Too tired to blog now, but I'll come back to it tonight... or tomorrow.
But in short, however close you feel to someone isn't necessarily how close they feel to you. I've certainly seen my share of that in the past month, and I'm sure I'll be seeing more of it soon. Friendships are often like relationships in the sense that most of it is build on feelings. The problem is, it's harder to "break up" with a friend. But man, do I ever want to do that right now. I just can't stand the sort of person who's all feeling and no head. It's great if they can feel the sorrow of a million hearts, but if there's not intellect to help stabilize their condition, it's sheer lunacy. Such people are often blind to the truth and create a dream-world in order to function properly. They often think that they're special because they're convinced that they're able to get along with that much more many people than most others (when really, they're just equally bad at getting along with any specific group).
As a person, I'm sick and tired of enduring the askance insults, but the most damning part of it all is that I don't think that person realises that he's being offensive. And then he gets mad at his "friends" when they "abandon" him. Go figure.
And although it is true that idiocy is no vice, it is certainly something I'd rather not have to try my patience with.
But here's the best part: they think they're so special that they think the side of you they see is really all you are. They feel concern for you as a person because they wonder how you get by in life. But I wonder if they've ever considered the fact that just maybe, the dynamics are different with different people? Just because I'm not open with person X doesn't necessarily mean that I won't be open with person Y.
I could try to be fair and make this an intellectual exploration on the general imbalance within a friendship, but instead I think I'm gonna go with my emotions and just vent about why I don't want to be friends anymore with that certain someone.
So no comments. Well, unless you're just dying to say something in which case you probably already know me and would therefore have me on your MSN or something. Rant to be continued/revised tomorrow, after I get some sleep.
2005/05/30
2005/05/25
Once upon a time, ...
On the most random trip to the local library with a friend, I ended up borrowing 4 books from the Foreign Languages section. Two in German and two in Japanese. Of the two in German, one is called Deutsche Volksmärchen (German folk tales), and the other is called Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben (A Time to Live and a Time to Die). The Japanese titles are 《雲ながれゆく》 (Clouds Flow by), and 《海外からみた日本》 (Japan Perceived Overseas).
One thing I noticed is that Germans don't seem to be very big on table of contents (at least in the two books I managed to borrow). I guess it's good in the sense that it forces the reader to go in a linear fashion, but on the other hand, it's harder to gauge what exactly the book is about. I'm interested in fairytales, so Deutsche Volksmärchen automatically intrigued me, but Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben only had an interesting title (consider Ecclesiastes 3:2).
A quick google search reveals that Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben is a reaaaaally deep book. And the language isn't easy either. I wonder how far I'll get. Of course I'm going to start on the Fairytales book first. ^^
After the long months of studying German, I think my [lack of] effort are finally paying off. I pick up a book and recognise how much more I'm supposed to be able to understand, but can't because of my own idiocy (in time management/study habits).
Meanwhile, job interview today at 1:00pm. I had three hours of sleep; woke up this morning at 3:30am. Tried to go back to sleep but gave up at 4:45am. Now that it's 7:35am, I'm tired. Typical. Well, wish me luck!
One thing I noticed is that Germans don't seem to be very big on table of contents (at least in the two books I managed to borrow). I guess it's good in the sense that it forces the reader to go in a linear fashion, but on the other hand, it's harder to gauge what exactly the book is about. I'm interested in fairytales, so Deutsche Volksmärchen automatically intrigued me, but Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben only had an interesting title (consider Ecclesiastes 3:2).
A quick google search reveals that Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben is a reaaaaally deep book. And the language isn't easy either. I wonder how far I'll get. Of course I'm going to start on the Fairytales book first. ^^
After the long months of studying German, I think my [lack of] effort are finally paying off. I pick up a book and recognise how much more I'm supposed to be able to understand, but can't because of my own idiocy (in time management/study habits).
Meanwhile, job interview today at 1:00pm. I had three hours of sleep; woke up this morning at 3:30am. Tried to go back to sleep but gave up at 4:45am. Now that it's 7:35am, I'm tired. Typical. Well, wish me luck!
