Category: Old age of my youth – 2013

THURSDAY, 6 JUNE 2013

I had a wonderful morning. First I had my breakfast – oatmeal with All Bran Flakes, sprinkles of pecan nuts, and a few raisins, and then I finished a cup of coffee that my brother-in-law had brewed – so strong that a drop the dog had licked from the floor almost gave her a heart-attack.

Then I took a hot bath – the first in years (I usually shower). After the bath I shaved, brushed my teeth, and made myself a cup of green tea.

Sipping my Taiwanese tea, I went outside to sit in the sun – nice warm June sun, African sun, winter sun. After making notes for an essay about annoying people, I read for about half an hour.

Putting aside the book, I put my earphones on my head, kicked out my flip-flops and pressed “Play” on my music player. And then, for the second half of 1982 and almost all of 1983, I kicked a soccer ball across the lawn, from one side to the other, and back again.

Who says only a child can enjoy the things of a child?

______________________

THURSDAY, 6 JUNE 2013

Yesterday, I was “that person” on the Gautrain: the one on the platform at the airport who does not wait until all the passengers have disembarked before he enters the train with his huge pieces of luggage.

It’s not that I am rude as a rule. It is just the moment when the train came to a halt and the first few people had disembarked, I went into Kaohsiung MRT mode: when the outbound traffic start thinning out, you take a gap.

The moment I stepped into the train, I realised that the airport is the last stop: everyone had to disembark before the next group of passengers could enter.

It was inevitable that someone, red in the face from exasperation, would stop in his tracks to lecture me. “Wait for everyone to get off!” the man yelled at me. “The train isn’t going anywhere! You’ll all get a chance!”

My “whatever” response was unconvincing. I knew that I had committed an error of behaviour that made me that person who annoys everyone else on a train, especially one like the Gautrain when it makes its last stop at a busy station like the airport. I was the person for whom I myself have clicked my tongue and have given a dirty look.

The thought then popped into my head that in the opinion of the guy with the red face I am certainly a one-dimensional character. I am “The Jerk Who Does Not Wait”. If he really had to think about it, he would probably have acknowledged thinking of me as someone who spends his days annoying people. Or that I walk around the airport all day waiting for the train to arrive so that I can inflame the emotions of men with red faces even more by blocking their exit with my huge luggage. Either that, or I evaporate like condensation the moment I have performed my regular rude act.

At Sandton Station, I waited for a few people to disembark before getting off. Because I had to catch another train to Rosebank, I had one more chance to show that I knew how to enter a train like a civilised person.

When the train arrived a few minutes later at a different platform, I hung back. The train doors opened … but before a single passenger had a chance to get out, a young woman stormed the open door.

“How rude,” I muttered. And as my cheeks flamed up with indignation, I wondered how long it would take for the woman to evaporate.

______________________

WEDNESDAY, 22 MAY 2013

It is indeed intimidating to stand in front of the majestic edifice that is the Christian religion, to clear your throat and to declare that this religion is, in your humble opinion, the handiwork of humans, developed and refined over more than two thousand years by thousands of thinkers and theologians, priests and popes, monks and pastors, and by regular believers.

It is also very difficult when your own parents believe the Christian religion to hold the universal truth of the One and Only God Almighty. It is difficult if you have come to believe the exact opposite, but you do not want to upset your parents. What makes it an especially sensitive subject is that they find great solace and comfort in this system of beliefs.

THURSDAY, 23 MAY 2013

An important question to ask regarding the Christian religion is this: Why did Jesus have to die?

The answer you get will mostly be about a blood payment culture prevalent in the Middle East two to three thousand years ago.

What will usually not make much of an impression is if you point out that it is somewhat strange that a god that is supposed to be universal, who according to church doctrines had existed for billions of years before any human being came up with the first sparkle of culture, custom or civilisation, would allow his own son – according to some theological viewpoints, himself – to be tortured and murdered, because a custom prevalent at a particular time and place dictated so.

If too few confessing believers ask such questions, it may be because questions of this kind are actively discouraged. Religious people are often reminded of the painful and everlasting punishment that will befall them if they fail to believe in the right way – that they will certainly not escape the “wrath of God” if they ask questions that insult him.

Another question that will not be appreciated: Where does culture of particular time and place end, and where begins what is supposed to be timeless truth?

______________________

TUESDAY, 21 MAY 2013

Situation one:

Imagine a crime scene. A detective arrives, flashes a light here and there, and pulls a booklet from his jacket’s inner pocket. He reads for a few minutes then declares that it is logical that “the man” did it – according to the book he tightly clutches in his one hand.

“The man?” a few bystanders inquire.

“Yes,” replies the detective. “Don’t act like you don’t understand. You know exactly what I’m talking about.” Shortly afterwards, he leaves.

