A Nice Thought

they enveloped each other within the folds of their thoughts, holding onto each other with an intimacy no physical embrace could replicate, allowing their identities to merge together. their greatest comfort was a simple one: they were no longer alone. to know that you were with one who cared for you, and who understood every fiber of your being, and who would not abandon you in even the most desperate of circumstances, that was the most precious relationship a person could have.

taken from brisingr

Choice

to be the river grass that falls to whichever direction the wind is blowing on?

or

to be the oak tree that stands tall, proud and impervious to the elements?

To Lead or not to Lead?

i've always given much thought to the topic.

how can i start to describe about the little nuances and happenings of leadership if i have not first immersed myself in the experience? those experiences started back when i was still a little boy. actually i still am. but that's beside the point. i remember when i used to be a prefect leader in primary school. yes. i lead the prefects but i'm ranked below the head prefect. i used to be very stuck up about rules. 11am recess end means stop playing basketball at 11am on the dot. anyone who still continued to play past one second of 11am would just have to have their basketballs rudely snatched away by me and be marched to the discipline master's office. cool eh. it's not surprisingly that all my friends started distancing themselves from the stuck-up nerd - me. at that point in time, i firmly believed that rules are meant to be strictly adhered to. perhaps i was a goody-two-shoes with nothing better to do than to impose on fellow little kids having fun. being a leader mattered a lot to me then. it gave me authority over others and it made me feel powerful. repulsive little tike. i wish i could go back in time and smack that little me.

moving on to secondary school. i had a brief stint as an assistant patrol leader in scouts during my secondary 3 and 4 days. i remember that as sec 1s, we were treated like shit. literally. we did pumping under the hot afternoon sun on metal drain covers. we drank dirty-sock-taken-off-senior-feet filtered chrysanthemum tea. we had to stand at se-dia while our seniors pinched our nipples. yes. crazy lame ass shit why didnt you quit, one might ask. the seniors wielded absolute power over you. and you know how power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. i didnt quit because i really enjoyed the company of my peers and despite all these years of us going to different institutions and leading different lives, we still keep in touch. memories of those good old tortured days are fondly etched to the corners of my mind. i had a friend who did push ups until he tore his triceps. believe-it-or-not. that weak shit. haha. ok the point is this. when i became a senior, this power was thrust onto me. but i did not want it. do not do onto others what you do not want to be done onto yourself. i arrived at this Confucius concept way back then while doing all that crazy stuff. so i defied the traditions and started being nice to my juniors. thus i was faced with this moral dilemma. uphold the old ways or forge forward to a new dawn? depending on your perspective of how a leader should be, being a leader often means screwing popular opinion and sticking to your guns. i decided there and then that i wanted to do things my way - the nice way. i sometimes wonder - have i gone soft? why the change from my kid days to my early teens? i agree that such a leadership style may lead to those under you climbing over your head, but at least i felt i answered to my conscience. i prefer to win my juniors over on a personal basis rather than have them cower with fear in my presence.

jc days. i joined rockclimbing. i very badly wanted the training-coordinator post (something equivalent to captain, the chairperson is more in charge of admin matters) because i saw how the seniors before me who occupied this post had a clean sweep of the victories at almost every other competition they participated in. when the post fell to me, i was happy. or maybe even beyond that. probably elated. i will make the difference. i will surpass them and bring even more glory to the school. yes. the need for the cancerian to be the fearless leader. please bear with me. after that i realised that it wasnt all smooth sailing. i remember this particularly nasty incident when i screwed my peers for turning up late for training. i raved and ranted and became another person. a rather nasty one. here i must stress that i'm ALWAYS very mild-tempered and prefer not to meddle in the lives of others. i do not like to judge other people but would rather observe and ponder and contemplate. you must understand that i was placed (or perhaps it was my own choice) under tremendous stress. i need to uphold the kind of reputation that the seniors had achieved, that is, winning almost every other competition like it was no kick. i trained my butt off and would go home every training night dog-tired. my arms got so sore i lose all feeling in them. i made sure i pushed myself to the limit and then i pushed somemore. but i loved the experience. nothing else had made me feel so alive. but i digress. the point is this. on one hand you have me pushing myself so hard while on the other hand, you have this bunch of frivolous people who did not care pittance about your efforts at trying to get them to match your dedication. perfect recipe for an explosion of emotions.
eventually there was a happy ending. i did win my final comp, but i felt feelings of relief more than that of pure happiness. that taught me an important life lesson. aww i just love happy sappy endings. the lesson i took away from this episode did however leave a bitter aftertaste. rockclimbing is my passion. and mixing passion with politics would inevitably lead to a conflict of interest. the friendship i shared with those friends prior to the outburst never regained its austere. henceforth, i started to grow wary of assuming the mantle of leadership.

fast forward to my army daze. during time spent in basic military training. i made a solemn vow to myself. i did not want to become a wayang shit ass leader that some ocifers in the military benign to call themselves. i really look on with scorn at those peers (or can i even call them peers) who put on a show in front of the commanders just to advance their interests of being a commander. shallow. superficial. retards. for some reason, i did become a sergeant. i made sure that i treated those under me with utmost respect and i even did away with the rank thing. so instead of addressing me as a sergeant as all primp and proper recruits should, i had them call me by name instead. revolutionary eh. bet they got a shock of their lives when i demanded this of them. i hope i did not impeach on one of the core santicity of the armed forces. i was never made to be a military man anyway. those inspiring quotes that incite you to defend your nation you see plastered on the walls of some sacred corridor in the officer training academy? they were written by poets and historians, not soldiers. as you can see, i've become weary of leadership at this moment. sure i've become more or a man and less of a boy, but i cant help but feel like i've lost something in the process. i do not believe in the whole 'army' idea in the first place. can not a sane and rational person see that if every country were to strip down their armed forces, then they wouldnt even be a need to fight and kill and slaughter. we can discuss or negotiate any conflict like the civilised beings that we make ourselves out to be. all the money spent on maintaining an army (which is quite substantial) can then be spent on more meaningful pursuits - like research for a renewable energy source or a vaccine for some disease or rockclimbing or SOMETHING else other than killing and slashing. raves and rants.. at this point of my life, i am more of the view that rules are made to be broken.

finally here i pause on another pit stop of my uneventful and normal and like-every-one-else life. another page waiting to be flipped. in uni now. i've got wind of the the scandal that rocked the club in the time before mine. personally, i found the episode rather repugnant. conflict does not suit me i guess. good to know and good to learn from but i guess it stops here.
the current captain can be rather tactless at times, and unwittingly hurt the feelings of some, but i find him to be a good man. this all boils down to a conflict of interests. it wouldnt take an idiot to figure out that different people join the team for different reasons. some join because their friends join. some join for the company that they may find with their time here. some join because they want to experience a new sport. some join because they think rockclimbing will help with their image. the list is endless. personally, i join for the intensity. i like hard and tough training and i subscribe to the patxi approach. tough times dont last, tough men do. i like to take part in competitions and i take part to win. simple as that. name me a person who competes to lose and i will look upon him as a lesser man. at least in this aspect, my goals run parallel to that of the team for the time being - to win competitions and make the school look good. duh. of course i enjoy the spectacular view nature has to offer on a natural climb and of course i enjoy the companionship of going on a rock trip together, but my first and foremost priority is getting sick-ass strong. i know i will not be happy climbing a 6a or 6b or 6c for the rest of my life. i am only truly happy when i am attempting a problem that is really hard and which entices me to put in months of effort before it allows me to conquer it. i would do shame to the sense of satisfaction that courses through my veins following that if i try to describe the sensation with words.
ok. crunch time. some people disagree with the captain on the training methods. some people question his leadership style. some people go for training late again and again despite reminders otherwise. my point is this. if you do not like him, then why vote him in in the first place? also, being the captain would mean that he received majority of the votes. so is the process not democractic? if you do not like the decision, then garner enough votes for yourself and kick him out the next term. simple? no? having said this, i really sympathetise with the poor guy. caught in the middle. need to haggle with src. need to appease peers. need to maintain order during training. can already see the wrinkles forming on his face. but at least got a pair of boobs to turn to lah. i disagree with those people who gossip about him behind his back and whine about their unhappiness, yet do not take concrete steps to address the issue. my stand is clear. i've always thought that being friends with a person would mean accepting all the flaws that comes with him. the full package. if not, then dont be his friend!

so many thoughts. some may strike you as distasteful. most may not be coherent. but i thank that you have taken your time to sieve through this babble.


leadership by example.
servant leadership.

Food for Thought

A Cancerian can take the dreamiest trips to the stars on the gossamer wings of his imagination, if he learns to ignore that harping inner voice which keeps nagging him and warning him he might get lost in outer space. But until he learns to conquer his fears, they form his Achilles' heel, and they hurt every time he starts to fly too high.

How true.

