The "Uniqueness" Perspective

It is true that we are all unique and special in God's eyes. Each of us have our own special abilities, voice quality, quirks and ugly spots. Like fingerprints, there are no two similar ones.

However, if I may emphasize again, we are all unique and special in God's eyes. Why do I say that? Because the very limited wisdom of man pushes us to classify all things into categories, which means that there are standards, benchmarks, for everything. This life that we live is filled with two types of people, those who are pursuing for greatness in one or more of the standards that the world has set in terms of intelligence, beauty etc., and those who have utterly given up.

Let me illustrate by using the example of beauty in history. We cannot, in our finite imagination, conceive of someone with a cleft lip as beautiful at any point in time in history. The very fact that only a small percentage of babies are born with cleft lips, and especially given the limited technologies of the past, the standard of beauty is forever unavailable for the baby both a thousand years ago and today. However, in modern society, that has changed.

In the past, biological deviance is mostly measured in terms of minority/majority, i.e. having a sixth finger is ugly because most people are not known to have it. The concept of perfect beauty is simply having everything that the majority has. One can conceive of an African village where a female baby with fair skin is born amongst the majority ash-black skin members. It would then be impossible for the baby, in the closed context of the village, to be considered beautiful. We would find it strange, because the concept of "fairness" in modern society today is normally linked with beauty.

The tyranny for standards in the modern world is then this: The concept of beauty is no longer in the realm of the majority's (achievable) standard. Blame it on the mass media, on colonialism, on the capitalist, whatever. That is not the goal of this post. We could go on endlessly by pushing the blame around. What is important is that most people no longer can be considered beautiful. Where in the past, beauty was ruled by the tyranny of the majority, today, beauty is ruled by the tyranny of the minority (if any at all). The same goes for intelligence. And wealth. Rule by tyranny of the majority wasn't too bad, at least most people would be considered relatively beautiful in the past; rule of the majority is terrible, most people are playing catch-up with the minority, who themselves have an imagined minority to catch-up with (if they themselves even exist at all).

Yes, we are all unique. But we also have to admit that uniqueness doesn't play a big role in either traditional society or modern society. No man is truly unable to view his neighbor as wonderfully unique, unless he himself abandons the standards of the world that have been edged in stone and carved permanently into his heart as a child, and that is, as I write, being carved into the heart of children all over the world in the socializing process of "growing up".

Maturity can thus be defined as the degree of knowledge in making judgments of one's own behavior and standards, as well as that of his neighbor's, in comparison with the widely accepted standards of the world. A high level of maturity would imply the inclusion of a sensitive understanding of context, and a reasonable self-drive and initiative towards improving oneself as much as possible towards attaining these very high standards that he/her knows exist.

But in so doing, we apply symbolic violence to everyone, including ourselves. We destroy the "uniqueness" perspective, relegating it to little more than counseling strategies and "feel-good" religious doctrines that are meant for the despondent, depressed and hopeless to find a way to continue living. Everyone is simply starting from various distances to the ideal and driving towards one point of perfection, but finding they never get there. And upon giving up, one tends to create yet another standard to adhere to, most commonly one that he/she can perform well in compared to others. And the vicious cycle continues.

So let me throw in a perspective in the opposite direction. Regardless of one's structural position in society, true maturity is defined as the abandonment of all worldly standards of beauty, intelligence etc. except the one standard of morality, and truly looking at oneself and one other as truly unique, playing a role in this huge canvas God has painted and is still painting.


That is why being a Christian is so hard. If true maturity is the reverse of everything we have been taught since we were young, it is almost impossible for any of us to imagine this world functioning without these worldly standards that we have come to so intimately know, and even to hold on to as our mantras.

But is it not the expending of our resources and talents into achieving these worldly standards that at times, we neglect the Race of Life that God desires for us to run, the only measuring rod that He values, the standard of moral truth and living?





You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile. -Tyler Durden, Fight Club

What constitutes a real, live human being is more of a mystery than ever these days, and men - each one of whom is a valuable, unique experiment on the part of nature - are shot down wholesale. -Hermann Hesse

Desperado

Some of you know, I did give myself the nickname "Desperado" before. Of course, upon first hearing it, most people assumed it was because I was desperate or something, and to top it off, majority of people don't know that it was the title of one of the most beautiful Country songs ever written by the Eagles. For those who don't have a clue, do take a few minutes to listen to the music and the lyrics.

