Finding Courage

When the Famicom (a.k.a. Family Computer) or NES (Nintendo Entertainment System) first came out in the 1980s, one of the most popular games released by Nintendo was The Legend of Zelda. It was revolutionary for its time, and one of the concepts I liked about it was the idea of the triforce. The triforce was comprised of three triangles (I'd say pyramid but the graphics was still 2D at the time), each one representing a virtue: power, courage, and wisdom. The bad guy had the triforce of power. The hero, Link, had the triforce of courage. Later in the series, he'd eventually get the triforce of wisdom, and eventually, the triforce of power as well. Now some people might tell me it's just a game. That may be true. Yet the triforce hearkens to my soul. Why did Link start out with the triforce of courage and not wisdom? Is it really possible that through courage, one can seize power from the big, bad overlord?

Many of us have our own perceptions of what it is to possess courage. For some people, it might mean conquering your fears. For others, it could be doing stuff you don't want to do. Or laying your life down for others. Or sacrificing your life. Or standing up for what you believe in. No matter what your concept of courage is, it's always something positive. But so is the concept of wisdom. And sometimes, power as well. There are also a dozen other virtues out there. Yet why does courage stand out before the rest, or at least why is it so important?

Let's first look at power. I don't think power is really a virtue. It's neutral. Depending on who you ask, power has a different meaning. But most of them don't mind having power. Some might shun it, thinking that it can corrupt them, or believing that they are unworthy of it. Well, I honestly don't think it can corrupt people, at least to the extent that most people think. Power (whether it's wealth, authority, or even freedom) simply magnifies who you are: if you are a good person, you can use power to do good. If you're a selfish person, then giving you more power will only make your selfishness more evident. Perhaps the only difference between a powerless person and a powerful person is that the latter has more options in life. Sometimes, our inner greed isn't apparent simply because we either didn't have the option to do so before, or there were drastic consequences if we had acted in such a manner. As for those believing that they are unworthy of power, well, it depends on the person. If you underestimate yourself too much, then you'll never reach your full potential. If you rate your skills too poorly, you'll never amount to much, because you'll never stretch yourself to your limits and you'll never grow. You can also rate yourself too high if shunning power is really your way of showing false humility. There are drastic consequences when you overestimate yourself. One of the more common stories I hear from people who go to the gym is that on their first day, they lift more weights than they should because they thought that they could do more. What results is that they strain their muscles too much and are in pain for several days. For me, personal assessment is akin to the laws of supply and demand: one seeks equilibrium. Too much demand and prices rise. Too little demand and prices fall. In a certain way, it's easier to help the person who overestimates himself. It costs him his pride, but all he has to do is tone down his expectations of himself until he reaches the point where he operates at optimum efficiency. The person who underestimates himself, on the other hand, will perhaps have the more difficult time. On one hand, he should take pride in the fact that he could do more. But there's something he has to have in order to take that first step in doing more than what he's used to. What I'm talking about is courage. It takes courage for a person to accept more power, it takes courage for a man to go beyond what he thinks he's capable of. Don't get me wrong, it also takes courage for a person to swallow his pride and take on less responsibility than he thinks he's capable of. But one can't deny that it also takes courage to keep on taking steps to obtain power, whatever that may be for you.

Next there's wisdom. Some people call it knowledge, or intelligence, or insight. For me, wisdom is simply knowing what to do. Whatever it maybe, unlike power, you can never have too much of it. In the case of the person who is offered power, wisdom might take the form of knowing whether you're being given too much power, just enough, or too little. Yet as useful as that may be, it's useless if you don't act on it. Even until college, when the teacher asked a question that I knew the answer to, I won't always raise my hand. I hesitate because I think of the possibility of being wrong, hence embarrassing myself in class if I made a mistake. What's the difference between the times I raised my hand and when I didn’t? You guessed it, courage. Not that I always get it correct. Sometimes, I do embarrass myself in front of the class. But you know what, by the very fact that I attempted to answer the question and mentioned what I thought the correct answer was, I got corrected. And that's when I gain more wisdom. Because what I thought was right was actually wrong and it was brought to my attention. For me, wisdom and courage often went together. I mean it takes courage to search for wisdom. For example, if you did something that you were unsure of was wrong or right, one would be tempted not to look for the right answer. At least in uncertainty, you had a 50/50 chance of possessing the moral high ground, and you had the ultimate scapegoat, which is saying "I didn't know". But searching for the right answer, ah, that's more difficult. Because not only do you expend your energy searching for the right answer, you must also accept the possibility of being wrong. And when you do realize you are wrong, what do you do next? Most of the steps in acquiring wisdom involves courage. And similarly, wisdom is reduced to plain knowledge if you don't act on it. Yet on the other hand, without wisdom, even your most courageous acts will seem like folly to most people. A person who runs into a burning building without a plan (or know who to save and how to get out) is foolish since it's almost identical to suicide. The person had good intentions, no doubt, but the people watching him burn wouldn’t know that. But if the person had an escape plan and managed to rescue a few people, then he'd be a hero, even if it costs him his life. Here, we see wisdom and courage in tandem.

There are also other virtues like temperance, fortitude, and justice. Well, one can't enact temperance without courage. The same goes for justice. Fortitude simply entails not only possessing courage but maintaining it as well. In Buddhism, there's also realizing your true self, eternity, happiness, and purity. It takes a combination of wisdom and courage to actualize all of these. So to me, it seems like courage revolves around the virtues. Yet knowing all this is like possessing wisdom: we know what we should do. But the question is, what do we do about it? In a way, it's like smoking. No one believes that smoking is good for your health. Yet a significant number of the population does it. And they're actually killing themselves (and those around them) slowly. To me, that's possessing wisdom without courage. And in certain ways, it’s worse than being ignorant and doing something wrong because you didn't know any better. That's probably one of the reasons why Jesus in the Bible was so aggressive about missionary work and preaching: if you told people about the Good News, then the reason they're not saved isn't your burden; but if they haven't heard it, then part of the blame is upon you, the people who have heard the Good News and didn't share it. Which is why I must ask, how does one find courage?

Well, I can assure you no one is born 100% courageous. I say that because everyone fears something, everyone has a weakness or two. Yet there's something in these people that enabled them to overcome this limitation. Name me a profession which you think requires courage: military officer, teachers, missionaries, actors/actresses. Sounds like a bunch of brave people, right? Well, I don't think all military officers were born brave. But I can bet you all of them have a certain need, which is why they joined the army. Maybe it's a desire to support their families at home, or to protect their homeland, or to just earn money. These reasons are what drives them to conquer their fears and go beyond what they think they can do. The same goes for teachers. Do you think teachers aren't shy? I knew a teacher who talks to a wall as a way to practice and calm herself before a class. Is she afraid and tense? Yes. What drives her to go on teaching? I don't know. Maybe she thinks its her calling. Or maybe she realizes the good she can do with her work, and continues nonetheless despite her inner doubts. And missionaries? For all its perks, missionaries also endure a lot of hardship, whether its entering unknown territory, moving when you've just grown attached to a place, or simply being in danger from those opposed against your belief. And I don't think they honestly get financially compensated enough for those kinds of predicaments. Yet they go on, because their cause is something they believe in, something they feel they must do. Believe it or not, actors and actresses get star struck as well. I just saw Jennifer Love Hewitt a few days ago at Conan O’Brien’s talk show and she narrated at how frantic she was when she met Catherine Zeta Jones. Actors do get frightened. And I'm sure that on their first live performance, they were tense as well. Yet they manage to get over it. There's something that drives them to do so.

I think my main point is that even if you're a regular Joe, you're also capable of displaying courage. It doesn't take a unique and special person to be a courageous person. One merely needs to dig deep down within himself/herself and realize one's motivations in life. Sometimes, that's enough. If you're a parent, you probably won't walk on a tightrope, but if your child was on the other end, you'd probably risk your life to save the life of your child. If you have a dream, that dream might be worth sacrificing your time and effort and enable you to go out of your comfort zone. If you belong to a team, responsibility and duty for the team might give you the courage to do what you must do rather than what you think you want. What's the secret of the triforce? It's uniting courage and wisdom to obtain power. Realizing your innermost desires, your motivations in life, takes wisdom. Acting on those dreams takes courage. And when you synthesize both, you acquire power. Power to realize more of you self, and power to do more than you previously could.

Do As You Please

I think each and every one of us has tried doing what we want, even if it comes at the cost of other people. We do as we please, as if we're answerable to no one. And more often than not, there's someone that stops us or scolds us, whether it's our parents, our teachers, our employers, or our peers. The most common excuse I've heard is "it's my life, let me do what I want". I can't deny that we have free will and that we could possibly do what we want. But as for whether we own our lives, that's where I beg to differ.

For the most part, I think most of us underestimates our worth. I don't think we own our lives entirely to ourselves simply for the fact that what we do not only affects us but affects other people as well. As much as we want our lives to be as private as masturbation, it really isn't. We're born with relationships and our words and actions reflect on the people we have relationships with. If you don't believe me, just look at your name. Your whole name. What does it say? Mine is Charles Tan. I'm sure that already tells you a lot about me. And who my family is. I mean my last name already associates me with my parents and relatives. Or perhaps even other people you know that have the same last name as me even if I'm not related to them. How I speak and what I do not only gives you an impression of myself but of those other people as well. We can't help it: we human beings make associations and generalizations. They're not always true or factual but we make them nonetheless. If, for example, I lied to you, then one of the impressions you could make is that all Chinese are liars, or at least those with the family name of Tan. And you in turn will share these impressions with other people you meet, either consciously or unconsciously. I've caused a chain reaction simply by existing. Like most things, our ability to do this swings both ways. It could be used for people's benefit, or to people's detriment. Which is why that to a certain extent, I think it's everybody's duty to be responsible.

