Saturday, September 21, 2013

Of Love and Living


The following is an essay written by me about love and living which has been extracted from my book - The Universe - A Personal View ( page 178 to 183 )

Link to my book :-  https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxqa2hjbGlmZXN0eWxlfGd4OjM5NmM2NTViMjAzY2M5MTk

Of Love and Living

We have already seen that sacrifice is an important ingredient of love. But love does not involve sacrifice alone. Apart from money, love is the only other thing that can really make the world go round. The story of Helen of Troy, the face that launched a thousand ships, was the tale of the destruction of a whole city state on account of the love for a woman. Since ancient times there have been a lot of very moving love stories. Just to name a few, Antony and Cleopatra, Romeo and Juliet and, in modern times, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, with the Duke giving up his throne as king of England on account of their marriage, these are all popular tales of love. What really is this
thing we call love ?
Love is a feeling, a yearning that cannot be satisfied until the lover is able to express his feeling for the one he or she loves. If the lover is prevented from expressing this overwhelming feeling in any way it will give rise to physical symptoms such as loss of appetite and amnesia as well as emotional symptoms like depression and lack of concentration. None of our bodily functions will be working properly. That is why some poets have compared love to a disease. From a scientific perspective, these symptoms are the results of hormones which are bio-chemicals causing physical changes to various organs in our body in response to the failure of the lover to vent his or her emotions of love. To refresh the reader's memory in the working of the brain, it will be recalled that tension will be built up as a result of electric impulses ( neural signals ) passing from the brain to the synapses causing the various chemicals that can affect the nervous and muscular systems to build up behind bio-dams at these synapses. When the pressure reaches the critical level, the dams at the synapses will burst open to release the chemicals to enable physical reactions to external stimuli to take place. In this particular case, the external stimulus is the negative input in the form of the prevention of expressing the feeling of love. Therefore, the proper reactions would be to give distress signals such as loss of appetite, amnesia, depression and lack of concentrations to draw immediate attention to the need for expressing this emotion of love. Until the urge to this expression is satified the negative health symptoms would persist. The foregoing is only a description of the mechanics but not the cause of love. The ultimate cause can be found in the emotional state of the individual in question. Through particular signals such as sights and scent, the lover is attracted to the one he or she loves. There could be cultural, personal, circumstantial, economic and even political reasons for falling in love. The word “fall “ is particularly telling. One does not run or walk in love. One falls in love because it is usually sudden and very often without warning. Then, a point of no return is reached when a conscious decision is made in the subjective reality (SR) of the lover which interacts with the objective reality (OR) of the physical appearance and signals from the one he or she loves to create the perceived reality (PR) in the eyes of the lover of being in love. The strange thing is that although the feeling may be mutual in many cases love can even be one way traffic and this can lead to potential conflicts between the lover and the one being loved. I must emphasize that the above rigid mechanics do not truly and sufficiently reflect the emotionally profound effects of love which is an important element and source of

page178image38568
178

happiness for all human beings. While the natural purpose for love between the opposiite sexes is for the propagation of the human race, the process of love itself is even more important and constructive ( or destructive in some tragic circumstances ) to the development and fulfilment of one's personality and meaning in life respectively. That is why Shakespeare once wrote :- “ It is better to have loved and lost, than not to have loved at all ! “
Besides love between the sexes ( or the same sex ) which is only one kind among many others that can exist between human beings, there are other forms of love which can be equally, if not more, profound. There is the love between parents and their off-springs ( maternal love in particular ), love between sibbling (though sibbling rivalry is also common ), love between friends ( that can lead to self-less sacrifice ), love between teachers and students ( mostly out of care and respect ), and love for the undeprivileged ( mainly out of justice and compassion ). Despite the variety of form, there are always common traits in these different kinds of love. These include sacrifice ( as previously mentioned ), dedication, meticulous consideration for their feelings and unceasing concern for the other's welfare and happiness. So much so that the lover will not hesitate to sacrifice his or her own wealth, time, comfort, career or even life itself to
protect the loved one. Such is the power and inspiration of love.
On the other hand, love can also be a double-edged sword. It can

cut both ways, the good way and the bad. A lover scorned can become destructive both on himself or herself or on the one being loved. We do hear from time to time that a jealous lover commits suicide or, worse still, hurts the beloved one. In less tragic cases, the rejected lover may not be able to handle such rejection and may become emotionally crippled for life. Others may resort to drugs and alcohol or become self-destructive in his or her career. Therefore, extreme care should be taken to avoid unhappy endings by looking before you leap. Although I have emphasized on the sudden emergence of love, there is, nevertheless, a point of no return at which time a conscious decision has usually been taken. This is the crucial moment to which I am referring. When your logical senses are still in control of the situation before emotions overwhelm you, that would be you last chance to size up the situation. Seek objective advice from your family and close friends or even professional counselling while you are still capable of making sense out of such advice. A blind commitment or one-sided devotion is not a workable proposition. Another corollary from this logical inference is that teenagers should avoid falling in love before graduating from college. Both their academic commitments and a lack of financial means may very well contribute to a failure in their love life or else their future career may suffer as well. Like a delicate orchid love will only blossom at the right time and appropriate circumstances. Therefore, those intending to fall in love should be extra careful before making a definite commitment.
As love is the most important ingredient in happiness, love and marriage like horse and carriage, as the saying goes, must go hand in hand. The most delicate and vital skill in nuturing a happy marriage is to keep the flame of love burning. Love is like a delicate flower, it needs a lot of meticulous care and watering to blossom in glory. The key to success in this regard is for both husband and wife not to take each other for granted. Each partner in marriage should still respect the privacy of the other by allowing room for each partner's personal interests and hobbies and own circle of friends. Men have men's talk while girls also have girls' talk. Allow some private times for each other's friends and hobbies or sports. This can also provide a time apart and a break from the tedious and monotonous daily routes. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. If the financial circumstances allow, married couples should go on occasinal vacations.The main aim is to break the montony of the daily routines. My wife and I used to go on annual vacations even when our children were very young despite the trouble to arrange for baby sitting. After our children have grown up, we still go on occasional holidays. Our favourite trips used to be sun, sea and sand in tropical island resorts such as Guam and Saipan ( Micronesia ), Bali ( Indonesia ), Phuket ( Thailand ), Penang and Kota Kinabalu ( Malaysia ) and Cairns and the Hayman Island ( Queensland, Australia ) and the islands of the Philippines ( Cebu and Boracay ), etc. and we have a lot of photos and videos to keep a lasting memories of the “ times of our life “. To create a good memory together was one of the promises I made to my wife when I asked her to marry me. I guess I have not

179

let her down in this respect. Then, of course, there were the family trips to various places in Australia, North America, Europe, South Africa and most of Asia. After my retirement, we preferred to go on the less adventurous but more relaxing trips. These involved sailing the high seas on cruise ships which has, in recent years, become a very popular and affordable way of spending holidays. The bonus of being a pensioner is having the luxury of time. We are able to plan well ahead to get the huge early bird discounts of up to 30% or the rock bottom price for vacant unsold state rooms for imminent departures with short notice. Travelling is the biggest item on my family budget over the years. Cheaper options are always available if one cares to find out. Life is made up of numerous episodes which must be created by ourselves. How you like your memory to be read by yourself when you are old and gray and only has the past to look back to, is really all up to you. No one can change history. So do something before it is too late ! This is all a part of love, life and the process of living.
The foregoing only reflects the happy side of love. No one can completely avoid the bitter side of it except to keep it to a minimum. Refrain from making the fatal mistakes and you will be alright. One very tricky aspect of love and marriage is the issue of fidelity or loyalty of the partners toward each other. If a marriage fails both the partners and the innocent children will suffer. In this unfortunate scenario, the married couple suffer for a reason. It is their free choice and commitment that has led to the union. If it proves to be a mistake, they are to blame and rightly bearing the unpleasant consequences. But the children are innocent and should not be penalized for their parents personal failure. Therefore, married couples should not consider having children until they are very sure about the stability and durability of their marriage. I am proud to be able to say that I have kept my marriage vow of fidelity to my wife so far. I say so far, not because of my lack of confidence in my ability to stay loyal to my partner, but it is just a logical step to make my statement an empirical one that is capable of being proven right or wrong, one way or the other. However, there had been temptations on a few occasions that are quite common place in the world of business. Luckily, I was able to resist them by applying a few personal tricks specifically designed by myself to counteract such dangers. Let me share them with you here. First of all, never overestimate your own ability to control your emotions or natural urges. Natural or animal instincts are overwhelming. This is the laws of nature. The human spirit is in a sense, superior to all other animals because we can override such instincts if we really want to. Nevertheless, the first rule of mine is to avoid putting yourself under compromising circumstances in the first place. The human brain being a chaotic system, as I have time and again stressed in this book, makes it impossible to predict the final outcomes of even your own behaviour. Secondly, always carry your favourite family photo and wear your wedding ring to remind yourself of your moral obligations. Put yourself in your wife's position and your children's in particular. Always remind yourself that your own silly mistakes can ruin their whole life. It is not worth the risk, disease and moral obligations aside. I have always put this proposition to my friends and colleagues when they challenge me on my views on fedelity. I always say that the day I cheat on my wife will be the day I allow her to cheat on me. This would have at least been a fair deal. Since no man would allow his wife to be unfaithful to himself, therefore, I will never cheat on my wife and so should all husbands do the same under the principle of natural justice. Then some of my friends and business associates taunted me by asking what if I had a bad urge on my long business trips. I used to give them the naughty but practical answer of D.I.Y.My last trick in keeping myself from being naughty is to appeal to your own pride and integrity. My friends very often give the excuse that they cannot stand the teasing of their bad company of friends.They say they are afraid of peer pressure and cannot stand being called a coward who is a wife-fearing and boneless sissy. My strongest response to such bad company of friends is this. The day I cheat on my wife will be the day I choose to out of my own free will, never because of peer pressure. If I bend to pressure, I will become a truly boneless sissy.
On the issue of fedelity in love and marriage, we must again turn to science and biology for a complete understanding of the different mental and emotional attitudes of women and men towards this crucial matter. Mainly through evolution and later under cultural traditions ( by conditioning and reinforcement of their brain ), women are usually less promisuous than men because they are the homemakers. They put their

180

family first and their pleasures second. So much so that many women unlike men cannot enjoy sex without love. For men sex and love may be separate issues but for most women these two are one. The children need their mothers more than their fathers as far as their daily needs are concerned for two very good reasons. Women are more sensitive and meticulous than men and they are also naturally better adapted to their caring role both by their delicate physique and patience. Men on the other hand are traditionally hunters, the wild ones who must always be the strong and invincible bread winner. The law of natural selection is such that the fittest and strongest survives and flourishes to inherit the earth. Therefore, men are born to be sexual creatures whose manhood is traditionally measured by their strong physique and sexual prowess.This tendency can easily give rise to promiscuity. However, these are only animal instincts that can be overridden by the human brain for the good of the family and, in turn, society. In passing, I would like to play a little game with the reader and ask you to solve a puzzle. The puzzle is this. Which is the most important male sexual organ ? It is not what most people think. It is your brain ! If you have guessed it right, then you are a mature male. If you have not, then you only live by your biological instincts. Your intellect needs a lot more training. If, after going through life and living for a few decades, a man is only able to get kicks out of his senses alone, it would really be a pathetic situation. That means he has not been able to evolve or progress to a point where he can get satisfaction on the higher intellectual or spiritual levels. He would still be an animal which is motivated by pure instincts alone. It is comparable to being still at the third grade of school after studying for 30 years. As explained previously ( chapter (ix) – Consciousness – Free Will ), the noble aspect of the human consciousness is the ability to override our basic instincts including our survival instinct to perform acts of great courage such as sacrifice and love. If one is not able to exercise this defining human ability to suppress your natural urges of whatever kind, one can no longer be fit to qualify as a human being. He or she would just be an animal, pure and simple.
The family unit requires absolute security and stability for the proper development for children both physically and mentally. Constant quarrels and numerous women in the house to compete for the master's love and attention is hardly a peaceful and secured situation for raising the next generation who is the future of society. Therefore, monogamy is preferred in the modern society for the greater good of our future generations. The noble and difficult task of taming men's wayward and wild nature in this respect can only be borne by a caring women, his wife, through “ tender, love and care “ as the lyrics of one very popular love song suggest. Incidentally, apart from applying moral standards, incest is always unacceptable in my view. This is because the duplication of roles involving jealousy and emotional competitions between mother and daughter's intimacy with the father or the father and son's intimacy with the mother ( and even between sibblings ) will inevitably lead to emotional and even physical chaos within the family unit and ultimately destroy it to the detriment of society. Thus, the perverted suggestion by some social scientists from Scandinavia thinly veiled in the disguise of respect for individual choice to legalize incest because of the reliability of birth control measures must be totally denounced without hesitation to protect the sacred family system. The problem of unwanted off-springs is just one among numerous complications of this taboo issue. The question of emotional conflict and the undesirable implications on the position of trust and power play among family members are the more controversial problems which should never be allowed to materialize.
In both this section and the previous one, I have paid great tribute to our better halves because I feel that in the traditional male dominant society women's rights and contributions have been belittled as a matter of course. I am totally against this kind of attitude. In the spirit of fairness and based on the common origin of all things, we should all work towards the removal of this injustice. There is a common argument in favour of superiority of the male based on the natural strength of the his physique. This has been taken as evidence from nature on this superiority. I strongly feel that this argument is flawed. I used to be puzzled while I was a teenager about why men have nipples despite the fact that we do not have to nurse the babies. Later, I realized from my biology class that both the male and female bodies are based on only one particular form of structure for economy of design. It is the X ( for men ) and Y ( for women ) chromosomes that are responsible for the biological changes in the human fertilized egg to

181

give rise to the different male and female body structure. Nature has not chosen the male physique to be the dominant form. Everyone and all things are equal and have arisen from the same humble origin that is stardust !
Love is an important part of living but this process of life can be even more colourful only if we know how to handle it in the right way. It all comes down to one's meaning in life. What it all means to you and only you alone.The New Testament of the Bible ( Gospel of St. Mark, 8 : 36 ) says :- “ For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? “ If you do not know your own meaning in life, you will already have lost your way because, without a goal, you will not be able to know what you are doing in life and why you are doing it. To a great painter, his meaning in life may be to create one everlasting master piece. To a writer, as the great Ernest Hemingway said :- “ To write just one true sentence ! “ It is just like happiness. It is different things to different people. You simply have to find your own way although you may get some inspirations from others. “ Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. “ (Gospel of St. Matthew, 7 : 7 ) Abstract notions such as meaning in life may not come to you easily or in a tangible way. You have to feel your way to find it. Neither can such notions be quantified and systematically analyzed. The reductionist or scientific method that has brought us all the modern technologies cannot help you in this regard. It belongs to the category of issues that I call a matter of the heart and not of the head. To deal with matters of the heart, a holistic approach may be more appropriate. This approach usually involves very personal and subjective techniques like introspection ( self-examination ), meditation ( a journey of the mind ) and even intuition ( power of your subconscious mind ). Be close to the best teacher of all times, Mother Nature, and you will ultimately be inspired. Forget about material things from time to time and get out to the open. Touch the grass and smell the trees. They radiate the energies of life. Bask yourself in the sun and enjoy the calmness and serenity of the sea and sand. Get away from your daily woes once in a while and you will reap the wisdom of nature and, may be, your meaning in life will parade itself before the windows to your soul. It is no use trying hard to find it. Be in contact with Nature without a specific purpose ( simply being idle ) and the inner light of wisdom may unconsciously and suddenly dawn on you. That is the mystical way how life works. The only thing that could help you achieve your goal of connecting with yourself and finding your meaning in life is to enrich your intellect and your spirit. This you can do by acquiring more useful knowledge, that is knowledge that can brighten up your mind in terms of sensitivity to your environment, both physical and mental. You have to stand on the shoulders of giants to see further than your own ability. In time, when you have done enough in such intellectual conditioning, all will be suddenly revealed to you. That is why people use the phrase “ to see the light “ to describe personal enlightenment. To me, enlightenment is Connection !
Let us now consider something more tangible and substantial. This is the material means to enable us to live a good life. Assuming that we have already found our meaning in life, how can we acquire sufficient financial means to realize our goal in life in the proper but efficient way ? A lot has already been said about financial and material resources under the section- Of Money and Men. Here, I only wish to elaborate a little on the appropriate balance to be struck between material needs and spiritual needs. When we first embarked on our careers in our youthful days, materialistic concerns were our main worries. After having been established in our careers, financial stablity will automatically ensue but most people keep on chasing the endless money game regardless of their actual materialistic needs. In this crazy game of money for its own sake, we have very often missed a lot of family fun and sharing in our children's maturing process without realizing it until it is too late. In the wink of an eye, our children have already grown up before we notice it and those precious moments such as the first word they spoke ( may be it was “Daddy “ ) or their first fall when they learned how to walk ( may be they cried for your help ) and so on were sadly missed by you, and lost forever. These are really the things that you worked so hard for. Never be the absent parents who are too busy taking care of the family bills. Your children desparately need you emotionally. So, a healthy balance must be maintained between career and family.
Most people like to ask themselves whether or not they have lived a successful life. Well, this is a big question that requires a lot of reflection before we can

182

give an answer. To me, there is only one way to make a reply. It is a matter of personal value judgment. There are numerous way of defining success in life but the one sure way to become a failure is not to have set yourself a goal in life at all. Without a goal to gauge your achievements, your rating in life has to be zero. A goaless life is a zero standard for life and zero standards gives rise to zero ratings. Everyone must live by one's own standards for there is no preferred frame of reference or universal criterion for everyone's life by virtue of Einstein's Special Relativity. So, you must always remember this. You live for youself and yourself alone and for nobody else. Then, what about the ones we love you may ask. Do we not live for them ? The simple answer is in the positive but it does not conflict with my first proposition of living for oneself and oneself alone. Without loving and caring for you own well being, you will not be able to love any one else. Only by learning to love and live for yourself will you be qualified to love the ones close to you. If you do not know how to live and love yourself you will be unable to love anybody else for that matter. Living for yourself imply living according to your own principles and goals and I am sure that one of those personal goals have to involve loving the ones close to you. At the end of the day or the end of your life, success in your life will ultimately be measured by the fulfilment of your goals and responsibilities in life. Have you been a good son or daughter; husband or wife; brother or sister; a good professional in your own area of expertise; a good citizen or neighbour ? Never compare your success to that of any other person for each is different in every way. That is the special quality and true value of each individual, hence my dedication to liberal individualism or humanism. But always remember this. It does not matter how you die because death comes to us all. It only matters how you have lived ! So, live life to the fullest and start with the initial step like all long journeys - the first step - which is this - to find your own meaning in life and then go for it ! 

Friday, September 20, 2013

Thoughts to You from Yours Truly - ( TYYT ) - ( 83 ) - Theory and Reality

 Thoughts to You from Yours Truly - ( TYYT ) - ( 83 ) - Theory and Reality

Theory and Reality

 All theories are necessarily approximation of the reality they purport to describe and predict. Otherwise, they will be too specific to have any predictive power. We may as well take each real life scenario to transform it into individual theories which are accurate to every minor detail. But then, there would be numerous theories to cover every real life scenario thus rendering the them useless for lack of generality and predictive value. Theories are by nature theoretical ( here comes another one of my tautologies ! ). Let me tell you a short story about theories and theorists. When I attended my first lecture in economics on my first day at the Hong Kong University back in 1968, our lecturer at the time was an economist who was previously employed by the United Nations as a consulting economist. Before starting the lecture on economics, he said he would tell us an interesting story after which we will definitely realise what economics is all about. It goes like this. There was once a centipede ( a small crawling venomous creature with 100 small little legs ) which has lost one of its legs. It has heard that the owl is the wisest creature around in the forest world. So, the centipede paid the wise old owl a visit to ask for help to heal its leg. After a lot of close examination and serious pondering by the wise old owl, the wise guy was only able to come up with a puzzled grin in his eyes and some undulating wrinkles on his forehead. The owl told the centipede that with all his great knowledge about nature he regretted that there was nothing he could do to reverse the course of the centipede's misfortune. However, the owl knew of a even wiser creature called the economist who could play magic by using only limited means to meet unlimited ends with the material world. Perhaps, the economist was smart enough to conjure up something for the centipede. So, it immediately went to see the smart economist. Without much hesitation, the economist said to the centipede :- “ I cannot help you to recover your leg but I may be able to reduce your level of injury and disability by 90%. “ The centipede was overjoyed to hear the good news. “ Please, tell me how this can be done. I will surely repay your kindness when I have the chance “ said the centipede. “ O.K. ! It's easy “ said the economist , “ you can reduce your disability by 90% if you turn yourself into a millipede which has 1000 legs. “ The centipede was dumbfounded. “ How could I do this ? “ it protested. “ Don't ask me ,“ said the economist,:- “ I am only a theorist. I base my theory on sound logic but as regards implementation you have to ask the technicians. Implementation is not the responsibility of my department.” There you have it. Theories mostly work on principles and approximations. The story itself is an extreme case of pure theorisation and real life economists do come up with practical solutions for economic problems. For example, J.M. Keynes' important economic theories on government fiscal expenditure and deficit financing reversed the course of the world depression in the 1930s resulting from the great Wall Street Crash of 1929. However, the story does hight light the necessarily general nature of all theories. I hope that given time and further efforts my theory will become more systematic and user friendly. 

