We are where we place ourselves

Sunday, September 30, 2007

♥ Sunday, September 30, 2007

Misdirection.

Houdini was it? He wanted to make something disappear, so he employed this technique- let your eyes see what they want to see, and let your ears hear what they want to, and thats it you believe.

Create a direction, lead them on to believe what they want to believe. Like the matrix. And from there, you keep your deepest darkest self. ( i read faaarrr too many jodi picoult)

I think colin is right and I am scary.
But you have just got to admit...i am getting so damn good at it.

How do i shut the door? Misdirection. It is not about lying. Lying is about not speaking the truth. Misdirection is about telling all the truths in bits and pieces. Telling the truth that lets one draw the eventual conclusion which is a lie.

Its not about being hypocritical, believeing in one thing and doing another. Its about acting- believing in something and saying another. Its about theatrics, what you want people to know, and what kind of a puppet master you want to be.

So perhaps the end of this question is, why misdirect? why let someone see you the way you arent?

Because of what i said earlier. They want to see what they want to see. They want to believe what they want to believe. Jodi Picoult illustrates this with candour and courage- a mother doesnt want to know that her child is vulnerable, a daughter doesnt want to know that she was kidnapped by her father, a parent doesnt want to know that her son is the perpetrator to the loss of a hundred lives, a husband doesnt want to believe his wife is dead.

And when they hope, Demosthenes will tell you that there is a certain precariousness..since as St Augustine of Hippo puts it ," can one not believe what he hopes in?"

IN ENGLISH-You wanted to see something and know something so badly. So i will just show you that something.

Thats the construct of belief. The leading down a certain direction, and at the end of that road is a question of choice- to believe or not. And more often than not, we already know what you are going to choose.

You are going to choose what suits your moral code, what is fitting and what is to your liking. What is pleasant to your eye, melodious to your ears, and gives you the right dosage of endorphine to make you feel all wonderful and gay.

And thats perfectly fine. I mean thats how people proselytise, and convert. How people judge one another, influence each other; how cultures and eventually societies are created. You basically bend people into showing what you want them to show.

I will show you what you want to be shown. I just ask one thing.
Don ask me be what you want me to be. Because you cant and because i wont allow it.

Diagnosis, Syntheis and Prognosis.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

♥ Wednesday, September 19, 2007

DIAGNOSIS

Whats the diagnosis of the problem community faces? Lets list them down. Essentially, i think i will classify them under these 2 headings.
1) Commitment
2) fundamental differences of vision of community

Under commitment, you have issues like lack of fervour, lack of spiritual development ya da ya da.
Personally i think that this is not so much aproblem of community as it is a problem of society (which is the community at large).
It reflects the mentality of an age where the emphasis is on the fun, the excitement, the lack of obligation..a certain hedonistic libertarian like culture. And at the route of it, is an individual unwilling to stand up for any beliefs, make any form of sacrifices, reluctant to put himself aside.

You have commitment problems when people have one foot in and another foot out (not excl myself of course). When you have people with the excitement to begin something, but lack the stamina to see it through, when you have those who love to speak, but those who hate to live, when you have mediocrity..you have a fundamental commitment problem. But they and i can tell you that the problem isnt with commitment. Commitment only reveals a greater issue:

The issue of a fundamental difference in perceptions of community. Let me list down the extremes. There are those fixated on the past, the fluid structure-less nature without imposing standards or expectations on each individual. And yet inspite of these lack of establishment, people were more involved and 'on fire' so to speak. The other extreme is equally fantastic. That is the school of thought which i come from- we begin from where the community is. Forget where we were, forget where we want to go, the essence is the here and now- how to 'sway' it in the right general direction is the key to move it where we want to reach. Of course, its not a watertight argument.
I think the right method is in the synthesis of where ppl want to go, where ppl were and where ppl are.

SYNTHESIS
The bringing together of past present and future. The balance of what we were, where we are and where we want to go is rather essential in the crystallisation of the concept of community. When i looked up the definition of vision, i chanced upon the definition of illusion. Both seemed to me to be strikingly (and horrifically) similar. BOth involved some abstract concept, both dealth with what wasnt the present, and when you think of the two...you inevitably ask yourself "where does vision end and illusion begin?"

