Thursday, January 29, 2009

Challenge




Nicked this off someone else's blog. Made me laugh!... I sincerely hope this isn't what I hear when I meet JC. By the way, Pete's not at the entrance of heaven, can you imagine how annoying that would be, if you were Jesus' closest friend and just wanted to hang out with him, but he gave you the job of waiting outside to direct people to the party?... That would suck. Please people, re-read Matthew 16 and understand that passage the way it was meant to be, not the way some religious guy misread it...

Saturday, January 24, 2009

A legacy

Mythopoeia - John Ronald Reuel Tolkien


To one who said that myths were lies and therefore worthless, even though 'breathed through silver.'


Philomythus to Misomythus


You look at trees and label them just so,
(for trees are 'trees,' and growing is 'to grow');
you walk the earth and tread with solemn pace
one of the many minor globes of Space:
a star's a star, some matter in a ball
compelled to courses mathematical
amid the regimented, cold, Inane,
where destined atoms are each moment slain.

At bidding of a Will, to which we bend
(and must), but only dimly apprehend,
great processes march on, as Time unrolls
from dark beginnings to uncertain goals;
and as on page o'erwritten without clue,
with script and limning packed of various hue,
an endless multitude of forms appear,
some grim, some frail, some beautiful, some queer,
each alien, except as kin from one
remote Origo, gnat, man, stone, and sun.
God made the petrous rocks, the arboreal trees,
tellurian earth, and stellar stars, and these
homuncular men, who walk upon the ground
with nerves that tingle touched by light and sound.
The movements of the sea, the wind in boughs,
green grass, the large slow oddity of cows,
thunder and lightning, birds that wheel and cry,
slime crawling up from mud to live and die,
these each are duly registered and print
the brain's contortions with a separate dint.

Yet trees are not 'trees,' until so named and seen -
and never were so named, till those had been
who speech's involuted breath unfurled,
faint echo and dim picture of the world,
but neither record nor a photograph,
being divination, judgement, and a laugh,
response of those that felt astir within
by deep monition movements that were kin
to life and death of trees, of beasts, of stars:
free captives undermining shadowy bars,
digging the foreknown from experience
and panning the vein of spirit out of sense.
Great powers they slowly brought out of themselves,
and looking backward they beheld the elves
that wrought on cunning forges in the mind,
and light and dark on secret looms entwined.

He sees no stars who does not see them first
of living silver made that sudden burst
to flame like flowers beneath an ancient song,
whose very echo after music long
has since pursued. There is no firmament,
only a void, unless a jewelled tent
myth-woven and elf-patterned; and no earth,
unless the mother's womb whence all have birth.

The heart of man is not compound of lies,
but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,
and still recalls him. Though now long estranged,
man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.
Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned,
and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned,
his world-dominion by creative act:
not his to worship the great Artefact,
man, sub-creator, the refracted light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with elves and goblins, though we dared to build
gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sow the seeds of dragons, 'twas our right
(used or misused). The right has not decayed.
We make still by the law in which we're made.

Yes! 'wish-fulfilment dreams' we spin to cheat
our timid hearts and ugly Fact defeat!
Whence came the wish, and whence the power to dream,
or some things fair and others ugly deem?
All wishes are not idle, nor in vain
fulfilment we devise -- for pain is pain
not for itself to be desired, but ill;
or else to strive or to subdue the will
alike were graceless; and of Evil this
alone is dreadly certain: Evil is.

Blessed are the timid hearts that evil hate,
that quail in its shadow, and yet shut the gate;
that seek no parley, and in guarded room,
though small and bare, upon a clumsy loom
weave tissues gilded by the far-off day
hoped and believed in under Shadow's sway.

Blessed are the men of Noah's race that build
their little arks, though frail and poorly filled,
and steer through winds contrary towards a wraith,
a rumour of a harbour guessed by faith.

Blessed are the legend-makers with their rhyme
of things not found within recorded time.
It is not they that have forgot the Night,
or bid us flee to organized delight,
in lotus-isles of economic bliss
forswearing souls to gain a Circe-kiss
(and counterfeit at that, machine-produced,
bogus seduction of the twice seduced).
Such isles they saw afar, and ones more fair,
and those that hear them yet may yet beware.
They have seen Death and ultimate defeat,
and yet they would not in despair retreat,
but oft to victory have turned the lyre
and kindled hearts with legendary fire,
illuminating Now and dark Hath-been
with light of suns as yet by no man seen.

I would that I might with the minstrels sing
and stir the unseen with a throbbing string.
I would be with the mariners of the deep
that cut their slender planks on mountains steep
and voyage upon a vague and wandering quest,
for some have passed beyond the fabled West.
I would with the beleaguered fools be told,
that keep an inner fastness where their gold,
impure and scanty, yet they loyally bring
to mint in image blurred of distant king,
or in fantastic banners weave the sheen
heraldic emblems of a lord unseen.

I will not walk with your progressive apes,
erect and sapient. Before them gapes
the dark abyss to which their progress tends -
if by God's mercy progress ever ends,
and does not ceaselessly revolve the same
unfruitful course with changing of a name.
I will not treat your dusty path and flat,
denoting this and that by this and that,
your world immutable wherein o part
the little maker has with maker's art.
I bow not yet before the Iron Crown,
nor cast my own small golden sceptre down.

