There have been ways to judge. Judgement equates to testing, to assesment, to training; and therefore to selection, to understanding, to learning. To judge someone, a criteria is needed for the sake of fufiling that judgement. Sometimes, the criteria is not kept within a 'fair' standard (while taking 'fair' on the simple level). Because. Fair is not fair to anyone all the time, factors always affect, and no system can ever satifsy an accurate 'judgement' even if it was a tailor-made one for that individual. All the above, may seem extremely obvious when dealt with in the scope of official judgements, when judgements actually matter to a general audience. Or rather, when the consequence appears more 'viewable'.

In people relations, judgement comes in very easily.When you place judgement on a person, you are strapping him/her onto a personal profile to the different areas you judge upon. A people-filter is created based upon the values and principles you have and based on the relationship you would desire with that person. A measure dependant on what you would want out of the person, (of course, uncertain/undefinable variables can be placed here as well) and 'unconditional' applies in some instance of course. The status of the citeria would differ depending on how much intimacy the party would have in that certain aspect you wish to deal with the guy in. A team player might not be a confidant. A teacher may not be your friend. A leader may not be your coach. The respect dealed out to the one who is judged invovles the unfairness that boils within the oneself, unmeasurable as well.Or maybe, just measurable to the extent of statistics and human classificational sorting.

But, as unreliable judgement is in situations, it is critically needed at almost every instance. Beyond the common sense phenomenas, to the more drived-in instances. Judgement is needed when justification needs to be performed. It needs to be around when dangers or tough signals arise.

When you are judged, the odds get more nastier. Plenty of 'bad sides of life' have arose from developments of these judgements. The obvious discriminational cases due to unfair bias and the hidden mind games due to unknown factors. These have destroyed many, in terms of opportunities and allowances and have disabled them from venturing to their true potentials. There are also the 'first impression scenarios' and the 'judge by single action cases'. Without a through knowledge of the subject in question, and knowing that its actually quite impossible to judge that subject fairly in the first place, judgement laid down does not seem at all a sensible thing. But, in practicality, when not observed through such a light, judgement is and will always carry on, to cotinue the physics of the working world. Just being judged by someone is not bad, as it is the actions that will result in a consequence for one's judgement upon you. But since the consequence reflects the judgement, and is in tandem with it in presenting punishment/reward, both extremes lie on the line of occurance through chance, by manipulation.

Yet, judgement happens in so many ways, taking forms of so many styles; it would be in itself inaccurate to place judgement on the act of judgement. If a truly perfect order demands a conceptually/reasitically fair process of judgement, no one really cares more on the mechanisms behind its work. Of course unless, that perfect order is not one that appeases logic and reason. Appeasement of those two alone doesn't get any order far in life anyway.

Who can judge anyway.



Humans are weak. Words are powerless. Apology can only be done so forcelessly...
To say... I'm sorry.

Freedom implies control. Control demands decesions. Decesions instigate blunders. Blunders create unrest. And urest, begets the yell for freedom.

Liberty might not be a clear indicator of what freedom is about. It never may be a word that was designed to gague 'free'. Perhaps it was only with slight association and gusto that the word linked up in wedding with freedom. Liberty enhances its scope with a stronger feel, a more powerful thrust to the subject in case. But still, liberation does not mean freedom. Nor does freedom equate to liberation. Liberation seemingly would allow freedom; and while this is in dependence of the subject invovling the freeing and liberating, its aura is not a nature of free. Within the field of termiologies and thus the definative decesion, freedom compasses speech, action, thought and other tangibles that are friendly with the groupage. Liberty takes on an 'act of being free', where someone is 'at liberty' to perform something, he would be allowed to undergo the process within the superficial bounaries that the instruction/rule has allowed of him/restricted him under. Yet all such terms only grasp onto the surface of being free and liberated. A fine line still blurs itself upon both concepts and in simplicity, they do agree with each other. With respect to consequence and result from action and process.