Religion

i am aware that i am treading into a potential minefield without a minesweeper in my hand when broaching the above topic.

how am i supposed to know which religion is the true religion? just because someone follows a certain faith does not necessarily mean it is the right path. perhaps no one religion contains all the truth of the world. perhaps every religion contains fragments of the truth and it is our responsibility to identify those fragments and piece them together. or perhaps there are no gods. but how can i know for sure?

there are 3200 religions in the world since the start of time. since all of them cannot be correct, is it wrong of me to assume that all of them are wrong? the probability of a single religion being correct is 0.0003125. it would appear the odds are stacked against religion. since the dawn of mankind, religion has evolved from polytheism to monotheism. so am i wrong to extrapolate this data and predict a day when it becomes zero-theism?

i guess some explanation about how i grew up would go a long way into explaining my current predicament. i grew up in a Buddhist family. since young, i've been brought to temples to pray to deities and burn joss sticks/papers to ask for good fortune, and the like. i did not really understand what i was doing but i just followed my parent's instructions, not unlike every other obedient child out there. i still remember i always used the same phrases and i recited those same lines very sincerely. i pray for tua pek kong to let me grow taller faster, and to keep my family safe and sound. for close to 15 years i recited those phrases dutifully. as if the gods wanted to play a cruel joke on me, it would appear that they put a cap on my height. or maybe they heard my prayers but were powerless to help me with such a trivial request. or maybe they don't even exist. fair enough, my family is still safe and sound, but should i credit this achievement to the Taoist/Christian/Buddhist/Sikh/Islamic god? then comes this interesting turn of events. at 16 years old i stopped reciting those phrases. i simply just stuck the joss stick into the urn. lo and behold! i'm still floundering at the same height. and my family is still safe and sound! so tell me, based on logic, what is correct? it's akin to do an mcq test with answers given. you made a mistake and is given the correct answer but still adamantly put in the same wrong answer for the next test. perhaps with regards to faith, there are no answers. so tell me, why even believe in something that has no answers?

chris langan remembers asking his parents about religion at 5 years old and being disappointed with the answers he got. i took a longer time. still, i eventually asked my parents about religion at 21 years old. i ended up facing the same disappointment as chris langan. but before i go any further, i need to enquire as to whether you think that a curious mind is a sign of intelligence. would you prefer a child to be inquisitive and ask and question and debate or would you rather a child be obedient and servient and blindly accept everything spoken to be the truth of the world?

as i grew older, i began to question what i was doing and the significance behind the actions. as i could not get satisfactory responses from my parents, i embarked on a quest for answers. i've researched into religion as a whole, seeking answers from a 3rd person perspective. i place myself outside of the religion and ponder whether certain actions are rational. not unlike how you would ponder a science question. first you create the hypothesis, test its actuality, and then you see if it's true or false. if it's true then it gets accepted as a fact until someone else disproves it. if it's false then it gets rejected until someone else proves that it is correct (it doesn't stay false always). otherwise it is undisputedly incorrect and irrefutably wrong. and then it's back to the drawing board. i guess this is where i've erred. religion is based more on faith and belief, whereas science is based on logic and reasoning. hence, it is inappropriate to use one to argue the other.

i remember this rather peculiar incident. my parents very enthusiastically went to the Buddhist library and borrowed some books regarding the origins of the Buddhist faith and answers as to what Buddhists really believe in. i soaked up all that information like a sponge and was inspired. according to the reverend who penned that book, what my parents have been doing all these years are just some traditional rites which have no correlation to the Buddhist faith at all. i eagerly shared this insight with them, only to earn myself a sharp rebuke. now stand in my shoes for a moment and consider my feelings.

when i weigh the feelings of upset-ness against that of amusement, i find that the scales tip over at the amusement side. i'm amused that they refuse to see the truth about the whole matter. amused but resigned. yet who am i to question my parents, who have brought me up and clothed me and fed me? till today, despite the fact that i do not believe in any religion, i still burn joss sticks when they ask me to; the reason not being blind faith, but rather more out of filial piety.

