Oxidized Aurum

Make the Pie Higher

2009-09-04T21:22:00.000-07:00

by George W. Bush

I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen
And uncertainty
And potential mental losses.

Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the internet
Become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?

They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being and the fish
Can coexist.

Families is where our nation finds hope
Where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher!
Make the pie higher!
Major league.

*Richard Thompson, January 2001. Assembled from actual quotes. Arranged for aesthetic reasons only.

The Student's Prayer

2009-09-04T21:13:00.001-07:00

The Lord is my Shepherd I shall not flunk
He keepeth me from lying down when I should be studying
He leadeth me beside "Easy Way" for a study break
He restores my faith in study guides
He leads me to better study habits
For my grades' sake
Yea, though I walk through the valley of borderline grades
I will not have a nervous breakdown
For thou art with me
My prayers and my friends, they comfort me
Thou givest me the answer in moments of blankness
Thou anointest my head with understanding
My test papers runneth over with questions I recognise
Surely passing grades and flying colours shall follow me
All the days of my examinations
And I shall not have to dwell in this exam hall forever

Karangan Terbaik UPSR 2008

2009-01-28T10:15:00.000-08:00

From quaintly.net:

Pagi itu pagi minggu. Cuaca cukup sejuk sehingga mencapai takat suhu beku. Sebab itu saya tidak mandi pagi sebab air kolah jadi air batu dan air paip tidak mahu keluar sebab beku di dalam batang paip. Pagi itu saya bersarapan dengan keluarga di dalam unggun api kerana tidak tahan sejuk. Selepas itu emak saya mengajak saya menemaninya ke pasar. Tetapi saya tidak mahu.

Selepas emak menikam perut saya berkali-kali dengan garfu barulah saya bersetuju untuk mengikutnya. Kami berjalan sejauh 120 kilometer kerana pasar itu letaknya 128 kilometer dari rumah. Lagi 8 kilometer nak sampai pasar saya ternampak sebuah lori kontena meluru dengan laju dari arah belakang.

Dia melanggar emak saya. Emak saya tercampak ke dalam gaung. Dia menjerit “Adoi!”. Lepas itu emak saya naik semula dan mengejar lori tersebut. Saya pun turut berlari di belakang emak saya kerana takut emak saya melanggar lori itu pula. Pemandu lori itu nampak kami mengejarnya. Dia pun memecut lebih laju iaitu sama dengan kelajuan cahaya. Kami pula terpaksa mengejar dengan lebih laju iaitu sama dengan dua kali ganda kelajuan cahaya. Emak saya dapat menerajang tayar depan lori itu. Lori itu terbabas dan melanggar pembahagi jalan lalu bertembung dengan sebuah feri. Feri itu terbelah dua.

Penumpang feri itu yang seramai 100 orang semuanya mati. Pemandu feri itu sangat marah. Dia pun bertukar menjadi Ultraman dan memfire pemandu lori. Pemandu lori menekan butang khas di dalam lori dia..lori itu bertukar menjadi robot Transformer. Mereka bergaduh di udara. Emak saya tidak puas hati. Dia! pun terus menyewa sebuah helikopter di Genting Highlands dan terus ke tempat kemalangan. Dia melanggar pemandu feri yang telah bertukar menjadi Ultraman itu.

Pemandu feri itu terkejut dan terus bertukar menjadi pemandu feri semula lalu terhempas ke jalanraya. Pemandu feri itu pecah. Pemandu lori sangat takut melihat kejadian itu. Dia meminta maaf dari emak saya. Dia menghulurkan tangan ingin bersalam. Tetapi emak saya masih marah. Dia menyendengkan helikopternya dan mengerat tangan pemandu lori itu dengan kipas helikopter. Pemandu lori itu menjerit “Adoi..!” dan jatuh ke bumi. Emak say menghantar helikopter itu ke Genting Highlands. Bila dia balik ke tempat kejadian, dia terus memukul pemandu lori itu dengan beg tangannya sambil memarahi pemandu lori itu di dalam bahasa Inggeris.

Pemandu lori itu tidak dapat menjawab sebab emak saya cakap orang putih. Lalu pemandu lor! i itu mati. Tidak lama kemudian kereta polis pun sampai. Dia membuat lapuran ke ibu pejabatnya tentang kemalangan ngeri itu. Semua anggota polis di pejabat polis itu terperanjat lalu mati. Orang ramai mengerumuni tempat kejadian kerana ingin mengetahui apa yang telah terjadi. Polis yang bertugas cuba menyuraikan orang ramai lalu dia menjerit menggunakan pembesar suara. Orang ramai terperanjat dan semuanya mati.

Selepas itu emak saya mengajak saya ke pasar untuk mengelak lebih ramai lagi yang akan mati. Di pasar, emak saya menceritakan kejadian itu kepada penjual daging. Penjual daging dan peniaga-peniaga berhampiran yang mendengar cerita itu semuanya terkejut dan mati. Saya dan emak saya terus berlari balik ke rumah. Kerana terlalu penat sebaik saja sampai di rumah kami pun mati. Itulah kemalangan yang paling ngeri yang pernah saya lihat sebelum saya mati.

Iniquity

2008-12-30T18:30:00.000-08:00

They laugh and smile and talk and embrace and I do too.
But sometimes my smile covers a tear.
And no one knows.

Right now my tear is from an it.
I'm sorry, so very sorry I did it.
I feel like a broken record and the skip
is the it that never completely goes away.

What would they think if they knew my it?
Would the laughs vanish? The smiles disappear?
Would the talk be hurled at me? The embrace taken back?

Do they have an it? What do they do with it?
Why do we act for each other when there is no play?
There is only life.
And that life includes a lot of it.
The point is not to celebrate it
but only to admit to it.

I am told Jesus knows everything
which means he know about it.
And yet he whispers
in words too good to be true
I died for you -- don't worry about it.

--Chip Heim

Begone.

2008-12-14T03:17:00.000-08:00

O sweet breath of life
Will thou never cease
Thy bitter tang?

Why the little pinpricks?
Why the small jolts of pain?
Art thou so cowardly
To hide in the shadows
Laughing at thy devilish traps?

Stare me in the face, O Master
Look me in the eye
Face me that I may know my enemy
Show me where my loyalties lie

If thou must taketh, do not giveth
If thou must kill, do not give life
Give me all or give me nothing
But do not linger in my suffering
Let the dead mourn the dead
But leave the living alone

Be thou sincere in thy dealings
Or begone

Creepy

2008-10-16T02:41:00.000-07:00

Remember the surreal, vague, metaphysical-seeming stuff I was talking about? Well, this is one of them.

Introspection

2008-10-16T00:10:00.000-07:00

Things change. Nature changes, that's what nature is. Ever since God unleashed the Big Bang the total amount of entropy in the universe has only been able to increase. And chaos means change. Lots and lots and lots of change.

People change too. Or do they? I am not the same person I was a year ago, yet I am in essence no different than that naive little boy who loved Enid Blyton and ran down slides for fun. Parts of me have changed, parts of me have not. Am I still that little boy? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

But I suppose I'm getting ahead of myself here. If I have changed, how have I changed? I loved Enid Blyton, and I still do, even if other authors have challenged her preeminence. I no longer run down slides for fun (breaking your arm kinda cures you of that), so maybe I'm a little more cautious; more calculative and less of a risk-taker. I hated celery, and I still do. I still love french fries and fried chicken and pizza, although I can no longer live with myself if I ate those every day.

But to be honest, I'm digressing. My true question is whether my fundamental personality has changed, and that's a lot more difficult to answer. Likes and dislikes change all the time, but those don't really matter. Who I am is far more than what I like or dislike. And what would make up my fundamental personality? Well, I'm an introvert, and I think I always have been. I'm not spontaneous and I've a hard time taking the initiative to do something. I'm slightly better at that now than I was before, but in essence I haven't changed: I still prefer to follow the leader. I've always been kiasu, and I've always been a "nice guy". Well, I no longer exhibit my horridly spiteful temper, but that part of me is still in there somewhere. I'm not a very assertive person and I never have been. I'm easily distracted, amused, or wow-ed by surreal, vague, metaphysical-seeming things, and I always have been. And I still ponder upon the meaning of life and the reason for the existence of the universe every so often.

So, in conclusion, I guess my fundamental personality hasn't changed in any significant way. I may have gained a little bit more control over parts of my personality, but my tendencies in doing things are still roughly the same. Sure, my taste has evolved, and I've probably gained about half a million experience points thus far, but that's an integral part of life.

Wait, a minute, so that means I haven't changed significantly and probably am not going to? I don't know whether that's uplifting or depressing. I guess my indecisive nature hasn't changed as well.

Hmm.

A troubled conscience

2008-10-13T15:07:00.000-07:00

No.
Why not?

Because it is wrong.
Is it? Why is it wrong?

Because it's not mine to take. It doesn't belong to me.
So what? How does that make it wrong?

It's called stealing. Stealing is wrong.
Why is stealing wrong? Tell me.

I would be depriving someone of what is rightfully his.
*Low chuckle* Rightfully his? Do you really believe that?

*Silence*
DO you?

Perhaps not. But I would be causing pain and anger. I would be causing distress. That is wrong.
IS it? After ALL that he's done to you?

I...
THINK, my friend, THINK. Without it, you die.

But... But this is wrong!
You spineless fool. It does not belong to him either. He may be its legal owner, but he has no more RIGHT to it than you do. He is the last person on earth who needs it. YOU do.

But there must be another way!
There is no other way. You know that.

There must be! There must be. I can keep looking!
For how long? *snarls harshly* You have two days to live. You don't do this, you die.

But I...
You MUST do this! TAKE it! Take it NOW!

I... I cannot.
You miserable pathetic little fool. Are you such a coward that you cannot even muster up the courage to save your own life?

I... I CANNOT! I CANNOT! Go away, and leave me alone!
Fine. So be it.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean that.
*silence*

He...hello? HELLO?
*silence continues*

The scream

2008-09-24T22:01:00.000-07:00

In the calm before the storm
Silence reigns
The breeze is gentle
The wind a comforting whisper

In the calm before the storm
Everything is magnified
Every action drawing attention
Every sigh like rolling thunder

In the calm before the storm
The edges blur
The skies open
Revealing heaven

In the calm before the storm
The chaos is within
The earth trembles
Darkness roars
With benign malignancy

In the calm before the storm
It grows cold
The clouds gather
The hearts of men waver

In the calm before the storm
The universe holds its breath

And in the calm within the storm
Every fibre of my being
Unleashes a primal scream

Taggeristissimo

2008-09-22T18:35:00.000-07:00

Tagged by Rachelle and Eu Fern.

Rule: The tag victim has to come up with 8 different points about his/her perfect lover. Have to mention the gender of his/her perfect lover. Tag 8 other victims to join this game and leave a comment on their blog. If you are tagged the second time, there is NO need to do this again. Lastly, and most importantly, HAVE FUN DOING IT.

Gender of perfect lover: Phenotypically female ~~(preferably an XY with defective androgen receptors/defective testosterone-DHT enzymes because they're supposed to be hot)~~.

A perfect lover would:
1. NOT have a click in her name.
2. Put the ME into Aweso.
3. Scream like this:
4. Laugh at Bob because he stole our cookie. Haha, Bob. Haha.
5. Make awkward sexual advances not war.
6. Ruin an emo kid's day by making him smile.
7. Love Facebook Flair as much as I do.
8. Love me for being overly technical just so that she can shut me up. XD

I tag:
1. A. A. A. D'Artagnan Umslopagaas Dynamite Macaulay, London.
2. Mrs Belcher Wack Wack
3. Sugarporn Poopattana, New York City.
4. Orange Marmalade Lemon, Wichita, Kansas.
5. F. G. Vereneseneckockkrockoff, San Francisco, California.
6. John Senior, Jr., New York City.
7. Pafia Pifia Pefia Pofia Pufia da Costa, Brazil.
8. If-Jesus-Christ-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barebones, London.

And everyone else on http://f2.org/humour/language/oddnames.html.

P.s. To understand any of the above, you have to click on the links. =P

Powerthirst: The Menergy Drink for Men

2008-08-28T12:15:00.001-07:00

Ignore me

2008-08-27T15:01:00.001-07:00

"On the floor she found a picture book that she remembered from elementary school. It was about a little boy called Bernard whose parents always ignore him. One day a monster appears in the backyard and Bernard runs inside to tell them but still they just ignore him. The monster eats him and goes into the house and roars at the parents but they think it's Bernard fooling around and ignore him. And because they're not scared, the monster loses all his confidence. Skye turned to the last page which always used to make her feel sad. The poor old monster has been sent to bed and is sitting all alone and forlorn in the dark, feeling a total failure."

- The Smoke Jumper, Nicholas Evans, page 9

Dark humour

2008-08-27T01:01:00.000-07:00

Mist. Night. A slight drizzle. A dimly lit campus.

Have you ever been so afraid that you want to run home and hide under the covers, yet awed beyond your ability to comprehend at the same time?

I was wandering about alone just now, and I was just struck by the beauty of the night. The dim lamps were putting rays of light through the mist, and it was just the kind of beauty that makes you want to laugh and cry at the same time.

How can the world be so ugly yet so beautiful all at once?

Home Is Behind
The World Ahead
And There Are Many Paths To Tread
Through Shadow
To The Edge Of Night
Until The Stars Are All Aligned

Mist And Shadow
Cloud And Shade
All Shall Fade
All Shall...Fade

-Pippin's Song, The Lord of the Rings

Jw3rn is awestruck.

Rage

2008-08-20T17:41:00.000-07:00

Some things are easy to forgive.

If you threaten me with violence, I could forgive you. If you actually beat me up and hurt me physically, I could forgive you. Even if you tore my heart and soul apart, I would probably be able to forgive you eventually.

But some things are not so easy to forgive.

You can hurt me and get away with it, but hurt those whom I love and I will hate you forever. Stealing from my family is forgivable. Ransacking our house and tying my family up is forgivable. But threatening them with violence is not.

Pian, if our paths ever cross again, I promise that I will do my utmost best to tie you to a chair and put a knife to your balls. At that point, I will threaten to cut them off, and I will draw enough blood that you will believe me.

To be literal

2008-07-18T07:52:00.000-07:00

Seen on a T-shirt in STAR Cineplex:

"IF IT'S NOT LOVE, IT'S NOT WORTH A F*CK."

Uncensored, of course.

Now that's one heck of a Tee.

Hot and cold

2008-07-13T05:03:00.000-07:00

Like a breath of fresh air, it whispers. It ruffles your hair and messes it up, affectionately. Comforting and safe, like a warm embrace. It sets your hair on end and sends tingles up your spine.

Everything slows down, and you can feel every single heartbeat. Every breath nuzzles you, reminding you of the miracle of life. And as you wonder at how marvelous it is, it steals away your coherent thoughts and leaves you with nothing but a feeling of completeness, a sense of well-being, that you completely forget the why and can only remember the touch of wonder that infused your soul, lifting it to ever greater heights.

And even as your senses are competely overwhelmed, you realise that the focal point is not without, but within. Its touch is light and smooth on your skin, but it rips your heart out with such force that its gentleness is nothing short of astonishing. Its beauty fills your eyes and your ears hum a secret melody, but that is nothing compared to the burst of colour that streaks across your mind and the thunderous crash of pure music that is drowned out only by that soft, gentle, cry of delight. Its taste is sweeter than honey and its scent delightful, but the true savouring is done within the confines of your spirit, a savouring of fire and cold tempered only by the warnth of being safe and secure.

You feel it, you sense it, you embrace it. You know it inside and out, and you delight in it.

And then it dawns on you that such beauty was not meant for one person. It is something to be shared, to be delighted in together. It may be the most beautiful thing you know, but it would be meaningless if you were its sole possessor.

And then you smile, because you are not alone.

Rawr.

2008-07-02T08:00:00.000-07:00

Filling the silence
With warmth
Unspoken words
No longer needed

Just a hint of it
Leaves me
Feeling complete
Contented
Life is worth living

Comforting the shadows
Of doubt
Stilling
The storm within

Were all my memories lost
But this one
Still would my heart caper
Like a little boy

Your smile
Shall ever be
My inspiration
Your laugh
My adoration

Little furry critters rule the world

Maturity

2008-07-02T05:47:00.000-07:00

"A lioness doesn't have a mane. How does it know when it's grown up?"

An interesting question, and one that I have discussed before. Yet the question of maturity has returned to haunt my thoughts, stirring up troubled waters and punching me in the guts, leaving me gasping for air.

Okay, a little too much hyperbole there, but again I am forced to ask, "What is the mark of maturity?"

Maybe it's because I just turned 18 that I am asking this question. Maybe it's because I'm now legally an adult, free to drink (in Malaysia at least), smoke, buy property, watch 18 SX/SG/PL movies, go to war, ~~become a porn star~~, ~~get an abortion~~, own a firearm (in the US), marry without parental consent, and donate my body to science. So many things to do, so little time. XD

Maybe it's because my driver's license is dangling before me like a juicy worm on a hook, independence beckoning to me like a lollipop beckons to little girls.

Maybe it's because my sophomore year looms, the year in which I finally have to decide what I want to do with my life, the year in which you can no longer hit the "Go Back" button to restart character creation.

Or maybe it's just my ancestor Peter Pan whispering to me from the grave.

Regardless, I now present to you the contenders for the "Mark of Maturity":

1. Independence
- The ability to make your own decisions, the ability to do what you want when you want how you want without being influenced by other people. ~~Like becoming a porn star.~~

2. Confidence
- The ability to look someone in the eye and know that you are his or her equal, if not in ability, then at least in value. Even if earthworms are gray.

3. Experience
- An antonym for naivety, this word implies an understanding of the way the world goes round. Although in my experience (pun intended), too often has the term been used as an excuse for cynical pessimism. The world is a dark and gloomy place. The world is a dark and gloomy place. But if you look hard enough, there's always a ray of sunshine.

Wow, I guess that means I'm a very mature person.

Wow, what a big fat lie.

Color

2008-06-07T21:38:00.000-07:00

Black and white, black and white
Shades of grey in between
Right and wrong, left and right,
Oh, so simple, so clean

But nothing is ever so simple, is it?
Nothing is ever so fine
Life's more than just rhythm, more than just beat
It's MUSIC, melody and rhythm combined

See you not the colours between?
The brilliant hues and subtle shades?
White is but a disguise, black an illusion
Put to shame by colourful confusion

Red, blue, yellow and green
Mixed and matched with shades in-between
I can't see them all, but I don't care
I see enough to be aware

Aware that sometimes the colours matter
Aware that perspectives are monochrome
Aware that trying to build something better
Requires eyes more than just my own

So even when the music dies
So colour lives, vibrant and ALIVE

Vanilla

2008-06-07T21:23:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time there lived a princess in a tower. As all princesses in towers are, she was beautiful, but this princess was also very smart. She built the tower single-handedly, all by herself, using nothing but two magical symbols, XD and LOL. As expected, it was a magic tower with no entrance, and all the valiant knights who sought to rescue her knocked themselves silly against the magical stones, to no avail. The princess sometimes heard the loud puffing and panting of those knights all the way up in the top of the tower, but she couldn't care less. She had a pet raccoon and a pet ferret, which was all the company that she needed. That and her laptop, of course, through which she MSNed and blogged her way through to the outside world. Also, for human company she had a magical portal through which her best friends, all other princesses with their own magical towers, could visit her.

