After some time in life, we will inevitably realise that we don’t need the answer to every question. Partly because we can’t but also because we don’t always know what are the right questions to ask anyway.

Sometimes, it takes time for us to realise the second part and in the process realising of it, we will keep insisting on it. Maybe in quiet confidence, maybe to the extent that it subtly frustrates, maybe even by expressing it in bitter angst.

I shall be talking about two ideas, will connect them both, and then relate it to the above thoughts by asking questions with regard to each.

The first idea was presented some time ago when I had watched a friend in his relationship honeymoon-period, reciting a 'how-it-all-happened' with his girlfriend of about three months beside him, and then hearing from his girlfriend her side of the story. Though both reports were made in the presence of each party, I guess only the people who weren't involved in it were wise enough to notice the differences in what was said by each. Some were tricky to spot while some were quite obviously observed. There were different empahses, different motives and reasons, different events considered significant, different turning points in situations, even different feelings felt.

Such a thought struck me again, more strongly this time, when I was visiting a bangkok slum area. This was home to one of the students who had participated in the English Camp I had facilitated. The camp wasn't a stay-over one but a day camp (like 9 to 4pm) and it was held at a church. The kids who attended it actually belonged to the neighbourhood the church was situated in. Thus, after the camp, we had the opportunity to fetch some of the kids home since most of them lived in homes that were in walkable distance from the church. When the youth organisation's staff had first mentioned this practice, I had originally agreed with the other facilitators that it would be nice to take the kids home since it allowed us to build a closer and more personal relationship with them. Afterall, we would be visiting their family and everyday surroundings.

However, when you actually are in the place that they live, entered through a narrow walkway along a roadside, your path towards the 'home' guided by the uneven wooden boards covering a ground that was slightly damp with a gambling arcade machine strangely next to the 'bedroom' area. And when you stand easily so out of place and allow thoughts consisting of concepts like hygine, political structures, NGOs, human dignity to flow into what you are thinking about. And when you visit everyday although you can only do it for another two more days since you have to catch your flight home later on... A closer and more personal relationship isn't really what one feels that he has achieved upon emerging from it.

The questions that can be asked here – Do both parties really need to feel the same experience for the reality to be justified as ‘real’? Beyond the moral and heartstring implications of one not being honest in the expression of feelings, what about if there was honesty, but not full honesty? What about if the relational experiences were just merely different based on the subjectivism involved? I don't think relativism in the realm of feelings has really been explored much in the light of how the post-modernistic society today confuses relativism to be applicable in the realm of truth, but even if we were aware of considering relativism in feelings, we would probably treat it with more idealism than logical analysis. As Logan said in X-Men Origins: Wolverine when he realised that Sliverfox had mutant powers of persuasion and that the relationship between them could have been false, “It was real for me.” But would that be good enough? Can we say the feelings, notwithstanding whoever that may be invovled in its crossfire, are all right when I'm all right with it?

The second idea is close to the first and can possibly be a thought that progresses after acknowledging the possibility of differences in a connection. The idea can occur when the realisation that connections between humans exist in a state of flux, or another way to say it, we need to move on. Its not an emo kind of thing - it's just a practical limitation of being a finite being.

The guilt and feeling of being overwhelmed by all the relationships is easily identified when you volunteer at a youth organisation. The various people you come into contact with, the many faces that you will meet, the persons that come into your life and become a monetary routine for that period of time. The difficulty faced here (or rather, the realisation that dawns on you) is that a single person can't save the world. Just as a superhero's acts of heroism are clouded by their problems in personal life, volunteers can go onto the 'scene' where they're in - be teacers, facilitators, speakers, pastors, trainer, and when they walk down from it, meet individuals.

And thats when they realise, its not about a 5 days intensive workshop. Not about a time when you ask rhetorical questions which you expect to set one thinking. Its not even about an honestly made one hour speech.

Commitment, consistency, time. Really, it's back to such basics. The simple reality that strikes us revealing that it can't be given not due to competency, but due to ability.

This realisation has its questions as well. To give an example, let us consider people who are attention-seeking, not really socially accepted and largely rejected by cliques. I had met such a 'type' back in my training days. It was during the Passing Out Parade training time that I really got the chance to 'get to know' him better since my squad was marching beside his. When we had our water breaks, the interval allowed some courteous gestures to be expressed and even granted me a chance to be a good listening ear for awhile. In other words, I was nice. I did not ignore him like the rest, but as a friend gently probed when I mentioned this to him, why stop there?

Why didn't I step out of the comfort of sitting with my squad to go and sit next to him and have a conversation instead of just being polite? Why not carry on the relationship, why not give your energy, time and commitment into it?

Mainly, the questions and issues struggle with the difficulty of 'definitions' in relationships. As the man who wanted to justify himself asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbour?"

Jesus answered that question by the parable of the good samritan, he did not answer questions. He stated how to be a good neighbour.

At the end of the day, that is really an answer enough. Afterall, Sliverfox did tell Logan later on, "It was real for me too."



