Simplicity, hence Sincerity.
As a debater
i have been taught
aways
to question why.
and somehow
thats gotten into me.
everytime someone says something
i have to doubt its motive.
everytime someone relates a story
i have to question its impetus.
everytime a person serves
i have to challenge its incentive.
i dont put them here
simply bcuz its way too insesitive.
but what struck me was the simplicity of thought.
how simple-mindedly she cld handle her emotions
and get over it in a jiffy.
and while i'd commonly point towards the magalomanian stance
and in this case
the logic leaps seemed so very tempting
but the thought of it all was just swept away.
maybe
recently
i've been thinking
that my thinking
of intentions
proves the inablilty of man to be altruistic
and hence
is forgivable.
all logics lead to funadamental principles
which is intrinsic in all men.
yet
i've also come to terms with the fact that
the nicest logic is not always the only logic.
a multiplicity of factors contribute to one end point.
the question is
which is more dominant.
these days
my brains not really been functioning
but i feel that i can relate more to others as a result.
and maybe thats why i dont cast doubt on her intentions.
C=
or perhaps
God has broken thru my heart of stone
hatred
bitterness
and unbelief in certain respectbale peers.
i called
He answered.
contrast this to my original purpose of this blog.
but i have another place to pen it down
where i can laugh at my immaturity years after.
but while i'm here
i have a question to pose-
when another mumbles something sensitive under one's breath
izzit more likely to be a slip of the tongue (like a reply to a question one was rather reluctant to give, but had to give some answer.)
or cld it be a hint for further questioning because that one wanted to share about that topic?
to no surprise
i have violated my own resolution to keep things simple
again.
i have been taught
aways
to question why.
and somehow
thats gotten into me.
everytime someone says something
i have to doubt its motive.
everytime someone relates a story
i have to question its impetus.
everytime a person serves
i have to challenge its incentive.
i dont put them here
simply bcuz its way too insesitive.
but what struck me was the simplicity of thought.
how simple-mindedly she cld handle her emotions
and get over it in a jiffy.
and while i'd commonly point towards the magalomanian stance
and in this case
the logic leaps seemed so very tempting
but the thought of it all was just swept away.
maybe
recently
i've been thinking
that my thinking
of intentions
proves the inablilty of man to be altruistic
and hence
is forgivable.
all logics lead to funadamental principles
which is intrinsic in all men.
yet
i've also come to terms with the fact that
the nicest logic is not always the only logic.
a multiplicity of factors contribute to one end point.
the question is
which is more dominant.
these days
my brains not really been functioning
but i feel that i can relate more to others as a result.
and maybe thats why i dont cast doubt on her intentions.
C=
or perhaps
God has broken thru my heart of stone
hatred
bitterness
and unbelief in certain respectbale peers.
i called
He answered.
contrast this to my original purpose of this blog.
but i have another place to pen it down
where i can laugh at my immaturity years after.
but while i'm here
i have a question to pose-
when another mumbles something sensitive under one's breath
izzit more likely to be a slip of the tongue (like a reply to a question one was rather reluctant to give, but had to give some answer.)
or cld it be a hint for further questioning because that one wanted to share about that topic?
to no surprise
i have violated my own resolution to keep things simple
again.