Baaa... Humbug about sight!

I was moved by God recently to read the scripture pertaining to God’s command to Abraham to offer Issac as a burnt sacrifice to him. Previously this passage had never had much significance to me and I had always read through it with a “ho-hum” kind of breezy manner. That is till last night.

 

I had been nursing this discontentment against a friend recently. We were previously very close on matters of the heart as we were both down on the dumps of sorts. Then something within me had shook and I decided that my acknowledgment period was up, it was “proceeding onward” time.  However she wasn’t too convinced that I had completely given due face to my problems and was still trying to run away from them. This got me quite pissed and resulting in the following “cooling off period” with her. Till this day I still cannot really bring myself to speak to her at ease. Turns out both she and me are both right and wrong at the same time. Indeed I hadn’t completely acknowledged my fears and desires, BUT it was also true that it was high time for moving on. Some things can progress in parallel.

This is where I’ll like to examine a bit of how Abraham’s psyche functioned in the passage. God had sworn to bless him with countless descendants and though initially skeptical, he had been bestowed upon Issac in the latter years of his life. So imagine the conflict and confusion when God command him to offer his very own son as a burnt offering.  One thing very kiam pah about the Bible is that it rarely does direct narration of the internal struggles of the characters, but chooses to let us readers do detective work instead by depicting the character’s words and actions.

For actions wise, Abraham was very obedient to God by going about his exact commands. However what struck me was the portion when during his journey with Issac and his servants to the sacrificial hill, the exact words he had replied his servants.

“Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

Genesis 22:5 (NIV)

 

Abraham was struggling to reconcile how was he able to have his son, but yet still offering his son as a burnt offering to God at the same time. He definitely couldn't see how all this would work out. The bold line felt more like to prayer to God than a passing remark to inform his servants. This is further evidenced later when Issac asked him where the lamb was and his reply.

“God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.”

Genesis 22:8 (NIV)

 

The interesting thing to note is that the two conflicting ideas within Abraham, love and obedience towards God, and love for his own son, neither was sinful. It just seemed that merely irreconcilable at the time.

I was wondering to myself, was Abraham clinging onto a tiny hope that God would withdraw his initial command. The more I read, the more I had to admit yes. That would explain the use of plurals when he informed his servants of the arrangements to return, and his reply to his son that God would provide a lamb eventually. And Jesus did offer himself up at the ultimate lamb offering much much later on…
 

Though I’ve done personality analysis test and found myself to fit primarily in the Melancholic group represented by Abraham, I admit in doing this tightrope act of both obedience to God while acknowledgment of self wise, I’m still kind of shaky. Some parts of myself I constantly deny out of this fear that it is indication of disobedience and disloyalty towards God. However, God has pushed me towards examining this aspect hard, as denial of self would then run risk of the dishonesty to God. And please lah, kidding God?! Impossible con job…

As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust.

Psalms 103:13-14 (NIV)

 

This Saturday I’ll be bringing my own “Issac” up prayer hill. Ok, so God hasn’t promised me anything concrete apart from “plans to prosper” and “give you hope and a future”. Bleah, talk about ambiguity. -_- Precisely because of this ambiguity, the concept of “prosperity, hope and a future” are as abstract to me as that of describing colours to a person who is born blind. However, God also never penalizes anyone for construction ideas of what this “prosperity, hope and a future” are. Like I was remarking to a Christian mentor about how coincidental that I’d be having Dialogue in the Dark session at Ngee Ann Polytechnic this Saturday with my friends, when you do not have any sight of what the future holds, it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to shut off the four other senses to what lies ahead. Meanwhile I’ll just keep listening to the below few verses to reassure myself while constructing a better idea what the “plans to prosper” and “give you hope and a future” may look like. Time to listen to His voice more when he doesn’t want to show me things. For all I know, I may starting hearing a “baa” somewhere calling.


Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
John 20: 29 (NIV)

No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.
1 Corinthians 10:13 (NIV)

剧本的重要：通过古装剧看本土原创剧本的兴衰沦亡

记得小时候蛮积极追看第八播道的电视剧。那时的剧集在道具背景hardware方面虽然极其简陋，但在剧情与演员software方面都能弥补那些不足。尤其怀念小时候的本土古装剧集。在还没正式开始涉足金庸、古龙大师级武侠小说的世界之前，我是通过这些原创的古装剧深深被吸引。

严格上来说，新加坡早期的古装剧的原创性也其实蛮“有限”，只是普遍观众阅历太浅，看不到“真相”。就拿刘天富制作、周初明主演的《最后一个大侠》，剧本情节是由许多武侠名著如的各别桥段组织而成。兄弟从小分离并被忠奸两派分别带大的桥段就出自《绝代双骄》，奸角紫罗刹简直就是《笑傲江湖》里东方不败与岳不群的结合体，而结局的兄弟间unresolved cliff-hanger mode 则像极《侠客行》的结尾。与其说这部剧抄袭，毋宁说刘监制与他的编剧组参考那些各别武侠名著，用自己的创意将其结合成一个全新的创作，毕竟抄袭的真正定义是“照单全收”，而刘监制根本没那么做。甚至非常佩服以前的编剧能这么不漏痕迹的运用桥段及人物衔接来不停制作出古装剧集，这堪称不失为一种独特的原创性。这种变相的原创性除了展现当时编剧们的创意，也给剧集带来了适当的breathing space，使得戏剧组免了需要满足观众预先设定的要求的束缚。

可是自从第八播道《神雕侠侣》开始，本土编剧便落入了一种惰性，索性将整部名著照拍。其实将名著照单全收拍摄也没什么罪，只是风险更高，因为观众已经对情节与人物都了如指掌，有了先入为主的成见，使得戏剧组有了必须抓紧原著精髓的困难，少了原创性带来的自由空间。非常可惜的，毕竟新传媒在名著直接改编方面能力有限，着重与哗众取巧的人物造型，而忽略遴选适当的演员的重点，使得那些制作褒贬参半，后来因为制作成本对比回响问题，便索性完全停止制作古装剧了。

其实这种惰性问题不只局限在古装剧，而甚至蔓延到了时装剧制作。虽然我已经近期没有追看新传媒的电视剧，但从那些还有偶尔观看的朋友那边得来的反应，新传媒的电视剧的策略似乎离剧本创意越来越远，而注重运用引入外来影星来加强收视率以及开展售卖市场。这些策略本身并没错，但是治标不治本，并不能一劳永逸地解决观众长期流失的问题。作为一个从小看着第八播道的电视剧长大的观众，我还是对本土剧持有期望的，希望新传媒有天能正视加强剧本这环节。

剧情或情节发展对比人物发展 对演员表现的影响

既然从小就已经迷上追电视剧，索性干脆开始一个blog 关于自己身为观众对戏剧的一些所得。

最近开始追看一些港剧。虽然据说港剧也跟本地电视剧一样出现没落的现象，可能是我“崇外”心态，至少觉得多数港剧还是比本土剧加倍精彩，但关于本土剧对比港剧的各别没落法，我将留到另一个blog entry 再讨论。这一期想研究的反而是plot development 剧情或情节发展对比character development 人物发展。

通过近一年所观看的港剧，我才发现一出剧要做到两者兼顾是多么困难的事。有时因为剧种问题先天局限了这方面的平衡。就拿黎耀祥的三部剧作《巾帼枭雄1》、《巾帼枭雄2之义海豪情》与《法证先锋3》来说。许多网民都觉得黎先生在《法证先锋3》的表现不比巾帼系列的过往表现，所以才在2011年无法蝉联视帝。很庆幸自己是先观看《法证先锋3》，后观看巾帼系列，所以先入为主的可能性减少了。我倒觉得拿《法证3》对比巾帼系列根本欠缺公正，因为它们剧种南辕北撤。

《法证3》注重剧情发展，由许多不同的各别个案组成，人物发展是用来铺排整体剧情，展示法证界人士如何屡破奇案。甚至严格上来讲，这出剧的剧情与背景就是主角，而并非某位各别人物，所以男主角布国栋与女主角的互动进展显得相当薄弱。巾帼系列则正好相反，注重人物发展，显示人物的各别与对于彼此之间的变化、互动与进展。柴九对四奶奶之间慢慢建立的既感佩又爱慕的心态；刘醒与九妹由相互敬畏演变至惺惺相惜甚至彼此爱慕，这些本身便是剧本的大纲，所以主角之间的互动显得格外激情澎湃。个人认为在剧种局限内，要求无论多好的同一个演员达到相同的表演水平是相当不公平，因为根本做不到。这就好比要求一个顶级赛车手驾驶一架平常的轿车，来达到赛车的车速，不出车祸都是奇迹呢！

Word Play 13: 安、满、贪

Am still soaked up in the "negative and antagonist" feelings, to quote someone, from what had originally been a harmless debate on nationalistic identity last night. Those who had been contended my argument had persisted in their stand that I was highly 不安于现状, or to put in english, greatly discontented with the status quo. Thus, their advice had been for me to learn how to be contented with the current situation, and count my blessings.