Subsequently a second detective arrives at the scene. He also flashes his light in a few places, but he also lifts fingerprints, he takes dozens of pictures, seals items in plastic bags, and he talks to several potential witnesses.

After a few days someone asks him who he thinks perpetrated the crime. “I don’t know yet,” the second detective answers. “I’m still seeing where the clues take me.”

Situation two:

A man goes to a doctor. He explains that his heart is no longer working as well as it should, that it sometimes flutters a bit, and so on.

“What’s wrong with me?” he asks the doctor.

The doctor leans over, looks in the general direction of the man’s chest, and pulls out a book from his drawer. The sick guy notices that it is a very old book.

“It’s logical,” the doctor announces. “You’re not keeping time with the seasons.” Then he informs his assistant that he is ready for the next patient.

The next day the sick guy goes to another doctor. The doctor asks him questions – what he eats, if he smokes, whether he gets any exercise, and whether he has a stressful job. The man is weighed, his blood pressure is taken, and the nurse draws blood for some tests. Then the doctor asks him to take his shirt off. He knocks here, listens there.

At the end of the consultation, the doctor informs the man that he should return in a few days. He will then be able to tell him what the tests results are.

———–

Which detective will you trust – the one who follows the clues with an open mind to see where they lead him, or the one who looks at a few things and interprets them in a way that corresponds to what his book says? Which doctor are you going to trust?

Like any reasonable person, most religious people will also prefer the detective who looks at where the clues take him, and insist on the doctor who considers various possibilities and does tests and asks questions before concluding that the cause of the problem is likely X, Y or Z.

What surprises me, though, is that when it comes to questions about the origin of the universe and life on earth, many people refer to religious mythology and dismiss all doubts and speculations as disrespectful and offensive and demand that such behaviour immediately cease.

“Put away your so-called science books,” these people will say. “We already know what the truth is.”

______________________

THURSDAY, 18 APRIL 2013

Situation 1:

Person A says Charles Manson never had a chance. His childhood was filled with alcoholism, neglect, and a lack of nurturing and love. The fact that he became a criminal and was ultimately complicit in several brutal murders is hardly a surprise.

Then Person B asks Person A if he is justifying what Charles Manson did.

“No,” answers Person A. “But I would much rather try to understand why someone did something than to just shake my head at all the incomprehensible evil in the world.”

“What would you have done in 1969 if you knew about Charles Manson,” asks Person B, “if you knew of his abuse and neglect, and you saw him cruelly assaulting someone?”

“I would have tried to stop him, by violent means if necessary.”

“Would you have gone so far as to kill him if you thought the other person’s life was in danger?”

“If that ended up being necessary, yes.”

“Even if you understood his youth and how it had led to this attack?”

“Yes. His childhood explains to a large extent why he did what he did. But his childhood and the life of the person who would have been in danger are two different issues. He had no right to assault another person. If he had done something to harm this person, he would have had to bear the consequences. The fact that I would have had some understanding of what might have caused this behaviour would not have diminished my moral responsibility to at least try and protect the other person’s life.”

Situation 2:

Person A says he understands that the Red Army soldier in Berlin in April 1945 was angry with all Germans because they had brought the war to him and his country. He was full of rage and energy and fear for his own life. And he missed his wife. He hadn’t seen her in months. He heard of other Soviet soldiers just grabbing a woman in the street and forcing themselves on her. He missed the closeness of a woman. He felt nothing but hatred for the Germans. And he was sexually frustrated, full of adrenaline, and the testosterone in his blood made him think about things in a way that ran counter to his moral values.

Then, one afternoon, he saw a young woman enter a building. He ran after her. By the time she reached the second floor, he was behind her. He called to her. She started running. He grabbed her, forced her against the wall.

Person B: If you were there and you understood why he was acting that way, what would you have done? Or, what do you think would have been the right thing to do?

Person A: I would have tried to stop him by any means necessary, even if that would have meant killing him.

Person B: Even if you understood why he was doing it? Even if you understood the circumstances, the war, the fact that he hadn’t seen his wife in months, his rage, the adrenaline, the testosterone, the fact that he knew that he might be dead the next day? Would you still have killed him?

Person A: I would have done anything to stop him. The reasons why he was in this situation, which could be explained rationally, and the woman’s life are two different issues. He had no right to force himself on any woman. It is immoral. It is wrong – even if the reasons behind his actions can be explained. My moral duty would have been to protect the woman. Even if meant taking the soldier’s life. Even though I would have understood his situation.

Conclusion: Understanding immoral behaviour does not diminish your moral responsibility towards your fellow human beings. In a situation where an innocent person’s life is in danger, that is all that matters. To compromise your resolve at that moment with consideration for the motivations behind a perpetrator’s violence is a luxury the person at risk cannot afford.

______________________