John Gim. Note: Click on the title of each post to comment
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
Text
Striving
As always, I begin with an apology. It doesn’t matter who or when. “Sorry, but--” is how I always begin any dialogue, whether it’s with my best friends who I haven’t called in over 2 months or with me, because everybody has to figure out which version of himself he wants to side with.
First, prose. Paul Kalanithi in “When Breath Becomes Air” sparked again, my love for literature. Perhaps unfounded, based on the fact that I’ve tried to read “Crime and Punishment” over five times, but still, a love that remains. His prose can only be described as leaping off the pages. It’s music. Especially towards the later chapters, when the “urgency of racing against time” is evident. He really poured his life out in the face of certain death. Although the vocabulary, syntax, structure and fluidity of his sentences elude my Reddit-level capacity to really appreciate them, I can tell its potential, similar to a tone-deaf drunkard happily sounding out half-flat drum beats because he can attest to the feeling the music produces.
There’s a list of quotes that I bookmarked but two that carry importance.
You can’t ever reach perfection, but you can believe in an asymptote toward which you are ceaselessly striving - pg. 115
Lucy and I both felt that life wasn’t about avoiding suffering...Darwin and Nietzsche agreed on one thing: the defining characteristic of the organism is striving - pg. 143
During COVID-19, one prominent lesson I’ve learned is that life hangs in a precarious balance between suffering and pleasure and that our job is to find out where that tipping point is for us. If you’re good at reading people, you can see where their limit is and can carefully guide them there (that’s what a good manager does). It came at a point when I was watching an episode of The Top Gear with a glass of beer. I thought it well-deserved since I had just finished a coding project that took way too long of a time. But by the time I had finished it, it was 2 AM. And I just felt this tremendous wave of sadness. It’s as if I had crossed the point a tad too much and the yin-and-yang of my personal universe was whipping me back into shape.
But, I argued back. Didn’t I deserve it? Isn’t the whole point of crunching numbers to relax afterwards? I mean, who actually likes writing out reports to projects that have no real value? (The premise that engineering at the Master-level study program has no real value, I probably should confront at some point, preferably before I delve into a career). Isn’t life all about the reward?
Besides the rush of dopamine which evolution has carefully produced to enable the continuation of the human species, I’m starting to realize the answer to the question lies in my upbringing. The Christian life to any person with a basic knowledge of the Bible is a life of delayed gratification. Confess now and you can go to heaven. Resist the temptation and you shall receive reward in heaven. Well, that’s incorrect. The Bible reveals the Christian life as one lived with Christ, in Christ and out of Christ. It’s a life of loving Christ, having Christ love you more than you can possibly imagine, and simply telling that to anybody else you know. But, to realize that--and even the more, live that out--requires maturity.
It helps that I went to a Bible seminary, but there are stages to a Christian life. In the initial stages, you find out what it means to deal with outward things like sins, the world, unrighteousness--things that most people can easily identify as those evil in the eyes of a Christian. But, at some point, you read Romans carefully and discover that God never expected you to perfect your resolve to never sin again. In fact, that was never His intention at all. His intention is that you would get to know Him more. To love Him more. To care about Him. The end game is when you realize that there’s really nothing more that pleases Him than Him giving Himself to you, and you allowing that.
There’s many obstacles like, your thoughts about what God is doing, who God is, or why God made things the way they are, but the point of the Christian life is to let those things go so that you would know Him.
That’s why the Bible doesn’t have any explicit answers to the problems of world poverty, hunger, unfair suffering and general illogical and incomprehensible ways that each individual life turns out; that’s not His focus. Neither does He actually owe it to you to solve all those things.
And here comes the point. Suffering is a part of human life because Adam fell. Christians suffer (arguably more than the unbeliever because of the fact that now he’s aware of not just one person, but several persons who lives within him--Satan, God and himself) and it’s just a part of life. Whoever came up with the idea that the good Christian goes to heaven has probably given Christianity a lot of thought. Philosophically, it's a satisfactory explanation for the impossible lives certain Christian biographies attest to. Politically, it’s a great tool for crowd control (Caesar Augustus). But it fails to hide the meaninglessness of it all that cloaks its happy ending. And look at the consequences! It’s become categorically almost taboo for a Catholic priest to be convicted of child molestation or some other gross sin for which he would be by the Catholic addendum to the Bible, responsible for help purging at the confession altar. The walls of Sardis and Thyatira echo with words of twisted teachings. How frustrated God must be that we’re just not getting it!
I think I’ve arrived at the cusp of understanding it. Not the point of it all, but why it’s meaningful to live in the faith. And what part suffering has in all of it. Because it’s not dissimilar to what I consider a life worth living outside of the bounds of Christian law. It’s exactly what Dr. Kalanithi wrote. Striving. That’s the whole point. Or, in layman terms, the pursuit of happiness.