A bit of disclaimer first. As a believer of Christ, it is definitely part of our requirement to rejoice daily in the blessings that He has bestowed upon us. However, note that the blessings come from God, not some government, ministry, ministers, authorities, or people in superior posititons over us. In fact these higher ups should not place themselves on a pedestal akin to God when delaing with us. They must keep in mind that since God has the ability to give them the power they enjoy now, God has the power to take it away anytime.

Ok, back to the main topic. Those who had been debating on the opposite end of me had missed the point. I had been trying unsuccessfully to communicate my 不安, or insecurity and fear of my future to them. 不安 by itself means insecurity, stemming from the one's fear of inability to provide for one's basic needs. 不安于现状 however twists the original lone noun into something akin to 不满, meaning discontent, or displeasure over the status quo.

Now to my favourite graphic use, the Venn diagram. Discontent can stem from insecurities and fears due to an inability to provide one's basic needs for survival, being legitimate as it is an innate reaction for all living creatures to sustain oneself. However, discontent can also come from 贪, or greed, where one is driven by the uncontrollable desire to aquire increasing wants beyond needs. Note that the stark difference between the two, as discontent driven by insecurity is grounded in reason, unless one has decide to foresake hope altogether. In fact, I would think that to be content while facing threats to one's survival would be considered an amazing feat, which a mere mortal like me would find it difficult to pull off.

Indeed one must learn to be content with one's blessings. However, when the situation arises such that one finds out alarmingly that the pool of blessings for our nation has been depleted at an astonishing rate, to continue on in a "even though we don't have three blessings, at least now we still have two" mindset, smacks of ignorance and lack of urgency to address the issue. I believe many like me don't claim to be the "solve-it-all", quoting from one of the others from last night, at least we bother to be aware and have the intention to want to roll up our sleeves to "make the blessings three again". Even if it ends in failure, we know we have fought the good fight. That is the basic essence of survival.

Word Play 12: Actual vs. Virtual

I've submitted my resignation for my current job and have finally moved on. It is not without wistfulness that I leave this place as of next week, as there are people and duties that I do not wish to part from as they have helped me towards "actualisation". Since it's time for adios, I might as well be open about my latest job scope as it does not infringe upon confidentiality issues.  I assist in Brailling for the visually handicapped in Singapore, namely when a person has virtually lost enough sight and vision to be categorised as blind, I assist in actualising the study material for him or her using the sense of touch through Braille print and tactile diagrams. This past year has been quite a bizzare year such that till now I cannot come up with any appropriate adjective to describe it other than "happening".

There's been a constant debate around the blind community about the impending death of Braille due to the rise of audio technology versus the traditional touch technology of Braille. Here instead of rooting for a particular camp per se, I've like to move into the concept of the "actual" versus "virtual", and using the visually handicapped community as an analogy, apply it across the board towards the relationships between all people. Let's take a look at their definitions.

Actual

1. existing in act or fact; real; existing now; present; current

Virtual

1. being such in power, force, or effect, though not actually or expressly such

Upon the lost of sight, the concept of vision to a blind person has become a virtual one. He can be aided by his other senses sound and touch and taste, which in this case are the power and forces still existing to help him have experience something as akin to sight as possible. However the person needs to admit that no matter what, his sight has ceased to exist to a certain degree.

There's often talk going about virtual reality, about how we're moving into a virtual age. Personally, I've very mixed feelings towards phrases like these as they forebode some very "happening" things. With the advancement towards the virtual over the actual through technology, the triangle dilemma of time, quantity and quality has indeed "disappeared", or has it really? I've chatted once with a colleague over this triangle dilemma theory, saying that if the size of the triangle is fixed, there is no way of attaining a joint increase in all three, as in order to move closer towards any end, at least one end will be compromised. I had hypothesied that the best way to resolve this dilemma would be to shrink the actual size of the triangle as much as possible. As we proceed on in this virtual age, the triangle has vanished, or it seems. However, my hypothesis has been to shrink the triangle, not delete it altogether, because frankly this triangle will never cease to exist. In fact, the harrowing thing may be that we have convinced ourselves it has vanished, because we may have unwittingly expanded it size beyond our wildest dreams, or more appropriately, nightmares...

In the specific realm of relationships with others, one has to first and foremost define self, before moving onto relate one's self to another. Without defining, or drawing one's boundaries, this case of no free reins is going to render the concept of relationships into non-existence. How much we bother to define things, indicate the relevance and priority we actually place on it.

I know that this entry is a very abstract one, and I have no clear cut explanations or solutions. They are merely my POVs and if they're unwelcome, please take them in grace as rantings of a mad woman. I'll just end off with this line of my own, drawn from my past year of interactions with the blind community.
Without hearing you, what transpires between us will be silence; without my hand in yours, I'll have no idea on when it is I'm tresspassing, and when it is I'm removed from you; without the guidance of your scent, I'll have no concept of the aroma of relating to you; without the assistance of taste the flavour of our interactions, my life would be bland. You actualise me. Without the sensation of you with me, part of me will cease to exist as I'm in the dark about you...

张无忌 never had a choice anywayz...

Strictly speaking, 张无忌 never did choose 赵敏 over any of the other three ladies. His choices were merely conveniently eliminated till he was left with her as the only "best choice". Let's run through what happened to get a better idea.

小昭 was "axed off" early on when it was revealed that her mum was the Sacred Virgin of the 明教, and in order to resolve the pressing extermination of the entire group due to her mum's flaunting of the cult's regulations, she had to sacrifice her own happiness by standing in for her mum and going off away to Persia.

殷离's case is slightly a bit more complex to the readers as it looked it as though "无忌 never loved her anyway". However, if we read carefully in volume 2 pertaining to the stretch where both were stranded together for companionship, with him lame from injury then and her disfigured, there was some ambiguous relationship between them two that had way surpassed that of mere friends. However in the aftermath of 周芷若's "ultimate faceoff", by attempting to murder 殷离, banish 谢逊, steal both the Heavenly Sword and Dragon Sabre and put the blame on 赵敏 all in one move, something may have caused the unfortunate lady to have felt greatly jaded with her relationship with 张无忌, resulting in the final chapter when she "returns from the dead" to reveal the truth, but totally relinquishes her participation right in the competition over the man, ranting continuously like a mental patient that she loved the former him, not the "current him".

Considering 周芷若's villainous turn two-thirds into the novel, attributed to her vow to her 师傅灭绝师太 to resort any means possible to obtain both the sword and sabre, while never to fall in love with 无忌, it is only natural that she does not end up with 无忌. I have not yet read of any Chinese swordfighting novel with the main male protagonist ending happily ever after with an evil female protagonist of such proportions.

The most remotely closest to such a case was 《云海玉弓缘》, and even then it was a romantic tragedy with 金世遗 realising his intense hatred for 励胜男 was actually a mask for his passionate love for her, as the two of them were way too alike in nature. Also strictly speaking, 励胜男's actions were never evil-intentioned, as shown during the revelation in the last chapter, leading to 金世遗's eternal agony. However maetsro Louis Cha and master 梁羽生 have very different writing styles and themes, so that I'll leave to a future discussion.

It is a great move on maestro Louis Cha's part, that he ended 《倚天屠龙记》with a scary clifthanger-ish ending where while 张无忌 and 赵敏 are finally literally enjoying life, 周芷若 appears with a "you still owe me one reminder" to scare the heck out of 无忌. Thus,《倚天屠龙记》's ending surpasses 《侠客行》's twin's birth mystery, and even can match the renown "to kill or not to kill" dilemma in《雪山飞狐》, as its possibilities are just as "juicy".

A Most Dangerous Dynamics

Since I'd been down with a terrible bout of cold cough last weekend, this "torture" had actually presented me with a wonderful opportunity to catch up on my reading, one of which is this book. Frankly speaking, I had started off reading merely to "preview" the movie version. This experience has so far taken off into another enjoyment of its own.