One day, she was sitting at her window, enjoying the night breeze, when a little bird, a tiny wren, flew down onto her windowsill. Thrilled, she tickled the little wren lightly so that it would sing. Of course, wrens can't sing, but the little wren was so pleased that it tried to anyway. What came out more like a squawk, but it made the princess laugh. The wren was pleased that it managed to make the princess laugh and continued to squawk some more. Just then, though, the princess's pet raccoon crawled into her lap and gave her a big, wet lick. Seeing this, the little wren grew jealous of the raccoon, because its own tongue was too short to do any proper licking. All it had was a miserable, hard beak. And it wanted to lick the princess just like the raccoon did. So, in a fit of envy, the little wren turned its back on the princess and started to pout.

The princess, of course, was so smart that she had learned how to read the thoughts of animals. She knew that the little wren felt bad because it couldn't express its love for her the way it wanted to. It wanted to lick her and make her happy but could only squawk to make her laugh. So she did the nicest thing she could: she turned herself into a wren. Overjoyed, the little wren rubbed heads songbird-style with the princess to express his love in the only way he knew how. The princess rubbed back, and together they flew off into the sunset.

Back in the tower, the raccoon noticed the princess's absence and went to find the ferret. Then it got down on one knee and declared its undying love for the ferret, mentioning in particular the ferret's energetic nature and nesting instincts. The ferret giggled and gave the raccoon a big lick.

The end. XD LOL

Temporary Absentee Gratification

2008-06-03T07:37:00.000-07:00

1. What's your favorite anime at the present time?

Define 'anime'. Do Hayao Miyazaki films count? Those are great. Otherwise, no.

2. Given the chance, what special ability/power would you like to have?

The power to be in more than one place at one time. And the power to freeze time. And teleportation. And.... nevermind.

3. How do you think about yourself?-

As a colour-blind grey worm who is constantly at awe at how colourful the world is.

4. Where is the place that you want to go the most?

Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

5. If you can have 1 dream to come true, what would it be?

You.

6. Do you have a crush now?

Amanda Bynes is HOT. But otherwise I'm not crushed. I've merely been smashed, rolled over, bulldozed, and squished.

7. What are you afraid to lose the most now?

My colour-blind X gene.

8. If you win $1 million, what would you do?

There are some things that money can't buy. For everything else, there's Mastercard. XD

9. If you meet someone that you love, would you confess to him/her?

Wherefore art thou, Romeo?

10. List out 3 good points of the person who tagged you.

Claire- She's delicious, low-fat, and provides you with your daily dose of Vitamin C.

11. Which type of person do you hate the most?

You scullion! You rampallion! You fustilarion! I'll tickle your catastrophe!

12. What is your ambition?

To have no ambition. Wait, make that to NEED no ambition. Very significant difference there. =P

13. If you have a fault, would you rather the people around you point out to you or would you rather they keep quiet?

Bite me.

14. What do you think is the most important in your life?

Little furry critters and shiny things.

15. Are you a shopaholic or not?-

If I said yes, would you believe me?

Yes.

16. What is the thing that you really want now?

Butterflies. In my tummy.

17. Why does it hurt when you punch someone?

Because violence is never the answer.

18. Is there anything that you have done which you regret?-

Alea jacta est.

19. Are you hungry right now?

I'm hungry. But not for food.

20. Do you think that this survey is totally useless?

Are earthworms grey?

People I tag:

1. Theodore Roosevelt
2. Dr. Mahathir
3. Anwar Ibrahim
4. Osama bin Laden
5. Aishwarya Rai

Of life, earthquakes, and the imagination

2008-05-13T17:13:00.000-07:00

I'm currently in the final stage of the 36+ hours journey back home, tired but wide-awake at the same time. To all those in Kuching, will be seeing you guys very soon. =)

I've been following the earthquake in China as closely as I can. One of my best friends from Sewanee is from Chongqing, one of the affected cities, and she went back there just a couple of days ago. Just in time for the earthquake- what a stroke of luck, huh. =S She's an avid Facebook user but I haven't heard from her in a couple of days. Though that's probably not surprising- their internet's probably down. Still, I hope she's alright. =S (Update: She's fine, yay!)

Two stories I want to tell:

First is a recollection of a story Miss Mary Wee told us back in Form 2. I wonder how many of you guys still remember it.

Our teacher knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who was extremely superstitious. One day, that guy went to a 'bomoh' and had his palm read/future told. "Bad news and worse news," the bomoh said. "The bad news is that you're going to die. The worse news is that it'll happen within ten days." So what does the guy do? Well, what would any guy do? He locks himself up at home for nine days, not venturing out or letting anybody in. On the tenth day he began to relax, thinking that the prophecy was a false alarm, so he grabs a newspaper and curls up in an armchair. Then the light bulb above him suddenly breaks loose from the ceiling and shatters on his head, killing him instantly.

A true story, according to my teacher. I remember her saying something like, "When your time's up, it's up, and nothing you do can change that." Funny how that works, isn't it?

Story 2 is taken from Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder:

" 'Once upon a time there was a centipede that was amazingly good at dancing with all hundred legs. All the creatures of the forest gathered to watch every time the centipede danced, and they were all duly impressed by the exquisite dance. But there was one creature that didn't like the centipede- that was a tortoise.'

'It was probably just envious.'

'How can I get the centipede to stop dancing? thought the tortoise. He couldn't just say he didn't like the dance. Neither could he say he danced he danced better himself, that would obviously be untrue. So he devised a fiendish plan.'

'Let's hear it.'

'He sat down and wrote a letter to the centipede. "O incomparable centipede," he wrote, "I am a devoted admirer of your exquisite dancing. I must know how you go about it when you dance. Is it that you lift your left leg number 28 and then your right leg number 39? Or do you begin by lifting your right leg number 17 before you lift your left leg number 44? I await your answer in breathless anticipation. Yours truly, Tortoise."'

'How mean!'

'When the centipede read the letter, she immediately began to think about what she actually did when she danced. Which leg did she lift first? And which leg next? What do you think happened in the end?'

'The centipede never danced again?'

'That's exactly what happened. And that's the way it goes when imagination gets strangled by reasoned deliberation.'

'That was a sad story.' "

I dunno about that being a sad story, but it is definitely very cheem.

Conformity

2008-05-10T01:01:00.000-07:00

In World War 2, Hitler and the Nazis murdered roughly 6 million people. They committed atrocious crimes that any sane person would call immoral, if not outright crazy. But Hitler did not personally kill all those people himself. Thousands of people were involved in the plot, and many more were aware of the situation but said nothing. Why did so many people acquiesce, by word, deed, or inaction, to those terrible crimes? Were they all insane? Or were they all simply bad people?

After the war, Western psychologists wondered how such a thing could happen. They came up with theories such as groupthink and peer pressure. They also devised experiments to examine the how humans are influenced by others, for better or for worse.

A psychologist named Milgram devised an experiment to examine how humans responded to orders that were morally ambiguous, if not outright wrong. He took forty volunteers and put them in a lab together with forty confederates (people who were put there by the psychologist to perform a specific set of actions, unknown to the volunteers). They were subsequently paired up, one volunteer to one confederate, and the volunteer was told that he was to play the role of the "teacher", and the confederate the "learner". The experiment, they were told, would involve the teacher reading a series of word pairs to the learner on the other side of a partition and then testing the learner's memory by giving a word and asking for the correct matching word from four alternatives. During set-up the teacher watched the learner being strapped into an electric chair, and the teacher was told that the most effective learning occurred with punishment. At the teacher's station there was a panel with 30 switches labeled from 15 to 450 volts- subjective labels included: slight shock/moderate shock/strong shock/very strong shock/intense shock/extremely intense shock/danger-severe shock/XXX. The teacher was then told that at the first error the 15 volt switch was to be used, moving up one level each time the learner made an error. In reality, no shocks were delivered other than a “sample shock” to the teacher. The learner was trained to respond with protests as the shock level increased- at 150 he stated he did not want to continue with the experiment [the experimenter in white lab coat told the teacher, in a level tone of voice, “the experiment must go on” or “it is absolutely necessary to continue” or similar], then he began to shout. At 300 volts he began to kick the wall, and at the highest level he no longer made any noise at all – not even answering the question [the experimenter told the teacher that refusal to answer was the same as a wrong answer].

Disturbing though the experiment may be, the results were even more incredible. A full 65% of the “teachers” went all the way to 450 volts under the original conditions [N = 40]. 5 stopped after using “intense shock”, 8 stopped after using “extreme–intensity" shock, 1 stopped after using “danger – severe" shock, and 26 used the 450 volt “XXX” switch.

Furthermore, in a repeat of the experiment with varying conditions (the teacher pulled a lever to signal another person to actually administer the shock by using a lever on the shock panel- he did not personally deliver the "punishment"), a whopping 93% of the subjects went all the way to XXX.

Kinda chilling, don't you think? The experiment clearly demonstrated that almost everybody would "go along" with something clearly immoral, given certain situations. When someone with higher rank or status tells us to do something, we more often than not go along with the order, even if the order goes against our personal morality.

But the experiment fails to explain WHY men (and women!) behave like that in such a situation. What makes us repress our conscience and do such terrible things to other people? Why do most of us conform to situations that are clearly wrong? Why are we so easily influenced by negative pressures? The experiment questions the strength of human morality and paints an overall bleak picture of humanity. Those who dare stand up against the tyrants of injustice and cruel immorality are justly called the few.

This leads me to ask the question- if I were put in such a situation, how would I react? Would I be part of the conforming 93% or the brave 7%? I would, of course, like to believe that I would be part of the latter, but in truth I honestly don't know.

I have a friend here that signs off his letters and messages with "Unconformingly, (insert name)". If only that were true for more people in real life.

What do you think you would have done as a subject in the experiment?

Citation
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.

5 ways to say "I love you"

2008-05-02T23:52:00.000-07:00

Actually, to be more accurate it's five ways to LISTEN to "I Love You", but I think in this case the terms are interchangeable.

1. Tan Dun- The Eternal Vow

2. Robert Schumann- "Dedication" from Myrtles

3. Clara Schumann- "If You Love For Beauty"

4. Peter Tchaikovsky- Romeo and Juliet (particularly 3:00 - 4:05)

5. Leonard Bernstein- West Side Story, "Somewhere"

I think my favorite is number 5. The rest run a close second, though. Oooh, emo. =P

Silence

2008-04-28T16:32:00.000-07:00

In the storm I seek
That quiet spot of oblivion
Whose sigh of momentary relief
Belies the ominous eye that bequeaths
The sound of silence

The winds of time
Engulf the ocean of serenity
I am caught
A tiny sailor on boiling seas

But within my cabin
The doors are shut
Music drowns the howling winds
My safe harbour lies within

But the knocks are insistent
Finally I relent
Tearing down the walls
I allow Chaos to come in
She smiles beatifically

I open myself to her and she overwhelms me
Leading me to the very edges of the universe itself
Where Logic and Reason are destroyed

But even in that place between Space and Time
To my wonder I still do find
The sounds of silence that I once thought lost
Now come to be eternally mine

Flashback

2008-04-27T19:36:00.000-07:00

I remember watching Spiderman 2 on CD back in Malaysia, and the last scene keeps recurring in my mind.

Peter and MJ kiss, then suddenly they hear sirens in the distance. MJ looks at Peter, and says simply, "Go get 'em, tiger."

And in the subtitles below: "Pergilah tangkap kriminal, harimau."

I couldn't stop laughing. Still can't. Some things truly get lost in translation.

Thou shalt embrace thy emo side

2008-04-25T20:09:00.000-07:00

Heh. Emo-ness is overrated, but so is masculinity. What's a guy to do these days?

Flying free

2008-04-20T17:13:00.000-07:00

He took a deep breath. Then he started to sing. He seemed to be composing the music, too. His voice was clear, melodious, and sweet. The music presented a contrast to the words he composed. His hands were clasped together. His expression was serious. He looked like a little choir boy. The words, though, were not choir-boy words.

"Oh, I hate-hate-hate," he sang. "I hate the walls and the doors that lock and the people who shove you in. I hate the tears and the angry words and I'll kill them all with my little hatchet and hammer their bones and spit on them." He reached down in the sand, picked up a toy soldier, pounded on it with the rubber hatchet, spit on it. "I spit on your face. I spit in your eye. I gouge your head down deep in the sand," he sang. "And the birds do fly from the east to the west and it is a bird that I want to be. Then I'll fly away over the walls, out the door, away, away, away from all my enemies. I'll fly and fly around the world and I'll come back to the sand, to the playroom, to my friend. I'll dig in the sand. I'll bury in the sand. I'll throw the sand. I'll play in the sand. I'll count all the grains of the sand and I'll be a baby again."

He sucked on the nursing bottle again. He grinned at me. "How did you like my song?" he asked.

"That was quite a song," I replied.

"Yes", he said. "Quite a song." He got out of the sandbox, walked over to me, looked at my watch. "Ten more minutes," he said, and held up ten fingers.

"Yes, ten more minutes," I replied.

"You think it'll be ten more minutes and then it'll be time to go home," he said.

"That's right. That's what I think," I replied. "What do you think?"

"Aha!" he exclaimed. "You want to know? Well, I think, soon it'll be time to go. I'll get out the rest of the fighting men. These two are with guns. And this airplane. Like a bird. Airplane, fly. Oh, airplane, full of sand. Fly around. Fly around. Fly up to the sky!" He ran around the playroom, holding the airplane aloft, moving with grace and rhythm. "Oh, airplane, tell me! How high can you fly? Can you fly up to the blue, blue sky? Can you fly beyond the sky? To the clouds and the winds that hold fast the rain up there so high? Can you fly? Tell me, lovely airplane, can you fly? Oh, airplane..."

-Excerpt from Dibs: In Search of Self by Virginia M. Axline, the story of a very special five-year-old little boy.

"Oh, tell me! How high can you fly? Can you fly up to the blue, blue sky? Can you fly beyond the sky? To the clouds and the winds that hold fast the rain up there so high? Can you fly? Tell me, can you fly?"

Beautiful words from someone so young.

Mind and Body

2008-04-18T11:11:00.000-07:00

Enter Psyche and Soma.

Psyche: I never see thy face but when I think upon hell-fire.

Soma: How now, wool-sack, what mutter you?

Psyche: Thou art a very ragged wart.

Soma: You scullion! You rampallion! You fustilarion! I'll tickle your catastrophe!

Psyche: Pernicious bloodsucker of sleeping men! Viperous worm that gnaws at bowels!

Soma: Thou damned tripe-visaged rascal! Leave me be!

Exit Soma.

Psyche: *rolls eyes* (Muttering softly) I could brain him with his lady's fan.

Exeunt.

*Credit for the Shakespearean quotes go to May. =)

"I was the kid next door's imaginary friend." -Emo Philips

Whisper

2008-04-15T23:53:00.000-07:00

Shh... Listen. Listen quietly. Strain your ears in the silence.

The night is still. The darkness absolute. There is nothing to hear, yet hear you must.

Can you hear it? The beating of two hearts in the darkness? Separated by time and space eternal, but beating as one.

Can you hear the silent chuckles? The non-existent laughs? The quiet smiles?

There is nothing to hear, yet hear I do.

I hear the storm in the wind. I hear music without sound. I hear laughter without voices. I hear it all and I hear nothing. And suddenly the universe seems so small.

The silence is loud.

When reason is lost

2008-04-14T23:28:00.000-07:00

There are few things more scary than a group of people driven beyond reason.

The Salem Witch Hunt is one excellent example. I read it in passing as part of my Psychology course, and the story chilled me to the bone.

How can people be so evil?

On one psychological level I can almost understand it, but on another I am completely at loss for words.

How can people be so evil?

Humanity is such a fragile thing.

Bludd-duh!

2008-04-13T12:46:00.000-07:00

NOT FUNNAEEYY!!! XD

Fun with pictures

2008-04-11T20:46:00.000-07:00

Got these in a chain email (thanks Elaine), but they're still great.

And for pure "Awwww..." value:

Pretty self-explanatory, I'd say.

Knowest not I

2008-04-10T09:52:00.000-07:00

To know is to know that you know not. The more you know, the more you know you don't know. Wisdom is not knowledge, wisdom is knowledge of knowledge not.

So many different ways to say the same thing. In a fit of moronic stupendousness I'm reduced to fragmented expressions of sentences.

Know not now. Must know more. Know not more. More not known. Know now cannot. Try know more now cannot. Is hard.

Limit. Limit laws. Known limits. No limits. Sky's the limit. Limited. Conscious cognitive dissonance. Respondent conditioning says. I do. Learn learn more more. Limit.

Regurgitation mess. Sit too long. Aching gluteus maximus. Music, music. Tunes in my head. Schumann! Du meine Seele, du mein Herz.

Wherefore art thou, motivation? Concentration concentrated. Law of competitive exclusion. Concentration loses and goes extinct. All the things you said, all the things you said, running through my head, running through my head.

Fried pancakes wasabe mushy-mushy!

'Scuse me. Regurgitation mess.

Elbow-licking

2008-03-24T16:11:00.000-07:00

Contrary to popular belief, it is actually possible to lick your own elbow.

And here I was thinking that not being able to lick your own elbow was a biological fact. Be warned, though, only about 1% of the human population can do this, so don't go and dislocate your shoulder on my behalf.

The Fate of the Universe

2008-03-20T17:52:00.000-07:00

One of the cool things about being in college is being able to listen to cool people speaking about cool stuff. A couple of days ago Dr Wendy Freeman, director of the Carnegie Observatories, gave a lecture about the latest going-ons in astronomy/astrophysics.

You know, stuff about giant Magellan telescopes, Hubble's successor (James Webb), dark matter, quasars, the four dimensions of space, the curvature of space-time, the weight of the universe. Stuff like that. You know, INTERESTING stuff. Right.

A four-dimensional 'tesseract' rotating on ONE axis

Anyway, what's MORE interesting is that apparently the latest research in astrophysics has shown that the universe does not have enough matter to stop the universe from expanding.

*Gasp* The universe is EXPANDING?

Well, yes, astronomers since the 1930s have shown, through observation of objects (stars?) of fluctuating luminosity from other galaxies that... that...

Nevermind, the point is that the scientists say that the universe is expanding, so they MUST be right, RIGHT?

Well, the question that scientists THEN asked is whether the universe would continue to expand FOREVER. Would the universe keep getting larger till kingdom come or, worse yet, 'heat death' (open universe model)? Or would the universe eventually stop expanding, and eventually be of fixed size (flat universe model)? Or, heaven forbid, would the expansion eventually run down and the universe then start to contract (closed universe model), leading eventually to The Big Crunch?

Well, the answer apparently depends on the amount of matter there is in the universe, and the latest research on dark matter has indicated that the universe does NOT, in fact, have enough mass to halt its expansion.

Thus the universe is doomed to grow ever larger, till we are all stretched out like rubber bands on a pair of braces.

Well, at least it's better than the Big Crunch.

In physio-philosophical terms though, that means that our ever so insignificant existence is becoming even less significant. Our presence in this universe is being diluted, at an EXPONENTIAL rate. Sad, isn't it?

There's still hope, though. Dr Freeman said that as of the moment, a number of oscillating models of the universe cannot yet be ruled out. That means it's either we stretch till we can stretch no more, or we are doomed to an eternal bungee jump.

*shrugs* Either way works for me. We're all gonna die anyway.

Ah, cynicism.

Delusions

2008-03-18T14:26:00.000-07:00

It comes
It comes!

Fiery fire painless pain
Burning flesh and making rain
Rubbing salt into the wound
Dig out the splinter with a spoon

Gratification! Whereupon hence?
Go now my brother, into!
Into!
The seal
The pit
The fiery fire!

Die, fool!
Ignominious moron
Thinkest thou ruinest I?
I?

