I felt better after that. That I accomplished something.
There are:
Things that I feel like doing and things that I don't feel like doing.
Things that I want to do and things that I don't want to do.
Things that I ought to do and things that I ought not to do.
Things things are not mutually inclusive nor are they mutually exclusive.
Using set theory we have 8 different combinations.
1. Feel like it, want it, and ought to do it. (This is easy to do)
2. Feel like it, want it, and ought not to do it. (Sin normally falls into this category)
3. Feel like it, don't want it, and ought to do it. (Perhaps bitter medicine to be taken)
4. Feel like it, don't want it, and ought not to do it. (Bad habits that you know are wrong)
5. Don't feel like it, want it, and ought to do it. (Work or goals we want to achieve)
6. Don't feel like it, want it, and ought not to do it. (Sins like greed, perhaps may fall into this)
7. Don't feel like it, don't want it, and ought to do it. (Personal problems, defects in character)
8. Don't feel like it, don't want it, and ought not to do it. (Easy not to do this).
Looking at the above chart, assuming that our tasks fall evenly in all 8 categories. Only 1/4 things that we have to do and not do are easy to accomplish.
The other 3/4 of tasks in life are difficult either because we don't feel like it or it's become a habit or personal defect that is preventing us from growing.
]]>
Besides California on Proposition 8, Arizona and Florida also voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Instead of getting into a whole argument about rights, etc., I only have one question for critics of Proposition 8.
Should an incestuous brother and sister couple be allowed to marry?
]]>
Recently, a friend of mine got entangled in a discussion on California Proposition 8 which defined marriage as between a man and woman.
Besides Christians, Muslims and Jews also supported this proposition.
Because my friend expressed his support of Proposition 8 and revealed his views on homosexuality, he was roundly pilloried for it by his pro-homosexual friends, being condemned as being intolerant and even being un-friended on Facebook.
Some of the things I learned is that people will be upset with just having a different opinion than them, so be careful about who and what you reveal to people.
However, being condemned for having a different opinion is unfair. Real discrimination is when someone denies you a seat on a bus, or refuses to give you a job, a place in university, a promotion.
To merely have a different viewpoint and being condemned for it, is the real intolerance.
]]>
With a face like that on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, who needs a makeover? I just can't imagine a dumpy old man like McCain on Rolling Stone.
I am Republican in ideology but I think that Obama represents more than just a party's policies.
Obama is also symbolic. And people also vote for symbols. Obama is perceived to be black (though he is just as much white). So he will be the first African-American to be POTUS. He also has links to Africa and Asia, his election will be a significant turning point in history.
But I think that I would vote for him not because he is symbolical, but because he does come across as politically astute, very intelligent, courteous. He distanced himself but didn't disown his own pastor despite the pastor mouthing racist sermons, he was loyal to him in spite of it. And that to me shows character.
I think that McCain got the short end of the stick from his party. They figured that it would have been difficult for a Republican to win another term. Very, very few parties hold on for more than 2 terms unless the incumbent was really popular (like Reagan). So McCain is the sacrificial lamb for this term. Republicans will probably win in 8 years time in 2016. I think that Barack should stay in power if he performs fairly competently and nothing really catastrophic happens in his first 4 years.
However, I think that people are expecting too much from him. One man in charge of the nation will still not solve the whole world's problems. Reality will set in that things are going to be tough, terrorism and the economy will still be issues and that faith in man will still disappoint.
]]>They may make decisions on other people. They may decide that "People are lazy". "People are stupid", "People need guidance", "People are ignorant", "My wife doesn't understand me", "My children are a burden", "I want to show my teacher I am significant"
They may also make decisions about themselves and what they want to do about it. "I want to get pleasure in life." "I am a great seduction artist", "I am a great leader", "I am a loser", "I am a winner", "I know a lot of things".
It's from these decisions that all other decisions and attitudes follow, even if reality doesn't bear out that truth. A person who thinks he is a great boss but doesn't have the people skills that match it will encounter difficulty when things don't seem to be working out. He may then rely on outdated skills or things learned from his parents or his ex-bosses. Or a person who believes he knows a lot of things that starts boasting, yet in reality people think him over-inflated and a bore.
I don't think HItler decided to be evil one fine day. But he did decide that Jews are bad and the cause of Germany's problems. He did decide that some people's lives are worth less than the cost of maintaining them if they weren't productive.
It's these decisions that shape you and I. Thinking about it. It's all the other tiny decisions that we make, the words we say, "You're bad", "You horrid thing", "You're an asshole", "I'm never going to make it" that make us who we are.
That's why again, it comes back to what we think. Thinking good thoughts is good but deciding and believing those thoughts are true is a different matter. I can think but not believe, "I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength". To believe in it is different. To think and know, "God loves me" is one thing. To believe "God loves me" is something else.
]]>
The most common way to avoid existential pain of problems is to practise some form of self-deceit that may be termed a neurosis.
Neurosis is always a substitute for legitimate suffering. — Carl Jung.
Carl Jung's quote implies that there is suffering that is useful, healthy even, that there is something to learn through it. Neurosis impedes our learning.