To summarise the plot of this autobiography, it would be how the interplay of dynamics between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, complicated with the presence of Sabina Spielrein, altered what and how pyschoanalysis was to be defined henceforth. Of course there is the underground romance between Jung and Spielrein, where the two's identities of physician versus patient get increasingly muddled up as the events proceed.  However, lest we dismiss this autobiography to be simply that of a physician breaking moral norms, we need to examine how this issue itself ends up being a brokering chip, in Jung's mutating professional relationship with Freud, especially towards their eventual fallout. To equate Freud as a "Grand Master" enforcing strict professionalism within physician-patient relations would be incorrect, as we see later on in the book more and more, as Freud too does not conduct himself in the most impartial manner possible. In fact, Freud's interpretive arrangements within the International Pyschoanaylsis Association smack of outright dictatorship in a "schism" or "movement" not unlike that of politics, which is definitely not the way in which "science" goes about.

The most objective person in the sequence of events, Eugen Bleuler, one of Jung's first mentors in the Swiss psychology circle, who had repeatedly warned all parties that despite the merits of psychoanalysis, it was a seemingly dangerous method, as till then there had been no way to justify it to be classified as a "science". Thus the most pressing issue would be to resolve this crux of the problem. However, in the midst of the clash of personalities and power struggle between Freud and Jung, this critical issue has been swept under the carpet till this very day.

At the risk of reading too much into an otherwise riveting autobiography of two renown men, I cannot help but draw parallels between their power play and conventional office politics, myself greatly empathising with sometimes Jung, sometimes Freud, as the events in the autobiography proceeded.

All too often personality preferences and styles, end up making critical issues take a back seat for too long, festering in the dark like an over-ripe fruit. And by the time the stench is noticed, it may have already been too late, as the leaders involved will have long since passed on and the industry squandered a precious opportunity to rectify the situation. I guess the only conclusion I can draw from this book is that famous scripture verse from Romans 3:23 "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". If great men like Freud and Jung suffer from mistakes like these, what more we mere insignificant workers in our workplaces.

Workplace relations is neither a science, where rival point of views are essential to meaningful progress towards productivity, because it would hamper overall direction of the organisation. However it is not an art too, where the higher authorities have the sole right to enforce and dicate every single decision pertaining to the implementation of the daily operations, as their level of participation in it is restricted, sometimes hindering the wisdom of their choices. I would opt to say that workplace relations is a craft, where all members of the organisation adopt a unifying generic practical attitude of professionalism in line with the orgnisation's vision and mission as they go about operations, while leaving room for other essential matters of accomodation of styles, preferences, personalities to be flexible. However in many cases, the way in which an orgnisation runs has been held sway by a markedly few leaders for too long, such that their preferred manner of operations has constricted how the organisation is run, while simultaneously ingraining a conformed political mindset within employees of how to conduct themselves, with the sole aim of maintaining this constriction and nothing else.

I'll finish off this entry with a collection of my personal favourite abridged excerpts from the books, from which I got the inspiration to write my conclusion. The book is available in all bookshops and most branches of the National Library Board. Meanwhile I'd better start on watching the film version too.


In effect, Freud and Jung were contending to see which was the analyser, which the one anaylsed. What had once been a collaborative arrangement had collapsed into a situation in which only one of them could be the authority, only one the possessor of pyschoanalytic truth. Accordingly, each man now posed a special kind of psychological threat to the other, a kind of threat that was perhaps historically unprecedented. For not only was each man claiming to know the other better than he knew himself, but by that very act he was appropriating the other's right to his own identity as a psychoanalyst... The possibility of playing for such terrible, savage stakes was implicit in how psychoanalysis had evolved- without empirical checks or methodological safeguards, the right to discern the unconscious motives of another belonged to whoever was strong enough to seize it. Yet, paradoxically, the very nature of the psychoanalysis identity they were trying to wrest from each other demanded that they not indulge their fiercer passions any further. The identity of a psychoanalyst was a corporate one. If the two men wrecked institutional psychoanalysis with their different polemics, then neither would achieve the thing he was after.

"The Rest is Silence" pg. 434-5

Was pyschoanalysis a science, in which rival hypotheses were essential to a meaningful examination of the data? Or was it an art, in which case the original artist had the right to enforce to how his creation should best be completed? A case could have been made that the actual practice of psychoanalysis was neither an art nor a science, but a craft... indicated the practical attitude which the analyst should adopt toward basic phenomena...while they left more essential matters...completely hanging. Moreover, in such a conception of psychoanalysis, the theoretical and practical innovations of Freud, Jung and others would still have had their place as that which distinguished the craft of psychoanalytic psychotheraphy from other forms.

As brillant as it was, Jung's innovation stopped short of truly turning psychoanalysis from the path that it was on. For he was not arguing that different types of patients might require different modes of understanding and even different types of intervention, which would have been a truly clinical approach. Instead, he was arguing that different kinds of theorists produce different kinds of theories, Which was a different matter. The evolution of psychoanalysis theory had been under the sway of its two giants for so long that the primacy of the theorist over the patient continued to be inadvertently maintained even as the effort was being made to understand what was going on.

From "This History of the Psychoanalytic Movement" pg.443, 464

All this was not supposed to happen in psychoanalysis, for psychoanalysis was, it was said, a science. In science, neither the vision of the founder nor the counter-vision of the disciple is of any movement. this in a way is science's great consolation. What is established rest on replicatable experience, and though it may later be amended or even overthrowbn by yet more penetrating investigations, one does not have to worry about other issues, such as personal temperament or religious tradition. Indeed this wqas the great hope... perhaps finally one culd put all conjectures about man's essential nature on an empirical footing. Early in their association, both Freud and Jung counted on just this protection... their differences would work themselves out as data continued to come in. But the data came in, and things only got worse...the fact that Freud and Jung could ultimately arrive at two different schools of depth pyschology indicates that psychoanalysis, despite its claims, was not a science...The problem lay between the theory and the data; it lay in the method... whe the time came, he (Freud) found he could not even describe the rules for interpretation, let alone prove their scientific sturdiness. The use of scientific language did nothing to resolve Freud's methodological problems... The real tragedy of Freud and Jung is not that they failed to create a science... The real tragedy is what they did to pyschoanalysis as a clinical method. They allowed the interpretive range of psychoanalysis to be woefully constricted while simultaneously creating a political organisation that ensured this constriction would endure.

From "Afterword" pg. 508-511

Word Play 11: Needs, Wants & Weight. Heavy...

Heavy... That's what a colleague and his wife remarked, observing all the barang I was lugging on my back, when I happened to meet them on the way to work this morning. I then joked that these "burdens" are nothing, as they are mere objects. It was the human baggage of relationships and emotions that strained me, causing me to protest in agony every now and then. I then made a snide joke, saying that if I threw my bags onto the floor, the items in it would at most be spoilt, but at least they would never retaliate. Now try moving my boss emotionally around like a bag, and even the slightest bruise on this Kate Spade would bring about unimaginable dire consequences... :p

Here I'll like to go into the concept of importance, aka "weight", while bringing in the concepts of needs and wants. Let's us examine the three below from dictionary.com.

Importance [noun] - great significance, mattering much, entitlement to more than ordinary consideration or notice, prominence, considerable influence or authority

Need [noun] - a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation; a lack of something wanted or deemed necessary; urgent want, as of something requisite; necessity arising from the circumstances of a situation or case; a situation or time of difficulty, exigency

Want [noun] - something wanted or needed, necessity; something desired, demanded, or required; absence or deficiency of something desirable or requisite, lack

The difference between needs and wants is a very fine line, indicated by urgency and necessity. When the want is something required for survival, it'll definitely fall into the needs category. Think of them as two overlapping circles in a Venn diagram. Simply put, some needs and wants are mutually inclusive, others are not.

Another colleague was just musing to me the other day that she was unable to grasp why the environment in our workplace operated in the way it did as a whole. I then postulated that the issue was rooted not so much in the difference between needs and wants, but what we define as "needs" and "wants", The method our workplace being more in accordance to the needs and wants of those with greater authority. The subjectivity of the issue lies with how each individual defines needs and wants, as they are often decided by the importance we place on them. Let me elaborate it using an example.

One person may value getting the latest Samantha Thavasa very much, while the slightest gravy stain on my Crumpler bag when eating mixed veg rice will cause me huge distress. In the market place, the absolute value of the Samantha Thavasa will far surpass that of the Crumpler, though in my private opinion, that may not even be the case, as it does not matter to me, namely meaning it is of not much importance to me. However, just because I view the Samantha Thavasa of lesser weight, does not necessarily invalidate its worth. Too bad that in real life, sometimes we do not always operate so objectively.

Things of importance are both good and bad, depending on the context. Without weight we'd all be floating around astronaut style. Though it may be an amusing novelty at first, try peeing without any gravity. However, too much weight will burden us and make us tired, draining us of our energy eventually. Just ask that famous maid carrying the backpack for the NS army boy...

Some bags, I've learnt to discard from my life along the way. Other bags, I cling onto them for dear life, like how cowardly I behaved when travelling on my first lone ranger trip to Hong Kong in March last year. Since then, many events have happened, leading me to throw away some wants, while persisting to clutch tightly some other things and ideals which I view as needs. These "Crumplers" of mine are what keeps me grounded daily, while yet being not too heavy such that I drag my feet to work every morning and home every evening. :)

Why two, not one?

Cannot really think of a better title for this entry, thus, I'll just have to name it as that. To fellow believers, I think I do not have to explain too much on today's significance. I'll delve more into the "redemption offering" to write off our sins part. When preaching the gospel to our oikos, I'm sure any believer knows the "Jesus died on the cross for our sins" pars because of the "All have sinned and fall short of the glory part". Straightforward and simple enough. Thus, upon acceptance our Jesus Christ as personal Lord & Saviour, we have been redeemed of punishment for our sins when facing judgement, the ultimate penalty across the board being death. However, despite assurance of eternal life in Heaven with Christ, the "what now" question has always been the one nagging at me. Thankfully today's sermon at church has helped me answer this spot of bother. Kudos to Pastor Low of New Life Baptist Church! :D

During the precise moment of Christ's death, the curtain in the temple tore cleanly into two from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:44), clearly heralding the new era of reconciliation between man and God without the need for any intermediaries. This is further substantiated by the arrival of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). However, between the period and journey from acceptance of Christ till reuniting with Him in Heaven, what then? Here we have to examine the Old Testament again, specifically the ritual of the offering for the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16).

The ritual for the Day of Atonement applies for all mankind, including even the priests themselves. It involves two goats, and not just one, without blemish. They are selected at random, one allocated for slaughter as a sin offering (vs. 15), the other to be prayed upon to confess all the sins of mankind and then sent away to the wilderness to fend for itself (vs. 20-22). The necessity of having two, instead one one goat, for the ritual was a minor puzzle for me then, as I did not grasp the full concept and extent of redemption till today. The goat for slaughter is actually the redemption from death part, whichI fully understood, was aware and accepted. Meanwhile, the goat for exile symbolises redemption from the burden of our sins while still on earth...

Last year during a major quarrel with someone (non-believer), he had said the line "no one owes you anything and neither do you owe anyone anything". I was very bothered by the line then, though more of due to other factors. Fast foward the situation to a new year, and those factors have long since worn off, but the line still lingered in my mind, aka Lady Macbeth's "out out damned spot" style, and I only realised the reason today. Despite having accepted the entire redemption package deal from Christ, I still insisted on carrying the sin baggage around on my back, with Jesus the lamb baa-ing away at me, shaking his head. Yes indeed, what took me so long to realise, no wonder I always complain of backache...

In retrospect now, I think my friend's statement was not phrased correctly. Its is not about any human owing any other human being more or less. We all owe God, but He decided to write it all off, because He doesn't believe in book-keeping. Matthew didn't quit his job for nothing after deciding to follow Jesus. :p However, I still enjoy buying big bags, especially the Crumpler types which I can dump loads of stuff I want in. They are definitely not baggage and burdens. Amen!

Word Play 10: Enemies and reason, your freewill for correlation

Even though I am consciously making an effort to not curse or scold anyone from the workplace, I cannot help but do some word play on the situation there. A more amicable colleague SH always remarks half-jokingly "Oh, that enemy of yours is it?" or "Which enemy is it this time?", whenever he spots the frustrated look I have due to work disputes. Whether or not those parties define me as deserving to be classified as "enemy" is solely under their control. What I'll like to examine is the correlation, or lack of between the concept of "enemy" and "reason". Ok, this topic is kind of difficult to digest, so I'll state the defintion of both concepts below from dictionary.com.

en·e·my (noun)

a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.

rea-son (noun)

1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.

2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.

3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.

4. sound judgment; good sense.

5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.

As we can see from the definition of those two terms, they do not necessarily bear correlation towards each other. The term "enemy" focuses on the hatred, antagonism and adversity between the two parties. Meanwhile the term "reason" delves into the soundness, justisfication, basis and sanity of the relationship between the two parties and the situation.

This is the beginning of my 4th season at this workplace and reflecting on what has happened so far, I am unable to draw strong correlation between those two terms. If indeed as my colleague says, my relationships with those parties in question are indeed worthy to be classified as that of enemies, then the criteria seems to be a very hollow one. For two of them, I have offended through lack of tact, thus there is indeed a very strong and obvious basis for their hostility towards me. However, there have been a few others whose rationale for their eventual actions pertaining to me, I am completely clueless about.

In an earlier entry, I've already touched on how reciprocation versus freewill influences our mindset and treatment of others. Same here, as the treatment of hostility towards others is that of enemies. Everyone has the freewill to decide how much basis, ground, justification they require, in order to classify others who treat them in a certain way as enemies. I have not yet found enough of these requirements for any of them, as I find the task of keeping track of these extremely energy consuming, and the duty of maintenance of the hostility even more so tedious. 如果彼此不和已经那么累人，更何况是仇视地对待...

Word Play 9: 骂人法则123

今天又在做工时被气坏了，甚至气得没能力喘口气。Literally angry till out of breath, such that during the entire incident, I was unable to reply anything else other than "I did not XYZ." Thankfully now I'm back in front of my computer again, catching my breath back, together with a prescription of TCM medication from 中华 Free Clinic to 降火, as it seems like I'm suffering from a bout of physical heatiness too.

I was reflecting on today's incident, which led me to wonder about the concept of scolding, aka 骂人. Being drained as I am of energy now, I have no intention of scolding anyone, especially on today (Holy Thursday, eve of Good Friday). Simply pondering over a common phrase which many blurt out in heated moments, the “你去死啊！” or "You go and die/f*** yourself!"

For most scenarios, this phrase serves no concrete purpose, to both the one scolding and the one being scolded. Let me go explain it from both sides.

1. The one scolding

This scolding is actually a half complete sentence, the full version being “我要你去死啊！” or "I want you to go and die/f*** yourself!" However, now think upon it, what specific action verb applies for the “我” or "I" in this sentence... Sad to say, nothing at all. In fact, the action verb that applies to “我” or "I" here is merely “要” or "want". Wants are merely desires, some attainable within our capacity, some mission impossible. In the context of this phrase, I think the chances of us attaining what we desire when we blurt out the phrase are very very slim indeed...

2. The one being scolded

When the interchange of words has come to this extent, it no longer deserves being classified as mere feedback. Thus, the receptivity of the one being scolded is definitely not very high. Even under any circumstances, the receptivity of anybody to the phrase would be zilch. If I were the one being verbally whacked by this phrase but being in a calm mood, I'd remark to myself how hilarious the phrase is, as the one scolding me is totally helpless at substantiating what grounds am I to oblige and accede to this request. Tsk, tsk. :p

I've indulged in inward cursing of this sort often, but now I've realised the futility of it. Not that scolding is fruitless. In fact, it was through the harsh scoldings by many mentors, was I able to get rid of many bad habits and mindsets of mine.

During silent retreat last week, a constant point that God had wanted me to consider properly was what I wanted for myself. Applying it to the context of scoldings and quarrels in heated moments, I think the best method to scold would be to ensure that the “我” or "I" has a specific action verb. All else is actually secondary. Thus, next time I'll curse inwardly “你这TMD王八蛋！我更要活得好好的！” or "I'll survive and prosper all the more, as you're such an arsehole!"

Response to Word Play 8: The 豆花西施 fights back

I understand that at least one follower of my previous blog entry was severely offended by the last few posts, namely the one on vessel size, and the one on toufu. First things first for updates. I haven't gone for any followup on my facial. My forehead is resembling a minefield. :p

Ok, back to more serious talk. As much as I wanted to just shrug off the comment that the follower had posted then, I cannot, and have decided to write this entry in response. I'll try my utmost to not launch into attack zoneage while trying to put my points across.

I gather from the response and feedback from the follower that I suffer from these main issues:

1. Being attention-seeking

2. Painting the VWO sector which I work in a terrible light

3. Being a false believer of Christ

I'll construct my personal POV and arguments, replying each point one by one.

1. Pertaining to being attention seeking, I can't help have a "Duh! Only NOW you realise?!" reaction. Please lah, all forms of blogging aims to bring attention of others to a certain issue the blogger feels is of concern to him or her. Of course I'm attention seeking! I'm facing work stress which is important to me since I'm the type of person who has to have passion for what he or she works for. Think of it as me doing public broadcast of a complain session with friends about work. I'm sure we accidentally eavesdrop on conversations like these in public areas too. Whether or not we get so infuriated enough to snap at the ones doing this to shaddap is another matter. Firstly, I'd like to thank the follower who did a "shut the f*** up" to me. However, I'll simply reply, "Cannot lah, I don't want to constipate it inside, but neither do I want to do venting onto my family and friends, or blow my top in office, as I still need my ricebowl".

2. Regarding the second point, I'll like to bring to attention a "revelation" I've gotten recently, though to some wise family and friends they'd have this "aiyo, what took you so long to geddit" reaction. There is no Promised Land on earth. Thus, there is no ideal workplace and definitely no perfect colleague and/or boss. I do not need to bring into the mind about NKF and Renci that you'll know what I talk about. However I need to clarify one point. Despite the imperfections in my current workplace, there are some ravishing beauties present. My colleague "Spiderman Peter Parker" is a kindly brother or sorts, who is always willing to dispense precious time, even on his off days to come back to put in extra work. He never tires to nag at me to calm down, when he himself is facing even more stress from that nemesis of mine. Another senior colleague is able to pull of the "assertive without being angsty" effortlessly, especially in light of my boss's nasty remark of the lack of productivity in my department. In fact, she had even reflected on how she talked to my boss the other day, and was worried she was being too harsh on him, when I observing the scene then, had felt she was being a tad too merciful. These are only two of the "beauties" in this place, who have a great heart to serve the VH community, many more who I haven't mentioned. The only "problem" is that I've always behaving like a selfish emperor of sorts, hoarding those 美人 for me myself only, unwilling to let the public know of their existence. It seems that we humans in general, find it much easier to talk about negative things, while keeping silent on positive things. No wonder a friend of mine constantly reminds me that I suffer from a "leftover food pessimism".

3. As for the final point, I really wish I had the confidence to lash out at the blog follower and scream "F*** you! It's absolutely bulls*** you're talking." Sad to say is, I can only answer that everyday I do my best to follow God a day at a time. In certain moments I'm Paul, other times Peter, other situations John or Thomas, and sometimes Judas Iscariot. I think all followers of God go through this process. The walk to follow Him was never said to be a joy ride. I cannot proclaim that I'm a authentic believer, but at least I know I'm still trying and have not yet threw in the towel and I hope I don't ever.

Alright, I think that is all I need to clarify for the time being. As for the follower's jibed comment of me as being a stinky piece of toufu, well it is true considering the layer of sweat causing the outbreak on my forehead. Meanwhile though, I have great memories of the 臭豆腐 from Taipei's 士林夜市. It tasted heavenly and I really hope to go Taipei for a shortbreak if possible. :)

Word Play 8: My face is like beancurd 我的面子如豆花

I’ve slackened with following up on my facial sessions. It’s been at least three months since I’ve gone for them, and with yesterday’s event, the blackheads are back with a vengeance... However the face I’ll look into today is the concept of 面子 or “face” as translated literally. 给面子 is quite an abstract Chinese concept, and no matter how I struggle, the closest translation I can come up with is “giving one due dignity and respect”, or to put it literally “give one due face.”

The problem with the concept of 给面子 is then, how much or what quantity of “face” is the other party due. We may feel that we have 给足面子, meaning given the other party sufficient due “face”, but the other party may still protest and insist that we 不给面子, meaning we do not give them the due “face” required.

This deliberation of how much face to give will never be resolved if we continue to point fingers at others. As in the concept of facial treatments, my specialist Susan often chides me for my lack of upkeep, resulting in the regular outbreaks on my nose especially. Despite being a seasoned specialist at this task, I definitely know the extra effort she takes in squeezing those irritating blackheads stuck in the pores. So in this case, I am also hugely responsible for what I look like. How much 面子 others give you also definitely correspond with the way in which you conduct yourself. I can go for facial regularly, but if I fail to do my side of maintainenance, there is still a limit of how much effect the facial specialist can beautify me.

I had been long inspired to write the entry by an action I go about often: giving some colleagues beancurd drinks as a treat. This habit has roots in my first long-term job 5 years ago. The motive behind this ahd simply been a private acknowledge of gratitude and thanks to these 师父s, 师姐s, ah-hias, ah-zes for their patience and guidance during my term under their tulage. In that former workplace, there were many "conditions" that I had to keep in mind when just doing this simple act. Now half a decade later and in another workplace, sad to say, these "conditions" remain present. However the difference lies in my audacity to pluck these "blackheads" away.

Last year when I just entered this current workplace and bought my first beancurd treat, most of those being treated had graciously enjoyed the dessert, though two senior staff had insisted on paying for their share, subtly implying the presence of these "blackhead and pimple conditions". Then I had been slightly disheartened but did not give this further thought.

Eight months into this workplace, I bought the same beancurd treat again last month. Those two seniors happened not to be present in office by chance, but there was a test of another sort. Present was a certain colleague whom I did not get along well with, and who had in fact been pivotal behind some of my current challenges in my workplace. Despite a nagging urge in me, I did what I wanted and did not give her any share of the beancurd dessert.

I know some people will deem my action as "work blasphemy", pointing out the folly behind this act. Granted, I understand the logic behind forgiveness, and as I've long maintained, I still seek reconciliation and forgivesness between the two of us. However, since she maintains her ground till this very day, there is a limited amount of 面子 she is due from me, as what she wants is nothing short of me to resign. In fact, if I had proceeded on to giving her a share, it would have got interpreted as a move with a hidden agenda, leading to further speculation and mayhem. On my end, I'd rather proceed on with consistency than to subcuumb to the rules of playing the "blackhead and pimple conditions", because only then am I at peace with myself.

When I went to look for a fellow colleague in another department for dinner later, and happened to run into another colleague present who had did two acts of major backstabbing to me last year, I did not acknowledge her presence. When leaving, my dinner partner was worried and questioned that "You really didn't bother to acknowledge her and 翻白眼 to her?" I wouldn't say I'm proud of what I did, but more of at peace with what I did. Considering the gravity of those two incidents last year, it had already taken me great effort to simply not ackowledge her presence. As my friend Genette had said last year when two very unreasonable colleagues had lambasted her, "There's only a limit to how much I can change within this period of time, I'm human." Forgivesness is a process, with this colleague I'm proceeding at a much slower rate, because this is the only amount of 面子 I can muster to give her as of the moment.

Thus, by treating those two particular colleagues the way I did, I'm already giving them as much 面子 they are due, with my limited supply. Beyond that would be sheer hypocrisy, because this would have no correlation to my initial motive behind treating others with beancurd!

Beancurd is a very smooth and tasty dessert. To keep our daily lives smooth and full of positive flavour, instead of screaming at others on how they destroy the smoothness and beauty of our fragile 面子, maybe we can take on the role of doing some self-maintenance. This way it makes the job of our fellow facial specialists much easier. Meanwhile I need to book an appointment with Susan soon. :)

OMG Science: Peter walking on water

I’ve decided to put Movie Mayhem with God aside for a while, and delve into examining and reconciling the realm of science with God for this entry, mainly through the acts of miracles in the Bible. Many have fawned over these miracles, but frankly the hoo-haa-ing is a bit over-hyped, and I want to look at them in a more analytical manner. Lest I get stoned for blasphemy for that previous statement, my justification is that precisely because of God’s omnipresence and omnipotence, these acts of miracles are a piece of cake to Him. They are miracles only because we mere mortals are never able to pull it off through self-effort, duh! Ok, enough of the self-vindication because I know some purists will still hold the stand that I’m showing God gross disrespect.

Today’s case study will focus on one of the most famous miracles in the gospel of Matthew, Peter’s act of water-walking. Actually, all human beings will have a tendency to float, depending on their body density versus that of water. One renowned example is the water floats enjoyed by many tourists in the Dead Sea, with an ultra-high salt content, which greatly increases its density, rendering us human beings so much lighter in comparison.

Typically, humans sink due to two forces jointly at work, namely the gravitational pull and the comparative density of what surface is that material we are on. As the typical ground we stand on is much denser than us, thus despite gravitational pull, we’ll never be unfortunate enough to get sucked into the centre of the earth. Proceeding along this deductive line of thought, for Peter to be able to float and even walk on water, all that is needed is:

1. A pull that overcomes the gravitational pull that drags him downwards into the water;
2. A change in the density of Peter in comparison to that of the water he is walking on.