As time went by, I forgot this song, and even dropped the nickname because of the numerous misinterpretations by people. But these few weeks at my workplace, the song was repeatedly played over and over again as part of the "atmosphere music", albeit the milder unplugged version by an unknown female jazz singer.

As I retreated to the kitchen everyday to wash the hundreds of plates and cutlery towards the end of my working hours, the lyrics of the song came back to me again, this time, in a strange way.

Don't you draw the queen of diamonds, boy
She'll beat you if she's able
The queen of hearts is always your best bet
Now it seems to me, some fine things
Have been laid upon your table
But you only want the ones that you can't get

You better let somebody love you,
Let somebody love you,
You better let somebody love you,
Before it's too late.

I never really understood that section of the lyrics, till recently. Funny how I've always constantly made the silly mistake of running after the Queen of Diamonds instead of the Queen of Hearts. It made no sense to a Primary 4 kid, but it brought a helluva meaning to me now, after all the negative experiences. And I won't say I have a lot on my "table", but the second verse jolted me by blatantly pointing out to me why it seems that I don't have a lot on my table in the first place.


In an attempt to eliminate all weaknesses, I've even gone so far as to quantify anyone's love for me. I only allowed them to love me at most to the extent that I can afford to love them in return, in whatever measurement I saw fit. God is an exception, because His love cannot be even compared to. My parents are another exception, because the love they shower on me is too complex to be measured or converted specifically. However, I make it certain that it is limited to the largest extent by little actions such as taking as little money as I can from them to survive, accepting as few favors as possible, and doing everything possible that I know pleases them.

Upon further reflection, when it comes to a human relationship with someone of the opposite gender, notably a romantic one, I have constantly refused all gestures of love possible unless I myself am attracted to that person. And even in the scenario where attraction is present, I would ensure that (even regrettably through the occasional deception) she cannot love me more than I could possibly love her! Could it then be that one of the reasons that every relationship I've had failed was a result of the lady not being able to love me as much as she wanted to?




How sad it would be if it were the truth! That I should be dumped time and time again in exchange for another man who could not love them as much as I, but who yet savored every bit of the love they could offer!





Then again, it only goes to show that I am impossible to love or I loved too much, if they could ever believe that they could love someone else more than they could me.







How often does one find a song that speaks so specifically to oneself and to hardly anyone else?









It was the men I deceived the most that I loved the most. -Marguerite Duras

We all have one common weakness: we find ourselves latched on emotionally to a partner if we could and did loved him/her more than he/she loved us. True love, then, can only be achieved if both partners keep trying to out-love the other without desiring anything in return. -Valentino Casanova

-

Are you alright? I sense something amiss.


If you're feeling lost right now, I want to tell you. I am right here. I have always been.


In one hand, I have a compass. But my other hand is free. Would you trust me enough to walk this narrow, winding road with me... once more?









You may be deceived if you trust too much, but you will live in torment if you don't trust enough. -Frank Crane

Reputation and Character

If we like someone very much, and he/she has a great effect on us, we label the referent power charisma.


If the person is senior and male, we label the effect presence e.g. Steve Jobs.

If the person is young and male, we label the effect personality e.g. John F. Kennedy.

If the person is young and female, we label the effect seduction e.g. Madonna.

If the person is senior and female, we label the effect black magic e.g. a witch.


If the person us someone we don't like, and he/she has a great influence on everyone else but us (of course, duh!), we label the referent power manipulation.


These words often refer to the same thing i.e. referent power. The unexplainable hold someone has on us or the people around us. However, charisma and manipulation are worlds apart. The former gives the impression that the person in power could even be unconscious of it, and has genuinely innocent, wholesome intentions for the good of the public. The latter gives the impression that the person in power must definitely be conscious of it, and has a selfish agenda to attain certain symbolic or economic capital on the behalf of alienating labor performed by the public.