There are two types of neurosis, ego alien and ego syntonic.
Alien neurosis means that the patient recognizes it as stupid and inefficient and wants to get rid of it.
Syntonic means that the patient thinks it is normal, healthy even friendly and that the problem is with the world. Another term for this is "character disorder".
Neurosis can be viewed as disorders of responsibility. One sees that all of the responsibility lies with him, the other puts the blame on the world.
There is a pain involved in discerning where our boundaries and responsibilities lie. A neurotic avoids this pain by automatically blaming herself or the world.
The work of psychotherapy is for us to face the realities of this world. To face the pain. With discipline all problems can be solved. Unfortunately, some avoid the pain of discipline.
A person unwilling to be cured is one who is unwilling to dethrone his/her ego to a higher power, even if that power is labeled "life" or "reality".
Klaatu in The Day the Earth Stood Still. An other wordly being in human form who also dies and resurrects.
Superman. An other worldly being with great powers who is sent by his father to save the world.
Various characters in Lord of the Rings. Gandalf's death and resurrection. Aragorn as the king who returns and who is a healer. Frodo who is the one who carries the burden that no one else can.
In fact, in a lot of movies, you can spot the death and resurrection motif in it. Remember the Terminator movies, and in the climax he's almost defeated but finds a way to reinitialize and revive himself?
Google has an ideas submission contest called Project 10 to the 100th which calls for ideas that can help mankind. There are no prizes for it. However since idea generation is one of my strengths and I love contests, the following is my idea (which I thought of today. O how deadlines does wonders to our thinking!):
Title: Teleportation... or as close as we can get to it.
A live high resolution display feed of another city is projected live 24 hours a day into 360 viewing room or pods in another city and vice versa. This allows people regardless of economic background to visit another city without flying or travelling there. By allowing a window into another world, different cultures can interact with one another; viewing and talking with people in an actual live environment. For example, a pod placed in Picadilly Circus, London could exchange feeds with Times Square, New York. These pods are open to the public to walk in, stroll, soak in the atmosphere or talk to whoever is on the other side.
With three more more pods, the projected environments could be switched to other locations: Tokyo, Rio, Moscow, Afghanistan, Iraq. Imagine, New Yorkers walking into the pod and be transported to the middle of Red Square and talk to Russians on Monday, and the next day be transported to Baghdad, Iraq. Or pods in Tel Aviv and Riyadh allowing Israelis to talk with Arabs and vice versa. Or inhabitants of Johannesburg to travel to Tianenmen Square, Beijing. These pods could also be used to transport the people to sporting events like the Olympics or New Year's countdown in Times Square.
Technology wise, high tech 360 immersive environment technology is already available or can be cheapened and scaled down to using HD cameras and LCD Panels. The idea is also scalable only needing two cities to agree to pilot the idea and adding more in later. In terms of commercial viability, the pods can be sponsored by telecoms companies or through advertising, or even be booked by companies wishing to use as tele-conference facilities.
Many people over the world are restricted in travelling due to economic or political constraints. Cultural and ideological barriers, gaps and conflicts abound, Arab-Israeli, East and West, 1st World and 3rd World, etc. A lot of these conflicts are due to misunderstandings or skewed perceptions of people of one culture with another; perhaps due to media restrictions, censorship, or just plain ignorance. By having these virtual pods, people from different cultures and diverse geographic locations can view for themselves other countries firsthand. A person can see what Gaza Strip or Times Square looks like. Are the residents really terrorists or children of Satan as demonised? It also allows people to have a nice virtual holiday break. Imagine walking down from your office in San Francisco and having lunch in Paris!
Mankind would benefit through closing the gap of understanding between people of different cultures. The people who would benefit would be people of all sorts of walks and cultures in the cities where the pods are placed. It would especially help the poor who are restricted in their opportunities to travel or pay for telecommunication devices and services.
First steps would be to identify two pilot cities to agree to this experiment, and locations for the pods and to find the right technology that could be used to create this live feed of environments. There is already technology available to create an immersive 360 degree environment but it may be too expensive or specialized and it can be dumbed down to just HD cameras and LCD panels. A steady telecommunications link using high-speed data links would enable the pods to function. The initial set up does not need pods, even walls on the side of a building will be good enough. To prevent noise pollution, hypersonic speakers will allow users to hear the sounds without disturbing other people around.
If the pilot is successful, almost every major city (and even minor city) could have these pods or virtual environments scattered all over the city. It would be considered a cool thing for a city to have these pods, residents clamoring for them as a badge of interconnectedness, just as having a museum is a sign of cultural richness. And just as Wikipedia has created a free encyclopaedia, these pods would be used as a free communications tool for people to talk and interact with others.
- Nicodemus Chan.
]]>The thing about reading too many motivational and success books is this, I think. We forget our limitations.
We hear phrases like "unlimited success", "there's nothing I cannot do", "if you put your mind to it, you can do anything". And true enough, there are mental limits that we have put in place that can be overcome, a lot of time it is because we are doubting our abilities, or because we are afraid of what we can do or what the repercussions are.
