Author: Brand Smit

MONDAY, 5 APRIL 2004

I was at the “Bread of Life Church” in Kaohsiung last night. At first I thought it would feel like it had felt Saturday night when I took a different route home and ended up on a dark, deserted road in an industrial area. That feeling was fresh on my mind on the way to the church. I thought I was again going to find myself in a place where I don’t belong.

After 45 minutes I walked out and … I was disappointed. Disappointed in the so-called sermon that consisted mainly of a pseudo-science/history lecture to “prove” that Christ had really died. The what-it-means part was finally introduced with, “Just a few final words …” (or something similar).

I was also reminded that people “do church” on Sunday night, like other people (or the same people) “do sport” on a Saturday. It was a social event with the added benefit of religious identity confirmation.

I could not help but look at the people, at the “pastor” with his microphone and the paraphernalia of “Christianity” and come the conclusion that the Church of Christ had been hijacked by people who do not understand half of their own so-called faith.

This is a critical accusation, and I am aware of the fact that I only spent 45 minutes in the “community of the faithful”.

A question does come to mind: If this is what I think, do I have a responsibility to share my opinion – in the written word and in private conversation, or should I keep it to myself and say, “Let the people continue to do church in peace and confirm their identities”?

Responsibility to whom? As usual, I am not sure. All I know – and I am, after all, not a complete stranger to the whole church business – is that something was not right at that gathering.

* * *

The emphasis on “evidence” in the lecture last night made me think the pastor assumed he was “preaching” to a group of doubters for whom believing was not enough; as if he knew the people had to dip their fingers in the wounds of Christ before they could believe.

* * *

It may seem odd to many believers to point this out, but one does get the idea that for many “Christians” the Christian religion is about correct action and reward – do this, get this. What should be done for the reward is that the person should “believe” in God. Of course, as soon as this becomes a prerequisite for salvation, it literally becomes a matter of life and death to define correct beliefs, and equally important, to define heretical beliefs. And once you have established the borderline between correct beliefs and incorrect beliefs, it is open season on those heretics who are “led astray”, who “follow the wrong path”, who are not “true believers, like us”.

______________________

THURSDAY, 1 APRIL 2004

Be your own SELF

The first two decades of our lives we spend trapped in environments where to a significant extent we are what we are supposed to be (or where the expectation is that we will be what we are supposed to be). The idea is that when we move away from this environment, we will ask certain questions. In the process of formulating answers, we will find or define who we “truly” are, or who we want to be – although realistically speaking who and what we can possibly be has already strongly been influenced by who we are supposed to be and what is expected from us.

In many cases, who and what we are supposed to be, with a splash of paint here and there to make ourselves unique to some extent, is good enough, and this identity is then presented as an answer to who we are.

In other cases, individuals enter a time of personal crisis when they realise what they are supposed to be is not consistent with what they have discovered about themselves, or that it is not who or what they want to be. Changes must then be made, even if it sometimes requires years of uncertainty and intense introspection. In the ideal scenario, these individuals will be able to reappear to the world after a period of so-called identity crisis, albeit this time with a few changes to their personality and/or appearance.

This “new” person will always be constructed on the foundation of the “old” person – early experiences, both positive and negative, are usually already too intimately woven into the psyche of the person to simply reject it as “no longer applicable”. Certain characteristics of the “old” person may still be intact; but even if certain aspects of personality are retained, the “owner” of these characteristics will now claim them as their own and not simply as the result of pressure that had been put on them in their formative years to manipulate them to be what they were supposed to be.

It is also said that the person who has found or defined his or her “own self”, has become their “own person”. How much of this “self” is really your own, remains of course an open question.

SATURDAY, 3 APRIL 2004

Just be a bad actor for us, okay …

It is really impressive how we sometimes make caricatures of people with whom we regularly share our lives so they can be puppets in our own world. Well, we all do it, so no one complains too much about it. (Again a matter of mutual agreement: “I won’t point it out if you do it as long as you don’t point it out when I do it.”)

But when we see someone expects a certain “act” from us, or expect us to be some or other character and this does not correspond with how we feel at that moment, or with how we would actually like to be seen, it can get a tad annoying. Or when it is expected of us to suppress certain aspects of our personality for the sake of being what we are supposed to be in the other person’s view of us – as in, “Be a good friend now and play yourself right, okay?”