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Poetry & Prose - Poem - ( 詩 ) - ( 16 ) - 慶中秋( 贈知己 )


慶中秋( 贈知己 )

September 20, 2013 at 12:46am
中秋月正耀,

皎潔慶今宵,

知己萬里遙,

團圓卻心照。


The mid-autumn moon is so brightly shining

Her pure white glow celebrates tonight's festival

Unfortunately friends are thousands of miles apart

Sharing can nevertheless be achieved through the heart.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Ten email commandments - Financial Times


Ten email commandments - Financial Times




High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5837c954-1a8a-11e3-93e8-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2epcw2sVE


1. Email is your servant
Corner-office people have secretaries to prevent them being interrupted. They take incoming calls and turn them into written records. They fend off time-wasters. They create blocks of unbroken time during which real work can be done. Email will do all this for you too – and while I am a Gmail user, most modern email programs or services should allow you to do likewise.
First, switch off most, if not all, notifications: the blinking red light on the BlackBerry, the little icon in the corner of the screen, the automated email telling you that someone has mentioned you on Twitter. Most websites, apps, devices and software programs will have a “settings” section and, with that, a “notifications”. If you can’t find it, Google it. Switch ’em off.
You might make an exception for rare events: once a week or so, someone I already know will try to send a private message to me on Twitter. I have told Twitter to send me an email when this happens, but I don’t need a little blinking light to tell me that someone has sent me an email. Unless the End Times Are At Hand, someone has always just sent me an email. I’ll answer when I am ready.
Your phone can prevent interruptions too: a voicemail message can politely ask people to text or email you. Presto: instant personal assistant. Whenever you have finished what you were actually intending to do, fire up your email. Emails form a permanent, searchable record. Consult that record at a time convenient to you.


2. Don’t bother filing your emails – archive them
Back in the day, people would file their old emails in folders. Gmail popularised the idea of a catch-all Archive: the equivalent of dumping all your documents in a wheelie bin beside your desk and rooting around in there if you ever need to find anything. If your email program doesn’t have a default archive like Gmail, it’s easy to achieve a similar effect: just create one folder for yourself marked “Archive” and dump anything you might vaguely wish to see again into that folder.
Perhaps this sounds insane. Trust me. The difference between a modern email archive and a wheelie bin is that the archive is searchable. If you’ve ever googled a document that you now have in your filing cabinet, you’ve realised the basic idea: search is now so good it is usually quicker to search for something in an undifferentiated archive than it is to find the folder where you painstakingly filed it.
©Alberto Antoniazzi
I am serious about this. You do not need to waste time with elaborate folder systems. Forget about them. I use folders only for very specific projects. For instance, I often find myself agreeing to speak at conferences or book festivals, and it can be handy to use a single sub-folder to store all the emails relevant to a particular gig. When the event is finished, I drag the whole sub-folder into a folder marked “Past Events” and it will never distract me again.
More often than not, though, folder structures become unwieldy; choosing the right folder into which to drop an email becomes an extended exercise in thumb-sucking taxonomy, and finding it again becomes impossible.
Why bother? A fine research paper with the title “Am I Wasting My Time Organizing Email?” by Steve Whittaker and others at IBM Research concluded that, broadly, yes, you are. The researchers collected digital data from 345 users of an email program over several weeks. They found that an email search typically takes about 15 seconds, while a hunt through folders takes about a minute. (Some users also just scrolled up and down their inboxes; typically it took about 30 seconds to find an email!) Just to be clear: it took four times as long to find emails using the painstaking-to-set-up system than it did using the “archive and forget” system. Nor were “filers” any more likely to find the email they were looking for than “searchers”.

How to be an email sociopath

If you’d like to really aggravate a busy person, send them an email with an attachment saying “please see the attached letter”, and add no elaboration. This is a three-for-one communication catastrophe. First, you are impersonating the behaviour of someone trying to spread a virus. Second, your message is hard to read on a phone and, on some systems, is not searchable. Third, you’re slowing everything down. This isn’t a children’s treasure hunt, where each message points to the next message. It’s a failed attempt to communicate with a busy person.
Of course, if attachments are your style, why not embed all the details in an image in the style of a fancy invitation? This plan has it all: a large, non-searchable file, practically impossible to read on a smartphone and requiring a mortgage to download if abroad. Whatever your event is, I guarantee that it’s worth missing if this is how you choose to announce it.
Alternatively, you could put vital information – rather than supporting material – on the web behind a password, and send me a link to click on. I love trying to remember passwords; typing them in on a smartphone is a source of great joy, and the fear that I am responding to a phishing attack just adds to the excitement. You might think that nobody would be insane enough to try to communicate like this; if so I’d be happy to introduce you to some of my colleagues at the Financial Times.
Gmail users might even treat themselves to the “Send and Archive” feature; you can enable it by going to Gmail’s settings. It adds a single, handy button which sends your reply, archives your email and returns you to your inbox, all in one click. It’s addictive. Emails just vanish.


3. Process your email inbox – and empty it
Let me just take a quick break to check on my email inbox. I’ll be right back ...
... I’m back. There was one email. Now there’s none. I have become increasingly convinced that sanity depends on keeping your inbox as empty as possible, checking it several times a day (but not several times an hour) and dealing promptly with everything that lurks there.
This doesn’t mean letting your inbox jerk you around on a string – it is all too easy to allow other people’s priorities to run your day. But most incoming email can be processed very quickly without interrupting what really matters.
How? Productivity prophet Merlin Mann points out that there are only five things you can do with an email: delete it, delegate it, reply to it, defer it or take some more substantial action.
Some email is obviously crap and can be deleted without being read. If it’s crap from a reputable source, rather than a fake Viagra merchant, check to see if there’s a one-click unsubscribe, or consider setting up a quick filter: any worthwhile email system will let you automatically block emails from a particular sender, often with just a click or two.
Other emails need to be read but can then be processed almost instantly. If the email is about a meeting that you’ll attend, write the meeting in your calendar (electronic or otherwise) – and then hit “Archive” to get rid of the email. If you can make a decision, make it quickly and reply. (Perhaps you are worried about seeming perfunctory; that’s less of a problem now that so many emails are sent from phones. In any case, a brief response will often be excused if it is prompt.) Or quickly delegate the task. If the email is “for information”, read it, then archive it.
Then, of course, there are the emails that require something more time-consuming. And unless you want to drop everything to respond, that means deferring the action until later. Don’t leave the email in your inbox. You should either be moving it to an “action” folder, or archiving it and noting the action on a To Do list that you trust. (Pen and paper isn’t a bad choice.)
Does that seem like a purely cosmetic change, designed to keep your inbox looking clean but simply shovelling the problem somewhere else? It isn’t. Here’s why: if you leave genuine “To Do” items in your inbox, your inbox will become your To Do list. That’s not good, because anyone can get in your face and on your To Do list just by sending you an email. And the functionality you might want in a To Do list – setting repeat tasks, deadlines and priorities – simply isn’t built into a traditional inbox. So when I say there are no emails in my inbox, I don’t mean that I’ve done everything. I’m just using a less dysfunctional system of recording what I haven’t yet done.


4. Five emails are sometimes better than one
Let’s switch to the viewpoint of the email sender: how to send emails that will make the recipient want to hug you rather than strangle you with a cable? Oddly, sometimes it is more helpful to send lots of emails rather than a single one.
©Alberto Antoniazzi
Say I’m coming to visit you on a business trip. You need me to do five things: sign a form, send a document, arrange a flight, confirm dietary requirements and arrange a pre-trip phone call. In most cases I would prefer to receive five separate emails, because these are tasks I can tick off one by one. Decking out your email with different requests like a Christmas tree has the advantage of putting everything in one place but the risk is that you will hear nothing until everything is done. (The exception: at some point before the trip I’m going to love you if you send me an email with all the relevant details together in one place.)



5. Use filters – a bit
Most email systems allow you to block emails from certain senders in a matter of seconds. If you get a lot of unsolicited email (my curse is poorly targeted press releases) then you may find it’s worth getting into the habit of using filters – little rules that your email program will use to delete them automatically. If you can’t figure out how to set up a filter on your email program, just put the question into Google: that will find the answer for you.
Some people use more elaborate filters – for instance, using the full functions of their email systems to presort emails by subject and sender. I am not convinced. If an email is not useful enough to be worth a glance as it arrives, perhaps you should be unsubscribing from it anyway. Vouchers, notifications from Facebook, newsgroup digests – this sort of not-quite-Spam is often called “Bacn” (which is not an acronym but simply a way of spelling “bacon” with four letters). Bacon is tastier than spam; it’s nevertheless bad for you.

Favourite websites

Merlin Mann’s 43folders.com is a brilliant resource for getting on top of email. It is now largely dormant, which is an advantage: too many sites frantically bombard you with “productivity porn” which you read instead of, ahem, being productive.
One such is Lifehacker.com, a great resource if you want to find the latest list of, for instance, “To Do” smartphone apps. But with updates every half an hour, the possibility of temptation is all too obvious.
My favourite To Do list isRemember The Milk, a website and phone app. There are newer apps out there but one can fiddle too much with these things. I use Delicious for online bookmarks (the Android app is Andricious) and Dlvr.it to turn those bookmarks into tweets.


