Mehness.

Ever feel this strange depression creeping in but not know where it is coming from? This unexplainable feeling of despair for which there is no explanation. I hate that feeling.

I have no idea where it comes from, and I suspect that I'm afraid of identifying the reasons. People love deluding themselves, and as much as I try to tell myself that I can take it, it feels like something wiser than me is holding me back.

Denial of information to myself in the name of self preservation.

I hate the feeling because it debilitates me. I start justifying time spent staring into space doing absolutely nothing. I feel like crap. I have a reason to be lame. Except, I don't. And the knowledge that I don't just makes everything worse.

The feeling of utter helplessness, knowing that there are solutions, but not being brave enough to accept them, always hoping that an easier way will present itself. Fear of change. Fear of being judged. Fear of the unknown.

Its enough to make me want to cry.

I can't delude myself. I can't tell myself to go to sleep, and when I wake up in the morning, all will be well. Because it won't.

And when I start comparing my situation with the worst case scenarios, I know that what I'm going through is nothing. And knowing that makes me want to cry even more.

Spontaneity

Is something that I simply do not have. And is something that I will probably never fully understand. I used to frown upon spontaneity, less so now. I could credit it to Malcolm Gladwell, but I think it started long before I knew about him.

Now, its almost amusing. Its almost like I am a child poking at a Fisher Price toy that keeps rebounding back and giggling happily every time it does that. Sounds silly, but thats what it feels like to me.

I thought that it was a bit contradictory for me to be so chaotic but still lack spontaneity. I'm not exactly the most organized of people, something that I get reminded of all the time. (especially if I mess up). But then I realized that being methodical and being spontaneous are not exactly two mutually exclusive things. There are people who are both.

I guess part of being spontaneous is not giving a flying fuck. Something that is exceedingly hard to do. Even when writing this post I asked myself why I am doing this. I suppose that deep down inside I think that a policy of do first, consequences later could be disastrous. The problem is where to draw the line for allowable spontaneous behaviour. How do I identify situations in which the disastrous consequences are negligible?

Sigh.

I realize that this post is the exact things that I rant about. Pointless, meaningless jumble of words that are more likely to annoy than to inform.

But I'm trying to be spontaneous, so gimme a break.

=)

Scott Adams, I worship thee.

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/09/suing-god.html

One of the funniest posts ever! Almost fell off my chair.

The problem that atheists have.

Is the incredible diversity of religion.

This is particularly true when an atheist is trying to justify his or her own beliefs, I think. Its near impossible to pin point a group of unifying principles that can be used to describe all religions. Heck, its even hard enough identifying the core beliefs of all the different sects within one religion. And then we have those who claim "but what I believe isn't a religion, its just a way of life. You have your facts wrong". The funny thing is, their way of life has been officially classified as a religion by pretty much every government in the world, and they don't seem to be disputing the matter.

Anyways, the diversity that we see ultimately leads to one conclusion. Discussions about theology between an atheist and a theist end up with the theist saying, "Oh, you got it all wrong. Thats not what we believe at all". And the atheist points at another theist and says "But thats what he said". The reply to that is normally, "Well, he got it wrong too."

I remember going to a temple and asking one of the more respected people there about Buddhism. We eventually came to the subject of reincarnation and the cause and effect sutra. As a child, I read the sutra ( largely because it was full of pictures) and took it to be the truth. It was simple and made a lot of sense. Later on, I saw that it cannot possibly be that simple, and started asking questions. They were never really answered, but now, at that temple, I'm told that the sutra is rubbish. Apparently, its just one monk's opinion of what would happen.

Then there was this one time in the SPR when a Christian got into a small argument with a Buddhist. I distinctly remember the Christian hurling accusations at the Buddhist and the Buddhist indignantly saying that there was a misunderstanding. "Thats not what Buddhists believe or do". I couldn't help wondering what a Buddhist actually believes. And the funny thing is, as I look back now, I don't think either person knew what they were talking about.

I dare say that the Buddhists are the most fragmented of the lot, especially since they are allowed to not believe certain things if it doesn't make sense to them. (at least thats what i was told). But other religions have the same problem as well. Less so with Islam in Malaysia, since any interpretation that deviates from the official one is immediately surpressed. Most of the discussions I've had with Christians leads to them telling me that I have things all wrong. I'm not sure how these Christians manage to avoid telling each other that the other party has it wrong. Maybe its some unofficial code of conduct or something. I dunno.

