39th entry - Questions about life

Life, the Universe and Everything

My prolific friend and fellow-Blogger, Teflonman, has published a set of interesting questions about life and gave his responses to them on his blog. The questions originated from another blog by Probligo. My responses, which I feel are not as well-expressed, entertaining and tongue-in-cheek as my dear friend Teflonman’s responses, are below.

1. Why is there poverty and suffering in the world?


In general, the simple answer is that we live in an imperfect world. Wealth distribution is far from being equal. At the macro level, I define poverty as a state of destitution in which those experiencing it live from hand to mouth on a daily basis, without any hope of improvement in their condition in the immediate future. They often experience starvation or malnutrition, and are unable to have access to basic necessities (water, electricity and fuel) or healthcare. They may not even have a proper shelter over their heads. Such poverty is the result of unfavourable geography and/or natural disasters, or poor governance (rampant corruption is symptomatic of this factor), war (with resources being diverted to destruction rather than construction) and/or political persecution (affecting only certain societal sub-strata). At the micro level, I define poverty as a state of physical deprivation. This may be “self-induced” e.g. due to poor financial planning and management or experiencing the consequences of social ills (e.g. gambling addiction, alcohol or substance abuse) or attributed to “environmental factors” e.g. discrimination against specific sub-strata of society, debilitating unforeseen circumstances). Poverty is usually not a matter of choice; nobody wants to be poor. However, in the “self-induced” cases, poverty is the result of poorly-made lifestyle choices.

I perceive suffering to be a state of mind. What is suffering to one person may be a state of complete bliss for another. For instance, sleeping on a bed of nails or standing on one foot continuously for several years are perceived to be acts of torture by most people, but in certain religious practices these extreme acts accompanied by appropriate meditation are recommended as means of gaining spirituality. Sado-masochism is considered kinky and necessary for sexual enjoyment and climax by some people but deemed by others to be perverse and even insane acts. Viewed from this perspective, suffering is entirely a matter of choice. We can decide to remove ourselves from suffering by positive action or positive thinking. If your boss is a tyrant to you, you can end your suffering by quitting your job, confronting your boss, or comforting yourself that you might learn something in the process. If your spouse is abusing you, you can end the relationship or try to get professional help.

2. What is the relationship between science and religion?


Both are man-made, and both cannot be proven. Scientific “facts” and religious doctrines are based on assumptions, deductions and past interpretations. Both are systematic. Both are neutral in nature but they have the potential to be utilised for good (improving lives and making societies more civilised and progressive) or for bad (abusing scientific knowledge or religious authority to tyrannise others). To me, the only difference is that religion focuses on how humans relate to “the unknown” and to each other, and science focuses on gaining knowledge about their environment and conquering it. As Teflonman pointed out, some people view science as a religion (there is even a religious order of “scientology”). I think it is silly trying to prove one is better or worse than the other – both play important roles in keeping us alive and both should go hand in hand. Without scientific discoveries (the earliest of which is the discovery of agriculture and metals), the entire human race would have all died from starvation and there would not be anything left of nature to preserve, and without the development of religious systems, most societies would not have evolved or become civilised (morality forms the basic foundation for law and order in society).

3. Why are so many people depressed?


I see depression as a phase that most people will go through in life, as nothing will ever go smoothly for an extended period of time. The most common cause of depression is the inability to cope with the loss of something that matters to us – loss of health (e.g. if I discover that I have a terminal illness or a loved one has it), loss of livelihood or finances (e.g. immediately following retrenchment or after the stock market plummeted and the shares we bought become worthless), loss of loved ones (after a love relationship has ended or the demise of loved ones), or even when the soccer team that you supported lost in the World Cup finals. People tend to suddenly discover how precious things are and try to hold on to them when they are just about to lose them, especially if they usually take these things for granted. This makes them unable to cope with the loss, and unable to accept the reality, resulting in depression.

4. What are we all so afraid of?


I think everybody is afraid of something sometime in their lives, and it differs from person to person. However, most of us are fearful of the unknown, what we cannot control. We try to come up with ways to predict the future, to make the unknowns known, but nobody can say for certain that these methods work all the time. Our fear of the unknown is manifested in our fear of death; nobody knows for sure what really happens after death, notwithstanding what religious texts say. As a result, no sensible person alive wants to die, all else being constant. Much of scientific and religious research since ancient civilisation has been preoccupied with finding various methods of self-preservation to prolong our natural lives.