When does belief becomes bluff? I think there must be a certain root in community to avoid having this. This 'root' i speak of comes from the day to day exchanges, the meaningful overlapping of lives that i've become wary thinking of, this active engagement of activities and ministry that allows one to understand the human concept of community. This grounding in the people's lives is what prevents anyone from floating into the abstract, of painting ideals only to be disillusioned by a humbling reality.

PROGNOSIS

The question then must be the how. The practical means of achieving a certain form of a solution. What did Jesus do, what can be done etc etc. I think there are various forms of how that are equally ridiculous for reasons that are quite obvious. BUt for sake of discussion i will list them down anyway.

1) An absolutely charismatic leadership. This suggestion comes from an observation that people need a certain influence and force to persuade them in the right direction. The problem with this is that the absolute leader you need is in the bible, and if that is not persuasive enough, then its hard to imagine what could be.

2) Change oneself. This is a very attractive concept. Light in the darkness, salt of the earth, change must come from within, inspired by example etc. It is noble and at times it might even seem that it work. But if we are to move community in a certain direction, i think we need more than just "you can be that difference"

I think the key to this must be ..WHY would you be that difference. Looking through a certain political speech, i really marvelled at how people are only going to fight for somehting if they OWN it. Like national service, you arent fighting for the country, you are fighting for that which you hold dear- your loved ones, your property, wadeva. I am inclined to use that concept.

What stakes can people have in the community? I suggest giving more weight to the ministries, giving more ownership in the community. Its not enough that people have a vote at agms. I think they must be responsible for something. And what could that be??

As I am typing this, i am already forseeing the huge dissent among those who might read this. "if our lives truly reflect that of a christian community, naturally people will be inclined to join and be inspired to commit?" something to that effect perhaps? Well..i just have to be the pragmatist here. And in my humble opinion, that logic doesnt stand in the face of a somewhat experienced pragmatist in community.

So continue the way we are, dont be discouraged, cuz there's nth to be discouraged about. And lets channel our resources into making people feel at home in their community.

Things will then look brighter.

LOST

Monday, September 10, 2007

♥ Monday, September 10, 2007

I think to all those very inspirational blogs out there, i am being quite the anti thesis. The iconoclast, the attacker, the indignant vindicator, the devil's advocate. I am the lawyer-to-be.

Its not at all difficult to be de-constructive. Its in fact embarrasingly easy to criticise. I will shatter all arguments and i will learn the arts of tackle and sleight of hand, of rebuttal and rhetoric. I am the harbinger of change and in it comes fire and brimstone, hell and high water.

I have a punching bag at home but thats not enough. In fact i do not know what is. I once did a post on anger, a philosophical musing on whether anger is a deviation from the norm. I think it could be wrong. That thesis was done on the assumption that a state of peace was the norm. What if "bellum omnium contra omnes?" ( a war of all against all- by some philosopher who eludes my memory) What if the constant was war?

That no one can come within 3 inches of me, of my intellectual sanctity, of my vanity and of my soul, is the fruit of my labour. I wont just snap at you. I believe in time, i will be able to practically dismantle your entire construct of belief. I will become the Lord Henry , the John Milton, the Daniel Mcafee, the bigot, the pharisee, the scribe. A priest once told me its called teenage angst. If I am neither a teenager nor angsty, what then is beneath?

What has happened to me?

I take a step back and i realise there is not really one person to blame. Which can be a problem, because i end up burning all with caustic and scathing remarks. The philosophy of language my bro says- that language gives rise to thought? Or that language stems from thought? I choose the former. That i am giving form to my thought as i type, and that i am defining and putting a finger onto my 'teenage angst' is arguably healthy as it is deadly.

And essentially i have no one on my mind that i want to unload on.

And essentially i have everyone on my mind that i want to unload on.

But but but....how do u fight a war against no one? How do you retrieve this peace that is so elusive?

On reflection this post contains alot more power than the the one on anger. The one on anger is informative. This is essentially existential- because i put you in my position without much will of your own. And if i measure it accurately, you would feel my wrath, and see my world through my lenses. And for that, i really do apologise.