Let us then look at what Peter did before and during the entire process of that famous miracle (Matthew 14:25-31 NIV):

1. Peter verified whether what he saw was truly Jesus; (vs.28)
2. Then he proceeded on to ask for Jesus’ permission to have a try; (vs.28)
3. Upon Jesus’ green-light, he made his own go at it; (vs.29)
4. All was well until he stopped focusing on Jesus and got distracted by the waves and storm, thus he started sinking and had to cry for help to Jesus, who then gently nagged at him for being of little faith. (vs.30-31)

From the entire process we can see that, even Peter’s minute faith in Jesus during the instance between vs.28-29, by just seeking for verification that it is indeed God, and then asking for permission, was more than enough, to firstly overcome gravitational pull of the earth, and secondly alter his own body density relative to the water! Think of Jesus being like this ultra magnetic with a pull that way surpasses that of gravity, while also being an incredible alchemist of sorts, changing Peter’s “element” (i.e. changing Group I element in the periodic table into Group II element).

Interesting when you choose to look at this miracle from the physics and chemistry point of view, you see how much God’s dabbling can effect, when you only need to ask him with faith. However, I think God still intends for many forms of work (NASA scientists, astronauts, and cruise liners’ captains, etc.) to continue, thus so far there hasn’t been any repeat occurrences yet. Or maybe we’re just like the other 11 disciples, being much too “scaredy-cat” to even ask for a shot. Even then, kids do not try this at all, whether under the supervision of only human beings, adult or not. Water is not as dense as the lego tiles in this picture... :p

Word Play 7: I / Me ≠ He / She / They / Them

I believe that a very common grouse which arises whenever one encounters an experience of being misquoted and misrepresented, or to put it in a more blunt manner, backstabbed, is the notion of “how could he/she/they do this? I have never [nasty deed] them.” Sad to say, I used to think along the lines of this logic very frequently. In fact, only now do I understand the flaw behind this logic, and thus realize that many of my frustrations had been unfounded.

The entire premise of this logic is that the deeds are reciprocal. If one party does an act of service or disservice to the other, the other will then justifiably reciprocate in a corresponding manner. In fact, there is an unspoken mutual agreement between both parties, that they treat each others as equals of sorts with respect! Regrettably, this is not necessarily true for most cases… If the other party chooses not to view you with that corresponding amount of due respect, you are completely powerless to alter the way they intend to treat you. Even if you are able to understand their rationale for choosing to treat you in a certain way, the choice of whether they will continue, will still lie in their hands and not yours. That is the whole pretext of freewill. Even God does not dictate whether or not we choose to accept him as Lord and Saviour. Thus, if we are able to singlehandedly dictate the manner which others treat us, by golly, we would have surpassed God!

Last year, a very influential and senior staff in my current workplace had done me a gross disservice by severely misquoting me behind my back to my boss. I was extremely upset with the act, and had been wallowing in the “I never did anything to you, why you do this to me” argument nonstop, even carrying this unnecessary baggage back home. My father had been so irritated by this reaction of mine, that he had simply rebutted me harshly, “Don’t you get it? It was never about you. It’s them! What makes you think you're of such great importance?! So stop it.” I had not gotten my father’s rationale then, but thankfully now I have.

Thus whenever this situation occurs, as it did yesterday afternoon with the same staff again, I was markedly cooler and calmer in dealing with the situation. However, I have one additional point to make. Acceptance of others’ freewill to act in a certain manner, does not equate to agreement to emulate and act in accordance to the manner they do. Thus, I am very pleased and grateful that God has still endowed me with the freewill not to follow those colleagues’ ways. Amen!

No "con"dor fairytales please... :p

Finally, I can start my favourite series from maestro 金庸Louis Cha’s Condor Heroes series. I’ll go into an even more in-depth analysis of the third and final installment from this series, 倚天屠龙记 Heavenly Blade and Dragon Sabre, in my next blog entry, choosing to concentrate on the first two today. It was these two Louis cha classics that had gotten me immersed in the genre of swordfighting pugilistic novels. Now at an older age, I still love these two staples, though in retrospect with age, my feelings towards them have changed drastically, especially their romance plots.

射雕英雄传 Legend of the Condor Heroes

Basically there are two main romance plots running parallel, the first being between 郭靖 and 黄蓉, the second between 杨康 and 穆念慈. During my younger days, I was besotted with the 郭黄 romance, because of its simplicity and straightforwardness, whereas I had neglected the 杨穆 romance plot. Yes, there was a Mongolian Princess in the picture as a “third party” obstacle of sorts, but frankly she never posed of any threat to the romance, as the reader knew point blank that 郭靖 was merely bound by integrity to fulfill his engagement to her. However in life, sometimes romances are not that straightforward or safe ground for treading. Some of them are downright dangerous, as in the case between 杨康 and 穆念慈. Many swordfighting literature scholars have delved into the “who loves who more and first, 杨 or 穆” topic, while outright critiquing the 郭黄 romance to be a complete fairytale. Personally, I would choose not to delve into this area, because the dynamics of speed and intensity of passion within a couple simply cannot be measured in a linear manner. What leaves me in awe is that author Louis Cha, whether knowingly or not, employs the method of contrasting the complexity of the 杨穆 romance with the simplicity of the 郭黄 one, leaving this reader “mourning wistfully” of sorts for 杨康 and 穆念慈 when reading the novel again now…

神雕侠侣Return of the Condor Heroes

Frankly, I didn’t really like this one as much as the previous one even in my younger days, though I hadn’t figured out clearly why when I was younger. Now I’ve finally realised the simple reason. This novel’s romance is really a “man’s fairy tale”. We all know the typical genre of fairytales, which has the female protagonist on the run by villains, only to be rescued in the end by a dashing prince, and then living happily ever after. In the novel, main protagonist 杨过 perseveres through many challenges in having 小龙女, his teacher master, as his life partner, despite being bound by ethical norms (teacher masters are akin to parents in traditional hierarchy, thus having them as life partners would equate to incest in those times). In the process, the suave protagonist charms many other female characters, eventually leaving majority of them pining for him for the rest of their lives, or even sacrificing their life for him as in the case of a very unfortunate character 公孙绿萼.

From many literature analysis books on Louis Cha’s novels, I have gathered that Mr Cha had actually not intended to let the plot end the way it eventually did, wanting to have it close in a sadder, greyer note and with more ambiguity. Sad to say, under the pressure of overwhelming feedback for the novel when it was released in installments in 明报Ming Pao, Mr Cha then changed his mind and decided to accede to popular demand. Well, unfortunately Mr Cha did not realize he had just written the first full-scale pugilistic fairytale romance for men to indulge in. In contrast, Legend of the Condor Heroes’ 郭黄 romance seems more along the lines of Shrek…

At the risk of offending many guys, I’ve noticed recently that more and more men are having a杨过 mentality when it comes to romance, be it through my own experience or that of some female peers. As they go about their conquests in search of their 小龙女, they expect other females on their waiting list to stay pining away for them. When to their horror they realize it does not turn out this way, they are severely offended, and even display pettiness in greater magnitude than females, which is actually quite entertaining in some aspects. :p Unfortunately, most of these men fail to question themselves whether they truly have the capacity of being as suave and charming as 杨过, but yet are all too ready to take up his mindset.

In life there is unfortunately no one “all size fits all” combination. Every person is a unique individual and their dynamics with other people will differ, despite similarities and parallels. This applies for all human relationships, be it be within the family, workplace, and of course romantic relationships. What matters is that when we are maintaining these relationships, we need to pray for God’s guidance and instruction as we proceed. When looking solely at the 杨穆 romance there is eventually no need for questioning, but what brought their relationship to its conclusion was the unrepentance of 杨康 in other aspects of his life, which eventually doomed their relationship, implicating even their son 杨过 in the next novel.