"...because solitude had made a selection in her memory and burned the dimming piles of nostalgic waste that life had accumulated in her heart, and had purified, magnified, and externalized the others, the most bitter ones."
- One Hundred Years of Solitude, Gabriel Garcia Marquez

Labels: Life, muse

Just wanted to say a few things with regard to this in terms of the issue itself (i.e. minus the progressive drama of how everything unfolded and concluded)-

Firstly, I think that the youth has been quite underestimated. What is presented in a material/session is not what a youth will automatically accept as 'fact'. A youth should be able to think for himself/herself, and with the benefit of a Singapore education, most singaporean youths would be equipped enough do some critical thinking (at the very least some la). They would be able to manage with skills like comparison and contrast, inference, and especially important with this case, discernment.

In fact, that should be a key lesson taught in sexuality education, wise discernment. Such discernment, on the plane of logic and concepts can be even easier than the discernment one needs when handling relationships. Discernment is useful and needed when it comes to content that can be perceived as sensitive and concern value systems. With discernment properly exercised, one is allowed to make a honest judgment of something that is unbiased and can be personal in expressing his opinion.

How should wise discernment be taught? We can explore a few examples of this in the logical mistakes along the way within this Aware thing.

One example, (and this is the one that everyone who is against the ousted new guards is particularly heated over) is the idea that being against homosexuality is considered a disruption of democracy and not being tolerant. Of course, a question like "Do you think homosexuality is wrong?" is not the sort of question can be answered with a simple, "Yes." nowadays. This is because there is a problem in that question, due to that embedded logical mistake (which I had bolded).

Or in other words, people mostly ask that question as a loaded question. The issue on their minds is not really the issue of homosexuality, rather it is the issue of choice. The issue that really angers them is that another individual's right and freedom is being violated, and that is why the question can be asked so easily as a taunt.

Using wise discernment, this is a logical mistake because an acceptance of persons is not the same as an acceptance of ideas. Democracy and freedom of rights should not be confused with relativism. The issue of choice and the broader issue of its implications on human dignity, rights to survival, rights to a quality of life etc. cannot be immediately linked to an acceptance (especially so for a blind acceptance) of ideas. In fact, the issue of choice and freedom has a more complicated dimension in terms of an individual's rights to justice and morals. But anyway, this should clarify that (at least in terms of ideas) the old guards and the new guards were disagreeing about something that can be less heated. The new guards and the people on their side, probably has no qualms with an individual's freedom of rights. They probably also have no qualms with regard to the acceptance of homosexuals as persons deserving of such dignity and choice. The issue that is in dispute here is the nature of homosexuality.

Another way of saying it, is how homosexuality is defined? Is it a lifestyle issue, an individual preference issue or a moral issue? The lines between each may be a little blurred, but they are distinct.

Lifestyle issues are how decisions one makes in living his life. How much time he spends with family or work, how much energy he devotes to a hobby or social activity, what sort of mindset he has, how he chooses to spend his money etc. The decisions made will reflect on the values a person has. The choices made in such a domain can be judged as either positive or negative depending on the value system that the judgment is dispensed from (E.g. One who prioritizes money over persons would naturally find a guy chasing nothing but career advancement something 'acceptable') Of course, there are social norms that define what a right lifestyle should be. These norms are usually formed out of good sense. For example, its good to have balanced diet, proper nutrition and ample exercise.

Individual preference issues consist of decisions made on personal taste. Such matters, like a favourite eatery, enjoying long bus rides, always eating ice cream after dinner etc. don't have much bearing over another individual or society in general. And if I like Pepperoni Classic while you prefer Aloha, we don't really have to get too worked up about things.

Finally, moral issues are issues that concern right and wrong.

Not speaking on the side of the new guards, but rather, on my being a Christian, my view is that homosexuality is a moral issue. Because of how we were made and how the law-giver should be obeyed.

Having said that, let me revert to the original point - before any lesson on sexuality is conveyed, wise discernment should first be taught. Notice, that be it a lifestyle issue, an individual preference issue or even a moral issue, the person in question is never (or at least, he/she shouldn't be) refused of his rightful rights. A fat person will only be told that living a lifestyle with unhealthy nutrition and lack of excercise is not advisable and that he should try to lose weight and keep fit for his personal benefit, but he is should be still treated with the same dignity. Rights may be removed from him (such as requiring him to run during recess etc.) but its more of a form of challenge for him to reach an ideal weight rather than violate his freedom. People who likes Macs as compared to PCs are both equally human. And every convicted person would deserve a fair trial before he is given a rightful punishment (It is in some sense a right as well? A right to be corrected, so as to live a -better- life).

As a Christian, I rather be rejected on the basis of what I believe than what I do not believe.

And I'm sure everyone else would want such a form of right.



"The only reason our own government was able to betray our country and us and sell it to the Russians - our misery, this wary - all of that could only happen because we are stupid, because we know nothing, we understand nothing, we cannot read and write, we believe anyone who comes in front of us and comes out with clever stuff, holds a piece of paper and says this is the law from today onwards. We are a nation of the blind. Anyone can do what he likes with us. Push us in the pond, leave us standing somewhere, lead us astray, even kill us. Only one who can see knows where he is, and can make up his own mind whether he wants to be there, and he sees where he is going all by himself... I want you and my children to learn to read and write. I want them to learn to make their own minds up about what is good and what is evil, who is lying and who is telling the truth, who is an enemy and who is friend."
-- Afghanistan, Where God Only Comes to Weep, Siba Shakib

Labels: Life, 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

---