Thursday, March 29, 2007
dare i feel?
it's the precipice of depression... my veins contract nervously. soon, i would be a phantom shadowing what's left of my shadowy existence. it's serendipitous how i got here; and so it shall be as i leave.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
the essence of doubt
doubts are everywhere. everyone doubts someone or something once in a while. now, that is a scary prospect! let me tell you why...
the person who doubts begins a journey, an exploration of unknown terrain. it's a good choice, really, seeing as how such journeys could bring the intrepid doubter across mountains and valleys into the promised land of Wisdom.
unfortunately, most of us have misconstrued the whole concept of doubt: we very often take it as an end in itself. this is where the scariness spooks. if the bulk of people travelling that journey of doubt believe the first step to be the end point, a sufficient reason to conclude that belief is unnecessary, then nobody would ever reach the promised land of Wisdom!
let me throw in a soci example. we pompous armchair critics like to deconstruct stuff and throw it in people's faces, like when we talk about religion, we say religion has a function in society. religion helps "maintain social cohesion and solidarity" through encouraging its adherents to attend rituals and ceremonies which evoke strong sentiments. sometimes, this encouragement can seem almost coercive due to people not wanting to be seen as un-religious or disobedient. these communal activities supposedly provide a sort of "social glue" where people then firmly subscribe to the ideals of that religion. the theory then goes on to assert that these "ideals of religion" are really what a particular society (sub- or unconsciously) considers to be the most important values. thus religion, while trying to assert the existence of God, is really trying to socialise individuals into good slaves of Society, which then assumes some dimension of godhood. now that the function of religion is somewhat deconstructed, i can imagine that many adherents would gasp with mouths widely agape, exclaiming, "the danged proselyters have screwed me over!" well, that's an example of taking the first step as the endpoint.
why? because the process (deconstruction, in the above case) is incomplete! take those claims above and line them up like this:
1. some of the impetus to participate in religious activities is actually based on guilt
2. rituals and activities merely serve to socialise individuals
3. religion's ideals are merely subservient to Society's ideals
4. Society is God
well, for point 1., even if the guilt stems from merely not wanting to be in the crowd, it's still not necessarily tantamount being "screwed over", unless you want to believe that. simply because, if everyone else is doing a certain thing, there ought to be some reason they're doing it, right? and if the acclaimed reason is one that sounds correct (worshipping God), then why not? the guilt can be seen as coercive, if you go on claiming that the "encouragement" is really a fear of judgement and ostracism. nothing illogical or problematic there, except that it's really quite difficult to prove that the individual is completely non-complicit in forming that judgement and/or ostracism. i.e., if you do something wrong, you can't simply expect the community to be saintly and instantly forgive you; there will always be those less saintly who will judge and ostracise. but you did something wrong first. and besides, this informal system of tit-for-tat is in itself proper, no?
for point 2., let's call it a tautology. if a social activity doesn't have any impact on the individual at all, then what the heck is for anyway? rituals and ceremonies help an individual understand their religion better (which incidentally is a function of rituals and ceremonies in the context of religion); does that mean religion is trying to psycho you? you make your own choices still, yes? granted, being in an environment of religiosity tends to shift people towards being religious - does that mean they are not able to exercise free choice any longer? and even if it does slightly feel like a restricted freedom, is not the end result of a congruous, positive religious community a good result? AND worth that restricted freedom? Singaporeans should know what i'm talking about =)
point 3. is really a coup for religion! if religions contain the most treasured ideals of a society, is that not in itself justified? only the best ideals should be worshipped, yea? as for their ideals being subservient to society's, it seems to imply that society is somehow "evil" or "unworthy". but really, religion serves society, just as politicians are supposed to serve their citizens (ouch). so if it seems as if some religious ideals are merely subservient, it may be because that certain religions do not want to wage holy war against society's infidels (no offense intended), but would rather try to dialogue. leaving the theory in typical socified airy-fairy style could distort a clearer understanding of intermingling social factors.
is society God? many times it seems so, truly. why follow norms? am i following social norms to please the society-God? it seems so effusive, isn't it? but we are over-generalising. norms are not evil laws to mandate your behaviour. no, society isn't out to control you simply for the sake of lording it over you. norms are constructed over time, through many intricate processes. individuals need to agree that murder is illegal and it's multitudinous varieties sorted out in different cases before it becomes binding statutes. biting fingers is seen as disgusting only after everyone agrees to it - and even then, you are still free to indulge in it if you can stand the constant nagging and ill-hygiene. exam grades are merely the simplest and most cost-effective way to stratify students by their performance - you are not being forced to mug. and of course, these 3 examples have a further option: if you feel these norms to be somewhat outdated or misconstrued, you are welcome to do your part in reviewing them. it takes a lot of effort to struggle against norms that seem unfair to the individual, which is why the abolition of slavery and the declaration of human rights are pretty recent history. if society is God, well, we could, with sufficient grit, move the hand of this God and write our own history or change people's lives permanently. the individual controls society, even though society has a lot of ability to influence the individual, simply because it's the individual that makes choices.
that's what i call taking more than one step in the journey. okay, it's a pretty long-drawn example, but basically the journey from doubt to Wisdom is a looonger one. i'm probably only making the second or third step myself...
the essence of doubt is not an end in itself - it requires tenacity and a desire for truth to complement it in order to achieve Wisdom.
*thanks to Joel Stanislaus for inspiring this.
the person who doubts begins a journey, an exploration of unknown terrain. it's a good choice, really, seeing as how such journeys could bring the intrepid doubter across mountains and valleys into the promised land of Wisdom.
unfortunately, most of us have misconstrued the whole concept of doubt: we very often take it as an end in itself. this is where the scariness spooks. if the bulk of people travelling that journey of doubt believe the first step to be the end point, a sufficient reason to conclude that belief is unnecessary, then nobody would ever reach the promised land of Wisdom!
let me throw in a soci example. we pompous armchair critics like to deconstruct stuff and throw it in people's faces, like when we talk about religion, we say religion has a function in society. religion helps "maintain social cohesion and solidarity" through encouraging its adherents to attend rituals and ceremonies which evoke strong sentiments. sometimes, this encouragement can seem almost coercive due to people not wanting to be seen as un-religious or disobedient. these communal activities supposedly provide a sort of "social glue" where people then firmly subscribe to the ideals of that religion. the theory then goes on to assert that these "ideals of religion" are really what a particular society (sub- or unconsciously) considers to be the most important values. thus religion, while trying to assert the existence of God, is really trying to socialise individuals into good slaves of Society, which then assumes some dimension of godhood. now that the function of religion is somewhat deconstructed, i can imagine that many adherents would gasp with mouths widely agape, exclaiming, "the danged proselyters have screwed me over!" well, that's an example of taking the first step as the endpoint.
why? because the process (deconstruction, in the above case) is incomplete! take those claims above and line them up like this:
1. some of the impetus to participate in religious activities is actually based on guilt
2. rituals and activities merely serve to socialise individuals
3. religion's ideals are merely subservient to Society's ideals
4. Society is God
well, for point 1., even if the guilt stems from merely not wanting to be in the crowd, it's still not necessarily tantamount being "screwed over", unless you want to believe that. simply because, if everyone else is doing a certain thing, there ought to be some reason they're doing it, right? and if the acclaimed reason is one that sounds correct (worshipping God), then why not? the guilt can be seen as coercive, if you go on claiming that the "encouragement" is really a fear of judgement and ostracism. nothing illogical or problematic there, except that it's really quite difficult to prove that the individual is completely non-complicit in forming that judgement and/or ostracism. i.e., if you do something wrong, you can't simply expect the community to be saintly and instantly forgive you; there will always be those less saintly who will judge and ostracise. but you did something wrong first. and besides, this informal system of tit-for-tat is in itself proper, no?
for point 2., let's call it a tautology. if a social activity doesn't have any impact on the individual at all, then what the heck is for anyway? rituals and ceremonies help an individual understand their religion better (which incidentally is a function of rituals and ceremonies in the context of religion); does that mean religion is trying to psycho you? you make your own choices still, yes? granted, being in an environment of religiosity tends to shift people towards being religious - does that mean they are not able to exercise free choice any longer? and even if it does slightly feel like a restricted freedom, is not the end result of a congruous, positive religious community a good result? AND worth that restricted freedom? Singaporeans should know what i'm talking about =)
point 3. is really a coup for religion! if religions contain the most treasured ideals of a society, is that not in itself justified? only the best ideals should be worshipped, yea? as for their ideals being subservient to society's, it seems to imply that society is somehow "evil" or "unworthy". but really, religion serves society, just as politicians are supposed to serve their citizens (ouch). so if it seems as if some religious ideals are merely subservient, it may be because that certain religions do not want to wage holy war against society's infidels (no offense intended), but would rather try to dialogue. leaving the theory in typical socified airy-fairy style could distort a clearer understanding of intermingling social factors.
is society God? many times it seems so, truly. why follow norms? am i following social norms to please the society-God? it seems so effusive, isn't it? but we are over-generalising. norms are not evil laws to mandate your behaviour. no, society isn't out to control you simply for the sake of lording it over you. norms are constructed over time, through many intricate processes. individuals need to agree that murder is illegal and it's multitudinous varieties sorted out in different cases before it becomes binding statutes. biting fingers is seen as disgusting only after everyone agrees to it - and even then, you are still free to indulge in it if you can stand the constant nagging and ill-hygiene. exam grades are merely the simplest and most cost-effective way to stratify students by their performance - you are not being forced to mug. and of course, these 3 examples have a further option: if you feel these norms to be somewhat outdated or misconstrued, you are welcome to do your part in reviewing them. it takes a lot of effort to struggle against norms that seem unfair to the individual, which is why the abolition of slavery and the declaration of human rights are pretty recent history. if society is God, well, we could, with sufficient grit, move the hand of this God and write our own history or change people's lives permanently. the individual controls society, even though society has a lot of ability to influence the individual, simply because it's the individual that makes choices.
that's what i call taking more than one step in the journey. okay, it's a pretty long-drawn example, but basically the journey from doubt to Wisdom is a looonger one. i'm probably only making the second or third step myself...
the essence of doubt is not an end in itself - it requires tenacity and a desire for truth to complement it in order to achieve Wisdom.
*thanks to Joel Stanislaus for inspiring this.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
a Lent picture
the tree outside my window has decided to grow a huge bunch of new leaves. guess the same should apply for me now! thanks, all my angels who have been pruning me - check back for new shoots soon~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
