Last Saturday I met some of my old friends. One just obtained his PhD last year. In optics related field.
“So bidang yang ko amik tu pasal apa? You see what you want to see?” I asked upon hearing his answer.
“Almost, more about how we see what see”. He answered.
The convo went on and on and on and on…
You see what you want to see. The idea has been around for so long. It can be looked as an escapism idea. Opting only to see what you prefer and pushing out all the ‘hated’ elements. Not that I’m saying escapism is a negative or bad idea.
Like it or not, how positive we might deem ourselves, I believe it’s a practice we are sticking to sooooooooo unknowingly. If you’ve read ‘Blink’ the Power of Thinking Without Thinking, you will understand. The book talked about that first gut feeling that you get whenever you are presented with anything out of the ordinary or when you are facing a conflict. One example, the book mentioned a few tests, one of them was to relate race with action. The writer admitted he was not a racist person, but when he saw the word related to crime, his gut feeling spontaneously pointed to a black person’s picture. The book did talk about the positive and the power of such inspirations in past events. Read it if you want to find out more.
Like in our society, in a general environment, whenever a person asks a question he will be deemed as stupid when actually that person could have seen an issue from a different perspective, one that is not a norm and could have been an indicative potential of a genius. Or simply an attention whore. So many meanings in our actions. You pick what you want to see. You wanna see blue as blue, or blue as violet with touch of white and subtle hint of yellow or whatever.
A robber from one view. A hero from another. Then one would say, ohh but religion didn’t allow the act of stealing, matlamat tidak menghalalkan cara etc. BUT religion did give leeways for certain actions. Read pengecualian dari hukum potong tangan under the hudud law.
The western society saw it as confining, backwards, stone-aged, the wearers saw it as protection, a shield. Not my place to say whether or not you should wear it. Tepuk dada et cetera et cetera.
One part saw it as the merger of all cultures, religions, eliminating the unique elements that identify them. One part saw it as maintaining whatever identities each entity is withholding whilst understanding the rationales and building up the respect. I am of the latter view. Your God is your God, and mine is mine. I don’t care about the indigenous rights. The people who benefited the most from such rights are the big fishes.
There are a lot of issues, my God, almost everything can be looked at from differing views! Stop, listen, and understand. I’m glad that I got a religion as my datum. Some closed minded groups would call religions as the losers last plight. But they would call themselves open minded since from their view living without sticking to a certain set of rules IS opened minded. BUT they are sticking to a set of rules. The rules that say, sticking to a religion which comprises of a set of rules is an action of a bunch of close minded peeps.
What is open minded? What is close minded? You choose. I don’t. Because I don’t think such idea is a valid idea. I believe in opening yourself to new ideas, weigh them and decide afterward. See what I did in the previous para?
You say to-muh-to, I say to-may-to. You say po-tuh-to, I say po-tay-to. Whatever floats your boat.
Comments and arguments are welcome but oh please mind your manners. I don’t argue with morons, since they will drag you down to their level.
To lighten up the mood, here you go: