Life by faith and by sight

"For we live by faith, not by sight."

- 2 Corinthians 5:7

It's a familiar phrase, one that a lot of us have heard much before, especially those of us more involved with church and Christianity. It's a familiar verse, but what does it mean? What is faith? What does it mean to live by it? What does it mean to live by sight? My short answer to that is this: read a commentary. I'm really not here to  go through and exegete this short verse. What I am here to consider is what it means now in the context of today. The apostle Paul wrote this in the context of a letter to the Corinthian church, in the context of awaiting the receipt of the new and redeemed body. I want to discuss what it is life by faith, because I would posit that we all do it, everybody. It's not a matter of whether or not we have faith but rather what we put our faith in.

Changing perspectives

I'm somewhat melancholy when it comes to this time of year.  Maybe it's because I'm single.  Maybe it's because all the single people are melancholy and it's become some sort of airborne contagion that single people catch.  Maybe it's because the not-single people are so blatantly not melancholy.  If ever there was some contrived, commercialized holiday for the sake of a holiday it's Valentine's Day.  I suppose I'm just sounding bitter right now, but honestly we don't really need a special day to remember our special someone do we?  I hope not.  Frankly, it just seems to be there to kind of rub it in the faces of those people who don't yet have special someones, but that's not really what this post is about.

Word of the day: apotyphobia

Apotyphobia - [a-po-ti-fo-bee-a] - noun - the fear of failure (note: apparently the real word is atychiphobia)

Derived from the Greek words apotychia which means failure, and phobos which means fear, and I totally just made this word up.  While the word may be something that I randomly pulled together, the concept certainly isn't something altogether foreign to us.  My brother once told me that Asian children will grow up to be good at what they do but they'll never be geniuses.  In the wake of the moderately controversial WSJ article by Yale professor, Amy Chua, some have attributed this to the fact that typical Asian parental methods leaves the children dispassionate and disinterested, where life is a series of duties and obligations.  I would contend that the problem may lie in passion, as it's not unfeasible for someone to be brilliant at something he/she doesn't particularly like doing, but rather, apotyphobia. 

I think to best illustrate I will use a personal example, hopefully, said example will not alienate too many of my readers.  Growing up, I used to play a game called Bandit Kings of Ancient China, a turn-based strategy game based around the well-known Chinese story entitled Outlaws of the Marsh.  The game involved building armies and attacking different territories, and ultimately you are attempting to take down the evil prime minister Gao Qiu before the year 1127 when the Northern Barbarians take over China, or something along those lines.  Anyways, the point is, that when I played the game, I would always run into the time constraint, and I always wondered why.  The simple reason is this: I never went to battle unless I was very sure I could win.  While it meant that I could be very systematic in my battle strategies, it also meant that a lot of time passed to get to the level of comfort that I had to reach before actually attacking someone else, in short, I was afraid to lose, even in a stupid computer game that didn't matter, because it was just against the computer.

We can denote it as fear of embarrassment, being overly people-conscious, or what have you, but ultimately, all these reasons conglomerate into a fear of getting it wrong, or as I now like to call it, apotyphobia.  Now, I don't know if this is strictly a generality of Asian-American kids, but I definitely think it's much more prevalent in Asian-American kids per se, because of the Asian emphasis on appearances or in more colloquial terminology, "saving face".  This isn't to say that I discourage the exercise of prudence or sound judgment, but rather, an encouragement to push past what we normally consider to be our areas of comfort.  I say this as much to myself as I do to anyone reading this, which a large part of why I write these things in the first place.  Too many times we forgo the opportunity to engage simply because of our aversion to an adverse outcome, I'll be the first to admit that I'm typically like this.  I prefer a wide margin of buffer space so that if things to go as planned, the engagement can still be deemed as having achieved some modicum of success.  What I loosely term "engagement" in this instance ranges anywhere from a project to a simple conversation.

What drives this apotyphobia?  Primarily, I think it's a sense of judgment.  One of the worst feelings in the world is to feel condescended or patronized, at least it is for me.  Growing up (and I can't say whether or not this is an Asian thing or not) I always had this unconscious sense that being incompetent is worse than being wrong.  I want to say that's a line from a movie (Day After Tomorrow maybe?).  This nagging certainty that when I do something, I can't look bad doing it, always pervades and thereby, highly limits what I do end up doing.  As a guy, this holds true even more when dealing with girls.  Maybe it's a societal thing, maybe it's a cultural thing, all I'm sure if is this, at some point in time, or rather at several (more than several) points in time, I am going to screw up, I need to grow up and live with it, ultimately, I need to learn and to grow from it.

While the world isn't really a very friendly place to screw up, the lesson to be learned from this is whether or not I'm okay if someone else screws up.  Certainly, there are going to be more critical issues where it's going to be a bigger deal if a mistake is made, but can I live with it, and help the transgressor become a better person from it?  My thoughts on this rest largely in the context of church.  While we strive for excellence in church, I find that it also should be an environment in which we are comfortable "being human" and thereby falling short.  Will it be embarrassing?  Most certainly, but as a church, it should be a place where learning experiences can be brought to light from each embarrassment.  In order for us to be transparent with one another as we ought to be in the body of Christ, we must trust the intentions of those around us and thereby are willing to just give it our best, regardless of the result.  For every success there will be a correlating number of failures, that's how we learn what is going to be successful.  Living in a fellowship of Christ doesn't mean getting everything right, but rather, loving one another, even when we get things wrong.  A church in which people are afraid to "do the wrong thing" I think needs to take a closer look at the relationships that it has between its members.

I'm certainly not saying I'm okay with screwing up, I hope that people don't walk away with that impression, but rather, the very real possibility of me screwing up doesn't push me to inaction.  In some sense you can think of it this way, if nothing happens you're not successful, which is essentially screwing up.  It's not a matter of not wanting to get things right all the time, but a matter of being willing to risk getting things wrong.  I know I'm apotyphobic, and to some degree, that might be called prudence, but taken too far and it renders me a paralytic.  Seize the moment, and if failure ensues, learn from it.  Some opportunities only come once.

Growing up isn't easy

I'm not dead, just, lazy?  Anyways, today's random thought, is about growing up.  I remember as a child, I looked up to adults and think, "Man, they got it all figured out."  Today, I am among that population of "adults", even though I still think to myself, "Man, they got it all figured out."  Implicitly saying, I don't have it figured out, which I don't.  I suppose part of me is caught up in the consumerist attitude of everything being just kind of given to me when I pass "Go" enough times and can pay up.  Perhaps I'm just cynical, but the great epiphany of life, at least for myself, is that there isn't a great epiphany of life.  Things don't just fall into place and everything makes sense and works out.  Sometimes it providentially does, but it really is an act of God.

In the end I think it's all about how the little things add together to make the bigger picture.  Nonetheless, I'm an adult, I've got it worked out right?  Not.  The word "adult" really is intimidating, and I'm not entirely comfortable labeling myself with it, though technically I'm already years past legally qualifying for the honor. Will it make sense with more time?  Maybe, but not time alone.  Maybe I just haven't had my epiphany yet, but still, life goes on.  I can't just stop because my personal life hasn't been sorted out, I have to do it on the fly. How do I do that?  Well, one thing I realize more as I grow older is the enormity of the extent of things I can't do.  More and more, I realize that while I'm bumbling about hoping to serndipidously stumble upon the right answer, there's someone I know that's got it all figured out already, I just have to ask.  So, I just need to trust Him (the guy with the right answers) and trust His answers, and live accordingly.  Things will work out in the end.  He's got it figured out.

The Remarkable Jading Effect of Time

Hm... Was the title a little too cynical? I dunno, it's just something I've been thinking about. It's kind of sad that I haven't realized it until now, but have you noticed that things get less interesting as time passes? I know I've heard it before, the more I do things the more commonplace they become and they lose their initial appeal, maybe that's it. I used to always want to go to McDonald's and my mom would say how if I had too much McDonald's I'd get sick of it. I didn't really believe her of course, but then, I didn't have McDonald's everyday either. Nonetheless, it's interesting how remarkably unappealing the mundane and routine become once they become mundane and routine. It's weird.

This is something that I find happening in life, and more specifically through my personal walk of faith. It's rather ironic, but what was once construed as spiritual fervor is now viewed with a rather cynical perspective. Everything that I once was passionate about has become cliched, and I wish it weren't so. A lot of times I go back to those cliched attitudes and sayings, and I sometimes cringe at how cliched it is, but also, I remember, how when it wasn't so. It's a difficult battle, and one that I think we need to be aware of. Time jades, we should realize that. I don't know if it's a by-product of the cynicism in our society or if it's the natural degeneration of man, but it happens. There's an opening line to a song that I've been listening to lately, and it goes like thus, "Can I look past the cliches?" Well, can I?

I suppose this has been a little on the depressing side, so I suppose I'll try to put a more positive perspective on this. I believe that in understanding this it's a calling to bring us back to the simplicity of children, where there are no cliches. Just because it's cliched doesn't make it wrong. Just overused, but we always have to have that fresh perspective, that kid constantly craving the simple things. I've noticed most of it comes back to a matter of perspective. As life progresses the wonder comes out of things little by little, but I believe with the proper perspective, things can be better.

A.D.

If I were to just leave the title at that, you'd think I'd be doing some kind of post on the naming convention of the years. Something about anno domini Latin for "In the year of our Lord". However, in this case, I mean AD to stand for something else, it has nothing to do with the Western calendar, what I wish to discuss today is this one concept summed up in two English words; after death. I suppose I could be fancy and have done PM and used like post mortem or something but I'm sure you get the general idea, and I'm tired of trying to be witty and creative.

So let's give a little context, where did I come up with the motivation to write on such a (seemingly) morbid subject? Well, a few of the youth kids I know from my church went to a conference called Worldview Academy, and during street evangelism sessions, one of the common lead-in questions used was this: "Where do you go after you die?". It's a question people don't often give much thought to, at least not when they're younger, yet it is a question of utmost importance in life. Perhaps I could say it's a matter of perspective, how? Well, in the sense that knowing the choices of where you end up is a good motivator of what you do now and how you go about doing it. An example of such would be someone studying hard now because he/she wishes to attend a better college/university in the future. It is that goal of the university, say an Ivy League versus a local community college, that pushes our student here to study. If perhaps that example doesn't ring home, it is also the idea of an employee working hard now in hopes of a future promotion and raise.

How does getting into a good school or getting promoted to a better job have anything to do with death? Well, it is that forward looking that we're examining here, both student and employee are looking to what is to come or what they hope to become (where they hope to be) and acting accordingly to put themselves in the best position to reach their goals. Now if we were to expand that to the full spectrum of life, the ultimate inevitability that we can observe in this existence is physical death. We know we were born, we know we will die, we don't really know much about what happens afterwards and we're currently living out the in between. However, if we let what will happen tomorrow affect how we act and live today, all the more should we not let what is ultimately inevitable for all of us affect our lives?

We live in a world of action and reaction, cause and effect, deed and consequence, and so on and so forth. While a lot of time we spend studying where we come from (history), we need also to plan for where we are going and that plan will determine ultimately how we are to live. Let us again consider the situation of a student. Now, a student who aimed to be a doctor would not spend large chunks of time taking literature or discrete mathematics courses, of course not. Our student would take only the necessary courses to graduate and focus his/her studies on subjects that would aid in the pursuit of a career in the field of medicine, taking classes on biology, anatomy, perhaps even pharmacology, and the like. Likewise an aspiring engineer would not stop to study philosphy, anthropology, or history extraordinarily extensively, but would put more effort into the familiarizing himself/herself in the realms of physics, mathematics, and other related sciences (depending on the brand of engineering). As we can see, what we aim for in the future determines what we do here and now. If we aim for nothing, we do nothing. So if where we are going determines what we do now, where is our ultimate destination but death? So therefore, the question of what happens after we die becomes rather important in regards to the meaning of life and the purpose for which we live.

Now I'm not going to come out and claim to be any expert on any sort of theological matters, in this case, afterlife, but there are a few more commonly held views out there that I'd like to explore. To me, there are three major ways we can look at what happens after death; nothing, reincarnation, or heaven/hell. As with the question of where we come from (the ever lengthy debate between creationism and evolution) each of these make a profound impact on how we are to live, I would go as far to say as to what our purpose is. The difficulty in such a question (as simple as it seems on the surface) is that we aren't really certain about it, and there is no way we can be certain about it until we experience it for ourselves (that is, when we die). While there is a great degree of uncertainty, that is no reason to shy away from the question for its impact on how we live is so great we cannot address it quickly enough. Why must we address it quickly? Well simply put, because we could die in any given instant. Morbid, but true. Anyways, I digress, let us press onward.

When I consider the idea of nothingness, I realize it's a relatively difficult idea to really grasp. While conceptually I can kind of imagine the idea of there be nothing, absolutely nothing, it's not something I can easily say that I can imagine. There's a difference, it might seem like I'm contradicting myself, but there's a difference, I can imagine the idea of nothingness, but not really nothingness itself, I suppose the best way to put it would be, ideal versus experiential imagination, or something like that. Sorry for all these minor tangents, but since I generally write colloquially, I'd probably do the same thing if we were actually talking, this way, you can just go back and read everything instead of having me repeat it again.

Anyways, while the concept of nothingness after this life (or death, however you want to put it) seems reassuring in the sense that it's all just over, the more I think about it the more I realize it's a pretty scary concept. So what exactly is the implication of nothing after death? Well firstly, it means that everything here is the be-all-end-all to our existence. Some might agree with that. It just simply means make the most of each moment because this one life is all we have. However, it also means that ultimately, there is no consequence to any of our actions. Life becomes a series of things "you get away with" simply because consequences are only temporal things, there are none afterward, the ultimate consequence is death, and everyone dies anyways, so it's just a matter of how. So if you get to do whatever you want and no adverse consequence comes of it, then great, you've made the most. If for some reason, something bad befalls you, well, it just sucks to be you. Concepts of right and wrong, crime and justice, fairness and unfairness, well, they're pretty arbitrary then, since all's well if you do something "wrong" and get away with it, right? What's to govern that? Society? Okay, perhaps to some degree, but if someone gets away with it, then hey, there's nothing beyond that right? This is starting to get a little abstract, so I'm going to try to bring this discussion to another issue. Let's take the simple law of economics; nothing happens if people don't see an inherent benefit or gain from doing something. I paraphrased that a little, but that's the general gist of it. If that's the case, what reason do I have to sacrifice what I have now for the sake of people tomorrow? For example, going green. Beyond some warm fuzzy feeling, what do I get out of it? I'll be gone, and if there's nothing afterward, I'm sacrificing something (money, comfort, time, just to name a few examples) for no gain to myself, right? Maybe it'll all change when I have children, but if I remain single for the rest of my life, then what benefit do I get from helping people in the future? Well, if I spend enough money, maybe a place in the history books, but again, if there's nothing after life, what good is it? It's not like I'll somehow know if I get mentioned in some 7th grader's history class as some altruistic gentleman or not. It sort of reminded me of the character the Joker from the most recent Batman film The Dark Knight. If there is no consequence beyond death, then why not live as you please until you die? Okay, so maybe you want to live long and die peacefully, fine, but my point is this, the mob boss that dies peacefully in bed because the police never could convict him is the same as the doctor working pro-bono in Africa who succumbed to some disease because of the poor living conditions. They both died naturally, and they go... nowhere, they become nothing. Intuitively, we want to make a distinction, but why? One impacted more people? Well, how about this example, two families, classic rags to riches story, both the fathers were poor but each managed to become successful and wealthy and provide for his family and generations to come. The difference, one came about his wealth through honest hard labor, the other through illegitimate and illegal practices. Both pass away quietly and peacefully in their old age. So now that they're both dead, they're the same, nothing. Okay... so, if the thief steals and gets away with it ends up the same as the man who sweat and work for every single dollar of his paycheck, then why bother with niceties like justice and law and order. It's the same as an investment, high-risk, high reward, low-risk, low reward. Since there is no ultimate consequence, those that are willing to face death (like say suicide bombers), can't be wrong. Sure we can condemn their actions, but hey, what're you going to do about it? They became nothing, just like everyone else before them, and just like all of us will after them. The victim and the perpetrator are both the same. Nothing. Intuitively, that just seems wrong, intuition is there for a reason. While intuitively we want to answer the question "Do you want to be remembered poorly?" with a no, if nothing were to come after death, then, what does it matter if I am remembered at all? It's not like the more I'm remembered the more I'm less nothing. Then again, that could be speculation on my part, but if we simply cease to exist as soon as our physical body expires, then, what reason have we to believe that by the will of others we can come back into existence?

If we look next into the idea of reincarnation, we find that the issue of consequence and action addressed via the means of karmic retribution. Our mob boss above who got away with stealing money will then be subject to a worse life the next time around in the great wheel of reincarnation, perhaps he will become a pauper, perhaps he'll become reincarnated as some beast of some form or another, a lowlier being than that of a human. Certainly the idea of getting another life based on how you do in this one brings some sense of consequence to our actions, but there's also a certain sense of futility to it, as if there's no real goal in mind. A lot of proponents of reincarnation say that we as humans are striving to become one with everything and thereby nothing, as far as I understand it, but if we're to become nothing, isn't that really just the same as what we discussed above, just with more rules and a more convoluted method getting there. I'm not here to really get into a whole lot of theology though, let's discuss the idea that you get a "better" life the next time around for the "good" life that you live now. First and foremost, we need a definition of what is "good". I think inherently we all have a general sense of what it is, but then when it comes to some more conflicting issues (like helping someone at the expense of another) then what is "good"? However, that also is another issue regarding ethics and morals that I don't intend to cover here, so the second issue then is what is a "better" life? There really isn't any apt measurement of what is "better" or "worse" in terms of living. Certainly, those who can provide for themselves are generally considered to have "better" lives than those who are starving, but how far does it go with haves and have-nots? Are more riches, more fame, more prominence, more whatever, really indications of a better life? Are we to say that an upper-middle class family having luxury cars, a large 4 bedroom home, the ability to fund its children through Ivy League college education, parents successfully working prominent positions, but on the brink of divorce due to family strife, disagreements, and miscommunication really lead a better life than that of a lower-middle class single-income family living happily and quietly in a small 2 bedroom apartment? What makes one life better than the other? Which situation would you rather be in? Is it physical posessions or is it the state of mind? We see people both in prince and pauper like situations with both kinds of mindsets. If we were to go further with the idea of potential reincarnation into non-human creatures, how do we know that a dog or insect live "worse" lives than that of a person? It's impossible. While the idea of consequence is there, it's fairly arbitrary given reincarnation, it really poses more questions than it answers, while there is the idea of action and reaction, choice and consequence, there is not much in terms of rhyme or reason behind how it is applied, in other words, there's really no feasible way to arbitrarily assign what kind of life is better than another, it's just life.

Finally then, is this concept of an afterlife, a final reckoning siphoning out the people between the two planes, as we'll call them, heaven and hell. It serves to say that there is an ultimate judgment that determines our place after our place here on this world in this life. What is this heaven then? Well, I can't say for sure as I've never been there, but from what I can reason, it can't be anything we can imagine. Some would have heaven being nothing but wealth and a blissful life of doing nothing, I'm pretty sure there are a good number of people that pretty much live that sort of lifestyle here and now, so if heaven can be achieved on earth then what need do we have for it? However, regardless of what exactly it is, it addresses the issue of what happens after one dies, and it gives each person a purpose, that is, an ultimate consequence for his/her life. It gives each of us a direction to move towards, and that is why, intuitively it seems the most reasonable and feasible answer. As a final note, allow me to point to Pascal's Wager, while I don't necessarily endorse those who have a flippant attitude towards it, it is something to ponder. Pascal's Wager states, that if I believe in God and I'm wrong about it, and there's nothing after death, then nothing happens, the same thing happens to me as everybody else, but if I don't believe in God and I'm wrong, then the consequences are both dire and eternal. Something for us to ponder and think about.

