Recently, there was an NSF posted to my department who was cited to have the condition of agrophobia. Actually, other than the email I received about his case and certain episodes when I saw him, I can't say that I know him that well. One of this episodes was at a departmental event when I was walking with my colleague towards a table to have lunch.

He was seated by himself , and this was pretty prominent since the other tables were all occupied by groups of 5 or 6, cliqued naturally by office divisions. After settling down, I saw that the office division he belonged to had actually signaled him to join them to eat with the causal, "Hey, come la. Sit here." which he turned down with a silent shaking of his head.

Agrophobia (as wikipedia says) is an anxiety disorder, which can be literally translated to 'fear of the marketplace' from greek. With such a condition, panic attacks come when the sufferer is in an environment where he/she perceives to have little control over the situation, when feelings of being trapped or insecure arise. The greek origin of the word does illustrate how crippling such a disability is, since the marketplace was probably the place where all the economic transactions would occur. Agrophobia would hence render a person unable to carry out his buying and selling, and daily needs.

But to say the least, marketplaces aren't the worst of humans. Being sadly more complicated than that, we can come together to provide many more effective instances where one can be convinced of the perception that he/she has little control over the situation, and when one feels insecure or trapped. I mean, the irony of being in a crowd but feeling alone is just one way one can realise an insecurity. There are others.

A principle highlighted in this, is that being sheltered does not necessarily mean one is secure. In fact, it could well be an inverse proportion -the more sheltered one is, the more insecure he is- can arguably be an accepted 'absolute' statement.

I thought about this when watching the NUS Eusoff Hall production, "You've Got a Friend in Me". John, whose imaginary friend whom he thought he had gotten rid off when he was 13 'returns', together with three new extra 'friends'. So the production mainly goes through how John manages with these 'friends' that no one can see except him. It can be suggested that person can create imaginary friends to tackle an insecurity (one friend for one insecurity even. lol.), while that is possibly another instance of how insecurity functions, something with less psycho-drama and which an everyday human can relate to, is the judgment of reality.

Maybe we can say that we learn this as we grow up. First, through the simple physical objects, and then onwards to the more subtle social dynamics and unspoken rules of society. We finally get to a somewhere when we feel comfortable with our judgements (and leave the philosophers behind to grapple with the more abstract judgements unrequired in the marketplace, like concepts of justice and time, and security)

Still, in that comfort zone, we don't learn everything about making judgements. There are gaps in how effective our judgement is when it comes to certain things - and thats especially the case when it comes to relationships and people.

Fundamentally, that is a little bit of what agoraphobia is about - a failed judgement or perception about relationships and people. When the perception is fuzzy or wrongly assumed, it is thought that we don't have control over the situation, and so one feels insecure about it.

As sensitive one can be, it is sometimes hard to discern realities socially. Maybe, when parents/elders give pep talks which are on repeated topics, they are actually finding a comfort in that intersection that both of you can relate in? It might be the few topics that can bring that familiar connection between both. Maybe, when a younger sibling keeps constantly doing a certain action, its because the person would like to spend more time with you. Maybe, when she said that in the message, it meant that..

In that sense, the term 'agoraphobia' is quite rightly named. The 'marketplace' works in that way afterall - displaying goods, showing what you got, trying to outdo others with your goods so you can make that transaction, allowing you to move on with a better life. Ultimately, the one who has the most 'control', 'wins'.

But we should take comfort in the fact that there will be places that won't be 'marketplaces'. There definitely still are.

Family, close friends, loved ones....and maybe even some parts of church.

Blatant sarcasm aside (:P), it does make sense why Paul prays for the Philippians (1:9) in this way-

"And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight,"

in the sense that, as Christians, we're supposed to grow in the understanding of judgement. And there probably is no better way to grasp that understanding then when we grasp it sincerely through abounding more and more in knowledge and depth of insight of love.



