To Each His Own

The latest in a string of commentaries and updates has it that Medieval Christianity (branded the Dark ages prior to the Renaissance) actually harnessed capitalism and secularism of today.

With leading theologians postulating, philosophisizng, inventing and innovating, this is no surprise. But if it is said that we should look to the future, not the past, why is research being directed at the past to come up with answers for the future. There must be keys to questions that lie in the past, not the present or future.

Despite all the integration efforts of countries such as ASEAN and the EU, not all have been successful. Besides a common currency and a host of other economic benefits, a more universal linkage in terms of human values like cultural and historical commonality may foster better communication and co-operation.

This starts in the schools at a young age. If we are inundated with only Western humanities early on, do not expect us to feel any affinity for our Asian roots, which rightly should be so. As an illustration, I find shelves of books on American and European literature, philosophy and history. When it comes to Asian and particularly South-east Asian humanities, there isn't as much pickings as I would like or none at all. The popular works would still be the GREAT Western thinkers of the past.

What can this suggest? Asians are so caught up in economics, they have neglected that one truth in their lives and that is: the common human and humanitarian values they share in the humanities. That would have bonded them more than economics which stratified more than it already has.

Monks and nuns aren't what they used to be. At least the ones I see in our shopping arcades. Resembling the Tibetan monks in maroon and saffron robes, I spotted one sporting a gold watch. Wow and they are ascetic, I thought. Caught up in consumerism and materialism, I suppose?

People do change. When I hear people speaking differently of someone I know eons ago, it sounded like a very different character. I suppose it has to do with changing mores and who is in at the helm. Eg: My primary school alma mater had a no nonsense, fair and straight-laced Mr Paul Lee Poh Soon as principal. The teachers hold him in awe, I think, so there wasn't as many contending issues which surfaced. Once we have a feeble-minded, lax and wussy Comptroller, the whole school collapses.

Marriage is an issue for each and everyone to decide upon on its own merits. We have heard of successful and failed marriages, not withstanding age nor years spent in nuptial ties. Here is my personal opinion and mine alone:

(1) I am not attracted to a woman in any way. Neither intellect nor appearances nor sexual anatomy nor character. In fact with a woman about the house, it would be an intrusion and stressor which actually lowers my quality of life, given their predisposition most of the time.

(2) Therefore, a dual-income does not appeal to me as a sufficiently pecuniary reason for marriage. I am not marrying for money but for the person. This is the last frontier of mores I will hold fast to like the last Mohican would. I can compromise on everything else but not this. This is my only ticket to sexual and emotional happiness and satisfaction.

(3) I am however all for a child to complete my cycle of life. I only need one, not a brood. He will have all my attention, care and nurturing for his future career, individual fulfilment and advancement. He is however financially expensive (if I want to provide for all the good things he should be entitled to , if he wants to and he has talents for - music and academic education, sports, arts, the whole works) and this is something I have to work out. As I said I will be the diametric opposite of a childless couple. Children are gifts from God and I love children (male ones, sorry) for their curiousity, their innocence, their babble, their sense of adventure and fun, their tickle-bones and so on.

(4) It makes no difference that your other half is of either sex. You have to pick one which will contribute the most in better mental health and sex. You can pool money or purchase a house with any one sex . In any coupling, each does lead very individual lives in some instances.

(5) It is dumb that hetero couples spend so much on a grand wedding dinner (but this is more than covered by the red packets guests dish out, me thinks). It is only a day in what would be a lifetime spent together. They should use the time to learn about each other than on just this one occasion.

I think I have debunked stereo-modal sexual couplings here , once and for all. Speaking of which, I wonder why humans are named "homo-sapiens" and not hetero-sapiens? Homo means "the same"? I am not implying anything here. I hope.