Cackling laughter makest me
Chatter-hungry lady be
For the pie before I dine
Drinketh thou with pretty wine

Go now, go now!
Fire, fear, foes!
Anger knows, anger goes
Killeth me and eatest thou

Feed the blood, fan the flame
No more suffering, no more shame
Only left with pitiest pyre
The body hung over the fire

Evil! Evil! Oh, oh!
Nothing, save me, all alone!
Tend to me you cowardly dunce
Faerie lust before the moon

Emptiness without
Reigning within queen
Of hell
Night and darkness
Beats, Time mourns
Forever lost alone, alone

The sun! It burns!
You will feel the flames soon enough
I cannot stop the sickness
And cannot fend of the madness
Consumes me
Overtakes me
Wildness whereupon within!

GO NOW!
Into the fires of damnation
Let heaven mourn

And leave me alone
Leave me alone

Equality

2008-03-16T00:06:00.001-07:00

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." The mindset of much of the world nowadays, indeed. It's interesting that "Animal Farm" was written against communism, in support of capitalism, and yet capitalism is as guilty of the above statement as much as communism is. The only difference is that in capitalism, we're open about it. And we couldn't care less.

We call it by different names now. We call it the survival of the fittest. We call it the will to power. Sometimes in a fit of mock humility we even invoke God's name and call ourselves blessed. But the essence of it is the same: we rank people according to their ability. In this one big rat race, all that matters anymore is rank.

Sure, I understand. Some human beings are better than others. They score higher on IQ tests, they get better grades in school, they make more money, they are more successful. Sure. That's the way things are. Human beings are not equal. Some are born innately more successful. Others work harder. Communism ignored this and that's why the system failed.

But what pisses me off is that people throw human worth into the equation. Sure, some people are more successful than others, but successful people are not worth more than the common man. All human lives are of equal value. That has been forgotten in the competition to succeed. We think that by being better than other people, the value of our lives become greater than the lives of others.

In the 1930s, the people of the Western World took the doctrine of the survival of the fittest to heart. They believed that the value of a person was based on how smart he was, and how much he contributed to society. Those who did not "make the grade" were refused immigration, barred from having children, and in some cases even neutered. The measure of the individual was the measure of his performance on an IQ test. This movement was called the eugenics movement.

And in the 1940s, the eugenics movement led directly or indirectly to the massacre of 6 million Jews, Gypsies, and other individuals in the Jewish Holocaust by the Nazis.

After the war, the eugenics movement was recognized as immoral and ethically unsound, and was consequently banned. The world had learned its lesson.

We seem to be forgetting what we have learned, unfortunately. Again we seem to be succumbing to social and political policies that rank individuals based on their intelligence and "contribution to society". Sometimes we call it meritocracy. Sometimes we call it "getting what we deserve". I call it the failure of humanity to rise above petty competition and recognize that we are ALL truly of equal value.

The other famous maxim from Animal Farm is Boxer the horse's anthem, "I Will Work Harder!". Hard work is a good thing, but if competition is all there is, then we might as well all end up just like Boxer:

I will work harder, indeed. But I no longer want to beat the dead horse. Sorry, Boxer.

Brilliant

2008-03-12T16:31:00.001-07:00

Forgive me, but as an old Pokemon fan with a rising interest in foreign (and not so foreign) politics, I find this unbearably funny.

What a Man Wants

2008-03-07T15:15:00.000-08:00

"I am ready to tell you, at least from my perspective, what a man wants. He wants his children to grow and mature to be wise and capable, independent and self-reliant, and yet he longs to hold them in the palm of his hand as he did on the day of their birth. He wants to be able to subdue his pride and forgive their brusqueness so that he can remain close to them until they see his caring. He wants to be free to express his caring as David did when he cried "Absalom, my son, my son, would that I had died for thee" (1 Samuel 18:33). Although father and son seem made for contention, they derive their highest sense of pride from one another. He wants to admire his daughter's beauty and grace, for each girl child's beauty is unique in the eyes of her father. At the same time, he wants to honor her wit and intellect so that the complete human being that sh becomes is not obscured by artificial sentimentality.

He wants his mate's love and caring without having to ask for it, and he wants to be able to show his love for her without having to be concerned that it undermines the image of his manhood. He hates to see himself as a tearful, weak creature, dependent on others for his sense of affirmation. But he is tired of hiding his tears and turning away to preserve some traditional image of manhood.

I will be more explicit. I am tired of wars. I do not want to be killed or maimed, and I do not enjoy other people dying or being maimed. I want to accept responsibility for what I do and not be blamed for what I did not do. I have always judged my fellow human beings one at a time on the merits of their own behavior, and I demand to be judged as one person on the basis of my own faults and virtues. As such, my race, religion, politics, and sexual preference are nobody's business. I have gotten used to calling myself a man. The title is not pejorative; it is something that I have done for half a century, and I am comfortable with it. If you choose to call yourself something else, that is all right with me, but please leave my definition of myself to me. Any thinking man continues to evolve philosophically- influenced by every person, circumstance, and concept that he is exposed to. I want to continue this growth and come to be what I want to be.

I will not have my values dictated by football coaches. The maxim "Winning is everything" leaves out too much. I will not give up the joy and excitement of competition, but I am joined to all of humanity, so that if I am the victor, then so I am the vanquished. To deny this is to go through life as half a person.

I resent being categorized, and i resent people who place people in categories. To say that men have certain characteristics is valid in a general sense. To say that a man has certain characteristics is only valid with a comprehensive knowledge of the individual. To attribute something to that person on the basis of stereotyping is disruptive of the essential human rights of that individual.

I believe that life is a ship in distress, and that the true task of humanity is to get everyone into the lifeboat. It is unfortunate that so many people divide humanity into us and them, so that the us is somehow better, more easily forgiven and accepted. Them is forever below the salt, clothed in the darker garments of evil. We are currently in the midst of a great revolution, and the half of the human race called female has, after countless centuries of oppression and exploitation, stood up and cried "Nonsense!" The good that will accrue to all of us is immeasurable. The lies and distortions relative to the nature of women have diminished the entire human race. The sooner they are lost in antiquity, the better.

Psychology has given us an expanded understanding of the differences between men and women. Healing techniques attempt to bridge the gap. We have sensitivity training to help men acquire women's skills, and we have assertiveness training to help women acquire men's skills. I hope some innovator will evolve some procedures that can teach the archaic practices of good manners, decency and good will.

I am convinced that the following wars of ambition-- the striving and the stolidness, the silences and the shrugging off of an uuncomfortable sentiment-- a man wants to be seen as good. The term a good man once welded unity, a thoughtful caring person who touched the lives of all around him. To quote Mark Antony (Shakespeare, 1599/1919, Julius Caesar, act 5, scene 5, line 73), "His life was gentle and the qualities so mixed in him that nature might stand up and say to all the world-- this was a man.""

-Excerpt from "What Does A Man Want" by Stanley R. Graham, American Psychologist, July 1992, 47(7): 837-841.

Imperfect

2008-03-02T00:29:00.000-08:00

I stare at the wall in front of me, and as I stare at it, it becomes something wondrous to behold. It is a wall made out of cement and steel, painted white, and it is beautiful.

A beautiful wall? Preposterous, isn't it? Yet that is the thought that runs through my mind. It is beautiful because it is imperfect. There are chinks in it, depressions here and there, imperfections, crevices, bumps and protrusions. But as I run my finger over it, and feel its texture, its touch, it feels beautiful indeed.

Do you notice how much of our notion of beauty is based on sight? And how shallow that definition of beauty is? The wall before me certainly may not be much to look at, but it feels beautiful to my touch. Silence is the absence of sound, and definitely nothing to look at, but if you close your eyes and concentrate, the sound of silence can be more beautiful than the greatest works of Mozart. And the beauty of an emotion! Ecstatic joy, loving kindness, moving sadness, even numbing grief. Beauty in its purest and most unadulterated form.

But I digress. Looking at the wall in front of me, I realize that much beauty lies in imperfection. I look at a picture, and I see that it is the out-of-place, the quirky, that endears a picture to me. I listen to music, and it is the clashing of two sounds, the harmonious dissonance, that replays itself over and over again in the music of my mind. I take a bite of some peppermint ice-cream, and the clash of mintyness and sweetness clings to my tongue. I get to know a person, and I realize that it is the imperfections, the character flaws, the divergences from the norm that make them so beautifully different. Flaws are as underrated as beauty is overrated.

It is the flawed coin that is prized. It is the splash of colour on an otherwise perfectly white canvas that we esteem so highly, the bright stars in an otherwise perfectly black sky that so overwhelms us with their beauty. A new blade of grass, ruining the perfect snow. A tear falling softly on an otherwise perfect cheek. The howl of a wolf ruining the perfectly quiet night.

Ah, imperfect beauties. The world needs more of those.

Lament of the Wife of a Psychoanalyst

2008-02-27T23:01:00.000-08:00

By Beatrice Allen

I never get mad: I get hostile;
I never feel sad: I'm depressed.
If I sew or knit and enjoy it a bit,
I'm not handy- I'm merely obsessed.

I never regret- I feel guilty,
And if I should vacuum the hall,
Wash the woodwork and such, and not mind it too much,
Am I tidy? Compulsive, that's all.

If I can't choose a hat, I have conflicts,
With ambivalent feelings toward net.
I never get worried or nervous or hurried:
Anxiety- that's what I get.

If I'm happy, I must be euphoric;
If I go to the Stork Club or Ritz
And have a good time making puns or a rhyme,
I'm a manic, or maybe a schiz.

If I think that a doorman was nasty
I'm paranoid, obviously.
And if I take a drink without stopping to think,
Alcoholics B. Allen, that's me.

If I tell you you're right, I'm submissive,
Repressing aggressiveness, too.
And when I disagree, I'm defensive, you see,
And projecting my symptoms on you.

I love you- but that's just transference
With Oedipus rearing his head.
My breathing asthmatic is psychosomatic,
A fear of exclaiming, "Drop dead!"

I'm not lonely- I'm simply dependent.
My dog has no fleas, just a tic.
So if I seem a cad, never mind- just be glad
That I'm not a stinker- I'm sick.

Humanity Under Fire

2008-02-25T22:06:00.000-08:00

I may be naive, but I am a believer in the general goodness of mankind. I believe that men (and women) are, in general, considerate and rational people. Sure, maybe we're all prone to do wrong, but I believe that humans are predictable when it comes to morality: we care about those we love and do the best we know how for them, and we hate anything that we perceive as a threat those we love.

Where things go wrong, though, is how we "perceive" threats and how we respond to them. It's when our desire to care for ourselves and those we love clashes with other people's perceptions of what's in their best interest that conflicts arise.

Take for example Adolf Hitler. I believe that his primary motivation was to further the standing of himself, his family and friends, his country, and his "race" in general. Basic human nature, nothing really WRONG with those wants. But what WAS wrong was how he responded to the Jews, whom he perceived as a threat/competition to his race. He shouldn't have murdered them, to put it mildly.

But can you not see his primary motivation there? He thought he was doing what was best for his nation/race. If he hadn't killed all those people he would probably be remembered in history as a great conqueror along the lines of Napoleon, a hero of the German people.

In other words, even those who commit great atrocities are motivated primarily by the same feelings that drive all of us: a desire to advance the positions of ourselves and those we care for. That's the survival of the fittest. That's natural law. That's NATURE through and through.

Take, as another example, slavery in the US during the 18th and 19th centuries. Sure, slavery is wrong, we know that now. But can we really look down on or despise those who were part of the slave trade? They were trying to live their lives to the benefit of those they cared about (mostly), earn money to feed their families, gain wealth for the benefit of themselves and those closest to them. Is that wrong? Perhaps the means with which they employed to achieve those ends were wrong, but I don't think you can say their MOTIVATIONS (to feed their family, etc.) were wrong. Think about this: what if you had the choice of engaging in slavery and feeding your family or NOT engaging in slavery and going bankrupt because you cannot compete with other farmers, thus letting your family starve? Which would you pick?

Or to involve a topic much closer to heart, the "quota" system the government uses when giving scholarships, places in university, etc. They call it a "meritocracy", but we all know that Malays with 7As are getting scholarships whereas Chinese/Indians with 10As get nothing. "UNFAIR!!!" we Chinese/Indians cry. We perceive the system as an injustice, a threat to the future well-being of ourselves and those whom we care about. It's just not RIGHT that we are forced to work three times harder just to compete with the "lazy" Malays, yes?

But look at it from a Malay point of view. Without the system as it is, urban Chinese/Indians would dominate and grab up most the scholarships/uni positions available. This says nothing about the intelligence of the Malays, merely that the urban population (and thus majority Chinese/Indian) is better educated than the rural population. A fact whether we like it or not. And thus the Malays would be confined to a substandard level of education. Without the system as it is, the Malays would lose out, and they certainly don't want that either.

So who's right? Neither, I'd say. Both parties want to further their own interests, which is completely to be expected and natural. We want the best for those we care about it, and like it or not, Chinese people are going to care more about Chinese people and Malays about Malays. It's a conflict of interest to which both sides have reasonable aims and motivations.

The same, I think, can be applied to almost all social issues. Racism, religious warring, caste systems, poverty, even global warming. Both sides have, if not morally correct, at least reasonable motivations for their actions. We humans want to further our own interest, and inevitably some of those interests are going to conflict with others. It's a rat race in which the fittest win, and those less fit get crushed beneath the throng. The only way any of those issues are going to get solved is if one side wins out, "crushing" the other.

I guess my question is whether the human instinct to further the interests of those we care about is morally justified. Is it right that we want ourselves and our families to be the richest, the best educated, the healthiest of them all? I'm sure that most of you would agree that it IS right, or at the very least that it is NOT wrong. We protect those we care for, nothing wrong with that, right? But what I do know is that causing distress on others just because I want to further my own interests IS wrong. And furthering my own interests is in some way inevitably going to cause others some measure of distress, since everyone else is trying to further their own interests too. Thus we have ourselves a moral dilemma.

I guess I just don't trust the term "survival of the fittest" anymore. Survival of the fittest implies that some people are inherently better than others, and I'm a firm believer in the equality of all human beings. I don't want to be part of the global rat race, to compete, to beat others, to dominate, if it means that others get hurt. And get hurt people do, in one way or another, inevitably. Perhaps that's why I hate competitions. I don't want to be part of it, yet I can't extricate myself from it. Because I want to live a good life too, free of troubles. I want to see my friends, family, nation, and yes, even race, prosper. And that means crushing others beneath my shoe.

My humanity is under fire.

Is this sexist or what?

2008-02-25T21:49:00.001-08:00

*Chuckles*

*Photo courtesy of Waqas

Afraid of the dark

2008-02-25T00:13:00.000-08:00

I found a better way to share my music. Just click on the link below.

Afraid of the dark.

The unknown is always scary.

Oliphaunt Mourn

2008-02-18T14:36:00.000-08:00

Oliphaunt Mourn

This one's dedicated to Eu Fern, for her constant admonitions to play "softer and sadder". And titled "Oliphaunt Mourn" to reflect her dedication to Tolkien.

Weather woes

2008-02-18T10:37:00.000-08:00

Residents clean up after storms in South
February 18, 2008 12:09 EST

PRATTVILLE, Ala. (AP) -- Thousands of homes and businesses are without power and more than two dozen injured after storms and tornadoes in Georgia, Alabama and Florida.

Ten people are injured in Crawford County, Georgia, with two of them in critical condition. At least 14 homes have been destroyed in the area.

Meanwhile, rescue crews are going door-to-door in Prattville, Alabama, looking for people trapped in wreckage after a tornado blew through town. No fatalities have been reported but two people are critically injured. About 200 homes have been damaged or destroyed.

About 60 structures are damaged after a tornado blew through Escambia County in Florida. Residents are now working to clear debris, cover broken windows and spread tarps over roofs.

In the Midwest, freezing rain and snow forced schools, malls, libraries and churches to close.

-The Associated Press-

And thus I spent half an hour yesterday morning huddled in the "Bat Cave" (nickname for our laundry room/basement) of my dorm with about 20 other people when they sounded the tornado warning. An interesting experience it was. I almost wish the tornadoes had struck a little closer to Sewanee, though, just so that I could have actually seen them.

Stuff like these makes me glad I'm here. Malaysian weather is boring.

You know, it hit me suddenly that dying in a tornado wouldn't be bad way to die. Imagine standing in an open field with your arms raised, then being picked up by a tornado and thrown a hundred feet up. Imagine the sensations involved, surrendering yourself to the awesome might of nature. Imagine the thunder in your ears, the feel of the wind on your skin, the sensation of flying UPwards.

Hmm. If I ever contract a terminal disease, maybe that's what I'll do. Go out with a bang. Or in this case, a roar.

That's what I'd call a beautiful death.

Nature is weird.

2008-02-14T10:00:00.000-08:00

As I discovered in my Anthropology class, evolution works in funny ways sometimes. Here's a graphic example.

This is an x-ray of a "pregnant" kiwi bird. Just look at the size of that egg. I think that's the epitome of the phrase, "Like sh*tting a ton of bricks".

Whew.

And people complain that childbirth is painful. Imagine what this fella (or rather, gal) here must go through.

God and the Stone

2008-02-11T22:17:00.000-08:00

A long time ago I came across a question regarding God's omnipotence that had me frustrated for the longest time. Most of you have probably heard it, for it is one of the best known Catch-22 questions. The question, simply, is this:

"Can God create a stone so massive that He himself cannot lift it?"

As you can see, at first glance this poses a problem for a believer in God's omnipotence. It seems, that if God CAN create such stone, then there is something beyond his power (lifting it). On the other hand, if he CAN'T create such a stone, then he is also limited in his creating power, and thus no longer omnipotent.

So, what have we here? An unsolvable dilemma? Not quite, thanks to George Mavrodes.

There are two ways in which to answer the question without having to deny God's omnipotence, and they are both more simple than you might think. Simply put, the answers are "Yes, He can", and "No, He cannot".

Before you start mouthing obscenities, allow me to explain.

Method 1

The first answer, "Yes, He can", is the more complex of the two. It seems at first that answering the question in that manner would lead us straight into the original dilemma. However, it does not. This is because by answering the question thus, you forcing the objector to assume that the creation of such a stone means that God is omnipotent, and he can therefore no longer use the same answer to prove that God ISN'T omnipotent.

Confused? Allow me to elaborate further. First, examine the original question and you can see that it is a two part "if...then..." question, such as follows:
1. If God is omnipotent, then He CAN create a stone that He cannot lift.
2. If God is omnipotent, then He CANNOT create a stone that He cannot lift.

Realise that the two postulates contradict each other. Therefore, logically, only one can be correct.

By answering "Yes, He can", you have effectively ruled out number 2, and thus you've eliminated the dilemma. This is because you've fulfilled the criteria for God's omnipotence as postulated in rule No. 1. You are effectively limiting the definition of God's omnipotence to the ability to create such a stone. In mathematical terms:

[For lack of the proper symbol I will use "=/" to mean "does not equal"]

1. God is omnipotent =/ God is not omnipotent (Duh)

2. Yes, He can create a stone He cannot lift (your answer)=God is omnipotent (your meaning)

Therefore,

3. Yes, He can create a stone He cannot lift =/ God is not omnipotent

You see, for the objector to use your answer to prove that God isn't omnipotent would require him to accept that:

God is omnipotent=He can create the stone=God isn't omnipotent

(This is because based on your answer and conclusion, the objector cannot reject that God is omnipotent=He can create the stone)

Or, in clearer terms:

He can create the stone=God is omnipotent=God isn't omnipotent

Obviously, this is wrong, for God cannot be omnipotent and NOT omnipotent at the same time.

Some objectors would try to phrase it this way.

1. If God CANNOT create a stone so large that he himself cannot lift it, then He IS omnipotent.
2. He can create such a stone (Your answer).
3. He isn't omnipotent.

This, however, is a logical fallacy because it requires one to assume He isn't omnipotent BEFORE one can arrive at the same conclusion that He isn't omnipotent. This is called "begging the question" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question), and although the procession of ideas is valid, it tells us nothing about whether God really is or isn't omnipotent and is thus worthless.

Method 2

To answer the question negatively ("No, He cannot") is slightly easier to understand, and is based on the notion of infinity. Those of you who have studied math would know that infinity-x=infinity. Keep that in mind.

So, what are the implications of the answer, "No, He cannot"? You are, of course, limiting God in a certain way. But what is that limitation? That He cannot create a stone larger than He can lift.
Note, however, that this does not restrict God's lifting power. Assuming God's omnipotence, God still has infinite lifting power.

To make it more sensible, lets define God's lifting power as the number of kilograms he can lift.

Thus, assuming God's omnipotence, God's lifting power=infinity kg

Because we've already limited God's stone-creating ability to a number smaller than he can lift, that means He can create a stone with the mass of God's lifting power - 1.

Assuming God's omnipotence, this means that God can create a stone the size of (infinity-1) kg, which is equal to infinity kg! The supposed limitation turns out to be no limitation at all!

To put it in words, anything that is limited by something that is infinite is itself infinite. Thus God can create to infinity without outstripping his power to lift (also infinity), and you have not contradicted yourself. In this manner, limiting an omnipotent God is an exercise in futility.

So, the next time someone pops you the question "Can God create a stone so large that He himself cannot move it?", just look them straight in the eye and answer either "Yes" or "No". Either way, God can still be omnipotent, and you can chuckle to yourself about the worthlessness of the question.

p/s This argument in no way proves that God IS omnipotent. It just intends to show that certain arguments intended to prove that He CANNOT be omnipotent fail.

Reference: George Mavrodes, 1963. "Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence", Philosophical Review 72.

On the tree top

2008-02-05T11:07:00.000-08:00

Rock-a-bye baby, on the tree top,
When the wind blows, the cradle will rock.
When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall,
And down will come baby, cradle and all.

Don't you think that's a little too morbid for a lullaby?

I imagine the careless nanny/mother singing afterwards:

Oops, I did it again,
I was playing cards,
Got lost in the game,
Oh baby baby
Oops!.. Never knew you'd get hurt
But I'm an idiot
I'm not that innocent

Touching.

2008-02-03T23:04:00.001-08:00

Great skit.

This Is the Title of This Story, Which Is Also Found Several Times in the Story Itself

2008-01-30T07:42:00.000-08:00

This is the first sentence of this story. This is the second sentence. This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story itself. This sentence is questioning the intrinsic value of the first two sentences. This sentence is to inform you, in case you haven't already realized it, that this is a self-referential story, that is, a story containing sentences that refer to their own structure and function. This is a sentence that provides an ending to the first paragraph.

This is the first sentence of a new paragraph in a self-referential story. This sentence is introducing you to the protagonist of the story, a young boy named Billy. This sentence is telling you that Billy is blond and blue-eyed and American and twelve years old and strangling his mother. This sentence comments on the awkward nature of the self- referential narrative form while recognizing the strange and playful detachment it affords the writer. As if illustrating the point made by the last sentence, this sentence reminds us, with no trace of facetiousness, that children are a precious gift from God and that the world is a better place when graced by the unique joys and delights they bring to it.

This sentence describes Billy's mother's bulging eyes and protruding tongue and makes reference to the unpleasant choking and gagging noises she's making. This sentence makes the observation that these are uncertain and difficult times, and that relationships, even seemingly deep-rooted and permanent ones, do have a tendency to break down.

Introduces, in this paragraph, the device of sentence fragments. A sentence fragment. Another. Good device. Will be used more later.

This is actually the last sentence of the story but has been placed here by mistake. This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story itself. As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself in his bed transformed into a gigantic insect. This sentence informs you that the preceding sentence is from another story entirely (a much better one, it must be noted) and has no place at all in this particular narrative. Despite claims of the preceding sentence, this sentence feels compelled to inform you that the story you are reading is in actuality "The Metamorphosis" by Franz Kafka, and that the sentence referred to by the preceding sentence is the only sentence which does indeed belong in this story. This sentence overrides the preceding sentence by informing the reader (poor, confused wretch) that this piece of literature is actually the Declaration of Independence, but that the author, in a show of extreme negligence (if not malicious sabotage), has so far failed to include even one single sentence from that stirring document, although he has condescended to use a small sentence fragment, namely, "When in the course of human events", embedded in quotation marks near the end of a sentence. Showing a keen awareness of the boredom and downright hostility of the average reader with regard to the pointless conceptual games indulged in by the preceding sentences, this sentence returns us at last to the scenario of the story by asking the question, "Why is Billy strangling his mother?" This sentence attempts to shed some light on the question posed by the preceding sentence but fails. This sentence, however, succeeds, in that it suggests a possible incestuous relationship between Billy and his mother and alludes to the concomitant Freudian complications any astute reader will immediately envision. Incest. The unspeakable taboo. The universal prohibition. Incest. And notice the sentence fragments? Good literary device. Will be used more later.

This is the first sentence in a new paragraph. This is the last sentence in a new paragraph.

This sentence can serve as either the beginning of the paragraph or end, depending on its placement. This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story itself. This sentence raises a serious objection to the entire class of self-referential sentences that merely comment on their own function or placement within the story (e.g., the preceding four sentences), on the grounds that they are monotonously predictable, unforgivably self- indulgent, and merely serve to distract the reader from the real subject of this story, which at this point seems to concern strangulation and incest and who knows what other delightful topics. The purpose of this sentence is to point out that the preceding sentence, while not itself a member of the class of self-referential sentences it objects to, nevertheless also serves merely to distract the reader from the real subject of this story, which actually concerns Gregor Samsa's inexplicable transformation into a gigantic insect (despite the vociferous counterclaims of other well- meaning although misinformed sentences). This sentence can serve as either the beginning of the paragraph or end, depending on its placement.

This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story itself. This is almost the title of the story, which is found only once in the story itself. This sentence regretfully states that up to this point the self-referential mode of narrative has had a paralyzing effect on the actual progress of the story itself -- that is, these sentences have been so concerned with analyzing themselves and their role in the story that they have failed by and large to perform their function as communicators of events and ideas that one hopes coalesce into a plot, character development, etc. -- in short, the very raisons d'etre of any respectable, hardworking sentence in the midst of a piece of compelling prose fiction. This sentence in addition points out the obvious analogy between the plight of these agonizingly self-aware sentences and similarly afflicted human beings, and it points out the analogous paralyzing effects wrought by excessive and tortured self- examination.

The purpose of this sentence (which can also serve as a paragraph) is to speculate that if the Declaration of Independence had been worded and structured as lackadaisically and incoherently as this story has been so far, there's no telling what kind of warped libertine society we'd be living in now or to what depths of decadence the inhabitants of this country might have sunk, even to the point of deranged and debased writers constructing irritatingly cumbersome and needlessly prolix sentences that sometimes possess the questionable if not downright undesirable quality of referring to themselves and they sometimes even become run-on sentences or exhibit other signs of inexcusably sloppy grammar like unneeded superfluous redundancies that almost certainly would have insidious effects on the lifestyle and morals of our impressionable youth, leading them to commit incest or even murder and maybe that's why Billy is strangling his mother, because of sentences just like this one, which have no discernible goals or perspicuous purpose and just end up anywhere, even in mid

Bizarre. A sentence fragment. Another fragment. Twelve years old. This is a sentence that. Fragmented. And strangling his mother. Sorry, sorry. Bizarre. This. More fragments. This is it. Fragments. The title of this story, which. Blond. Sorry, sorry. Fragment after frag- ment. Harder. This is a sentence that. Fragments. Damn good device.

The purpose of this sentence is threefold: (1) to apologize for the unfortunate and inexplicable lapse exhibited by the preceding paragraph; (2) to assure you, the reader, that it will not happen again; and (3) to reiterate the point that these are uncertain and difficult times and that aspects of language, even seemingly stable and deeply rooted ones such as syntax and meaning, do break down. This sentence adds nothing substantial to the sentiments of the preceding sentence but merely provides a concluding sentence to this paragraph, which otherwise might not have one.

This sentence, in a sudden and courageous burst of altruism, tries to abandon the self-referential mode but fails. This sentence tries again, but the attempt is doomed from the start.

This sentence, in a last-ditch attempt to infuse some iota of story line into this paralyzed prose piece, quickly alludes to Billy's frantic cover-up attempts, followed by a lyrical, touching, and beautifully written passage wherein Billy is reconciled with his father (thus resolving the subliminal Freudian conflicts obvious to any astute reader) and a final exciting police chase scene during which Billy is accidentally shot and killed by a panicky rookie policeman who is coincidentally named Billy. This sentence, although basically in complete sympathy with the laudable efforts of the preceding action-packed sentence, reminds the reader that such allusions to a story that doesn't, in fact, yet exist are no substitute for the real thing and therefore will not get the author (indolent goof-off that he is) off the proverbial hook.

Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph.

The purpose. Of this paragraph. Is to apologize. For its gratuitous use. Of. Sentence fragments. Sorry.

The purpose of this sentence is to apologize for the pointless and silly adolescent games indulged in by the preceding two paragraphs, and to express regret on the part of us, the more mature sentences, that the entire tone of this story is such that it can't seem to communicate a simple, albeit sordid, scenario.

This sentence wishes to apologize for all the needless apologies found in this story (this one included), which, although placed here ostensibly for the benefit of the more vexed readers, merely delay in a maddeningly recursive way the continuation of the by-now nearly forgotten story line.

This sentence is bursting at the punctuation marks with news of the dire import of self-reference as applied to sentences, a practice that could prove to be a veritable Pandora's box of potential havoc, for if a sentence can refer or allude to itself, why not a lowly subordinate clause, perhaps this very clause? Or this sentence fragment? Or three words? Two words? One?

Perhaps it is appropriate that this sentence gently and with no trace of condescension reminds us that these are indeed difficult and uncertain times and that in general people just aren't nice enough to each other, and perhaps we, whether sentient human beings or sentient sentences, should just try harder. I mean, there is such a thing as free will, there has to be, and this sentence is proof of it! Neither this sentence nor you, the reader, is completely helpless in the face of all the pitiless forces at work in the universe. We should stand our ground, face facts, take Mother Nature by the throat and just try harder.

By the throat. Harder. Harder, harder.

Sorry.

This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story itself.

This is the last sentence of the story.

-This sentence tells you that the story you just read is A Self-Referential Story by David Moser, taken from http://consc.net/misc/moser.html. This sentence is to tell you that the last sentence is self-referential and written in case you think this story is original. This is the last sentence of this extremely long blog post made longer by this sentence that you're reading now which you are still reading even though at this very moment you have no idea why because you can see that this sentence is purposeless, yet you're still reading this sentence all the way to the end because you are curious to see how it does end, leaving you only two options: an exasperated sigh or a big huge chuckle.

Wholesome laughter

2008-01-23T07:39:00.000-08:00

Now that medicine really packs a punch.

Desolation

2008-01-20T09:59:00.000-08:00

So many paths. So many choices. So long the roads, they stretch out into the distance with no end in sight. Which, why, when? Questions abound.

The chains tug at me. Chains to the past, chains to the future. I struggle, they burn. I roar, they solidify. I run, they yank, I fall, they drag me back. Escape, escape! They cry "Duty! Obligation! Reason!"

"Madness, madness! Let me go!" I scream. They sneer, they let go. I stumble to my knees, and the chains fall off. Momentary disbelief, excitement, hope. They walk away.

Unbound, I follow. What? Why? I don't know. I move as if the chains remain, though my mind screams otherwise. "Go! Run!" I can't. Unchained, I am still bound.

A bright star twinkles above. It comforts me, gives me hope. Then another, and another. They shine down on me, with love. My heart leaps in my chest. Here now, is reason to keep putting one foot in front of the other.

But my mind sneers. "Fool! They're millions of light-years away!" I despair. My spirit evaporates in the wind. I cannot argue. They're so far away. So far away.

Desolation.

But the voice of truth tells me a different story.

Voice of truth

2008-01-19T01:41:00.000-08:00

Oh,what I would do to have
the kind of faith it takes
To climb out of this boat I'm in
Onto the crashing waves
To step out of my comfort zone
Into the realm of the unknown
Where Jesus is,
And he's holding out his hand

But the waves are calling out my name
and they laugh at me
Reminding me of all the times
I've tried before and failed
The waves they keep on telling me
time and time again
"Boy, you'll never win,
You'll never win."

But the voice of truth tells me a different story
The voice of truth says "do not be afraid!"
And the voice of truth says "this is for my glory"
Out of all the voices calling out to me
I will choose to listen and believe the voice of truth

Oh, what I would do
to have the kind of strength it takes
To stand before a giant
with just a sling and a stone
Surrounded by the sound
of a thousand warriors
shaking in their armor
Wishing they'd have had the strength to stand

But the giant's calling out
my name and he laughs at me
Reminding me of all the times
I've tried before and failed
The giant keeps on telling me
time and time again
"Boy, you'll never win,
you'll never win."

But the voice of truth tells me a different story
The voice of truth says "do not be afraid!"
And the voice of truth says "this is for my glory"
Out of all the voices calling out to me
I will choose to listen and believe the voice of truth

-Voice of Truth, Casting Crowns-

Silence isn't always golden

2008-01-17T18:47:00.000-08:00

Sometimes the world outside is deathly silent, but inside one is screaming silently. Outer peace, inner chaos. It helps sometimes then to scream. This is how I screamed:

That made me feel better. Outer chaos, inner peace. Then I started fooling around with the piano:

*shrug* I doubt that most of that can even be labeled music. Ah, well, at least it was fun.

On a different note, yesterday it snowed heavily enough for me to throw my first snowball in a decade. Walking around while the snow falls is even better than walking in the rain. It is beauty at its most uncouth.

Oh, and if anyone is wondering, snow tastes like concentrated mineral water, if there is such a thing. Hmm.

Ingratitude

2008-01-15T02:54:00.000-08:00

I got a letter from the Dean of my college today. This is how it went:

"Dear Jia,

Congratulations on the exceptional academic record you have compiled for the first semester of your freshman year. I am sure that your grades result from sound study habits, hard work, and consistent effort.

Please know how important it is to have a cadre of students who set a standard of academic excellence for the College. I am pleased that your name is part of this list, and I look forward to your continuing success during your four years at Sewanee.

My congratulations!"

Yeah, so I made the Dean's List. Woohoo. Haha, I guess I should sound more excited, and I was, until I re-read the part of the letter that went "Please know how important it is to have a cadre of students who set a standard of academic excellence for the College." That irritated me some. They're telling ME how important it is for THEM to have ME on the list??? That sounds like saying that ME being on the list is THEIR effort, as if they had no other choice.

Whatever. I guess I'm nitpicking here. Only it's during times like these when I remember that Sewanee dropped from 34 to 45 on the college rankings this year. Almost makes me feel as if they lured me here with a huge scholarship just to boost their rankings. It reminds me of a time when I told a fellow student my SAT scores and he shook his head and said, "You shouldn't be here." What a blow to my confidence. But I suppose that's not an unexpected reaction. If you knew my SAT scores and current GPA (not telling) you'd probably tell me same thing as well. *sigh*

But then I think some more and realize how lucky I am to be here. Sewanee's really a great place, regardless of the rankings. Challenging courses, great professors, good facilities, and a big huge whopping financial aid package. I guess I just have an overinflated sense of self-importance.

It's just that when I hear of people getting into high ranking universities and colleges I feel a twinge of....envy. Maybe even jealousy.

I'm ashamed of my ingratitude.

Music mad-e

2008-01-13T10:37:00.000-08:00

Two days ago I bought a digital voice recorder. And though it is a VOICE recorder, I definitely didn't tape any voices. Here's what I taped (WARNING: some of the pieces are pretty long, ten minutes plus, so don't bother listening all the way to the end if you don't like it):

Yes, music composed by me, myself, and I. Okay, so maybe not all of the tunes are original, parts of it might sound familiar, but it's still something I put together myself. I haven't gotten rid of the background static and echoes, though, and they're unedited (read FULL OF MISTAKES), so I must say they're pretty rough quality-wise. Still, that's my own personal brand of music, and I hope you liked it.

Light and Dark

2008-01-12T02:36:00.001-08:00

The human mind is a funny thing. Its greatest strength is its ability to adapt, to change, and to learn. It recognizes its surroundings and in a way conforms to them. Because of it, we can build skyscrapers, paint beautiful pictures, and figure out the speed of light. Because of it we can create marvels as well as destroy them in an instant. Much of what we as human beings is to adapt. To adapt to changing times and situations, changing technologies and knowledge, changing people and changing environments. And as we adapt, we change the world around us. And as we change the world around us, we are forced to adapt to those changes. And so the cycle continues. A permanent state of non-equilibrium, almost. Kinda like evolution.

People say that these changes are signs of growth. That they're signs that the people of today are fitter, stronger, smarter, healthier, BETTER. But is that really true? Sure, now we can send people to the Moon, maybe even to Mars. Sure, the average lifespan is now 70 years when it used to be 40. And sure, people (in America at least) have enough food that each consumes on an average 3 times the amount needed to survive. We drive fast cars, fly aeroplanes, and devastate 25 miles of earth in 0.2 seconds with a single nuclear bomb.

So yes, we've changed. And the world has become smaller, faster, more modernized. But have things really gotten BETTER? Have things actually IMPROVED? So maybe we can live twice as long. But we also work twice as much. We can do things twice as fast but have twice as many things to worry about. We have twice the chance to succeed but also twice the chance to fail. And most importantly, have we grown as HUMAN BEINGS? There may be more love and peace, but there's more fear and hate as well. There's more kindness, but there's also so much more selfishness and cruelty. With the ability to help also comes the ability to withhold, to be selfish, to disdain, to NOT CARE. So much more light, and so much more darkness.

You see, the funny thing about the mind is that its ability to adapt also gives it a particular discontentment. We have gone from being able to adapt to WANTING to adapt and change. The more we have attempted to satisfy the mind the more the mind is unsatisfied. We crave something faster, something smaller, something less expensive, something more green, something more SATISFYING. And it is never enough. Our cellphones let us contact anyone in the world anytime, anyplace, and yet we want it to have a camera, an internet connection, a music player, GPS, and invisible full keyboard, and in the future why not let them give us a caffeine boost as well? We have landed on the Moon, and now we want to land on Mars. What's next? Jupiter? Io and Ganymede? Pluto and Ceres? The Andromeda Galaxy? Alpha Centauri? The universe is EXPANDING, for goodness sake. And still we desire to travel to the ends of the universe. Oh, the pride of humanity. In the words of Britney's greatest fan, Chris Crocker, "Her song was called Gimme More for a reason, 'cause all you people want is more, more, MORE!" Slightly hysterical and absurd, yes, but with a ring of truth nonetheless.

So what now? In the face of the limitless cravings of the human mind, what are our options? To attempt to satiate what cannot be satiated? To go back to a past which knowledge has destroyed forever? Of course not. Our only hope is to find peace and contentment within an ever-changing world. Not to halt change or to accelerate it, but to find some way to be CONTENT with it. To be aware of it and to be both a part of it as well as distinct from it. To hold on to the last vestiges of humanity while accepting and welcoming the inevitable changes of life. To simultaneously change and not change. A difficult proposition, indeed.

