From The Inside of Shell of Taciturnity

A face, many faces
Voices, noises
animated conversations
Holding silence, clasping hands
closing mouth and heart
Feeling cold, rubbing hands

You sat beside me
saying nothing
Passive that I am
waiting for initiation
that never came
I thought about
Me exuding frigidity
You needing help no more
You being pressurised
Now sitting there in obligation

The shell almost cracked
but it didn't break

When will I ever hatch?

The Construction Site

Morning devotion:
About nearby construction site
slowly towering, gaining height, growing under the crane
been years
But it stopped.
The crane stopped moving, the construction halted
The monument standing in glory and silence
Is the fund not enough -
Are the workers on strike -
The contractor went bankrupt -
Ought to be, ought to be.
Apathy, slightly disdain-tinged
(Waste of resources, poor-planned...)
- Wait -
What if the progress continues inside?
No manifestation outside
but developing nonetheless

People judge by appearance
not heart
People see Goliath
not David
The magnificence of one's heart
is not readily at sight
obscured by the outside
Judging a book by its cover
is not getting very far
For it is the heart
that matters most.

Refrigerator

[hmmm...]Sitting down
[hmmm...]seeking a night breeze
[hmmm...]here
[hmmm...]was a sweaty night
[hmmm...]with stuffy feeling in the air
[hmmm...]though not bad the quietness
[hmmm...]taking out a cold drink
[hmmm...]the sensation rushed in
[hmmm...]on the parched throat
[hmmm...]river flows on the Sahara
[hmmm...]Mind still
[hmmm...]being sorted out
[hmmm...]Considering
[hmmm...]Like those sudden moments
[hmmm...]when you are wondering
[hmmm...]why?
[hmmm...]what?
[hmmm...]who?
[hmmm...]am I here. am I doing. Am I really.
[hmmm...]no answer -as usual-
[hmmm...]like a spiral without end
[hmmm...]the train of thought
[hmmm...]continued nonetheless
[hmmm...]On and on
[hmmm...]and on
[hmmm...]for a while
[hmmm...]
[hmmm...]drowning --
[hmmm...]in the sea of thought
[hmmm...]
[hmmm...]
[Stop.] At that moment
I realise
that the silence is an illusion
The constant humming
had been there all along
droning in a monotone
now it's resting
till it repeats its chorus again

Has my life
been a drone?
Is the picture
a monochrome?
And would stop occasionally
to repeat the same monotony-
again and again and again?

Or is life
a take-for-granted?
that when it will have stopped
then the loss
will come rushing in
seep into hearts
of family, friends
acquaintances even
perhaps
depends on the life led itself
was it a good one
was it a bad one-

Whichever it is
I learn something
My life
would not be a repetition
not a monochrome nor a monotony
So that when
I stop humming
there would be no regrets

...

The peace now
seems real
though there may be
other hummings
I'm still oblivious of

A sweaty night, a stuffy air
Now back to sleep

Dream

Hero king warrior --
fantasticality.
Airy-fairy kind
or The same --
ordinaricality.
Alternate world
maybe Strangeness of circumstances --
Freudian symbolicality.
Interpretation please
Nevertheless It's
Surreality, phantasmagoricality
-- At-the-moment Reality
Then the alarm rings, congeniality
Thoughts come rushing in
Rationality, reasonability
Welcome back to reality

Likening

Association, parallelism, metaphor, analogy, parable.
I guess the appropriate hypernym would be 'likening'.
(Even the concept of hypernymity can also be considered as one, but never mind.)
I always wonder at the sheer number of literary devices that uses 'likening'. Perhaps the keyword here is 'connection'. Human brains like to connect, to associate. Conditioned reflex, for example, associate a certain stimulus with a certain response.
Other examples. Visual learning associate images with concepts and this actually makes recalling more effective. Others may find it easier to memorise a song than a paragraph of the same length. On physical level, intelligence is said to rely upon the number of connections that neurones make. Is it not evident that the brain makes connection?
Association can be made on more or less equal level or different ones.
Generalisation, for instance, is associating a certain common characteristics of a member of a body with that body itself. Contextualisation can also be seen as one since a concept resides in larger body called the context. Of course these two sound more distant than association of things at more or less equal level.
Parallelism juxtaposes a certain event with another event, for instance.
But actually the degree of equality of the levels of things being likened does not matter.
The impact does.
Take Personification which likens dead objects to living things. The matter lies in the impact on the mind. If a pencil is said to dance on the paper, the mind recalls not only writing but also the concept of beauty, of grace, of efficiency, of nimbleness.
Metaphors achieve similar impact. When time is likened to a river, the mind recalls the quality of a river and try to attach it to time. How it is a flow, how it is continuous series of events, and so on.
There is also another kind of impact. Understanding. Take analogies. Analogies may not be full representations of the concepts being analogised but they help in understanding the concepts. The concept of the Trinity, for example, can be analogised to a triangle. The mind recalls the understanding that a triangle is not a triangle without three sides. So the concept of Three-but-One can somewhat be better understood. The metaphor example above also shows that time that is abstract can be partly explained using river that is non-abstract, thus is understood better.
Isn't it interesting? We all are familiar about this, aren't we, since the brain is all about connections anyway, so this knowledge is at the back of our minds but not really thought or spoken deliberately. It is kind of learning epistemology. When I first learned about the knowledge of knowledge, I feel familiar and I had thought about it or kept it at the back of my mind before but now it has form. It is written in words, it is conveyed in language. I feel overjoyed.