But no one can truly read intentions. In fact, can intentions even be studied? Often, really, our own intentions are haphazard, constantly changing, maybe not even focused at all. For example, should one be considered manipulative if one intentionally reaches out to help the poor and disadvantaged WITH the knowledge that there are positive side-effect such as good impressions and favorable dispositions? True, we might argue that time will tell. After all, when people continue to serve long-term without reaping any positive rewards, we can then make the claim that truly he/she has pure intentions.


But let me stretch the example further. For us Christians then, would it be manipulative if one intentionally reaches out to help the poor and disadvantaged purposefully avoiding as best possible the positive side-effects such as good impressions and favorable dispositions, WITH the knowledge that by doing so he/she will accumulate treasures in Heaven? After all, isn't treasure accumulation a "selfish" notion? And if he or she selflessly ventures to "help" others accumulate treasure by offering opportunities to serve, can't it be interpreted as a "selfish" desire to boast about his/her accomplishments or to accumulate even more treasure in heaven?


As you can see, if we were to judge by assumed intentions all the time, then we leave ourselves open to massive misinterpretations. Even Jesus couldn't escape contemporary accusations of manipulating the apparently gullible crowds EVEN AFTER dying on the cross. "Because he wanted his name to be written in history books." Huh?


However, even as we refrain from judging others by intentions, let us be firmly aware of something.



The easiest way to destroy a Christian witness is to lay waste to his/her integrity. The label of "hypocrisy" cannot be defended. Intentions are easily suspect, crowds are easily swayed by malicious gossip. Even when proven right somehow, the offenders get away scot-free, simply because that's the way gossip works. Friendships are frayed, tempers flared, grievances carved into stone. The little chance for people close to us whose salvation we have often prayed for for many years vanishes in front of our eyes. The greatest obstacle is that as Christians, we HAVE TO forgive the offenders, if not our integrity becomes suspect again. Neither do we believe in karma, nor should we be wishing for any of it to come down hard on those who maligned us.


We know that God will deliver judgment, but we also know that the compassion of the Holy Spirit will bring us to our knees as we beseech for mercy on behalf of those who have hurt us.



Our reputation is a sacrifice we must be prepared to make if we choose to walk on the winding narrow road. Yes, even through the Valley of Shadow and Death.





Our character, never.






A man's character is the reality of himself; his reputation, the opinions others have formed about him; character resides in him, reputation in other people; that is substance, this is shadow. - Henry Ward Beecher

His reputation is what men say he is. That can be damaged; but reputation is for time, character is for eternity. - John B. Gough

The Reality of Loneliness

Been blogging sparsely as of late, given the preoccupation with coming up with the final structure of my honors thesis before the intense writing begins. But I've also been reading blogs during my free time, and as usual, my mind runs off with its own arguments again.

I was reading a good friend's blog when I noticed a strange trend among single Christians. In their loneliness, they have this habit of leaning on God's grace that is in a way (to me) pretty un-Biblical.

They write stuff like "God, help me to know that You're all I need now", or "Jesus, You are all I need in this life". Apparently, as I read on, God is seen as a substitute to the fact that they are single, and He is assumed to be able to take the place of a mate during times of single-hood.

At the risk of heavy criticism, I'm going to write this: God is NOT a substitute for your loneliness that comes from the need of having a mate. There is a theological flaw in assuming that God is EVERYTHING we need. God is not bread. Jesus may be the Bread of Life, which is more vital for living than daily bread, but He is not daily bread itself! The Provider must not be mistaken for the object that He provides!

God may indeed have a plan for us who are single during this season of your life, SO ADMIT IT! Don't fool yourself by saying that God will fill up that gap with Himself. If there is a hole, there is a hole. If you prefer to describe it as an empty void, so it is. But to imagine filling it up with preoccupation with God is foolhardy in my opinion. My life is testimony to how one can share a wonderful relationship with the Savior yet acknowledge the void that is within.

Where is the evidence, you ask? Take a look at Genesis 2:18.

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Also, if you're still not convinced, take a look at 1 Cor 7:9.

