I'm slightly sick of writing these shallow stuff -
I want to tackle some issue from a Biblical perspective honestly.
I'm sick of coming up with the whole seeker-friendly thing, and coming with let-me-pretend-i-don't-know-the-answer stuff.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The ridiculous balance
Work has been taking too much of my time, bust since I'm on MC, i've got a little to spare.
In life, consciously and subconsciouly lots of people seek a balance in life:
The right proportion for work or studies,
The just right amount of time you spend with friends
The right amout to distribute to your hobbies
The right amount for this and that
Hopefully, after spending their time, finances, and affections in some near-right proportion, they will stumble upon the recipe for success and happiness. While some do it consciously - especially those who lack time, most people do it subconsciously.
In search for the divine balance where the good life is hidden
Much more could be say about the good life - the good good eternal life that is full of joy, goodness, and a whole new taste for uprightness and be able to live in such a world...
Much more could be said about that, but what I want to point out here is just that:
"If you are a normal human being like me, you probably won't get the divine balance"
Most of the time, people don't expect to reach the best brew for life. They just hope to "aim for the moon, and even if you miss, you will land among the stars" sort of thing. While that might sound like a good way to think about life - at least experience tell you otherwise.
There have been too many so-called "successful" people in the corporate world who try to juggle severything. The classic example is super-mom. High up in the corporate world and trying to care for her 2 children and at the same time having tea parties to attend to.
The thing is this: super-mom model Angelina Jolie herself is not juggling it well. She has more fame, more kids, and more many things. Now, some of you might think, if I had half of her kids, half of her money, and half of her causes to fight for, then I should be able to juggle it well.
This might need more convincing, but that while limited resources is an issue, diverse affections is probably the main reason this can't be done. People want to be passionate about things, and the more important you get in the eyes of the world (and of yourself), the more significant you want your role to be in the life and activity of many things. However, as an average human being ( and for argument's sake lets assume you are as good as Angelina), you still can't balance everything out.
What I am trying to get here is that the thinking of "divine balance" is not the best way to proceed in life. There are too many unknowns. What you know is that you are searching for this thing called "happiness", and you would understand happiness to be a combination of different things in particular proportions in life.
A much better way to organise life is to think in terms of priorities.
If you have been around the web long enough reading forwarded emails, then you probably heard of the professor who took a big glass jar into class. He then filled it up with big stones, then smaller ones, then pebbles, and then finally sand. He then explained that our life is like the empty jar, we can't fill everything in, but let us make sure the big things in life are in first, then the lesser ones. It is alright if not all the sand that you have (menial things) gets in to the jug, you have tried your best, and at least the big things are in already.
I'm aware that actually many people think in terms of priorities instead of a chasing of the divine balance. the problem of chasing for the divine balance is the rich man's problem. It is always the rich man's problem.
When you start getting successful and rich, you start to think that you have a bigger jar in life. Since you have a bigger jar, you might just be able to fit almost everything in that jar - so you think that you are the group of people (consciously or subconsciously) who can play the game of life by a different set of rules. You think you have risen above the average and you pat yourself on the back for being so smart for so long - and suddenly on your deathbed (hopefully earlier than that) you realize that you have been an idiot for the past few decades.
There are other reasons that contribute to this stupidity too. If you do get there, you might one day think "I have put all my big stones in the jar first, and followed the whole big to small principle, but my life is still so miserable". Good - you have reached a dead end. Many people don't get there, instead, they just get trapped at either divine balance or mere priority principle.
The most obvious ones are to think that the big stones are work and significance in life.when that becomes the big stones, the things that ought not to be big stones have taken the place of them and your jar has now 50% less space which should take much less space.
Motivational seminars normally just tell you up to the point of: Write down the "big stones" in your life according to you.
Nobody really tells you what the big stones ought to be. And the way people live is an epitome to the fact that work and fame is the biggest stone in life. Now, you might disagree with my evaluation of society's biggest stones - but it does remain that these 2 plays a big big role.