Every time when I reach any point of ambiguity in my life, I need to pray hard for God’s wisdom, direction and strength, because all aspects of my life are intertwined. One can never underestimate the repercussions of one’s actions in one area, on another area, as look what happened in 杨康's case. This is all the wisdom I need to gather from the romance of the first novel. Meanwhile for the second novel, I just need to warn myself from having any female 杨过or 小龙女 mindset too. Life may be a story written by God, but it is definitely no fairytale… :p

Movie Mayhem with God Part 9: 大兵小将

Hihi, gonna torture some of my blog followers again. Personally feel more appropriate in writing the rest of this blog entry in Chinese, so please bear with me again... 最近在脸书上密切留意一位好友的近况，甚至蛮替她担忧。忽然突发灵感，为她特地写了这个 blog entry，希望她能慢慢“消化”。

这份blog entry想介绍的电影《大兵小将》，其实上映是在至少 18 个月前了，相信肯定在 DVD 商店购买得到，若没记错好像电视上可能都已经在去年圣诞或今年新春时播映了。个人对这部电影的钟爱其实在于它背后的哲理，剧情方面我则得承认有点薄弱，不够紧凑吸引人。故事内容非常简单，描述春秋时期，某即将灭亡小国的太子（王力宏所饰），带领了军队对抗仇敌，哪知途中惨遭另外第三支敌军袭击，对打时两军两败俱伤，太子被一名敌营小兵（成龙所饰）俘虏，企图将他押回国得奖赏。逃亡途中两人不停争吵，但渐渐竟然开始彼此惺惺相惜起来了。

剧中特别欣赏小兵的生活心态，他在成功擒获太子将军之后，常常会自言自语，筹措着该讨多少奖赏，来买多大的田地。戏中小兵常会最后对自己下结论：三亩田太小、不够养活全家；五亩田太大、一家人经营不来；所以四亩田刚好。羡慕其他人是人之常情，没什么好觉得过于罪恶愧疚的。但是当我们开始沉溺于羡慕，这会开始演变成嫉妒。羡慕则还好、嫉妒的狰狞可怕则是无法预测的。我自己就曾经可怕得我不想面对，现在这恶魔还时不时会出现，好费力才能镇压得住，在此非得感谢主赐予我薄力撑到现在。。。

在生活时，有时我们的嫉妒是自讨苦吃的，因为我们会主动地去拿自己的那四亩田，跟别人的五亩田相比；但又有时，在我们专心辛勤耕种时，会有些隔田的农夫们不停“提醒”我们他们那五亩田有多大，打扰我们。对于先前情况，没什么好说，两个字，活该！但后者呢？怎么办？在此想奉劝每人，更包括自己，问一下自己身为农夫的能力。若自己能力能够胜任更大的田地，自然迟早会得到更大的田地。安啦！至于那些“好心”的农夫，可能他们未必如自己所说得那么幸福，不然为何他们老是把自己田地的大小挂在嘴边。大家专心耕田吧，吃饱闲着啊！

我今天下午刚在脸书上感叹，羡慕与嫉妒只在一线一念之间，而一线一念却常常能决定一个凡人将身处天堂或地狱。我现在还在人间挣扎着，但欣慰的是看到天堂的轮廓竟然越来越清了。。。

Resentment kills a fool, and envy slays the simple.
Job 5:2 (NIV)

A heart at peace gives life to the body, but envy rots the bones.
Proverbs 14:30 (NIV)

Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Galatians 5:26 (NIV)

Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
James 3:15-16 (NIV)

Lite Talk with God

Finally an explanation behind what transpired leading to the finalised concept for this blog, I'll return to my first lover, books. In a much earlier blog entry in "Perfect Vision of God's Way" mourning Borders' demise, I already had the fuzzy impression that I'd start writing blog entries about how God's teachings are lurking in many literature reads, be them popular culture novel or classics, whatever authors from whatever genre or nationality. Surprisingly the Movie Mayhem series in that blog overtook this project and I only came to this baby of mine now, when I realised I had actually kick started it with all that bringing in of Dream of Red Mansions in this blog. Now into the real introduction.

I've finally realised I'm most point blank selfish in the way I treat books as a whole. I get severely offended when I see books misclassified or wrong shelved under the wrong category in the libraries and bookstores. Oh ya, don't get me started on dog-eared books and books being mutilated by mishandlement. I cannot recall when it started, but I'll painstakingly give any book "reconstructive surgery" within any means I can to restore it to its original beauty. However turns out this was only stage 1 of “走火入魔”.

At home, what irked me most was if anyone rearranged my book collection on my behalf without me knowing, even if out of goodwill. I definitely appreciate their kind and hard work to assist me, but I'd just be stubbornly angry and this led me into numerous brushes with my parents.

Last night during my visit to Serangoon Library, then I realised the full gravity of my obsessive love for books as a whole. I had a chronic habit of "book hoarding", which defined simply, would be to keep re-borrowing books that I'd completed reading and enjoyed greatly, sometimes just to "relive" snippets. Strictly there is no sin in this, as borrowing of books is on a first-come-first-serve basis, and since they are available on the shelves, I'm entitled to borrow them as any library member can. However, the next problem comes up, by hoarding them constantly, I reduce their availability of being picked up by any other potential readers, and this act is selfish. Others actually get deprived of the chance to enjoy what I've enjoyed. A better way of handling would have been to go down to any bookshop to get myself a copy.

This act of mine is highly similar to staple scenario in many swordfighting novels. I've had a really intense love for this genre of books, but I never realised what an important part of my life they are till this day. Thankfully reading of the Bible and other Christian books has also come into the picture, or maybe I wouldn't see any issue with book hoarding. In the pugilistic novels, there are always a group of pugilists vying for the title of the "ultimate swordman", thus they go into a "live or die" competition, which involves fighting, politicking, backstabbing over some super kungfu pugilistic manual they hoard to themselves in order to attain that status. Thankfully I know of no one who has a mindset even remotely akin of mine when it comes to hoarding of books or else... :p

Yes, I still absolutely love good reads but this selfish mindset may actually eat into other parts of my life and is unhealthy. As the conclusion of many wonderful swordfighting classics by Louis Cha go, eventually the main protagonist gets jaded with the meaninglessness of all this neck-to-neck cut-throat behaviour, and retreats to enjoy a simple life. For me I do not have to come down to such extreme behaviour and do a lifelong "reading fast". Just go buy my own private copy at Kinokuniya will do lah, got membership card mah. :p

Word Play 6: How big is your vessel, how asthmatic are you?

I was just chatting with a gal pal over the past weeks about our embroilment within office politics in our respective workplaces. When she had gotten into in-depth description of the villain at her end, who critiqued her for her cockiness, I had said the line “At least it takes talent, ability and capacity to be proud and arrogant. Meanwhile pettiness requires none of these at all. Anyone can pull it off.” She had burst out laughing in return, clearly enjoying this line. Now I’d like to look into the word “pettiness”, though I’ll not look it up from dictionary.com, but examine its Chinese translations instead… :p

The Chinese translation for pettiness is 小气 or 小器. The first one’s literal translation means “short of breath” or “asthmatic ”; while the other’s translation means “small vessel” or “small capacity”. Whichever way, pettiness is completely devoid of stamina, talent, ability or capacity. Anyone big or small, healthy or not, can pull it off with minimal effort.

Among all the seven sins, perhaps envy is the one most akin to pettiness. Envy stems from comparison of how minute, unblessed one is, relative to others. If David had held on to a “pettiness logic” mindset, Goliath would never have been defeated. Maybe when we view talent, ability, stamina and capacity, we should no longer use the worldly dimensions of quantity, length, breath, and width, we have been so accustomed to.

During last Oct when I was most tested of my ability and stamina in the workplace, a sagely concerned colleague had remarked that he noticed how out of breath and labourious my breathing had become, expressing worry over my health. This problem has left me now I’ve tided through that period. However, I’m not taking any chances and have actually signed up for a 太极 class at a community centre, to exercise particularly pertaining to regulating of my breathing. I believe this would help me greatly not only in my physical health, but also my emotional and spiritual health. God will mould the spiritual clay of my physical, emotional clay of my lungs to increase their size. Thus, I’d also like to call upon everyone to also increase your capacity for breathing, literally and figuratively in our lives. Happy breathing while living! :)

From angst with guts, to guts alone

In 《红楼梦》, when the female protagonist 林黛玉 is finally released from the bondage of her doomed love with 贾宝玉, sadly though she came free of her longing for him, she never lost her bitterness and angst even right till her final breath, after burning and destroying all memorabilia of their relationship. In contrast, this blog is my joyful celebration of release from prolonged self-imposed bondage to angst, that I had finaly let go of that detrimental "head-banging". Pardon me, but the rest of this entry will be in Chinese and will involve a heavy amount of plagiarism... :p 在此先对陈锦鸿先生 (HK TVB actor Mr Sunny Chan) 道歉，然后向他深表感激。我将在接下来“盗摘”许多您在第704期i周刊专访里的某些谈话片断，然后进行“加工”。读了您的访问之后，感触良多，真希望自己能像您一样，继续坚持着那么简单的心态。

已经迈入三十大关，很多人都惊讶我难得还能异常热血。对学习工作兴趣热血；对理念原则信仰热血；对家人朋友热血；对向往恋爱热血。这其实是因为，热爱生活。

这几年虽然工作、家庭、恋爱进展都不尽理想，自己没法接受，但环境、条件是这样，唯有想办法怎样去做好一点，在现有局限里改善自己。生活除了生存之外，还能让我发现自己，去改变自己。每个人都有缺点，我现在正积极去改善自己不够好的地方。

比如虽然工作里环境局势都是不好的，是不成理由的，但对我来说，我唯有想怎样让自己有逻辑性地继续尽做为职员的本分。有什么理由要让这里变成这种局面？但没办法，当事情发展到现阶段的时候，我唯有看我做不做得到。这样不停锻炼自己，让自己仍然觉得每天为工作岗位效劳是有意义的。

热情当然会被消磨的。我以前积极努力为了祖母，希望她看了开心，接着为了父母及妹妹们，但现在渐渐不是了。人，其实最后都还是为了自己，因为上帝除了叫我们敬爱他之外，也劝告我们得洁身自爱...