6. Smile – it’s all on the record
Be nice. You never know who will get to read your email – the jury at your fraud trial; the NSA; your partner; your boss. Email lasts indefinitely and can be forwarded instantly – helpful when sharing information. But it is also dangerous: dangerous for evasive managers, insider traders and fraudsters. You are none of those things and need not fear leaving a permanent record; that is because you are always, always, nice.


7. Smartphones are habit-forming, so think about the habits you want to form
Don’t get me wrong: I love my smartphone. But because it’s always there within easy reach, it’s a constant temptation and it’s habit-forming. I’ve seen very impressive people reduced to rude, babbling imbeciles because they can’t stop themselves from being distracted by their phones. (This is another good reason to keep your inbox empty – a stuffed inbox is like a scab to be picked away at on the smartphone when you could be reading a good book. And while it can be handy to reply to emails while waiting for a bus, smartphones have pretty inefficient keyboards.)
What to do? One possibility is complete abstinence. Another is periodic fasting. Many travellers have marvelled at how much they get done on long-distance flights, where it remains very difficult to distract oneself with the internet. Tom Chatfield, author of Netymology, points out that anyone can simulate such a flight by switching your devices to “airplane” mode for a few hours. Instant isolation from the internet.
©Alberto Antoniazzi
A less drastic approach is simply to recognise that your smartphone will demand your attention and checking it will become a habit. Think, then, about what it is that you want to become habitual. Checking email seems harmless to me if you are good at responding or deleting. Checking Twitter or Facebook might work for some but it’s not a habit I want.
I’ve set up my smartphone so that I can check my favourite blogs – I use Feedly with the GReader app – and I quickly fire off a tweeted recommendation if I see something I like. The side effect: I can tweet a lot without firing up Twitter, which means I am less likely to become distracted. In short, the phone is set up so that I can produce social media but not consume them. I can use apps such as Readability to catch up on longer articles I bookmarked earlier, and am a voracious listener to podcasts. But I couldn’t check Twitter on my phone if I wanted to – and I don’t want to, because smartphones are all about habit, and this is one I’ve prevented myself from acquiring.


8. Embrace the imperfect To Do list
The thing to understand about To Do lists is that they’re very powerful but not very complicated.

GLOSSARY

Archive (n): in Gmail, a catch-all place where your emails go unless you specifically put them somewhere else.
Archive (v): to make an email disappear from your inbox in a single click, without deleting it or fiddling around with some complicated filing system.
Bacn: email that you signed up to receive but that isn’t really a personal communication – newsletters, automatic notifications from Facebook and similar. It’s usually easy to unsubscribe, and you probably should.
Filter: an automatic rule that your email software uses to sort emails into various folders – including the trash.
Folder: a quaint digital throwback to the days when we didn’t have powerful search functions for email, and therefore needed to devote vast energies to ensuring we knew exactly where we’d put it.
Gmail: a popular web-based email application provided by Google. Other email systems are available and all the good ones will let you do similar things.
Google it: if anything I’ve said confuses you, type “how do I...” into Google and you’ll be surprised how helpful the answers tend to be.
Notifications: ways in which your email, phone and social networks interrupt you when you are doing something else. There’s almost always a way to switch them off. Find it.
RSS: stands for Rich Site Summary, or Really Simple Syndication. Allows a program or website called an RSS reader – the most famous is probably Feedly – to track updates to your favourite blogs in a manner reminiscent of email.
I find it useful to distinguish between three kinds of task. There’s the stuff that is going to need to be done in due course but not now – my columns; my accounts. Then there’s the stuff that doesn’t need doing now, or at any particular time, but needs noting down so I don’t forget. Then there’s the stuff I was hoping to do today.
The only firm principle with To Do lists is not to let these different kinds of task get in each other’s way. Here’s what works well for me: I use a digital task manager to store tasks that repeat, or tasks with a distant deadline, or “sometime” tasks. (There are lots of choices, such as Any.Do, Todoist and Remember The Milk, many of which will synchronise between a web-based interface and your smartphone.) But the practical list of stuff I am actually trying to get done right now is on a piece of paper with the two or three things I am determined to do at the top, and a random brain-dump of other tasks that will be added to over the course of the day. At the end of the day, I rewrite the list so that it’s ready to use the next morning. Anything that keeps on being postponed probably needs to disappear from that list. I know; it’s a dead tree. How quaint.
Writing stuff on your To Do list that you’ve already done, just for the satisfaction of crossing it off? That’s entirely legitimate. The To Do list is not just a prompt; it is a record of achievement.


9. How to deal with social media
Social media – Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus+ and the rest – are in flux for a simple enough reason: they’re all terrible.
Facebook is intolerable; even if there were no concerns about privacy and advertising, it would still be intolerable: the site is a clunky, capricious mess. Twitter is fun but flawed. Try following a discussion or argument, or searching for an interesting link someone tweeted a few days ago, and see how easy you find it.
My own record with social media is mixed. I have a Facebook page that automatically takes content from my website; I don’t pay much attention to it.
I have a decent Twitter following – the population of a small town – but I don’t check Twitter much because it’s just too wonderfully distracting. (I mentioned before that I tweet a lot while reading blogs on my phone. I don’t actually log into Twitter to do so. I use Dlvr.it to automatically post anything I bookmark on Delicious at 15-minute intervals. This has the side effect of making my tweets taggable and searchable.)
Despite Google’s attempts to kill it, I’m a huge fan of RSS – a simple way to follow your favourite websites. You don’t need to wait for something to “go viral”; you follow your chosen writers free of charge and without delay. Occasionally someone asks me how I find so many wonderful things to tweet about. The answer is simple: the RSS feed of a few good blogs. (If you don’t know what RSS is or how it works, just look it up.)


10. And finally ...
All this is a work in progress. I struggle daily to take my own advice and constantly distract myself with nonsense. And is any of this advice right for you? Your job description, colleagues and home life are different. You are different. Figure out what advice I should have given you, and do that instead.
Tim Harford’s new book is ‘The Undercover Economist Strikes Back: How to Run – or Ruin – an Economy’ (Little, Brown)
How are you surviving 21st-century technology? Share your top tips and experiences by emailing magazineletters@ft.com, commenting below or tweeting us @FTMag #gettingthingsdone

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Of God and Ghosts



The following is an essay written by me about God which has been extracted from my book - The Universe - A Personal View ( page 193 to 205 )

Link to my book :-  https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxqa2hjbGlmZXN0eWxlfGd4OjM5NmM2NTViMjAzY2M5MTk

Of God and Ghosts

The idea of the existence of a supreme being or deity who has created this world and overseeing it constantly has always been an important part of human history and culture. No view of the universe can be considered complete without
discussing this very vital and extremely human topic. At the beginning of human history, men used to believe in all kinds of gods because of their ignorance about their physical environment. They attributed the warm and rejuvenating power of the sun to a sun god and the deafening roars of thunder to a thunder god and so on. As mentioned in the previous section, it is men's nature to attach an explanation to everything they encounter as a mark of completion ( i.e. to have successfully discovered the reason they are looking for ) to satisfy their curiosity and yearning for knowledge. At the discovery of anything too complicated for their comprehension or beyond their existing knowledge, it is not uncommon for men to invent the concept of gods who are all powerful beings to be the ultimate cause of any unexplained phenomena. But this is not to say that this reasoning can be applied directly and indiscriminately as a logical argument to disprove the existence of the one true God who is by definition a self-existing, all powerful and benevolent being that permeates the whole universe and is worshiped by billions of people worldwide under different forms of religions. I do not think that most people believe in God for such a naïve reason. People's thoughts are far more sophisticated and complex than this simple reasoning. My view on this issue will be set out below. Suffice it to say at this introductory stage that it is inherent in human nature to look to a higher cause for the ultimate origins of all things and phenomena experienced in their lives. It is my contention that everyone ( from the atheists to those scientists who hold a materialistic world view and even the buddhists whose philosophy as set out in their Law of Dependent Origination excludes the possibility of any self-existing entity ) has , in one way or another, based his or her belief regarding the origin of the universe on some aspects of the concept of a self- existing and all powerful force which possesses God-like qualities or characteristics. I totally agree that such a contention as mine sounds outrageous to most, if not all, people. However, I would plead for your patience and forbearance until you have gone through my rationale for holding such an unconventional view.
I shall not go into the detailed religious doctrines of different world religions but simply dwell a little bit on the concept of God as perceived by each of the major religious groups. The major world religions that have commanded the worship of over three-quarters of the global population include the following ( in alphabetical order ) :- Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism ( of China ), Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism

page193image38928
193

( of Japan ), Taoism ( of China ) and Universality (i.e. yin and yang concepts of nature ) also originating from China. There are, of course, other religions of a more ethnical nature which are less structurally developed and all of them have their concept of a creator God in one form of another. As these are less representative and concern only individual social groups, we shall not deal with them individually. However, I think it is only fair to say that the point about the concept of a creating force or deity for the universe being a universal concept has been reasonably established. Without further ado, let me brief you on how my unconventional view has come about. This will involve brief visits to the world views of the major religions.
Buddhism has a number of branches the two basic off-shoots from the different philosophical outlooks being the Hinayana school ( the “ lesser vehicle “ ) and the later school of Mahayana ( the “ great vehicle “ ). The former school mainly concerns with achieving enlightenment or entering nirvana ( the western world of extreme and endless happiness without the need for rebirth to endure the human sufferings of birth, ageing, sickness and death ) for oneself. It was also known as Monastic Buddhism because it only places emphasis on the individual and isolated practice of the religion in monastery away from the materialistic world. This was not done for selfish reasons but on account of the strong belief that this materialistic world breeds evil that will prevent the achievement of enlightenment. Then, the latter school of Mahayana has the very noble concept of Bodhisattva. While the Buddha is the enlightened one, the Bodhisattva is the developing Buddha. The Mahayana teaching has the noble goal of selfless sacrifice by the Bodhisattva to remain on earth ( although they could have achieved nirvana and not to undergo the pain of rebirth ) solely for the benefit of other living creatures and to rescue them from their sufferings to help them towards enlightenment. That is why Mahayana is called the great vehicle to transport everyone to the western world of extreme and endless happiness. This magnanimous social goal is what causes this school of Buddhism to
become the main stream of the religion and a socially popular religion in the orient.
Let us now exaime the Buddhist world view in brief. According to Buddhist philosophy, the individual and his physical environment are subject to constant processes of birth and destruction in endless cycles operating under a strict and unchanging law called Dharma. Everything and everyone is nothing but a manifestation of this supreme law of nature. There is no real differences between anything and anyone. There are, in fact, no separate entities of any sort. The world is just one under the working of the supreme moral or natural law of Dharma. In my opinion, this is the best recipe and rationale for world peace. So there are really no such thing as :- you and me, subject and object, self and non-self, in here and out there, physical and spiritual. Every phenomenon we experience is just an illusion of the existence of a reality which is the result of never ending cycles of changes. I would again point to the famous example of the reflection of the moon on the water surface and the image of a flower in the mirror as concrete examples of this concept. They look so real but they are simply illusions. The Buddha explained this proposition in his teaching on “ Dependent Origination “ which actually means “ Conditioned Arising “ or the “ Formula of Casual Connection “. In short, it maintains that the aggregates are mutually dependent on the multi-lateral interactions between all the individual components. You simply cannot analyze which component has contributed how much to the overall aggregate. The reductionist approach of breaking up the the aggregate into parts to find an explanation is simply unworkable here because every part ( if there is any which I do not believe this to be the case in most instances ) is multi-laterally interconnected with every other part in the system in question. This is the concept of the part in the whole and the whole in the part that we have come across in chapter (vii) - the New Science of Fuzzy Logic. Here, the holistic approach though a less scientific one is more appropriate. There is simply no one to one relationship. If this sounds familiar it is because it is also the conclusion reached by the Theory of Chaos and Complexity in chapter ( v ). So, there is a closer relationship between science and religion than one would imagine. To complete the Buddhist world view, the working of Dharma creates these aggregates ( or phenomena, which I feel is a better term ) which endures beyond death of our physical bodies and form new combinations of the “ individual dharmas “ represented by each of our individual consciousness in the form of our rebirths. The only sure thing about our life is that it is painful and full of sufferings due to our