5. When is war justifiable?


War is a state of prolonged conflict between 2 entities (countries, organisations and people). My view is that it should only be waged as a last resort: when your country, family or self is under direct attack from an aggressor and there is no way out except to fight and defend. When 2 entities are in disagreement, bilateral negotiation, sometimes with a mutually-accepted mediator, is the best way to obtain a “win-win” solution and continue friendly relations after the tension is settled. When talks break down, or when one or both entities are not seeking an amiable solution for developing long-term friendly relations, it makes sense for both entities to try to achieve “win-lose” in their favour by going to war. In such cases, Sun Tzu recommends that before deciding to go to war we need to try estimating our chances of winning vis-à-vis our enemy’s. We can analyse this based on SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats – Sun Tzu: “understand yourself and your enemy, and exploit the terrain and weather”) and other strategic tools available out there. Failing to do this, we may either end up losing (in which case it might have been more prudent not to fight the war and wait for an opportunity to engage the enemy again) or being in a “lose-lose” situation where neither entity wins anything.

6. How would God want us to respond to aggression and terrorism?


From a Christian’s point of view, God is Love and Him commandments are simply to love Him and love one another (i.e. fellow human beings). Hence, God would never condone aggression or terrorism, and we should condemn them. However, this is a simplistic view to take. In reality, we usually respond to our aggressors with as much aggression as we can afford (based on our resources) in order to subdue them. We also respond to terrorism very much in the same way. This creates a never ending cycle of attack and counter-attack. Fighting is easier than “turning the other cheek” so to speak, but the latter is not guaranteed to work given the assumption that humans are never satisfied. Since when have bullies stopped attacking their victims when the victims choose to suffer in silence? Yet, it is difficult in reality to identify who the real “bad guy” is.

7. How does one obtain true peace?


On a macro level, “true peace” is a state of utopia where everybody is at peace with each other. If you ask me, it would take no less than a miracle for this to happen. On a micro level, one can easily obtain true peace at any given time when he is at peace with himself, his environment and other people. It is much harder to maintain true peace once it has been attained.

8. What is the meaning of life?

Different people have different aims in life. People who live aimlessly will find no meaning in their existence; their actions are inconsequential and nobody gives a damn if they live or die. People who have a goal in life will work towards it and therefore find their existence meaningful. For some, this goal is to create happiness for themselves and/or others. For some, this goal is to cause another person misery. To each his own

38th entry - L' Homme de sa vie (Part 2)

Continued from Part 1

Metaphor
The film uses several metaphors but what stands out is the jogging routine of Frédéric and Hugo. A simple act of exercising, which initially seems like an innocent act of male bonding, becomes a process of change for Frédéric. It represented the routine but stable life that he was accustomed to, which he possibly enjoyed, until he met Hugo. The jogging routine then became a means for him to connect with Hugo and perhaps also his way of satisfying his "illicit" desire for Hugo without being too obvious.

Eating was also used as a metaphor in the film. The family dinner that was supposed to be an ordinary get-together became the impetus for change in the lives of Frédéric, Hugo and Frédérique. At the dinner, Frédéric got his family to taste the sweetness of ordinary, plain bread as it get changed from starch to sugar in the mouth through the enzymes in saliva. The physical change in the chemical properties of bread that will only take place by the act of eating it and allowing the enzymes to turn starch to sugar is a metaphorical expression of the emotional and psychological change that will only take place by Frédéric and Hugo's acting upon their instinct and desire.

I felt that Frédéric's sleeplessness was a metaphor for his lack of fulfillment with his ordinary, stable life. In waking consciousness, Frédéric was bound by his sense of duty as husband and father as well as other practical considerations, and he suppresses his innermost desires. His dissatisfaction with the ordinary manifests itself as a sleeping disorder, and he apparently finds fulfillment in dreams, which were depicted as dreamlike sequences of musicians playing tango music.

Symbolism
In the film Hugo cleverly used natural light to create an ephemeral pattern on the wall. Words on the wall had some missing letters, which were correspondingly printed on the window glass panel, such that sunlight falling through the glass will cast a shadow on the letters and complete the words on the wall. This desire to "capture the moment", like impressionism, is symbolic of the desire to live life for the moment. Not surprisingly, Frédéric was captivated by it because this was his desire - to experience real passion even if it lasted a fleeting moment.

The beautiful field of sunflowers and other parts of the countryside (as depicted in the film's poster) that Frédéric and Hugo walked through en route home was symbolic of the love between them - free, pure and natural. Their journey was like a sweet dream, which ended when Frédéric was brought home to his wife and family, returning once again to reality, duty and commitment.