1. What you could work out from here is to find out "what are the REAL biggest stones?"
2. Work out the method by which you will find that out - trial and error? most people spend a lifetime to work these things out, and most don't get there finally. Or at least, on their deathbed, they replace "work" with "family", then they die after 4 months of realizing that - which is still an unproven theory in their mind.
3. If you fancy this, then work out the various expressions people have in trying to go with the priority principle method to life, or divine balance, or a mix of both, or work out other alternatives in which people try to organise their lives. What is the underlying worldview or philosophy that is cuasing them to live like that. Is it hedonism, or is it something else?
In life, consciously and subconsciouly lots of people seek a balance in life:
The right proportion for work or studies,
The just right amount of time you spend with friends
The right amout to distribute to your hobbies
The right amount for this and that
Hopefully, after spending their time, finances, and affections in some near-right proportion, they will stumble upon the recipe for success and happiness. While some do it consciously - especially those who lack time, most people do it subconsciously.
In search for the divine balance where the good life is hidden
Much more could be say about the good life - the good good eternal life that is full of joy, goodness, and a whole new taste for uprightness and be able to live in such a world...
Much more could be said about that, but what I want to point out here is just that:
"If you are a normal human being like me, you probably won't get the divine balance"
Most of the time, people don't expect to reach the best brew for life. They just hope to "aim for the moon, and even if you miss, you will land among the stars" sort of thing. While that might sound like a good way to think about life - at least experience tell you otherwise.
There have been too many so-called "successful" people in the corporate world who try to juggle severything. The classic example is super-mom. High up in the corporate world and trying to care for her 2 children and at the same time having tea parties to attend to.
The thing is this: super-mom model Angelina Jolie herself is not juggling it well. She has more fame, more kids, and more many things. Now, some of you might think, if I had half of her kids, half of her money, and half of her causes to fight for, then I should be able to juggle it well.
This might need more convincing, but that while limited resources is an issue, diverse affections is probably the main reason this can't be done. People want to be passionate about things, and the more important you get in the eyes of the world (and of yourself), the more significant you want your role to be in the life and activity of many things. However, as an average human being ( and for argument's sake lets assume you are as good as Angelina), you still can't balance everything out.
What I am trying to get here is that the thinking of "divine balance" is not the best way to proceed in life. There are too many unknowns. What you know is that you are searching for this thing called "happiness", and you would understand happiness to be a combination of different things in particular proportions in life.
A much better way to organise life is to think in terms of priorities.
If you have been around the web long enough reading forwarded emails, then you probably heard of the professor who took a big glass jar into class. He then filled it up with big stones, then smaller ones, then pebbles, and then finally sand. He then explained that our life is like the empty jar, we can't fill everything in, but let us make sure the big things in life are in first, then the lesser ones. It is alright if not all the sand that you have (menial things) gets in to the jug, you have tried your best, and at least the big things are in already.
I'm aware that actually many people think in terms of priorities instead of a chasing of the divine balance. the problem of chasing for the divine balance is the rich man's problem. It is always the rich man's problem.
When you start getting successful and rich, you start to think that you have a bigger jar in life. Since you have a bigger jar, you might just be able to fit almost everything in that jar - so you think that you are the group of people (consciously or subconsciously) who can play the game of life by a different set of rules. You think you have risen above the average and you pat yourself on the back for being so smart for so long - and suddenly on your deathbed (hopefully earlier than that) you realize that you have been an idiot for the past few decades.
There are other reasons that contribute to this stupidity too. If you do get there, you might one day think "I have put all my big stones in the jar first, and followed the whole big to small principle, but my life is still so miserable". Good - you have reached a dead end. Many people don't get there, instead, they just get trapped at either divine balance or mere priority principle.
The most obvious ones are to think that the big stones are work and significance in life.when that becomes the big stones, the things that ought not to be big stones have taken the place of them and your jar has now 50% less space which should take much less space.
