Choreography of The Alphabets

The ONE

Along the first half of 2009, I’ve been surrounded by questions about love and relationships. Sometimes I wonder why they ask me these things, clearly I’m not the ideal person to provide answers about love. Just because I’m a therapist, doesn’t mean I know sh*t.

Anyhow, over the next few posts, I will be yacking about the quetions thrown at me (maybe you can find it useful, if not, oh well, like I said, i know nothing). Just read for fun, throw some punches at it, whatever…

Q: How do you know it’s THE ONE?

A: Seriously, I can’t even decide which yoghurt flavour I’m going to buy everytime I go for groceries. Let alone tell you what THE ONE should be like. But, if I have to write a column about finding THE ONE, then my answer would be: can you endure his/her worst? if you can, then he/she is probably IT.

Here’s why.

There was a poem read during a book discussion I recently attended. I don’t remember the exact words, but it goes something like this:

I like you, that’s why I take my distance.

From a distance, I can see all your colours,

Appreciate your being, the whole you.

From a distance, I can see you better.

Most of the time, we are attracted to only one colour that we fail to see the whole spectrum. Moments pass and one day the light moved, instead of showing us what we normally like, the light exposes a different colour. Perhaps one that is not in our favour — their worst.

For some people, the worst would mean never being physically there. For others, it is inappropriate existence or behaviour (being pompous, infidel, violent, poor, shallow, you name it). Or for some of us, it could be the foul odour he/she emits, or a mishaped toe, or nose twitch, or…. (fill in the blank)

So how do we know he/she is the one?

You know, if you can endure his/her worst, being understanding, sensitive to it, standing by their side no matter what and no strings attached to your affection, then there you go. Stop thinking that the perfect one is a GOD, perfectly flawless and omnipresent. Stop fantasizing.

Say you like an actor or actress, let’s take myself as an example. The everlasting debate since college between me and a good friend is about Tom Cruise vs. Brad Pitt. (Although it is a little outdated because I have Jonathan Rhys Meyers as a new favourite, and this kind of settles the fight over the remote because both Tom Cruise and Rhys Meyers are on MI3. Not important… back to topic). The only resemblance her husband has to Tom Cruise is his first name: Tom. The rest: ain’t nothin’ like tom cruise; but HE is her one.

If you’re a groupie to some rock band, you’d kill to throw your undies during concerts, madly in love for their voice, uhmm… would voluntarily have their babies, not even knowing what you got yourself into. But once you see the real person behind the stage, off camera, maybe even shrieking alone in the bathroom, would you still feel the same?

I am fond of Rhys Meyers because of the energy he puts into his work, but off camera, he has been admitted to rehab several times for alcohol abuse. Would you consider Rhys Meyers as your one? IF by some strange twilight zone mystery suddenly Rhys Meyers becomes interested in me, and I him, I would know whether he is the one or not if I can stick with him no matter what. If I can’t, then he’s not it.

The same goes to you and your partner. What’s the worst that he/she could do to you? Can you accept that?

We are all human beings. Although there is nothing wrong with our creation, we are never perfect so that we can complete each other. We all have qualities that are repulsive to some people, while at the same time endearing to other. Why not make the best of what you have?

The question then goes: Should we not search for the best?

The pursuit of happiness is important. You would want to spend your life with someone who makes you feel comfortable. Who will be there for you and not try to fix you when you feel that the whole world is a mess no matter what you do. For this reason, you should find the best.

But to what point should you stop and realise that the best is right in front of you?

At the point where you realise that no bad thing he/she does could change the way you feel about them. At the point where you can see yourself being there in their darkest hours without trying to fix them. At the point where you can be their only friend when the world is against them. At the point where you think about what you can do for them not the other way around. At the point where they haven’t had their bath for a whole week becuase they’re sick and you still find them amusingly attractive. That’s your one!

So, have you found yours?

People, behaviour.

The Bulldozer:

You’re an idiot!

Do it!

What the hell’s wrong with you?!

The Smiley:

Want a donut?

Were you invited to the picnic?

Did you know I was prom queen?

The Sheep:

I’m not in a position to decide.

I love meetings.

Together we can do it.

The Spreadsheet:

One more question…

What you say doesn’t fit the data.

I think you’ve had enough fun.

Writing, is easy.

If you can tell your tongue to speak out your mind,

It is just as easy to tell your hands to write what you think.