I suppose atheists will only have this problem if they get into a discussion with the theists. Maybe atheists should just do what Dawkins does to creationists. Snub them. But knowing atheists, they will sit down and listen, just in case something interesting comes up for them to consider.

Visiting Christians, Take 3

Yeap. They came again, in their shirts, nice pants and skirts and tried to sell God to me.

/smile

Initially it was just this lady and her son. They talked to me for a while and I ended up giving them some advice on how to preach. That was fun, especially when I talked about other religious perspectives and how they really need to know what other people think and believe before they can try to prove that they are right. It really is amazing how few people have actually given alternative explanations a chance. Eventually the big gun came. He's one of those people who has rehearsed the answers to most common questions and can point to relevant passages in the Bible within 10 seconds. This is what I learned from him.

Jehovah's witnesses don't believe that sinners burn in hell. They just believe that sinners don't go to heaven. If you don't accept Christ, then you cease to exist after death.

Wow. Thats a pretty good deal isn't it? No punishment? So I can do whatever I want, and in the end, all that happens is that I cease to exist? Thats a bloody reward if you ask me. I mean, you could make the argument that I will never understand just how blissful paradise is, but I can tell you that I wouldn't want an eternity in paradise if it was anything like its portrayed in their pamphlets. Sure, it looks very nice, but I can't help feeling that I'd be bored out of my skull within a week. And anyone who knows me can tell you that ceasing to exist is probably the best thing that could happen to me after death. So to get what I want, I need to be evil? That puts me in a bit of a fix, really.

Anyways, I really don't understand why they keep going back to their book for proof. Doing that just gives the impression that they found a conclusion and then later started gathering evidence to support that conclusion. Of course the Bible is going to validate what you say. Everything you believe in came from there anyway. Its like trying to prove that philosopher A was right, and then pulling out a book that he wrote and proudly proclaiming "Here is your proof".

If you expect me to read some vague passage about how humans need guidance, and then nod solemnly at the wisdom of those words, then you're quite mistaken. Its quite self evident that humans need guidance, and everyone has a different perspective on what that guidance should be. The Christians believe that it be belief in a bunch of principles that a martyr gave us 2000 years ago. The Muslims seem to have a bunch of strict rules from the Quran that are to be followed (or not, depending on your interpretation). The Buddhist believe that we should disconnect ourselves as much as possible from worldly desires. All different forms of guidance, all somewhat valid. Anyone who has given other religions a fair chance would have noticed this, and would have proper answers to the questions that will come out of comparisons.

Picking fights.

This post is something that has been simmering for a long time, I just never actually understood the simmering well enough to recognize it for what it is.

Learning to pick the correct fights is a skill that I have always misinterpreted. I thought of it as choosing to fight when you can win, battles that you have a statistical chance of coming out on tops. It took me some time to realize that its far more important to choose my battles for the right reasons.

Maybe its in my nature to be somewhat combative. I've been at odds with my natural aggression before, sometimes blaming it for the way my life turned out. The 'if only' arguments are far too familiar. But its a bloodlust. It rises without me realizing it, taking over part of my conscience. I live for this kind of thing. I thrive on it. It gives me a high like nothing can. Left to be unleashed without any limiter, I picked fights that I didn't really give much thought to. In retrospect, I probably wouldn't have done it.

I could be very vague with this blog post. But not this time. I think this time I will use specific examples.

The examples that shine the brightest all happened in the SPB. Don't ask me why. It could be because I was a writer unleashed at that time, or because there were people there that eventually helped me to make more sense of fighting.

I think the fight that I never really wanted to pick was with SPARC. True, I do somewhat hold their ideals in contempt, but my intention was never to go to war. I do not regret writing that article, and the ideas that I expressed in that article are still opinions that I keep. But as I looked at the reasons I wrote the article, I realized that it wasn't really to promote any change or to inform. It was to show how much the organizers' objectives were indefensible on an intellectual level. It was meant to humiliate. The intentions were not noble at all, and I took moral high ground. It became somewhat apparent when I went to meet with the organizers with Sangheetha. I realized then that there was something wrong, and I froze. In doing that, I left my editor in chief without backup against a pack of defensive, snarling, offended SPARC members. I never said this before, but I'm sorry. I wrote that article, and it should have been me defending it.

