Finally today, the cooler is on. huh... now my apartment is too cold to live in. brrrr... I used to be imitating a polar bear living inside a very cold cave. When there were no central heating/cooling, I blasted my air conditioner on and stayed inside the room feeling comfy, despite what my roommie commented on how cold it was in my room as to the sunny beach like weather in hers. Yeah, I was a cold queen.
However today, I don't think I can stand the cool air infiltrating my tiny room anymore. The termometer in my room currently suggesting the temperature is 67 ferenheit. It is cool.
Oh... by the way, I just finished a novel by Dan Brown entitled "The Da Vinci Code" which was awesome to the top! I have not read any thriller since my teenage years. So this novel has given me a surge of pleasure from the suspense and action. Have to say that I no longer see the world the same again.
The thing is my interest does lie in the discussion of religion, which explains a lot why I've done a minor in religious studies. I think the history was written from a one-sided view. Thus, for hundreds years, our teachers have taught us to take history as it is. To me, this is wrong and we should have been given the opportunity to debate on the things we've learned, not to take anything for granted.
One simplistic example of how a story can be one-sided is illustrated as follows. Let's say there was an accident between a car and a motorcycle *a minor one, nobody should be killed in my story*. And let's say the car driver was a very old "important" person who you would be surprised to see driving in his late stage of age. And let's say the motorcycle driver is a young man who has never gotten into an accident in his 15 years of driving, not even a ticket. Both are exceptionally honest people. So they colided... and you as a police officer came and try to get the stories from both drivers. Unsurprisingly, one driver told his story such as A and the other told his story such as F, blaming the other driver for being unlawful and careless on the road. Since there were no other eyewitness on the scene, there was no telling who was right.
The general truth is, both stories are deemed right. heck... who else can tell what happened except for these drivers. In addition, they are good honest people. But as a police officer who has to write a report on this, you have to find out which story is the truth. In this situation, who would you trust? Who do you think has more merit and credibility to tell the story?
Like I said previously, both stories are indeed the truth because they came from the mouth of the honest witnesses with their own eyes and ears. People do see things from different angles. So this is not making your work any easier right? The story telling now is in your hands. You are the historian who will write on a piece of paper of what had happened and other people will learned the accident story from you and only you, not from the two people who were involved in it.
Thus here is my very point. The real truth may not be uncovered because the very first problem is with you. You cannot decide which story was the truth so you acted to tell it your own way with the assumption as you understood from the witnessess for your written report. The story has now lost its credibility because you did not record the original word first hand. At the end, you are the one who fabricated the whole story and other people who read your report would believe what you wrote as the real truth (the one-sided story). deng...
What ever it is, we should continuously pursuing and uncovering the truth, however confusing it is. My advise is don't stop searching for the answer. You might not know every truth, but at least you are not blinded by what is in front of you. Be brave. Be radical even. If you believe in your cause, I am sure some super power out there will be guiding you all the way.
Oh one more thing, it is kinda chilly to know that Google today had this logo on their website as I finished the novel. Coincidence or is it a sign?
No comments:
Post a Comment