The question could also be asked how many people actually know their own nuances. And how many people depend on their friends’ characterisation of them to know who they are and to know how they should act?

____________________

TUESDAY, 30 MARCH 2004

A Taiwan morning

The morning market paints a rich portrait: ugly dogs, ugly people, the faces of young children, beautiful women with anatomically perfect feet, the smell of fish that combines with cabbage and scooter emissions that combine with the sight of a woman in cheap sandals with hips that tighten ever so slightly in her jeans as she leans over to smell the fish …

* * *

According to Leibniz all my “successive states” are already included in my present existence. He also speaks of a hierarchy of “monads” – point-like centres of force. In this fashion atoms form blood, blood is part of the artery which is part of the finger which is part of the hand, which is part of the body.

According to him the soul is the “dominant monad”.

Arrogant commentary

I mentioned yesterday that I see my primary role and function in society as that of Social Commentator. It should be noted of course that this is not a job for which you apply; it is also not a position to which you are appointed. It is a role and function about which you decide whether you are qualified or not. Lastly, I am aware of the fact that this is an arrogant self-appointment: I believe I am qualified for it, and that is good enough.

What does it mean in practice to be a Social Commentator? It means you comment on social and political issues – issues that affect most people in the community like work, lifestyle, family, value and meaning of life, and how the individual defines the value of his or her own life. Most of the time it takes the form of the written word but private conversation is also an important arena for this kind of commentary. People then read what you have written or listen to what you have to say and decide whether or not they want to endorse your view of yourself as a Social Commentator.

However, it is vitally important that you believe in your own qualifications for this role.

It is also imperative that you always maintain your independence of thought. The moment you become dependent on other people’s approval of your commentary, you serve their agenda (unless of course you belong to a political party and your comments are intended to support a particular ideology). If your ideas and opinions are similar to what other people believe or support that is a bonus. Your commentary or position on a certain issue should however never change just because people with whom you had previously shared a view changed their position or reconsidered their opinions.

______________________

SUNDAY, 28 MARCH 2004

A new or old metaphor

A new or old idea (doesn’t matter): a mass that bursts (like an egg that is broken) that after a while reconstitutes – in a different form; never exactly the same.

A similar thing happens with speech: certain ideas and images form in my mind; I formulate a sentence and the ideas and images “burst” from of my mouth as sounds understandable to the listener, and reconstitute a fraction of a second later in the other person’s mind – and her response to what I had said possibly points out that the ideas and images that had been in my mind did not reconstitute in 100% the same form.

MONDAY, 29 MARCH 2004

Hi-valu – for those who value it

My role and function in society is in the first place to provide social commentary, and secondly (when possible to do so), to provide what financial assistance I can to make other people’s lives worth living.

You may ask, “Who wants your social commentary? Who asked for it?”

My reply would be, “Some people might find it useful, and some might regard it as an unnecessary waste of natural resources. I accept the difference in opinion, and write for those who value it.”

______________________

TUESDAY, 23 MARCH 2004

My moment zero was a cold winter’s day in late July 1995. I started the day along a highway outside Port Elizabeth, reckoning I should get a lift to Cape Town “within the hour”. Eight hours later I was still waiting, this time on a bench across from the city library, with a bus ticket I had bought with my final claim to earthly riches. I could hardly string two words together on the topic of my future – and reality gnawed on my backside like a rabid street dog …

WEDNESDAY, 24 MARCH 2004

What was all the fuss about?

I feel a strange desire to ask myself why I was so eager to return to South Africa at the beginning of February. Here are the four main reasons:

1. I had a problem with submitting myself to tests to prove I am healthy enough to stay in this country.

2. I knew if I were to remain in Taiwan I would have had to start with new classes, which meant I would have had to start functioning again in an environment where I would have had to submit myself as an anonymous foreigner (or then as “Mister Brown”) to an employment relationship where I would have been the one selling my labour, and therefore I would have had to act according to a particular predefined idea of a “foreign teacher”.

3. I realized that I had just enough money in the bank to be able to go home within a few weeks.

4. Credibility (and possibly self-respect). I knew if I had decided not to implement the plan (as was the case at the end), I as main character in my own story would have to concede once again that “I decided to stay after all,” rather than “Revolution! The Writer Goes Home!” I desperately needed to call out in joy, rather than to whisper something in shame …

It is like one should expect: Life is a wild mare – she bounces like a crazed animal, and you’d better make sure you stay in the saddle.

______________________