Why do people want to be free? Following the angle of the first paragraph, the control would require something that is pretty lagged upon individuals and groups. (not to mention the conflict that occurs within each) -- direction. What to follow? Systems set-up have spurred up followers, but beside the ideas, it might be the something else that attracts. The hunger perhaps. The sense of well-being(delusion) perhaps. All these, in orbital of the quest of being free. To those who are still within O level history influence, take note that this also refers obvious and implict scenarios of the modern contriditctions, the debatable dinosaurs and the lost and confused. To be free- one must break away. And that means something must be shattered. An order must be broken to restore the rightful order that is desired by you. A purpose is created for the necessity of designing a suitable want for you. To break away from the rest maybe. To go against the others, perhaps. To not be bounded, while still sercured. To not be trapped, while still within.

However, the call for liberty does not soley sit on the stones that names its distress. And while the quest is undertaken, the question of liberty remains but a vague mystery. On the surface, it might make perfect sense. And into it, it might have meaning. But when that is broken up and taken apart, and when a step back demonstrates the wonder of what the liberty is about... What exactly is the freedom for? And what is this freedom about? And what does it actually mean?

Liberty is not always liberty. Freedom doesn't always give freedom. Be it an official announcement, a implict affirmation, a advice-like agreement... for freedom's sake, and to liberty's injustice..

No one is free. In many ways, in several instances..

Its not much of a question of how much we are allowed to. Its a question of how much we can.

And can't.

A new series. Confronts the matters that break and take away through a zone of reversal and running.

-----------------------------------

Unique individuals exist on this earth as much as they can allow peace. Mistakes here and there. Miscaculations everywhere. Yet, the world agrees with itself that the developments, progresses, changes and reality have worked out into a praisable situation.

Because of the strong? Of those who talent on in order to bring successes forth and carry on the lineages of improvements? Because of the the willing because they could go through the odds and emerge as their circumstances deny them, fighting away the litany of chaos and crawling into the seat of honour, only after death has gripped them? It would be much too odd that single men alone can mould history. Much too strange that change and order can be commaned through strength and initative. Yet history still quotes the names. Only the people, who affect, enrage and engage, the minds of those who are, and to come. Future goes on with singularites remembered rather than the pural. Time still enhances its footsteps with the solo rather than the team. Still, that is quite exaggerative at many angles.

We should also praise the weak then. For allowing the balance to fufill. For making the prestige, honour, reward- so much more appealing. Exclusitivity by the boundaries. Survival of the fittest through the limits. They fall so they can rise. They die so they may live. So they may be chosen, and they may be better. So they may be powerful, and they may be cleverer. Thank them all so they can get honour and glory, and movements and power. So they are the ones who make the difference. Because they never did it./ So they are the ones that did not do it. Because they made the difference.

Yet, who are the strong? Who are the weak? Where do they come from, which stance do they take up? The strong contridicts the weak from its attribute of strength when the weak might not agree to the latter's trait in the first place from its assumption/declaration of its own strength. Not only the exceptions of variable abilities. The mindset itself. The command wielded upon a certain perspective, fused into unreactive metals that remain on their earth. They remain so unless a digging. And the diggings never get to the point as its dependence of protection is so very more beyond the basicality of sand, water and core. The core, retrospects into a faster/truer imagery. An instance of conspiracy. We don't know who the strong really are. Nor may we fathom who are the weak. Or if the weak would overthrow the strong. Or if the strong are upon the power of the weak, bearing bulk while commanding strength. Strength and weakness might reflect upon different things for each group, (bearing in mind that their title/label is still not confirmed..) actions might not be so important if beliefs overrule them. Until the beliefs control the fashion of actions, while still remainding upon the throne. The ideas that construct the visions of output (be it, action, thought, emotion) might capture its prey of renewal and change. Distortions that do the same, might lure the same prey; but perhaps one of different origin. (This. When we do not agree upon standard and absoultes)

Battle will occur. Between both parties, the strong may not victor the weak as the weak might not be as the percieved. And its not only a consideral of a question of time or perspective. Its also a matter of acceptance and adjustment. And then, they fight. Victory is but a blurred line as concepts of labels (Strong and weak) get mixed up with concepts of ability (varibaly speaking). But, it might not be even ability that conduts the war. Beneath it, a shimmer of hope echos for both sides. Strength and weakness get toned down so much that the sides might not have desire to obtain the seemingly more prestigous label of 'Strong'. Because the might know, that they are weak. (maybe, its 'for now')

Fight might not be desired by both sides. Maybe deep down, they don't want it, but it is but, inevitable. They may strongly want to avoid it, to run to another statue. But they can't accept the new order. Because, it isn't right at all. References to others, environment, circumstance, only encourage. The have to fight.

Whether is it the strong. Whether is it the weak. The fight goes on. And as much as humans have done it again and again... the fight will never end.

Until they win.

And Reality doesn't know what is the meaning of anguish.

But whatever it is; the world still spins, people still die, we still exist and the sky is still blue.

I know the picture sucks, but in any case, I dedicate this to everyone who has savoured the kicks of what Life has offered to them. The flavours and spices that it has allowed one to enjoy.

And to those who believe, carry on to run the race.


For there is a better place. The distance in reach of it may be clouded in uncertainty, doubt, fear or whatever...
But there is, that better place.

From the killing blows of the edge of swords to the transplantations of organs.
Principles in our life should govern the way we do things; whether or not they were created up by influence or circumstance, whether or not they were made up conciously or un-conciously. A day just comes along and from internal uproar or assumption, one declares that a situation is just wrong. Or to be tactful, 'not correct'. Simply because, our principles say so. When man has absolutes to cling onto, perhaps he can be happier, rather than running through life with a hammer and a goldfish. But such an assumption shouldn't be taken too drastically to the extent when principles are considered pollutive and much too governing. An extreme realised in this fashion can announce that one shouldn't be kept within extent of their absolutes and should break free, and feel free to taste difference.
And differences are supposedly refreshing to be crunched on.

Still, whether or not the man assumes this notion, the absolute that governs his alignment to procedures do not release grip. When its caged and stored, 'released' is but a risk with a lot of fear invovled. Even so, many still do not assume such a scenario or think it to be or a different nature. Dependative, that is. We have the creative, that have now be divided loosely over the 'copycats/improvers' to the 'true innovaters', but the second class does heresy very frequently. We have the puralists that would stop at nothing to assume no boundaries and perhaps unite the boundaries to savour difference. And then we have the idealists that subscribe to editions of world-chaning and frequent revolution or revival. Still, the world now works upon principles and adheres to them whether it is a social/moral ethic, or the Law. People still have to stick to tact and appear politically correct and counter-parts do need to show respect. Such absoultes are recognised and probaly not contreversial. Pointless, and maybe even ridiculous to try to balance.

Then what about the debatable? What about those that concern questionable unease and where lines cannot be drawn nor ticked? If groups rise against groups to defend that matter in questions, based on the principles of their own, or if confusion strikes with uncertanity within the groups themsevles.... What now?

Principles can be considered to be...

The Mirror. To reflect alll you do. To present an image that would show you. May have cracks, may have dents, but the mirror is still what needs to be done.

The Fire. To correct. The correct. By it, correct. A power, a force, a gudience, an aid... and therefore, your response. (Or even maybe, because of the consequence)

The Lion. To justify. To clear up. Only when hunger allows it to, only when it sees a need to. Holding the weighing scale in its right paw, it sits upon a throne of authority. Just... Because.

The Rope. It holds you back so you won't fall. It clings onto you so you won't get lost. You in return, grip onto in in hope. For the future sercurity that the actions you now profess would get you.

Principles have shielded and have damaged. One could move into the case studies and really debate on the 'whats it all about'...( what do you stick to your principles for...)

But. I got a Math exam tomorrow.



Possesion is a burden. Desire to posses is a pain. Desire not to posses is a tragedy.

You don't understand.