Moving and still elements are used as contrasting symbols in the film. Flowing water symbolises renewal and rebirth (renaissance) (and perhaps a cleansing of old wounds, in Hugo's case), which parallels the changes taking place in the lives of the characters. It contrasts with still water (e.g. in a cup), symbolising stillness, stability and stagnation, which parallels the current state of affairs in the lives of the characters. Similarly, the strange gusts of wind in the house contrasts the soothing breeze blowing over the grass and sunflowers in the field; this parallels the contrast between the almost contrived bond between Frédéric and his wife and the natural bond between Frédéric and Hugo. The breeze was also a "wind of change" for Frédéric, as he discovers new life beyond the ordinary.

Characters

Frédéric reminds me of a dear friend of mine, who went through a divorce about 6 years ago when he decided to pursue a new life as a gay man. It was a painful process for my friend as well as his wife and 4 children, but it was a necessary decision to end more than 20 years of unhappiness and dissatisfaction with the kind of life that mainstream society expects you to lead. Frédéric can choose to continue living a fabricated lie but it will be at the expense of his own happiness as well as his family's. The film does not make him out to be an irresponsible man, but rather an anguished man with unfulfilled dreams.

Frédérique is the unfortunate wife trying to salvage her marriage. She appears as an understanding, patient, dutiful and faithful wife who loves her husband, dotes on her son and seeks a happy family life. Her dream was shattered when Hugo entered their lives. When she realises that her grip on life was slipping away she struggles to hold on, but it was too late. Her last desperate but futile attempt to persuade her husband to make love to her made her appear defeated, lost and hopeless. She is like her favourite bedroom chair - a perfectly useful piece of furniture in good condition but her husband does not see it the same way (he wanted to get rid of it at one stage but she insisted on retrieving it).

Hugo is a strong man determined to live his own way of life notwithstanding the heavy emotional baggage that he had been carrying with him. He does not believe in commitment and permanence, but seeks to live life for the moment. His past comes back to haunt him, however, and he is forced to confront them - a father who threw him out of the house and a daughter whom he abandoned. He changed when he met Frédéric, finding the courage to face his daughter and reconcile with his family. I found the scene in which he climbed onto his father's dying bed and curled up next to his father is very touching; Hugo's bitterness at being rejected had disappeared when he accepted his own daughter.

Overall critique

I liked the way the film explores certain issues but leaves the assessment to the audience. The dreamlike sequences were a little bizzare and fragmented, but the way the same scene is filmed from different angles and repeated at various points in the film is rather refreshing and interesting. The actors gave a convincing performance and the script was natural. I guess perhaps that the film was a little too heavy on the subtext, symbolism etc but the overall entertainment value rates quite high. If I could give it rating between 1-10 for artistic value, I'd say it scored 9 at least.

37th entry - L' Homme de sa vie (Part 1)

On 14th Nov, S and I went to watch a French film, L'Homme de sa vie (2006), directed by Zabou Breitman. We enjoyed it, even though there were parts of the film that we did not understand fully. I was impressed with the director's clever use of tension, metaphor, imagery and symbolism to bring out the central themes of the film, but what I liked most was the ingenial technique of filming the same dramatic sequence from different angles as though viewed from different perspectives. Overall, I think its one of the best French films I've watched so far.


I do not have full background knowledge about the film, so what I describe is essentially what I saw and understood (which may not be an accurate representation of the film). A seemingly loving straight couple, Frédéric (Bernard Campan) and Frédérique (Léa Drucker) invites their family to their country home to spend the holidays. During one of their family dinners they decided to invite their new neighbour, Hugo (Charles Berling), a single gay man. Frédéric and Hugo had a deep and long conversation about falling in love, being committed in a relationship and what they both are looking for in life. Their conversation left a deep and permanent impact on both of them, and changed their lives significantly.


Use of Tension

The audience is initially treated to a slow-moving slideshow of picturesque scenery from the French countryside at the start of the film. The relaxing rhythm of the slideshow is interrupted by the buzz of activities in the house as family members prepare for their get-together. Tension (both atmospheric and dramatic i.e. between characters) rises rapidly as the plot of the story unravels. The mysterious and almost supernatural phenomena of the wind that howls suddenly and unexpectedly through the hallway of their country home; the mystery surrounding the neighbour/dinner guest who swims in the nude in his own pool; Hugo's awkward revelation of his own homosexuality (probably still regarded as taboo in French society) at the family dinner and his sardonic and critical comment regarding the stereotypical jobs of faggots - the tension added a aura of suspense to the film and made it entertaining.

