quodmenutritmed

Note: I know I said previously that this blog is inactive, and for the large part it is. But I have a thought that doesn't really fit with the Sui Generis blog, like now. So I decided to post it here. Might do this once in a (very long) while.

Those who know me will probably know that eternity is a concept I struggle with. Like, it's something I can't imagine (I don't think anyone can), and it kind of freaks me out. But when I was at Hillsongs Conference, I had an um..interesting (read: weird/strange/crazy) thought. I know it was quite long ago, but yeah, was unsure about blogging about it. Not sure if you've thought about this before, but well, if you have, just ignore it, I guess.

Um. You know Einstein's relativity theory and stuff? About how mass affects gravity (ok, that isn't really part of relativity, at least I don't think it is) and how gravity affects time? Well, just a random thought to throw out there. Given how big and great and huge God is, right. I mean, he holds the universe in his hands (fine, that's probably imagery, but yeah, just bear with me). Like, maybe it's possible that eternity in heaven isn't necessarily impossible (in terms of physical science). As in, God is so awesome and big and stuff. Okay, maybe it's not necessarily mass (Duncan Macdougall, in 1907, did a study that supposedly showed that the human soul had weight. So maybe God has mass as well. A very debatable study and a debatable topic that I don't want to go into for this post). But well, that would mean VERY large gravity around God (the area around God being heaven, presumably). And well, huge gravity means slower time and theoretically, with such huge gravity, it's possible that time stops? And time stopping implies eternity, doesn't it?

Okay, I know there are a lot of things about that which you can attack. That God is not made of mass, etc, and that the gravity would crush everything in heaven or something. Yes, it's controversial, and yes it's probably a bit...um...off. But personally, it does help me (kind of) explain eternity and make it less freaky/scary/impossible to imagine. So I'm sticking to it. Feel free to flame as much as you want to.

This blog has been moved to http://derrickkwa.blogspot.com. The last few posts have been moved there, and all future updates will be from there.

Just had an interesting thought yesterday. Might not be the best analogy, and I know it has its flaws, but hear me out at least (if you still think it's a stupid analogy, feel free to place a comment. Just try to keep it reasonable and not a personal attack on me, yeah?).

Generally, when using a pencil, we want the pencil tip to be sharper. A more even, blunt tip might be less likely to break, but its markings tend to be more blurred. A sharper, finer tip allows the artist more control and make bolder, stronger and clearer markings.

If you want to be significant and stand out, focus is key. Being well-rounded is less risky but in doing so, you won't stand out. If you're good at one thing, and focused, it allows you to stand out more.

Another analogy in physics: Ever notice how aerodynamic designs always have a sharp, focused tip? A ball may be able to roll further, but it doesn't fly as high as a missile.

Well-roundedness provides stability and sustainability - it's less risky - but it also doesn't allow you to soar and to stand out like you can.

Add-on: I read this post by Seth Godin just after coming up with this post idea. Seth Godin's been an inspiration to me (anyone who knows me will know), and yep.

In an add-on to my previous post about education, here's Seth Godin's idea for a new business school. Read it a while back, but didn't think of putting it in the post, just came to my mind today. Seth Godin's really smart, in my opinion, and a real inspiration for me personally. He talks here about how the standard idea of business school is becoming more irrelevant as time passes. I believe it can be applied in general for most schools, not only business schools. It's an idea worth thinking about.

I haven't posted for a while, but well, I've been thinking a lot about stuff, and watching a lot of TED Talks, as well as reading Seth Godin's blog a lot, so this is going to be quite a long post, and there'll be a lot of references to various TED talks, as well as Seth Godin.