Motivational seminars normally just tell you up to the point of: Write down the "big stones" in your life according to you.
Nobody really tells you what the big stones ought to be. And the way people live is an epitome to the fact that work and fame is the biggest stone in life. Now, you might disagree with my evaluation of society's biggest stones - but it does remain that these 2 plays a big big role.
1. What you could work out from here is to find out "what are the REAL biggest stones?"
2. Work out the method by which you will find that out - trial and error? most people spend a lifetime to work these things out, and most don't get there finally. Or at least, on their deathbed, they replace "work" with "family", then they die after 4 months of realizing that - which is still an unproven theory in their mind.
3. If you fancy this, then work out the various expressions people have in trying to go with the priority principle method to life, or divine balance, or a mix of both, or work out other alternatives in which people try to organise their lives. What is the underlying worldview or philosophy that is cuasing them to live like that. Is it hedonism, or is it something else?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Black, White, and Grey Issues
One of the not so smart things one can do - is to blog about an argument/discussion they had with another person - and rewrite the story in such a way to justify themselves and prove themselves to be the victor.
well, as I was arguing/discussing with some friends of friend just now, some things came to my mind.
How controversial do you allow yourself to speak? If you know it your heart what the truth is, but speak with some sort of mystery - or maybe not mystery - but leaving loopholes where people can misinterpret what you speak, is it still "the way to go"?
How clear do you have to be in what you say - so that people will learn something?
How far do you go in staying patient like a teacher , and gentle - and when do you start arguing like you are talking to some heretic (though he is not)?
To determine this, is it a matter of wisdom, or is it a matter of personality - or most probably a mixture of both - and how much of each to what extent?
Can I take Jesus as an example? He did say many enigmatic things and most times quite controversial. Reading through the gospels once isn't quite gonna be as fruitful as reading it through several times, going through the concordance, reading commentaries, etc.
Should one speak controversial things and think "Even Jesus speak controversial and sometimes unclear things. The righteous will interpret it to correct way, and the wicked will always twist the clearest word for evil purposes".
Can the source of confusion be amoral? Surely we know how any law or command can be blindly taken and obeyed as a form of legalism - or twisted into some form of licentiousness. But the confusion can definitely be amoral right? And to what extent?
Am I to keep thinking of everything going on a case by case basis? Isn't there a simple rule to follow? In trying to follow a simple rule - am I being lazy and choosing not to think, or am I simply not trusting in my judgements as to whether I will make the best decision?
How do I draw the line of "I have said what I need to say, it is up to you to take it whichever way you want" while keeping a clear conscience that I have tried my best? Perhaps trying my best was actually to stay on for another hour to persuade the person to see what I see, or see what I think they don't see.
All in all, truth is not relative. I need to figure out some way to convey these words plainly, without making it overscholarly such that simpler minds think I am being cunning, but yet I am being true to my word. I can perhaps understand how you can do that when you have an hour to yourself to explain everything, but in debates/discussions/arguments where there are lots of misinterpretations before everyone gets what everyone else is trying to get at - how do you exercise this?
By raising these many questions - am I already giving the reader and impression that this is a highly complex issue and there is probably no way out. I do not doubt that some will think "Gah, this is too much for my brain in the morning/afternoon/night" or " God will handel it" or "Don't know, don't care" - but I want to find it out. But I am also thinking of the possibility that maybe "don't know, don't care" may have been just the correct approach - because at the end of the day, there are so many unknowns and variables which is hard to determine.
I am trying to work towards something. But it doesn't look like I am getting there. Many questions might be a good way to start and investigation - but not a good way to make conclusions.
Should I just pray to God and say "Thank you God, teach me patience and teach me love" after thinking that whoever I was talking to didn't get the main point... or do I keep searching and look for the "killer argument" and start replaying scenes again, and thinking how I could have said certain things in certain ways such that they would be totally convinced?
This is how arguments normally ends "one/both party(ies) think that the other never did got the point no matter how much they said they got the point" - and in the name of diplomacy say things like "that was a great opinion you have" - which could be taken as:
1) Being courteous - the truth is I think that you are the stupidest person to have thought of such a stupid idea like that
2) Being courteous - I'm not smart enough to judge which is right, but whatever you said sounded plausible
3)Not being courteous - That was so totally WRONG
well, there is probably option 4), 5), 6) - I couldn't care less about them. You see, for all I know - somebody couldn't care less about whatever I just typed - to them, harmony, peace, friendship, nice feelings, enjoyment is all that counts - if they had to choose between truth and all these - they would go for "all these" - for truth to them is defined as "all these".
It is hard to convince another person of what truth is. A famous quote from Thomas Cranmer:
"What the heart loves, the will chooses, the mind justifies"
Modern science that goes on evidence and empirical reasoning would like to believe in the reverse:
"What the mind justifies, the will chooses, the heart loves" -
which sounds like something you get from Tony Robbins if you get what I mean.
How true is Thomas Cranmer's statement? Which was why I was just thinking, could the confusion be amoral? But a slightly clearer question is - regarding a moral issue:
Could confusion spring from amoral motivations? Or the wicked heart is always destined to justify error as truth? the righteous will then always make the right decision?
Doesn't this model look over simplistic such that it doesn't deal justly with the subject? They say "the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart" - how much exceptions should I make for others and myself when I try to justify certain moral actions. Surely I should not degrade to some " God will prove me right during judgement day " sort of stupidity/arrogance? But what if time is the only thing that will tell?
What happened to trusting God to do His very special work in the hearts of men? What about confidence in what Scripture declares? Interpretation? Now that I suddenly thought of it, I might as well promote FWC here.
FWC 2010 Gospel and Interpretation
Sometimes, you want to do more good than harm - and you think you stand your ground and do the right thing. In the end of 70 years before you die, you realise that there are bad consequences which make you think that your initially taking a certain stand should have been different. But as you muse on whether you will/will not regret in 70 years time - you imagine the possibilities that your stand would have proven itself right in 500 years -
"the man who stood for the right things - who for a short while produced horrible consequences, but bore fruit for the next whole millenium"
What I think I can do - is to see and count as far as I can go - and utilize well what I know and have been entrusted - as to 100 years later - God knows:
Let the future worry for itself. For I am a mere man.
ps. Just so you know - I don't believe in grey. It is either black or white. Determining something as grey due to our ignorance is an act of arrogance (in believing that we have such foresight and intelligence to make judgements on things we are unsure of)
well, as I was arguing/discussing with some friends of friend just now, some things came to my mind.
How controversial do you allow yourself to speak? If you know it your heart what the truth is, but speak with some sort of mystery - or maybe not mystery - but leaving loopholes where people can misinterpret what you speak, is it still "the way to go"?
How clear do you have to be in what you say - so that people will learn something?
How far do you go in staying patient like a teacher , and gentle - and when do you start arguing like you are talking to some heretic (though he is not)?
To determine this, is it a matter of wisdom, or is it a matter of personality - or most probably a mixture of both - and how much of each to what extent?
Can I take Jesus as an example? He did say many enigmatic things and most times quite controversial. Reading through the gospels once isn't quite gonna be as fruitful as reading it through several times, going through the concordance, reading commentaries, etc.
Should one speak controversial things and think "Even Jesus speak controversial and sometimes unclear things. The righteous will interpret it to correct way, and the wicked will always twist the clearest word for evil purposes".
Can the source of confusion be amoral? Surely we know how any law or command can be blindly taken and obeyed as a form of legalism - or twisted into some form of licentiousness. But the confusion can definitely be amoral right? And to what extent?
Am I to keep thinking of everything going on a case by case basis? Isn't there a simple rule to follow? In trying to follow a simple rule - am I being lazy and choosing not to think, or am I simply not trusting in my judgements as to whether I will make the best decision?