for most of my peers, the christian faith was thrust upon them since young. hence, unless I'm very much mistaken, they did not have to make a conscious decision to pick and choose which faith to subscribe to. whereas i was brought up in a different environment. it's the same thing as going to the supermarket and seeing several brands of milk - you would want to pick and choose the one that appeals to you the most. on my (some would say childish) quest of understanding more about the various religions, it was inevitable that this would happen. I've read about Christianity and the bloody crusades and how a single line from the Pope can incite so much violence against the 'infidels'. a friend tells me how she feels that God certainly would not have condoned the Crusades, but the 2nd Pope certainly felt that God mandated the Crusades. So tell me, why can the same phrases in the Bible evoke such radically different views? i've read about the conflict between the protestants and the Catholics in Ireland. read about the Spanish Inquisition. i've seen recently how the Buddhist monks in Burma and Tibet use their faith as a political tool. in my book, monks are supposed to follow a strict code of conduct to seek enlightenment; not rally in the capital and attempt political manoeuvrings. all that, and more. you'll find that almost every other religion has its own dark past. the point is, i cannot bring myself to place faith in a religion that's tainted with bloodshed and anguish. the fact that religion is open to interpretation (which explains how come the christian faith is split into several sects who disagree with one another whether gays should be discriminated against or how to choose their next Pope/ or how the Buddhist faith is split into the 3 major sects) exacerbates the problem - who should i believe? religion is dictated by statements which are open to different interpretations and perceptions. since none of us earthly beings are perfect, our interpretations would be imperfect. most of all, I cannot ignore the wrongs done in religion's name - the sex scandal that rocked the Roman Catholic Church and our very own Singaporean version of Pastor Joaquim Kang embezzling $5.5million from his church or how Hitler used it to embolden Germans against all of Europe in WWII or how George Bush said God mandated him to attack Iraq only to return empty handed with no weapons of mass destruction but with the oilfields secured. i may not have a religion to tell me what's right and wrong, but i'm guided by my own (some would say flawed) moral compass and the actions above are certainly 'evil' to me. which brings to mind a phrase I've chanced upon somewhere: religion is seen by the commoners as true, by the scholars as false, and by the politicians as useful.

i am but just another being in this world, and the right to pass judgment is not mine. i would like to read more and understand more and learn more. i've read several books and find that i subscribe to the agnostic viewpoint. since i i cannot see for myself a corporeal almighty being, i find it hard to believe in his/her existence. since i cannot disprove his/her existence with current available evidence, i cannot unequivocably disregard the possibility of their presence.

i have a friend tell me that he/she feels that people with religion have no mental fortitude. that they have this need to believe that their lives would not come to an end after the finite number of years spent on this world and as a result they lead a pale imitation of what would otherwise be a more glorious life. in this i beg to differ. i know of religious people who are highly dedicated people who set out to accomplish whatever endeavors they have set their hearts on. however, i agree that religious believers generally believe that their time spent on earth will not come to an end when they die. they would go to a better place without frustration and anger and guilt and unhappiness and with 72 virgins (believe it or not) and they take comfort in that. terrorists are emboldened to walk into a crowd with bombs strapped to their bodies and blow themselves and everyone around them up precisely because of this reason. they are brainwashed to believe that for dying as a martyr, they go to heaven. if we didn't have religion, then they cannot possibly be manipulated to the same magnitude as compared to if they believe they would go to heaven for their self-claimed righteous acts. imagine if those terrorists did not have this religious facade to hide behind. they would certainly think twice before ending their lives if the moral excuse of going to a better place did not exist. of course we shouldn't place the blame solely on religion. but it is dangerous for the reason that it is susceptible to such abuse. i am more of the opinion that when we die, we die. that's why we should all strive to make life as meaningful as possible here and now, instead of trying to change the world and solve a problem with dramatic deaths.

i've also read the whole creationism vs evolution argument; and often ponder if God created us then who created God? and thereafter? my friend tells me that God is uncreated and He just simply has always existed. we live in a created world and so we understand things in terms of its creation. God however, created our world and being it’s creator doesn’t necessarily mean that He therefore had to be created. God works in a different context from man and He just simply exists, has always existed, is existing and will always exist. it’s a difficult idea to completely understand because we attach a finite quality to everything but if we can accept that God is of a different nature and quality then maybe we can accept this? on this point we must agree to disagree then.

the above views are solely my own and i regret if i have challenged the sensibilities of certain people. having said that, i do have some really fun-loving, peaceful, intellectual, brilliant friends who adhere to certain faiths and i wish to keep their friendship. all these people have helped shape my life in one way or another and i would not be the same person without which. for that i am grateful. just because we share differing views doesn't mean that we must label each other as infidels and kill. i find more sense in peaceful intellectual argument.

one last point. i happen to know a few christian families whose dads are atheist but the rest of the family are believers. this invokes several questions in my mind. are males less likely to believe in religion? do genes play a part in shaping a person's belief? perhaps one day scientists can uncover the religious gene. take this example: the father is non religious but the mother is religious. so if you draw a punnet square and if you are able to determine whether the religious gene is recessive or autosomal, then by mathematical calculation you should get a certain proportion of children who are more likely to be religious. food for thought eh. maybe i am thinking too much for my own good.