Watching the TED Talks helped me really realise something. It showed me how uninspiring school really is, especially in today's culture. I'm learning a lot from watching these talks, and I'm being much more inspired than school ever made me. Has education today really become that dry? Ken Robinson in his talk  (and I recommend you watch it) thinks so, and I personally agree with him. And I admit I haven't thought about why, but I think his explanation seems really plausible. Education and the school system started out to train workers for industry. Another reason for this, I think, is the culture of immediacy in today's society. Those of you who know me will know that this has been on my mind for quite a while. And I believe this is one of the huge failings of today's education. From young, kids are trained for immediate results. They're faced with countless assignments in an insanely short period of time. It's all about learning the fastest way possible, and not the best way possible. They want the fastest results, and then if possible the best ones they can get (in that time). The emphasis is always on quantity not quality. Education today seems focused solely on helping students to get a job as quickly as possible once they leave the system. This is not what education should be. Education should be about the process, not the result. But maybe that's unrealistic in today's results based society. But you can't fault one for dreaming, can you?

A direct result of this culture of immediate results is mediocrity in students, well-roundedness. Students want jobs as fast as possible, and the best way of ensuring that is to not take risks, to ensure they can do everything decently. There's this emphasis in today's culture (even in the school which I was from, which was supposed to be a specialised school) on well-roundedness, being a well-rounded student. While I agree well-roundedness can be a useful trait, for example being able to socialise well as well as being academically capable, the extent to which education is doing it is unnecessary, and possible harmful. Hasn't basic economics shown us that specialisation is on a whole more effective than trying to be good at everything? Sure, basic chemistry or biology is useful to a pursuit of physics, for example. But is a college level understanding really necessary? I highly doubt it. What it does, at least in my opinion, is one of two things. Taking the physics vs chem/bio example from earlier, one of two things could happen. The student could improve his chemistry or biology knowledge (areas which he never intends to go into and has little interest in, but does out of necessity) but he would be hindered in his pursuit of physics. Yes, he'll probably still go far in physics, but had he truly been able to focus his attention on it, he would probably go further. A second possible outcome is that he doesn't bother about the other two subjects and focuses on his area of passion. And how are these outcomes viewed? The first is generally viewed as better by society. Even in secondary education today, triple science students are more highly valued by society than double science students. What this encourages is mediocrity, being average in everything, instead of being exceptional in one thing. Kids (and the people in education) need to realise that in order to do something exceptionally, sometimes we have to quit other things, and focus our energy on just one task (as said in Seth Godin's new book, which I'm eagerly anticipating the release of).

In the words of Seth Godin, "We've been taught that fitting in is far better than standing out, and that good enough is good enough.

Which might have been fine in a company town, but doesn't work so well in a winner-take-all world. Now, the benefits that accrue to someone who is the best in the world are orders of magnitude greater than the crumbs they save for the average. No matter how hard working the average may be.

I've never met anyone... anyone... who needed to settle for being average. Best is a slot that's available to everyone, somewhere." (from http://sethgodin.typepad.com/the_dip/2007/03/index.html)

I personally tend to agree with Seth Godin's view. What we need are leaders, innovators, people who will take risks to step out and go further than others. It's only then that society will develop, that society will improve. But this is not going to happen if we train our kids and youths to be afraid of failure, to want immediate short term results. It's not going to happen if we grade students on everything that they do. This form of grading, this system of education, will only encourage students to not discover new methods, to not push the boundaries, and to just settle into the status quo of doing things the way they are told to. I can't help but imagine that if Edison was in today's society, in our society, the light would never have been invented. Can you seriously imagine anyone in our society doing something over and over again, attempting (and failing) something 100 times before succeeding? I can't. Today's students would probably try once or twice, and after they failed, just give up, and not pursue it anymore. Van Gogh didn't sell a single painting while alive. In today's society, he would probably have given up on art because the immediate results were not seen. More examples can probably be found, but basically, I think it's painfully obvious that without risk, that with the focus on immediacy, true progress will never be made. To really do something significant, one has to be patient and take a risk. Unfortunately, today, immediacy is rated so highly that no one is willing to do that.  Kids are trained not to take risks anymore, but to do what is tried and tested, so they can get definite results. The only problem with this approach is that the results, while definite, will be merely mediocre.

Practicality hinders progress sometimes, as to progress, to be revolutionary, we have to take the risk and go beyond what's been done before, to go beyond what's known and try something new. To be significant, you have to step out and do something that seems impractical or unreasonable (Seth Godin again). But today, practicality is valued so much that nobody seems to be willing to take that step out. Nobody is willing to be different. Galileo was placed under house arrest because he dared to go against the norm and say that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, and isn't it great that he dared to? Who in today's world will have the courage to do something like that? Barely anyone, in my opinion.

Another effect of this culture of immediacy is the rush it brings to everyone's life. It's disheartening to see my peers all working so hard, all being caught up in the mad rush of homework and tests and such. Our society does not know how to slow down, and even the kids are hurting from it. This process of slowing down (that's another TED talk) is something we really need to do. We're in this rush for immediate results in everything, and I believe it's hurting the quality of our lives. Even kids have no time to sit back and enjoy life. Is it any wonder then that inspiration is hardly found, that more often than not, people find lives dry and uninspiring, that nobody is inspired to do anything significant. The inspiration is there, no one is given the time to look for it.

There's a lot more that I want to say about various other topics, but I think this post is long enough, and I'll save the other stuff for another day. I would encourage you guys to just sit back and slow down in life, but few would listen, and few would have think that they can, that it's out of their hands. But just because society views it as better does not mean that we have to follow it. If nobody takes the risk of stepping out, society will never change. I guess that's my basic point, we need to be willing to take risks in order to make a difference. And today's education system does not encourage risk-taking, in fact it discourages it. And in doing so, I believe we're in fact hindering the progress of society. There are potentially great thinkers in today's generation, but they are being "educated out of creativity" as Ken Robinson so aptly put it. They are being educated out of innovation, and out of taking risks, and surely that is not a good sign for society.

I'm watching Wire in the blood, and there are some interesting things being mentioned, that made me think. Yeah. Here's my thoughts (interspersed with quotes from the show).

How many times have we felt empty, like there was a hole in our heart? I know I have. And I'm quite confident that a lot of us people have. We feel empty, searching for a purpose, a reason for life. We turn to friends and family, and sometimes it doesn't work. They give us comfort, helps us to feel better, but it doesn't solve the problem. "Helping someone feel better isn't the same as curing them, is it?" We struggle with life, with finding a meaning for it. But as the guy in the show said "Is there a cure for life?". Is there truly a cure? The thought came to me, maybe the only cure for life is death. Maybe the only way we can truly find what we are alive for, is by dying, or by finding out what we'd die for. Life, the meaning of life, why we are living, are problems and questions we all struggle with. It's something I find myself struggling with from time to time. Is there truly a cure for it? I wonder.

People say that we live for God. That our lives serve his purpose. To quote the guy from the show: "If religion is the only reason to live, then God help us all". I don't fully agree with him, but I'm unsure. What is religion truly? Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity (I know Christians will say that it isn't a religion, it's a relationship, but bear with me). What does religion truly give? We think that people from other religions are wrong, that their ideas are wrong. Their ideas even seem "insane to us", at times. But could it be that "what seems insane to us is completely logical to the group"? What separates the religions? Each religion thinks they are right. Each religion gives provides friends, provides family, people who share their beliefs. And all they ask for is belief. So we give them that. We choose to follow what they say, we "renounce [our] will", and it gives us what seems like a purpose. It removes our doubt, our torment. But its it really a cure? Or is it merely another way to help us feel better?

Christians will say that it isn't a religion, it's a relationship. Relationships don't give us purpose in life, though, do they? We've all had a lot of relationships, be they BGRs, friendships, family, etc. Relationships are a part of our everyday life. They help us feel better, give us a sense of belonging, but they don't give us a true purpose. Relationships are temporary, or in the very least, they have the potential to be. If a relationship is the reason for living, when the relationship ends, one has no purpose to live anymore, and might as well commit suicide. And do we not find it hard to understand people who commit suicide over a failed relationship (a divorce, break up, etc)? When a relationship ends, we tell the person struggling to move on. To let it go. If that's the case, the relationship can't be the purpose of life, can it? If the relationship was the purpose, when it ends, then there's no point moving on and keeping on living. But that's not the case. We accept this for our everyday relationships. If Christianity is a relationship, what sets it apart from these that we experience everyday?

