Genettic Calculus.
isnt everything autobiogrpahical. afterall, everything we do mention abt is but perception from our own personal tiny keyhole view of the world. hence,i am very aware that whatever i am abt to publish here is going to reflect the colour of my lens and the shape of my keyhole.
To love one for who he/she is.
how can one justify such a rhetorical statment.
what does man base love upon.
chemistry some call it.
but than again
what is chemistry?
in fact, chemistry is probably the term coined up to explain the liking of another whithout knowledge of its underlying reason. but just because you dont know the reason why you have a soft spot for someone doesnt mean that there isnt a reason. and just because you think there isnt any binary reason doesnt mean there isnt one. welcome to the real world.
if one were to think deep enough, you'd probably find that the basis of which man loves might owe to the intrinsic idiosyncracies varying from individual to individual.
than again, lets say there was really chemistry and it was just some mystical form of connection, it's intangible defination often subjects the term in danger of misuse, abuse and as an excuse.
Moreover, as blogged before the motives of men are somewhat undeserving of credit. if its not for mutual benefit, its for reputation, or it could be more of the warm fuzzy high feeling one gets that ppl pursue instead of actually loving that person for who the person is. as once said before, the contrasted infatuation is more of falling in love with the feeling of falling in love rather than the person itself. nothing wrong with mutual benefit and all, except that it ought to be more fo the after effects rather than the impetus to love. meaning to say, even without all these, love would still go on...
though i have all faith so that i could remove mountains but have not love, i am nothing.
-1cor13:2b
love is only a word. what matters is its connections. recently, i have been wondering what is love? ppl say that its a feeling of the moment. others say it is a commitment and the feeling is only the manifestation of the status. when i think abt it, the commitment is also a manifestation of the status. if one were to earnestly love another, commitment would come naturally wldn it? and because of love, it wld want to continue itself. as the quixotic idealist i've become, i believe there is a love out there sacrificial enough to give up all for another. i guess no one can really elucidate the meaning of such a large concept of love, but we can be more sure of the cerain effects it causes.
Love is patient, love is kind. it does not envy, it does not boast; love does not parade itself, love is not puffed up. it is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrong; Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. it always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always preserves. Love never fails.
-1cor13:4-8a
and as generation derogatorily passes this notion of love down, man has lost sight of it.
instead of loving another out of pure love, we tend to tie our respect, honor and warmth down to the abilites of the other. for the male kind, being highly visual creatures, we give a sizable portion of our criteria to the physical appearance knowing full well the principle of jusging a book by its cover. the top athlete wld naturally attract those who long to be the topic for gossip sessions. the list wld go on. even i, wld rather ppl not regard me as a guitarist and take me for who i am without my God-given ability. the question i ask is is it morally ethical to judge another person's value via utilitarian calculus? is it even right to designate a value upon a living individual? surely we are more than simplified commodified beings.
but than again, what constitutes the 'for who i am'.
to love one for who he/she is.
it does contain some pre-convieved notion of ability.
if so, how does one draw the line between peccadilloes and natural outward talents. there is a high propensity that the general consesus would say it boils down to character. and that seems fair.
than what of those with EQ problems. or what abt those with a disadvantaged family background. or what abt those whom parents were simply not equiped with the technique of catering to their children's quest for emotional security. all these ppl might have the pristined intenion to love and to be loved, but cld nvr really express it. or for others, they cld nvr really love because they were just nvr taught to. what if their unfortunate childhood guided them toward their cold-hearted self they've become. they didnt want to be like this. they wanted to love and to be loved, to bless and to be blessed, its just that, their upbringing forbade them.
but oh, 2 ppl put in the same conditions can react very differently. dont you know that all the successful ppl you see today all had a rough time when they were younger, but they emerged on top in the end. bill gates, etc
lamentably, our character is largely moulded by our environment. so what makes the winner win given the same conditions? why is he able to fight while the loser gives in? at the age of 4, what is that deciding factor? while environment plays a major 75%, the other 25% is proabably genetic. so, our reactions are probably based on the genes our parents gave to us. both the 75% and 25% are beyond our control. now is that fair?
like the matrix so clearly put it- causailty, cause and effect. one action leads to our pre-determined reaction. all our human rights are all a guise to make us seem like we have choice. like in a perfect play of weiqi, a black piece would force one's white piece into certain positions, ultimately entrapping the collective army into a losing placement. so, besides being dependant on our environment for the quality of pur character, some ppl are born genetically superioir and have better adapting abilities to difficult situations.
i know this sounds highly dangerous and can seem especially contradictory to my christian faith. it has been twisted against it before. from one of the more intellectual ppl around. i have found that man would not be able to comprehend any paper God cld give to explain the logic of all that happens, and hence, based on faith, i know for a fact that He exists and exists for a good purpose and the good of all those who love Him. i know because i've been there before..
so, to link back, what is our love based upon? i mentioned abt a sacrifical love above. i think the package that comes from our Creator came unconditional. He loved all of us regardless of what we were, what happened to us, what we became. and we love Him because He first loved us. in other words, He taught us love.