Mathletics: The Bane of Simple Reasoning

Maybe it's just me, and the fact that I didn't go into a math related field of study or profession. As a young child, I was subject to a lot of various math competitions, such as Math Olympiads, and I went to a lot of various classes ("summer programs") which my parents enrolled me in to improve my math and problem solving abilities. The word problems hence were designed to be tricky and convoluted in the methodology of solving it. It's effective in enabling the student to handle high capacity mental challenges, and complicated calculations and logical trains of thought. However, the problem with that is, that it conditions the student also (at least it did for me) to always look for the complicated answer first. The nature of the problems always encourages students to try the complicated or "hard" way first because the painfully and obviously "easy" way is always wrong or doesn't work. Better to start with the convoluted method that almost always guarantees a sensible answer of some sort than the simple method that potentially could result in a dead end.

I don't know, this is sort of an epiphany to me I guess... It is I suppose in the light of taking the GMATs, the math isn't really very difficult, but I feel like I would be doing better on it if it were. The problem that is created is that Math Olympiads and problems of the sort promote over-thinking of exceptionally simple problems. This perhaps explains why some exceptionally brilliant mathematical minds seem to always underperform when it comes to standardized testing. I'm not by any means saying that my mind exudes mathematical brilliance, far from it, I believe I have a very average notion of mathematics and things of the sort. However, having grown up with this kind of problem solving training, I definitely believe that my initial reaction or move to solve any problem is to make it more complicatd than necessary.

In conclusion: mathletics isn't necessarily bad, certainly there are merits to being a mathlete, and benefits in scholastic achievement. However, make sure you supplement it with simple problem solving too. Otherwise, don't be overly surprised if the SATs or something sometimes seem like its jipping you out of something.

I Think I Like Writing

I do, I really do.

Ever since getting on the blog scene, I've been pretty content with doing this sort of stuff fairly regularly, enough so that I've casually considered a career shift that would enable me to get paid to do something like this. Wouldn't that be swell. The problem in and of itself, I suppose, most often isn't necessarily the desire to write, I'd have a new post every other hour if I could, but the simple fact of the matter is that I don't really have that much to write about sometimes. I suppose it's something rather natural, something known as "writers' block". It happens to me fairly frequently, and thus I don't have anything to come out with. Specifically though, I like this form of communicative writing that enables to me to in a sense "converse" with people through the screen. One of the quirks (I like to think of it as a quirk) is that the way in which I write is something that I would actually say to people. I hope that it reads more like something of a conversation than anything of an academic work or something. Of course, it could just be the case that my conversation is always stodgy and uptight.

It's not that I haven't tried the whole writing thing before, I've actually made a foray at attempting to write a novel, specifically in the fantasy genre. Unfortunately, my narrative is somewhat lacking and my ideas a little unoriginal, so that didn't go very far. As you few readers who look through this blog have realized, I don't really have all that much to write about content wise, hence the lack of posts. My NBA blog I update extensively and regularly, though I don't know that I'll be anything of an expert nor would I be anywhere near I think getting paid to do that. Likewise for cooking, sans the regular updating thing.

All in all, I think I've found another thing I like, but I don't know that I could make a living of it. I've pondered the option of journalism, but that would require me to go back and redo school, which is something I don't know if I'm necessarily inclined to do, or maybe supplement with something of a communications focus, perhaps that's another option. However, I don't know that I'd be a very good columnist save for an opinion article here and there. It hasn't been explored extensively, but then again, I don't know that many of my hobbies and viable career options have been.

So, yeah, in conclusion; I like writing, I just don't have a lot to write about sometimes. I think.