2005/05/23
Flutter
Bah. Just when I think I'm getting over a crush, that person has to come back and act really sweet again. Let's just hope that this relationship blossoms into a beautiful flower.
Other random thoughts:
It feels good to deposit large amounts of money into the bank.
This is something I experienced recently, as I deposited some stuff that I didn't know I had lying around. And I only did it out of necessity. But on Wednesday I have an interview. Which will hopefully lead to a job. Which would then lead to large sums of money at the end of the month, which in turn would once again satisfy this good feeling of going to the bank.
Love isn't everything.
Too often, and certainly in the media, there is this concept that love is all one needs, that it's the ultimate in life, etc, etc, blah blah blah. Well, it isn't. Especially if we're going with the contemporary definition of love. That sort of love is more like a sort of viscous psychic sludge that numbs the mind and renders one senseless. (So really, it's more like a toxin.) I'm not saying it's nothing, but it's just stupid to give up everything for this natural narcotic. And the side effects are worse. (Brave New World, anyone?)
Self-Image vs. Self-Conscious
We all have an idea of what or who we are, and we also have an idea of how others see us. (These two images are usually slightly different, but relatively close.) There is, however, yet another image: how we *want* to be, or how we want others to see us. Which leads to my personally twisted sense of beauty and list of "to be accomplished" things.
Eternal vs. Ephermeral Beauty
As mortals I guess we're in love with the idea of infinity, and as God, I guess he's kinda perked by the finite. And if a being as infinite as God is interested in something as short-lived and finite as us humans, there's gotta be something worth looking at in ourselves. We should stop obsessing over things that will last throughout the ages and try to appreciate the things that happen in our lives, especially the things that happen only once. The old cherish their youth because it was so long ago. Some brief relationships(whether they're friendships, kinships, etc) are beautiful for their brevity.
Pears Aren't Filling
If you're hungry at midnight, pears aren't the way to go. They fill your stomach and leave you still hungry, which is a nasty feeling to have. I now feel bloated and hungry at the moment, a most unnatural and uncomfortable combination.
Never Play Word Games When You're Tired/Jetlagged
I lost so many times because my brain wasn't working properly. At its high, I couldn't even read. I thought "carpenting" wasn't a word, and figured the person meant "carpeting". Yah, I'm so smart. S-M-R-T.
Other random thoughts:
It feels good to deposit large amounts of money into the bank.
This is something I experienced recently, as I deposited some stuff that I didn't know I had lying around. And I only did it out of necessity. But on Wednesday I have an interview. Which will hopefully lead to a job. Which would then lead to large sums of money at the end of the month, which in turn would once again satisfy this good feeling of going to the bank.
Love isn't everything.
Too often, and certainly in the media, there is this concept that love is all one needs, that it's the ultimate in life, etc, etc, blah blah blah. Well, it isn't. Especially if we're going with the contemporary definition of love. That sort of love is more like a sort of viscous psychic sludge that numbs the mind and renders one senseless. (So really, it's more like a toxin.) I'm not saying it's nothing, but it's just stupid to give up everything for this natural narcotic. And the side effects are worse. (Brave New World, anyone?)
Self-Image vs. Self-Conscious
We all have an idea of what or who we are, and we also have an idea of how others see us. (These two images are usually slightly different, but relatively close.) There is, however, yet another image: how we *want* to be, or how we want others to see us. Which leads to my personally twisted sense of beauty and list of "to be accomplished" things.
Eternal vs. Ephermeral Beauty
As mortals I guess we're in love with the idea of infinity, and as God, I guess he's kinda perked by the finite. And if a being as infinite as God is interested in something as short-lived and finite as us humans, there's gotta be something worth looking at in ourselves. We should stop obsessing over things that will last throughout the ages and try to appreciate the things that happen in our lives, especially the things that happen only once. The old cherish their youth because it was so long ago. Some brief relationships(whether they're friendships, kinships, etc) are beautiful for their brevity.
