Thursday, October 16, 2003

"stick to your guns"
----------------------------
i think war should take a holistic approach. our concept and perspective on war is that of inter/intra-nation based conflicts that involve weapons, soldiers, tanks and the like. i think we're basically looking at it in a narrow view. war is all around us. it's everywhere, and it plays a major part of our lives. the human body's fighting it's own war everyday, against the bacteria in the atmosphere that we walk around in, to the germs and potential killers inside of us due to the food we digest. the people around us are engaged in war, whether or not they know it. debates, bickering, quarrels, arguments, misunderstandings...the way that it's all carried out only attests to its classification of war-like occurences. this is the new kind of warfare, the warfare that we partake in, that we have no choice but to be involved in. this is unconventional urban warfare. and it's only going to spread until there's nothing that we can do about it. nothing but fight. when you wake up in the morning, the first thing you do is desire to sleep. that itself is a struggle. you fight technology when your car starts. you fight your colleagues at work when you submit proposals. you argue with your wife over spending. you play golf competively. you play football against neighbours for fun. you struggle against yourself in pursuing matters that may conflict with your own principles. it's all massive. it's everywhere. it can't hide. how many conflicts have you gotten into since waking up this morning? and how many conflicts are you going to be involved in after this? it's the same thing, every day. you can most certainly count in spiritual warfare. Good and Evil, God and Satan, doing the right thing as opposed to doing the wrong things, it's all there. and that brings it up to a whole new level, doesn't it?

funnily enough, i thought about all this when i thought about motor racing. the team that you're racing for is your castle. the vehicle that you drive/ride is your steed. your helmet is...well...your helmet. your team colours that you wear are your armour/flags. and the race course is your battle ground. and it's a war. the same can be said for the business world. the marketplace is your battle ground. your suit and tie, your armour. your instinct is imperative to survival. your office, your castle. usually, we go out and defend ourselves. but i think it's time to take up arms against our oppresors and fight. claim what lies beyond our boundaries. of course, the problem would be getting there in the first place, but once we're there, anything can be achieved. take up arms. fight them all. fuck the world. have you got what it takes? win the war around you. do it now.

this has been a crazy blog.

Saturday, October 04, 2003

"handshake"
------------------
perspectives are a pain. differing points of view usually lead to misunderstandings, often with dire consequences. conflicts arise, and the parties are hurt in the process, regardless of whether or not they're willing to be hurt or not. some may argue that forcing someone else to accept your point of view, and by doing so, defecating everything they believe in, is wrong. and indeed it is. but is compromise any better? is it a case of both sides winning...or losing? no matter how grand the scale may be on a situation where opposing points of view may surface, compromise never seems to be reached. people remain true to themselves, while stamping out the resistance. on both sides of the fence, those who fall are regarded as matyrs and heroes, and those who survive continue to uphold their beliefs because in their minds, they're right, and the opposition is wrong. there's no grey to it...just black and white. there is no resolution, only dissolution. but those who seek resolution, they come to a compromise. and again, i ask...is compromise any better? yes, pain is spared. but what about the interests of the respective parties that maintained their righteousness in the first place? the fire that so fueled them to carry out their actions for what they believed? where does that all go to? out the window? some may say that conflict is inevitable but unnecessary. but what if it is necessary? the world doesn't work without conflict. and there's always conflict around us, everywhere, all the time. friction and tension.

though we may try our best to understand what's going on, and though we may truly desire to end the hurting, to end pain, we always act in our self interests, because we believe ourselves to be right. ultimately, it comes down to that. compromise is like a mask, a facade, to hide bitterness. behind smiles, the shaking of hands, treaties, are people who're planning the next strike. backstabbers. but then again, it's to be expected, isn't it? there's no way out of it, is there? sometimes we act in defence of our beliefs, expecting others to understand why we do what it is we do. half of the time, they do understand. the other half, they might not even care. they might not act according to our interests, even if our interests are genuinely good, and dare i say better, than their own views. and then, there's conflict, and people end up getting hurt again. who's to blame? the world would point its fingers at the act, and those who carried it out. but what if intentions were good? what if a point of good was trying to be made...what then? who do you blame? the intended receptor? both parties? you can't go around blaming nobody, can you? but remember this: as long as there's a reason, there will always be the right to act out the way you do. and if it is a genuine belief, then i guess that there's nothing wrong.

perspectives are a pain. because different outlooks lead to one big mess. a potpourri of tension, you might say. we may feign defeat, but in the end, we want our interests to be served in a way that we see fit. and i guess that's how the world works. we can do all that we can to change it, but it's going to stay with us til our dying days.