"How do you know what is real is not something you are imagining, and what you are imagining is not something that is real?" -- Edward, You've Got a Friend in Me

Labels: Life, muse

There are times when I sit in a service, worship session or even a sermon and upon hearing certain things said, wonder to myself, "Hmm. Was that theologically right?"

I had a short moment of such pensiveness at a my most recent service when the pastor asked the congregation, "And you know who is the happiness person today?" -pause for effect- "God. God is the happiest person today, because we are here to worship Him."

Wellll :/ The church wasn't really that crowded. And even if it was, its not about the numbers since not everyone present may have the right ideas of worship and God. And even if they all had the right ideas, they might not have the right attitude and priority of worship at that point in time. And even if they all had the right ideas, attitude and priority, there will be moments in the worship where the hearts will not be fully cast towards that direction. And. So on.

Then again, this train of thought can be extended beyond just a service or worship session to Christian living itself. Its the same sort of logic, God is happy because you are doing quiet time. God is happy because you are praying. God is happy because you decided to make certain decesions based on Christian principles. And. Wellll :/

Ultimately, it leads one to a humbling realisation that our love to God is a flawed kind of love. Flawed because, its not complete? Not the way it really should be? It could be felt that there is no big deal in saying this because we are already quite used to talking about our limitations with regard to God. Ironically, it might hit us harder if we are gently told that the way we were loving a person was flawed. Instead of guilt though, the first response would probably be to question how the person could be the judge in saying that such way of loving was flawed?

What love is... that is quite a major topic which shall not be what this post is about. Strangely, I don't think we need to define love to think about whether certain ways of loving are flawed.

Slumdog Millionaire gives us a few examples that can be thought over - Firstly, the love of a mother. She shouted out for Jamal and Salim to run away from the anti-muslim Hindu attackers instead of running first to seek her own safety. No one would really see anything 'wrong' with the love, except if we can clincially ask why not she fled from the scene as well and trust that Jamal and Salim would take the hint from everyone scattering away to also flee. They could always meet up again later. Using this example might be a bit of a stretch, but it does highlight one question. How correct is sacrificial love when the sacrifice does not do justice to a few factors? It might not be just about the sacrifice of life, but perhaps of time, of energy, of convinience. A parent who may refuse to accept gifts from his children so they "don't waste money". A friend who insists on having just a simple birthday treat at the fastfood center instead of a gathering at a higher end restaurant so his friends need not pay so much. A relative who insists that it would be all right for her to miss the gathering at the restaurant because she is busythat evening. Instead of paying for her fee and having her eat just for a moment, she should just not attend. Is it worth it to give up something for someone because on your terms, it is better for the person?

A more extended case - the older brother kind of love that Salim showed to Jamal. No doubt that he did love Jamal, he made it his responsibility to protect him, to the extent of possibly risking his life when Jamal was in danger. Yet, there were moments when he did not see how Jamal valued something and considered the importance of something that mattered to him. When they were kids, it was the Amitabh authograph. Later when they were older, it was Latika. It was love, but not love to the fullest and most absolute extent? A friend argued that this is not called flawed love, but just growing up. It is true that its about "growing up" and on a broader perspective, progression. That is argubly the beauty and miracle of relationships actually - that two individuals can move on, things around them can move on, and still catch up as if "nothing has changed" (though the sensitive will remark that it is different).

But that should not be said too easily. As seen in the relationship that gave this movie the touch of fairytale- the romance between Jamal and Latika. Those who wait. Those who are faithful. A clinical question to ask here is what exactly are you being faithful to? A person? The notion of love? A memory of what was shared? A memory of a Latika being left behind as the train rushed on? To quote another friend, "People dilute and reduce it[love] to a feel-good and mysterious entity that fits into whatever concept they desire or percive" Such a generalisation pokes into the devotion of Jamal to Latika, and undying devotion in general. Because the fairytale usually ends the story as "happily ever after" when the courtship is complete and the part two of living together and having kids isn't revealed, is such lasting devotion also in some way a flawed way of loving? If in the end, the fairytale doesn't work out, things happen, 'love' somehow doesn't find a way - then what?