How do I draw the line of "I have said what I need to say, it is up to you to take it whichever way you want" while keeping a clear conscience that I have tried my best? Perhaps trying my best was actually to stay on for another hour to persuade the person to see what I see, or see what I think they don't see.
All in all, truth is not relative. I need to figure out some way to convey these words plainly, without making it overscholarly such that simpler minds think I am being cunning, but yet I am being true to my word. I can perhaps understand how you can do that when you have an hour to yourself to explain everything, but in debates/discussions/arguments where there are lots of misinterpretations before everyone gets what everyone else is trying to get at - how do you exercise this?
By raising these many questions - am I already giving the reader and impression that this is a highly complex issue and there is probably no way out. I do not doubt that some will think "Gah, this is too much for my brain in the morning/afternoon/night" or " God will handel it" or "Don't know, don't care" - but I want to find it out. But I am also thinking of the possibility that maybe "don't know, don't care" may have been just the correct approach - because at the end of the day, there are so many unknowns and variables which is hard to determine.
I am trying to work towards something. But it doesn't look like I am getting there. Many questions might be a good way to start and investigation - but not a good way to make conclusions.
Should I just pray to God and say "Thank you God, teach me patience and teach me love" after thinking that whoever I was talking to didn't get the main point... or do I keep searching and look for the "killer argument" and start replaying scenes again, and thinking how I could have said certain things in certain ways such that they would be totally convinced?
This is how arguments normally ends "one/both party(ies) think that the other never did got the point no matter how much they said they got the point" - and in the name of diplomacy say things like "that was a great opinion you have" - which could be taken as:
1) Being courteous - the truth is I think that you are the stupidest person to have thought of such a stupid idea like that
2) Being courteous - I'm not smart enough to judge which is right, but whatever you said sounded plausible
3)Not being courteous - That was so totally WRONG
well, there is probably option 4), 5), 6) - I couldn't care less about them. You see, for all I know - somebody couldn't care less about whatever I just typed - to them, harmony, peace, friendship, nice feelings, enjoyment is all that counts - if they had to choose between truth and all these - they would go for "all these" - for truth to them is defined as "all these".
It is hard to convince another person of what truth is. A famous quote from Thomas Cranmer:
"What the heart loves, the will chooses, the mind justifies"
Modern science that goes on evidence and empirical reasoning would like to believe in the reverse:
"What the mind justifies, the will chooses, the heart loves" -
which sounds like something you get from Tony Robbins if you get what I mean.
How true is Thomas Cranmer's statement? Which was why I was just thinking, could the confusion be amoral? But a slightly clearer question is - regarding a moral issue:
Could confusion spring from amoral motivations? Or the wicked heart is always destined to justify error as truth? the righteous will then always make the right decision?
Doesn't this model look over simplistic such that it doesn't deal justly with the subject? They say "the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart" - how much exceptions should I make for others and myself when I try to justify certain moral actions. Surely I should not degrade to some " God will prove me right during judgement day " sort of stupidity/arrogance? But what if time is the only thing that will tell?
What happened to trusting God to do His very special work in the hearts of men? What about confidence in what Scripture declares? Interpretation? Now that I suddenly thought of it, I might as well promote FWC here.
FWC 2010 Gospel and Interpretation
Sometimes, you want to do more good than harm - and you think you stand your ground and do the right thing. In the end of 70 years before you die, you realise that there are bad consequences which make you think that your initially taking a certain stand should have been different. But as you muse on whether you will/will not regret in 70 years time - you imagine the possibilities that your stand would have proven itself right in 500 years -
"the man who stood for the right things - who for a short while produced horrible consequences, but bore fruit for the next whole millenium"
What I think I can do - is to see and count as far as I can go - and utilize well what I know and have been entrusted - as to 100 years later - God knows:
Let the future worry for itself. For I am a mere man.
ps. Just so you know - I don't believe in grey. It is either black or white. Determining something as grey due to our ignorance is an act of arrogance (in believing that we have such foresight and intelligence to make judgements on things we are unsure of)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