Sort of like thinking out loud, so to speak :)

- hero

Hypnosis & Post War Healing

Just a quick note between work:

I was skimming through a journal article: Memory, suffering, survival tactics, and healing among Jopadhola women in post-war Uganda. - Marijke Abel; Annemiek Richters

Gender-specific social suffering and survival tactic:

• Forgive but not forget

• Reliance on revenge by the tipo (spirit of the dead)

• Search for social support

• Inconspicuousness

The approach taken by the government and NGOs seems to be valuable in empowering women to contribute to changing a society that has long suppressed women and legitimised violence against them into one with less gender inequity. They give women the support that they need to enhance the quality of their lives in the aftermath of a war from which they continue to suffer. War violence is experienced in women’s bodies, minds, and memories, but, for reasons described in this article, women have been unable to articulate these experiences. The social capital that is created may, in due course, support women to express their social suffering, and as such heal the wounds of war that they carry deep inside.

——

Hypnotherapy could be useful, no?

Unhappily unfed.

Waking up, trying to figure out my plans for the day, my email notification blinked. Aha, new email, I wonder who, saying what.

——————

From: Help Causes feed America

Message: 1 in 8 Americans are struggling with hunger. For every $1 you donate, Feeding America helps provide 10 pounds of food and grocery products to men, women and children facing hunger in our country.

Please join the Kellogg Company and Causes as we take small steps towards creating BIG change. 15% of all donations made through Causes on June 18, 2009 will be matched and donated by Causes to Feeding America. Visit your Causes homepage and invite friends to take action.

——————

Thought No 1:

Here’s a question for my friends working/passionate about development:

Should we feed them (the hungry Americans)?

Should Kellogg feed people from a country rich enough to wage war, but does not have adept social security system to feed its people? or feed the mouths of people who live in countries struggling to make ends meet under the oppression of the big capitalists, not even knowing what Kellogg is?

Thought No 2:

People are people. Regardless of their origin or domicile, is it their fault that they are hungry?

Thought No 3:

It is a wonder that people in advanced countries have better solidarity than people in third world countries. Just look at that email blast. They send a plea to all people, including myself, who are not even part of America save for my mac, asking to help feed hungry strangers (americans).

I can think of so many arguments from different spheres about this. Globalization, social justice, public policy, human emotion, connectivism, but it all comes back to one feeling/thought: what are we going to do about the hungry indonesians, indian, african, xxx-an?

To kill or not to kill, is it really a question?

Here is a list of things to start this post:

• love for CSI & Dexter Series,
• a friend in the US ARMY and his grenade launcher,
• using Raid or Baygon to kill a family of mosquitoes behind the cupboard.

And here’s something to end this post:

A friend who knows a monk who eats meat told me:

It is more humane to eat a slab of juicy steak than to eat a plate of clams. One cow dies to feed many, while many clams must die to feed one person.

hmm…

.... (I don't know what to title this one)

Language is a projection of a culture. The words spoken reflect relations between people and what happens around them. There was a research a while back, saying that people tend to behave in different ways when they speak a different language, they will follow the culture set of the language. For instance, you tend to behave in a more romantic manner when you speak french than when you speak say German. People speaking English will be more confident compared to when they speak Javanese (provided that the language skills are sufficient and that confidence in attitude is not affected by confidence in language usage).

Malcolm Gladwell in his recent book Outliers also discussed how language plays a huge role in air travel safety. Apparently how a first officer communicates with ATC & the captain determines whether or not the passengers land safely at their destination.

Now if we put this in the context of negotiation, especially collective labour agreement between a foreign investor and local workforce, will it make any difference what language is being used?

Suppose that Indonesians are well known for its hospitality. Indonesians are known for being polite, better at giving than receiving, more of a follower than a leader, and if they’re javanese, they’d probably value nrimo (nrimo in general is receiving gracefully what’s presented to you, no complaints), respectful towards authority figure.

Workshops on negotiation techniques are held numerous times for all different stakeholders. But during negotiations, the workers are playing on a tilted playing field by nature — because they need work, just like an 8 year old negotiating allowance money with mom/dad. Workers’ main bargaining power is collectivity, maybe even some rare skill - but highly unlikely, add to that the automatic “submissive” response as effect of the language used.

But then there’s another argument that 80% of communication is non verbal. If so, probably we should get back to Tarzanic gestures when we negotiate. Surely the other side of the table can better understand frowned faces, locked jaws and hands punching in the air than the words “We’ll think about it, albeit unfair” in any language with a straight face.

Would justice be better served if negotiations use a whole different language?