Took a break from studying today. Was burning up with a fever that has not abated since the previous week. Thankfully, it was a moderate grade one, which allowed me to continue finishing COFM before taking this break. Was reading some literature from Rome and Greece today, so pardon the excessive literary pretences


Sometimes we all need a break. I guess its a stress reaction. Things have not been going right of late. On retrospection, its not what I would call fed up, but the antics are the same, the reasons are questionable, and the motivations unknown. Don't mind me getting all rather verbose down there, just a few thoughts


I have already removed my tinted spectacles from my eyes. It helps to clarify my vision and see the world from other perspectives. But somehow, others have not done so and they continue to view me from their own slanted perspective. People change and naturally, they expect this change to be noted. But if one persists in viewing another through biased and fixed opinions, the criticant will not seek to defend himself against the racist opinions of the prejudiced public. But first of all, asamuch an true friend be one who is honest enough to not withold criticism from his or her friend's ears, do not judge or accuse unless he is firstly without sin or has not done anything in his or her power to avert that wrongdoing for which he or she is going to confront the criticant of committing.


But before even considering all the above, think hard within yourself. Are you condemning this sin because its a general sin that all would condemn, or is it only something that you, the criticiser, would find fault with. For standards of morals and ethics are different within all people, asamuch one seeks to impose his or her standards and rules on others, please do note that others are not inclined, by personal intention or otherwise, to hold dear the same principles or code that the criticiser bases his criticism on.


After all, is the criticiser criticising out of general goodwill because the sin committed is one in which the general community cannot tolerate or is the intention of the criticism that to mould the criticant after the criticiser himself, as though the criticism is one based on the criticiser's own value system which is not subscribed by all. Also, has the criticiser sought the opinion of the criticant if such a change or criticism is welcomed. Has the criticiser ever considered the 'bad' motivations of the criticant to commit his 'evildoing' or considered the ignorance of the criticant in the wrongdoing before jumping into the criticiser's own noble sin-cleansing conclusions.


And also, does the criticiser criticise because he or she treats the criticant as an equal worthy of a friend's advice or from a well founded superiority complex. If from a superior highground of criticising, has the criticiser noted if this superiority complex is based on his or her own confidence and self belief, or it is the general consensus of the community that the criticant is not at least an equal of the criticiser and must be corrected in the direction pointed to by the criticism. But before the criticism can be levelled, the criticiser must first consider if the criticant is akin to change and if the criticant is akin to the criticiser for in our rush to criticise others, we forget too, we are infallible.


But what if the criticant, who is agreeable to the change, sees double standards being practised? Does not the vaguest notion of incredulity and doubt begin to seep into his or her mind, that the criticiser is not infallible. And if so, is the not criticism hollow and hypocritic despite its good intentions? For it is certainly one to preach and another to practice. But to preach to the criticant what the criticiser does not practice openly definitely smacks of hypocrisy.


What if the criticant seeks to engage the nature of the criticism and understand the roots of the criticism but the criticiser does not return the engagement for he or she expects the criticant to elucidate his or her own flaws by themselves? Is not the criticism now baseless and without bearing? And being the criticiser, does he or she not have a better view of the flaws of the criticant and are better advised to comment on them? Then even if one was well-intentioned, if there was no mention of the basis for the criticism, then one cannot criticise without proof. And if one criticises without proof or is unwilling to disclose the nature of the events or situations that led to the criticism, then one should refrain from displaying offensive body language or feign ignorance.


And if the criticant tries to engage in conversation, the criticiser should not continue with his malevolence and/or ignorance. Much less welcomed is indiscretionary talk and subversive language to sway public opinion in the criticiser's favor, as though to lead a mass insurrection or public shaming. If one truly was intent on resolving the issues at hand, one would not have resorted to underhand measures to punish or pressurise the criticant to adopt the criticiser's position if the criticant is ignorant or if the criticant sees no need to adhere to another's set of beliefs.


For it is not in the criticiser's right to punish anybody unless he or she holds a position of authority. This is not Robin Hood. Has the criticiser considered that the criticant might not want to accpet the criticism because to be remade into the model resembling the criticiser is not what the criticant wants? If the criticiser feels that people should emulate his or her behaviour and accept the criticism without reservations then the criticism is not a consensus but a self-serving ideation on his or her part. And so, punishing the criticant because he or she wants to be himself or herself is fair and just?


If the criticiser punishes the criticant, the criticiser is not viewed as a concerned party for the criticant but a malevolent individual with personal grudges and takes on the presumption of noble pretentions for it is ultimately up to the criticant to accept or reject the criticism. For the criticant will be best able to tell, if the criticism was with basis or without and also, if the criticiser was with sin or without and from these 2 points of view, decide if the criticism was constructive. Punishing the criticant for not obeying the criticiser's criticisms because the criticiser has not considered other reasons for the criticant's behaviour, is viewing the world in tinted spectacles.


|