There were other occasions as well, especially when it came to sticking it to authority. I seized every chance to take a swipe at STAD, whether it was warranted or not. My thinking was simple. I came up with the conclusion that STAD had no idea what the students are capable of and that their one and only objective was control. To a large extent, that is true. But when I found myself throwing punches even when there was no reason to, that same creeping feeling that something was wrong came back. Sometimes, they really are trying to be helpful. They aren't always deserving of hatred.

Perhaps it was ego that stopped me from rethinking all of this earlier. Maybe it was fear of the repercussions.

But the biggest conflict that this had led me into is the splinter in the SPB. In that case, it looked increasingly like there were two sides, and it was obvious which side I was going to have to pick. It was then that I went into fight mode. My single minded objective was to destroy the enemy, till the point that the reason for the war was lost to me. The same funny feeling came back, and showed a little when I found myself admitting that I would do nothing but keep the organization running as it was. I think that publishership became something I had to deal with in the event I won the war. The objective was to win, nothing else. The ideals I was fighting for got lost in translation. I'm not saying that those ideals weren't worth fighting for. I just needed to give them a little more thought.

I think I have learnt that now. Above all else, the reasons I fight should be kept in mind. Only then will I be able to trust myself to do the right thing.

Thank you.

For proving me wrong.

For restoring a good measure of my faith.

For the appreciation.

My conclusions were close to being drawn, and validation about how screwed up things are seemed inevitable, but you came along and did what I never expected you to do. It wasn't all good news, but the disappointment was overshadowed by the pleasant surprise that I was actually hearing what you were saying.

To be honest, I didn't think you cared enough. I had already lumped you into the same category as all the others, ready to write you off. I'm glad I didn't. You made me see that there are those out there who still believe that there is a right thing to do.

To a certain extent, you have made it possible for me to look at that zone in life that you occupy and smile.

There are good people left there. =)

Women effective communicators?

Are they? Its a widely accepted fact that men and women communicate differently. Any dumbass with half a brain will be able to notice that. I acknowledge that fact, but its the opinion that women are better at communicating that I cannot agree with. I recently came across a theory about the difference in methods, and how it came about.

Women don't like putting anything across bluntly as a general rule, and apparently, that has roots in the whole hunter gatherer ancestry that we all are supposed to have. Women are traditionally the one that organizes the household, and her role is to minimize conflict. As such, she communicates indirectly, in an attempt to avoid such conflict. Its a trait that we call 'tact' in modern society. They say one thing, but mean another. Never state something for what it is. This difference in styles is the legacy of our ancestors, much like the example of why gullibility is good for the human race. (see earlier post)

Because women are the ones that developed this kind of communication, they are also the ones that are better at deciphering it. And so, since women can pick up more subtle cues in a conversation, it means that they are better communicators. Or at least that is how the argument that I have heard goes.

But like so many other traits that humans have, some are becoming increasingly outdated. I admit that tact is still very important, but there are situations in which double speak is more of a nuisance. Like in a boardroom meeting. Or in the army. Or a couple making a decision that could change their lives forever. The problem is not that double speak exists, its that it cannot be turned off. Double speak is a trade off. You sacrifice some accuracy to reduce the threat that you generate while speaking. When a bunch of directors sit down and try to decide on something, there is no room for error. Misinterpretation is deadly. If double speaking is instinctive and done without realization, then screw ups are inevitable.

Admittedly, good female communicators know when they can use double speak and when they can't. Along the same lines, good male communicators know how to pick up unsaid cues.

Its a very simplistic way of seeing the whole situation, but when such a situation arises, I tend to look at the bigger picture. For the greater good of everyone, would we rather have more direct information exchanges, or diplomatically safe exchanges? For me, its an easy conclusion. Whenever possible, state your idea for what it is. Don't beat around the bush. And stop looking at blunt comments as a direct attack at you. The world is changing. And your genetic code isn't changing fast enough to keep pace. Realizing this is the first step.