194

ignorance of the working of the supreme natural law ( “ Dharma “ ). We have so often been working against the natural law that our suffering is created by our own doing. The only salvation for us is to see through the illusion of reality ( that nothing is permanent ) and to adjust our attitiude and behaviour accordingly. Only by doing good and be compassionate to other living creatures can we break this endless cycle of pain and suffering to achieve enlightenment and enter nirvana as a buddha.
Since the law of Dependent Origination is so important to buddhist philosophy, some further insights into this concept is paramount in understanding the essence of the buddhist world view. As the logic of this concept relies on the argument that everything is interconnected as an undivided whole, it hypothesizes that all aggregates ( or phenomena ) both the grand Dharma of the universe and individual dharmas of each human being are mutually dependent on and as a whole determine one another. This is the essence of the holistic approach. The theory specifically hightlights 12 links or logical steps in the chain of dharmas. They are set out as follows :- ( 1 ) Out of the precondition of ignorance, the driving force ( 2 ) arises, this leads to the formation of our consciousness ( 3 ). Out of our consciousness, a spiritual and physical individuality is born. This is logical step ( 4 ). With this individuality, our six senses come into operation. This is step ( 5 ). From the sense of touch which is step ( 6 ), it gives rise to feeling. This is step ( 7 ). Once feeling is possible, the human nature is capable of craving ( the word “ thirst “ is actually used in the teaching ). This becomes step (8 ). Craving includes the inclination toward life. This is step ( 9 ). This desparate clinging on to life will in turn give rise to karmic becoming in life ( an unjustified yearning ). This is step ( 10 ) which logically leads to karmic becoming in rebirth. This is step ( 11 ) and with rebirth, the painful process of ageing, dying, worries, suffering , sorrows and despair reappear in the next life of the individual's consciousness. So, death and life comes full circle in step ( 12 ). No description of the physical processes were provided but on top of the list of the logical chain of events ( in this painful state of affairs that is life ) ignorance has the infamous honour. It is ignorance of the working of the supreme law of Dharma that has started all the troubles and that has led to our failure to break this sad chain of events which can only be dissolved through enlightenment. Now that you have some basic ideas about the philosophical reasoning of
Buddhism, we can turn to the rationale for my unconventional view.
Regardless of the validity of the buddhist reasoning, it has, nevertheless,

based its argument on a self-existing and all powerful law of nature called Dharma. This is the basic premises that possess the God-like quality ( in terms of the fundamental concept upon which the philosophy has been built ) to which I have been referring in my unconventional idea. Conceivably, there are two counter arguments that can be leveled against my contention. Firstly, the buddhist view does not require the creation of the universe which is considered to be an illusion according to the buddhist reasoning and, therefore, does not need a creator. To this retort, I would say that the whole idea of a never ending cycle of life, suffering and rebirth driven by the self-existing and all powerful natural law of Dharma, however unreal, requires the existence of the evil driving force of ignorance and the initial working principle represented by Dharma which is eternal and self-existing. The second possible counter argument may run like this.There is no beginning nor end for the cycle of life, suffering, death and rebirth except the breaking of the chain through enlightenment. Therefore, there is no need for the first cause because everything is an interconnected whole like a circle without beginning or end. However, the circle or the eternally existing state of affairs has to work on some self-existing or at least a spontaneous rule which in this case is the law of Dharma that has God like characteristics. Before we leave Buddhism behind for other religions and beliefs, let me summarize the buddhist arguments for the refutation of God's existence. The logic runs like this. Every phenomenon must have a preceeding cause otherwise there are no complete sequences to form a process that creates the illusion of reality. Besides, there must be interactions between all components of a meaningful system. Things that do not interact are not in casual contact with one another meaning they can have nothing to do with one another. Interaction must give rise to change on all the interacting components. Applying these logical steps to the concept of a all powerful and self-existing God, any phenomenon that is without a cause cannot form a complete and meaningful sequence of events or process. Even if there is interaction between God and men, both have to be changed to different

195

degrees as a result of the interactions based on the law of Dependent Origination. But God is never changing by definition. So there would be no result from the theoretical interaction even if there is any. That means God is God and men will be men and that the two entities cannot have anything to do with each other. Thus, the concept of a self- existing, all powerful and unchanging God is superfluous under Buddhist reasoning. The bottom line is that Buddhism requires no creation of the universe which is an illusion and a non-permanent phenomenon created from our ignorance of the working of Dharma. There is no place for a creator God, period.
Of the remaining major religions, all have the concept of a self-existing and all powerful God except Taoism and the Universality beliefs ( yin and yang - the negative and positive energy of the cosmos ) both of China. Taoism literally means the Path. This philosophy of the universe and human affairs originated from the teachings of Lao Tzu, a legendary Chinese philosopher who lived in China from 604 B.C. to 517 B.C. ( even before the time of the Gautama Buddha who lived from 560 B.C. to 480 B.C. ) His thoughts were embodied in his book called “ Tao-Te Ching “( the translated meaning is the Doctrine ot the Way ( Tao ) and Morals ( Te ) “. The Way refers to the working principles of the universe and Morals refer to ethics for human behaviour. The book is considered to be such an important work on philosophical thoughts even by western scholars that it was one of if not the most translated Chinese text. The book only contains 81 short chapters but it was written in beautiful and poetic language and full of imageries. The theme of his thoughts is the concept of Tao ( the Path ) which is hypothesized to be the eternal source of all beings and the force behind everything and phenomena both natural and human ones. It is similar in nature to a theory of everything so eagerly contemplated by the scientific world in the past few decades but the subject was treated at the metaphysical level so that its predictions are somewhat illusive and mystical. May be it is because the subjects of the universe and human behaviour are by themselves too all-embracing. Despite its highly subtle and comprehensive nature, the book is, nevertheless, amazing in its predictions which are in many respects consistent with modern scientific theories. Given the fact that it was written some 2500 ago, the foresights and insights of the book are nothing less than prophetic and remarkable in the scientific sense.
From a religious point of view, Taoism is not a well organized religion structurally. There is no hierachy of office bearers or leaders. Every follower of this philosophy of life may have their own way of interpreting the wisdom laid down in the book, Tao-Te Ching. The theory of the Taoist world view can be summarized as follows. The Tao is a kind of life force permeating the universe for all eternity. It is the law governing the world and the ultimate guideline for all human ethical behaviour. There is the emphasis on the Ultimate Oneness which is the highest principle of both the physical world of nature and the spiritual world of our minds. Again, the oriental concept of a holistic approach is very explicit in such a concept. Then, the Tao ( the Way or the Path ) is also described as the Absolute. No other law is above it. The Tao is both nameless and indefinable according to Tao-TeChing. Its indefinability and absolute nature is manifested in the cosmic and ethical laws in the form of numerous paradoxes that have become the hallmark of the Taoist way of teaching its philosophy. The Tao is also the primal source of the physical universe from which all things came into being. Tao-TeChing described the creation process as follows - out of the transcendental non-being, being emerges. The Tao in the form of undifferentiated Ultimate Oneness generates within its unity the duality of Yin and Yang ( negative and positive energy ) that leads to the breadth of life. Further development from this breadth of life brings about harmony between the two antagonistic forces that will give rise to Many ( all things ). So, we can trace the creation of the universe back to the Ultimate Oneness which is the Tao. Then, the Tao gives rise to Many ( through the dualistic idea of Yin and Yan that give rise to the Breadth of Life and subsequently all things ) and out of the Many, opposite values ( both in physical and spiritual terms ) such as good and evil, big and small which are mutually dependent on each other and did not exist before are derived from the Many. Taoist reasoning argues that the emergence of such opposite values or phenomena proves that the world and humanity have gone astray from the Path of Nature which is the Tao. Therefore, we have to turn away from materialistic desires and return to the Tao to be once again in harmony with nature. The Tao is the only truly permanent phenomenon in the universe to which we must all turn for