God of the Gaps

Scientific pursuits reveal answers to many questions mankind asks. While fresh facts are amassed by seconds, it is arguable whether science has brought us closer to the truth.
What is truth? Back to the ancient philosophical question.
A Christian scientist once remarked that scientists are climbing their way to the top of a mountain. They overcome the obstacles one by one - but when they are about to remove the last obstacles near the summit, they find theologians have been sitting there for centuries awaiting them.
Assuming that science is bringing us closer to the truth, the peak of the mountain, they may never reach it since at the summit it is God - and God is not supposed to be comprehensible since He is God; Christian philosophers would say.
While this speaks about the greatness of God and such, scientists then may counter it with the accusation that Faith is simply filling out the gaps that science has not yet been unable to fill. This may be true to both believers and scientists but the problem lies in whether Science is eventually able to fill those gaps?
If it is able to, then Faith turns out to be a deception and is merely a temporary filling of the gaps, waiting for Science to push it out of the gaps and replace it.
If it is not, then Faith is valid; it explains the unexplainable - it is supposed to be.
Yet another problem arises: How would we know whether Science is able to fill those gaps?
Exactly. We wouldn't know. We don't even know whether we are at the right track to approach the truth in the first place.
On this issue pure scientists and believers are still divided. Yet many people simply embrace Science and Faith. Indeed, if seen another way, the two can be thought as complements. One explains the explainable and the other explains the unexplainable. I personally think that Science can only done up to a limit and the rest it is up to faith. Science is human tool after all. Humans are limited. It follows that so is Science.
On another note, the concept of 'god of the gaps' is sometimes misused. At times things unexplainable are quick to be dismissed as part of divine knowledge. It is true that we are limited but where that limit is we are still uncertain.
So we have to be aware that it is a spectrum. You just have to choose where to stand. The wise will of course choose "everything in moderation".

Paradox of the Trinity

In rhetoric, prominent contradictory figures of speech are: paradox, oxymoron and antithesis. Lesser known are contradictio interminus and anachronism.

Let's focus on paradox.
Many dictionaries don't define paradox properly. Let's see one:
par·a·dox (pār'ə-dŏks') Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
2. One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: "The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears" (Mary Shelley).
3. An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
4. A statement contrary to received opinion.

"paradox." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.

The key points to the meaning of paradox are 'seemingly contradictory' and 'nevertheless true'. However, how it is it true but contradictory? In my own understanding, the contradiction in a paradox lie on different planes (Yes, Margaret Atwood again, context is all). Thus, they are only 'seemingly' contradictory but they cannot be compared in the first place because of different contexts. For example consider my last post titled 'Paradox'. The paradox is obvious: I hate you but I love you. At a glance, the conflict is glaring - but if you think deeper it is fairly obvious that when the hatred arises hypothetically, when the person addressed were to disappear or the like.
So how about the paradox of the Holy Trinity? Three in One, One in Three.
From literary and philosophical point of views, again we can argue that the conflicting elements belong to different planes, different contexts. There are many famous analogies concerning the Trinity. I shall list some and also explain the limitations of each:
1) The father, the driver and the businessman
So imagine your father. When he is driving a car he is a driver. When he is dealing with his business, he is a businessman. Filially, he is your father. Voilà! Three but one, ain't it?
No.
In fact, for theologians, this is considered one of the weakest or even misleading analogy.
This is because it is wrong. 'Father' is one person while the Trinity is three different entities. When Jesus was baptised, Holy Spirit came down in the form of a dove and there was a voice from the heaven. So there are three persons. However, this analogy is correct in saying that there are different roles in in the Trinity (But, isn't this obvious? There are three Persons, of course three different roles).
2) The Shamrock leaf, a triangle
Three leaflets but one leaf. Three sides but one triangle. Though depicting the separateness and equality of the three entities, it doesn't highlight their distinctiveness.
A triangle might be more favourable since the concept is more coherent. If one sees a broken Shamrock leaf, he can tell that it is a broken Shamrock leaf. But once a triangle, say lose one of its sides, you can't call it a triangle, can you?
3) Three lines stacked
Draw a line. Draw another line of the same length superimposed with the first one. Draw a third line also superimposed. So how many lines now? Three or one?
I like the third analogy because it best reflects the confusion caused by the paradox. In (1) and (2) the contradictions are not so obvious anymore and the paradoxical meaning disappears.
In any case, the confusion is what should be at the conclusion. Jastrow once said something like this: scientists have reached the summit where they have to remove the last obstacle to the highest peak and they are greeted with the theologians already sitting there for centuries.
What I mean is that God is incomprehensible, that's why He is God. If we can comprehend God, then He is not God at all. So the final obstacle is the incomprehensible God.
So let's see a paradox from a theological point of view.
Ever heard of dual behaviour of light or electron? Light and electron both behave as waves and particles. If you understand physics, this is clearly a paradox. But the important thing is that the contradiction is there because of our current knowledge is limited to comprehend it fully. The light or electron in itself do not have contradicting elements or else they would not exist.
So it is with God. To us the Trinity seems like a a paradox but it is so because our human knowledge is limited to fully comprehend God.
So: If you are trying to fully comprehend the incomprehensible God, you are being paradoxical.