Maybe you don't care about your family. There are other relationships you're involved with. I, for example, am associated with a lot of people and organizations: my school, the university I studied in, my religion, my nationality, my occupation, and my friends. The good things you do reflects on them. The bad things that you do reflects on them as well, whether we intend it or not. We once had a speaker at my alma matter during the impeachment of former president Joseph Estrada. The speaker was an alumni from UP and he talked at how proud he was when Marcos was elected into office. And then felt shame at the events of Martial Law. And didn't Ateneo also take pride at its high-school dropout when he became president of the Philippines? Of course now that former president Joseph Estrada was being impeached, the speaker felt that things were even between the two universities. See, even if you occupy a powerful position, you're still accountable to a lot of people, whether it's your countrymen, your alma matter, or your family name. You just can't say "I'll do it because I feel like it", at least not with the "important" decisions. And I highlight "important" because some of the things we deem unimportant are actually important and vice versa. For example, deciding what food you'll eat or not eat might not seem like an important decision. But perhaps you're a hero to a number of people and you know how people feel about heroes, they're admired and often mimicked. If you drink alcohol and smoke, chances are, other people will drink alcohol and smoke as well.

I was just reading John Maxwell's The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork and one of the things he pointed out was how one bad apple can ruin the whole bunch. And it's happened in real life. I mean I attribute the not-so-good reputation of Christianity to a few rotten apples. I mean let's face it, not all Christians are good Christians. Yet what turns off a number of people aren't the good Christians but rather the bad ones, perhaps those who are hypocrites, or the ones that take advantage of other people. And I've seen this also happen to organizations ("I don't like to join that group because I don't like this person") and even countries ("Arabs attacked our nation so all Arabs should suffer"). We know it's not right (both on those who are actually performing the wrong deeds and those making the false conclusions) yet it's pervasive in most cultures. So what's the solution?

Obviously, one way is to think things thoroughly and not make shallow generalizations. One can do this by understanding the other side and where they're coming from. Or actually taking the time to investigate things and not be dissuaded by the actions of a few. It's easy to say but difficult to implement, is it not? Well, there's also another way. It's to be good examples yourselves. I mean if people don't see wrong behavior, they can't make wrong generalizations. Perhaps that's even more difficult to implement. Yet that's something we should all strive for. Caution and discretion is something we should exercise in everything we do, not just when the spotlight is on us. Because honestly, there are times when we don't know that the spotlight is on us. There'll always be someone watching, listening. Those who live consistent lives make the best role models.

When I get the urge to simply do what I want, I ask myself whether what I'm doing is aligned with my beliefs, my standards, and how it affects other people. That doesn't mean I can't have a good time. Contrary to popular belief, having a good time isn't always doing the wrong things. Have you given a gift to someone? Or helped out a friend? Did you feel good? Now was that a bad thing? And of course, if you don't think it's wrong, it's okay to do it. I mean some people condemn drinking. For me, what's apprehensive is either obsessive drinking or drinking too much. Moderate drinking (which is actually less than what most people would consider "moderate") is fine. But just because I said that does not give us an excuse to do whatever we want. I espouse the belief of doing what you think is right, or at the very least, something you aren't ashamed of letting other people know you're doing. And of course, along those lines is not being a hypocrite.

One cannot simply live as if we don't owe anything to the world. It's often stated that along with freedom comes responsibility or duty. Hey, even if we kill ourselves, we don't absolve ourselves from the rest of the world. Somebody has to pay for the funeral, and somebody will mourn losing you. If you think your life is meaningless, think again. Your actions have an effect on someone else, whether directly or indirectly. We exist not merely for our own sakes, but for other people as well.

Christianity is Difficult

What amazes me is that many people, including both Christians and non-Christians, have this belief that Christianity is an easy religion. Or better yet, that the Christian God is so benevolent that nothing bad can happen to those who worship Him. I'm really sorry to dispel your illusions, but Christianity is anything but easy. In fact, being a Christian will give you extraordinary burdens and might even land you in trouble depending on the situation.

First off, those expecting rewards and riches from being a Christian should forget all that. If you look closely at the New Testament, you'll see that Jesus died on the cross, suffering for our sins. And along the way, a lot of good people suffered as well, be it the Apostles, Jesus's disciples, and sincere believers. If you're a Catholic, a lot of martyrs and saints died a horrible death and lived problematic lives. Now I'm not saying all this to scare you. I'm just setting expectations, and showing how Christianity never promised paradise on Earth if that's what you're expecting. And don't be disheartened by all the gloom and doom surrounding the protagonists of the Church. They might have suffered a lot but it was in the service of a cause they believed in. Just look at your modern day heroes, and not just the Christian ones. Every hero had to endure suffering at one point or another in order to achieve their goal. War heroes sacrificed their life for the glory of their country, artists starve and get criticized before creating their masterpieces, and even successful entrepreneurs have their fair share of failed businesses. The point? They all felt that the cost was well worth it. And in the end, they found their sense of worth and purpose. I always believed that everything came at a price. In the case of Christianity, part of the price you pay will be suffering. We can't take that away, although some Christians do suffer less than others. No one can guarantee that you won't suffer for your belief, but I can guarantee you that you don't have genuine belief in something if you're not willing to suffer for it.

Another common complaint I hear is "why does God allow this to happen?" or "why do good people suffer?". First and foremost, I'd like to point out that the value system of Christianity is a meritocracy: people get what they deserve, or that life should be fair. Understand that Christians are striving for that because that's not the reality. That might be the case in heaven but obviously, that's not the case here on Earth. Why does God allow it to happen? Well, what most believers will tell you is that God has a purpose for us and only He knows where it'll take us. And in certain ways, that's true. I mean I don't know what tomorrow might bring. An unfortunate event today might shape my life so that it'll be a boon in the future. Let's say you get into an accident today, rendering you temporarily paralyzed. And then tomorrow there's a war and the army conscripts all able-bodied people to go to war. The previous day, my accident might seem like the worst thing that could have happened. But in light of recent events, it might appear like a blessing in disguise since I don't have to go to war. My other take on it is that well, unfortunate events do happen to everyone and not just to Christians. In fact, the true test of a Christian is when he faces adversity. I mean let's face it, it's easy to be good and kind when the situation is in your favor: if you're rich, it's easier to give; if you're in a good mood, it's easier to smile; when you have time, it's easier to be there for others. But when the situation is reversed, it's similarly more difficult. And in the end, if you look at things, the only reason the human race has evolved is because it continues to strive, to become better than it already is. The only reason that can occur is when we face adversity. As for the question "why do good people suffer", well, why not? Suffering makes us human. It enables us to empathize with other suffering people as well. Honestly, would you go back to the archaic belief that sick people are possessed by evil spirits? Life is far from black and white and not as distinguishable as that. As long as you're living, you will suffer. Your moral outlook on life won't change that. And for all this negative talk about what God allows and what he doesn't allow, have you ever stopped to ask "how has God blessed me today?" or "does God reward good people?" Sure, even evil people are blessed and rewarded. I can't deny that. But good people tend to be happier about it (not that evil people aren't happy when they're blessed and rewarded) because they usually attribute it to an external source, whether it be God, their friends, or some other agency. Good people don't think their achievement is the result of their own effort alone. They recognize that it was possible through the aid of others, and how fortunate they really are to have those kind of people around.

When we were children, some of us were criticized by our parents for our grades. If we got a 99 out of a 100, they'd give us a sermon for not getting that one question right. If you were in that situation, don't you wish that they'd praise you for getting the 99 other questions correct rather than focus on your one mistake? In a certain way, that's how we see God when disaster falls upon us. We don't stop and thank him for the fact that we're still alive and that we have friends, family, and whatever wealth (no matter how small or big that sum is) we have. Rather, some of us criticize God for this and that. Honestly, when you look at the bigger picture, we have a lot more to be thankful for more than to be angry about. And the cynics out there might tell me God has no right to be 99 out of a 100 because he's supposed to perfect. Well, to me, God is perfect in the fact that he gives us imperfect conditions. Because people are imperfect, and I honestly doubt it if we'd appreciate perfect conditions. I mean if you suddenly had the perfect friend or boyfriend/girlfriend, at some point, you'll be jealous of him/her or be annoyed at him/her; because they can do no wrong, while your mistakes just keep on piling up. As human beings, we have imperfect needs, and the only way we grow is usually through imperfect experiences. Or think of it as God as your guardian angel (and He actually is). The dilemma of the guardian angel is that the only time you only realize he's around (or rather, he's not around) is when disaster strikes you. Does one really get to appreciate the rest of the time he's guarding you? And hey, I personally wouldn't blame God if he faltered for just a moment just to make us realize that He's there. But I don't think God is that petty.

Being a Christian is difficult, huh? Well, anything worthwhile is usually difficult. In fact, the only time people grow, mature, and learn is when we encounter something difficult. If Christianity was easy, everyone would sign on and we'd all be living in paradise. But that's not the case. The call to be a Christian is difficult. And many of us are reluctant to heed that call precisely because of that fact. But in my perspective, life will be difficult either way. You'll still encounter problems (although not necessarily the same problems a Christian will face) and have to wake up every morning to the same planet. Perhaps what differentiates a Christian from a non-Christian is their genuine belief. More than their actions, a Christian's belief is what separates him or her from non-Christians. Because if you have a genuine faith, you'll know that there's meaning in your life, no matter what the results of your actions will be. If you don't have that kind of belief, the best you can come up with is the statement of "we'll never know". And in a certain sense, even for Christians, that is true. There's a lot of things at this point in time that we'll never know. But I'd rather go on living with a belief in something, rather than live a life without one. As one of my philosophy teachers would say, even if in the end, Christianity is one big hoax, at the very least, I'll be a better person for my belief.