No, I'm not shooting down Christianity, or any other religion. I personally believe in God, I do believe that he exists. The above is merely a train of thought that the show brought to mind, and largely a paraphrase and elaboration of what is said in the show. I'm not saying this as a belief of my own, but just something that I'm thinking of. Is it really true that God is what we live for? Is it really possible for us to truly know that, even if it is? After all, every religion thinks the same thing about their own beliefs. Terrorists think that they are right in suicide bombings, that it is their purpose in life to defend their beliefs and to remove the corruption in the world. How can we say for sure that they are wrong and we are right? To them, they are right. What seems insane to us is logical to those in the group. And how do we know that our beliefs aren't the same way?

[edit]
I woke up today with a new thought. Maybe yeah, the cure for life is death. Maybe the cure for our disillusionment of life and our lack of purpose in life is death. But maybe this is not death in the literal sense. Is it possible that it could be death in terms of "death to self", as Christians say? Like, maybe in dying to self, giving up our own human will, maybe then can we truly find our meaning?
[end edit

Is there truly a cure for this disease we all face, this disease of life? Is religion really the reason to live? Is serving God truly our purpose? Or do we really have no meaning, that we just live, and that's what we're meant to do, all we can do? Sometimes I really don't know.

i have 3 things to post about. *points at title*. haha. yeah.

first, vulgarities.

it's kinda annoying to me how churches/christians criticise ppl who use certain 'vulgar' words, and insist that those words should not be used. James 3:10 ("Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.") is often used to justify it, but in my opinion, that is a weak argument. the usage of certain words, such as fuck/shit/damn, etc etc, does not necessarily denote cursing. from websters new world college dictionary, 4th edition, a curse is: 1. a calling on God or the gods to send evil or injury down on some person or thing. 2. a profane, obscene, or blasphemous oath, imprecation, etc. expressing hatred, anger, vexation, etc. 3. evil or injury that seems to come in answer to a curse. 4. any cause of evil or injury. logically, "curse" as a verb, or "cursing" is the act of saying a curse (only applies to the first 2 definitions, of course). so, cursing is calling on God or the gods to send evil or injury down on some person or thing; or expressing hatred, anger, vexation, etc by using a profane, obscene, or blasphemous oath, imprecation, etc. the thing about both definitions, is it's a matter of intent. "using a profane, obscene, or blasphemous oath" in itself is not cursing, it has to express hatred, anger, etc. it's all based on the intention. so it's illogical to say that certain words should not be used (or, in the very least, it's illogical to say that using of certain words is cursing), and as such, that verse cannot be used to effectively enjoin the usage of certain terms. how is it cursing when someone says (as is quite common in today's society, at least in my previous schl, for example) something like "for fucks sake". how is that any worse than saying "for goodness sake". it's the same intent, so if the latter is not a curse, the former should not be considered one. similarly, in a phrase like "damn good" or "fucking lame", etc, etc. it's not a curse, it's used to emphasize something. these usages of the words are quite common in today's society, and i don't see how or why churches are against the words in those contexts, as it's obviously not a curse. it's used in the same intent as "very", but just with more emphasis, so how is it a curse? admittedly, sometimes the words are used as a curse, but not always, and as such, it seems illogical to conclude that the word itself should not be used. it's just a [edit: should be "the", typo error] context in which it's used.