Bits of comedy and surrealistic scenes were often injected in the film to ease or diffuse the tension, but these also enhanced the effect of the tension between the main characters, Frédéric and Hugo, as well as internal tension within the characters themselves. Frédéric's initial awkward interactions with Hugo e.g. their first conversation when Frédéric went to invite Hugo to the dinner, followed by their hug when Hugo arrived at the gathering unexpectedly ahead of time, as well as the way the men look meaningfully at each other, made us think that something other than friendship is going on between the men. The sexual tension between the men, which can be seen in their spoken and body language - innuendos and subtle glances exchanged - is quite important in this film. However, equally important is the internal tension within Frédéric and Hugo, for different reasons. For the former, it was the conflict between performing family duty and seeking fulfillment in life; for the latter, it was between seeking personal freedom and seeking love from/and recovering a lost connection with his family.

Frédéric's desire for a connection with Hugo brought the film to its turning point, when Frédéric insisted on jogging with Hugo in spite of having a sprained ankle. The tension between them (and within Frédéric) reached its peak when Hugo confronts Frédéric outside the nightclub - the two men faced each other, bodies almost touching, with Hugo searching Frédéric's face for an answer but Frédéric looking down and unable to express his feelings for Hugo, and ending with Frédéric turning abruptly and hopping away (due to his injury). We could see plainly that Frédéric was in turmoil and anguish at being unable to resolve the internal conflict in his mind. On the other hand, Hugo was in a way reconciled with his "lost" family and accepted, and the film ended with him embarking on a journey of new self discovery and recovery of old wounds (being rejected by his own family and father).

The tension between Frédéric and his wife Frédérique was also an important element of dramatic tension in the film. What began as Frédéric's inability to maintain an erection in bed eventually turned into the discovery of underlying problems in their marriage. Beneath the surface of mutual respect and love, the couple suffered from a lack of understanding and passion: it feels like they were staying together because of the marriage and their young son. Frédéric's dying interest in his wife contrasted with his growing desire for a connection with Hugo, which he was in denial of. Frédérique was frustrated and puzzled at the change that had come over her husband, and she suspected was amiss but could not bring herself to admit that it was because of Hugo. She feared change as much as Frédéric, refusing to let go and face the inevitable. The tension between them reached its peak as the film arrived at its climactic conclusion, when Frédéric revealed to his wife that he can no longer make love to her the way he used to. Her stable world came crashing down, and she is left with uncertainty and despair. In this light, Frédéric's transformation is a brutal blow to her and the family that they had formed.

Continued in Part 2

(pictures taken from official site of L'Homme de sa vie)

36th entry - Some thoughts about working life

In 3 weeks' time, I am supposed to start work at a new office. This will be my 4th job since I started work in Feb 2001. Technically I have not left my first employer, but the nature of the work is expected to be different from my previous deployments. On one hand, I am happy for the change - in a way I had chosen it, after all; on the other hand, I am also worried because I do not have any clue what I will be getting myself into.

My first job was dealing with policy development. It gave me my first taste of working life, as well as exposure to different styles of management. Over a period of slightly over two years, I had to work with 5 different bosses: an impatient tyrant; a laid-back dreamer; a kind and fair leader; a selfish bastard; and a EQ-deficient/socially-awkward high-flyer. The most memorable times were spent outside of office, either during lunch or after work, playing badminton or going to the gym or just chilling out with a few colleagues over dinner.

During this period, I experienced one office relocation, got involved in one new love relationship (and several failed short-term ones in between), and went on four short trips with my colleagues (1 to Sydney and Canberra on official business, which was my first visit to Australia; 1 to a fishing resort on Bintan Island, Indonesia; and visits to Malacca en route to a durian plantation as well as to Redang Island, a beach resort in a northern Malaysian state).

In 2003, I applied to an internal job-posting ad and got recruited by a prestigious department as a research analyst. The work was interesting and high-profile but the workload was a nightmare. I had to count the number of Sundays that I did not have to return to the office. The main attraction of the work was an opportunity to get a higher salary, but in the end I decided that it was not worth the effort. It was here that I learnt a great deal about office politics and to avoid the snares of people who will do anything in their means to get ahead or save their skin, even if it required them to abandon their sense of morality.

Even in this cut-throat environment, I managed to make a few good friends, such as KC@FK. I also managed to learn line-dancing, which not only allowed me to do some light exercise but also to expand my social circle. There were many occasions when I looked back at my short 1.5-year stint here and wondered whether I had any regrets. The answer that confronted me was always negative: in spite of the workload and office politics, it was an eye-opening experience that I would not have gotten if I had remained at my first post. It was also my job with this office that gave me my first unforgettable visit to Israel.