Does Appearance Matter?

Obviously, aesthetics plays an important role in people's lives. Why are people fascinated with the sunrise, or why wear clothes at all and not just uniforms? Physical appearance is a form of beauty, and it's something everyone can appreciate. I think I need to rephrase my question from whether appearance matters or not. A better question would be whether beauty is important, or even necessary, in a situation where it's not the main criteria (or at least it's not the "apparent" criteria).

The first thing that comes to mind is politics. In the Philippines, it's not merely enough that you be savvy when it comes to laws, policies, and integrity. Filipinos want the whole package: they want charm, personality, and yes, beauty. I'm not saying this is wrong per se, but rather Filipinos want it all. My political science teacher told me that in Japan, the Japanese merely settle for intelligence and predictability. It doesn't matter if their leaders are boring or ugly, as long as they get the job done. And it does their nation credit as well since Japan is a powerful nation, both politically and economically. The same can't be said for the Philippines though. Let's face it, aesthetics plays an important role in our lives. That's why each of our jeepneys appear unique and don't look like the result of some mass-production system. If we want a charismatic leader, go ahead and vote for him or her. The only thing that irks me though is that in the absence of knowledge regarding the candidate, Filipinos go for the only thing that they can immediately determine: the person's looks. I've heard people vote based on appearance. "Mas guwapo siya eh," ("He's more handsome") is usually the criteria some Filipinos base their decisions on. And let's face it, taking a quick glance from the newspaper or pamphlet that promotes who you are, the only thing you can determine in those five seconds is really the person's appearance. Not the candidate's stance, or his position, or even his values, but his appearance (and the cynics in the country would justify that the politicians are lying about their positions and beliefs anyway). My advice to would-be politicians? Invest time and money with a good marketer. In Japan, it's good enough that you'll survive with merely your brains and skills. Unfortunately, the Philippines isn't Japan. Appearances do matter in this country. Is it fair? Well, like I said, Filipinos want it all and won't settle for anything less (and sometimes, that's not a bad thing).

Second is when it comes to occupation. There's a reason why resumes come with ID pictures. And honestly, no matter what your job or career is, it's always an advantage to have a pretty face. Or at least a smiling one. Honestly, if we had two people of equal skill and talent, who would you choose? Or perhaps a better analogy would be if we had identical twins raised in the same manner and had the same set of friends, except one of them got into an accident that left them physically scarred, who would you choose based on preference and not on pity (or even sympathy for that matter). Unfortunately, some of us get too carried away and hire those with prettier faces rather than those who are more qualified. Of course that's not always a crime per se. It perhaps depends on your criteria for "qualified". There 's "qualified" in which the person is perfectly capable of performing a certain task, except the other, less pretty person does it better, and there's "qualified" wherein the prettier person is inept at it. The former is an acceptable decision for me. Because honestly, in an occupation set-up, there are a lot of factors that can affect work which isn't solely based on output. Perhaps the prettier person has a more pleasant personality or appearance. That builds up the company's morale (and let's face it, morale is not exactly something you can measure scientifically). Or perhaps the person in question is in a position where his or her appearance is needed for optimum performance, such as being the company's spokesperson or in the marketing branch of the company (because honestly, clients and customers are more willing to concede to the company if the person they're talking to is more pleasant or pretty). And besides, if it was something like TV or print-ads, appearance is everything. The other person might be more talented or acts better, but the prettier person might be the better choice since he or she can get the product more attention. Just take a look at the Korean actress Sandara; honestly, she irritates me, but lots of Filipinos adore her simply because she's pretty. Now the question you'll be asking is whether this is fair or not. Well, sometimes it actually is. If someone pretty can get me better results, then hiring him or her is a fair decision. Sometimes it's not, such as choosing someone based on looks alone rather than on their actual qualifications. But of course, if it's a deadlock (i.e. similar qualifications), you really can't blame the employer if they choose the prettier one.

Something I'd like to add to the second example is how people in general are usually more receptive to prettier people. I mean take your teacher for example. If he was a hot stud or she was a beautiful babe, wouldn't you be more willing to pay attention in class (or listen to what the other person has to say)? Of course this is not always effective since you can also lose "authority" based on your appearance, but in general, people give you credit based on first impressions. Now we all know first impressions aren't exactly the most efficient way of judging people. Yet a lot of people make their decisions based on this. Obviously, this isn't fair (and I never pretended to believe that the world was ever fair). But the question I want to throw back is whether you practice what you preach. Sure, we expect others to not base their decisions regarding us based on first impressions, but how much do we also base our decisions based on first impressions?

The third example I want to point out is competitions. Lately, one of the more controversial things I've been reading is regarding Digital Pinay and how the group is judging female contestants based on appearance as well as actual IT skill and talent. Well, the only thing I have to say there is that you have to understand their stance. It's a company and the winner is going to be a spokesperson or representative. As much as I want people to treat people based on merit, let's face it, other people will judge based on appearances. Imelda Marcos (as much as I loathe the former First Lady) was perhaps one of our best ambassadors to China not because of her intellect but because of her charm, beauty, and cunning. Or perhaps a better analogy would be the best-selling writers out there. Best-selling authors are just that: best-selling. Just because they're best-selling doesn't necessarily mean that they're the best-written ones. I understand the stance of those against Digital Pinay. But I also understand the position of those holding the competition. And to me, there seems to be a disagreement simply because each of the parties are working under different criteria. The former believe it's an actual contest of intellectual superiority and skill. For the latter, it could a number of reasons: This could just be a big marketing gimmick, for example. It could also be that they're looking for a model to represent them. And in the end, let's face it: as long as there's some sort of representation (and in the end, everyone is more or less representing someone or carrying the name of someone, whether it's the name of the company you're working for, the religion you believe in, the school you study in, or even the family you belong to), there will always be a need evaluate a person's physical appearance. I mean when I was studying in Xavier school, the best way for me to represent the school was by the uniform I was wearing. If I was in civilian attire and I said I was a representative of the school (in a formal meeting of course), what impression would that give to everyone else (I'm not saying that the impression I'd be giving would be wrong, but it might be an impression that was counterproductive to the vision and mission the school wants to espouse)? It's much akin to expecting a blind person to give you painting lessons. I'm not saying that appearance should be a vital factor (whether it plays a major or minor criteria is best left to the organizers and what their intent is) but it should be a criteria nonetheless. Thankfully, not all competitions need to be so. I mean the Palanca awards, for example, are competitions based on written work and the contestants, for the most part, are anonymous until the winners are finally announced. But then again, you also have to look at the goals of the Palanca awards. I mean when we hear of the winners, it's not like we also see their picture. All we get are their names, and the title of their work. Researchers can always look up the winner's portrait, but it would probably be easier to gain access to their written work rather than their picture.

Of course I'd also like to point out that the times are changing. Take the Internet for example. Previously, it was a network of anonymity. You didn't know what the other person looked like on the other side except for what they wrote. But a decade later, we have blogs, instant messengers, and even Friendster, and more often than not, these places will have pictures of the other person (whether this is the actual picture is another matter). Why? Because appearances do matter. And honestly, people aren't a bunch of components that you can easily subdivide and isolate. I mean take intelligence for example. Intelligence isn't something you can easily measure in a person. Sure, you can take an exam, but an exam won't really convey the person's intelligence in its entirety. In fact, a person's intelligence might be reflected in the way they write, in the way they talk, and yes, in their apperance. And similarly, the way I write, the way I talk, and the way I appear points to the other details of my personality, whether it be my creativity, my integrity, or whatever other criteria I can think of.

In the end, we must remember that people are people, and that what makes us unique is our blended characteristics. We should be taken as the sum of our parts rather than merely our individual aspects. And while we might be looking for individual talents, we must also remember that these individual talents can't be easily separated from the whole. And this includes appearance. If God never meant for us to judge via looks, then he wouldn't have given us senses. Or blessed us with outstanding body parts.

Two Things Every Writer Should Do

I'm not really comfortable calling myself a writer. Because honestly, what have I written? Where are my published works? I've met great writers like Krip Yuzon, Danton Remoto, Dr. Rofel Brion, Christine Belen, Alvin Yapan, Dean Alfar, and a host of other talented writers and you know what, what am I compared to the likes of them (at least at this point in time)? All I have to show for is this blog/livejournal, and honestly, blogging is easy (at least compared to the other modes of writing). I do enjoy blogging, but I feel somehow that I'm cheating on the part of me that's a "writer". To all the would-be writers out there that shares this feeling, I have two pieces of advice for you. One is to write what you want. The other, more neglected part, is writing what you don't want.

The first one is easy. Nearly anyone can do it. Why else would people pursue a vocation in writing? Because there's something calling them to write, be it prose or poetry. There's an innate need to create and mince words. And of course, just as readers read the books that they want to read, writers write what they want to write. It's a writer's outlet. I don't care if you're producing shit-lit, fanfics, or masturbatory blog entries. If it makes you happy, do it. But of course, do it well. Everyone who has hands can produce graffiti. It takes a good writer though to produce something that catches the reader's attention. Anyone is capable of producing art. Whether it's beautiful art or not is a different question altogether. The same goes with writing. Create something that pleases you, but make sure it's pleasant to other people as well.