There was once a world that was without light. But it wasn't dark, mind you, it was simply without darkness. For without light, how can darkness exist? Then one day, light came, and with it, darkness. The inhabitants of the world loved the light and hated the darkness, and to banish the darkness they created more light. But more light served only to accentuate the darkness. More light served only to emphasize that which was still unlighted. And the brighter the world became, the greater the darkness loomed. The greater the darkness loomed, the more fearful the inhabitants were, and the brighter the world became. It was a never-ending cycle.

And that's our problem. Before mankind developed space travel we could only dream of landing on the Moon. But landing on the Moon didn't banish that desire. It only accentuated the fact that there is so much more in the universe that mankind has yet to conquer. The more we have, the more we are aware of what we DON'T have. And the more we know, the more we are aware of what we DON'T know. It's a seemingly never-ending cycle. The more we give, the more there is to give to. The more we love, the more hate there seems to be in the world.

And yet that is the way things should be. For without hate, how can we appreciate love? Without darkness, how can we appreciate light? Without grief, how can we appreciate joy? Without tasting bitterness, how can we appreciate what is sweet? How can we appreciate the extent of which mankind has progressed if we do not know how much further there is to go? Without the awareness of a man suffering in agony on his deathbed, how can we appreciate the beauty of a newborn child's cry? Without the view of barren, empty landscapes, how can we appreciate lush, verdant forests? And without the horrible smell of autumnal decomposition, who can appreciate the sweet smells of spring flowers? Without the cold of winter who can appreciate the heat of summer? Just as the light accentuates the darkness, so does the darkness give meaning to light. And so in the same way the ugliness of the world we live in gives meaning to the beauty there is.

And THAT is worth living for.

120 seconds to get elected

2008-01-06T16:35:00.000-08:00

A young politician has 120 seconds to convince people to vote for him.

The following is the transcript of his speech. Important words and phrases have been underlined for your convenience.

"First, I am positively sure that you all want jobs because with jobs you will have money. And one sure thing is that everybody wants money. With money you can buy things that will bring you happiness after a good day of work.

If you do elect me, you will work. [booing] But… not… too much! I understand you, too much work brings you away from your family. I believe, the root of society, you don’t want to work, you want money! More you have money more you will be happy. That’s mathematics, you know. That’s why…that’s why…we will cut… the TAXES! You don’t want me to take your money. You want to keep your money for yourself! You don’t want to be poor, you want to be RICH! Let’s fight poverty together, let’s ban poverty. Poverty will be ILLEGAL! All the poor will be put in work camps. So that they will become rich. But not too much. If they become too much rich, there will be no more poor anymore, and without poor who will be rich? And want thing you don’t want is for the poor to take your money.

So to protect you from the danger of poverty, we will invest your money in the ARMY! A lot of money, that’s true, to protect your money. Education doesn’t bring money, education brings QUESTIONS, and we already have THE ANSWER! The same thing about climate change, I see no link between icebergs and money! Nature is the only thing that don’t NEED money. Happiness is richness, NOW. Do you want to be rich, NOW? Then vote for me!

God bless you."

Absurd yet thoughtful. Hmm.

Answers to exam questions

2008-01-05T16:10:00.000-08:00

These are real answers given by students in Britain in exams.

Name the four seasons.
Salt, mustard, pepper, vinegar

What changes happen to your body as you age?
When you get old, so do your bowels and you get inter-continental

What is a common treatment for a badly bleeding nose? Circumcision

"I've said goodbye to my boyhood, now I'm looking forward to my adultery."

"I always know when its time to get up when I hear my mother sharpening the toast.

"Artificial insemination is when the farmer does it to the cow instead of the bull."

"Cows produce large amounts of methane, so the problem could be solved by fitting them with catalytic converters."

"The process of flirtation makes water safe to drink because it removes large pollutants like grit, sand, dead sheep and canoeists."

"The moon is a planet just like the earth, only it is even deader"

"Dew is formed on leaves when the sun shines down on them and makes them perspire."

"A super-saturated solution is one that holds more than it can hold."

"Mushrooms always grow in damp places and so they look like umbrellas."

"The body consists of three parts - the brainium, the borax and the abominable cavity. The brainium contains the brain, the borax contains the heart and lungs, and the abominable cavity contains the bowels, of which there are five - a, e, i, o and u."

"To prevent contraception: wear a condominium."

"To keep milk from turning sour: keep it in the cow."

"The pistol of a flower is its only protection against insects."

"The skeleton is what is left after the insides have been taken out and the outsides have been taken off. The purpose of the skeleton is something to hitch meat to."

"The tides are a fight between the Earth and Moon. All water tends towards the moon, because there is no water in the moon, and nature abhors a vacuum. I forget where the sun joins in this fight."

"A fossil is an extinct animal. The older it is, the more extinct it is."

Taken from BBC.co.uk.

Absurdity

2007-12-29T18:59:00.000-08:00

Do you ever get the feeling that life sometimes just doesn't make sense? That it is incongruous to the point of absurdity? That ridiculously tragic things happen seemingly by coincidence, ridiculous enough to make you laugh but tragic enough to make you cry?

Consider the following true story. A few years ago, a new library was under construction on my university campus. It was huge, new, big and beautiful. One day, a bunch of drunk college students decided to party at the top floor of the still unfinished building. One of them spied am opening which he believed was the entrance of a laundry chute. As alcohol can drive men to do strange things, he decided to embrace his inner wild self and jump in "for a ride". The "laundry chute" turned out to be a garbage chute and he was crushed to death beneath a garbage compactor. The library is now finished, and it is big and grand indeed, but nobody ever goes there anymore. It is now scheduled to be sold and possibly torn down, believed as it is to be "cursed" and haunted.

Consider also the following fictional, yet all too possibly true story. A man walks down a lonely street. He is a Harvard graduate with a major in astrophysics, a highly intelligent man and a potential Nobel Prize laureate. He is recently married, with a beautiful wife and baby. He has recently published a highly-acclaimed article in one of the best scientific journals. In short, he has everything going for him. Then a truck carrying a shipment of adult diapers turns the corner in a speeding rush and knocks him down. He dies on the spot, killed by a truckload of huge diapers.

Can you not sense the absurdity of it all? Can you not see the incongruity of the thrill the college boy experienced as he slid down the chute with the emotionless, unthinking, mechanical crushing force of the garbage compactor that takes his life? Or the ridiculousness of living a full life at one moment and being killed by, of all things, a truckload of adult diapers the next? Yes, one can laugh at the absurdity of it, and yet it is tragic enough that it is not funny at all.

Imagine the following conversation in heaven:

"Hey there, how did you die?"

"Me? Haha, I got crushed by vending machine when it fell over as I kicked it because it stole my money. That's pretty stupid, ain't it?"

"Not as stupid as mine. I was about to propose to my girlfriend when I choked on a meatball and suffocated to death."

"I was recording a parachuting course when I mistook the camera on my back for a parachute and jumped off the plane."

"I am a three-times Olympic gold medallist swimmer and I drowned in my bathtub."

"And I got hit by a truckload of diapers."

Funny, yes. How ridiculously absurd! And yet, the sobering truth is that the laws of nature are completely ignorant of mankind's thoughts, actions, and emotions. Nature doesn't care who we are. No matter how much we try to understand it or harness it or bend it to our will, the fact is that the physical world we live in is completely indifferent about whether we live or die. We call ourselves the masters of nature, but in reality all we do is adapt to a physical world that changes constantly regardless of our needs and wants. We expect nature to conform to our needs and wants: we tell ourselves that it MUST rain because the crops MUST grow, that it MUST stop raining because we WANT to go on a picnic, that it MUST snow because HELLO, it's CHRISTMAS! But time and tide wait for no man. That truckload of diapers speeding towards you isn't going to stop just because you're the President of the United States or a Nobel Laureate, it's going to hit you anyway because objects in motions stay in motion and the brakes are gone.

I will close with a scene from an anonymous comic strip. A man and his wife are having a picnic dinner under the vast, starry night shy. The woman looks up and says, "Don't you just feel so small and insignificant sometimes?" The man turns to the woman with an incredulous look in his eyes and replies, "Me, small? I've just been elected as the CEO of Barney and Co.!!"

Ironic, isn't it?

Ah, life. So absurd, yet so beautiful.

God, Death, and the Meaning of Life (part 3)

2007-12-23T14:46:00.000-08:00

IV. What is the meaning of life?

Assuming that God exists and that we will survive our deaths, what then is the meaning of life? Should God’s existence and the possibility of an afterlife affect how we live? The second question can be answered without hesitation: yes. God’s existence and the possibility of an afterlife clearly matters in determining what sort of “world-view” (i.e. perspective on life) we adopt. This, however, brings us to the first question, which is rather more difficult to answer.

To truly answer that question, two things must first be established. The first is that there are two types of meaning: objective meaning and subjective meaning. Objective meaning is meaning that is universal and always true regardless of circumstances. In that sense, it cannot be dependent upon human subjective evaluation, and thus must be either inherent to the universe, or dependent upon some external agency other than human evaluation. Subjective meaning, on the other hand, is totally dependent upon human evaluation. Subjective meaning is meaning that is we determine for ourselves, or in other words, it is we who assign value and meaning to that particular object or action. Secondly, we must also establish the definition of meaning. What does it mean to say that something is meaningful? I believe that something that is meaningful is something that has value and is worthwhile. But more than that, anything meaningful must also fulfill a higher, lasting purpose. It can be a means to an end or an end in itself, but that end must achieve something of significance beyond the present. That is what meaning means to me.

With that it mind, what can be said about the meaning of life? Assuming the existence of God and the afterlife, I believe that meaning in life must be grounded in religion. This is because I believe that it is only in God that something can be objectively meaningful, as it does not seem possible for me that objective meaning can be found inherent in a universe that science has shown to be impersonal and indifferent. Since religion deals with the purposes and “will” of God, I believe that it is only through religion that we can find objective meaning in life. As such, those meaningful things must revolve around things that last beyond the life we live on earth, or in other words, that meaningful things and worthwhile pursuits are those that have or potentially have significance in the existence beyond this one. From my perspective, this involves the development of one’s character. For in a way, the only thing in which we can bring into the life beyond this one is ourselves. Thus, meaningful pursuits are those that develop one’s character in one way or another, such as in establishing relationships that develop kindness, courage, honesty, and love with other people. Also, I believe that the development of one’s character involves the development of one’s talents and gifts, as that would lead to a flourishing of one’s character. As for obedience to an objective moral code (such as those found in religion), I believe that that is also essential for the development of one’s character, for it seems obvious that good acts build one’s character whereas evil acts tear it down. There is thus a clear answer and reason for the question “Why be moral?” In short, I believe that the existence of God and the possibility of an afterlife mean that there is objective meaning in the development of one’s character and adherence to moral law, and thus what separates a meaningful life from one which lacks meaning is the extent to which the individual has developed his or her character.

Furthermore, I also believe that one who disagrees with my positions on God and the afterlife cannot give an adequate account of the meaning of life. Without God, one is condemned to search for meaning within a universe that is utterly impersonal and indifferent to the needs and wants of the individual. Without God, I do not believe that one can give a good reason for morality in the absence of true justice. Also, without the possibility of an afterlife, I believe that one would be forced to accept that life is, in the end, pointless, because everything physical must eventually come to an end. In short, I believe that without God and the possibility of an afterlife, one would be forced to accept cosmological pessimism (which states that nothing is meaningful).

There are, nonetheless, a number of worthwhile objections that can be raised against my argument. The strongest of these, in my opinion, claim that life can be subjectively meaningful. Although supporters of this objection agree that a universe without God is devoid of any objective meaning, they contend that by assigning value to different things, we can forge our own meaning and live meaningful lives. Through subjective evaluation, man can give color and light to an otherwise neutral universe and thus find life worthwhile. In that way, transient things such as knowledge, art, love, and work can greatly enrich one’s life and thus make it meaningful. In short, the objection claims that there is no need for a God or an afterlife to make life meaningful, for little things such as a beautiful song or a loving touch is sufficient to make life worthwhile and joyful.

To its credit, I believe that the objection successfully establishes that one can find subjective meaning in life, and this is not insignificant. Ultimately, however, I believe that subjective meaning cannot give true meaning to life because it will still ultimately fade away. In the physical world, in the future (say one hundred million years from now) it will eventually be as if one had never existed regardless of how significant the things we find subjectively meaningful (such as love) seem to us now. Thus, subjectively meaningful things to me lack the lasting significance for true meaning if God and the afterlife do not exist.

In conclusion, I believe that the true meaning of life is found in the objective meaning that only God can provide. The meaning of life is therefore inextricably linked with the existence of God and the afterlife, and can be found in the development of one’s character in preparation for the afterlife.

V. Conclusion

To sum up, I believe that I have provided a sufficient explanation as to why I believe that God exists, why I believe that it is possible to exist after death, and why the meaning of life can be found in the development of one’s character. I nonetheless have to concede that my arguments fall largely to personal opinion and are thus non-conclusive. As such, I continue to believe that a measure of faith is needed, for if all the mysteries of the universe were revealed, life would be a boring place indeed.

References

1. Craig, William Lane. “The Kalam Cosmological Argument.” Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

2. Edwards, Paul. “Introduction: The Objections to Materialism.” Immortality. New York: Prometheus Books, 1997.

3. Edwards, Paul. “The dependence of consciousness on the brain.” Immortality. New York: Prometheus Books, 1997.

4. Jackson, Frank. “Perception: A Representative Theory.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

5. Mackie, J.L. “Critique of the Cosmological Argument.” Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

6. Nagel, Thomas. “The View From Nowhere.” New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

7. Reichenbach, Bruce. “Cosmological Argument.” September 2004, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#3.4

8. Reichenbach, Bruce. “The Cosmological Argument.” Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

9. Smith, Quentin. “A Defense of a Principle of Sufficient Reason.” Metaphilosophy. Vol. 26, No. 1 & 2 (1995): 97-106.

10. Klemke, E.D. "Leaving without Appeal: An affirmative philosophy for life." The Meaning of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

God, Death, and the Meaning of Life (part 2)

2007-12-22T16:10:00.000-08:00

III. Is it possible to exist after death?

It is an immutable fact of life that we must all one day die. Our bodies will grow old, stop functioning, and eventually decay. Even if science manages to halt aging and cure every disease in the world, life in its physical form will eventually come to end when the sun dies (or if that is not enough, at least when the universe suffers “heat death”), barring some miraculous intervention by God. Is it possible, then, to continue to exist after death? My answer would have to be a definitive yes. This is because I believe that we human beings have an immaterial component (the mind or soul) which is the essence of who we are, and thus the death of the body does not cause the person to cease to exist.

That said, to establish the possibility of an afterlife, we must first discuss what it means to be a person. In other words, we must first establish the basis for our identity as a personal being (the ubiquitous “Who am I?” question). There are three possibilities. As a person, we are either only our minds (or souls), or only our bodies, or some combination of both. To say that we are only minds is to say that our bodies are distinct from our minds, and that our identities (our sense of self) are solely based upon what we perceive as our minds or souls, which means that our bodies are merely “containers” for our souls, which form the entirety of who we are. This theory is known as dualism or the “container” theory. On the opposite end is the idea that we are identical solely with our bodies, and that our minds are merely a part of our bodies and thus indistinct and inseparable. This is known as materialism. The third theory is known as the mind-body composite theory, which states that each of us are partly composed of a living, organic body and partly composed of an immaterial soul. Only one of these three possibilities can be true.

I am personally in favor of the first theory, dualism, which states that the mind and the body are distinct from each other, that we are identical with our minds, and that the body is merely a “container” or “seat” for the mind. To be more specific, I believe in dualistic interactionism, which maintains that there are causal connections between mind and body in both directions.³ This is because there are a number of significant differences between mental and physical events that seem irreconcilable. Firstly, mental events have a subjective quality that physical events do not. For example, one can ask what a burned finger feels like, what the blueness of the sky looks like, or what nice music sounds like.⁷ Also, one can know everything there is to know about the physical aspect of something (say, the taste of ice-cream) and yet still not truly know what it means to actually experience it (a mental event).⁵ Besides that, many mental events are directed towards an object or a “target” in a way that physical events seem unable to account for (this characteristic is technically known as “intentionality”).³ For example, one can think that the lemonade he or she is drinking tastes good, yet the concurrent neuronal activity going on inside that person’s brain says nothing in itself about the taste of the drink. It thus seems that physical events and conditions differ from mental acts because they are unable to indicate anything beyond themselves the way mental acts can. Last but not least, there is the question of the immaterial nature of mental events. For example, one cannot directly observe anger in another person. One can only see the effects the anger causes on the person (an increase in neural activity, perhaps, or a change in demeanor). It thus seems obvious that mental events are immaterial (i.e. unobservable) in a way that physical events are not. To sum it up, these four points indicate that the physical and mental are distinct from each other, and thus it can be concluded that the body and mind are also similarly separate

Assuming that the “container” theory is true, our continued existence after death seems to me to be highly plausible. For if the body is merely the “seat” of the mind, the mind’s existence will not be affected by the death of the body. Here I would like to say that I do not believe that a bodily resurrection is necessary for an afterlife. It is sufficient for me that my mind continues to exist, for my mind is me.

Nonetheless, there are a number of significant objections to the idea of the mind as wholly separate from the body. Chief among these is the mind-body dependence argument. The mind-body dependence argument attempts to disprove the idea that the mind and body are distinct by looking at the effect of physical events on the mind. Specifically, the mind-body dependence argument argues that there is a direct correlation between damage to the brain and damage to the mind. For example, brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s alter the mental capacities (memory, cognitive thinking, perception, etc.) and behavior of the victim. As the disease gets progressively worse, the degeneration of mental capacities accelerates and the changes in behavior become more and more significant. Supporters of the mind-body dependence argument argue that this indicates that the mind is ontologically dependent upon the brain (meaning that the mind is wholly dependent on the brain for its existence), and thus the mind is not distinct and separate from the body such as claimed by supporters of the “container theory”. This argument is also used against the notion of disembodied survival (that is, survival beyond the death of the body in the form of a mind or soul) by claiming that the mind, because it is ontologically dependent upon the brain, will cease to exist the moment the brain dies.

Ultimately, however, I believe that this objection fails to conclusively refute the theory that the mind and body are separate and distinct. This is because it is not necessarily true that the mind is ontologically dependent upon the brain despite the seeming correlation between damage to one’s brain and the loss of mental capacities. The evidence merely shows that the mind and the body are inextricably linked in the physical world. It is thus still possible that the body and mind are metaphysically distinct, and that the mind merely uses the body as an “instrument” to express itself in the physical world (meaning that the mind is merely functionally and not ontologically dependent upon the brain). The “container” theory is thus still a viable theory regarding human nature and the possibility of an afterlife.

In short, I believe that it is possible for us to continue to exist after we die because our minds are distinct and not ontologically dependent upon our bodies, and thus will continue to survive beyond our physical deaths. Since I believe that we are our minds (in other words, we are identical with our souls), it follows that we will also survive the deaths of our bodies.

God, Death, and the Meaning of Life (part 1)

2007-12-21T09:27:00.000-08:00

In this and the next few posts, I'm going to put up excerpts from my final paper for my Philosophy class in which I establish and defend my views on the existence of God, the possibility of an afterlife, and the meaning of life. I do not expect anyone to read it all or even to fully understand them; they are more as reminders to me of what I believe in so that five years from now I can look back and see how my views have changed. Nonetheless, any questions or points of dispute are extremely welcome. Here goes...