When I watched Will Smith explain it to his kid (oh please, that scene was basically made for him and his actual kid) that nobody should strip his dreams away, I could resonate as an immigrant because that’s what my parents embodied in their ever-sacrificing life for me. They never said it, but I could tell. And striving was simply a part of it. They never questioned why they should strive because it was ingrained into their bones as they did everything they could to survive in the teenage stages of the miracle on the Han. But me, I have the pleasure of enjoying the fruits of their labor, never having to worry about having enough to eat. Instead, I have to re-discover why I should strive at all to find a meaning in life that they never had to question (presumably. I never asked them). But, it’s finally start to click: the pursuit is the happiness.
Like donkeys, we need the carrot at the end of the stick. I generally agree with the capitalist notion that humans need incentive to progress (or to work, for that matter). North Korean defectors have the hardest time integrating into South Korea because working is purely a status from 9 to 5, not a gateway into a better life. And look where North Korea is today; isolated, whining and throwing a tantrum every couple of months so people would notice them. So, we desperately need the idea of perfection. We admire those who have seemingly achieved it. We cling to the ideals and lift them up because it incentivizes us. “A perfect life exists and I’m going to get after it.” And, that’s really what the economy thrives on. Without grandeur ideals of a large house by the lakeside with a collection of supercars in the garage, Wall Street would collapse. Sure, some are more driven by the fact that their childhood was deprived of any sense of normalcy. I can’t say anything to that. But, the point is that normalcy is the ideal of “perfection”.
But if you see any interview of the person who’s “done it all”--I recommend for all the Asians, Johnny Kim (it hurts because my name is so similar)-- you never get the sense that they are exuberant beyond measure. Least of all, there is rarely a sense of absolute pride that they’re done it the way they wanted to and that was the end of it. The common thread is sacrifice and a bit of luck. The more they gave for their goals, the less they had time to think about if they’re happy at the moment. It’s in that precise moment of the present, when no thought of anxiety over the status of their happy-barometer is looming, that they’re actually, happy.
Perfection doesn’t exist. But if you don’t strive for it, there’s hardly any meaning at all. A perfect Christian life isn’t a life without suffering. It’s a life with, in and through Christ. But it’s unattainable, impossible. And maybe that’s the whole point.
p.s. There’s another dimension to the concept of “striving” in the Bible. It’s usually in a negative light because the entire medium through which we can live the normal Christian life is through faith and striving, on the contrary, implies work of our own merit. Here, striving is meant in a positive way, in the sense of pressing forward, of devoting serious energy into a matter that is near to the heart. Instead of a perfectionist foolishly striving for a goal that to him is naively reachable, I think of Luganksy playing Rachmaninoff Concert No. 2 in a recording that undoubtedly is one of the greatest performances of his life but riddled with miss-hits and asynchronous crescendo into the cadenza. It captures the beauty of irony; that only imperfection can bring solace to the troubled soul, keeping it afloat amidst the chaos of life. There is no perfect anything, but striving for it, whatever it may be or to whom the conceived idea belongs, is undoubtedly the greatest blessing to life.
0 notes
Text
Hello
It’s been a while. As I perused my blog, I noticed that my last post was dated May 30th, 2015. So It’s been a little over 6 months.
I think I can safely say these last 6 months saw my life turn a corner to a new chapter. Enrolling at the FTTA, it’s been a crazy semester. I don’t mean to say crazy as in I-can’t-get-enough-of-it-and-I-am-always-uber-excited, but crazy in how it has influenced me beyond what I could have anticipated both in the depth and breadth of the realms which the education has touched.
It has revolutionized my spiritual pursuit. I take that back - revolutionize is too much of a hyperbole. It has had the opposite effect, one of stabilizing the ground on which I pursue spiritual truths and life. Concepts are shattered (and that I mean it) everyday, and it’s commonplace that every so often, I try to catch one of my fellow termmate brothers’ attention during class to relate the bewilderment more clearly expressed as “Are we actually hearing this right now?” and “All of this was conveyed thirty years ago?”. It’s remarkable the profound depth and detail Witness Lee frequently conveys so concisely. And yet, despite the gradual acquisition of knowledge regarding verses and their interrelated-ness in the Bible, the training emphasizes the importance of balance between knowledge and life. One cannot simply know doctrine. Corinthians were sternly warned by the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 3:6 that letter kills but the Spirit gives life. Experientially, doctrine leads to ambition, pride and ultimately spiritual death. However, you cannot lead a normal Christian life without the knowledge of the Bible. Simply being spiritual is dangerous, perhaps leading to being swayed by winds of teaching and following whatever is best for the individual’s opinion and situation. With such a background that was clearly taught by dear brothers over the last six months, I have begun to pursue with a view that is less tainted and colored by personal tastes. Elements of Christian life - truth, life, gospel and service - have begun to take root in my daily life. But, it must be clear that everything is a work in progress.
