April 29, 2005
Ghosts of the past
Another day alone in the office. It's become a ritual in the past few days. I guess there will come to a point in life when a person asks himself - What am i doing? I've come a long way from innocent little muses to dark, depressing thoughts (it's a source of inspiration, to turn to despair and melancholy) to interesting mind-stimulating conversations with my friend Ho about life & religion, to this. Guess living in each and every one of us is a tiny child, with a child-like sense of wonder and curiosity. And as much as we grow more and more accustomed to the ways of the world, the child inside us all slowly dies, like a victim of a slow poison, deadly venom spreading through every vein till it engulfs us completely.
Nowadays, so caught up with work, i tend to ignore this childs voice. You don't want to know how much i want to keep this alive (this blog one of my desperate attempts to resuscitate it) - and it's difficult. The ghosts from my past has begun to leave. It no longer has that hold upon one that still can believe in it. The scariest part about living is not being dead, but in living within a state void of personal fulfillment. i definately do not want to look back one day when i'm 60 (assuming i live that long) and reminiscent about the fact i have nothing solid enough to reminiscent about.
i realized that one thing that keeps us all mediocre is this anooying thing called the comfort zone. The term in itself seems like the defeatists way of labelling a fault as a virtue. This could be roughly defined as a state of mind which encourages us to not take risks, not push ourselves to be all we can potentially be. *sigh* is it because i'm just lazy? Too comfortable just being who i am to move? Or is it because i'm lacking that focus i need to reveal my direction in the future, and how to get there? Well, it could be both and neither. Both because i could be in denial and neither because.. well i'm in more denial. Do i not care about myself that much to not even bother? Maybe in a world where many feel alone, there exists two kinds of individuals: those who push, and those who are pushed. Well make that three: for the ones who are capable of pushing themselves. To make things sound not-so-harsh (there we go again with the denial attitude) we could say that there are three (possibly more) categories of individuals:
1) the ones who just live (frankenstien, etc)
2) the ones who live with another (a married couple, partners, etc)
3) the ones that live because of another (a son to sustain a single mother, etc)
Having said that, we could fall into more than one category, and in the rare instance, be familiar with all of them. In a matter of opinion, we have all inherited that intergral need for company. To be able to belong to someone or something. Just like how we draw strength, determination and courage in numbers, we also bestow others of the same circle with understanding, moral support and faith. It is said by an old fart that we can indeed accomplish more and greater things this way. OR maybe it's because when stupid people congregate, the goal doesn't seem so stupid because "if everybody does it, it can't be wrong"? But essentially, everybody and everybody does depend on the existance of each other in varying degrees, even in the earliest stages of civilization (you can't barter with yourself, nor can you be a king with no subjects. Even the word civilization implies an existance consisting of more than just a singular being ).
I believe the answer lies in balance.
by mike leong .entry@ 1:13 AM