I got this joke off a trainer from some course, and I elaborated/paraphrased on it abit... he was talking about the time when you just come back from a test at school. When you return home to meet your parents, they will most probaly ask you the classic question: "How was the test?"

According to the trainer's research, a 'Easy' would make the return paper's mistakes be considered as careless while a 'difficult' would make them think that you did not study enough. So he came up with the answer that was a perfect retort: " The paper was challenging." Yeah, an impressive enough fight back. But then here comes the part that I find rather hilarious -- (where 'A' = the test-taker)

Mom: Challenging?
A: Yeah, it was challenging... extremely thought provoking. But I pushed myself to the limit, and I tried the best that I could do.
Mom: Really?
A: Yes... and the most challenging was the first question.
Mom: What was the first question?
A: It asked me... my name. And then I took a step back to wonder, who am I actually? What is my true identity? Who was I in the actual nature? What was my real name? Do I consider myself a body that resides in a spiritual enity? Or was it the other way around? Or should I determine the question on a physical basis? If so, was I a 'human being', do I write 'Human Being'? Then, there is the thing about being. If we are just being... as in being here just to be... is a name really important? Wouldn't a title rather be praised with just emptiness... to demonstrate the blankess of what the world's identity really is ? And then.... after I thought about it for two hours, I had no time to complete the rest of the paper.

Hey, its funny.

I believe the proper term is 'behaviourism'. On a personal basis, I am not a behaviourist as I think that school undermines the true significance of the human mind and are treating humans as beings that respond and react rather than observe and hypothesize. Human behaviour is something very interesting, very unique, and no matter how many patterns, classes or trait fields that can be derived from the censuses, every individual takes up thought and there is no definte textbook to create a law. There are no constants, no rules and no boundaries in the ways human act or react to whatsoever instance.

From the branch of behaviourism, there are many other twigs that cling to its concept while having its own assumptions of the style of human behaviour and its action in purpose. I will not go into technical terms, but rather I shall speak on a few forms of behaviouristic intepretations:

One, the school that partakes an analogy of a computer, i.e. the human is controlled by an OS (operating system) Humans used to have instinct, but we had lost it over time. It jumps off the view by observation of human movement and action. The thing to carry out, is to observe a single person very carefully at a particular moment and take note of his actions. Every instance of movement shows that he controls himself, sometimes mechinically and other times conciously, through an unknown awareness of being able to move. This brings in the idea of motor-skills (riding a bike, typing etc.) Therefore, the human is just like any other animal, but operates on a more complex OS.

Two, the school that feeds on the idea of a 'cause then effect' response system. This system falls back on methodolgical psychology, and is futher broken up into modules of sequences; the classic experiment of the rat pulling onto the bar for food is probaly the main driver for this idea. The logic is simple, a cause, be it negetive or postive and then a reaction to the cause, be it postive or negetive. Experimental psychology has explored this by the 'pulling bar' method, providing a different pay-off, although it is done in animals, some do believe the concept holds true for humans as well. On a larger scale, it builds a law that humans will keep doing something if it benefits them and humans will stop doing something if it does not benefit them, (rat stop pulling bar when it gets hit with pain or sees a fellow rat get hit with pain, but rat pulls bar when he gets food from it, or see a fellow rat eat food from it) this demostrates a few ideas that brings interesting debates, i.e. 'do humans find religion something that is good and therefore keep pulling onto its bar?' and even topics like 'One is fat becuase he wants to be fat, being fat is beneficial to him sub-conciously'. There is an interesting variation to the experiment; psychologist used the same rat that habitually pulled the bar for food for about a week and changed the effect of the bar-pulling to be an infliction of pain to the rat. If I remember correctly, the rat still continued pulling onto the bar even though it knew that there was pain. It had expected food. If this is brought on to the large scale of humans, why personal beliefs and opinions cannot be broken could have this reason.

-- Update: I'll stop this.

Because.

Many views on this day. Several that loom around how comercialised it is, plenty that narrow in on its 'lost' meaning of giving, loving and care, many that speak of traditions and joy and there are the those that believe that when Santa waves at you from the window, you have been a good child. The old ones laugh at your innocence.

Then, theres the true meaning and significance to it -- The birth of Jesus. That God allowed his son to enter earth in the form of man, for the very purpose of dying for man's sins. And thats what chistmas is all about. The birth of Jesus, remembarance to his birth.

Humans are creatures that are very fond of the begining and the end. And at times, we forget something that is of true, real, importance -- the middle. The correct term should be, 'the process'. Jesus himself had walked on earth for thirty years before the before he finally went to the cross. He had to live a life of obidence to God first, and so sees the importance to our process. The importance of things taking time.

Like the parable that speaks of the kingdom of heaven, the mustard seed. It is also about growth. There is always the process before the result, the cause before the effect. And the process is there for us to savour, to mature in.

That is probaly the reason why we don't wake up in the morning and suddenly find ourselves becoming a better person or gaining a better skill. We have to be on this earth, to live in the presence of this world, for the sake of growing. We have to mature in spirit, mind, emotion and morale -- to be santified.

Why spend so much time thinking about a start or an end? The process is the true thing that will make one grow, and God has given us this 'process'. Let's always remember the process that Jesus Christ went through and have that remind ourselves the significance of our growth, and the significance to christmas.

Merry Christmas to all!

Okay. Like I said.... I'll talk about it again.

Let me make myself clearer now since its such a serene night.

I sometimes feel uneasy with the paradigm that believers put themselves in. Or is it a paradigm in the first place? A feeling of having the backing up by a stronger someone.... a thought that makes you have no doubt that you are right..... It has been called many names. It has been labeled with several theories. It has been set into the light of the skeptics and sighed on by the many unconvienced. I am speaking on the platform for ALL believers in whatsoever body of significance to them or whatsoever truth that is believed by them.

Faith? Blind leap? Fanatisim? Ignorance? Emotionally insercure? Mentally provoked? Peer drawal? Fear? Mind trap? Human thorn of mentality? etc. etc. etc.

It has been seen in many forms, this thing believers believe. Many have viewed it from every angle, many have attacked it from every point; yet again, many have broke up into different schools of thought holding different trains of though, many have also choosen a particular area to shout importance onto. A step back from these, an unbeliever would assume that believers are trapped in a box. That we are stuck in this hole because we don't want to look things the other way around or simply are too damned naive. Or other reasons. There defintely will be more reasons... humans think.

But what about the response of the believers? Do they share as postive a response as possible? Or perhaps they still appear to the opponeant as the one who is stuck on with those ideas, the ones who cannot leave the house as something bad will happen. Or 'neurtral' ?

Heh. Oh really, do they try to compromise as much?

This is really war, even in the conflict of ideas, in the conflict of dogmas or perhaps whether even dogmas hold true. The one is always on the other side, the man, if his not with you, his against you.

For that matter, the reactions to the ones who go against the believers have a long range, rippled effect.

Say for example, strong emotions towards the unjustified in one's eyes. Perhaps also a feeling of irritation and an immediate assumption that a person a being stupid for not seeing the truth. Then theres the shunning of the topic in question. The rationalisation of things with the party while basking in a train of thought that clings entirely to the devotion of one's beliefs in point.

Behind every matter, theres a philosophy behind it. Humans have also wandered and sought either pattern or realism, or logic or reasons, purposes or intentions, directions and questions, abstract understandings or zen-tifed analogies, etc.s

And when everyone is fighting among each other to try to save the other party from the point that they believe the opposition will drown in.... even if it is dogmatic theology, even if it is the sum up of total wholeness in the universe, even if it is the theory of logics oiled by reason.

There is almost as if there is no life guard left. Even though theres a true purpose. If theres a true reason. If theres a true way to be seen. The identity of the rescue team seems to be in confusion with the gang feeling more and more comfortable in the waters.

Knowledge is power huh? Think again. When you done that, think again once more.

Argh.

What should I feel? Emotion is really too weak to be something to elaborated by words anyway... not saying that words are strong in the first place. Man has really gotten me through an avenue of ponder, anger, anxiety, pity, cynaism and what have you...