Are not all religions strange to those who stand outside of them?

Death

funny that my second post should be a topic as enigmatic as such. death eludes our questions and defies our feeble attempts at understanding its treacherous self. enigmatic or not, i take comfort in the fact that death's embrace is the last embrace a man will know. and perhaps that's all there is to it.

today i attended my grandfather's funeral. no big hoo-ha. i remembered the first funeral i went to, which happened to be that of a friend close to me, i shed buckets of tears. the emotion was something i couldnt control, probably stemming from the fact that i felt it was unfair for someone so young and showing so much promise to be torn away from the face of this earth. and also because he was close to my heart. ironically, i didnt really feel upset about my grandfather's death. he was a faraway figure and didnt really actively partake in my life. and i cannot bring myself to cry for someone i did not respect. fair enough, without him, my mum could not exist, and in turn me, so perhaps i must show that that little bit of respect.

as i grow older, i've grown more accustomed to the workings of death. she is sly, she is steathy and she wrestles each of your loved ones from your grip. but she is also all-knowing and all-seeing. no one escapes from her loving touch, and each soul touched leave with a ghastly smile. another great adventure to embark on.

we did the usual stuff like fold and burn joss papers and chant rites in a language i-know-not, and again i found me questioning myself. why are we doing all these? what is its significance? in this, i found the answer in filial piety. i may not believe in religion, but my parents certainly do, and since these little acts will make them happy, then as a son i cannot let them down.

is there a fluffy-clouds-drifting-with-angelic-girls-strumming-on-their-golden-harps or a burn-for-all-eternity-and-suffer place for us to go to? fact or fiction, faith or logic aside, i am of the opinion that when we die, we simply cease to exist. we stop living; we stop being. because none of the dead can come back to tell us what really happens, so there is no empirical evidence that tell us for sure where we go. that's why we must seek to make our time on this world as meaningful as possible. there is no second chance, no life after death. so soon as i've come to accept this thought, i've come to realise that we only truly live on in the memories of those still alive. i do not want to be lying on my deathbed begrudging the fact that i've yet to achieve all the things that i've set out to accomplish, or travelled and climbed all over the world - in essence i do not want to live a life of regret. life expectancy is a concept that is really laughable. anyone can die of anything at anytime. you can walk along the pavement and get slammed into by a car. you can walk along the void deck and get hit by killer litter. therein lies the wisdom behind the phrase: live each day as you would live your last. if it is really true that you can die at any time, then i would want to die with a smile etched across my face.

on this day i make this stand. when i die, i do not want my parents or brothers or wife or children cry for me. i do not want them to go to some columbarium every year and stand around and think of me. their time can be better spent elsewhere - perhaps in the pursuit of knowledge or passion. i want them to be happy that i've lived a life doing what i love most. and i would want them to carry on their lives like before. death is just an eventual adventure that we'll have to embark on alone. the above opinions are my own and are not meant to aggravate or anger other people with differing ideals.


renold messar: adventure is not possible without the possibility of death.

A Sudden Inspiration

hello blog

i had a sudden rush of inspiration to start a blog. i used to think that a blog was pointless because thoughts are meant to be kept private, and that if i were to share those thoughts freely with other people, then it would be akin to losing a part of myself each time. blogs felt like an oxymoron and to some extent, they still do.

but screw with all the ramblings and get down with the writing. i hope to use this blog as a platform for a release of the pent up thoughts gathered in the crevices of thy mind. some posts may be unpleasant, but i am entitled to my own thoughts, and whoever feels offended may do themselves a favour and simply look away. you cannot seek to please everyone, so i might as well please myself. also, you cannot explain to all the fools in the world. perhaps i am a fool for saying this.

it's not all gloom and sadness. i hope. but i cannot believe that a person who has seen much, read much, studied much and reflected much to not be a little solemn and a little introverted.

there is much comfort one can seek in the solace of books. books are more predictable than the frivolities of human emotions. a good fantasy novel lights up my day. i feel like i'm transported to a world of magic and adventure, free to wander and roam and be unbound by dogma and tradition. what i would give to be a boy lost in a foreign land, seeking a sword and having a dragon as a companion and defeating enemies and winning the fair maiden. needless to say, that fair maiden would have long flowing luscious hair as dark as midsummer night; eyes that bespoke deep understanding and love; would be steadfast in staying by the hero's side for all eternity. perfect. this is too much to ask for? maybe in the harsh realities of the real world, but not in the fairytale of a novel. whence may thy happy ending arriveth?

o fair maiden, where art thou?