But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Notice that God did not fill in the gap with Himself. He could have said, "It is not good for a man to be alone. I shall advise him to turn and look to me to fill the loneliness in his heart" or "But if they cannot control themselves, they should repent of their lack of control and look to me to fill that emptiness for a partner." But He didn't. God acknowledged that it is not good for a man to be alone. So that's all there is to it. Even with the opportunity to walk side by side with God and share a relationship with Him like no other man ever did (not even Jesus), Adam was deemed as imperfect, and the creation of Eve was to make it good (not perfect), along with the rest of creation that was already deemed to be good. This relationship is analogous to the sea, which when God first created was considered good, but not something to be carried over to the second Heaven.

So, to all the singles out there (especially Christian guys), instead of trying to patch up that "hole" or "emptiness" in your heart with your relationship with God, let's be truthful instead and admit that God has allowed this season of imperfection for good reasons that vary among us and the plans He has. Direct the energy to doing things instead, especially since as singles we have more control over our time, energy, priority-settings and money. God will provide the relevant choices in time, when it is suitable.

It is a terrible lie to tell single pre-believers that a relationship with God will remove the emptiness within. Yes of course, if one is referring to the spiritual emptiness that only Jesus can fill. But I have heard wind of evangelism efforts directed (especially to women) in a way that give rise to misinterpretation that this relationship will also cover the need for a mate. It doesn't. In the end, it'll only create bitter ex-Christians who'll just say that a relationship with God didn't fulfill them 100% in the end. In the first place, I don't believe God did make claims to that, so let us not make un-Biblical claims in His name.

There is an emptiness in our soul that only a partner of the opposite gender can fulfill, so let us be frank and admit it instead of lying to others and to ourselves that God will fill in the gap until that person comes along. So if that person comes along, wouldn't he or she be taking that place that God once used to fill? Of course not! The pain is real, loneliness is real.

The only comfort we can give to singles, most prominently youths suffering from depression, is that there is a reason for this current loneliness, a God who knows our sorrows, and a hope for the future. God can indeed fill much of the gap of our lives (a mate being just one of the many gaps), but He has never and will never personally take the place of this one very gap that He has allowed to exist among those of us yet to find a suitable mate.






To most people, loneliness is a doom. Yet loneliness is the very thing which God has chosen to be one the schools of training for His very own. It is the fire that sheds the dross and reveals the gold. -Bernard M. Martin

The Tyranny of Passion

Love is 1% passion and 99% duty. -Valentino Casanova

In contemporary society, most significantly capitalist ones, there are exponentially increasing discussions of what love is. One could almost certainly be right to say that mankind is slowly losing the ability to articulate about what this idea really is as its boundaries slowly stretch and encompass over nearly all moral subjectivities. However, unless one examines carefully, it is hardly noticeable that most conversations, poetry, movies, philosophical debates, theological definitions and aesthetic restructurings of the beautiful core of this marvelous topic has been narrowly focused on one constitution, namely, that of passion.

Poetry lovers, take for example the eccentric poems of Byron, or for the drama-lovers, the scripts of Shakespeare. The sadistic intellectual, maybe the horribly dense interpretations of Luhmann, or the post-modern feminist, the criticisms of Foucault. Maybe those more scientifically inclined would appreciate the quantum theories of Einstein, those from the art schools Parisian fashion or Greek sculpturing. The theologians would pick something from the Gospels or the Song of Songs, the historians would pick legends of ill-fated lovers; the anthropologists will narrow down to the red heart-shape symbol, the musician will cling on to his favored genre or instrument.

But everything expressed, verbally or non-verbally, with words or without, all share the reductionist tendency to narrow down to the aspect of passion, simply because from it is the origin of all inspiration and energy. The tyranny of expressions of love then, must be the symbolic violence forced upon the notion of duty.


Passion never did sustain anything for long. Passion is akin to the numerous (for some perhaps, the rare or occasional) sprints of a marathon. We all enjoy taking over people during runs; it gives us a certain boost of self-esteem, creates a little bounce in our stride. But an experienced runner will tell you that the camera angles of the Olympic Games or F1 races are overly focused on the thrill of watching one world-class athlete take over another. No one tuned in to ESPN enjoys watching Lance Armstrong or Michael Schumacher lead from the beginning to the end of the race, unless one is a huge fan or a pundit. We forget that the race is simply about tunneling on when it seems impossible to, when giving up is a tempting option, when the horizon gets keeps repeating itself, or when there is no one beside you to give your trembling body courage.