I. Introduction

Is there a God? Is it possible for us to continue to exist after we die? What is the meaning of life? These three questions are, in my opinion, some of the most important questions that one should ask his or her self. Why? Because these three questions are integral to determining how we live. Answering these three questions allows us to have a specific “world view” that can guide us through life. That being the case, I personally believe that God does exist, that an afterlife is possible, and that the meaning of life is found in developing one’s character as much as he or she is able in accordance with objective moral laws. I will thus proceed to explain as best as I can the basis for my beliefs, and defend it from what I believe are the most serious objections to my arguments.

II. Does God exist?

There are three main arguments for the existence of God: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. The ontological argument argues that we can prove God’s existence based on reason alone. The cosmological argument, on the other hand, attempts to justify God’s existence by attempting to prove that the universe has a first cause. Finally, the teleological argument argues that the universe exhibits design by an intelligent being. Of the three arguments, it is my opinion that the strongest argument is the cosmological argument. Of the other two, the teleological argument is possibly viable, although not as convincing, whereas the ontological argument (in my opinion) fails because it confuses metaphysical necessity with logical necessity. Nonetheless, I believe that the cosmological argument alone provides sufficient reason to believe in the existence of God.

I will begin first of all with the premise that the universe had a beginning. In my opinion, Big Bang cosmology has provided sufficient evidence to believe that the universe has a finite age (specifically around 14 billion years old). Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that if the universe had always existed, it would have already suffered “heat death” (which is a state of cosmic equilibrium in which matter no longer has enough thermodynamic free energy to sustain motion or life). The universe thus has not always existed, and had a beginning. This tells us two things. Firstly, it suggests that the universe was caused by something that preceded the universe, for it is not possible that something should come from absolutely nothing. Secondly, because the universe did not always exist, we can coherently entertain the notion of metaphysical worlds in which the universe does not exist. This means that the universe is contingent (it might not have existed) as opposed to necessary (something which, if it exists, it could not have failed to exist). The moderate Principal of Sufficient Reason (PSR) states that for every contingently existing object, there is a causally sufficient explanation as to why that object exists rather than not. This means that there must be a causally sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe. This explanation must involve a necessary being because contingent beings alone cannot be causally sufficient for the existence of the universe (for there is no contingent object that is not either part of the universe or the universe itself, and contingent objects cannot logically be generated or sustained by itself or a part of itself). The universe is therefore ontologically (metaphysically) dependent upon a necessary being. In other words, the existence of the universe is wholly dependent upon a necessary being that preceded the universe. Since the universe exists, it can be concluded that that necessary being must also exist.

How then does this “necessary being” relate to God? Well, the necessary being which is causally responsible for the existence of the universe must provide either a personal or natural explanation for the existence of the cosmos. A personal explanation is an explanation derived from the intentional action of a person, and thus requires no other explanation, whereas a natural explanation is an explanation based on naturally existing laws, precepts, processes, and conditions. Since prior to the existence of the universe there was no space, no time, no beings related in space and time, and no principles describing their regular patterns of behavior (in other words, there were no antecedent physical conditions), the necessary being causally responsible for the existence of the universe can only provide a personal explanation. It follows from that that this necessary being must also be a personal being (that is, a being who knows and acts), and not some mindless “force” or “power”. This personal being is God.

This argument for the existence of God is, of course, not infallible. The chief problem is that it makes an assumption that the atheist is free to reject. This assumption is that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is always true, which may or may not be the case. The PSR is not true a priori, which means that it is not a conceptual or deductible truth (in other words, it is not automatically true). The PSR is merely derived from our experiences in the world, and thus may not be always true. In applying the PSR to the argument, one must assume that what is true of some events is true of all events, thus possibly committing the Fallacy of Composition (which is to incorrectly assume that the whole has the same properties as its parts). Moreover, physics has suggested the some things, such as virtual particles that begin to exist in a quantum mechanical vacuum, begin to exist without a sufficient reason.¹⁰ This is known as quantum indeterminacy, and if true, would refute the assumption that the PSR is always true. It is thus still possible that there is simply no reason why the world exists.

I nonetheless believe that the cosmological argument still succeeds despite the objections raised against it. In particular, I believe that it is still reasonable to believe that the PSR is always true because the principle that everything contingent requires a sufficient explanation is constantly confirmed by our experiences, and indeed is used to make sense of those experiences. Just as it is possible for something that may be true to not be true, it is also possible for something that may not be true to actually be true, and in my opinion the fact that the PSR is constantly confirmed by our senses is sufficient reason to believe that the PSR is always true. As for the theory of quantum indeterminacy, it is as such an argument from ignorance, and there may very well be underlying reasons for the existence of virtual particles in a quantum mechanical vacuum that we do not know of, although I must concede that if it is ever conclusively proven that quantum indeterminacy is true, my argument would fail in its entirety. Nonetheless, as the matter stands, I believe that the PSR is most probably true (or at least, more likely than not), and so the cosmological argument remains viable.

In conclusion, I believe that the cosmological argument provides sufficient reason for believing in the existence of God. It must be conceded, however, that the cosmological argument is not conclusive; it merely demonstrates that it is possible (in my opinion probable) that God exists.

Today I learned...

2007-12-18T10:54:00.001-08:00

...that there's no such thing as a climax community. Ecosystems are continuously adapting to the last distubance in the environment. Hah, take that, Form 4 Biologi Chapter 9!

Snow!

2007-12-16T07:17:00.000-08:00

And snow it has... finally! We were hit by a cold front yesterday, and when I stepped out the door of my dorm this morning, I saw tiny white flakes floating in the air, coating everything.

There's something about snow that makes me happy. Something in the whiteness and purity of it that makes me smile even when my teeth are chattering. Perhaps it's the glimpse of beauty when the rest of nature seems cold and dreary. Perhaps its the sense of 'anointing' upon an otherwise barren landscape. Or maybe I'm just feeling good today. =)

Truly, though, it's small things like this that makes life beautiful. The first snowfall of winter, the first spring rain, the colour of the leaves in the autumn, the sight of turkey vultures soaring in the summer, things so perfectly natural yet so beautifully real. The poets were right. Life is not worth living until you're alive.

From you have I been absent in the spring,
When proud-pied April, dress'd in all his trim,
Hath put a spirit of youth in every thing,
That heavy Saturn laughed and leapt with him.
Yet nor the lays of birds, nor the sweet smell
Of different flowers in odour and in hue,
Could make me any summer's story tell,
Or from their proud lap pluck them where they grew:
Nor did I wonder at the lily's white,
Nor praise the deep vermilion in the rose;
They were but sweet, but figures of delight,
Drawn after you, you pattern of all those.
Yet seemed it winter still, and you away,
As with your shadow I with these did play.

-William Shakespeare, Sonnet 98-

Sovereign

2007-12-15T18:34:00.001-08:00

Thou sovereign of my heart treasured in the deepest fastness of my chest, in the fullness of my thought, there ... unknown divinity!

Oh, can I really believe the poet's tales, that when one first sees the object of one's love, one imagines one has seen her long ago, that all love like all knowledge is remembrance, that love too has its prophecies in the individual.

It seems to me that I should have to possess the beauty of all girls in order to draw out a beauty equal to yours; that I should have to circumnavigate the world in order to find the place I lack and which the deepest mystery of my whole being points towards, and at the next moment you are so near to me, filling my spirit so powerfully that I am transfigured for myself, and feel that it's good to be here.

– Søren Kierkegaard, Journals

Facebook bumper stickers

2007-12-15T16:29:00.000-08:00

Ok, maybe that last one wasn't PG-13, but you gotta appreciate the humor. *chuckles*

Come what may

2007-12-15T16:02:00.000-08:00

In the dark I searched
In the light I saw
Even without much
I believed in it all

In the past I hid
In the now I show
Then I knew I did
Now I know what for

Oh, what a vain hope it was!
But now I know it was never lost

You gave me a reason to smile
You just brightened my day
And now I can't wipe
That silly grin from my face

It's been really quite awhile
But now I've reason to say
There's meaning to life
I can see through the haze

Tomorrow's a brand new day
Come what may
Come what may

Living triumphantly

2007-12-12T12:27:00.000-08:00

"Once a man from Syria led a camel through the desert; but when he came to a dark abyss, the camel suddenly, with teeth showing and eyes protruding, pushed the unsuspecting paragon of the camel-driving profession into the pit. The clothes of the Syrian were caught by a rosebush, and he was held suspended over the pit, at the bottom of which an enormous dragon was waiting to swallow him. Moreover, two mice were busily engaged in chewing away roots of the already sagging plant. Yet, in this desperate condition, the Syrian was thralled to the point of utmost contentment by the rose which adorned the bush and wafted its fragrance into his face."

-Leo Tolstoy-

Now THAT is what it really means to stop and smell the roses.

Who am I?

2007-12-09T19:03:00.000-08:00

Am I the face I see in the mirror? Am I the person I think I see? Am I that short dude with weird hair and an uncertain look who stares back a me? Am I the guy who pumps his fists in the air and yells just because he can and because he think no one can hear him? Is that really me I see?

Am I the person whose eyes I look through, whose mouth tastes foul in the morning, whose smelly feet stink up the whole room? Am I the man who can't bear the taste of celery, whose mouth waters at the smell of durian, whose nose gets blocked every time he sneezes? Am I the guy who loves the smell and feel of rain, who walks ten miles in a thunderstorm just because the wetness makes him happy? Is that me?

Am I the person whose thoughts run through my head, faster than I can catch it? Am I the little boy who wakes up every morning feeling overawed, but for the life of him he just can't remember what he dreamed? Am I him whose eyes get drawn by a frolicking squirrel, who can only stand in awe at a flock of soaring turkey vultures? Am I he who feels what he writes but fails to write what he feels? Am I he who dreams forgotten dreams, brilliant but ephemeral, high-sounding but short-lived? Is that me or not me?

Am I the guy whose heart thunders so crazily in moments of suspense? Am I he who stumbles over words and stutters when he faces a crowd? Am I the person who feels so much and yet so little? Who thinks he knows and yet knows not what he thinks? Am I he whose blood races, whose mind goes blank, who feels such joy and such despair? Is that or is that not me?

Who is that man whose thoughts I think, whose emotions I feel, whose eyes I see through? Who is that man whose burdens I carry, whose sorrows I wallow in, whose joys uplift me? Who is that man I see in the mirror, staring back at me? Who is he, indeed?

And all this time I've been asking the wrong questions.

"I am not what I am" - William Shakespeare, Othello

Logic

2007-11-28T20:03:00.000-08:00

Premise 1: If A, then B
Premise 2: A ok.
Conclusion: B. Duh.

It follows that..

It follows that...

From this we can conclude that...

The logical consequence of this is...

From this we can infer that...

This means that...

So...

Yeah, so...

Duh.

On a colder note, the weather is now.... cold.

Duh.

Significant?

2007-11-10T20:12:00.000-08:00

Intelligence. Beauty. Caste. Race. Birth. Country. State. Nobility. Education. Manners. They all have one thing in common: overvalued-ness.

Why? Because choice is an integral part of pride. Because pride without choice is an illusion, or merely superficial, like a little child trying to act like an adult.

I can't choose my country. I can't choose where I'm born. Thus I have no inherent right to take pride in my place of birth. I have no right to say I'm a better person than you just because my country is better than yours. Thus patriotism is misplaced.

I can't choose my intelligence. It doesn't matter whether it's nature or nurture, there's no room for personal choice in either. So what if I have an IQ way higher than yours? I didn't choose my genetic disposition. Neither did I choose the environment I grew up in. I didn't work for my intelligence, I merely developed it as a result of factors beyond my control. Thus I'm no better or worse than you are just because I'm smarter or dumberer than you. Pride in intelligence is also misplaced.

I didn't choose the way I look. I didn't pick it out of a list or a book. I didn't arrange my chromosomes to express the way they do. So why should I take pride in my body or the way I look? (Unless, of course, I had a silicon implant or plastic surgery... but that's a different story.) So beauty is overrated too.

The same goes for much of what we all value. Noble birth? Pah, so what? You're the King of England? I couldn't care less, you didn't work for it. You're "untouchable"? Nah, you didn't choose it. And so what if you're white or black or yellow or brown or even blue? It's not as if you're Michael Jackson. You didn't choose it, you didn't work for it, you didn't earn it. It simply doesn't matter.

I respect Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and all those who chose to be who they are. But I refuse to bow down to Prince Charles or the DYMM Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong Whateverhisnameisnow because they didn't earn their authority. And I refuse to give you credit or be intimidated by you just because you have a higher IQ or have looks to die for or are from a "superior" race.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that respect isn't inherent. It is a consequence of our actions. So don't live your pride. Earn it.

***

"Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why do you persist? Why get up? Why fight on against the inevitable? Why, why, why??"

"Because I choose to."

-The Matrix Revolutions-

***

Tagged...

2007-11-09T19:06:00.000-08:00

And here I was thinking I'd never do this...

LIST OUT THE TOP 5 PRESENTS YOU WISH FOR:

1. A brain that can function without having to sleep.
2. A crystal globe that can see into the future.
3. A clear purpose.
4. A personal heating device.
5. Telepathy.

LIST OUT THE REASONS FOR YOUR CHOICES:

1. So I don't have to sleep. Duh.
2. So I can see into the future. Duh.
3. Duh.
4. It's cold. Duh.
5. So "nobody ain't never gonna be lonely no more".

WHO TAGGED YOU: Shaun and Stella

5 IMPRESSIONS OF HIM/HER:

Shaun:
1. Caring
2. Wise
3. Intelligent
4. Idiosyncratic
5. A lady's man. =P

Stella:
1. Interesting
2. Enigmatic
3. Pretty
4. Nice
5. Complex (in a good way) =)

MOST MEMORABLE THINGS HE/SHE HAS DONE FOR YOU:

Shaun: Beating me in the General Knowledge SAMAR Quiz. =P And yodelling in falsetto. *chuckles*

Stella: Murdering me with those dark eyes and super-long eyelashes of hers in exasperation. (Her exasperated "stare" is deadly, so exasperators beware!)

THE MOST MEMORABLE WORDS HE/SHE HAS SAID TO YOU:

Shaun: "I'd die for you."/"You take 20 damage. You die."

Stella: "Urrrrhhhhhh!!!!" (Her moan/groan/scream of fustration before unleashing that deadly exasperated stare)

IF HE/SHE BECOMES YOUR LOVER , YOU WILL:

Shaun: Exasperate Stella so that she'll kill me with her stare.

Stella: Grin exasperatingly at her, ditto the above.

IF HE/SHE BECOMES YOUR LOVER , THEY HAVE TO IMPROVE ON WILL BE:

Shaun: Gender. And sexual orientation, of course.

Stella: Her killing stare.

IF HE/SHE BECOME YOUR ENEMY , YOU WILL:

Shaun: Lose 20 hitpoints and die.

Stella: Die for obvious reasons. (Her stare, duh!)

IF HE/SHE BECOME YOUR ENEMY , THE REASON WILL BE:

Shaun: A grammatical mistake.

Stella: Becoming immune to her stare.

MOST LOVED INVENTION (does not need to be technologically advanced):
The English language.

WHAT DO YOU DESPISE THE MOST:
Despise. (Note: It's "despise" the noun, not the verb. I despise despise. Get it?)

I refuse to tag anyone else. Let sleeping dogs lie.

Guilty

2007-10-23T19:31:00.000-07:00

From PostSecret.

It

2007-10-23T18:00:00.000-07:00

Do you feel it? Creeping slowly inside you, howling and screaming and threatening to pull your heart into pieces? Making your skin tingle and your face flush, so that you can barely stand to look yourself in the mirror? Do you feel it?

Do you see it? When you rub your red eyes in sleepiness, trying to make the blurriness go away? How it causes you to look down, and not around, unable to meet other people's eyes? When you close your eyes and turn away, and bury your head in the shoulder of the person next to you, horrified, afraid? Do you see it?

Do you hear it? Closing your ears and screaming, trying to make the whispering voice in your head go away? Drowning yourself in music, trying to lose yourself in someone else's screams and tears? Or in the silence so loud that you hide under your bed? Do you hear it?

Do you smell it? When you choke and cough and sneeze, subsiding into an emotional mess? When you take a deep breath, feeling emotions burn the house down inside you? When you sniff the cool wind, trying to smell that woebegone smell of life? Do you smell it?

Can you taste it? That bitter taste in your mouth when you know he/she doesn't care? Or the sickly sweet taste of knowing that the beautiful past is forever gone? Or the acidic, sour tang of life clobbering you over the head? Can you taste it?

Can you sense it? That foreboding feeling of doom? That ominous thunder in the air? That electrifying sense of terror and awe? That sense of freedom unachievable, when the shackles ring in the darkness? Or feeling hidden eyes watching your every step, trailing you, haunting you, the ghosts of Christmas past? Can you sense it?

Do you feel it? Do you see it? Do you hear it? Do you smell it? Can you taste it? Can you sense it?

It is the most beautiful thing in the world.

Happyness

2007-10-11T07:42:00.000-07:00

I can't seem to define it. Is it a state of mind? Or an emotion? Or the warm fuzzy feeling of being around people you know and like? A state of blissful ignorance? Escapism or a rejection of reality? What is happiness, really?

Are you happy when you're content? Or are you content when you're happy? Is happiness a result of success and achievement? Or by embracing a set of religious ideals, i.e. "divine" joy? Or when love is found and recognized, and drowned by the swirl of passion?

What's so great about happiness anyway? It is inherently a temporal event. Constant happiness requires a constant renewal of reasons to be happy. Otherwise those reasons fade into meaninglessness. Its like a fire, which burns up the fuel that drives it. And all it ultimately does is provide a contrast for when the fire is out and you're miserably shivering in your boots.

At the same time it is more than a fire. Fire can run on the same type of fuel over and over again. Happiness is rather more greedy. Once you give happiness a reason for being, you'll have to give it a better reason the next time. And and even better one the next time over. And in this world, there are only so many reasons you can give. A finite world begets finite happiness.

Fie, Happiness, fie! Go prey upon some other sad soul. Better to be content, says I.

"I've found a reason for me
To change who I used to be
A reason for all that I do
And the reason is you."

I wish.

Brr....

2007-10-10T21:37:00.001-07:00

Its getting cold over here.

*stamps feet and rubs hands together*

Free Burma

2007-10-04T16:41:00.001-07:00

Leave Britney Alone!!

2007-10-03T17:15:00.000-07:00

Th hottest video on YouTube at the moment, apparently. Weird.

I wish...

2007-10-03T13:21:00.000-07:00

...I knew how to create stuff like that.

Bruises....

2007-09-29T21:49:00.000-07:00

....are what you get when you play paintball. Guaranteed.

Hahaha

2007-09-29T02:42:00.000-07:00

This has to be seen with the sound on to get the effect it deserves. =P

A discourse on religion/philosophy

2007-09-27T11:23:00.000-07:00

Warning: EXTREMELY long post ahead!

This is a repost of a discussion that a bunch of us had in Multiply in reply to Javier's blog post. Rather esoteric, but interesting nonetheless.

***

sjsdm wrote on Sep 23

But if God loved us, why let the Devil corrupt Man unto sin?

sjsdm wrote on Sep 23

For my part, salvation comes from within, not without. The only person who can save you is yourself, not some omnipotent being. After all, does not choice govern the mechanism of salvation?

multipleimages wrote on Sep 24

Romans 9:17
"I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my purpose of displaying my power in you, and so that my fame might spread throughout the earth."

Romans 9:22
God has every right to exercise His judgement and His power, but He also has the right to be very patient with those who are the objects of His judgement and are fit only for destruction.

For the first question, I admit that I myself have questioned God so. But in my humble opinion, if Man had not sinned, what is God gonna do?
And, God gave Man free will and choice, God commanded Man to obey Him, but Man decided to disobey God. So I don't think it's God's fault that Man sinned.