196

eternal peace and happiness. The highest state of mind in Taoism is “ wu-wei “ which means non-action ( self-restrain ). It is contended that the truly wise man who is totally immersed in the Tao will adopt the mild and subtle principle of “ wu-wei “ or non-action or self-restrain to deal with the most difficult of problems. The rationale is that resorting to short-term physical or even drastic measures will cause more harm than good. Such short- sighted measures will not solve any problem in a fundamental way. Applying the concept of wu-wei ( self-restrain and non-intervention ) that is in line with the Tao which is the ultimate law of nature will prove to be the gentle and yet strongest and wisest move in the long run.
The Taoist world view clearly points to existence of a God like concept of the Tao which is Absolute, Ultimate Oneness, eternal, powerful ( but gentle ) and permeating the whole universe. The Tao in the case of Taoism is the God-like concept I am referring to in my contention. The only likely counter argument I can anticipate is the reasoning that the arising of the Tao is a more illusive concept than the definition of God. However, the trinity concept of Yin and Yang giving rise to the Breadth of Life that can all be accommodated within the grand Oneness of the Tao strikes a very close image to the Holy Trinity concept of the Christian God. I cannot over emphasize that this is just my casual observation which must not be construed in any way as my claim that the two religions in question are linked in any sense. One last comment on Taoism is in order and it relates to the subsequent development of this religion among the lay population of China. Due to the fact that ancient China was isolated from the rest of the world and its lack of a well developed scientific tradition, the sophisticated philosophical ideas of Lao Tzu were subsequently misinterpreted and very often misused by the lay population. Many different dubious elements with mercenary motives such as fortune tellers, spiritual medium and alchemists introduced magic and other undesirable practices ( such as using harmful potions and drugs to prolong human life and to increase the male sexual potency ) into the popular version of Taoism in ancient China which is still one of the most favourite religions practised by the Chinese population today, second only to Buddhism.
As regards the teachings of Confucianism, they mainly concern the worship and respect for our ancestors, the theory of the state and moral standards for the laymen. The idea of heaven above ( shang tien ) is in the teachings but no specific reference is made to God or creator. But suffice it to say that this idea of heaven implies a transcendental principle governing the physical and spiritual worlds. Confucius, worshipped as the founder of Confucianism and the Greatest Teacher of All Times in China, was believed to be a major contributor if not the sole author of the 5 most important books on philosophy in China. These are the I-Ching ( Book of Changes ), The Shih Ching ( Book of Songs consisting of 305 traditional songs or poems depicting social practices ), the Shu Ching ( Book of History concerning important speeches and proclamations of various rulers ), the Ch'un Ch'iu ( the Book of Spring and Autumn Annals describing the history of his own state of Lu with his moral views appended to each historic episode ) and Li Ching ( the Book of Rites setting out different religious and social rituals of the time ). Further teachings of his school of thougts were included in 4 other classics. These are the Lun Yu ( the Book of Discussions containing conversations between Confucius and his pupils ), the Ta Hsueh ( the Book of Great Learning mainly dealing with moral standards partly written by Confucious himself ), the Chung Yung ( the Book of the Doctrine of the Mean – middle or balanced way - thought to be authored by Confucius' grand son Tsu Ssu ( Kung Ki ) proposing the philosophy of the mild way to solve problems and to avoid the extremes ) and Meng -Tzu ( a book about the philosophy of Mencius who is the most brilliant pupil of Confucius and successor to his school of thoughts.) Confucianism was elevated to the status of a sort of national religion by most subsequent emperors of China because of its teachings of absolute loyalty to the emperor who was considered to be the son of heaven ( tien tzu ), the upholding of moral standards, due respect for the older generations in ancestor worship and adherence to principle of justice and neighbourly love. Its demand for a high moral standard among all citizens has culminated in the well-known Golden Rule for human behaviour – “ Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you “ This is also known as the Doctrine of Reciprocity of Treatment. For all its moral guidelines for human and earthly affairs , Confucianism still holds the view of a God-like principle of heaven which is an eternal, self-

197

existing, all-embracing concept and it occupies an absolutely supreme position with regard to the physical and spiritual world.
The remaining candidate for my discussion of the concept of God is none other than the scientific community. To be fair to all scientists, some of them do believe in God. However, according to the book – Big Questions in Science ( edited by Harriet Swain ), a 1996 survey had found that only 40 % of the US scientists believed in God. Nothing is known about the worldwide population of scientists. I would make a wild guess at less than the 40 % mark after taking into account of the large non-Christian population of China and similar countries. Despite this atheist attitude held by the majority of scientists, almost all of them rely on or believe in the laws of nature ( based on observable and testable evidence ) which possess the self-existing, self-organizing, all powerful ( every human being is subject to the laws of nature ), all permeating ( the various quantumn energy fields existing throughout the universe ) and eternal characteristics that bear many God-like qualities. The only major difference between the characteristics of the laws of nature and God is that the laws of nature do not engage in spiritual correspondence with human beings. These laws are cold and impersonal unlike God to whom we can turn for help. Nevertheless, most of the God-like qualities are present in the laws of nature. Scientists may argue that in time we may be able to understand how the laws of nature have come about but it must again rely on the working of a higher set of laws with similar God-like qualities. Or worse still, it could be like the example of peeling an onion. One layer of mystery is removed by us only to find another layer undeneath and finally when all layers have been removed by us nothing except the void is left. Or can we even say void with certainty because when there is no more substance to reveal the void in a comparative sense what is left is entity X or element X ! Or simply ????....... The saving grace seems to be in Quantum Theory which has put us or our consciousness in the centre of creation as the observer to at least validate the concept of the void by our physical presence and the act of making the observation. Notwithstanding this embarrassing situation, I think my point about the laws of nature having God- ike qualities has been borne out in the above sequence of reasoning.
My own view on God has, in fact, been partially revealed in chapter (i) about the origin of the universe. To me, God is the Life Force. There, I proposed my eccentric idea that both the scientific and religious views concerning the creation of the universe could be equally accommodated if the scientists can reserve their demand for an immediate proof of the existence of God through their own scientific method and accept that the laws of nature which they have thought to be self-existing and self-organizing anyway as the manifestation of the first cause (i.e. God's creation ). This is simply a proposition of asking them to put God and the laws of nature which is their existing belief on an equal footing only and not much more. Let me level with the scientists on their home ground. Quantum Theory has established beyond doubt the phenomenon of complimentarity. I boldly suggests that the laws of nature could be a the manifestation of God from a different perspective. Why can scientists accept that the laws of nature can self-exist and self-organize by themselves but not the existence of a self-existing and all- enbracing God as the first cause of creation ( of the laws of nature themselves which in turn give rise to everything else ) ? Of course they will strongly protest that there is no proof of God's existence in accordance with the requirements of the scientific method. But may I point out that the evidence of God's existence is everywhere if you care to look. The evidence is in the beauty and serenity of nature, in your family and relatives who love you, in the innocent children who are little angels on earth, in your friends who care about you, in your good neighbours who keep the neighbourhood watch, in the heroes who sacrifice their lives in the service of society and in the cause of peace and justice. An account of the unhappiness and evil side of the world will be given below. To me, the mystical ways in which the laws of nature appear to work may very likely have been the result of our still limited understanding of their true nature. Despite the present theoretical difficulties, scientists are still very bullish about the possiblity of attaining the ultimate and noble goal of the Theory of Everything in the near future which is currently still bogged down by the unsuccessful marriage between Quantum Theory and the theory of General Relativity on gravity. They are very obviously doing it on their own faith ( not to say that it may be bordering blind faith ) – the faith that nature is ultimately comprehensible. Surely, it may

198

probably be comprehensible but to what extent and what would the ultimate truth be ? I sincerely hope that it is not the same as the example of peeling an onion set out above. So, you will see that it is all a matter of one's perspective.There are more similiarities in religion and science than one would expect. After all, everything is interconnected in this universe. Only if the scientists can redirect a little of their faith to the concept of God. There is no need to be fully converted. Just a little forbearance by not rejecting God outright will suffice. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that my counter argument against the atheists concept set out above is just another perspective on the issue of God. There is not the slightest intention on my part to preach the gospels here. Everyone is entltled to his or her own views. That is why I have specifically named this book with the important emphasis on A Personal View. Suffice it here to reiterate my earlier point on the importance of faith which is needed even in the practice of the scientific method as set out in the foregoing example. Issues such as the belief in an all-embracing, all-powerful, benevolent ( as manifested in the harmony and serenity existing in nature and the compassionate and noble side of human nature in our good neighbours ) and eternal God or the Life Force to some, belong to the category of concepts I have dubbed matters of the heart ( where faith, inspiration and intuition apply ) instead of matters of the head ( where logical reasoning is crucial ).
On the other hand, the religious camp must also relax their strict adherence to the Bible to the last word. After all, the Bible was written long, long ago in case of the Old Testament and even for the New Testament it was done not by direct divine authorship. There were, in fact, two versions of the New Testament, one in Greek and the other in Hebrew. Therefore, any rigid interpretation of the Bible ( or any religious dogma to the last word of the given text for that matter ) seems to be both dangerous and detrimental to the cause of discovering the truth. More often than not such a radical approach has given rise to great evil in the form of extremism and, ultimately, our present day scourge of terrorism. As a matter of fact, there is no absolute truth but only different perspectives of the truth. The last proposition must not be taken to mean that no moral or spiritual standards exist. Such standards can always be gauged according to the supreme laws of nature ( which in my view are the creation of God ). As my intellect is seasoned by my age, I tend to be more spiritual than religious. I always maintain a healthy suspicion on any form of bureaucracy including organized religion. Whenever there are people, there will be politics and politics is solely about power which in the absolute form will definitely lead to absolute corruption. The term religious dogma says it all about the absolute nature of religious teaching. Here is another one of my eccentric ideas. God has given us our intelligence. I really feel that He wants us to make use of it and not to blindly follow any set rules that may not be able to adjust to the changing circumstances. The stubborn religious stance against birth control is an example of such a dogma. I surely do not want to be cast into hell ( which to me is a state of mind ) for following anything my conscience ( through
my intellect ) has told me is incorrect but is dictated by religious dogma.
Now let us start our discussions on the world's sufferings and the

apparent existence of evil forces. We must do this now or the scientists and atheists will be getting impatient. The big question and, in my view, a well justified one is this. If God exists, why does He allow all these suffereings and evil influence to take place ? After all, He is all-powerful, all-knowing and, most of all, benevolent. This legitimate question is the argument most relied upon by non-believers as a proof of the non-existence of God. The first impression created by this challenging question is that it is non-assailable. But a closer look will reveal some loop-holes. It is not as water-tight as it first appears to be. I think that the first step to cast doubts on this contention is to be found in human nature. I am referring to the characteristic of human nature to spread the bad news but not the good ones.This is the nosy aspect of our nature. There is a Chinese saying that goes like this :- “ Good things never go out of the door while shameful things always propagate a thousand miles ( i.e. far and wide ). “ Owing to this lop-sided treatment of bad news, these are more often than not blown completely out of proportion. How often do we glorify the greatness of motherhood such as the example of the unknown mother taking care of her hopelessly crippled and mentally retarded child for decades I described in the topic of Heroes and Housewives, very seldom, indeed. We only come across billionare philanthropists giving away millions to charity which we mostly denounced as promotional gimmicks. What about

