Category: Post Untitled, volume one

THURSDAY, 8 APRIL 2004

Our physical birth arrives months after a microscopic beginning. Shortly after our birth we become aware of things around us. We become aware of the difference between objects, and the distinction between living and non-living things. Some time later we become aware of the category “human” – and that this label is also attached metaphorically speaking to our foreheads.

A few other insights penetrate our consciousness: each person is physically detachable from their environment, and also from other people (that is, a free entity, not connected to something like the leg of a table is connected to the rest of that piece of furniture); some objects are more important than others (a TV is more important than a spoon); and the hierarchy that exists between different creatures (a human is more important than a dog), and also among people (a strong man is treated with more respect than a little girl, and everyone is more important than the homeless guy).

With the passage of time, our awareness of ourselves intensifies. We realise that we, like other people, have somewhat unique physical features and characteristics, and that we have the ability to make choices regarding our speech, appearance and behaviour. We also learn that all of these things affect how other people in the environment react to our presence. We learn that names are necessary and that we have to constantly identify ourselves to others.

It soon becomes clear that we must also identify ourselves, to ourselves: “I exist, but I do not exist as the lawnmower; I am a man, but I am not the neighbour.” Because these statements are never sufficient, the particularities have to be explained, so to speak, in more detail.

We also learn to define our own identity (or to describe it), to make the process by which we identify ourselves to others, easier. The latter is done with two considerations in mind: 1) our need to confirm our own uniqueness, and 2) we must simultaneously ensure we are not too unique, because that might undermine the fulfilment of another deep-seated need, namely the need for companionship and belonging.

You need to be convinced of your own name and personal identity so that you can function as the separate entity that you are. Yet we also need to be “one” with others “like us” which again influences the process of defining and identifying.

So, in order to function as the separate entity of which you are aware you are, you need to define yourself in terms of your environment – to a large extent in negative terms: “I am not a table; I am not a dog; I am not a homeless person.” You also need to identify yourself to others and to yourself – again there are both positive and negative elements to this identification: “I am fat, not thin; I am academically inclined, not athletic; I prefer heavy metal to superficial pop.”

Ultimately, after years of functioning and defining and identifying our person to others and to ourselves, only the results stay behind from what and who we were – the final products of our blood and sweat, all our efforts and failures and successes, after we once again become part of the Great Invisibility one by one.

I got up 45 minutes ago with the idea that we appear out of nothing, that we become aware of the fact that we are something among other things, and that we must eventually define ourselves as a specific someone so that we can, as I wrote between sips of black coffee and bites of mixed cereals, function as a separate Something and Someone.

[And just to make sure I understand it correctly, here it comes again.]

After we are born we become aware of the fact that we are something among other things and someone among other someones, and that it is expected of us to function as the something that we are (don’t act as if you’re a table or a pet) and also to function as someone.

Superficially, who we are is harder to define than what we are, and the process takes much longer. Ultimately we need to be a separate somebody just as we need to be a separate something, and because we cannot be a different somebody every day, we need fairly constant identity.

It is now 10:56. I can now start my day. Many of these things have been said earlier, but to have said it in this way, on this specific day, gives today a particular quality. It also gives me a little result to leave behind …

* * *

By the way, result is tremendously important for “evangelical” Christians. They expect to be rewarded for their “faith” in the life that follows this earthly existence.

I wonder how many people will still go to church every week and say the things that they say, if they learn from a source that they regard as credible that the results of their lives stay behind in this world, that they cannot take it with them as testimonials for a world and a life that comes after this one.

“Evangelical” Christians are actually good business people. (There is, incidentally, an interesting historical relationship between capitalism and Protestantism.) They say, “I give this, believe that, and do these things, then I get those things, right?” and the ministers and pastors keenly nod their heads (more “believers”). If the potential “Christian” is then satisfied that he or she understands the matter correctly, only then will they say, “Right, count me in. Where do I sign? What should I do or say?”

It would be interesting to know how much people’s attitudes towards their religion will change if they must learn from a reliable source that they have misunderstood it all this time: that an earthly life that glorifies God is the beginning and the end; that it is simply better than an earthly existence where God was not glorified; that it gives you a more fulfilling life while you are on this cosmic speck of dust; when you physically expire, you are dead, and that no further reward awaits you.

I can’t make a definitive statement to this side or the other on what happens after you die. I am merely expressing curiosity about the motivations of some people, and what their response would be if it would appear that certain things are not the way they have always believed.

* * *

One final note: you must function as the something you are – it will not work if you try to operate as a bread toaster or a fridge. You should also function as the someone you are … but here it gets complicated, because who are you? You should, therefore, initially not attempt to function as someone you are not. In the earliest phase of your life you just know you are not your dad or your grandmother or your sister, so you know it will not do to attempt being one of these other someones (even though you may try to emulate their behaviour or their way of speaking or doing things).

To put if differently, initially you just know you are not someone else. You may know you prefer dogs to cats or that you like chocolate flavoured cereal, but we continually seek more information about ourselves, in order to identify ourselves better, and preferably in the positive sense, “I am …” rather than the negative, “I am not …”

You often find yourself saying the same thing over and over, revisiting certain themes a dozen times. At the end, it is not only what is said or written, but how. Many of the things that I wrote this morning have been touched upon in earlier notes, but this morning’s formulation has a remarkable simplicity.

Two points in our lives: What Was Before Us, and What Will Be After Us, and then of course there’s the in-between What and Who We Are. What remains are the results of the latter.

Are these results good or are they bad? Why is it important?

______________________

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.”

______________________