0 notes
Link
Slightly exaggerated. I have seen the truth to this and people who are in either position. But it’s reality: professional careers depend significantly on politics and one’s display of belief that they belong where they want to be.
0 notes
Text
Good Enough
As a short respite from preparing for final exams (for reference, in the fall quarter of the senior year of college, studying topics of finite element analysis, fluid mechanics and control systems), I want to elaborate on a philosophy which is prevalent among engineers and becoming one of my own.
This philosophy is best described as "good enough". For engineers, it is the motto and reason for all the achievements which the public gawks at. For scientists, it is the door behind which lies the answer to all their PhD thesises and postulates. For many, it is the backdrop of relief from the daily struggles and impossible dreams. It is what is usually said after hours, days, years, decades, even thousands of years of battling against the reality for what is envisioned in the human mind.
Perfectionists have the highest standard of what is "good enough". Others do not hold such strict standards and, I must digress, are more likely to lead overall happy lives.
Regardless, most of human-made systems and institutions are based on different levels of "good-enough". NASA have one of the highest standards of what is touted appropriate - a millisecond error from the theoretical orbital mean anomaly of an interplanetary mission vehicle may mark the difference between a landing and a crash. Abu Dhabi's Burj Khalifa required a new level of accuracy for its concrete mixes, steel composition and stress analysis of its beams simply because it sought to reach heights never seen before. In fact, most technological advances require an extension of the "good enough" ladder which humans are almost romantically tied to.
Perhaps it is a selfish idea, but from what I have observed, it is a commonplace perspective which many others do share. If I may say, science is striving for an impossible singularity which to many promises the answer to all of the problems and questions known to mankind. One large example is the experiment of the LHC, the largest particle accelerator ever manufactured. The experiments strive to prove theories that connect special and general relativity through discoveries of particle behavior and subatomic particles. The success of the experiment promises great advancement towards a single theory which characterizes all natural behaviors known to mankind. Yet, doubts still remain to the existence of this singular law. To many aspiring physical theorists, this single theory is the ultimate "good enough". Beyond, there is no more. This is precisely why I consider, and hope, the ultimatum to be actually impossible. If all our questions - can we travel to different galaxies? can we create an endless energy supply? can we control the climate? can we end disease? can we increase food production? can we live forever? can the human brain be wired for peace rather than sensationalized violence? can the world be constructed fair and just?- were answered, then the world will either be the paradise dreamed since Adam or a ghastly chaos to which no solution exists. To many, "good enough" is a mark of progress towards the conclusive answer behind all of our questions. The discovery of the "God" particle? Good enough, for now. A vaccine to ebola? Good enough, but not enough. A federal bailout of banks in the billions? Good enough, until later. At the end of the day, it is more fulfilling to be comforted with "good enough" than to be ridiculed with "not there yet".
Yet, the systems which we have built upon are too far off. The trend of the world countries to opt for democracy as a government philosophy is perhaps pointing to a fork in the road, as explained by Tony Blair. He, as prime minister of the proudly democratic island country of United Kingdom, is of course biased towards a stalwart defense of democracy. His call for a true democratic government may be futile against the overpowering demands of human greed. I wholeheartedly agree with Blair that reality must be balanced with what is envisioned. Democracy as the politicians imagines does not account for the anomalies which are becoming more mainstream. How can you explain the fragmented jumble which the Middle East is at the present, despite all the efforts of democratic nations to impart this democratic vision to the locals? How do you explain the results of the Ferguson case while still believing you had set a good enough system of enforcement who strictly enforce the law? On the other hand, without the necessarily ambivalent powers handed to the police, who will protect the people from anarchy? Why hasn't democracy smoothed out the issues of race? What democracy has brought is exposure to what is focal to human progress - the road towards a perfect system of peace and happiness in life.
But compromises must be made. What is good enough for some must be balanced with what is not good enough for others. The curiosity of scientists to discover the next more efficient food production method is battled against the present need of food in 3rd world countries and the thousands of death as a result. The multi-billion manned mission to Mars by NASA must be viewed in context with the extreme climate change on Earth. The advocates of a colony on Mars must be able to cope with the possible failure of the colony and the resulting situation on Earth.
I hope that the bright engineers and scientists around me broaden their scope from their next big thing. It is our natural tendency to push the limits of what is good enough. Our curiosity will never cease. From such a perspective, it is healthy that there is never an ultimatum which settles all our questions - it gives us hope and purpose. However, in context of the world situation which is drawing near to the breaking point, what we hope must be shared and communicated with those outside our classrooms, our industry and our comfort zone.
This is not so much a call for others but a personal reminder. The more I become engrossed and interested in what I study, there are times I confidently preach what I believe is not good enough. It is a natural process of life, I believe, that one becomes attached to a view - there is a certain strength and fulfillment in becoming opinionated. It offers a sense of being useful. Yet, too often, the sense is blinding and tends to make the mind ignorant to the reality beyond what is daily life to the specific person. What makes life interesting is the clash of opinions, but perhaps excitement and belief can be laid aside to tackle long term problems affecting the whole rather than the few.