Of course having said that, if all the writers wrote what they wanted to write, there wouldn't be any growth. Which is why my second point is important as well. Write what you don't want to write. For example, if you're a poet who specializes in free verse, try your hand at rhymes, rhythm, or even the sonnets. If the main strength of your short stories is plot, try your hand at imagery. If all you've written are first-person narratives, try the third person. I must admit, I'm guilty of not following this. But if I want to improve my skills as a writer, I must be willing to explore and learn. And that means going out of my comfort zone into unfamiliar territory. You don't necessarily need to conquer it, but familiarizing yourself with other techniques and styles is a good experience for any writer.

Writing what you want and writing what you don't want are two elements that are in a constant state of flux. Take writing a short story, for example. Most likely, it'll be a story that the writer is interested in. But perhaps the best mode of expression for the piece is something he's not familiar with. Yet he has to do it, at least if he wants to come out with a great fiction piece. Then once the text is actually written, there'll be revisions and editing. The writer will then have to do away with certain parts, even if he's fallen in love with them, simply because it doesn't work. Similarly, there will also be sections that he has to add to make the story better. But of course, not all of this would be unpleasant, since the writer will develop wonderful passages and interesting characters along the way.

Or putting it in another perspective, the extremes of either one can also be devastating. A writer who always writes what he wants will never grow. His writing will go stale and never mature. Writing becomes a masturbatory act. On the other hand, if you continually keep on writing material that you don't want to write, one will eventually lose the passion for the art. What use is writing if you don't derive pleasure from it? A balance between the two is what's usually needed, the former to fuel your desires, the latter to train and develop your skills.

There are many people who claim to be writers. While I do believe that there's a soul of a writer in every person, not everyone makes it a vocation. Perhaps one way to tell them apart is to ask whether they're writing something they want or something they don't want. If it's the former, then writing is merely a hobby. If it's just the latter, it's a job. If you're doing both, well, I'm glad to have met a true writer.

Opposites Attract

I always believed that people bond together when they find something in common, whether it's something they like or suffering from the same adversity. Yet when I look around and judging from my own behavior, I also noticed that opposites do attract each other. If I believe in the saying "birds of the same feather flock together", how do I defend "opposites attract", and don't they contradict each other?

I don't think I need to present evidence showing how opposites attract each other. But I do think it's important to understand why they occur. To me, the most common reason is obtaining something you yourself don't personally have: it's the ugly guy who has a beautiful girlfriend, the poor man who has a rich friend, or the socially-inept person who has a socialite significant other. In other words, it's proving to yourself and to the world that you can have something that's usually denied from you. In the case of the ugly guy, he's acquiring beauty that he himself doesn't possess. In the case of the poor man, he gets a taste of what it's like to be rich. For the socially inept, the social atmosphere the significant other generates more than makes up for what's lacking. Yet it's also not as one-sided as this. For example, the beautiful girlfriend only looks more beautiful alongside her not-so-pleasant-looking boyfriend. The rich friend appears more wealthy, at least compared to his poor friend. And the socialite can revel in the attention he or she receives, especially when the socialite's friends comment on how shy the significant other is. I'm not saying this is bad. I mean if I were poor, wouldn't I want to have riches? And if that were the case, wouldn't riches look more attractive to me, than say, beauty? And similarly, if I had riches but lacked beauty, wouldn't someone or something pretty be more valuable? And if I didn't have enough confidence in myself, a good morale booster would be finding someone or something that doesn't seem threatening. I mean if I was the beautiful girlfriend and I had a handsome boyfriend, I might think that I'm not beautiful enough and my handsome boyfriend might leave me for someone else. But he wasn't as attractive, I could always think that he got the better deal and so won't leave me for someone else (even though that's not necessarily true).

Fascination can also be a motivating factor. I mean when someone is similar to us, we have insight into their lives, simply because we have something in common. A student, for example, can empathize more with fellow students but not with teachers. Sometimes, the other person becomes an enigma that we become attracted to them. Take for example the silent guy with deep thoughts. The girl who talks a lot might find the silent guy attractive because of the mystery that surrounds him. Unlike herself whose thoughts are transparent, she knows little about the guy aside from what's apparent. Or similarly, an artist might be attracted to the businessman, because the latter knows how to engage in business. The latter is also attracted to the former because his thoughts are usually logical while the former is more creative. When we encounter the unknown, there are only usually two reactions: either we fear it, or we become fascinated with it. If it's the former, we'll most likely stick to those we know, hence "like attracts like". If it's the latter, the phenomena of opposites attract occurs.

Another reason is linked to to the belief that "birds of the same feather flock together". If I was lazy and wanted to be hard-working, should I hang out with lazy people or hard-working people? It's obviously the latter, and it's because we want other people's talents to rub off on ourselves. I mean we see cowards hiding behind the courageous, the meek people under the wing of strong men and women, the average following the advice of the geniuses. It's not necessarily because the former wants to take advantage of the latter, but sometimes, it's because the former wants to become like the latter. And honestly, one of the best ways we learn is via exposure and mimicry. Sometimes it pays off. That's why people usually look for mentorship or leadership. Talent is developed. People who were once nobodies eventually become great men and women thanks to the apprenticeship of someone great. Cowards eventually conquer their fears by learning from the example of courageous individuals. It's not such a bad deal really. But of course, it doesn't work all the time. Just because I act like someone and talk like someone does not make me that someone. Copying and learning aren't exclusive to each other. Sometimes, we merely become poseurs, a wannabe who just happens to have the right connections and hangs out with the right people. Does that make me one of them? Not necessarily. At other times, we genuinely learn something from the other person, and we make the transition from trying to becoming. Eventually, someone who tries to write that great novel, for example, eventually writes that great novel. All those years practicing the craft and copying other writer's styles eventually pays off. The person is no longer copying any particular writer's style, but developed his or her own. And this can only be achieved by constant exposure. If we want to be good at something, we first find someone we can look up to or has accomplished that something we want to do, and we try to emulate them as much as we can. It's turning our weaknesses into strengths.

The last reason I find this situation to be true is when we do so to complement ourselves. A good example is any successful organization or business. Obviously, a lot of skills are needed in such an enterprise, and most likely, no one person has all the necessary skills to succeed. The solution is building a team. A team is composed of many members, each one with their own sets of strengths and weaknesses. The strength of one member complements the strength of the other members so that the weaknesses are covered up. Sometimes, there's even synergy that takes the group to new heights. Similarly, such a couple can also exist. There's the responsible wife who takes care of the details, while the husband determines the general direction of things. Or just look at the archaic image of the husband and wife: the husband provides for the family, while the wife takes care of the family. In this scenario, our individual weaknesses stop being weaknesses because there's someone else to take over.

I'm not professing any particular ideology here, but we do see how it's possible for completely different people to be attracted to each other. While people usually get along when they have a common ground, it's equally likely too that people will get along simply because they're different from each other.

Is It Wrong to Dream?

This might seem like a strange question, yet a lot of people in our society (including our friends and relatives) do discourage us from our dreams. For example, when I told my parents I wanted to be a writer, my father was less than enthusiastic. He wanted me to pursue a degree that was more marketable, such as computer science, or even business. And I'm sure some people will laugh if you tell them an incredulous dream, such as perhaps being a billionaire (if you don't already come from a wealthy family that is), or being president of the country. So I ask, is it wrong to dream big? If not, why do people, including our loved ones, often discourage it?

Here's my take on things. Is it wrong to dream big? No, of course not. If people didn't have big aspirations, then the human race wouldn't progress. I mean the reason why we have television sets, cars, airplanes, or even mobile phones is because someone at some time had a big vision. Were they ridiculed? I'm sure they were. And depending on the era, some people might even have been persecuted for their beliefs. Did they succeed? Well, perhaps not at the start. But obviously, we now have the convenience of modern technology, and somebody had to invent them. And it all begins with a dream. Of course having said that, I won't say dreaming big will be easy. In fact, it's painful, and sometimes, even dangerous. The larger your dream the more difficult it will be for you, especially if it's not something that has been accomplished before. I mean a century ago, people would probably believe you more if you said you were going to be president rather than walking on the moon. At the least the former has precedence, and somebody has to be president (although of course, the chances of you being that person was slim). Walking on the moon, on the other hand, is not something that was possible then (but of course, fast forward half a century later and walking on the moon is a feat that can be achieved). Perhaps that's why our friends and family sometimes discourages us from dreaming big. Because obviously, not everyone gets to achieve their dreams. And when you fail, it hurts; the bigger your dream, the more painful the experience. It's like building the Tower of Babel: the higher you ascend, the more devastating the fall. But that's not always the case. What usually drives people to dream big is the similarly big pay-off. More often than not, the bigger the risks you take or the more "impossible" the feat, the greater the reward.

Having said all that, what does it mean to dream? Well, if you don't want to get hurt, don't dream. Settle for less. It's much like courting someone: you can't get rejected if you don't try. Of course similarly, you won't get much excitement either. I don't think our friends and parents don't want us to dream. They just don't want us to dream big dreams, mainly because big dreams entails lots of hardship and suffering. And honestly, who wants hardship and suffering, especially when it happens to someone you care about? It's not that they don't want good things for you. In fact, it's possible to have good things in life by having not-so-big dreams. Sometimes, being average is good enough. Sure, you're not uncovering your full potential, but it also requires less of you. Now I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Being average, is well, safe. People will have different views about you, but in the long run, being average is the least dangerous. For example, take a look at kidnapping. Who do kidnappers kidnap? Usually those who have a high profile, either you're rich or you're famous (since some assume that just because you're famous means you're rich). If you're average, well, there's a good chance you or your family won't get kidnapped. Similarly, people won't pay much attention to you either. I mean who do people pay attention to? The extraordinary people, whether they're a celebrity, a politician, or the president of a company. Big dreams isn't for everyone. But I do believe having dreams (no matter how insignificant it might seem) is vital. It's what drives us to become more human, to be better people.