199

all the good things done by nameless volunteers who are nobodies and toally ignored by the media. There are lots of other examples of good deeds that are not being publicized. But this is not to say that there are little or no sufferings and unhappiness in this world. Sufferings and unhappiness are the facts of life but can they be mainly attributable to God ? That is the vital question. My view is that the bulk of these sufferings are the results of men's own misbehaviour out of ignorance and greed. Of course, there are many natural disasters that kill thousands of innocent people but many of these like floodings and drought can be traced back to the green house gas emissions causing upsets in the climate systems that can be directly linked to greed ( the profit motive in businesses ). Even for disasters such as the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami that occurred in the East Indian Archipalego ( which claimed some 200,000 victims ) due to submarine earthquakes, the death toll could have been much smaller had the governments of the countries concerned been willing to spend some of their national budgets in setting up a co-ordinated early warning system. These developing countries are poor mostly because of over population, lack of an efficient government system but most of all because the well developed and powerful nations of the world are too busy looking after the own interests and have neglected their duty to other fellow citizens of our global village. No nation or individual can act as if they are isolated from the rest of the world, not if they genuinely want the whole human race to survive all these terrible odds.
Then, there are the totally man-made acts of war out of lust for power and misguided racial superiority which is a myth and total nonsense. It is nothing more than a pathetic attempt and pretext by power crazy dictators to justify their monpoly on absolute power and control of the people. The Great War ( World War I ) claimed over 9 million lives for the militaty on both sides as a conservative estimate and not counting civilian deaths which included the massacre of an estimated 1.2 million Armenians by the Turks for their alleged assistance rendered to Russia. Then the Second World War was even more bloody. Just think of the estimated death tolls in China ( over 16 millions from 1931 to 1945 ), Russia ( 9 millions ) and the rest of the Allied Nations ( must have been some 2.5 millions ) and the defeated enemies of the Japanese Empire, Germay and Italy ( another 4 millions ) plus the 6 million Jews in the Holocust and another 2 millions of various ethnic background in the Balkans and Eastern Europe. The total number of war deaths for World War Two including both military and civilians is estimated to be 62 millions by the internet encyclopedia, the Wikipedia. Then in the 1950s, there was the korean War that killed another 6 million soldiers and civilians ( just the Communist Chinese volunteer army fighting in Korea had recorded 1 million deaths while the North Korea had suffered some 3 million casaulties ). The Vietnam War that lasted from the 1960s to the mid 1970s must have killed another 3 millions. The killing fields of the evil Khmer Rouge Pol Pot Regime did away with still another 2.5 millions. The civil wars in some parts of Africa and the Balkans that were purely man-made had also killed countless civilians and in the tens of thousands. How about the Middle East conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians and so on and so forth. Not even the Black Death in the Middle Ages had killed that many and for what ? Human insanity of lust for power and inflated ego ? Even worse, there are still day-in day-out accidental deaths resulting from drunk driving ( must be over tens of thousands worldwide ) and air disasters from human negligence and criminally neglected aircraft repairs due to greed on the part of the purely profit- oriented airline operators. There are so many of such incidents that are due to human misbehaviour that I am grossly ashamed to be a human being. So, dare you blame the good Lord ! There is so much suffering in this world that even the saintly Reverend Mother Teresa had confessed once that the questions of whether God really existed and why He has allowed such pain to be endured by his creatures did more than once come across her mind.
I am sure you are thinking that I am evading the vital issue of why God let all these happen. Because I am not. I only intend to save the best for last to achieve maximum effect. According to my own view, God has created the laws of nature and then let the universe run its course. It is not just a matter of intervening in the operation of our free will that God should not step in ( which is the traditional theological answer to human suffering ). More importantly, there would be no human and world system at all if God really chose to intervene against his own natural laws selectively. In that case, there may

200

just as well be no creation of this universe at all. I am not so arrogant and egocentric as to interpret God's mind for Him. I am simply putting forward a logical argument of what could have been if God had decided to selectively intervene in the working of the laws of nature. I also have this eccentric idea about the traditional belief of glorifying God by our suffering. I do not support this point of view. I do not think God wants us to suffer at all or to glorify Him for His own sake. That is why He has given us the intelligence to take care of ourselves, our neighbours and Mother Earth. But for him to intervene selectively such as in the case of human suffering and, in fact, in anything for that matter, would be to defeat the purpose of our own creation and that of the universe. This is because there would be no real control by ourselves over our own lives which is the perrogative of our consciousness. It is not as if we were not given the right to quit life altogether but, of course, that would be a coward's act. Without our independent consciousness there would be no questions asked by any conscious being that is the pinnacle of creation. Everyone would simply be puppets on a string. Thus, our exposure to suffering and other good or bad experiences is just the price that must be paid for being humans. That is the process of life and living. Will a stone or any other liveless objects suffer ? Of course, not. Therefore, I think our consciousness is the ultimate prize of creation which is noble and untouchable. That is also my basic rationale for respecting the individual's inborn rights. Even God respects such rights. A very important corollary from my contention is that God did not create us for his own glory. Glory is such an empty concept. It reminds me of the slogans soldiers use when they go to war. But is there really any glorious wars ? Perhaps, only the glorious dead ! There is no God and us as really separate entities. Everything is inextricably interconneted as indicated by Quantum Theory ( this is a dose of the scientists' own medicine ). It is definitely not a matter of being God on high and untouchable and we human should stay down low and worship Him blindly. Instead, we find God everywhere in nature, yourself and your neighbours and in LIFE. That is the reason why I insist on practising one's belief in God ( for believers ) by one's daily actions rather than just by doing lip and ceremonial service. If you find that it suits you to go to church, so much the better. Having some religious routines to instil discipline into your children before they can find their own way is a very good practice. But more importantly, we should discover our God-given attributes and utilize them to their fullest potentials for our own good and that of others and our environment ( which is truly the temple of God ). This is the holistic approach I would like to adopt. Human beings are the manifestations of God's noble attributes ( an extension of His persona ) and we should love ourselves and follow the laws of nature to show that we cherish this precious gift of life ( one should again refresh one's memory on the overwhelming odds against the existence of life in chapter (ii) – The Origins of Life ). This is Nature's way. Hence my special emphasis on finding your own meaning in life. Only by caring and loving ourselves, our neighbour and our environment can this gift of life blossom to its fullest natural potentials. It does not matter even if there is no particular built-in or preordained purpose for our existence as many scientists seem to think. It is for us to find and create our own meaning in life ( using our God-given intelligence ) which must again be subject to the laws of nature and all just laws of society and men. Do not wait to be told what your purpose in life is. It is my earnest wish that everyone could find their own and in concert build a better world.
At this juncture, I would like to advance my above argument one step further. Let me assume that God had granted us our wish that all sufferings would disappear from this world forever despite the worst of our behaviours. What would happen next ? Would we go further to ask for almighty power ? I can bet you on my life that we definitely will. This is the greedy aspect of human nature. We always ask for more than what we are having at the present moment. That is why a materialized measure such as a fixed 10 % service charge can never motivate good service. This is our natural instinct which is a drive provided by nature to enable us to improve our lives. When used in a sensible way, it is healthy ambition and motivation. But uncontrolled greed must ultimately lead to the demise of the whole human race. So, you will see that human nature is just like the famous request for food by Oliver Twist in Charles Dickens' book :- “ Please, sir I want some more ! “ The fact that we are faced with sufferings but possess free will is the harsh reality. Changing the existing system could reduce us to liveless entities which some people ( especially those who are suffering ) might prefer but once we were there, it would

201

be no turning back because we would no longer be conscious nor intelligent enough to ask for a reversion to our former ( or rather present ) selves. To me, suffering like risks and ecstasy are an integral part of life and consciousness. You cannot remove such elements without distorting the nature of life and consciousness. You may even diminish the essence of life altogether. For example, mental pain may arise when we have made a wrong decision out of our own free will ( such as loving the wrong person and getting rejected ) but then is it the right solution to do away with such pain altogether ? If we do that, we may never be able to learn from our past mistakes again. Or is the final solution to this scenario to be found in banishing our free will altogether ? No choice means no wrong choice ( and no pain ) but at the same time, also no sense of satifaction from making the right ones. It is just like the complimentary nature of risk and return. Zero risk ( like keeping your money under your pillow all the time ) will be rewarded by zero return ( no interest income from the bank or any other investment income ). Do not think for a moment that if we really did away with pain there would only be happiness for us. The simple reason is that without pain we may not even be able to tell what happiness is because there would be no comparison to bring out the good feeling. So, pain is just like death. It is bad but life cannot do without it. You will recall that life without death would make us all horrible creatures like the Dracula. The co-existing pair of concepts like pain and happiness ( or pain and gain ) remind us of the Taoist concept of the necessary existence of many of the opposite pairs of attributes in nature resulting from the working of the Tao ( the Path ) which is the Life Force to me.
Our wish to ask God to remove suffering against the laws of nature reminds me of innocent and ignorant children asking their parents for sweets instead of bitter medicine to cure their ailments because they cannot stand bitterness. It is also like asking for the bests of both worlds – having the cake and eat it or a square circle. The bottom line is that whatever are our existing circumstances ( in this case there is the existence of the laws of nature that sometimes cause pain and suffering due to the working of the special characteristics of our consciousness and free will which are integral parts of the human life ) they would always be less than ideal according to the demands of human nature. Nonetheless, there could always be only one given system operating at a particular time and we are simply stuck with our present one. The percieved reality (PR) can be different from varying human perspectives. As the wife of King Louis XVI of France, Marie Antoinette said during the French Revolution :- “ Let them eat cake. “ ( if the people were hungary ). From her personal perspective it never occurred to her that the people could be so poor that they could not afford to do so. If the poor French peasants could afford cakes there would never have been the French Revolution. Even with all the pain and suffering in this world there are still some people who are satified with their own situation. They are the lucky ones but then there will always be the majority of dissatisfied ones in any system. Whatever level of difficulty ( whether there are more or less difficulties ) our life could have been as designed by God, it would always be painful by the human standards because it is in human nature to strive for higher goals and better conditions. There could always be something better. The same argument can likewise be applied in the opposite direction. Why is life not worse than it is now ? Should we be equally happy that it was not worse (which could have been the case ) ? Therefore, do not lament over the dark side of life. Rather, do as I suggest in the next paragraph which is to take suffering as a challenge in life. That is my contention which I have ( though may be pessimistically but surely realistically ) based on human nature. We never notice the good with the same degree of appreciation as we feel the scourge of the bad because of our misguided assumption that life should be a rose garden as a matter of course. This same characteristic in our human nature has also led us to easily forget favours done to us by others while never forgeting any harm others have inflcted upon us. The logical explanation for this one-sided phenomenon is probably our survival instinct to avoid further harm from those who have done harm to us before with a naturally lasting impression. Having said all the above, it would only be fair to ourselves to add that the pains and sufferings in life can be overbearing at times. What is more is that the trials in life such as in the case of the brave mother with a son physically and mentally crippled for life can easily be overwhelming to say the least. Let us hope and pray that our own trials be bearable and when they hit us we would be strong enough to persevere in our set goals in life.

