Monday, February 27, 2006

steadfastness vs adaptibility

when the whole world disagrees with you, but you still feel firmly for what you believe in, how do you resolve that conflict? would you cave in and go the way the world says you should or stand stoic for your faith?

what if a sense of urgency was placed to this question - if a person points a gun at your face for instance - would that change your stand? do you have a belief that you would gladly martyr yourself for? why?

if you'd prefer to live and fight another day, is that considered wiser? since you involve some form of longer-term planning, consequently this "take one step back now, and two steps forward later" strategy must be superior, isn't it?

who is greater - the saintly pope or the martyred convert?

Saturday, February 25, 2006

embracing the lighter side of things

today i went for countless countess runs, found some good stuff, and lost them all while trying to arrange them and got connection interrupted. diablo2 is good clean fun eh? thanks mark, for reintroducing me to my favourite weakness.

well, i'm beginning to find that temper is not exactly something that really dominates you. usually, the lag would've pissed the shit out of me and set off an incoherent chain of vulgar unpleasantries. yet i managed to consciously laugh it off! a small victory in the long march towards sainthood.

and now it's time to plagiarise oxygen again~ this time it's hsingdee's delightful providence: the litany of humility.

O Jesus, meek and humble of heart, Hear me.
From the desire of being esteemed, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being loved, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being extolled, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being honored, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being praised, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being preferred to others, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being consulted, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being approved, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being humiliated, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being despised, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of suffering rebukes, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being calumniated, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being forgotten, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being ridiculed, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being wronged, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being suspected, Deliver me, O Jesus.

That others may be loved more than I,

Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be esteemed more than I,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That, in the opinion of the world, others may increase and I may decrease,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be chosen and I set aside,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be praised and I go unnoticed,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be preferred to me in everything,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.

Caritas
"Charity is patient, is kind; charity does not envy, is not pretentious, is not puffed up, is not ambitious, is not self-seeking, is not provoked; thinks no evil, does not rejoice over wickedness, but rejoices with the truth, bears with all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
(1 Cor. 13:4-7)

To have Charity is to love God above all things for Himself and be ready to renounce all created things rather than offend Him by serious sin.
( Matt. 22:36-40)


by Merry Cardinal del Val, secretary of state to Pope Saint Pius X from the prayer book for Jesuits, 1963
(plucked from Eternal World Television Network)

have fun praying it everyday!

Friday, February 24, 2006

why johari when u can nohari?

whatever. i hate fads. which is why you shouldn't bother visiting http://kevan.org/nohari?name=geg to fill up my nohari window simply because you should instead be spending that time answering this question: why should you? besides, there's no hurry.

on a more intellectually anal note, you fadsters should realise how the johari window works and its relevant contextual uses. read the wikipedia article, or else, please don't bother clogging up poor kevan's server any longer. thus sayeth the information superhighway's very own ERP gantry wannabe.

now... i got a psych midterm to fail. goodnight.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

the anthropomorphic reality

Genesis 1:27 states:
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם.
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

and thus began the indiscriminate personification of objectivity to suit the human experience. if we were created in god's image, does it follow that he is "like unto us"? take for example, dolls which we humans create in our image: are they "like unto us"? indeed they may resemble us in the attributes which we willingly ascribe to them for the sole purpose of humanising these creations. and thus we have an infinitely differentiated realm for creativity and diversity when creating dolls. but is it fair to parallel this creation process with gen1:27? is it true that god has willingly ascribed various godly attributes unto us such that we resemble him? the problem here is that we, as the created, cannot tell with certainty, just as dolls probably have no idea how alike they are to their creators. yet our creator has given us the ability to think, to feel, and to reason, which to our best efforts have not been replicated genuinely in our creations thus far. thus, i contend that a proper parallel cannot be drawn as yet between human-doll creationism and god-human creationism. an extrapolation made from an incomplete presumption cannot stand as truth.

unfortunately, much of this prudence is lost in human history. we have attributed human characteristics to almost anything we come across. indeed, such is our limitation that our minds can only be creative insofar as that creativity lies within the finite realms of human experience - i.e. we simply can't imagine a god that is far from human likeness. and so our explanations for occurences in reality are constricted, tied to the leash of human-ness which we can't seem to escape. we are self-made prisoners of our language, mental schemata, cultural influence, and individual personalities. anthropomorhism is very much the de facto modus operandi of humanity, much like how materialism forms the superstructure of capitalist society.

yet these "human characteristics" are themselves crudely defined. philosophers have ruminated for centuries and are still unable to decide what makes us human. we can only grope around with a vague understanding of these ideals, consciously and subconsciously reinforcing each others' beliefs that to be "humane" is to be benevolent, welcoming, disciplined, etc - the proverbial "all things good". yet truthfully, the assertion that humanity tends towards goodness is deeply unorganised and lacking in parsimony or falsifiability, and so are any other exotic contentions for a generalised etiology of human characteristics. can there ever be a scientific evaluation of this human-ness?

and therefore i propose a new objectivity - one that brings an intention to reject anthropomorphic interpretations of reality. for reality and existence is not a human creation, and indeed until we can call our understanding of such phenomena "sufficient", we ought only tread with prudence when creating theoretical frameworks to "make sense of things". the scientific method stands as a rudimentary form of anti-anthropomorphic objectivity, yet i must admonish that careless treatment can still allow anthropomorphic elements to seep through - whether it is forming a hypothesis, designing an experiment, or interpreting data.

but some doubts linger. is it possible to maintain such a level of objectivity when it seems to take superhuman consciousness in every step of deliberation? could such an attempt be considered an exercise in "dehumanising" the inquirer? ultimately, would the removal of our anthropomorphic veil truly and uncompromisingly allow us to see reality with more clarity?

if we can't settle some of the questions raised here, we may permanently be unable to escape from the anthropomorphic prison that we have constructed for ourselves. but why would anyone want to escape it?

for a more contemporary discussion of anthropomorphism (free from gerg-thropomorphic contamination), simply wikipedia for it.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

status quo vs progress

there are always two ways to deal with a tiring job: accepting it as part of your life, learning how to get used to it, and taking it on as a challenging responsibility; or rejecting it altogether, finding out how to get out of this prison, and claiming your own freedom from oppression. the first resembles confucian philosophy a lot - adapting to the situation and conforming to order and rules. the second is revolutionary, left-wing, and often the inspiration for such things as terrorism.

yet we always go thru both strategies when faced with life. every responsibility we get can be interpreted as a form of exploitation (regardless of its relevance to capitalism, really), such that even serving in church becomes committing yourself to slaving for the slackers in church. once the motion has been started, you start gaining a form of 'class consciousness', separating yourself from those who are different from you and classing them as oppressors of your reality. this 'revolutionary' mindset would start to get you interested in rebellion and the eventual inversion of the prevalent order itself. of course, many do not go all the way to this stage, but many do dream of changing the world.

however, why can't we simply accept that reality is harsh and demanding? that our destiny is little more than to be mindless robots perpetuating an exploitative society? why can't we be willing and obedient slaves, selfless bearers of their own crosses, rushing to die once given the order? is it pride that holds us back? is it a sense of greater purpose? but when we look at christ who gave up his life for the worthless millions who craved his death... do we see that order as having a meaning? christ obviously believed that his death was not for the worthless, or that these worthless ppl will no longer be worthless in his death. will this ever apply for us? when we give of all that we have to supplicate this oppressive reality, are we actually giving it worth or meaning? will this passive gentleness be sufficient to impress society with our hopes and dreams?

why should i work with the status quo? why should i attempt to kickstart progressivism? existentialism continues to plague my belaboured mind. this third way of tackling life's challenges which i hardly approve of has unfortunately become my favourite path. the way of escapism and delaying response. debating in my head won't solve things or move me forward... but i can't snap out of it...