another argument christians tend to use against 'vulgarities' (i don't like to call them that, as a vulgarity, similar to a curse, is based on intent, but for simplicity's sake, i will), is that it gives a bad impression. honestly, which do u think will be more well-thought of, someone who uses vulgar words or someone who is against it and tells everyone not to use those words, etc. personally, i think it's the former. obviously, i can't comment on this too conclusively, as it's a personal thing, but, if i was a non-christian, i wouldn't care much about whether a christian uses certain words. what would matter is how he treats ppl. the usage of words (of course, based on intent, as stated above) is not important. and a person who is against vulgarities and tells people not to use them, would come across as naggy and busybody, and too goody-too-shoes. he won't come across as someone i admire cos of good virtue or anything. the words we use doesn't affect wat virtues we represent, the intention does. obviously this point is quite related to the first point, so i'll leave it at that for now.

ok, on to the 2nd thing: the carling cup. haha. this will be on a much lighter note.

the final was good. a classic match, with everything in it, beautiful passing and movement, efficient solid defence, chances for both teams, even a fight and a player knocked unconscious. it was a great match to watch, and it's given me great hope about arsenal's future. arsenal's youngsters, with an average age of 20 (not including the keeper), matched up with chelsea's superstar squad. drogba and shevchenko cost more than the whole arsenal squad yesterday (if i'm not wrong), and the fact that the gunners were more than a match for them, is a very bright sign. arsenal had more shots, equal possesion, and almunia didn't have much to do other than the goals. full credit to chelsea, they took their chances well, and arsenal could and should have been more clinical, but the arsenal teams are young,and will only get better. the future certainly is bright for arsenal. =D.

on a side note, i find it ironic that the arsenal players involved in the fight (toure, fabregas, adebayoor - who i don't think did anything actually, and eboue - from what i hear, didn't really see), are the more experienced players. it was the experienced players that lost their cool, not the youngsters. isn't that ironic. but on the positive side, it shows good aggression on the players side, at least they showed passion and desire, that they won't get bullied, and yeah, if that aggression is controlledwell, this team could become one of the best ever.

3rdly: death

this links quite well to the carling cup. in the last 24 hrs, i've received 2 nice reminders of how fragile human life is, how quickly we can lose it. first was john terry's injury. and on that point, let me digress a bit. though i'm an arsenal fan, i do have utmost respect for terry, he's a great defender and a brilliant leader. so i wish him all the best, and hope he gets better. ok, back to topic. it was kinda...horrifying how close he got to dying in the match. and yeah, it's a reminder of how quickly one can die.

the second reminder was much more personal, and as such, much scarier. today as i was walking, one of those poles ppl use to hang clothes dropped less than six inches in front of my face. it was very freaky. if the pole had fallen on me, i probably would be dead by now. and if i was walking any faster, or if i hadn't slowed down to check my phone, it probably would have fallen on me. i'm still kinda freaked by it. now i keep getting a weird feeling that something's going to fall on me. like when i lie on my bed, i get this weird paranoia that the light is going to fall on me. this isn't good.

but well, as rachel said, maybe god's trying to tell me something. it's served as a timely reminder of how fragile our human life is, and that yeah, we should make the most of it. as she said, "it's something you have to know; like you'll never know what things will happen". it's one of those things which u know in ur mind, but it doesn't really become real to u until u experience it, i guess. and yeah, it was a close experience today. so hopefully, it'll help spur me on to live properly for god again. yep.


ok, that's about it. haha. my longest post so far, i think. =D

thank you lihsia. =). u rock.

well..i haven't posted for quite long. so here i am again. life's been...interesting. i've quit school. doing part time work for design rendezvous now. quite interesting. learning quite a lot, and i think it'll be very useful. i've also started a part time diploma in audio engineering, with SAE. It's quite cool. will learn abt audio equipment n stuff. already learnt some things i didn't know. yeah. o. and i got 222/240 for my psat. taking my sat on saturday, so hopefully that goes well. that's about it, for the mundane part of my life, anyway.

hm. other stuff. less mundane daily life stuff. let's start with the good things. VERA! haha. vera's such a sweet awesome girl. i'm so glad i met her. thank you lynn. haha. =). and to vera: thank you for being such an awesome friend. you're a wonderful person, don't ever think otherwise. =). hm..other good things. i dunno. natalie. haha. she's been such an encouragement. =D. wrote a song for her, but thinking of how n when to give her. anyone have any ideas, tell me.