Of course just because we have dreams does not mean we will achieve them. Perhaps what I see wrong in the world is that people mistake dreams for wishes. We've all heard the statement "I want a family, a house and lot, and a car". Is that a dream or a wish? Well, if you're doing something about it, it's a dream. A dream is a goal, something you try to obtain. If you're not doing anything about it and doing the same old stuff you did before that doesn't bring you closer to it, well, it's a wish. Why a wish? Because it'll never be achieved short of outside interference (such as somebody suddenly bequeathing you his or her wealth, or someone gives you a check of millions of dollars on your birthday). Again, I'm not saying wishing is wrong. We all have wishes. Most of us wishes for world peace or to stop world hunger. Do we expect it to come true? No, of course not. Never mistake a dream for a wish. Dreams are achievable, but only if you exert effort and are dedicated enough to achieve it. To some people, their dreams are their purpose. If you don't have a purpose in life or don't expect to fulfill it, what kind of life are you living?

By now, I think it's fair to say that dreams are goals or can be broken down into several goals. And goals can be planned for if your dream is concrete. I mean if your dream is, for example, to be rich, it would be more helpful if we qualify what "rich" means. If being rich for you means having $1,000,000.00 in the bank, then that's your end goal. Similarly, if your dream is to become president, well, it would be helpful if we became more specific. "I will be president of the Philippines by the year 2020," for example, is a specific goal. Once the goal is set, we know more on how to achieve it. In the case of acquiring $1,000,000 in the bank, well, we must obviously take steps to actualize that. In this case, we can break it down into several, smaller goals. Let's say that in order to achieve the $1,000,000 dollars, we should deposit $1,000 in the bank each month. Assuming no interest is earned, it'll take us 83 years to fulfill that goal. Is that too long? Well, let's say we deposit $2,000 in the bank each month. That'll take us over 42 years to reach our final goal. If working for 42 years is good enough for you, your immediate goal is to deposit $2,000 in the bank every month. I'm not saying that's easy, but it's definitely easier than getting that one million all in one go. If you're dedicated enough in achieving your dream, you have to start somewhere. Depositing $1 in the bank is better than not depositing at all. It's a small step, but a step forward nonetheless. Dreams shouldn't be wishes. We should take steps to actualize it. (On a side note, assuming there's a net interest of 2%, it'll take you 31 years to acquire $1,000,000 depositing $24,000 each year.) For me though, money matters has always been easy to calculate. More often than not, our dreams are difficult to quantify. For example, if your goal is to be a wealthy person, $1,000,000 won't achieve that; that's just a stepping stone and you need other avenues of income, whether it's writing that great novel, having a big business, or owning lots of real estate. Similarly, if your dream is to become president of the Philippines, well, there are several avenues to accomplish that. You could take the normal way of climbing up the political ladder such as running for mayor, senator, vice-president, and eventually the position of president, or perhaps you could take a different route, such as becoming a wealthy individual, or take up a career that gives you a lot of publicity. I'm not saying one method is better than the other, and sometimes, we won't know which is the most effective method until the day arrives to test it, but it's what we can come up with and is the only way we can measure our small successes, at least at this point in time.

Even if everyone breaks down their dreams into small goals, not everyone fulfills their dream. Why? Because it's difficult. No one ever associated dream fulfillment with being easy, at least not initially. There will always be hurdles when you pursue your dream. A lot will be asked from you. The question is, are you up to it? The problem I find with some people is that they think they're entitled to their dreams. A person, for example, might think he's entitled to wealth just because he's worked hard for the past few years. Well, a lot of people have worked hard for decades, and even they aren't rich. Or a writer might think that just because he's had two decades of education that he should get paid a lot for his writing. Well, sometimes even education isn't enough. Personally, I think if you want to fulfill your dreams, you need two things: effort and intelligence. The former is obvious: you'll never accomplish anything unless you exert effort. The latter is perhaps the less obvious one. Millions of people are working hard everyday, yet not all of them are fulfilling their dreams. The difference is not necessarily from their output but in the way they think. The cliche saying is that "there's more than one way to skin a cat". The same is true in attaining our goals. There are several vehicles to accomplish that. Of course not all of them are equal. Some methods are more efficient than others. That's where intelligence comes in, figuring out which is the most efficient method and which is the one appropriate for yourself. Sometimes, intelligence even finds a way to achieve the same results for lesser effort. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying effort is not needed. Rather, effort alone is insufficient. You need intelligence to back it up. But similarly, intelligence without action is also useless. That's why a combination of hard work and wisdom is the most effective method. But of course, both factors won't come naturally to you. It's something you need to learn, something you need to develop in yourself.

Another thing that irks me is when people assume that they'll attain their dreams without personal growth or sacrifice. Everything has a price. If you want your dream badly enough, you'll pay that price. I have writer friends whose dream is to write that great novel or playwright. Thus they participate in workshops and revisions. Why workshops? Because you get criticism there. Criticism is never easy, especially to sensitive people, but it's a necessary process. Why? Because that's one of the ways you'll discover your mistakes or how your work can be improved. In a way, that's also why there are editors. Editors help writers nurture and develop their work. That involves the occasional criticism or pointing out errors or passages that can be improved upon. Some of my friends loathe criticism. Sometimes, it's not a process they want to undergo. For me, that's folly. At least that's so if they want to fulfill their dream. I don't think there's any writer who didn't receive some sort of criticism at one time or another. Sure, the more successful writers nowadays gain accolades from their peers, but even born geniuses aren't perfect. I'm sure when they were starting, they made mistakes or wrote things that didn't please people. I think the important thing is to keep on going and to keep on improving. Criticism in this case is part of the price you have to pay. Long hours editing your work or making revisions is also part of that price. Continual education, reading other works, and exposing yourself to new ideas and subject matter are also steps a good writer needs to undergo. In whatever you do, there will always be a cost. That leaves us with two kinds of mentalities: either it's "suffer now play later" or "play now suffer later". I can't say which one is better: it's your decision which one it'll be. But I have this word of advice: if you want to remain in your comfort zone and don't want to grow, you'll most likely choose the latter. And when that happens, most likely, you won't achieve a big dream. Dreams can change. You can always make your dream smaller. You can follow the advice of the people who tell you don't dream of doing this or that, or that you can't do it. You can always have easy dreams and do easy work. But if you want big dreams, be ready to pay the price.

Speaking of price, you don't necessarily have to pay everything. Obviously, there are some things we won't do. I, for example, won't do something I find unethical or immoral. If my goal was to become the president of a company, I won't resort to embezzling money in order to finance myself, nor would I have my rivals assassinated when there's an opening for promotion. I also wouldn't find ways to get my superiors into trouble just to make a vacancy open in the first place. Each of us has standards that we aren't willing to compromise. If that's the case, well, just find another method. In my example, there are other ways of climbing the corporate ladder, such as providing good output, waiting for the promotion, involving yourself in other projects with the company, volunteering your services, etc. Of course don't confuse this with not doing something that's uncomfortable for you. In the said scenario, it might be inconvenient for you to come home late and miss your favorite TV show just to do extra work. Or you might be sent to another country but you don't want to do so because you're unfamiliar with that nation and unwilling to learn the language. That's laziness and staying in your comfort zone. If this is your uncompromising standard, well, you need to reevaluate your dream. Dream something "convenient". If you want to fulfill a good dream, then you must be willing to give it proportionate time and effort as well. Go out of your comfort zone! It's usually in that way do we grow and become better people as well as expanding our skills and capabilities. But be sure to prioritize the things that you value as well be it your code of conduct, your family, or your friends. And do your research as well. Some of the things we don't want to comprise might just be things that we don't want to do. There are also a lot of misconceptions out there. For example, in the Philippines, many people believe that government officials, businessmen, and the police are corrupt and greedy. Not all of them are. Pursuing a career in government, business, or even law enforcement isn't evil. It's what you do with it that dictates what the results will be. You'll be envied, criticized, and ridiculed by other people, but sometimes, that's part of the price you have to pay. What's important is that you know your reasons for doing so and not what other people believe your reasons are.

Is it wrong to dream? Definitely not. But don't expect dreams to fulfill themselves. We need to exert time and effort to fulfill them. Our dreams always come at a price. The question is, are you willing to pay that price? Do you want your dream badly enough? What are you wiling to forego just to attain that goal? What you must do to achieve your dream isn't a question you ask other people, but rather something you must ask deep within yourself.

The Fool

I'm an idiot, an ignorant buffoon. But so are you. Don't get me wrong. We're all knowledgeable and wise in one field or another. But there will always be a subject in which we are unfamiliar with. If there is anything universal, it is ignorance. When we're born, there's a lot we don't know. We don't know that a world exist, we don't really know the pain and discomfort it takes our parents to care for us, and we don't even know who we really are. Yet somehow, as we mature and grow older, we slowly gather more information and we become less ignorant (or at least we think so). The question I want to ask is what drives us to do this? Some might argue that curiosity may be innate yet when I look around, I see people who stop looking for answers, people who think that they know everything there is to know about the world, or people who are simply tired of finding an explanation for things. So, what really motivates people to learn?