It can be said that duty is all there is to love. I cannot even continue from this line for the sheer dullness of things to say about duty. No one likes to think of love as a duty, it's the stuff people tell you when passion has fizzled out. We look at an old couple feeding birds together on park bench and we go, "Aww, so sweet." Turning our eyes to a seductive R&B dance between two scantily dressed adolescents, we then hear ourselves say, "AWWsome. I wish I could have some of that too." Even for the extremely conservative-minded, a picture of two good-looking celebrities kissing is still preferable to the two white-haired oldies.


The worse part is that there is no way duty can come on par with passion. Terms such as "loyalty" and "faithfulness" today, are more associated with dogs and nerds, and totally unmentioned under the "Top 3 Attributes of Your Ideal Man" by "intelligent" and "attractive" women. Skepticism acts as a back-up, because should the rare occasion of the term "faithful" emit from her lips, one brushes it away by assuming that she probably hasn't dated before or she has, very unfortunately, must have been a huge bimbo to have gotten her heart broken too many times.

In today's world however, men without a sense of duty rank among the most desired, simply for the fact that they cannot be held down by any woman. Narcissistic, fickle-minded, thrill-induced, easily-swayed, bad-tempered, arrogant, emotional men with short attention spans and an agenda of personal glory and pleasure-seeking are the most attractive species today. They can be identified by the simple observation that when the situation is completely closed off to any potential of self-benefit, they leave or shut-down, regardless of whether they are responsible or not. Before the ladies should begin protesting however, one should first be able to explain why the list of most desirable men in the world would never include Gandhi, Mandela or Jesus, and yet harbor the likes of Christiano Ronaldo, Robbie Williams and Brad Pitt. Even Tiger Woods just made himself mobile, upwards.

It is also sad how the notion of duty is crushed by the simple equation of faithful = boring. The general assumption (that if you realize, equalizes all men by turning them into animals from the moral creatures that they actually are) is that a partner is faithful because of a lack of available options. And if he has a lack of available options, it must be because he is not attractive enough. And if he is not attractive enough, the lady (you) unfortunate enough to have chosen to be with him must be the stupidest woman in the world to pick such an unattractive man. "Eyes tia stamp", in Singapore slang. And every person (men and women included) always like to think that they deserve much more.

Just for the fun of it, other taken-for-granted equations include: handsome/beautiful = has high standards; rich = spoilt; power/wealth = knowledge; intelligent = lack of normative communication abilities; gay = will have sex with any available guy.

As much as there are historical origins for the creation of such social equations, one must be constantly self-aware of the tendency to generalize in order to make this complex world a little easier to understand. If not, as a woman, one would be dating every guy who asks one out, even that creepy old man with a lack of basic hygiene and social distancing skills. But the contrary also holds true, that as a woman, one might tend to make too quick an assumption and filter out even those who hold the greatest potential of bringing one happiness and direction in one's life.

A man with a sense of duty need not necessarily be boring. It is, after all, a man with a sense of duty, that will accord priority to the (however little) creative element in him to spice up the occasionally-needed passion required to liven the relationship AS a part of his duty. Rather than the most exciting and creative man with no sense of duty and therefore harbors no urgency to ignite the passion when the relationship needs it most.






The next time you look into the night sky and admire the stars and the fireworks, do not forget to credit the deep blackness surrounding them. It is, after all, the darkness that accentuates their magnificent, God-given beauty, without which, they would be diamonds hidden in a basket of glass shards. -Valentino Casanova

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. -Paul (1 Cor 7:3)

Rich Son vs. Poor Son

This video reminded me of the goal that I set for myself since I was young, that is to be the very best son I could be to my parents.

But this world has its paradoxes, as this touching video will show.


The question thus remains: Who do you choose to be?





Brilliance and success in life is not always contingent on one's ability to scale the status ladder that the world has set in place, but choosing not to despite one's possession of the perfect potential for doing so. -Valentino Casanova

Better what the eye sees than the roving of the appetite. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. -Solomon (Ecclesiastes 5:18-20)