It is true, salvation is through choice. But, salvation is a gift from God. It is not obtained through our own good deeds.
Ephesians 3:9
Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so no one of us can boast about it.

Yeah, we must choose to be saved, but God chose us first.

Ultimately, it's up to you to believe. I stand by what I believe in, and I extend to you the same invitation to accept Christ.

Revelations 3:20
Look! Here I stand at the door and knock. If you hear me calling and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal as friends.

God bless you.

relativedefinitions wrote on Sep 24, edited on Sep 24

Hehe. Why let the Devil corrupt man unto sin?

It all goes back to free will. In giving Man free will, there had to be an alternative choice, in this case, evil. Only with an alternative choice can love be manifested in the highest degree. Say, if I didn't have a choice, BUT to love God, I don't think that can be categorized as true love, right? It's not like I had a choice! I was MADE to love Him. Imagine a girl telling you this," Hey Shaun, I love you - because I had to. No other guy mah."

Ouch.

I don't think God would enjoy this kind of love from His creations. I don't think it's even called love. xP
But if I had the choice to choose whether I would follow Him or the Devil, and I decided that I would follow Him, no matter how appealing the other side seems to me, that's what I'd call true love.

So it all goes back to free will. Evil had to exist so that true love could as well. Paradoxical, but yeah.

Our faith is a reasonable faith, you know? =)

sjsdm wrote on Sep 24

"so that my fame might spread throughout the earth." "

Why would an omnipotent being concern Himself with self-aggrandizement? Smells of the Sin of Pride. Is not God above all these?

And are you saying that God let Man sin so that He would have something to do? To create lesser beings to worship Him is tantamount to self-aggrandizement, fulfilling one's desire to love and be loved, and again, close to the Sin of Pride because it fuels the ego as one is worshipped. As I see it, any higher power should not pride themselves on having lesser beings worship them. How different is that from an egotistical human who builds a personality cult? Is this not ego, even from a higher power?

I don't deny that it isn't God's fault that Man sinned, however, refer to the previous argument, because this one is merely supporting the previous paragraph.

Additionally, I'd agree with Ephesians that salvation is not achieved through good deeds. However, salvation, in my beliefs, is achieved through gradually purging one's self of attachments.

If God chose you, why are you not Jewish? As I understand it, God's chosen people were the 144, 000 Jews, which I add have given rise to many controversies. Though I may add that were the Rapture to occur, it would probably be the Fundamentalists that'll enter Heaven. Strictly speaking, wouldn't a firm, unyielding adherent to the Bible be accepted in Heaven provided s/he has done as the Bible says? What of the other groups, the Protestants? The Roman Catholics? Strictly speaking again, they would not be accepted to Heaven because a majority of them barely subscribe to the Bible, unlike the hardcore Fundamentalists.

And what of non-believers who still lead good lives and perform good deeds? Just because they don't believe in Him they are also damned to Hell? If they were pernicious and despicable perhaps I'd understand the following punishment.

pulsarfr3ak wrote on Sep 24

God doesn't need us to "fuel his ego". The concept of God needing anything goes against the very idea of an omnipotent God.

Thus, if we take that God does not need anything, we can safely assume that He didn't let us sin just so that He would have "something to do". He didn't create us so that we would love Him or worship Him, instead He created us because He loved us. Is it not better to have existed rather than to not have existed at all? Remember that God has to be omniscient, thus He knew us before we came into existence, thus out of love He brought us into existence. If a mother truly loved her son, would she not want him to exist? Would she not give birth to him, even though she knows that life is far from perfect?

How would "purging yourself from attachments" equate to salvation? Salvation inherently presupposes damnation, and I don't really think that being attached to things is anything like Hell. I'd say that "purging yourself from attachment" is more personal achievement than salvation. And isn't personal achievement ultimately meaningless because it doesn't help anyone?

The idea of being God's "chosen" is rather complex, and yes, it did originate with the the concept that God chose the Israelites to "save the world". Yet being "chosen" does not mean that He loved them, or us, more than anyone else. It simply means that we have been "chosen" for a task, or a purpose. And that "task" or "purpose" would mean different things to different people. Thus the 144,000 Jews were "chosen" for a particular task, but this does not mean that they are the only people that God "chose".

The Christian doctrine holds that those who enter heaven are not those who "strictly adhere to the Bible", but rather those who are true disciples of God/Christ. What being a "true disciple" means is, again, open to interpretation, but the point is, adhering to something does not mean you believe in it.

The term "non-believer" is also rather vague and open to interpretation. But the basic doctrine is that EVERYONE is "pernicious and despicable" because everyone sins. And living good lives and doing good deeds do not erase those sins. And that's where Jesus comes in. So those people are not "damned to Hell for not believing in Him", rather its more of a case of falling overboard and ignoring the thrown lifeline. The belief is that we are ALL "damned to Hell", except that Jesus saves. And so it is our choice whether to accept that lifeline or not.

multipleimages wrote on Sep 24

Okay, to provide some answers to Shaun's questions...

Romans 9:17
"I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my purpose of displaying my power in you, and so that my fame might spread throughout the earth."

That's the New Living Translation version. (NLT is considered a more contemporary version.) I looked up the New International Version (more widely read and used), it says "name" instead of "fame".
So here, it's a matter of interpretation.

I admit my weakness here. Since the Bible was originally in Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek, the meanings of the words are sometimes lost in translation. I'm guessing the original word meant something different than the English word "fame".

But based on my interpretation, God really is asking for us believers to make Him famous. He asks for glory - why not give it to Him? He deserves glory, and in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with Him demanding from me (or from us) what He deserves.

God is so mighty, so wonderful, so amazing. All glory belongs to Him. So I repeat - there's nothing wrong with Him asking for what He deserves.

In the Bible, the Jews were God's chosen people, they were the special people. God's plan for salvation was originally for the Jews. But the Jews didn't obey. So God accepted the Gentiles as well.

Mark 7:27-29
Jesus told her (a Caanite/Gentile/non-Jew woman), "First I should help my own family, the Jews. It isn't right to take food from the children and to throw it to the dogs."
She replied, "That is true, Lord, but even the dogs under the table are given some crumbs from the children's plates."
"Good answer!" He said.

Let me explain about the term "dogs" here. Of course in modern times, to call a person a dog is insulting and abasing. But back in those days, dogs are not the stray kind; dogs are looked upon as servants of their master. They are seen as faithful servants who do service to their human masters.

So, the dogs are not considered low-class. The humans come first, but the dogs are not left out. Humans come first. Dogs, second. The "dogs" can symbolise the Gentiles because the Jews came first.

And about non-believers who lead good lives and perform good deeds...
Man is imperfect, and at some point in everyone's lives, each and every of us are sure to sin, to make a mistake, to fall short of God's glorious standard.

No matter how small that mistake is, sin is still sin, and sin means separation from God.

Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord."

My answers might not satisfy you, my answers might seem biased and based on narrow-minded thinking, they might even spark more questions.

But whatever I say to answer your questions, I put it all down based on my own conviction. I've experienced God in my own personal way, you can deny all you want, but God is real.

There will be no end to our debate, but I will not give up. I don't mean any hostility but I just want you to know that my answers are for defense, not attacking. (haiyah dunno how to say what I'm trying to say)

If there are any more questions, I will answer as best as I can. But I'm imperfect, my knowledge about God is really limited, so if I can't provide an answer, it doesn't mean there isn't one. (aiyak, that last sentence sounded very defensive and very mencucuk...)

God bless you, Shaun.

speltbackwards wrote on Sep 24

I read your post, I want to comment so I *finally* set up a Multiply account, when its finally done, I come back and... What I want to say has already been said!

I think I'll just keep an eye on this discussion and say something when more noteworthy issues arise.

sjsdm wrote on Sep 24, edited on Sep 24

"How would "purging yourself from attachments" equate to salvation? Salvation inherently presupposes damnation, and I don't really think that being attached to things is anything like Hell. I'd say that "purging yourself from attachment" is more personal achievement than salvation. And isn't personal achievement ultimately meaningless because it doesn't help anyone? "

It wouldn't equate to salvation in the terms of your religion. Suffering exists because of attachment. The very desire to live creates suffering, because not a moment goes in our lives that we do not worry about the most trivial of matters. The very act of worrying constitutes suffering. Hence, by discarding attachment, we 'save' ourselves from suffering and thus have already gained salvation. But of course, that's my religion, not yours.

Frankly, I'd rather choose not to have existed rather than to taste it with suffering. If existence never existed, then all these wouldn't have happened, and probably for the better. How would you explain some parents abandoning their child after they have been brought into existence? Destitution isn't the answer, otherwise why would the phrase, 'love conquers everything' come into being? Or are you limiting that to Man's weakness of the flesh?

Personal achievement matters if it's to ultimately save yourself. If everyone piggybacked onto each other to save each other, then it would give rise to lazy 'parasites' who'd let the hardworking ones save them. You might say your God won't let these 'parasites' in because of insincerity, however, I believe that salvation is on an individual basis, and not a group thing. Helping someone else will not save them, yes, but if you point them in the right direction, as I'm sure you're trying to do now, will save them provided they travel down that path. Then again, I'm also trying to point you in MY direction but that's beside the point.

As for doing good deeds and helping people, that isn't going to save me in the long run, but the act of being altruistic means that I have a lot less time to dwell on the darker side of human nature, like Greed or Lust. Unless of course my motives are far from pure. Isn't it akin to praying? When you pray, your mind isn't focused on sinning. The concept is similar to helping people. You don't focus on sinning, unless you already plan to help people with darker motives behind it. Of course, I help people not solely from a religious aspect, but because of something more 'Earthly', shall we say. Are you telling me the 2nd La Sallian Regional Convention was bullsh*t when they said to 'help the community'? Or when our school diary motto read 'Reaching Out, Touching Hearts?' Helping your fellow Man does not require any religious doctrine to tell you that. Mankind has been helping each other long before the introduction of secular religion, proving that it is innately human nature to seek the betterment of not only ourselves, but that of our fellow Man. But that's beside my point, so I'll return to the discussion.

What of other religions with their own ideas of salvation? Are you going to say those are wrong in comparison to yours? It would be very egotistical to assume others' beliefs are wrong, but yours isn't. Having a large number of followers is not synonymous with truth. A majority of the world once believed that Earth was flat, until it was proven wrong. Now I'm not saying your religion will be proven wrong, but the point is that having a lot of people believing in something doesn't automatically make it right.

I pass the ball back to you.

On a more positive note, welcome aboard, David!

multipleimages wrote on Sep 25

thanks for clarifying salvation from your point of view. it does make things clearer.
now that we know both sides' definition of salvation, i guess the discussion on salvation can be considered "finished".
but i agree, salvation really is an individual thing.

parents abandoning children? sad but true. it's the parents' fault. (i'm saying this based on personal opinion.) a couple - a husband and a wife - who want children, are already really committed and are ready to be responsible. but nowadays, marriage isn't a sacred thing anymore, it isn't about spending your life with your spouse till you die anymore. so i think that these parents who abandon their children did not think deeply and plan well. they just go ahead, and then they realise that they can't handle it.... then tahi hit the fan.

about comparing doing good deeds to prayer... hmm, i guess that's acceptable. yeah it's true when we pray (or do good things) we remove ourselves from sin, we avoid sin. but i never said that doing good things without religious basis is wrong. if a person naturally wants to help others without being instructed by a religion, it's fine.

there's nothing wrong with the desire to help others, nothing wrong with doing good. it's true the desire to be good and to help others is natural and it doesn't require any doctrines to be good. i agree with that, and i did not say anything that meant otherwise. if i have, please forgive.

you are right when you said "having a lot of people believing in something doesn't automatically make it right". i totally agree. but for myself, i've experienced things which i can't explain. perhaps the miracles i've seen and experienced were just really pure Luck, but i still strongly believe it's God's doing.

i believe in what i believe in because it is right - it doesn't become right because of faith. then again, what are we? we have our limits - sometimes faith goes a long way.

***and to D. I. Vadgnil, if i'm not mistaken, someone famous once said repetition is good. bleh

sjsdm wrote on Sep 25

Good, we're done here, it seems. I've nothing else to add, unless someone wants to continue with these, I'm satisfied to leave it be at my side.

speltbackwards wrote on Sep 25

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (NKJV)

Everything that happens in life happens for a reason, not because of luck or fate etc... This includes good things and bad things. A well-known pastor (Mr Beram Kumar) said that coincidences are miracles happening where God remains anonymous. God has a purpose for every one of us, whether we choose to go along with Him or go our own separate paths is entirely up to us. However, if we seek God for His guidance, you have the assurance that no matter what happens, it will always work out for good.

How about when sin/our fallen nature/Mr S. A. Tan (all the same thing lah) comes by and trips us up? You may ask, 'how then can that be meant for good, when I lost my money in the stock exchange/I got beaten up and robbed by Ah Long/my friend backstab me/Mourinho quit Chelsea etc etc'? Well, let's look at the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-31). If you do not know the story I suggest you grab a bible and read it.

***

The younger son asks his rich dad for his inheritance, spends it all on chicks, chariots and condos, loses it all just as famine strikes the land, and ends up feeding pigs for a living. He decides to go back to his dad and ask to work as one of his servants, as even his dad's servants have better standards of living. Goes back, but before he can utter a word his dad embraces him with open arms, then throws a big Welcome Home party for him.

I will share the two ways I look at this story:

1. What Satan means for evil, God can turn into good. The prodigal son fell head-first into the trap of worldly pleasures and completely lost it. He could have just given up hope, committed suicide (which unfortunately is happening too often these days). However, something clicked in him, maybe he still had a tiny bit of common sense left in him. He goes back humbly expecting to be a servant, but his dad forgives him completely and welcomes him with open arms. If you were in the prodigal son's shoes, how would you feel, especially after all the s*** you had gone through (and spending all your dad's money along the way)?

2. Secondly, there is a more symbolic meaning to the story. It signifies the love and grace of God for us small human beings. We rob, we steal, we cheat, we slander, we lie, we look round at hot chicks in church during prayer because everyone's eyes are closed, we fall asleep during sermons, we procrastinate... The list goes on. Everyone, Christian or non-Christian, has the fallen sinful nature in them. And if you seriously think about it, no matter how many good deeds you do in your life, how many grannys you help across the street, how many gallons of blood you donate, how many La Sallian conventions you join, the number of times you succumb to that human nature (Lust, Pride, Greed, Adultery etc) will always outweigh your good works. Jesus said that when you look at a girl lustfully, you have already committed adultery. And if we follow earthly law, in the Old Testament it equates adultery to murder. So, every time you open that porn site, every time a movie with Jessica Alba is shown on TV, every time a girl walks past you in hot pants and a tank top, you 'commit murder'. Even victorious men of God like King David and Paul struggled with sin, what more to say us?

That is why this story reminds me of the hope Jesus gave to me when He died on the cross for ALL my sins. It is only by God's grace that we can be set free from lusts of the flesh (ie sinful human nature). Sure I still am not perfect, I still fall into sin, but I know that I can come to Him with a repentant heart, knowing He will forgive me of my sins. And I no longer need to feel guilty and condemned because Jesus took it all upon Him when He died upon the cross. (If you're skeptical, look it up in the bible. And to date no one has even come close to that standard of writing if you think the bible is fiction.) And with Him living in me and guiding my life, I now feel much more secure, compared to the time when I tried to live by my own wisdom. (Romans 8:1)

There's nothing wrong with good deeds; in fact one of the greatest testimonies to non-believers is the way we live our lives. And frankly speaking, 'religion' is simply man's way of trying to fit God into a box; so that we can understand Him fully. Intellectual people, myself included in the past, tend to fall for this, as we think our wisdom should be able to decode and comprehend this 'God'. But if we truly, fully 100% understand God, won't that make us on the same level as God ourselves? And if that happens, we won't need God right, since we're all gods in our own right?

The very reason why religious wars and strife has prevailed till today just proves how fragile and worthless 'religion' is. No matter how hard you try to fit God into that box, you will always fail miserably. True Christianity isn't about all the religious rituals and aspects of it, rather it is about your personal relationship with God and what place you give Him in your life.

sjsdm wrote on Sep 25

"And if you seriously think about it, no matter how many good deeds you do in your life, how many grannys you help across the street, how many gallons of blood you donate, how many La Sallian conventions you join, the number of times you succumb to that human nature (Lust, Pride, Greed, Adultery etc) will always outweigh your good works. "

I disagree. When you perform good deeds, you are not focused on sinning. And if you don't sin, how would the evils of human nature outweigh the deeds when the mind is focused?

Again, it's the same as prayer. When you either pray or help people, provided you have no impure motives behind it, you wouldn't be spending time sinning. I suppose you've done more charity work than I did in the name of your churches. Don't tell me you think of Lust, or Greed while you're helping the needy?

I agree, however, that when you look at a girl lustfully, you've sinned. Now I'll finally quote my own beliefs to support that statement.

“Intention (cetana) , monks, is kamma, I say. Having willed, one acts through body, speech and mind”. - Anguttara Nikaya (Great Collection), discourse by Gautama Buddha.

It means that in Buddhist philosophy, karma is generated through actions, words, or thoughts. Most importantly, however, is that karma generated is strongest through thought. Because it is through thoughts that we can perform conscious acts, such as sinning. So by thinking lustfully of someone means you've created bad karma for yourself, even if it's just a thought.

Personally, I beliieve no entity in existence can remove my sins, or others for that matter. Because in Buddhist philosophy, sin is merely an act that generates bad karma, which will in turn culminate in an unfortunate occurrence in a life. When you sin a lot, then you have more bad karma, which will in turn come back in the form of misfortunes in future lives. Only then is that sin absolved through your own punishment by yourself, not by some supreme being. In other words, our sins will result in our own self-punishment in the future. Obviously, with this belief in mind, the logical thing would be to sin as infrequently as possible, so as not to accumulate misfortunes.

I say this because, ultimately, if a great sinner like a mass murderer finally does sincerely repent of his sins on his deathbed, I personally cannot believe that God can absolve all of his heinous crimes just like that. The sinner will pay, in his own time, for all his pernicious acts in his life.

I concur that true religion, not just Christianity, would make the world a better place, if not for the failings of Man to continuously subvert the foolish and weak to their own twisted ends. However, I'd still like to imagine if things would be drastically better had secular religion not existed at all.

By the way, as for grabbing a copy of a Bible, I distinctly remember blatantly hinting for a nice Bible for my 18th Birthday all throughout last year. I was conveniently stuck in a hellhole called Betong for NS and it turns out I never got the Good Book upon my return. You think I was kidding and that I'd forget? Anyway, just wishful thinking.

pulsarfr3ak wrote on Sep 26, edited on Sep 26

"Suffering exists because of attachment. The very desire to live creates suffering, because not a moment goes in our lives that we do not worry about the most trivial of matters. The very act of worrying constitutes suffering. "

Well, love and friendship are attachments, and if they equate suffering, then I'm a masochist. In my opinion, attachments are part of what defines us as worthwhile beings. Without attachments, one might as well be a rock or a tree. Same lack of attachment or purpose. But then again, you're right. Suffering means different things to different religions.

You think it's better not to have existed than to have to suffer? I understand your position, but doesn't the possibility of achieving "salvation" negate the fact that one has to suffer? For instance, why do we go to college, even though we know that we have to "suffer" in some way? Because we know that going to college enables us to obtain a degree, which enables us to get better jobs. Mind you, getting a degree is a mere POSSIBILITY, not a certainty, yet we go for it anyway. In the same way I think that giving someone the CHANCE to succeed/attain salvation compensates for the knowledge that suffering is part of our existence. Besides that, even if you take suffering into account, I'm sure most of us would agree that human existence is better than non-existence, else we would all have committed suicide a long time ago.