I lived under a household that said one thing and did another. When I was a child, my parents praised me for my curiosity. When I asked about this and that, they'd smile and tell all their friends that I was an inquisitive and growing child. Of course when I demanded answers, that's where they faltered. They returned the question to me: "Why are you asking?" or "Why do you want to find out?". Later on, it became apparent to me that the only time they returned the question was when they were unwilling to give me the answers to my question, because they either thought it was too complicated for me to understand (such as when I ask them what the nature of their business was), or they weren't willing to divulge it (like how much they were earning). As to why I was asking the questions, I think the answer is obvious. Because I'm ignorant, and I know it! There's a lot of things I don't know and I was on a search to find out the answers to my questions. Several years later and I still find myself ignorant of such matters. Yet what surprises me (and humiliates me) is why I've stopped asking those questions even when I'm not any more knowledgeable now than I was years before. And this is not a phenomenon that is exclusive to myself but to other people as well. Why do we stop asking questions? One reason (and perhaps not the only one) is because our society discourages asking questions. My philosophy teachers marvel at the curiosity of the child: why is the sky blue? Why is the world round? What is love? It might seem like a ridiculous question to adults, yet it's a question that philosophers ponder on and on. They might never arrive at a definite answer but it's the search that matters, the personal development and insight that arises from such exploration. Yet the questions these philsophers ask are sometimes no different from the questions we as children ask. The former get acclaim for it, yet the latter were merely ridiculed, or worse, ignored. So does it really surprise you that in our society, curiosity may be praised, but deep down, it's not really encouraged (or is out of place in the realm of adults).

School is supposed to be a place of learning. Yet for most of time I was in grade school and high school, me and my fellow students kept asking this question: why am I being taught this? Perhaps the biggest failure of schools is that knowledge is forced on the students. I'm sure a lot of you hate math. Perhaps you would dislike it less if it wasn't something that you feared (which arises from the fear one feels when we hear the words "quizzes" or "exams") or if it wasn't something you were coerced into learning (Math is a subject taught five times a day, whether you wanted it or not). Personally, I more or less liked math, not only because I had a limited proficiency in it, but rather because I saw the practical purpose. I mean I'd be at the mercy of the salesmen and women if I didn't know my arithmetic. Statistics and probability has always aided me in my decisions with the risk vs. rewards argument. And since we were kids at that time, we dared to ask our parents and teachers why needed to learn this or that subject. More often than not, they did not give us answers that satisfied us. Which I think is the root of most of the problems any teacher faces. Students aren't stupid. They just don't have enough motivation to learn a particular subject, especially when you fail to give them an answer that they can grasp, and can fully appreciate.

Of course failing that, perhaps our next natural instict is to ask whether doing this particular activity is fun or not. As I mentioned earlier, doing Math is not something pleasant for most people. It's difficult and requires effort. But so does playing sports and playing video games. Time and effort are exerted into it. Sometimes, it's not even pleasant. What's the difference? For most people, doing math isn't fun (although obviously, there are exceptions and some people find enjoyment in math). Playing sports and video game is the opposite. In fact, we usually associate the word "playing" with sports and video games. When did we last associate "play" with math? Or any other subject we loathed for that matter? Our mental perspective on things plays an integral part as well. Perhaps if we associated "math" with "play" more often (or presented it in such a way that doing math was an enjoyable game), more people would like it.

During high school and sometimes when I meet older people, I get the "I-know-it-all" mentality. Don't get me wrong. These people aren't arrogant (at least outwardly). In fact, they may be meek people who are silent and don't reply unless asked. But these kind of people think that they don't need to do anything else and that they have all the tools and skills necessary to fulfill all their dreams in life. I have classmates who think "whether I pass or fail in this subject doesn't matter since we have a family business and that's where I'll end up no matter what my degree is". Obviously, if you have that kind of mentality, learning stops being a priority, especially when you're asked to go out of your comfort zone. Or I meet people who think that there's nothing else to be learned, especially from the likes of me, someone who's younger and lacks their experience. Any comments or suggestions I have are patronized, but aren't really taken into consideration. Or worse, people with "'I don't understand it'/'I never learned' it so it's probably not important". I'm not saying that kind of scenario is never true but hey, the world is changing and new discoveries and being made every day. How can I say this or that isn't important unless I investigate it? It's like saying this book or that movie is good/bad without seeing it for yourself.

There's also one thing that stops us from finding the answers to our questions. The fact that we might be wrong. And hey, I can sympathize. No one wants to make mistakes. I've humiliated myself several times, all the while thinking that I had the right answer when the truth was that the opposite was true. A perfect example is during oral participation in class. The teacher would ask a question and I'd raise my hand to answer their question. Guess what, my answer was wrong! I may have been disgraced but from then on, I knew what the right answer was (or at least my previous answer was the wrong one). Personally, knowledge and wisdom comes before pride. And let's face it, sometimes, the only times we really learn is when we make mistakes. So my advice is that we shouldn't be afraid to make mistakes. Yes, hate and loathe making mistakes. That'll give you more incentive to search for the right answers harder. But in the end, more often than not, we won't know whether we can do something, whether something is right or not, unless we try. And it's in the trying that we grow, become better people, and learn. We might make mistakes and more often than not, we will make mistakes. No one can guarantee a 100% risk-free experience. And so while we can whine about our failures, or worse, get into a situation where we have regrets and think of what-if scenarios, sometimes, it's best to dive into the thick of things and learn from our errors.

Failure can also wear us down. The reason I stopped asking questions from my parents was because I never got answers. Well, there's nothing I can offer to remedy that. The best advice I can give is to try and try. Be more stubborn than what fate deals you. Right now, I continue to ask my parents questions despite their previous track record. They're more or less consistent with their track record of not giving me answers but from time to time, they do give me insights. Persistence is sometimes the key. If you don't get it right the first time, sometimes, you'll get it at the hundredth time. It's not much for consolation, but hey, it's better than not getting answers at all. The only thing I can guarantee you is that if you don't ask, you'll never get an answer. At least if you do ask, no matter how small that chance is, there's always a chance. And if you studied your probabilities, your chance might be one in a million, but people do win lotteries.

Lastly, there's desperation. Perhaps one of my best example was when I was studying. Normally, the teacher gives you a lot of time to write a term paper. Of course writing term papers usually means research. If you're given half a year, it's a tendency of mine to be relaxed at the first month. I'm not out to get as much information as I can. In fact, when it's offered to me, I sometimes decline. Yet as the months pass by, the deadline looms closer and closer. That's when I start to get desperate. I scramble for information and data, even if it would be inconvenient for me. I have a set goal and I give everything I can just to fulfill that goal. In this case, it's learning and gathering information. But desperation for learning only works if you think the goal is worth it. For example, if you don't think passing or failing a particular subject is important, then you won't be desperate. But if it is something you deem important and your chances seem to be dwindling, you suddenly accept that fact and soak up information like a sponge. If anything was hindering you before, it's less of a hindrance now. Why? Because you have the mentality of the fool, someone who knows that he or she doesn't know anything. And thus one becomes more teachable, one gains the motivation to learn and to grow.

I'm not saying that there aren't brilliant people in the world, or even that you're not talented or wise. But if you are as good as you say you are, then you shouldn't be complacent. Stagnation is the worst enemy of geniuses. There must be continual growth and evolution. And perhaps the only way that can be achieved is by continuing to learn. And by learning, we thus grow and live.

Fool's Fate by Robin Hobb (book review)

Fool's Fate marks the end of Robin Hobb's latest trilogy, The Tawny Man series. It's been my experience that the last novel is usually one of the most integral books, since it can either give a fitting end to an excellent story, or salvage a series that was horrible to begin with. And yet it's also difficult to review since more often than not, there's not much to be said aside from what was originally mentioned in the review of the first book.

Hobb manages her writing consistency in this novel. While the book is quite thick, there's never a dull moment, and a lot is happening even when it's not mentioned in the text. Everything here is pretty much a continuation of the previous book, which in turn was the continuation of the first book in the trilogy. Perhaps my biggest disappointment is the fact that the Liveship Traders, the protagonists in Hobb's second trilogy, at this point sink into the background and play less of an integral role as they did in the first book.

Right now the greatest strength of Hobb is in her characters and in Fool's Fate, they reach their culmination as secrets are revealed and characters are forced to reconcile who they really are. Some writers might be tended to mend all things and make the characters get along, but Hobb specializes in that "gray" area where not everything falls neatly into place. There are happy endings in this book, but they're far from perfect.

The novel has a few twists here and there, but overall, nothing really too overwhelming. New characters are thrown into the mix and old villains pop up but they are quickly resolved, which is probably just as well so as to focus on the main characters introduced in the previous two novels.

The ending wasn't as spectacular as I'd imagined, although a lot of loose ends were cleaned up. If I could compare it to a movie, Fool's Fate is no Return of the King where Peter Jackson outdoes himself but rather this is more of a Back to the Future III where everything gets resolved yet doesn't really do much for us in terms of surprises or new appeal.

If you're expecting something new from this book, you'll be disappointed. But Fool's Fate is a good read, and it does give closure for Hobb's longest running series. If you haven't read Hobb's earlier books (or at least the beginning of the Tawny Man series), I really can't recommend this novel(it'd be like reading Return of the King without reading Fellowship of the Ring). But rest assured, the series has closure, and while we may not necessarily like it, it's time to say farewell to an old friend.

Children of the Rune edited by Sue Weinlein Cook (book review)

There are a lot of novels out there that are based on RPGs. Examples of the more successful ones include Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. Children of the Rune isn't aiming for something of that scale but rather gives us snippets into the world of the Diamond Throne, a game setting designed by Monte Cook as a variant to the existing Dungeons & Dragons line. The book features thirteen short stories by different writers in the industry, and I'm curious as to how this anthology fares.

The first story is Stone Ghosts by Lucien Soulban. I found Soulban's story interesting and he goes directly into the action. Stone Ghosts is perhaps the best opening of all the stories, since it already gives us the flavor of this anthology: that is heroes discovering something is more than meets the eye, and sacrificing something in the end. Unfortunately, the weakness of this story for me is that while you do feel a sense of loss at the ending, once doesn't realize how significant the loss really is unless they're familiar with the game setting. If you're just someone who thought this was a pop fantasy anthology and decided to read it, the story loses much of its impact.