Damn.

What can I tell those holding weak beliefs that appear so strong? What can I supply to those who have reason and theory that seem so untouchable? What, damn it?

They percieve religion to be just another avenue of comfort for the woes of man's predicament. Another crutch to hold onto for the welfare of human sanity. Why? Perhaps religion is the thing that supplys the following ingredients to man, his needed vitamins for a healthy life: Direction, Personal Identity, Wisdom, A sense of belonging, understanding, life principles, motivation, inspiration, love, faith, comfort, standards, encouragement. But Is mankind really that shallow? Well, I guess they are in a way. Man always seek these things in the first place, its no doubt that the mentality that religion, being an avenue to the attainment of these traits would arise. But I beg to differ. Seriously... chrisitianity is not some kind of song you hear thats nice. Everytime you hear it, it will feel nice and be comfortable. But hearing the same song over and over again will make one bored, in the same instance, no matter how many ways of collisions to the desired vitamin, it doesnt work in the way of a song.

And what's more... I can't say much when they acutally know about religions. They study each one in-depth and can write books on each. They can discuss each and even bind everything up together nicely. What crap... But I can't say that anyway.

Because they assume that I'm livining by blind faith. They think that I am simply being narrow minded. They feel that there is wholeness between this whole thing and many paths to one single road that doesn't need to be clinged onto.

But what can I blame? And what should I blame anyway? I will appear as a fanatic either way. If I use emotions, I will appear to them as a moron holding onto something not letting go. If I use reason, they fight back with logic. And they seem to know about all these things and carry a perception that its all really perceptions of each singular individual. That is my view in a way... but I'm not a realvist. I believe there are absolutes. There defintely are...

But then opinion strikes in. I'll use an analogy, a man jogging on a road. When people see him, theres several views to his situation: 1) Its a form of excercise, good for him to build up his body. 2) He looks fat... this is probaly part of his plan to slim down, 3) His trying to excercise to impress ladies, what a proud fellow, 4) He looks so tired and still jogging, what determination -- or -- what if he collaspes?, 5) His stressed out and this is a good way for him to vent his fustrations, 6) His late for work and doesnt want to be sacked......... etc. etc. etc. Each view is really a variable, theres several openings to a new wave of opinion.

Sigh...

I have a great feeling I'll talk about this more. For now...

A/N
Now, I narrow in onto one bulky section of the human identity - Perceptions. When trying to convert someone, or instilling a new perspective into the person, one must be very aware of the spectacle that party is seeing. I believe this 'spectacle' concept is not something that is new, nor something that is creatively ingenious, but still, appearing so many times in so many forms only confirms the existance of such a concept.
________________________________________________________
--Spectacles: The several platforms of how one sees things, the unique and yet unspoken about ability of the human race that had inspired the career of acting--

Let me use an analogy to illustrate: Everyone of us have our real eyes that we use to see this world and react to it. However, we also use spectacles to see it as well for the assumption that it will aid our eyesight. The significance of your degree, is matchable to the spectacle that you are wearing, and since its comfortable, you may try sticking to specific spectalces in particular time frames. It is therefore, kinda hard to use your true eyes to see things when you keep purchasing specs. An interesting thing to note is that everyone is blinded at first, when one finally manages to see the light and becomes a christian, his eyes open and realisation dawns on him that he manages to see the truth.

So, to keep on topic of the thing of convertion, everyone has to note that the someone that they are converting has this spectacle on; they most probaly will not see eye to eye with you on things for the very fact that they see things in a different light. Spectacles can sometimes be fusioned together as well, creating a new species altogether.

The Spectacle Bestseller Catalogue -- Basic forms of Spectacles

_Arrogance
Either a) He assumes he already has the knowledge of this topic, or b) He assumes he is on a higher level compared to you. Arrogance spectacles are usually donned when you speak to people above your age, or perhaps, people whom had taken higher studies or had read up more stuff, compared to you. He'll probaly be only listening half-heartly or listening with the motive of catching you off guard and correcting you. Perhaps he'll recommend other sources of information to you and tell you his own side of information. E.g. You try converting a 50 year old guy to be a christian when your 15, he nods, presents you books with titles like "Tough Mindness", "Evidences of the existance of Jesus" and quotes bible verses. At the same time, he disapproves of your attempt and tells you to try for others.