0 notes
Link
0 notes
Text
Routine perfection. So good I can sleep through it.
Today is Sept. 9th 2014. Two events rocked this week and both of them were disappointing to say the least. First, the 2014 U.S. Open held the men's final yesterday between Kei Nishikori and Marin Cilic. It was notable in several aspects. First, this was the first Grand Slam in which an Asian man ever reached the men's singles finals, period. Second, this is only the first time since 2002 U.S. Open in which both finalists were seeded outside the top 5 (the last time was between Sampras and Agassi, both all-time greats coming back from tumultous times). Third, Cilic was banned from international play for 4 months due to a recently unfounded drug allegation until Sept. 2013. Fourth, Marin Cilic absolutely destroyed Kei 6-3 6-3 6-3. Fifth, Both players picked apart Federer (ranked 3) and Djokovic (1) to reach finals.
So what did this year's U.S. Open tell us? First, that professional tennis is becoming impossibly competitive and boring. Every player inside the top 20 are now dedicating every aspect of their lives for tennis. If you would have told me only a decade ago that all top 8 players in 2014 would be married and lead low-key private lives, I would have scoffed and started us on a guessing game on which supermodel Marat Safin would bring to the next Grand Slam. I wish this trend was the result of the maturation of the tennis community. But no, this is all because of one man and one man only: Roger Federer. He showed us from 2004 to 2009 that tireless dedication not only to winning games but professionalism on and off the court is the formula to becoming a legend. Some cynics predicted his presumably inevitable collapse at 2008's Wimbledon, the greatest game in the modern era, when the invincible Federer lost to Nadal. Other realists pointed out clay as his kryptonite. At the end of the day, however, no one could argue his absolute domination as told by his title count. Everyone realized, this is it.
And the rest followed. Nadal took to it and continued his reign on clay. Can you believe that he won nine French Opens so far at age 28? Mere mortals like I would get bored of winning so much. I mean, how many trophies do you need to feel fulfilled? Not enough, obviously for Nadal. In 2011, Djokovic followed Federer's footsteps and was on the verge of the impossible calendar Grand Slam when Federer, ironically, bested him on clay. Murray started training mindlessly for his personal count and he got his sensationalized Wimbledon in 2013. Professionalism got hold of Stan the Man, and he claimed the Australian Open this year. And finally, with some luck and improvement in the mental side, Marin claimed this year's U.S. Open.
The public reception to all this professional tennis is in awe. Matches are now longer and are usually more astonishing than droll. To keep up with the exponential advance in racket technology, tennis players are now legitimate top-tier athletes. Every moment of their lives are monitored for maximum physical performance. The top 8 avoid any possible activity that could engender gossip because that's just too inefficient; all of them are married or engaged to their one true love, or at least it seems, none of them spend late nights in vaguely unknown bars, and there exists no genuinely intense rival between any of them. No one harbors a tacit disapproval of their opponents like Pete and Agassi did.
And that's what makes the game almost illusive and at times, boring as hell.
Perhaps it's me that's the problem. Perhaps I've come to expect from professional sports the Ray Rice scandals that encompasses not only the sport itself but larger social issues such as domestic violence and race. Perhaps it's become all too natural for me that professional athletes nowadays are potentially in suspicion of performing behind a veil that hides their illicit, performance-enhancing activities (ahem, Lance). Perhaps I shouldn't translate the elements of socio-economically defining genres of football, basketball and baseball to a conservative sport like tennis. Perhaps I'm just mad that Kei lost.
Whatever the reason, it's difficult to ignore that all competitive sports arenas are driven not only to showcase competition, but also to entertain outside the confines of good ol'-fashioned urge to win. It's partially due to the lure of sponsors and advertisers. But it's also due to the massive story-fueled media conglomerate that explains the sports for us common folk. I don't discredit the insight that blogs like Grantland give into the realm of sports. But sometimes I question the reality behind post like "Football's Corner Three", which hypothesizes the most effective play in football based on a vague stat that I still don't have a clue what it means. Some posts connect elements of a game that are so apparently unrelated that they walk the line between enlightening or downright crazy.
Compared to analysis of one NFL game, the analysis of an entire tennis swing is a haiku. There's hardly anything more to tell than the scores. Even a shock upset such as the Djokovic's loss to Cilic in the semis is overshadowed in a month simply due to the volume of games played by professional tennis players. There are 4 majors after all, unlike NBA's one annual championship final. This doesn't help boost tennis' entertainment value.
The most alike genre of sport in terms of tennis' routine schedule and low entertainment value is golf. Except Tiger Woods happened. And also ceased to happen catastrophically.