How it Works by Monte Cook is perhaps the weakest and blandest story. It was stereotypical, cliche, and didn't add anything to the mix. It was even devoid of angst or anything that might have made this story more than the usual. Monte Cook may have been the game designer but for this short story, well, it was probably best left unearthed.

Another story I liked was The Silent Man by Richard Lee Byers. It gives us a different take on the anti-paladin concept, and fits the theme of heroism, loss, and sacrifice. Since this story deals with iconic concepts, prior knowledge of the game world isn't really necessary to appreciate this short story.

Hollows of the Heart by Bruce R. Cordell and Keith Francis Strohm was a mediocre story. It does fit the theme well but inevitably, the plot was predictable, and relies on character sympathy for enjoyment of the story.

The Fallen Star by Ed Greenwood was too conventional for me. It was an interesting read because of the battle scenes, but aside from that, the end was predictable and perhaps too melodramatic for my tastes.

Child of the Street by Will McDermott had that roguish feel to it. I really liked the beginning, although the ending eventually descended into predictability and melodrama. It could have been improved if the envelope was pushed, but unfortunately, this was a story too short.

At first, I thought Clash of Duty by Miranda Horner would be as predictable as the stories that preceded it. But this was a gem since the ending did caught me off-guard and the writer wasn't afraid to jeopardize her characters. Perhaps not the best story in the lot, but it's a good breather from the derivative stories found in the anthology.

The Pebble Before the Avalanche by Mike Mearls was too conventional, but an enjoyable read nonetheless. It's the usual heroes saving a town occupied by bandit-leaders and while there was no twist to this story, it wasn't really pretending to have one.

You know where the story is going to lead you once you read the opening of Name Day by Wolfgang Baur but with this anthology, you're never really sure if it'll have a twist or not. Personally, I liked the story because it fleshed out the mentality of one of the races from the game setting. It gives you insight into the way they think and how they act. Other than that, this is your usual story that doesn't give you anything new.

Singer for the Dead by Jeff Grub returns the twist found in this anthology. It's one of the better tales, and ends with a somber note much like the earlier stories.

I really don't know what to say about Precious Things by Thomas M. Reid. At one point, you could predict where the story was going. But the end has a twist that I find too coincidental. Perhaps the good thing I can say about this story is that it fleshes out one of the classes in the game setting and shows what it means to be one of them.

Skin Deep by Stan! is perhaps as horrible as Monte Cook's first story. The ending could have been predicted from the start, and it's a trope that's been done before.

Monte Cook redeems himself with the last story, Not Without Cost, as not only was it an interesting read but it both gives an interesting twist at the end and gives us insight into the campaign world and what it's like. It's perhaps not the best story in the anthology, but it belongs to my list of better stories in the book.

Overall, Children of the Rune is pretty much like most anthologies: it's a mixed back. On one hand, you have a good number of stories. On the other, some were better left unpublished. It would probably appeal the most to gamers and those familiar with the setting or Dungeons & Dragons at the very least but as for the rest, it's probably best avoided.

Christmas at the Cemetery

Whenever my parents would go out on Christmas, I always declined, thinking that I had better things to do at home, such as sleep or read. This year, I was still deprived of sleep, but when my dad asked me if I wanted to come with him, I said yes.

The destination was my grandfather and grandmother's grave at the Chinese cemetery. Just the other day, before Christmas eve, we went to our grandmother's grave near Makati because it was her death anniversary (she died in mid-December). That wasn't the case now for my grandparents died on different months.

On the way there, my father told me that the South Gate was the one gate that was always open. Not that there was any traffic to contend with that day since people don't usually go out on Christmas mornings, much less visit graveyards. Yet it's been a practice of my father to visit the tombs of his parents on a regular basis.

Upon arriving at my grandparent's grave, I saw that the candles on the graves were lit. My father pointed out to me where he wanted to be buried. He also pointed out the would-be graves of some of my relatives. Apparently, my father was taking charge of the burial plans of his relatives, and was shouldering all the costs. While funerals can be expensive, burial maintenance is perhaps more costly, especially when taken from the long term point of view. It was also then that I learned that my father visited the graves of his clan once a week, usually on Sunday mornings.

Not everyone is celebrating Christmas at their homes. The caretakers of the tomb were present, and when my father asked if they had any "noche buena" (tradition where one has a hearty meal on Christmas eve) last night, they could only shake their head. There were eight security guards on duty and when one of them saw my dad, he called the others and they all gathered around my father. Apparently, my father was well-known in the Chinese cemetery.

My father talked to the security guards, imparting wisdom and talking about the events surrounding the cemetery, such as the policies on rent or the lack of electricity and water. One of the guards had just come from a baptism and my father told him that it was difficult not having enough money yet having too many children to support. "Wala na ngang pera wala pang anak," (It's bad enough I don't have money that I should also be deprived of children) the guard said. My father replied with "Kung walang pera, walang anak" (If there's no money, then there's no children [because you can't support them]). At the end of the conversation, my father gave the guards money to split among themselves and went to his car to give them calendars. They were all grateful for my father's generosity and soon dispersed. When it came to the caretakers, my dad asked if he could pay their normal due the next time he arrived because he was now out of money. He gave them the last remaining bills from his wallet and showed them that he had nothing else to give.

We left afterwards, although I knew that we would be coming back next week on the New Year. For my father, Christmas has always been about family, whether it was fulfilling your duty, taking care of the future of your relatives, or paying respects to the dead.

Second Home: A Tribute to CCHQ

I was never a "home" person. Perhaps the worst days of my life was during Holy Week, when the only option I had was to stay at home and there wasn't even anything good on television. I'm often struck with wanderlust. I need to travel or a change of scenery, even if it's just a place nearby. Since I was once a student, one conclusion some people might think is that my alma matter was my second home. It would probably be right, if it weren't for the fact that I wasn't really accepted by my classmates and batchmates, at least during my grade school and high school years. No, solace was found somewhere else. I may wander around malls and buildings, but in the end, I was grounded to a certain shop.

In my last two years of high school, the place where I could be me and no one would judge me was one shop alone: Comic Alley. Sure, I'd wander around Virra Mall looking for places to go to and sights to see, but in the end, I always went back to Comic Alley. I'd meet up with people there, make new friends, and play a game of Magic: The Gathering. The salesladies were kind to me and I got to know the owners. One of my earliest mentors was probably Teddy Sy, an avid Magic player and anime fan. He took me in, despite my far-from-pleasant personality (at the time of course). Even if I refused to smile to customers, he still hired me. And of course, I got to mix the best of both worlds. Not only was I pursuing my passion in Collectible Card Games (CCGs), but I was also fueling the flames of my love for anime. I got assigned to the anime portion of the shop, and it was there that I learned more about myself as well as providing me with the opportunity to make new friends (although admittedly for less than altruistic reasons). Even when I wasn't working for them anymore, I was nonetheless welcome in their shop, and there were times when I'd sit there for hours doing nothing (and someone who dislikes me even named me "Gargoyle" for doing just that that).

Unfortunately, in 2001, everything changed. Not only did Magic: The Gathering wane in popularity, but Virra Mall itself was changing. Vendors would harass everyone coming into the mall by asking them if they wanted to purchase pornographic videos. Suddenly, traveling to my second home was far from comfortable. And if you thought lightning doesn't strike twice, well, Virra Mall got burned for the second time. And Comic Alley was one of its casualties.

Strangely enough, my second home got reincarnated ten months later. On February of 2002, a new shop was set up opposite of the college I was studying in. It also had the word "comic" on its name. The owners called it CCHQ, an acronym for Central Comic Headquarters, or our in-joke, Cheng Chua headquarters. They sold comics, both Western (including the ever-elusive indie comics) and Japanese (authentic manga!). Perhaps what impressed me the most was the fact that I could go in there and leave without purchasing anything, yet come out a better person. The owners talked to you even if you were just curious and didn't have plans of buying anything from the store. You were accepted for who you are. If I stayed there unnecessarily (i.e. bum around), they never complained. Relatively cheap prices and good products didn't hurt either. But make no mistake, CCHQ was my second home not because of its merchandise or location, but because of the owners who were running it and the people that were attracted to it as well. Some of CCHQ's customers were like me: wandering aimlessly in life, yet the place provided a home for us. A passion for comics or manga might be popular now, but it wasn't always so back then. And perhaps the best thing about CCHQ was the fact that I could be me. I mean even in Comic Alley, I refrained from mentioning other stores, especially when it came to comparing the prices of other shops (on a side note, Comic Alley does have good prices for their merchandise... sometimes it's not always the cheapest place to purchase items, but they were fair prices). That wasn't the case with CCHQ. The owners themselves would recommend customers going to Powerbooks or some other shop if that place had a cheaper price compared to theirs. I immediately knew CCHQ would be a success.

Nearly three years later, CCHQ will now close its doors. I've graduated from Ateneo, but I still visit the place. And I still receive the same amount of warmth, even if there's one less person running it, or if there's fewer people passing by the shop. I did one smart thing in 2002. I befriended the owners. What also makes me happy is that I wrote an interview article about them back then. It's not my best-written work (and all I really did was transcribe their words). But perhaps what makes that interview great was the fact that I didn't have to embellish anything. Sometimes, mentioning something as it is is brilliant. Some of the best advice I've heard in my lifetime came from interviews. One mentioned that failing is not a hindrance but something to learn from; the guy I interviewed told me that he felt more reassured hiring someone who tried and failed rather than someone who has always been successful, because the former learned something from his experience. The other heartfelt advice upon retrospect came from Khristine and Katya, who offered me this during the interview: "Hold on to your dreams. Never give up because there will be times that you will be disheartened and discouraged and the only thing that will sustain you through the bad times would be how deep your dedication is to the things that you love. That's the only thing."