_Amusement/shaking off
His doing it only for the fun of it, plays the fool and try to flow along with the topic. Either that, or he plays along so he can find a convient opening to escape. The only thing that he pays attention to is probaly when he can leave. Such a someone will probaly posses thoughts that hold essence of 'this lame idiot has been hogging me for the past one hour, just get off me dude! I want out.' He doesn't admit to not acknowledging the information that the man is producing, instead, he masks himself with the image of a fool and then later, complains with jokes towards his pals.

_Apathy
The spectacles of insensitivity. Usually, nothing much can be gotten through a someone whom is unfeeling about any particular matter. This barrier can be broken by finding a point to provoke emotion.

_Closed
Allegorically, its a pair of specs that are painted over with a colour, covering the inital transluceny of the spectacle which is the main point in the first place. Fanaticism comes to mind. Its basically a strong mixture of arogance and ignorance and a heavy leap into a concept that is probaly not much studied nor examined. Closed Spectacles are used rather frequently by those who actually pin such particular beliefs in their mentality, cases like being born into a family with traditional rooted expectancy of the beliefs, being brought up in a insitute that sercures a confirmed mentality to the concept. Basically, 'from-young-till-now' cases are popular.

_Practicality
Glasses of practicality have a special 'mode' button on them which allows you to select from the variety of 'Monetary' to 'How much of doing this wastes my time'. And then from the perception comes the barrage of actions that corresponds to how it affects 'myself'. The usual self-centered system that practically everyone wears. Sometimes, even if its not about the oneself, the attributes of the action might have traces of being in such a perspective. E.g. "I'm going to buy flowers for my teacher becuase she will feel better after that. Perhaps I will be forgiven and she might even give me bonus points for the next test!"

_Anxiety
Of everthing. The 'what if's and the constant pretence to be seers to the future. The presence any existence makes one worried. Knowledge is always craved and consumed; now, its presence causes the anxiety. Yeah, ignorance was considered to b e bliss for a certain reason. Its probaly always because of a knowledge of something that causes one to worry, or be paranoid about a something to happen. I note that the idea of 'religion being a crutch for the emotionally unstable' roots from this trait of worrying. The counter-back for religion to worries, i.e. having no need to worry because its a cycle, natural, drains energy etc. makes it kinda obvious why this mentality is talked about. From this specs, the school that follows the mottos of self-confidence and morale boosting has found its seed as well. Either way, the whole matter is really ridiculous for the fact that this spectacle about worry has existed when the thought that being self-centered is being accepted. Who said that was the right thing in the first place? In any case, worry is another thorn in this world that causes a lot of problems. And that is worrying.

_Recall
This takes on two major forms, 1) It still matters to me, 2) It doesn't matter to me anymore. Retrospection, something that every human will go through once he reached a point where there is a need to consider matters. The past is always a very scary place, the ironical thing is that humans like to go back there to scare themselves again, so they can be baptised in regret. I admit that I used to wear this spectacles a lot. They were like my second eyes, through them, I build up my fortress of being a strong-headed pessimist. Christianity has allowed me to tear them off, now I only look back with number (2) in mind. Well, most of the time...

--Epilogu[e]--
There are many more spectacles of course. Some that are soaked in emotions, some that invovle thought and logic etc. etc. etc.
But one important thing to note is to never underestimate the power of God, even with the presence of these glasses. Eyes are behind those spectacles that are worn, and God can open those eyes, so one can finally see the light.

Footnotes:
Christmas is coming... But now it has been so commercialised, even the statement I'm going to say is sounding cliche. But truly... in this time of celebration, how many actually hold wonder and appreciation to the real and true meaning of christmas?

Those who have eyes, let them see.

---

_Past

June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009

---