In Paradise perchance the eye may stray
from gazing upon everlasting Day
to see the day-illumined, and renew
from mirrored truth the likeness of the True.
Then looking on the Blessed Land 'twill see
that all is as it is, and yet made free:
Salvation changes not, nor yet destroys,
garden nor gardener, children nor their toys.
Evil will not see, for evil lies
not in God's picture but in crooked eyes,
not in the source but in malicious choice,
and not in sound but in the tuneless voice.
In Paradise they no more look awry;
and though they make anew, they make no lie.
Be sure they still will make, not being dead,
and poets shall have flames upon their head,
and harps whereon their faultless fingers fall:
there each shall choose for ever from the All.

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Feel free to complain


Saw this loser the other day, with a t-shirt printed like so walk past me in the library. I thought those kinds of t-shirts were only found in England. What an intellectual... Seriously, women should line up to kick this guy in the nuts; I don’t know which would be more beneficial for him, a sit-down and chat or a few rounds of smacking him about in the octagon…
Now, much ink has been spilt, and keyboard keys used over the issue of male and female roles and such, and though I’d love to, at some point, present a full study of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics on this issue, I’m just going to say a few things from my recent experience and reflexions… Many are, or would say they are offended at my point of view, but the truth is, men lead. It’s in their nature. The problem is that most men lead badly, because of ... selfishness, indifference, whatnot... I don’t think I’m saying anything new here, by the way. It’s seen at a macro scale in the way western society has evolved in the past several decades, where so many women have become more and more the kind of girls guys think up in their fantasies and look at in magazines. The kind of leadership offered by men in most arenas is one of selfishness and indifference. The justifiable answer to the mess created by such an attitude is seen in the feminist response: “Screw you, we’re doing our thing!” And why should they follow such bogus leadership? Are they any less intelligent or capable? (Though does that mean they would be any less selfish...?) Equality is good - yes, I know, I’m saying more and more exciting, incredible new things - the problem is that the attitude backing a lot of those arguments exacerbates an existing issue. Feminism, at its extreme, calls women not to coexist, but to separate from men. This creates a mentality of division and war, how is that going to solve anything, when half the people in this world are the opposite sex from you.
Did we start it? Maybe… Stupid jokes which I myself have laughed to, comments en passant, both men and women have been at it really, and they get nastier as one pushes the boundary; once you snap out of it, you should realise: we’ve created a culture of rivalry between male and female, where we think about what we can get out of the opposite sex and what we can get away with saying and doing, instead of one of respectful complicity, where we aim to serve one another and look for opportunities to do so, since yes, we do have different gifting and wiring!

But instead, because of the rightful disgust thrown at the macho stereotype, masculinity is being redefined, and he should really get out of that chair and stop that makeover, ‘cause it’s not looking good. Oh what the hell, I said it! Now, real masculinity isn’t necessarily looking like Randy Couture (on the left, the warrior himself); but it certainly doesn’t have straightened hair and shaved armpits (look at me! guy on the right with overpriced haircut and probably wearing eyeliner): what can you expect from a guy who spends that much time on his appearance? Does he have his priorities down?

My point is definitely not that outward appearance is what matters in masculinity, it’s about inner conviction and motivations. And there’s a sort of tug-of-war between people who want men to be, well, men, people who want men to be more like women and then there are those who just accept and conform to the trend in comfortable political correctness. Recently, I happened to talk to a few girls who admitted to really liking the style of “emo” guys… Why is that? What can they expect from them? Emotionality without substance. Fashion wins. Everyone else loses. (Someone told me recently that because I show sensitivity, I’m in touch with my feminine side… I’m not in touch, nor do I need to get in touch with my feminine side; I don’t have one, because, oh yes, I’m a man. On the other hand, I have plenty of honest, masculine sensitivity.) I know smart, sensible women who date losers without any vision or scope in life, and they just accept the state of affairs.

Why should women settle for anything less than solid, gentle men? They should be able to expect a better quality of men, men who, in the words of Chris Rock, “handle their business!” Neither the ones who treat them like toilets, nor the ones who expect them to be their mum; guys who run into relationships without thinking about what it will take to carry it forward, who really just want a girl hanging from their arm, like you wanted when you were a teenager. I had a chat with a girl at a party a couple weeks back, and talking about relationships, and about how I’ve not had any stories with girls for several years, she told me that I over-analyse situations and girls, and I don’t get into relationships because of a fear of getting hurt… This doesn’t happen to me very often, but though there may have been some truth there, I couldn’t help feeling that statement was wrong, something didn’t feel right about it (you know how when someone lays truth on you it just hits you right there - not that feeling). I put my finger on it several days later: it’s not that I have a fear of getting hurt as much as how I don’t want to cause unnecessary pain to someone else, because there’s no need to jump into relationships just to then jump out of them having hurt and left emotional scars on someone else. I felt good about that! I’m not saying this to praise myself, but in order to say “that’s what our thinking should be!” That’s how we treat women! Don’t go into a relationship you don’t think you can, or want to, lead!


Now, some may say “I find that offensive! The idea that men lead relationships is outdated and incoherent with our society!” Let me say, that means nothing: opinions are ever-evolving and so is society; the incoherence of society is phenomenal, where people judge those who hold to “outdated” ideals while thinking theirs are “innovative”, when these cycles have been happening for thousands of years, and 50 years down the line, people may believe something completely different anyway. I’ve seen marriages broken by indifference, struggles of leadership, and seen others, led by great men, blossoming with ever-increasing joy. So my ideas are outdated. But what’s the fruit? Gentle, sacrificial, caring, leading love. Wouldn't it be great to set that as the standard for men?

I’m not speaking as one who is qualified, but rather one whose eyes are fixed on that goal, to become less selfish, more caring, and ultimately, the kind of guy who will honour all women equally and love the one he marries all the way to the end.