当然还介意身边的冷嘲热讽、有色眼光、歧视对待。没办法，所以唯有跟自己说要忍让谦卑。他们若要继续如此，我就让他们继续。那是他们的自由，由不得我。

在乎称赞、奖励、升职、加薪吗？当然在乎！我很想要，但若没给我，没办法。我得提醒自己，每一天都有可能是最后一天。如果有一件事发生，是令我的生命有意义、发亮的，我一定会做。

当然向往能好好谈一场恋爱，但看来我还未必能应付。既然这是我应付不来的事，上帝当然不会让我碰。其实，这是最正确的。如果我硬要逞强做我不能做的事，肯定是对自己有害的，更何况是他人。

现在最重要是让自己更加喜欢自己，更加知足。我已渐渐开始学会喜欢自己了，但必须保持住这种心态。在生活的每个角色里，我都会做出自己能力范围内的水准，我就会越来越喜欢自己。

现在会觉得自己，怪。短短一年前还在激烈控诉人生里的不公平，要替天行道，不然就臭骂上天。盗用陈锦鸿在《创世纪》里饰演的角色许文彪的经典 47 秒控诉：“我不是没试过，我试过安分守己，日博夜博，挣扎地紧握那一丁点的理念原则信仰自重，但身边那些人呀，他们懂得努力尽责懂得什么呀？他们只是付出少少的心血、时间，却用手段把生活、使命都给亵渎了，这样叫公平... 你去问人，问他们想要什么。答案很简单，只是想要好好生活！为什么他们要用一生的时间、精力去拚命？因为有奸人、贱人在耍他们呀！越奸越贱，越有得玩呀！”还好当时的我只停留在骂的阶段，但是那时的自己已经够可怕，并没有比我在批判的那些人好多少，甚至极有可能变成他们的一份子，背叛向上帝承诺要好好经营的自己...

现在竟然有一丁点释怀世界的不公平了。原来很多事，在有所谓之后，已经可以无所谓。反正还没死，上帝还要我做很多事，让我享受很多恩典呢。:p

Word Play 5: Performance

It was announced in Nov last year that the decision of potential increments and promotions in my current workplace would be measured "performance-based", as opposed to the previous method of based on the number of years of service. For me, this announcement was of negligible concern, as I've only just reached my fifth month there then. Even now, the change in policy does not affect me too much. However, what intrigues me is the term "performance", which I'll like to analyse today.

From dictionary.com, below are the definitons of the words "perform" and "performance".
Perform (verb)
1. to carry out; execute; do
2. to go through or execute in the proper, customary, or established manner
3. to carry into effect; fulfill
4. to act (a play, part, etc.), as on the stage, in movies, or on television.
5. to render (music), as by playing or singing.

Performance (noun)
1. a musical, dramatic, or other entertainment presented before an audience.
2. the act of performing a ceremony, play, piece of music, etc.
3. the execution or accomplishment of work, acts, feats, etc.
4. a particular action, deed, or proceeding.
5. an action or proceeding of an unusual or spectacular kind.

Thus, when these terms are applied in the workplace context, some higly relevant and necessary components would be, the fulfilment and execution of the duties of an employee, with his superiors and colleagues as the audience.

A common grouse heard in all workplaces by staff who do not hold each other in high regard is that their opponent engages in "wayang". Wayang, is the Malay terms for "acting", which is form of performance. In fact, point 5 of performance's defintion states that it is unsual and spectacular, to summarise meaning dramatic (point 1).When have we equated dramatic to being fake, or the Chinese phrase "做作"(doing for the sake of doing), I'm unable to trace... Let us then examine the typical drama series to have an idea into "performance" and how it relates to the workplace.

A typical drama or sitcom of any genre will always consist of a few main protagonists, with other supporting cast to flesh out the script. Meanwhile, all production members trust the audience to be clear-sighted enough to take notice of not just their individual performances, but also the main plot. No matter, the age / gender / seniority of whichever member of the cast in the drama, they must never deviate from the plot and must adhere to the roles given to them, unless allowed by the scriptwriter / director / fellow members of the cast.

There are instances in many shows, were the performance of some supporting cast so outshine the leads', that it causes awkwardness between all members of the production, garnering negative press for an otherwise noteworthy show. Even more common is the case of intense rivalry between two main leads when they compete for screen time to showcase their talent at performaning, creating a headache for the director. These unfortunately are cases where the "drama of the offscreen" has ursuped the "onscreen drama". Similarly in the workplace, all staff must take care not to let "offscreen drama" trump "onscreen drama", as this would lead to mayhem in the plot. In the light of this new perspective, I'm beginning to see my boss' comment of me "creating an impression of no teamwork in the workplace" in a different light...

I'll then like to give all members serving in workplace out there a question to muse about. What's the script pertaining first and foremost to yourself, and then in relation to the entire script and other characters? Now for me to do a bit of grumbling. I was very confused about my script for the first 5 months. Thankfully with indication from the higher management, I've been entrusted with a new role, which is less ambiguous, with many many mentors who are more than willing and welcome to share with me how to enhance my performance. Even then, I've noticed a very disturbing fact. No one seems to be sure of the full complete plot, be it whether main cast or supporting cast. With no clear idea of the main complete plot, teamwork amongst all members of the production would of course be a struggle...

Word Play 4: Ability and Capacity for Creation

Three of the previous blog entries were initially meant as feedback and clarification sessions towards some remarks made by my superiors in my workplace, which in my personal opnion, were severely misused. Since then, I've noticed that when I engage in rebuttals of this kind, I delve into "word play", namely by defining the generally accepted explanation of the terms, then employing logic to see whether the accepted explanations apply in the context they are employed, in order to state my argument. Thus, I've decided to sub-head these entries under a "word play" series in this blog. :)

This fourth foray into "word play" is also "inspired" by a rather misguided comment by my boss. To quote the exact words used, I had "created an impression of no teamwork in the office". I'm very sure when he made the remark, there was never suppossed to have been any positive connontation intended. However, he has unwittingly praised me of sorts... :p

Let's look into the definition of the word "creation" from dictionary.com.
1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.
2. the fact of being created.
3. something that is or has been created.
4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.
5. the world; universe.

The terms "producing", "causing to exist" and even God himself, are components of the word "creation". By golly... Common logic would deduce that to be able to produce or cause something into existence, be it positive or negative, would surely require ability and capacity of a certain level. Afterall, the concept of bringing about something into existence, implies that the something had not existed previously... Goodness, I never knew I was equipped with the ability and capacity to cause disunity and mayhem into existence at my current workplace, within a span of less than six months (he had made this remark in Nov 2011)!

As much as I pride myself on professionalism in the workplace, but unfortunately display a very stern, fierce and intimidating countenance when fulfilling my duties, I would have never thought that these traits alone are enough to bring disintegration of teamwork at my worplace... I'm bound by HR regulations and am unable to reveal too much about what is going on in my workplace, but considering my designation and the amount of authority I'm given, I definitely feel I'm not in any capacity to create anything of this magnitude. Then the subsequent question I wish I could feedback to the management in my office would be, could the negative aspect which I'm held accountable to have created, actually have already existed prior to entry, with me taking on the role of a mere catalyst or magnifier?

Finally, I'll like to end this blog entry off with an general appeal to everyone to not just listen to others' words carefully, but also to apply your own words carefully next time, in whatever context. Even the words of Singapore politicians like Grace Fu, Tin Pei Ling, Chan Chun Sing, come back to haunt them relentlessly... :p