It's true that personal achievement matters, but ONLY to yourself. Thus, it is ultimately meaningless, for meaning has to be something that affects more than just yourself. If I lived only to save myself, I don't think that would be classified as a meaningful existence. Sure, it matters, but it is ultimately meaningless. I agree with you, though, that no-one can 'piggy-back' another into salvation, it has to be a personal journey/choice. Does that make salvation in itself meaningless? Maybe, but that is a discussion for another time.

Altruism is by no means "bullsh*t". In fact, I think altruism is the only thing that brings meaning to life. But the Christian take on this is that good deeds are not the CAUSE of salvation, they are the RESULT of it. Of course this doesn't mean that one HAS to be saved to be altruistic, merely that if one IS saved, s/he should be altruistic. Like you said, it doesn't take religion for us to know that we should help others, religion just tells us WHY we should help others.

You also said that "It would be very egotistical to assume others' beliefs are wrong, but yours isn't." It does seem that way, doesn't it? But you wouldn't be a Buddhist if you didn't think that Buddhism is true and all the other religions false. Neither would I be a Christian if I didn't think that Christianity was more "correct" than all other religions. I mean, the reason for believing in a religion is that you believe it is better than all others. Of course, you could believe in all or none, but then you'd be a Freethinker, and not a member of any particular religion. Does that mean that everyone who believes in a religion is egotistical? Maybe. *chuckle* But in no way do I advocate forcing one's religion on another. That would just be plain wrong. Neither do I think that you are any less for believing in something different. Nonetheless, freedom cannot exist without options, and so I believe it's important to share what our beliefs are and why we believe in them.

I don't understand why you said "I disagree. When you perform good deeds, you are not focused on sinning. And if you don't sin, how would the evils of human nature outweigh the deeds when the mind is focused?" Of course we're not sinning when we do good deeds. But we don't do good deeds all the time, and when we don't, we sin. Unless you claim to be focused on doing good deeds all the time, which is, frankly, impossible. For that matter, even being "focused" on doing good deeds does not prevent you from doing bad ones. You could be "focused" on not telling lies and yet still find yourself telling one. Many sins are spontaneous.

If you believe that no entity can remove your sins, on what grounds do you believe that you can remove them yourselves? Or do you believe that your sins grow less as you "pay" for your sins by receiving misfortune? If you've told a lie, I don't think you become any less a liar when that lie causes you to go to bed hungry. You'd still be, ultimately, a liar.

Your comments about a mass murderer not getting what he deserves is a classic argument against Christianity, and a strong one, I must say. Christianity's answer is to say that all sins are equal, in that ALL sins deserve death/Hell. Thus a liar is no more righteous then a mass murderer. And if a liar can repent and go to heaven, so too can a mass murderer. For EVERYONE deserves to go to Hell, and it's only by God's grace that we can be saved. The mass murderer SHOULD pay the price for his pernicious acts in his life. But Jesus paid the price for him because He loved him. It doesn't appeal to our traditional sense of justice, I know, but that's what makes Christianity special in my eyes.

Sorry for missing your hints about wanting a Bible, Shaun. I thought you already have one, since you quote Bible verses well enough. Still, the entire Bible can be found online, though I suppose you already know that.

Take care, y'all. Keep the discussion going. I'm lovin' it. =)

speltbackwards wrote on Sep 26

Once again, someone else says everything I want to say before I get the chance.

Just to add on to Jia Wern, altruism (ie, good works) goes hand-in-hand with faith. Without each other, both are meaningless. Ie, works are meaningless if you do them without believing in a reason for doing so (ie faithless). Having faith too is meaningless if you go up to a beggar, say "God bless you richly brother, have faith" (ie no works).

Faith however, is present in all of us, the difference is in where we put it. The Muslims have faith in their religion, to the point they would die for it. The atheist has faith that he is god, and therefore he does not need to believe in the existence of higher beings. Christians have faith that Jesus died for all our sins, even though we did not deserve it, therefore we are now saved and do not have to end up in hell after we die.

At the end of the day, it is the object if your faith which will determine whether your faith was worth standing up for. The Chinese guy who died after playing computer games 48 hours non-stop had lots of faith, unfortunately it was in the wrong thing (pleasure through gaming). How sure are you that your faith is in the right thing? I'm sure of mine.

sjsdm wrote on Sep 26

Just because I quote the Bible doesn't necessarily mean I have the book. Just as being agnostic doesn't mean I don't accept there is a God. Or Gods.

It is by severing all attachments, including that of love and friends means we escape the shackles of existence, because through those attachments, and many others are we continuously grounded in reality.

Buddhism states that everything is in a state of anicca, or Impermanence. Everything but the mind is transient. When the mind accepts that it can exist without a physical foundation then is a being considered having achieved Nirvana. When the mind is free from all physical ailments and attachments such as hunger, greed, even love, can it be freed from suffering.

And frankly, the ultimate result is that you're the one that's gonna die, not anyone else. What I mean to say is when you die, you don't take anything or anyone else with you but yourself. In a manner of speaking, when you are saved, you only save yourself, not others. What you've done in life is to put people on the same road you take to your own salvation, in the hopes that they will save themselves. That is why I said nobody piggybacks anyone to salvation. Again, that is why I believe salvation is a matter of personal achievement.

We're we not to exist, this wouldn't have had to happen. It's akin to sci-fi movies where some crazy scientist develops some technology to the point that unleashing it destroyed his planet. Were he not to have created the technology in the first place, his planet would never have been destroyed. A crude analogy, but I think it relates to my point.

You misconstrue my point. I said that anyone who believed his/her religion is right, and forces that belief upon others is egotistical. I did NOT say that merely believing in one's religion is egotistical. However, it is important to share opinions, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately, in my perspective, it takes very little for someone to do before I consider that act as proselytizing. Asking me to try God out for a chance is already forcing your beliefs on me. Perhaps if it was mentioned a little more subtly then I wouldn't have brought this matter up.

Obviously, we don't perform good deeds all the time every day. But neither do we dwell on evil thoughts all the time every day. I suppose I wouldn't be too far from the truth if I presumed that most people are more concerned about how they're going to finish their assignments rather than how I'm supposed to backstab this worthless friend of mine. However, one can train the mind to focus entirely on pure thoughts, provided one makes the effort to do so. But then, the weaknesses of the flesh such as hunger and sleep prohibit doing that 24/7. And even though you may lose your grip and even think of telling one lie, it is far better than to not have control over one's mind and tell lies everywhere. If one cannot altogether avoid evil, then surely one must attempt to commit the least acts of evil.

A liar remains a liar so long as they continue telling lies. If one has resolved not to tell lies anymore, then whatever lies they've told in the past will come back to them in the form of lies told by other people to them. Karmic reciprocation is rather straightforward, in the sense that an eye really is for an eye. If you lie to others, expect others to lie to you. That's your payback. As my beliefs go, it's a rational reason Your sins for lying are thus 'repaid' by others lying to you, but for them, they sin for lying to you. However, that's their problem already. The vicious cycle continues until someone wises up and has the spiritual effort to wholly abstain from lying. Going to bed hungry is not a karmic punishment for lying. As I've said, people lie to you when you lie to them. Karmic reciprocation is wholly straightforward.

In relation to that, a murderer's karmic reciprocation for murdering others will be paid in his later lives by those he's murdered. Of course, in order to accept this, you must first believe in the cycle of rebirth, which is part of Buddhist philosophy, and that of Hinduism as well. However, if his victims seek not to fulfil that karmic 'punishment' by killing him when they do happen to be reborn in the same place in the same timespan, then that sin is ultimately forgiven. Unless of course the victim murders him in some other life other than this. We'd never know because of the vastness of the universe and the complex probability of two minds meeting again.

The probability of two minds meeting again is determined by the strength of each other's karmic attachment to each other. To understand this concept better, take myself and Richard. I believe that both our karmic attachment to each other is of such strength, that we happened to be best friends since kindergarten. Of course, you can build up that strength with everyone else too. If you and I constantly interacted with each other, we'd build up our own karmic attachment, so that, when the two of us do meet again in a next life (of course your beliefs will contradict with mine) it might be a lot sooner than later. Just as if the murderer-victim had a strong hatred towards each other upon the murder, then perhaps the victim is more tempted to 'repay' the murderer in the next life. Or lives. Anyway, this entire paragraph is based upon your acceptance of the cycle of rebirth. Which I'm pretty sure Christianity, or Islam doesn't condone.

Well I think I've covered most of your replies. Though it seems to be getting lengthier and more time-consuming to reply.

sjsdm wrote on Sep 26

"How sure are you that your faith is in the right thing? I'm sure of mine. "

Now that's an insinuation if I didn't know better.

I'm as sure of mine as you are sure of yours, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to reinforce my stand on this matter.

Atheists don't believe in God, therefore, they cannot believe that they are God. Doing so would contradict their beliefs. However, I'm not an atheist, as I've already mentioned in my reply to Pan. I am an agnostic. If you don't care about the slight difference between those two, then we can't possibly continue picking over this debate if you willingly overlook small matters.

You can't put the Muslims as the only people who'd willingly die for their religion. A long time ago, misguided Christians died for their religion too. It's called the Crusades. Also, back then, the Muslims weren't as fervent to actively seek out and destroy Christian nations as they do now. As I see it, it's merely a reversal of roles; during the Crusades, it was Christians who actively sought out Muslim infidels; now it's the Muslims turn to seek out Christian infidels. Being part of neither religion, I say that's a bit too much and it's pretty silly to kill people of other faiths.

Karma and enlightenment are what I believe in, and that's where MY faith is and what I'm standing for. If you ask people of other faiths they'd have their own beliefs to subscribe in, and none of us can say for sure who is right, because that would be the arrogance that led to the Crusades and the Jihads we see now, and other religious wars.

multipleimages wrote on Sep 26

well

i'm unfortunately.. not knowledgeable enough to say much.

but here's my opinion on the crusades..

It was absolutely silly for Christians and Muslims to kill one another. They give both religions bad names.

Those people were misguided - it wasn't the religions' fault.

Actually, i just wanted to put something here, but there's a lot of stuff to say, sesat already. bleh

speltbackwards wrote today at 4:22 AM

That just shows what happens when you turn Christianity into a religion - you get caught up with bureaucracy, and in the case of the crusades and the inquisition, political correctness (and that's being nice). And sorry Shaun, my question was more of a rhetorical one.

sjsdm wrote today at 4:30 AM

Yes, wars were fought over lesser things than religion.

Rhetorical, huh? Couldn't resist putting my two sen on that though.

Anyhow, I've no more points to raise. For my part, I came out of this with a better understanding of Christianity. Though it would be nice if more Muslims put in their own two sen on this matter. Our discussions seem to be focused mostly between a Christian and Buddhist perspective.

***

End of discussion. Well, just something to think about.

Scarily cute

2007-09-26T10:41:00.000-07:00

Haha. Great pic. =P

Onwards!!!

2007-09-18T09:24:00.000-07:00

Nobody knows how tired we are,

Tired we are, tired we are,

Nobody knows how tired we are,

And nobody cares.

-Marching Song, WWI, sang to the tune of 'The Wheels of the Bus Go Round and Round'

We're here because we're here because

We're here because we're here

We're here because we're here because

We're here because we're here...

-Soldier's song, sung to the tune of 'Auld Lang Syne'

Devouring thought crying in a dream,

Men crumpled, going down...

Go on, Go.

Deafness. Numbness. The loudening tornado.

Bullets. Mud. Stumbling and skating.

My voice's strangled shout;

"Steady pace, boys!"

The still light; gladness,

"Look, sir! Look out!"

Ha! Ha! Bunched figures waiting.

Revolver levelled quick!

Flick! Flick!

Red as blood.

Germans. Germans.

Good! O good!

Cool madness.

-The Assault, Robert Nichols

One thing I must say is that the reading assignments here are far more interesting than what they force you to read back in Malaysia. These poems are all part of a book on WWI trench warfare that I'm reading. Cheerios!

Pardon?

2007-09-18T09:17:00.000-07:00

This isn't really tasteful, but....

LOL

Dreams

2007-09-07T15:24:00.000-07:00

We all have dreams. Secret desires and hidden hopes that drive us on and motivate us. Beautiful dreams that make life worth living amid the squalor of human existence.

But sometimes those dreams seem so far away. So unachievable. So hard. We strive and we do our best but sometimes they just slip through our fingers. So near, yet so far.

How much do we owe our dreams? What sacrifices are we willing to make to grasp that which we desire the most?

Dreams. So beautiful, yet so fragile. So tangible, yet so ethereal. So full of hope, yet so capable of despair.

As humans, we are bound by our dreams, our hopes and our fears. Moving us, inspiring us, touching us, guiding us. They are our reasons for living.

But he who has much to gain, has also much to lose.

Scary, isn't it?

"Sometimes to do the right thing, we must give up that which we desire most, even our dreams."- Peter Parker, Spiderman 2.

YouTube?

2007-09-05T22:32:00.000-07:00

Suddenly I seem to be watching YouTube a lot. Maybe it's just because the connection speed here is so high, videos don't need time to load at all.

But anyway, I'm posting this one up so that it'll stick in my memory. Good stuff.

Hugs

2007-09-05T22:09:00.000-07:00

Inspirational. Stuff like that makes you feel that the world ain't such a bad place after all.

Brainfreeze

2007-09-02T14:35:00.000-07:00

The caption says it all...

Life is a game

2007-08-31T23:07:00.000-07:00

I guess the people here ARE out of my league. Only it's like I'm playing in the English Premierships whereas they're in the Spanish La Liga, instead of me being in League One and they in the Premierships, if you know enough football (soccer!) to understand what I'm talking about.

Not better, just different. Or maybe I'm just deluding myself. Hmm.

Here's to non-delusional self-worth.

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth will piss you off."
-Anonymous

"If you talk to God, you're religious. If God talks to you, you're insane."
- House, M.D.

College life begins

2007-08-31T11:36:00.000-07:00

Nothing much else that I can add to the title, I guess. Its everything you'd imagine it to be. Mostly.

"It starts." - Timon, The Lion King

"He's doing that Superman thing again."- Link, The Matrix Reloaded

Travelling

2007-08-22T20:00:00.000-07:00

Travelling is really quite an experience. Really unique. There are some things that you see when you travel that you really can't see anywhere else. For instance, the look on the face on a guy who has been waiting in line for 45 minutes to get his passport stamped, just to find out that he forgot to fill a form out and has to go all the way to the back of the line again. Or two people trying to give and take directions in sign language. Or the peculiar type of "we're in the same boat" smile that only fellow travellers can give each other. Really interesting.

Besides seeing, though, there are also some emotions that are unique to travelling. The restless awkwardness of being cooped up in a tiny seat for twelve hours with an emotional teenager who burst into tears the moment she got strapped into her seat beside you. Or the restlessness of being forced to listen to the same twenty songs (or five movies) over and over again for twelve hours. Or the calculating and "tahan, tahan" feelings associated with attempting to go to the toilet while trying to keep an eye on your luggage at the same time. Or even the fustration involved when you can't find half your luggage amongst hundreds and hundreds of constantly changing/evolving bags.

I guess two words sum up travelling for me: interesting and gruelling, both physically and emotionally. One advice for future long-haul travellers out there: never lose your calm. Everything's better when you're cool.

Calm I was, and smiling I am.

Take care, y'all.

How to apply the laws of physics to relationships

2007-08-18T00:23:00.000-07:00

Sometimes you've just got to admire geek humour. =P

Click the comics to view them enlarged if you find them to small to read here.

*Taken from Basic Instructions

The Rabbit Revenge

2007-08-17T23:47:00.000-07:00

I think we need to rethink our approach on animals...

"Just smile and wave, boys, smile and wave"

2007-08-14T08:27:00.000-07:00

There's a certain finality to it when you put everything you own into two small little bags. Okay, maybe they aren't that small, but still...

I think I'm going to miss Kuching. Especially the warm, comfortable familiarity one gets after having stayed in an area for ten years. Most of all, though, I'm going to miss the people that made living in Kuching worthwhile. Goodbye, y'all. I'll be back.

On a lighter note, I attempted to cook dinner for my family today. My first real UNSUPERVISED attempt. Note the words ATTEMPTED and ATTEMPT, cause they obviously show that things didn't go as ideally as they should have. Suffice to say, I burnt today's dinner. Badly. Oh, well, I guess just need more practice. (A note to all who've never used a wok before: it is NOT a beginner's tool; it's an intermediate-advanced cook's tool. Remember that.)

Also, to all out there who're fans of the fantasy genre, may I recommend the Septimus Heap series by Angie Sage. A great, fun read, with an element of humour that you don't usually find in similar fantasy books. I'd give it an eight out of ten.

Lastly, I would like to bring to your attention something my infinitely more famous ancestor, Peter Pan, once said. Doubtless y'all remember the famous quote, spoken when the great Pan was lying dying on a rock with no hope of rescue: "To die would be a great adventure". Ah, how macabre, yet how true. Death is one of the few uncertainties that still plague the human race, safe for those who have found freedom in their beliefs.

But death is not my topic at the moment. The lesser known quote that I want to bring to your attention is spoken at the end of the story. Just before the end of the last scene, Peter says, "Now to live, to live would be the greatest adventure". A surprising insight coming from the boy who never wanted to grow up, that is, who never wanted to truly LIVE. Yet how infintely more uplifting and hope-filled. To live is the greatest adventure indeed.

Let the adventure begin.

In over my head

2007-08-04T02:18:00.000-07:00

Man, I just love the Zits comic strip. At the moment the writers are compiling a list of "100 Things To Do Before You Turn 16", and somewhere around number 40 is "Approach someone way out of your league". It goes something like this:

Hector: You actually did it??
Jeremy: Yeah, well, I said, like "Are you done with the ketchup?" and she went, like, "Yeah."
Pierce: She even spoke to you?? Dude, that's wicked cool!!

The dialog doesn't do the actual comic strip justice. But suffice to say it was a suitably sarcastic reenaction of something most of us would identify with: knowing and interacting with people whom you believe are way better than you. By "better" I mean the subconscious acknowledgement that that person is cooler, smarter, or just prettier than you are. And you can't help but admire them and want to know them better, but you feel you're not good enough for them, and you think its an impossibility that those people would even want to know you. In other words, you feel that they're "way out of your league".

So, have you ever met someone "way out of your league"? I've met plenty. And I'm always puzzled at my reaction: a sudden attack of shyness, a tendency to ignore those people, a little bit (okay, more than a little) of envy, and more than a twinge of low self-esteem. I'm puzzled because I've always believed that everyone is equal, yet apparently my subconsiousness doesn't agree, and I'm presented yet again with another insight on how I value myself and others (By the way kudos to Jacintha for her extremely thought-provoking talk on self-worth).

So how do you deal with people way out of your league? Tell me, cause I've the feeling I'm going to meet A LOT more of them very very soon.

Meaningless

2007-07-30T10:02:00.000-07:00

¹ The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem:

² "Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.
"Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless."

³ What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?

⁴ Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.

⁵ The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.

⁶ The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.

⁷ All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.

⁸ All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.

⁹ What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

¹⁰ Is there anything of which one can say,
"Look! This is something new"?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.

¹¹ There is no remembrance of men of old,
and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow.

Ecclesiastes 1:1-11

I'm struck yet again by the futility of life. What REALLY matters?? Nothing, I guess, except things that last beyond Death. And what would those be? You tell me.

"Do you know what lies on that distant shore? Immortality! Take it, it's yours!!"
- Brad Pitt as Achilles, Troy (the movie)

Thus forever we search. Ah, immortality, wherefore art thou?