202

On the more practical front which is one of the main aims of this book, we should learn to deal with suffering, again as in the case of death, by rationalizing it and turning it to our advantage. For example, we should be psychologically prepared that suffering is a fact of life as hight-lighted in Buddhist philosophy and take it up as a challenge to our intelligence and creativity to overcome it. In the course of doing so, the human spirit can be elevated to an unprecented level that may surprise even yourself. The point on what good suffering can do was exemplified in an old movie starring the acting genius, Anthony Quinn called “ The Twenty-Fifth Hour “. The story line was about a Jewish Pole who was a simple minded peasant with a live and let live attitude towards life. The irony of life is that he was mistaken for an outstanding specimen of the Arian master race by the Nazis. His image was published in numerous propaganda posters by the Nazis Regime to glorify the image of the so-called master race. During the course of the Second World War he was a victim of fate ( in the ex post sense ) and was separated from his wife and children over the war years after having been drafted into the Nazis infamous S.S. Units. He was subsequently sent to the Russian Front and was captured by the Russian army and became a prisoner of war in a hard labour camp in Siberia where he stayed till the Stalin era. He endured so much hardship and pains both physically and mentally that it breaks your heart. He was detained for so long because of his appearance in the Nazi propaganda poster. Finally, he was released during a prisoners exchange with the western allieds in Berlin in the late 1950s. That was only the beginning of his ordeal because he was tried in the war crimes tribunal as a war crimnal on account of his distorted image in the propaganda poster. He was offered clemency on the condition that he would admit to his “ crime “ which he did not commit – in assisting the Nazis in promoting the concept of a master race. After two decades of suffering which was not a single bit due to his own fault, he finally realized that he was a human being whose basic rights should be respected. Therefore, he steadfastly refused to plead guilty to the war crime charges and he continued to struggled against the injustice leveled at him for another few years. All through his life, he was a lost soul wandering everywhere at the mercy of fate and destiny. His sufferings finally made him realize that what his own meaning in life really was. The sanctity of the individual's human rights are unassailable and cannot be violated. Therefore, he put up hunger strikes and other drastic measures to attract public attention. Luckily, there was an ultimate happy ending when his plight was finally heard by a human rights group that helped him to uncover documentary evidence of his birth and to find witnesses from his home town in Poland to testify in his favour. He was able to rejoin his family after losing their contact and his freedom for over 25 years. His story which was based on a real life episode has become a classical case illustrating the evil and suffering that war can inflict on the innocent individual. He himself has become a symbol of the persevering and unrelenting human spirit to endure pain and suffering for the sake of justice and human rights.
When it comes to the practical level of pain and suffering, it is no longer a question of why but how to turn it to our advantage. As I have stressed on a few previous occasions, human affairs are so chaotic and complex that it would simply be a waste of time and effort to even try to find out why. At the end of the day, there may not even be a simple and direct logical explanation as is the usual case because of multi- lateral interactions between all the different causes. There is simply no one-to-one relationship. Rather be wise and concentrate on finding a way to minimize the adverse effects of the pain and suffering by taking it as a challenge. Rely on your humour, creativity, intelligence and ingenuity to rise to the occasion. Be positive and have faith in your own ability to face the challenge. Remember that nature does allow for the fighting spirit in us to achieve the seemingly impossible. Still remember the real life example of the mother lifting a one ton car to save her baby ? The mind can sometimes win over matter but only if you care to try your best to realize your full and hidden potentials. Never say die
but rather let your potentials materialize !
I have one last comment to make on pain and suffering. From a

medical point of view, pain is part of our body's warning system. It alerts us to the fact that something may be wrong about our bodily functions. This is one of the main functions of the phenomenon of pain itself. However, it can also be misused in torture by evil people to achieve their own selfish ends. Thus, there are always two sides to a coin. It depends on

203

the perspective from which a phenomenon is viewed. Should we do away with this warning system because of its bad side ? A more sensible answer seems to be that we should rather tolerate its existence and keep its adverse effects to a minimum without removing this phenomenon altogether even though it could have been done by divine intervention.


The second part of the title in this section is Ghosts. What is that all about ? I am certainly not going to tell you some ghost stories. It actually concerns our soul if you are a believer. If you are convinced that your own consciousness is not just effects of bodily processes or you do not hold a materialistic world view, it is easy for you to accept the existence of our soul. I unashamedly do. In my opinion, having a soul is what makes us human. There is no need to elaborate any further my reasons for holding such a view. My arguments have been set out in great details in both chapter (iii) on Quantum Theory as well as Chapter (ix) on consciousness. The only issue left to be discussed here is my view of the working mechanics of the human soul. My speculative opinion is that with the death of our physical self, our consciousness which was used to working through our physical body would become unattached energy that would now be our wandering soul. Furthermore, I feel that our unattached energy would usually be concentrated around the places where we normally conduct our personal activitiies before our passing. This is the reason I suspect that people who are sensitive to such energies ( which exist in different frequencies ) can sometimes detect unexplained ghostly images because of their special sensitivity derived from inborn biological-spiritual tuners. This idea is not as crazy as it sounds if we put ourselves back in the times before the invention of the radio. People then would say your were nuts if you proposed the idea of broadcasting to thousands of listeners located hundreds of miles from the studio all at the same time through the transmission of wireless radio waves. It is all a matter of tunning into the sensitive frequency range which is not such a farfetched idea. Based on the working of Quantum Mechanics,it is possible that the elementary particles belonging to the atoms that were once part of our body would remain in existence under the law of conservation of energy. There would also be a close affinity between these elementary particles from our former physical body which had once been interacting with those belonging to our loved ones over the course of our life. I futher speculate that our soul would remain wandering until our consciousness become attached to another physical body upon rebirth through some as yet unknown process. I also have some eccentric ideas on various speculative models of the rebirth process that may form the theoretical basis for further research into this mystical subject although it will be beyond the scope of this book. Nevertheless, I would give you an example from the experience of my personal life that has led me to accept the existence of the human soul. It concerned my maternal grandfather.
When I first started to work as an executive officer in the Hong Kong civil service back in 1971 immediately after my graduation from university, I was posted to the then Public Works Department in charge of all the 300 or so clerical staff. My maternal grandfather had passed away in 1961 while I was still a kid. He was a very serious and scholarly Chinese elderly gentlman of 73 at the time of his death. I and my maternal grandfather were not very close because my mother had a total of eleven brothers and sisters ( my uncles and aunties ) and over 30 odd nephews and nieces ( my cousins ). Therefore, our maternal grandfather only stayed with his elder son and family according to established Chinese tradition. We used to visit him in our uncle's home may be monthly for dinner but because my grandfather was still working right up to the time of his death there was not much personl contact between him and me. Therefore, we were not close in the sense that there was no discussions of personal matters between him and me. As children, we were even a bit afraid of him as an authoritative figure. Then, the night before I reported to work at the Public Works Department, I had a very vivid dream of my grandfather. The setting of my dream was under a beautiful and azure sunny morning sky on the busy waterefront of the Hong Kong business district of Central. I clearly saw him walking towards me wearing a smart navy blue overcost. He had a radiantly fresh and healthy look on his face with the sunlight shining on him as we walked past each other. We did not speak to each other except that he just smiled to me very warmly. In fact, the warmth was so deeply felt in my heart that I can still reminisce on that warm feeling once in a while right up to this day. As I had never dreamt about my grandfather before at any

204

other time in my life, I could not helped telling my mother about the dream on the evening when I returned home from my first day of work at the office. What I heard from my mother was a great surprise to me. She told me that my grandfather used to worked for the Public Works Department through a building contractor who was a relative on a building project which was the upgrading of the first reservoir ever built in Hong Kong. This could be a pure coincidence but ever since that day I have never dreamt of him again. I cannot give a sensible explanation for this strange dream except to speculate on the possibility of the casual connections between my grandfather and the Public Works Department and my own personal relationship with him and the Department for which I had my first job. The Public Works Department seems to be the common factor in the timing of my dream. It was as if my maternal grandfather had given me his blessing and guidance to me for my first job although you might argue that the Selection Effect could have again taken hold. But is this effect the sole and logical explanation ? It is anybody's guess. But to me, it is an indication though not conclusive proof of the Quantum Entanglement phenomenon at work. This theory suggests ( and this claim has been proven in laboratory experiments ) that any elementary paricles once interacted with each other in an entanglement operation are always tied together in an inextricable way. Applying this theory to my dream, some atoms involved in my brain's bio-chemical actions have originated from my mother who in turn has inherited some from my grandfather. The common factor that could have triggered my dream was the mutual connection between the Public Works Department, my grandfather and myself. Before my mother told me about my grandfather's working relation with the department, I had not known about it. So, there was no question of my preconceived impression having given rise to my dream. When I said in the section on Of Death and Destruction that I used to comfort my griefing friends by telling them that their dearly departed relatives would be overseeing them like guardian angels, I really meant it based on my own personal belief. You may brand my eccentric theories as pseu-do science as the scientists most probably will but you definitely cannot reject them outright. I may even be able to refine them a bit in due course to enable them to be put to the scientific test using the already availble sophisticated brain monitoring apparatus. Let us wait and see !