I'm actually surprised when people mourn the loss of CCHQ and tell me "poor them". Yes, the loss of CCHQ is something to lament, but the owners are not to be pitied or somebody to feel sorry for. They succeeded in what they wanted to do. They've satisfied many people along the way and made new friends. True success, after all, isn't about winning or failing. I was listening to this tape a few weeks ago and the speaker's beliefs echoes mine: "I'd rather fail in a business with good people, rather than succeed with bad people." And CCHQ has one of the best people that I personally know. As for their business, it was time to move on. They're not bankrupt (although it would be nice if you patronized their shop one last time before it closes for Christmas) and they owners are actually well off. They have their lives ahead of them. Maybe their dreams have been satisfied. Or it's taken on a new form. Or it'll be emerge again later on. I don't know the future. I can only be sure of what I feel. And it's that I was touched and changed by the quaint shop called CCHQ. It was my second home.

In certain ways, I've moved on. My current haunt is the Comic Quest branch in Mega Mall (and hopefully my curse doesn't cause the shop to collapse by some unforeseen circumstances, hehehe) where I'm with good friends and mentors like Dean and Vin. But CCHQ has been an integral part of my life, and I'm glad I'm immortalizing it in my writing. I'm not as lost as I once was. This time, I'm taking steps to fulfill my dreams. And other people's dreams as well. It's one of the things CCHQ has taught me.

Taho

In Metro Manila, a number of delicacies are being peddled in the streets. There's the infamous balut (an egg with an unborn fetus inside) which has made its appearance in Fear Factor. There's also chicharon (the equivalent is probably pig skin) which is a crunchy, addicting snack, especially when paired with vinegar. Then there's Taho (and I'm saying it with a capital T to represent the entire meal).

I don't think Taho originated in the Philippines (I surmise it's probably from China considering some Chinese restaurants, both here and abroad, serve it as well) but we've certainly incorporated it into our own culture. Taho in itself is a white jelly-like substance. However, there are several variations of this, which is mainly achieved through its sauce.

The Taho which Filipinos have come to know and love is the one being peddled in the streets, sold by a man constantly shouting "taho!", all the while acting as a fulcrum to a stick with two huge steel containers on the opposite ends. One container houses the taho itself; it is kept cool and fresh, and the vendor scrapes off the liquid that accumulates on top whenever he serves it to customers. The other container, while identical to the first, is actually more complex. The container is divided into two sections, one housing the sauce, and the other containing sago (also known as "pearls" thanks to the Zagu fad a few years ago). The sauce is dark, sticky molasses. Sago, on the other hand, is perhaps what can be best described as a spherical gummy bear without the sugar.

When purchasing Taho, the vendor grabs a transparent plastic cup (which hangs on the same stick that holds the steel barrels) and opens the first barrel. He scoops out some taho and fills the cup, and then moves on to the second barrel. He liberally pours sauce on the cup, slowly transforming the white chunks into inky black, making sure that the sauce goes down deep. With a spoon, he sprinkles the sago on top of the cup, and then pours in more syrup just in case.

This combination of taho, sago, and syrup is actually a mixture of opposites. First, you start out with two bland products. I mean no one in his or her right mind would eat taho in itself. In the cooked meal variant, I'd probably douse it in lots of soy sauce. It is soft and easily breaks, but in itself, taho tastes like nothing. Similarly, sago is squishy and chewy, but it is more or less tasteless. It is the syrup that completes this meal, the one that gives taste--taho and sago merely absorb the the sickly sweet (in a very Filipino way) sauce. The syrup and taho are also opposing elements: the former is hot (so much so that sometimes, I have problems holding the cup) while the latter is cold. Yet when the two are combined, you can feel the excitement in your mouth, with the sago as your lukewarm middleground. Sago and taho are opposites too: taho is too fragile, which is why sago is there: to give the meal substance, to make Taho a meal rather than a drink. And then there's the sago and the syrup, two ingredients housed in the same container yet distinctly separated in more ways than one. These unholy triumvirate comprise the Filipino delicacy that is Taho.

Yet the image Taho inspires would not be complete without the peddler, the man carrying it to every street and district of Metro Manila. He is truly the mass-man, the poor, hardworking father who must work every morning, afternoon, and evening, just to provide for his family. He is the man which the two steel barrels are balanced upon, the person who makes P10 ($0.20) for every serving of Taho he sells. And he too is a man of multiple contradictions.

Winds of Change

If there's one attribute the best describes what it means to live, it's probably the ability change. I mean human beings aren't static; we're evolving creatures. And it's not just us that is evolving. Everything around us changes as well, whether it's as simple as the transition from day to night, or the evolution of our surroundings from simple huts to tall, concrete buildings. Yet change is something many of us resist, as if change was our worst nightmare. And sometimes it is, but it too can be our salvation.

Perhaps the most apparent kind of change is that that occurs around us. Situations change. I mean a long time ago, people were using pen and paper to write novels. Now, we have computers. Computers changed a lot of industries. I'm sure for every person that appreciates the change technology has brought, there's another person who resents it. I mean many people lost jobs because of modernization. Some people use it to make malicious programs, while others utilize it as a tool to help achieve their goals. Sometimes, these kinds of changes are out of our hands. A lot of people fear what the next age will bring. And so they cling to their old ideas and beliefs, hoping that it will shelter them in the times ahead even though if it's apparent that new paradigms are needed for a better world. There are also times when we have limited control over how the world around us will change, such as when we elect our public officials. I think one of the reasons many Filipinos voted for Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was because they were subscribing to the mentality "better the devil we know than the devil we don't know". I mean many people were frustrated with GMA's policies but they voted for her this year nonetheless, fearing the kind of change electing a different leader would bring.

The problem I see in clinging to the old is the fact that you're not making it any better for yourself. Taking the presidential-election example, sure, we're not adding new problems in the long run, but we're not solving old ones either. If we chose a different president, we could possibly live better lives. But what stops us is that we think that choosing a different leader would only increase our pain and suffering. I mean history has disappointed us several times in the past that we can't help but think something worse is in store when moments of change occur. We don't want to risk our future but in doing so, we forfeit any chance of changing it for the better.

The other kind of change is the one we undergo ourselves. It's easy to see how people get offended at the merest hint of changing a person. I mean boyfriend/girlfriend relationships suddenly break up because one person wants the other person to be "better", "different", and "more mature". A number of people are frustrated that call-center employees are being trained to speak in a different way and that they have to don a new person while on the job. Or perhaps it's just simple criticism, and we think that the other person has no right to judge us. I think the underlying emotion here is pride and comfort. Pride because we think we're already the best we can be, that there's no one else we should be other than who we already are. To admit that we should change means that there's something inherently wrong in our personality, or that we might have made a mistake. And nobody likes admitting mistakes. And there's also comfort, because we don't dare go further than what we already know. For example, a boyfriend who's asked by his girlfriend to give up drinking refuses to do so, because it's inconvenient for him. It is, after all, easier to live a life of our hold habits and routines. It's not necessarily better but it sure is easier, simply because we've been doing it for so long and don't know what it's like to not do so.

The weakness of this mentality is that there's never any growth, at least not consciously. A stubborn person will continue to be a stubborn person, while a liar will remain a liar. What we fail to see is that we're not perfect; there's always room for improvement. Change, while it can admittedly make us worse people (such as when your friend tries to pass on their bad habits to you), gives us the chance to become better. Many people fear this because they think it's losing their identity. If our identity could be lost so easily, then we've already lost it. Because the you now is definitely different from the you that came out of your mother's womb. With the latter, you didn't even know how to speak, much less know what can hurt other people and what can brighten up their day. With the former, we've grown and possess more knowledge and hopefully more wisdom since then. Even our physiology is different. But does that mean we lost our identity? Perhaps the only time we truly lose our identity in change is when we fight it all the way, when it's something that's forced upon us rather than something we choose for ourselves. Take, for example, when somebody orders us to do something, such as smoke a cigarette. If it's something we resent yet is forced upon us (whether through coercion, peer pressure, or physical force) and we give in to it, then in a way, we lose our identity and become merely the shadow of someone else's will. But if smoking a cigarette was something we were willing to try (even if you haven't smoked a cigarette before), then even if doing so ends up killing us, we will smoke a cigarette, and with pleasure. In both instances, the person has changed. But it's only the former who lost his identity, while the latter retained it. His identity merely took on a new form.

I think one of the problems many people have is that they take it as a personal affront at the merest hint of changing their personality. It's not. We could always be better people. And we won't achieve that by remaining who we are now. To do that, we must be willing to change. It's part of growing, of maturing, of becoming a better person. And unlike changes that involves circumstances and events, personal change is something we have control over. No one knows whether the change tomorrow brings will be a good thing or a bad thing, but when we take steps to change for the better, we do know that good will come out of it. It definitely won't be easy and it'll surely be painful, but hey, it's only by suffering and making mistakes that we learn.

Change is a two-ways street. Both good things and bad things can result from it. But change is also the key to salvation. Poor people might become rich someday, while the sick might get healed. If you're already rich or healthy, there's always the possiblity that you might become richer or more healthy. If you fear change, then you're insecure about yourself. If you were able to do it once, then you'll be able to do it again. Unless, of course, that accomplishment was just a fluke. And as for our future, well, if you want to gain control over it, you have to risk it. The unknown is only scary if you let it scare you; the only way to conquer fear of the uncertain is to familiarize yourself with it.