is executed in rational action. Yet our rational decisions do not reflect the desires of the person in question. Here I give an example: 1) A and B are mutually in love. 2) A thinks she doesn't love B as much as he loves her. 3) A wants B to be happy because (1). 4) A thinks she is a burden to B because (2). 5) A thinks B won't be happy because she will be a burden to him. (from 3, 4) 6) A decides on breaking up with B because (5). 7) B has a desire to be with A because he loves her very much. 8) B cannot accept the break up because (7). 9) Therefore, A and B have conflicting actions because of their compatible desires. Honestly how can we decide for someone else what is the better decision? Can you possibly know a person's desire better than himself? It is not always clear that we would have greater knowledge of what actions would achieve both person A's and person B's desires. Unlike a public case where there is a greater good to consider, for private cases between two people the greater good is a fulfilment of both persons' desires. There is a saying, "that if you love somebody let him/her go." Well the follow up question would be does he/she want you to let him/her go? Indeed it would give freedom to someone who doesn't love you anymore, but to someone who still loves you dearly it's like a bird locked up in a cage with love as the key. Love is sacrificial, but love should not be sacrificed. the transcendent one speaks 2010-02-02 4.41GMT +8hrs Agape I guess most of us can agree that the capacity to love and the ability to reason define us as human beings. Yet these defining features that cause us to embrace our humanity are ultimately at odds with each other. Reason or rational thought, is a result of our deliberation between what we deem right or wrong, good or bad. For example, we think that hugging a tiger would be a bad idea because we have good reason to believe we would die trying or at least escape being mortally sorry. Or when we think of a person committing a criminal offence we see him as blameworthy because we have good reason to believe his actions would hurt someone or violates someone's rights. Now putting it into perspective, a rational human being would want to decide on what is good and right. Not many of us would see a person who has bad character as a good candidate to be a friend. We have good reason to avoid such people because they would most probably corrupt or harm us. In other words the rational decision would be to shun away from such company as that would be the right thing to do. Think about a person who is just incompatible with you. We have good reason to dismiss the person as a potential friend because there is a high chance there will be conflicts and disagreements that would hinder both parties' optimal potentials. Thus, rationally it is a good choice to also avoid such individuals. Being human, we have a natural inclination to care for others like us. It is in our nature to empathise with others who have been hurt or are sad. Even human being needs love to grow, mature and develop because we are social animals and we need to live in community where we care and are cared for. With that being said, our rational minds hamper our freedom to express this love and care. If we cannot find any good reason to love someone then why should there be any obligation to love him or her? We may well have some moral obligation towards this person which gives us good reason to do so but I'm referring merely to our motivations. It might be debatable but it does seem that love is something irrational, otherwise why is it when we are rational love does not turn out to be the most choiceworthy? But the bigger question: "are we then more human if we are reasonable than we are compassionate, or more human if we choose love over reason?" Reason is what sets us apart in the animal kingdom as special, yet reason also reveals to us just how inconsistent and irrational man is. We believe we can find happiness in love and peace and yet reason tells us that in doing so we would have to sacrifice comfort and expose ourselves to hurt. What an irony. But this is human life. I need you God, now... More than ever. the transcendent one speaks 2010-01-12 3.45GMT +8hrs 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 |
That Which Transcends...
|
|