61 hours, 30 minutes:
not a second was unoccupied without
memories of your adorable smile
your intense heat, that enveloped me
burns vividly still in my mind
life without you is not unlike
a traveller in the Sahara deprived
of water, a diver
without, an oxygen tank
i sink helplessly
into painful, anguished spasms of longing
72 hours, 20 minutes:
until the promised time,
when i can bathe
in the blissful comfort of your voice
save me
temporarily
from the excruciating pain i'm experiencing
please
(i can't wait any longer)
your absence from my life
is like a laptop sans battery
what am i without you?
72 hours and 5 minutes:
baby i miss you
January 5, 2010
January 2, 2010
So it's the second day into the year 2010. I'm sure resolutions have been prepared (by most people, anyway). Resolutions, in my opinion, is an extremely personal piece of information. Frankly, for me, it's privacy settings is no less than a personal diary.
When we prepare a resolution, we reflect upon what we did in the past year (and also what we did not do). Reflection is after all, the first step to preparing a sound, logical resolution. Because only we ourselves know full well personally in good conscience what was done and what wasn't (but was supposed to be done). All of these are in our conscience, we need not announce them to the whole world.
There are many many ways to make a resolution work. Some favour a cold, cut-and-dried system using timetables, action plans, reviews, follow-ups et cetera. However, others might prefer a more holistic, personal and human approach. It's all in the mind, they say. However effective action plans might be, those are impersonal. Their effectiveness arises from the fact that they're imposing rigid guidelines on how one should carry out a task to achieve a target. It does not take into account the moral-righteousness of the target. It does not take into account the mindset of the person carrying out the task. It's inhuman.
Contrastingly, a holistic approach in making resolutions succeed might be considerably less systematic. However, what's important in our endeavours is that we're totally, passionately committed to it and we set our mind to achieving that goal. When the mindset is properly orientated, that's really more than enough. The power of the mind is remarkably immesurable. It actually behaves like gravity. It's there. It's just up to us to utilise it properly.
So, which way?
When we prepare a resolution, we reflect upon what we did in the past year (and also what we did not do). Reflection is after all, the first step to preparing a sound, logical resolution. Because only we ourselves know full well personally in good conscience what was done and what wasn't (but was supposed to be done). All of these are in our conscience, we need not announce them to the whole world.
There are many many ways to make a resolution work. Some favour a cold, cut-and-dried system using timetables, action plans, reviews, follow-ups et cetera. However, others might prefer a more holistic, personal and human approach. It's all in the mind, they say. However effective action plans might be, those are impersonal. Their effectiveness arises from the fact that they're imposing rigid guidelines on how one should carry out a task to achieve a target. It does not take into account the moral-righteousness of the target. It does not take into account the mindset of the person carrying out the task. It's inhuman.
Contrastingly, a holistic approach in making resolutions succeed might be considerably less systematic. However, what's important in our endeavours is that we're totally, passionately committed to it and we set our mind to achieving that goal. When the mindset is properly orientated, that's really more than enough. The power of the mind is remarkably immesurable. It actually behaves like gravity. It's there. It's just up to us to utilise it properly.
So, which way?
December 31, 2009
I guess "reviving blogging" did make its way onto my resolution list. So instead of waiting for 2009 to fade away to the obscurities of our tiny grey cells, why don't we start now?
Unnervingly, I realize that I've became more self-conscious when it comes to portraying my own self on the net (here) where literally the whole world can see what you write. Maybe it's because I believe that how a person writes betrays his or her's inner personality, however subtly.
Yes, we all have an "inner personality". Don't we? I have a shrewd suspicion there's a politically-correct psychological term for it but as look as the point cuts through, terms don't really matter, right? The fact is (or so, in my opinion), we live in a dysfunctional society. Really, if we're breathing in a sanely, healthy world, why do we ultimately need judicial laws? In fact, which came first? Did judicial laws corrupt society or did a corrupt society brought along the justice system? Human nature is to go against whatever that is unpleasing. So did unpleasing laws brought along a worse society? Ironically, is the justice system itself is to blame? Is utopia even tangible?