Or maybe 'you're not listening to me'. Or perhaps a 'you don't know me at all'. Whatever the varations may be, they carry the essence of the opposition being negetive (or so) when you analyse them. A possible hidden-meaning-like translation could be 'you're not agreeing with me'.
It may be differences and thus 'subject-here' clashes. Also the misunderstandings and thus barricate formations.

Quite a unworthy bother that humans want to occupy themselves with... but that only goes to show how significant is the side of getting comfort and connectivity between them.

Well.

He gazed out to the window, fighting back emotions that seem to tear apart his perspectives of reality. His assumptions and beliefs had fallen down, hitting down onto the floor, so hard... so forceful, that even a recoil had to consider hesistance. And then he turned his gaze to the distant skies. He knelt.
And then he prayed.


There are those that wonder even about whether there is a God. The informed should be aware that the more intellectual answer is 'of course'. Ones who think that life had occured by something else, say chance or nature, are holding upon to apathy to true seekage or seepage to true awareness. The only supporting guy they have in case, is after all, probability.
Anyway, there are the lot who believe that there is a God. But when we cross this barrier, there is the question (that isn't really frequently pondered upon in a totalistical way) who this God is. Plenty a times, we base God on a concept of what we have in mind. Even if our beliefs are reliant on a certain doctrine or theory, there is that construction that we have made up in our mind in potrayal of a 'God'.

Man have answered this query in different ways. A common answer is that 'Man can never understand God'. This is true, whether we consider it in a logical or religious sense. For Christians like myself, we draw conclusions God have by Bibical perspective. Others may picture 'God' within their own assumptions. A build-up of environmental circumstance and a compelmentation of belief framework. 'My thoughts are not your thoughts' can appear to be difficult for one to accept while he can agree with 'The Lord is my Shepard'. Mercy and forgiveness may be warm to sit on, but one might not find favour in wrath and anger. But then again, preference is quite different from reality. Whether or not perceived or true.

'God' has been classed into 2 kinds -- Non-Personal and Personal.
Bascially, whether one can get into contact, communication and relation with him. Other matters in the query-box include: Whether there is responsibility on man's part to him. Whether he cares about us, or ignores the creation. And the extent of his power, control and plan.

But anyway, to stick on topic, I'll cite a few relationships that may resemble a God-Man scenario.

Master--Servant
The degree of care, the extent of understanding etc. can be considered. One should also note the consequences that arise, the treatment that is carried out.

Teacher--Pupil
Somehow paints a more pleasant picture. But also consider those who train their pupils so that they can get the best outta training. Is it a 'putting-us-through-intensity' kind of thing? Or perhaps a guru-like wisdom outflow to allow one to attain an inner peace or to truly be enligtened about matters of life?

King--Pawn
A harsher image here maybe, depending on the systems and historical reflections you can recall. King might mean his the one to give all glory to. King could mean all rules are set by him.

Father--Child
This relationship seems extremely fitting, IMO. Quite a perfect one to liken to God to man. A father could be a displinarian, a listening ear, a carer...... and in whatever, the child's welfare is important. And he does it in unconditional love..

Leader--Follower
When we consider the 'following' structure. Somehow presents to me a tingle of foreign-ness, but it could be otherwise.

Saviour--Wretched Ones
In the Christian context, Jesus had died for our sins so that all who believe in him may have eternal life. Man are understood to have gained salavation through his grace, and not through our works. In the other sense, perhaps a degree of 'saving' is thought of by man. Emotionally, Spiritually?

Captain--Solider
Or whoever the highest rank in the army is. When we consider the army analogy, concepts of brotherhood, loyalty, trust etc. come in. 'Teamwork' might be existant too, but it doesn't really apply as God is defintely a higher being then man.

And well, there are also certain ways that man would speak to 'God'. A certain style or fashion while approaching him, in prayer (that is, if the 'God' concerned is a personal one) To list simply: In shame, with curiousity, in respect, like a friend, when you're lost etc. etc.
And to go to God to ask, speak, clarify... or listen?

God knows.

---

_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

---