Argubly, thinking about flawed love easily leads one to the thought of "It could have been so much more beautiful." But after flaws and all the mixtures of emotions that can arise due to the defeated expectations from the desire of 'perfect love', it might be wisely realised that actually. If not for it, beauty and love would not have the appreciation it deserves. (As flawed as the appreciation of beauty and love is, that is.)



Usually I'll conclude with a quote right. Friends have confessed that sometimes they 'can't stand' going through the whole thing and just drag down to the quote. (Yes, forgiven -_-) This time -

I've heard this quite a lot. Had bought the album randomly cos it happened to be cheap. Listened to the tune for the first time on a long bus ride. Decided to loop it when I went for a jog.

I used to feel that the lyrics were quite selfish. Then, after hearing it for so long... Somehow, I just feel that after the bridge, by the third time the chorus is sang, the self-centeredness has been slowly dissolved, and whats left over is a silent, assured, trustful acceptance. It's no more the bitterness of "I want you to know", but about the moment and about the letting go.

In a way, it illustrates how as time goes on, some things become more important to you, and some things less important.

And that there is a difference between you mean so much, and you mean so much.

Labels: muse, stars

The observer principle.

A term from physics, it describes the situation whereby the observer would affect the event itself, changing it for what it actually was in the absence of an observer.

Journalists would be aware of this since it describes the difficulty they would experience when doing a story where that they choose immerse themselves into. For the real story, and what actually happens, it would mean that they really have to be there and experience the setting itself. In practical terms, it probably means to follow a person on his daily routines, taste the lunch he usually buys, wait with him on his long journeys to work, watch him interact with his co-workers, family... and all the while, just silently observing. It's another human's second best attempt to understand the culture, manner, speech, and what matters to another individual and anything else that can enhance the story that ties this individual to it. (A questionable first best, would be to actually talk to the person. But then again, people and questions are probably two of the most likely things that can change a person's life.)

In view of the Observer's principle, professional journalism probably has a rule that instructs journalists that decide to take this path of immersion in their stories to be unobtrusive. To bring the reality of something out and truly giving readers the emotional impact that the observed episode should muster, a true story must be told. Another way to say it, a true story is enough.

This uneasy feat of taking a step away from what is happening and not being involved in it at all raises several ethical dilemmas for journalists. What sort of information should be left out? How much of the whole story should be told? If certain parts were omitted, would it be considered a form of deception?

Beyond just the publication of the article, one of the most difficult ethical dilemmas concerns the Observer principle itself - when should one help?

If you are doing an article on a family who had lived on welfare benefits which would soon be coming to an end due to a change in government policy, and you go into the detail of how they live on the edge, watching how they grapple with the fever of their baby girl - would you decide to stay observing, or rush them into the car to bring the baby to the hospital?

If you are doing a story on child illegal immigrants and watch one be abandoned by his smuggler, see him desperate, crying and begging you for help, would you go ahead to take him to safety?

Well, the above logic was applied to journalists. But what about philosophers?

Respecting the Observer principle does protect the medium of awareness creation- In order to provoke, enrage, shame and engage the masses, no means of communication can be more powerful enough than the truth itself. To effectively milk on this truth, the story has to be untainted by a momentary saviour - Beyond the face that story illustrates, many more individuals can be helped. And yet, it does take a lot of wisdom in knowing how far a journalist can remain a journalist in the story he will tell. And along that logic, a philosopher cannot remain a philosopher.

To explore the moral ambiguities and morally helpless situations in such a light - perhaps those that say that God is not fair can take a moment to pause and see that morality really isn't so simple to grapple with.



"Neither condoning or condemning, I understand." - Dr. Manhattan, Watch Men

Labels: muse

---

_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

---