On another loosely related, but even more significant subject, is the death penalty even morally correct? I reserve my suspicions towards the number of people who actually read in detail about the recent case involving Akmal Shaikh, who was convicted of drug-smuggling and sentenced to death by the Supreme Court in China. Being the first European to be sentenced to death by the communist-ruled country in nearly 60 years, it has reasonably sparked much debate and discussion. The report by MSNBC can be read here, which I feel takes a reasonably neutral stand on the issue.
Not surprisingly, the following two reports, one by United Kingdom's The Guardian and the other by China's XinHuaNet on the identical issue is living, classic example of how humans defend their own stand and how a single issue can be viewed from two polar opposites.
In my opinion, it's tragic. It just is. This is not the first case of an innocent man who lost his life because of a case of seriously misplaced trust. There were many others. There will be more.
In the light of a new year, the human race claims to be more and more sophisticated (there's even already a Wikipedia page on the subject of Akmal Shaikh). But we're allowing such gruesome miscarriage of justice to happen. Civilised people my foot.
Someone from another continent recently said of young people in this country who are not allowed to voice out our opinions. Looking back, it's spot on. The state education system rarely, if ever, encourages the student to voice out and defend their own opinions. We are never asked to question the textbook, no. Thus we see the system churning out year after year of graduates, their minds numb from the sheer amount of data to be memorised, but lack the vital capacity to be opinionated. Yes, even the word "opinionated" looks alien, no?
2010, new hopes?
Unnervingly, I realize that I've became more self-conscious when it comes to portraying my own self on the net (here) where literally the whole world can see what you write. Maybe it's because I believe that how a person writes betrays his or her's inner personality, however subtly.
Yes, we all have an "inner personality". Don't we? I have a shrewd suspicion there's a politically-correct psychological term for it but as look as the point cuts through, terms don't really matter, right? The fact is (or so, in my opinion), we live in a dysfunctional society. Really, if we're breathing in a sanely, healthy world, why do we ultimately need judicial laws? In fact, which came first? Did judicial laws corrupt society or did a corrupt society brought along the justice system? Human nature is to go against whatever that is unpleasing. So did unpleasing laws brought along a worse society? Ironically, is the justice system itself is to blame? Is utopia even tangible?
On another loosely related, but even more significant subject, is the death penalty even morally correct? I reserve my suspicions towards the number of people who actually read in detail about the recent case involving Akmal Shaikh, who was convicted of drug-smuggling and sentenced to death by the Supreme Court in China. Being the first European to be sentenced to death by the communist-ruled country in nearly 60 years, it has reasonably sparked much debate and discussion. The report by MSNBC can be read here, which I feel takes a reasonably neutral stand on the issue.
Not surprisingly, the following two reports, one by United Kingdom's The Guardian and the other by China's XinHuaNet on the identical issue is living, classic example of how humans defend their own stand and how a single issue can be viewed from two polar opposites.
In my opinion, it's tragic. It just is. This is not the first case of an innocent man who lost his life because of a case of seriously misplaced trust. There were many others. There will be more.
In the light of a new year, the human race claims to be more and more sophisticated (there's even already a Wikipedia page on the subject of Akmal Shaikh). But we're allowing such gruesome miscarriage of justice to happen. Civilised people my foot.
Someone from another continent recently said of young people in this country who are not allowed to voice out our opinions. Looking back, it's spot on. The state education system rarely, if ever, encourages the student to voice out and defend their own opinions. We are never asked to question the textbook, no. Thus we see the system churning out year after year of graduates, their minds numb from the sheer amount of data to be memorised, but lack the vital capacity to be opinionated. Yes, even the word "opinionated" looks alien, no?
2010, new hopes?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)