Stick?

2 years ago, in June, I found myself in Bandung under some of the most surprising circumstances. Representing Singapore in an U-21 PABF (Pacific Asia Bridge Federation) sanctioned event, whereby the top 3 teams of each age group, U-21 U-26 open teams ( 5-64 years of age) and seniors (65+) and the ladies team qualifies for the World Cup(in Bridge terms to put it simply.) Everyday for the entire duration of 14 days, we were busy playing cards from 9am-7pm with 2 breaks in between 1 for lunch, and 1's just an interval for the tabulation of scores. On the night of the first thursday, my teammates and I, were on our way back to our rooms, when my roommate decided to go check out the scores. Unwillingly i accompanied him to the playing hall and on the noticeboard next to the scores, I saw friday -0800hrs to 1100hrs 1st session, 1400hrs-1700hrs 2nd session. So i asked my roommate out of curiousity, "Hey how come there's only 2 sessions tomorrow? Is there a mistake?", and he replied," No I checked it on the schedule they printed it as 2 sessions only, if you think there's a mistake we can always check with the organisers tomorrow." We did just that the next day morning, (I must add waking up earlier took a toll on my performance in the morning =S) They told us the reason for the super long break in between the 2 sessions, was to cater to the muslims, as they needed to pray. Right, I totally forgot about that....


Fast forward 2 years, as I'm piecing my entry on groups, I couldn't help but think about this incident. Religion, is it really counted as a group? Definition for group -> A collection of individuals who, as a result of interacting with one another over time, become interdependent, developing shared patterns of behavior and a collective identity.
Sure, the homogenization of people who suscribe to their groups really fit in with the last portion of the description of a group, they do develop shared patterns of behavior(to a certain extent), and a collective identity.(at least the majority do) However does it fit the interdependent portion? What about interacting with one another over time? (It's a little hard to dispute the collection of individuals portion i guess) If religion is not counted as a group, why do people still acknowledge them as religious groups? Is this a layman's term for classification? Do people generally classify people who do things together, as a group? Hopefully I've managed to stir up some questions in your mind while you were reading this, to help you out further, let me give you my perspective of the, 'Is religion really a group issue.'

Let's take for example, Scientology. If you are unfamilar with this religion then Tom Cruise probably hasn't made much of an impact on your life, save perhaps the, 'Mission Impossible' re-runs you might have encountered on TV. Anyway, this religion borders around 500,000 strong, and is growing in popularity.
First created by American science fiction author L.Ron Hubbard, who believes that people are actually immortal spiritual beings who have forgotten their true nature. They promote spiritual rehabilitation through a type of counselling often referred as auditing.(So says wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology) I don't really know if they've really managed to interact with one another 500,000 might seem like a really big number but seriously, compared to figures such as 1.8 billion muslims, 2.1 billion christians, it's beginning to seem like peanuts now huh? Ok point aside what about big names like Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, John Travolta just to name a few? DO THEY actually mingle with the others? Assuming they do, do they become interdependent with your everyday Janes and Sams of Scientology? Even better, Shared patterns of behavior and a collective identity? Perhaps as believers of Scientology but I guess that's where the line is drawn? Because if that's not the case, I shudder to imagine how many fans would have converted over further beefing up the numbers? (not that they haven't already done so I guess =P)


Can it actually be possible for the religion to meet each and every member's interpersonal needs? Can the decisions they make acutally garner full support from all of it's members? Can it really assume all members to act as per will of the religion? Are roles of a group (other than follower =P) really assigned to each and every member of the group? You might insist that they might not be qualified, but surely amongst say 450,000 everyday run-of-the-mill believers, surely there must be people capable of doing things that can acutally benefit the development of this so-called 'group'?


What say you now that you've seen my take on the issue?

How?

Salutations, de la terre de l'amour, (this roughly translates to greetings from the land of love.) While Cupid is busy purchasing more arrows and re-stringing his bow, his evil twin Dipuc hovering around crossbow in hand, apathy bolts in the quiver ready for some un-doing of Cupid's works. It is appalling how a couple can be sharing intimate words and moments together, understanding each other, and showering each other with care and concern for long periods of time before, 'poof' and the 2 people in question become 'strangers who once knew each other the best'.


Many of the most brillant minds in the world struggle to explain love, but i feel this long quote best sums it up. "Love is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake and then subsides. And when it subsides you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion. That is just being "in love" which any of us can convince ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident. Your mother and I had it, we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two. - Captain Corelli's Mandolin. "Love is the beauty of the soul." Interestingly what do you think happens when a breakup occurs? Lightning struck the tree, splitting it into 2 halves, leaving the regions struck burnt and charred never to heal again?


Breakups are commonplace, but reasons behind them are fast becoming varied. According to the equity theory, individuals seek to maintain a balance of costs and rewards, and this balance is supposedly there to maintain the long-term stability of the relationship. Of course the rewards and costs we are talking about could be both tangible, and non-tangible but it really does make people wonder if getting into a relationship's feasible. For one's liken to be investing in a bond with a lifelong maturity period. If it works out some intrinsic benefits such as offsprings, company, etc could be derived, however in the event that the relationship does not work out, is the opportunity cost viable? Can the time, effort, and money spent be written off as well spent? Is the pain, disillusion, loss of self esteem etc worth what the experience? That might come across to many as being mercenary, but think about it is protecting one's rights ever wrong? Is that not what many have set out to achieve in life? To remain single in hopes of protecting one from the pain and the failures associated with an unsuccessful relationship, is that a blessing or a regret?


Personally, I have not actually experienced a breakup yet but from experiences of friends, it does sound like a bitter pill to swallow especially more so if it involves a third party. Will complete this entry if it ever occurs but i'm hoping i'll be able to keep this entry sort of incomplete for now. =)

See?

Perception is defined as the process of selecting, organising and interpreting information in order to give personal meaning to the communication we receive. People perceive different things differently, due to the differences in upbringing, culture, knowledge and religion. All of these cumulates into the way in which we view things, and hence our perception. For example, If Hillary overheard Norman saying, "Bruce has green fingers" will she take it at face value and think that Bruce really have green-coloured fingers? Think that Bruce's really good at growing plants and vegetables? Or even draw closure from the fact that Norman's a big Incredible Hulk fan, and then suspect that the 'Bruce' in question refers to Bruce Banner aka the Incredible Hulk in human form?



It is interesting to note that sometimes it could be the case of double entendre, The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as 'A double meaning; a word or phrase having a double sense, especially as used to convey an indelicate meaning [emphasis added]. In these cases, the first meaning is presumed to be the more innocent one, while the second meaning is risqué, or at least ironic, requiring the hearer to have some additional knowledge. A frequently used example of this would be in the thriller, The Silence of the Lambs, Dr Hannibal Lector states he is, 'having an old friend for dinner' - the normal interpretation for this will be him inviting a friend to share an evening meal, but awareness of the character's cannibalism suggests that he intends to eat the friend as the meal. (Quoted from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre)
Some other examples of humorous/ironic double entendres will include, Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant, and Local High School Dropouts Cut in Half. These were extracted from actual newspaper headlines and when read out they really do sound misleading!

Lastly, check this out, http://www.i18nguy.com/signs.html found it while surfing around. Hope you've enjoyed the read and it helped to brighten your day.