If any of the Big Four were to reveal an extremely unprofessional past like the one Woods was exposed of, tennis would immediately gain international attention. It's a sad but realistic picture. Tennis news would jump to the top 5 of ESPN's talk of the day. Now, there's a controversy, a topic of conversation that just simply didn't exist before in the last decade of tennis. It's no wonder there's a dearth of good blog posts about tennis compared to that of other sports.
I attribute some of my disappointment in professional tennis to the ADHD-like society we live in. We always need novelty. Tennis has just been so good in the past decade that I want someone else than Federer's professional successor to win it. Someone like Ernest Gulbis. Or Monfils. Someone who just shows up and wins it all. I want a Cinderella story except it's the lazy but talented sister who becomes a one-time champion. The top 10 in tennis needs a character because the professional circuit has become faceless.
So despite my apparent support for Dimitrov, who is called Baby Federer (I'm not kidding you), I want to see Gulbis win it next Grand Slam.
0 notes
Text
College Training 2014
Event update: last week, I spent a week in Occidental, California with a group of 350 Christian students. We studied and delved into the subject of humanity of Jesus. It was awesome because I was at a place where I could realize and appreciate a lot of what was spoken. Not in a physical way, but in the life aspect. If they'd had told me that the Triune God is expressed on this earth through the proper humanity of the regenerated believers only 2 years ago, I would have taken it a lot more brashly and probably would have misunderstood a lot of the points. Because of the three years I went through as a college student, I've "enjoyed" in a much more deeper aspect what this meant. I won't go too far, but here are several key aspects I've learned.
1. Morning revival is key to living a life full of the divine humanity of Jesus. The children of Israel ate manna that was given by God everyday for 40 years in the wilderness. This manna cannot be stored up and eaten at another time. Each morning, they had to gather the manna and eat. Much like this, it is crucial for Christians to rise up early in the morning and eat. Eat what? Eat Jesus (Matt. 4:4). Like the dew of the dawn, Christ will be the most fresh and most precious in the morning, more so than any other time during the day.
2. The way to get the humanity of Jesus is by the Spirit (Lev. 2). The fine flour of the meal offering in Lev. 2 represents the fine humanity of Jesus. This humanity is the character, the human living and the human life of Jesus. It was so fine, balanced and tender as evidenced in the gospels. Despite being born of the Holy Spirit, Jesus as a child still obeyed his parents. After feeding thousands of hungry people, he told the disciples to gather the leftovers, indicating his proper character. And Matt. 12:20 reveals that Jesus was tender, not willing to break a bruised reed nor quench a smoking flax. This proper humanity can't be imitated by Christians. What we need to do is touch the Spirit consolidated in the word of God (2 Tim. 3:16) Only this is the way to become "Jesusly" human.
3. Vital companions are critical in the church life. This can either keep or lose a believer in the church life. Without these, there is no way to go on. 2 Tim. 2:22 reveals that we need to "pursue with those who call on the Lord out a pure heart". These are the companions! Without them, it is easier for Satan to attack the believers.
0 notes
Video
vimeo
0:22 to 0:30. F-16 becomes a rocket in less than half a second. Incredible machine.
0 notes
Link
Why a dazzling generation of French players can't win at Roland Garros.
...it was in Paris after all that Picasso sat in cafes for 4 years drawing, pretending that the Germans weren't there. This explains a lot.
0 notes
Link
DTS betting research money on improved streaming audio. 15% more bandwidth by their measures equals 66% increase in pleasure. This is 50% more gain than what was put in. This is awesome!
My thoughts? Headphones X really won't make it through in mainstream due to 2 reasons:
1) The public doesn't care about extremely good audio. What have you in concerts and operas are about the spectacle and us humans are undeniably visually oriented creatures. Sight is proof and we love it: "I saw it with my own two eyes". Without the visual cues, we have less proof of sharing with others what we enjoy.
2) Increase in streaming audio quality will not be fully appreciated due to lack of proper equipment in the public. This is changing for the better and I like it. For example, the second generation Apple earbuds are very much a step above the sound quality of the first gen. Especially in the bass, the response is much more articulated and impactful. However, the increase in streaming quality won't be fully appreciated even on improving equipment. Hi-fi headphones like the Sennheiser 600 will be able to detail the differences but at this level, streaming audio is the last thing on the listener's choice of source.
0 notes
Text
Truth shall set you free
it's complicated. It's like a complicated relationship - actually, it's exactly like one. Federer and I started off well. We first met at the U.S. Open in 2004. He was extraordinary, someone who I've never seen. It seemed like there was nothing that could stop us (237 weeks at No. 1). Then reality set in with age. Then came spurts of happiness, albeit a little more spread apart than I would've liked, and then came the ultimate stamp that confirmed my blind love for this guy (the 2009 French Open).