Pears Aren't Filling
If you're hungry at midnight, pears aren't the way to go. They fill your stomach and leave you still hungry, which is a nasty feeling to have. I now feel bloated and hungry at the moment, a most unnatural and uncomfortable combination.
Never Play Word Games When You're Tired/Jetlagged
I lost so many times because my brain wasn't working properly. At its high, I couldn't even read. I thought "carpenting" wasn't a word, and figured the person meant "carpeting". Yah, I'm so smart. S-M-R-T.
2005/05/15
SAR
"Special Administrative Region" of China. I.e., Hong Kong. I'm there right now for a few days, buy a few things, see a few family members, suffer a few more degrees of heat...
It's supposed to be 27~32°C all week... How shall I ever survive...
I was supposed to blog about people who argue about things they know nothing about, but I think I'm gonna have to wait 'til I get bk to civilization and group that blog with another rant I have about ppl who form opinions about things without seeing it to completion. (e.g. movies, books, blog entries, etc.) Maybe, just maybe, some of your questions and reservations are addressed later in the work. Surprising, eh? That ideas have to be presented in some order? Shocking, I know.
One more person has discovered my blog. Luckily they don't leave comments, because sometimes I just would prefer them not to. I write because I want to share my thoughts in the world, not because I'm trying to prove I'm right or anything. If it makes you think, kudos. If not, just move on; don't waste all our times by posting meaningless drivel that will only further confuse and infuriate other parties.
Meanwhile... Flight to HK was pretty good. Accured quite a lot of sleep debt which helped me survive the flight, and also sleep off the jetlag. (Slept from 5-10pm, local time, just to sleep some more from 11pm-7:30am.)
Yah, that's pretty much it. It'd be nice to take some pictures since we never do, but we'll see...
It's supposed to be 27~32°C all week... How shall I ever survive...
I was supposed to blog about people who argue about things they know nothing about, but I think I'm gonna have to wait 'til I get bk to civilization and group that blog with another rant I have about ppl who form opinions about things without seeing it to completion. (e.g. movies, books, blog entries, etc.) Maybe, just maybe, some of your questions and reservations are addressed later in the work. Surprising, eh? That ideas have to be presented in some order? Shocking, I know.
One more person has discovered my blog. Luckily they don't leave comments, because sometimes I just would prefer them not to. I write because I want to share my thoughts in the world, not because I'm trying to prove I'm right or anything. If it makes you think, kudos. If not, just move on; don't waste all our times by posting meaningless drivel that will only further confuse and infuriate other parties.
Meanwhile... Flight to HK was pretty good. Accured quite a lot of sleep debt which helped me survive the flight, and also sleep off the jetlag. (Slept from 5-10pm, local time, just to sleep some more from 11pm-7:30am.)
Yah, that's pretty much it. It'd be nice to take some pictures since we never do, but we'll see...
2005/05/08
Apologetics
Apparently, the meaning of that word is the study of the fidelity of the Bible. A best seller, the leading authority on christianity, it is not only famous but still the centre of hot debate. I am no scholar, and definitely not a leading authority on matters spiritual, historical, anthropological nor scientific, but I do enjoy entertaining the thought that my neurons are stimulated every once in a while.
Having said that, don't expect a long or scholarly discourse on the history of the bible. I'm just here to lay some very rudimentary facts I've discovered along my investigation about why the bible is accepted with as much authority as it does have in religious circles.
The history of the bible is a pretty good place to start. I personally tend to work chronologically, even if that means learning Hellenic before learning Modern Greek. (Which, btw, is NOT gonna happen... Biblical Hebrew is more than enough for me.)
As a lengthy sidenote, a common misconception people seem to have is that Latin is one of the oldest languages in the world. While I'm not saying that it isn't old, it certainly is far from being oldest. It had been brought to my attention that certain people carry the misguided notion that Latin, being "very ancient" precedes even Ancient Greek.