[edit: this post is now public, in order to make the thanking of vera more public. haha. (happy now vera?)]


but overall, life's quite alright. quite interesting, without schl. enjoying it. o. and ARSENAL 2-1 MAN U! YEEEEAAAH!! ALL HAIL KING HENRY!!!!! haha. =D.

thank you natalie. =). though i doubt u'll ever read this. haha. but thank you so much.

i realise i haven't really been disillusioned with God per se, but more of disillusioned with church. perhaps i still am (grace, if u find this post familar, feel free to skip to the bottom). i'm starting to not see that much of a point in going to church. yeah, i agree it can be useful, but church services in today's context, with message n preaching n all aren't really necessary, are they? nothing in the new testament ever mentions church in this context. the church in the new testament times were like, our cell groups, meeting together to worship n fellowship, not having one person on stage preaching to the rest. admitted, it can be useful, but lately i've been finding my church services less and less useful. personally, i'd rather have more proper hard teaching (like the current series, which is why i'm enjoying church more now) than like...application stuff, yeah. but i think i'm in the minority, so nvm.

on a less serious note, grace rocks. =). really, grace, thank u so much. u've been an awesome mei (for the past..just over a month). yeah. u've been really great. talking to u has really helped me through a lot of stuff, so yeah. thanks, again. i think i thank u too much. haha. sorry.

i'm quite happy with the way i played yesterday. i think i play better with wei min than with anyone else. and i think my playing is improving. but there's quite a bit of pressure? wei min told me yesterday that "[he] feels that [his] time in p&w is ending soon". which means..i might/probably will be supposed to take over. n it's pressurising. and i'll kinda miss playing in the same team as him. but yeah, must rise up, i guess.

speaking of which, i'm trying to get my cg to rise up and take ownership of their own lives. i think the cg needs to rise up to the next level. n hopefully i can help in that.

on a bright note, i think i'm on the road to getting back right with god. i'm getting back again. which is good. =). and well, i wanna thank all those that have helped me get back on the right track. my meis , lynn, lihsia. yeah. thank you. dunno wat i'd have done without u all. and to zheng xin n chan as well. hope i didn't leave anyone out.

[edit]
i think i should name my meis..instead of like, thanking them generically. so yeah. to simin: thank you so much for being there for me, to listen to me cry n all. to samantha: thank you for supporting me, for letting me hang out at ur place after service n all, n for being there to talk to. to grace: thank you for everything. really appreciate all you've done for me. u're an awesome mei, grace, whether or not u think so. thank u for caring for me n for always being there (over the past...6 years or so). yeah. thank you again, to all my meis. all of u rock. =).

[edit2]
haha..sorry for the many edits. but yeah, while i'm in this...'thanking'...mood..i think i should thank ppl that have helped me indirectly. haha. so yeah, to my other mei, kai hui: thank you for cheering me up when i was down. i know u're not a christian, so didn't really expect u to help me with relation to my problems with like, god n all. but, u've helped in other ways. u cheered me up when i was down. so thank u. n just wanna wish u all the best with like, ur life and everything. =). last, but not least, to charmaine: u probably don't expect this, but thank you. thank you for supporting me over the past almost 2 years. u've been a really good friend n u've helped me in my walk with god in ways u probably won't know. yeah. thank u for everything. =).

Once tagged by this entry, the assignment is to write a blog entry of some kind with six random facts about yourself. Then, pick six of your friends and tag them; no tag backs. This explanation should be included.

1) i'm completely obsessed with lynn (i think everyone around me knows that).
2) i SHALL NOT buy coffee for my mei cos she should quit coffee.
3) i need more money.
4) i am currently in a zipped up jacket and under a blanket. *sniff*
5) my meis rock.
6) i love lynn n my meis.

i tag...lynn, charmaine, simin, samantha (both koh and wong)...um..no1 else knows my blog. so yeah.

*edit: i just told jingmin my blog, so she is tagged too)