Just to make sure you know, I have the complete right to treat this as I am doing so right now. As the winner of the ATP sportsmanship award 9 times, and the Laureus World Sportsman of the Year 4 times, he's a fan favorite. But he's also my guy. Everyone has one, whether it be Richard Sherman showcasing the most honest interview I've ever seen in professional sports, the cool and collective Ray Allen with the winning 3 in last year's championship game, or the nemesis-to-all-of-us-normal-folks Raikkonen who makes us want to shoot and idolize him at the same time. Let's be honest, we all have the guy we can relate to, and nobody tags himself along a nobody (have you heard of James McGee? He's the number 1 Irish tennis player, I'll would have you know! Just don't get caught up in the fact that he's ranked 213)
Regardless, I started doubting whatever there was between Federer and me in 2011. Perhaps it's the post-high-school skeptic that started objectifying the stats he put up, but it's been hard. I mean, how could he do such a thing? Not win a single slam in a calendar year? Don't you see Rog the millions and millions fans who are counting on you to go on with their life? Why can't you reciprocate? In 2013, it hit bottom as he finished the year without making a single major final for the first time since 2003. All that he said in the press washed over me. It was eerily similar to Mr. White, defiant against all the facts, promising that everything is fine.
But I was pleasantly surprised in the first three rounds of the Australian Open this year. He was showing some of the ol' Rog, the carefree yet methodical genius who demolished the likes of Murray, Berdych, del Potro and Djokovic in 2012. His primal weapon, the first serve, was sharpened into a guillotine block, ultimately discarding the lowly opponents in ease. Tsonga, the unpredictable and burly Muhammad Ali of tennis, was taken aback with the hyper-aggressive baseline play. Even Murray, whose Big Four status I have always questioned, was but a bump in the Fed Express. It was delightful, it was simply joy. I couldn't have asked for more.
Yesterday, I actually stayed up to watch the semi-final of a grand slam, partially out of a need to follow up on my words that I stay up for any slam, but mostly out of a synthesized hope that Federer might push through. I went online and found the first set taken by Nadal with a close tiebreak. Hard fought, at least I know he tried 'til the end. Time to shine, Swiss, time to shine.
15-40 with 2 break points at 2-3. No, not again. After 3-4 exchanges of deuce, he still holds.
The next game is what will haunt me for the rest of my life.
40-0. Nadal holds serve.
The whole time, there was a notable change in Federer's groundstroke speeds. Even on televised screens, it was clear. It was much slower and had much more topspin. To me, that's a sign of uncertainty, of dwindling confidence. That's what you do when none of your strokes are working with a significant advantage over the opponent. For someone like Federer, a royal king of sorts but never known to be the gritty, do-whatever-it-takes fighter that Nadal and Hewitt are known for, it takes a mental advantage over the guy on the other side to win. It can be considered easy for Federer to beat Tsonga, or Murray, or Djokovic. All three take every chance to show that they're human, whether it be destructively (but not really) cursing at the crowd or going super-saiyan like a crazy person. To Federer, they're dangerous but their emotional showcase is all too easy a target for his neutral, cool, consistent playing style. Nadal, on the other hand, is a machine. His legs are no doubt a gift from the gods and he rarely, perhaps never, puts himself down during matches. In moments of brilliance by his opponents, Nadal characterically looks down inquisitively to examine what he could've done better - and as he motions for the towel, he just seems to...move on. I mean, since his knee rehab in 2011, he's become the mentally toughest player since 2002. Scratch that, he's become the best player since 2002.
So maybe I was too naive for hoping that Federer could pull it off. I mean, Nadal is too young and too good. On top of that, the Spaniard held a 22-10 (before this match) record against the purported GOAT. So what kept me watching?
If a king is to fall, I want to be there. And at the end, I want him to admit that he too is human.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in insurmountable odds or unbeatable foes. Stats don't mean anything in the moment of it, especially when you choose to let yourself be human. This doesn't mean accept defeat; it means disregard all odds against you and choose to be great (cliche, but hear me out). Until this point, I've been referring the human nature as one of hubris. It's true, machines are inherently built to minimize failure. The code is written and they may never recognize the weakness of self-doubt and destruction - if they do, it's more improbable still that they do not sympathize with the feelings. There's a program for success and it's been through countless edits over generations. On the other hand, humans can fail. We all have feelings of doubt, of wanting to quit. And as a society, we give too little emphasis on what these are. By all means, don't dwell in the swirl of self-destruction. But when we rise up against the tide and become the success we envision in our heads, we too easily disregard that what made us great is also what made us doubt. To say "I'm human" is as much about how great one is as how weak one could be. A machine can never say that.
This philanthropic, nice-guy, family-man persona Federer has cultivated is perfect on paper. But to be brutally honest, I want to see him overcome all of it. He will never break out in hot adrenaline and call his opponent mediocre, but maybe he needs to turn himself a little villain-esque. Nadal was the ultimate arch-nemesis for Federer and it was hard for me to watch the Spanish machine demolish the man. It inflicted change, a poison of reality that made me more mature. But being the fireball he is, I've seen Nadal grow into a hero for all of us. With relatively little to his name - a charity that doesn't hold events during slams, no sportsman persona, no cultural need to respond to all and every problem the world is seeking - Nadal has committed his life for tennis, villain or not.