However, just consider two very simple facts. Plato, Aristotle and Socrates were and are still considered to be *Greek*, the latest who died in 322BC. Some of you may enjoy tossing these sorts of speculation as being "guesswork", but I think that a philosopher of an unambiguous nationality would arise from an unestablished nation. Suffice it to say, I think it's entirely reasonable to surmise (as well may be easily varified with historical documents) that the Greeks were already a nation around 500BC (Especially given the fact that Socrates was born around 470BC). The Roman Empire started around 27B.C., a whopping half-millenium later.
A quick look into any decent encyclopedia will show that the early makings of the greek nation (or then, "hellenic" nation) were already settled in the 800's BC. The Roman Republic (which preceeded the Roman Empire) started around 500BC.
So while the two didn't share a mother-daughter relationship (linguistically), we can see that the two were very much alive at the time and that Greek is not a consequence of the disassembly of the Roman Empire.
Going back to the core of the matter, is the assembly of the Bible. here are the facts, as I know them, in their most basic form. The reader is encouraged to verify and search for evidence of these on their own.
1. The various books of the bible were written by various men, of different nationalities and generations (nay, centuries).
2. The bible has more original sources than any other work (Socrates or Confucius, for example)
3. When the bible was assembled (by a group of *scholars*, not just rabid fanatics), the books of the bible went under a process of inclusion rather than exclusion. That is to say, a book had to pass all five tests before it was admitted into the bible, rather than the notion that books were later excluded for inconsistency or invalidity.
3.b) Of these five tests, one was the test of whether or not it was "God-breathed". For anyone religious, this is a pretty infallible test, the idea being that God doesn't lie about his works. But for those of less religious inclinations, there were still four other tests of solid academic work, (of which I'm not knowledgable enough to explain in detail).
It is point two that I would like to expand on. It's just a small tidbit, but one that really got me thinking, and one that I hope will spark the same excitement in the reader. Consider, for example, the works of Confucius. He lived a while ago, and like some other brilliant minds at the time (Socrates, for example, who was only born a century later, or so) didn't write anything down. All his teachings (conversations, really) were recorded by his students, years after his death. That the closest original 2nd-hand sources are decades or even centuries after his death? Why does nobody question how "true" it is? We all concede that "Confucius said, 'blahblahblah'," and we agree with it. Yet, the bible, which has so many more 1st-hand sources, on top of being cross-refernced with historical accuracy from outside sources, is constantly called into question.
Another misconception is that our current English bible is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation [ad infinitum], which is totally not true. Given the wonderful and revealing art of linguistics, coupled with originals and copies of the original texts, the bible is actually just a direct translation from the original ancient hebrew or greek or whatever into English. (Remember, only the old stuff was written in hebrew. The New Testament was written several centuries later.)
Having taken a course on Biblical Hebrew, I will admit that translation from a very old language (incidentally, Biblical Hebrew predates both Latin and Greek easily. So for those of you who blindly grasp at Latin, thinking it's a dignified and ancient language, you are sorely mistaken) to a very new and recent language can be difficult. But luckily, the translations were done by some very capable people, unlike students such as myself who have a perverse propensity for procrastination. Translations were done in teams, so it was no individual effort. If some area is ambiguous or called into question, another expert would look at it. The bible is no fan-sub. What you read is pretty much what was originally written. Debating the contents is another matter entirely, but on the subject of its accuracy as an ancient book, I say it's doing pretty good.
How many of your notions of the bible have been changed or challenged? Or more directly, how many people do you know criticise and attack the validity of the bible without having thoroughly researched its history and roots?
Just something to think about...
P.S. I've got a whole other rant about ppl who argue about things they know nothing about coming up...
Having said that, don't expect a long or scholarly discourse on the history of the bible. I'm just here to lay some very rudimentary facts I've discovered along my investigation about why the bible is accepted with as much authority as it does have in religious circles.
The history of the bible is a pretty good place to start. I personally tend to work chronologically, even if that means learning Hellenic before learning Modern Greek. (Which, btw, is NOT gonna happen... Biblical Hebrew is more than enough for me.)
As a lengthy sidenote, a common misconception people seem to have is that Latin is one of the oldest languages in the world. While I'm not saying that it isn't old, it certainly is far from being oldest. It had been brought to my attention that certain people carry the misguided notion that Latin, being "very ancient" precedes even Ancient Greek.
However, just consider two very simple facts. Plato, Aristotle and Socrates were and are still considered to be *Greek*, the latest who died in 322BC. Some of you may enjoy tossing these sorts of speculation as being "guesswork", but I think that a philosopher of an unambiguous nationality would arise from an unestablished nation. Suffice it to say, I think it's entirely reasonable to surmise (as well may be easily varified with historical documents) that the Greeks were already a nation around 500BC (Especially given the fact that Socrates was born around 470BC). The Roman Empire started around 27B.C., a whopping half-millenium later.
A quick look into any decent encyclopedia will show that the early makings of the greek nation (or then, "hellenic" nation) were already settled in the 800's BC. The Roman Republic (which preceeded the Roman Empire) started around 500BC.
So while the two didn't share a mother-daughter relationship (linguistically), we can see that the two were very much alive at the time and that Greek is not a consequence of the disassembly of the Roman Empire.
Going back to the core of the matter, is the assembly of the Bible. here are the facts, as I know them, in their most basic form. The reader is encouraged to verify and search for evidence of these on their own.
1. The various books of the bible were written by various men, of different nationalities and generations (nay, centuries).
2. The bible has more original sources than any other work (Socrates or Confucius, for example)
3. When the bible was assembled (by a group of *scholars*, not just rabid fanatics), the books of the bible went under a process of inclusion rather than exclusion. That is to say, a book had to pass all five tests before it was admitted into the bible, rather than the notion that books were later excluded for inconsistency or invalidity.
3.b) Of these five tests, one was the test of whether or not it was "God-breathed". For anyone religious, this is a pretty infallible test, the idea being that God doesn't lie about his works. But for those of less religious inclinations, there were still four other tests of solid academic work, (of which I'm not knowledgable enough to explain in detail).
It is point two that I would like to expand on. It's just a small tidbit, but one that really got me thinking, and one that I hope will spark the same excitement in the reader. Consider, for example, the works of Confucius. He lived a while ago, and like some other brilliant minds at the time (Socrates, for example, who was only born a century later, or so) didn't write anything down. All his teachings (conversations, really) were recorded by his students, years after his death. That the closest original 2nd-hand sources are decades or even centuries after his death? Why does nobody question how "true" it is? We all concede that "Confucius said, 'blahblahblah'," and we agree with it. Yet, the bible, which has so many more 1st-hand sources, on top of being cross-refernced with historical accuracy from outside sources, is constantly called into question.
Another misconception is that our current English bible is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation [ad infinitum], which is totally not true. Given the wonderful and revealing art of linguistics, coupled with originals and copies of the original texts, the bible is actually just a direct translation from the original ancient hebrew or greek or whatever into English. (Remember, only the old stuff was written in hebrew. The New Testament was written several centuries later.)
Having taken a course on Biblical Hebrew, I will admit that translation from a very old language (incidentally, Biblical Hebrew predates both Latin and Greek easily. So for those of you who blindly grasp at Latin, thinking it's a dignified and ancient language, you are sorely mistaken) to a very new and recent language can be difficult. But luckily, the translations were done by some very capable people, unlike students such as myself who have a perverse propensity for procrastination. Translations were done in teams, so it was no individual effort. If some area is ambiguous or called into question, another expert would look at it. The bible is no fan-sub. What you read is pretty much what was originally written. Debating the contents is another matter entirely, but on the subject of its accuracy as an ancient book, I say it's doing pretty good.
How many of your notions of the bible have been changed or challenged? Or more directly, how many people do you know criticise and attack the validity of the bible without having thoroughly researched its history and roots?
Just something to think about...
P.S. I've got a whole other rant about ppl who argue about things they know nothing about coming up...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)