However, the flipside to motivational and success stories is that our egos can feed on it and control us and not let our soul live.
To quote from "Denial of the Soul":
It is the nature of the ego to cling to power, to chase restlessly the illusion of security, to deny loss, to refuse to accept limitations. Then how does a human being ever empty herself of these things? And why? How and why we do sometimes voluntarily relinquish power, choose to give up treasured illusions, overcome denial, and reach acceptance?
This happens because the ego is sometimes smart. After a while we can grow tired of butting our heads up against a stone wall. We can be clever enough to recognize that our illusions are killing us and that relinquishing them is the path toward healing. We may realize that our ego is getting in our own way and finally come to Buddha's and Jesus' understanding that the ego is its own worst enemy.
At this point, if we ever reach it, we embark upon the journey of kenosis, "the process of emptying itself of self," of purification, of the ego bumping itself off. Some engage in this journey of kenosis only halfheartedly, in fits and starts. That is to be expected. It is something of a miracle that we come to be engaged in it at all. A few eventually take up the journey wholeheartedly and come to see in it the very meaning of their existence.
]]>It is interesting to read in this book by M. Scott Peck that he quotes Ernest Becker in his book The Denial of Death ascribing most human evil as the attempt to avoid consciousness of mortality.
I could think of an interesting piece of performance art that can be put on the streets of any city: Take a busy road, say Orchard Road in Singapore, have a bunch of actors dressed in plains clothes, an executive, a student, a middle aged woman, an attractive lady all positioned at different points. Then choose a target. As the target walks along Orchard Road, your actors suddenly become "possessed" and then point to your target, look them in the eye and calmly but firmly say, "You are going to die!" Then they break back into their characters and walk off as if nothing had happened. It would probably scare the living daylights out of someone who gets 5 different people suddenly saying that to him/her. But it could change some lives. It would be nice to videorecord the reactions of people who get targeted.
We don't think of death very much. But Ecclesiastes 7:2 says "It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart."
And you know, it's true. A lot of people party, they get drunk because they want to avoid facing up to the realities of life.
]]>
I found this link to a comic on another blogger Cowboy Caleb, one of the top anonymous bloggers in Singapore.
This comic commits the fallacy of using convenient examples.
If I wanted to compare two different philosophies but paint one in a worse light, I would take the worst example from one and the best example from another.
I could say that Western Freedom of Religion and Democracy is better versus Chinese Communism and Atheist Government. Just look at the melamine milk scandal.
In regards to the comic, some alternative examples I could use are:
Panel 1: A Christian would diet because he has learnt to follow the example of Christ, who sacrificed his own life. So what's so difficult about sacrificing that chocolate doughnut?
Panel 2: I could come up with another example that a true Christian doesn't steal because he loves his neighbour. Whereas an atheist may not steal because he's afraid to get caught. Not because he won't steal. Another atheist may believe that lying is okay. Some atheists that reject God believe that lying is inevitable and live by principles from Machiavelli's The Prince.
Panel 3: And finally, what about the person who lives by the tenet "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you. If someone slaps you, offer him the other cheek."
Jesus did illustrate in the parable of the Good Samaritan that whoever did good, he was the one loving his neighbour. It didn't matter whether it was the Jew or the Samaritan. You could be a priest and yet ignore your neighbour's needs.
But the unspoken assumption is that entering heaven God comes from doing good. In the end, it becomes a contest of "who has the more moral, and better set of beliefs."
Perhaps in this way, that is why merit from God cannot be earned. So then another person with a better set of beliefs comes in, and this set of beliefs has an even stricter set of moral codes. So who should God favour?
The reason why atheists can't be with God is because they just don't believe he exists. How can you experience love from someone you don't believe exists?
Perhaps, it is like two children arguing in the field in daytime over who is the better child and which one their dad prefers. When dinner time comes, the one who is naughty and rebellious still comes home for dinner, while the one who is "better" refuses and remains in the field to be prey to the night.
Do good because of who we are, children of God, made in His image; but don't think that doing good earns us the right to be with God. We go to God because he is our father. An unearned right.
]]>The team:
A team is as strong as the relationships within it.
The driving force of a team is its member's (sic) ability to create and maintain excellent relationships within the team that can add an extra dimension and robustness to the team dynamic.
This attitude can be used by our team to focus on the gratitude and the vitally important benefits that the team brings to our own lives. It can be used to strengthen and deepen the relationships with it and maximise the opportunities that await a strong and united team.
Our team becomes stronger by:
Displaying a positive attitude on and off the pitch
Everyone making the right decisions for the team
Have an unshakeable belief that we can achieve our target
Believe in the strength of the team
Always want more - always give more
Focus on our communication
Be demanding with yourself
Be fresh and prepared to win
Focus on being mentally stronger and always keep going until the end
When we play away from home, believe in our identity and play the football we love to play at home
Stick together
Stay grounded and humble as a player and as a person
Show the desire to win in all that you do
Enjoy and contribute to all that is special about being in a team - don't take it for granted
]]>