And it showed. Final score - 7-6, 6-3, 6-3. Bulldozed the Swiss to the ground.
The headline most people take away from this? "Federer still has his best tennis to come". I'm sorry, but he will never beat Nadal again, not unless he starts afresh. Consider it a mid-life crisis, Federer. It's only human that you meet seemingly impossible odds like Nadal and feel defeated (Nadal has won the last 7 meetings). But won't it be better for a king to fall with grace? A prodigy to accept his human origin and perhaps become something greater in return? So, kneel, once-king, and speak your heart out. The rest of us are ready to hear it.
------------------------------------
As an aside, the most heartfelt posts I've written are all about the big 4. No doubt, the story I hold closest to me is the Nadal-Fed rivalry. That's because both represent all that I am. Nadal is the half of me that's relentless, OCD and beastly. It's what comes out during the heat of the moment. Federer is idealistic, precise and calm. It's what keeps me chugging along. Both I respect very much, but Federer tends to strike my pathos a little more. I don't know, it could be how helpless he seemed at the 2009 AO ceremonies, or how easily he collapses at the end of each Wimbledon championship. As if he carries the weight of all the fans in the world with him in each crease of his forehead, he's the ultimate representative for tennis.
To provide perspective, let's compare both Federer and Nadal at age 27. By the 2009 AO championships Federer had won 13 grand slams and spent more than 237 weeks at no. 1. Right now, Nadal has 13 grand slams and spent 119 weeks at No. 1. I stand by these stats and will not give some phony excuse. Oh, Federer's rivals during his golden era (2004-2009) were not nearly as competitive as those now? Then let's discount any non-clay court wins by Nadal because it's clear that the courts have gotten a lot slower. But wait, Federer lost to Nadal consistently in every semi or final grand slam match since 2010. True, but how come Djokovic can demolish Nadal while Federer can beat Djoko? Petty questions come and ultimately, it's not up to the numbers to decide for themselves. The greatest of all time will never be decided and it's not worth talking about it anyways. If it really concerns you, maybe it's time to try letting the human side take over and simply enjoy the spectacle.
Also, by no means did I intend to condescend James McGee. From what I can tell, he is an excellent tennis player who is chugging along the Challenger circuit. He has good values and is doing what he loves. What I did want to do was make a point - that we all like attention and as a result we cling onto people who are the center of attention.
0 notes
Text
Simple Joys
It's good to know where you are at. Netherlands is a socialist economy run by a government of primarily two factions: the labor union party and the conservative liberal party.
Socialism is the inevitable product of capitalism as one could say. When looking back in history, it's easy to see it: UK, one a great imperialist nation based on capitalist roots is now headed towards socialism. Netherlands, the great imperialist nation before the UK, is now firmly rooted in the belief that production should be controlled for the betterment of the public rather than private gain. In fact, the entirety of the northern European nations as well as many in the mainland have turned warm to socialist tendencies due to the efficiency of the system. Long gone are the days when the Dutch would reign over the economy of, literally, half the Earth and when the British and French could plant their flags in the south continent and call it theirs. More importantly, Europe has been the mainstay of most of humanity's struggle: countless wars, many revolutions and risen kingdoms as fast as they fall. All these power struggles amount to many lessons learned of the same tale: power is a natural desire but happiness is worth more than blood. In today's international community, power is measured in the exchange of goods, in percent growth as indicated by computerized stock derivatives. Even more subtly, power is represented now by how well the government can keep its public happy. Unemployment and standard of wealth are two main factors of a nation's place in the charts. Undoubtedly, the world's scientific progress as reached a point where all of humanity's natural needs can be met: shelter, water, food and health. Yet, due to the constant need to stay at the top, technology is squandered among the most privileged. I believe Europe has recognized this fact and at least among themselves, they have agreed to minimize the number of people living in poverty. In Oslo you will rarely see any homeless people. In Iceland, crime is uncommon, even unheard of (economic corruption is of different topic). It is not uncommon for people in the Netherlands to "lag" behind the latest tech simply due to the simpler culture here. For the most part, Europeans recognize that at the end of the day, happiness is not derived from the latest smartphone or computer. It is from the relationships, the time spent behind the wall of inhibition as set by society.
At the same time, it can't be said that the Europeans are technologically or scientifically retarded. No, they are among the best and the brightest. Netherlands prides itself in its technological institutes and France for its advancements in science (case in point, Hadron Collider). Germans are light years beyond the U.S. in the technology behind cars. The British produce some of the best F1 teams. London is one of the largest trading centers in the world. Why does it seem contradictory that these socialist economies are leading the world in science and technology?
At every technological advancement, employment decreases. Machines replace humans and do a better job than them. If a socialist economy is truly socialist, the democratic body will not allow technological gain. Employment is necessary for wealth and thus more jobs are required to maintain public happiness. Technology works to make human lives more comfortable and it is recommendable to a point.