At present, I am a research analyst at another department. While there is no difference in terms of job title, the job nature of my current position is quite different from that of the last one as there is more team and project-type work involved. The workload here is much more manageable, and the working environment was more pleasant after our office relocated to a convenient part of town. Major perks that I have enjoyed here are the visits to Jakarta (in which I stayed at the comfortable 5-star Grand Hyatt Hotel and was chaffeured around in luxury cars), Israel (my second one) and Sydney/Canberra (also my second). It is also in this department that I am able to go home practically on time everyday, and go for gym regularly and even swimming during extended lunch breaks. The exposure was also fantastic - in the course of my work I am given the opportunity to meet many kinds people working in different offices.

Sadly, nothing is perfect. My bosses here are quite unprofessional and selfish. They do not care about staff development because everyone is here for a limited 2-year period ("on loan" or secondment from another department) and we all knew that our efforts here are not going to get recognised by our parent departments. Nobody really respects the director and everyone finds his deputy a pain in the ass. The managers are either clock-watching, minimal-work performers or ambitious, pretentious and prideful over-achievers.

The current situation is not the worst yet; things are only going to get worse with the "next generation". My replacement (since I am due to leave) is a reclusive wierdo with a out-of-this-world appearance to match; her new fellow colleagues include a retired army colonel who talks to us like he is still in the army, an eccentric sailor with a bizzare way of thinking (the director apparently feels that he can think out of the box, which I agree, if off-tangent articulations can also be considered "thinking out of the box"), and an army commando officer whose sole staff work experience was in purchasing generators and training plattoons of men but has been asked now to construct abstract complex "system maps" and perform horizon-scanning (aka professional crystal-ball gazing). And my current supervisor is a first-class bitch whose EQ is negative and whose ego far exceeds her intelligence.

If this office has been a joke for the past 2 years, the joke is only going to get more hilarious.

I really hope that my new office will be something to look forward to, and that its not going to be worse than what I experienced so far. I hope I get to work with some nice colleagues and a good boss, and that they will stay. I hope the job will be interesting and challenging but not too heavy in terms of workload. But a perfect job does not exist in this world, does it?

35th entry - Ups and Downs

In life there are bound to be ups and downs. As we are going up, we usually enjoy the view and the anticipation of better things to come. At the peak, we are thrilled to be feeling on top of the world. The next minute, our world can come crashing down on us. Viewed from one perspective, life can be likened to a continuous roller coaster ride in which the thrill-seekers have neither the choice to get on, nor the choice to get off (short of committing suicide to end the ride prematurely).

Of course, this analogy argues that our lives are predestined - the way a roller coaster track is fixed. Many people like to believe that they can control their destiny. My personal view is that we can make decisions in life that can affect our destiny but we are not able change it entirely. In other words, our upbringing (values), how we think (attitudes) and what we do (behaviours) impact how we get to a certain point (i.e. the journey) but not where we eventually arrive at.

Imagine a roller coaster ride that allows us to change the direction of our path. If we make one decision, we will expect to have a bumpy but exhilarating ride, and if we make another, we will expect a calm but uneventful journey. But no matter what direction we choose, we will eventually reach an end-point. I like to believe that this end-point is actually the beginning of a life beyond the grave, one that is eternal and endlessly fulfilling and joyful.

Meanwhile, its useless anticipating what the end-point would be like. We can do everything in our power, with all our abilities (in-born and otherwise) and resources, to make our journey more meaningful or enjoyable. Yet most of us cannot foretell the future with absolute certainty. We can make certain predictions based on what we can see now or what we or others have seen before, but there are no guarantees.

What then is the implication? Many people just react. Live day by day. Most of us dont even have time to reflect on past actions, examine our attitudes and align them with our values. Not even when changing our values has a tremendous impact on shaping our journey and bringing us closer to our desired outcome. But the main drawback of merely reacting is that we may never learn from our mistakes, like having memory loss daily as though suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

Recently I had been in a rough patch at work, which explains for my long absence from Blogosphere. I was mildly depressed, and I was unable to think positively, and I had no mood to reflect. Fortunately, I had constant encouragement from my beloved S, my close friend KC@FK and my parents, as well as two caring colleagues who I like to regard as friends. Its difficult to imagine how I might have coped without them. I was also comforted by the belief that my church bible-study/cell group members are praying for me. I also felt that God never left my side, for which I am immensely grateful.

Learning to face up to a mistake I made, and bearing the consequences of my erroneous actions in the past, provides an opportunity for me not to repeat the same mistake again. But I consider myself really blessed to have loved ones around me to lift me up when I am down. With strength, support and love from those around me, its easier for me to admit my failure, pick myself up and start over afresh. I'm glad I'm not alone on this roller coaster ride of life.