To love one for who he/she is.
how can one justify such a rhetorical statment.
what does man base love upon.
chemistry some call it.
but than again
what is chemistry?
in fact, chemistry is probably the term coined up to explain the liking of another whithout knowledge of its underlying reason. but just because you dont know the reason why you have a soft spot for someone doesnt mean that there isnt a reason. and just because you think there isnt any binary reason doesnt mean there isnt one. welcome to the real world.
if one were to think deep enough, you'd probably find that the basis of which man loves might owe to the intrinsic idiosyncracies varying from individual to individual.
than again, lets say there was really chemistry and it was just some mystical form of connection, it's intangible defination often subjects the term in danger of misuse, abuse and as an excuse.
Moreover, as blogged before the motives of men are somewhat undeserving of credit. if its not for mutual benefit, its for reputation, or it could be more of the warm fuzzy high feeling one gets that ppl pursue instead of actually loving that person for who the person is. as once said before, the contrasted infatuation is more of falling in love with the feeling of falling in love rather than the person itself. nothing wrong with mutual benefit and all, except that it ought to be more fo the after effects rather than the impetus to love. meaning to say, even without all these, love would still go on...
though i have all faith so that i could remove mountains but have not love, i am nothing.
-1cor13:2b
love is only a word. what matters is its connections. recently, i have been wondering what is love? ppl say that its a feeling of the moment. others say it is a commitment and the feeling is only the manifestation of the status. when i think abt it, the commitment is also a manifestation of the status. if one were to earnestly love another, commitment would come naturally wldn it? and because of love, it wld want to continue itself. as the quixotic idealist i've become, i believe there is a love out there sacrificial enough to give up all for another. i guess no one can really elucidate the meaning of such a large concept of love, but we can be more sure of the cerain effects it causes.
Love is patient, love is kind. it does not envy, it does not boast; love does not parade itself, love is not puffed up. it is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrong; Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. it always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always preserves. Love never fails.
-1cor13:4-8a
and as generation derogatorily passes this notion of love down, man has lost sight of it.
instead of loving another out of pure love, we tend to tie our respect, honor and warmth down to the abilites of the other. for the male kind, being highly visual creatures, we give a sizable portion of our criteria to the physical appearance knowing full well the principle of jusging a book by its cover. the top athlete wld naturally attract those who long to be the topic for gossip sessions. the list wld go on. even i, wld rather ppl not regard me as a guitarist and take me for who i am without my God-given ability. the question i ask is is it morally ethical to judge another person's value via utilitarian calculus? is it even right to designate a value upon a living individual? surely we are more than simplified commodified beings.
but than again, what constitutes the 'for who i am'.
to love one for who he/she is.
it does contain some pre-convieved notion of ability.
if so, how does one draw the line between peccadilloes and natural outward talents. there is a high propensity that the general consesus would say it boils down to character. and that seems fair.
than what of those with EQ problems. or what abt those with a disadvantaged family background. or what abt those whom parents were simply not equiped with the technique of catering to their children's quest for emotional security. all these ppl might have the pristined intenion to love and to be loved, but cld nvr really express it. or for others, they cld nvr really love because they were just nvr taught to. what if their unfortunate childhood guided them toward their cold-hearted self they've become. they didnt want to be like this. they wanted to love and to be loved, to bless and to be blessed, its just that, their upbringing forbade them.
but oh, 2 ppl put in the same conditions can react very differently. dont you know that all the successful ppl you see today all had a rough time when they were younger, but they emerged on top in the end. bill gates, etc
lamentably, our character is largely moulded by our environment. so what makes the winner win given the same conditions? why is he able to fight while the loser gives in? at the age of 4, what is that deciding factor? while environment plays a major 75%, the other 25% is proabably genetic. so, our reactions are probably based on the genes our parents gave to us. both the 75% and 25% are beyond our control. now is that fair?
like the matrix so clearly put it- causailty, cause and effect. one action leads to our pre-determined reaction. all our human rights are all a guise to make us seem like we have choice. like in a perfect play of weiqi, a black piece would force one's white piece into certain positions, ultimately entrapping the collective army into a losing placement. so, besides being dependant on our environment for the quality of pur character, some ppl are born genetically superioir and have better adapting abilities to difficult situations.
i know this sounds highly dangerous and can seem especially contradictory to my christian faith. it has been twisted against it before. from one of the more intellectual ppl around. i have found that man would not be able to comprehend any paper God cld give to explain the logic of all that happens, and hence, based on faith, i know for a fact that He exists and exists for a good purpose and the good of all those who love Him. i know because i've been there before..
so, to link back, what is our love based upon? i mentioned abt a sacrifical love above. i think the package that comes from our Creator came unconditional. He loved all of us regardless of what we were, what happened to us, what we became. and we love Him because He first loved us. in other words, He taught us love.