It follows that even though the European nations, among the most experienced on earth, know the key ingredients of life's simple needs, history repeats itself again. In addition to the econo-industrial system's direct relation to a nation's caliber of power, technological progress has its own raw merit: the coolness factor of innovation. To some, it is even a passion, a source of happiness.
But it can't be ignored that the introduction of televisions, the internet, the smartphone, the tablet and a myriad of other incredible innovations has produced one of the least happiest and nonchalant generations in history. Two generations ago, it would be uncomfortably upsetting to find news of death from people overindulging in internet-based multiplayer games, of the spike in depression due to a daily routine mostly spent on media consumption. Now, it is commonplace.
Einstein mentioned in his short afterthought of socialism that the system works to restore humans to the basic joys of life. The simple, small things in life that go unappreciated: the music of birds in the air, the blast of wind from time to time, the food on the dining table. While capitalism provides grounds for exponential growth of what is possible, it alienates the human from what makes us smile and happy. It is the sour side of capitalism: the ambition that drives some of us to our deaths. On the other hand, I am careful to include, that a socialist economy is not the ideal solution. While careful governance of production may result in steady growth, the tendency of labor in such a system often results in laziness and callousness. Out of a personal complaint, it's perplexing to me that the Dutch government allocates a good amount of money to individuals with 2 or more children on a monthly basis, therefore eliminating any real need for the individual to work and contribute to the economy. The government feeds and shelters such individuals based on the conscience and natural work ethic of others. Indeed, there is a danger of stagnating in a socialist economy - why struggle to achieve when your achievements are diminished for those who simply do not have the same ambitions as you?
Eventually, capitalism must turn itself into a system for the common good. Otherwise, humanity itself cannot continue. And, for our conscience, the exploitation of others for personal gain is a slippery slope. While competition has its obvious benefits and usefulness, sooner or later we must say yes to the simple joys of life.
-----------------
In review I do want to clarify that imperialism is not capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system of controlling production and labor for private gain. Imperialism is the conquest of other nations. However, it's easy to see why they are closely related. Establishing colonial outposts is the result of capitalist ambitions of acquiring the lands' benefits (i.e. cheaper labor, exclusive materials).
0 notes
Text
The enormity of humanity
Maybe it’s the after-effects of watching gravity, but there’s a certain destitute feeling you get when you consider humanity, on Earth. No, not the kind of loneliness you get with Carl Sagan lectures. I mean, more personally. Here I am, grappling with the thought of a career and possibly more school. I don’t know which path to take and neither appeal to me because they both are so vain. More knowledge I would gain in school is only a tiny dimple on the sphere of human knowledge. Honestly, any satisfaction I attain from pursuing an academic subject would be so short-lived, knowing that there are thousands, millions out there who are studying what I’m studying. But let’s say I choose the career path. Then, I’m one of the millions out there who are in the exact same boat as I am. There’s no differentiating what I think or do from others because from what I’ve seen and heard, college grads are all pretty much the same. The only difference in a CEO and a stay-at-home dad might not be the intelligence nor the work ethic. I believe it’s simply the ambition to give your life to something outside your little world and succeed. I don’t care for fame and money, all I want is a state of joy that gets truer the longer you stay.
It’s hard to do what makes me happy because I don’t find lasting happiness in anything. Even if a day goes awesome, I find it discouraging to know it won’t last. It doesn’t mean I don’t do all the daily tasks - just, where is it all leading to? Some say, that’s the beauty of it all, that we’re all in the same boat leading to some unknown neverland.
Even with Christ, it’s had to maintain my joy, regardless of Paul’s commandment to us. I’m just now internalizing the importance of the conscience and what sin can do to my faith and my joy of salvation. When I said before that sometimes, I wonder if God is real or even that I am saved, it’s directly a consequence of the lack of faith. What is faith? It’s the stuff that leaks out whenever you sin because sin separates you from the fellowship with God.
But even if I do regard Christ as my source of life and the church life as the center of my life, I don’t think I can live a completely happy life. Between the times you get together with the saints, what would you do? Is that interim necessary for an experience of true joy?
1 note
·
View note
Text
Only on the day of the career fair do you carry yourself with a it-doesn't-matter sentiment. Excellent. It's not depressing, but more humbling because at the end, you're looking for something more meaningful in the midst of all the competition, success and struggles. There's something to be said about the enigmatic vainglory of struggling to stay with the pace, only to be greeted with the nonchalant blackness of your eyelids at the end of the day.
In fact, I had a dream about careers today. The best part of the morning was eating that microwaved chocolate-filled croissant.
0 notes
Quote
I'm so fast I can turn off the switch beside my bed, take a piss, shower, cook dinner, eat dinner and take a nap before CenturyLink finishes loading a webpage.
0 notes