Spectrum

Humans are complicated. Since there are so many variables involved, things are oftentimes not clear-cut.
The most prominent example would be good and evil. What about the grey areas? Most ethical issues are difficult to categorise into either one, if possible at all.
However, we often like to separate things into two polar opposites for convenience. In Secondary level Chemistry we are taught that three distinct types of bonds: ionic, covalent and metallic. But in tertiary education, we are taught that they are just the tips of three triangles, thus they are not distinct but a three-ended spectrum. For convenience, students are taught a simplified concept then the concept is built up.
But again, since everything can be considered a spectrum to some extent (if you understand, pardon the pun), that consideration can be abused. For example, I once heard a speaker talking about how everyone is crazy. Of course this was shocking, but once he explained that everyone is crazy to different degree, you understand that he is talking about sane-insane spectrum. Everyone is placed between the two ends and if you take the perspective from the insane end of course everyone is insane, right? So his statement was justified, but for what purpose? The only purpose is to make people realise that things lie in spectra but the talk that time had no such philosophical context. <*Sigh*> Context is all, Margaret Atwood says.
So I already give you two ends of a spectrum: one end is the ignorance that things are spectra and the other end is the full realisation that everything is a spectrum and overuse of this realisation.
So? Pick your place in that spectrum. Don't forget the advice of the wise - everything in moderation.

Reciprocation

So
When I hold them in
the feelings I mean
I thought
"What about
the other end?"
Can't imagine you
Going through the same pain
the same longing?
Or none at all-
Although I never hope
It's impossible
-again, why you?-
but on the back of my mind
there is always
desperate hope
of reciprocation

Narcissists

Discussing about vanity with a friend reminded me of a curious story of Narcissus in the prologue of The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho, a very entertaining bildungsroman. Here it is:

Prologue
The Alchemist picked up a book that someone in
the caravan had brought. Leafing through the pages,
he found a story about Narcissus.
The alchemist knew the legend of Narcissus, a youth
who daily knelt beside a lake to contemplate his own beauty.
He was so fascinated by himself that, one morning, he fell
into the lake and drowned. At the spot where he fell, a flower
was born, which was called the narcissus.
But this was not how the author of the book ended the
story.
He said that when Narcissus died, the Goddesses of the
Forest appeared and found the lake, which had been fresh
water, transformed into a lake of salty tears.
"Why do you weep?" the Goddesses asked.
"I weep for Narcissus," the lake replied.
"Ah, it is no surprise that you weep for Narcissus," they
said, "for though we always pursued him in the forest, you
alone could contemplate his beauty close at hand."
"But..... was Narcissus beautiful?" the lake asked.
"Who better than you to know that?" the Goddesses said
in wonder, "After all, it was by your banks that he knelt each
day to contemplate himself!!"
The lake was silent for some time.
Finally it said:
"I weep for Narcissus, but I never noticed that Narcissus
was beautiful. I weep because, each time he knelt beside my
banks, I could see, in the depths of his eyes, my own beauty
reflected."
"What a lovely story," the alchemist thought.

Paradox

Hate you
when I see you
my heart skips a beat
Hate you
your smile
it just
renders me defenseless
Hate you
those sleepless nights
thinking about you
Why
has it to be you?
When we meet
those silent moments
do you realise
how much I'm looking forward
to them?
When we part
that sight of your back
feel like
reaching out a hand
hold you in my arms
never to let go
Really, really
hate you
because you make me feel this way
(They say
hate and love
differ by one seventh of a hair's breadth)

Curtain Call

The familiar wooden curves, the sky-high ceiling.
The polished stage, the folds of the curtain.
The seemingly endless seats, empty but for One.

A play.
I am an actor. I am acting.
My lines, my gestures
My intonation, my mannerism
My speech, my moves
Since when-
The play has not stopped since
Day and night, week and month, year and lifetime
New ones join, tired others go to backstage
never to return

A play?
The stage infinitely vast
The settings too
Any space and time
Curtain call-
no one knows when
No rehearsals nor audience
Plot unfolds
the way we want
although occasionally He
raises hand in disapproval
Elsewhen- nothing
All is drowned
in overcrowded, riotous chorus

A play!
We are all acting
not as gods nor animals
all roles humans
although sometimes
we long for those

Shakespeare:
"Life is a play."

Forgive this little soliloquy
Now back to
the play of Life

Stream of Consciousness

Saw you perspiring. Are you alright? Is there something wrong? Heard a whisper but couldn't make out the word. Won't probe anymore. Keep silent. You look pale. You look like you have pain down in your heart, too. Are you alright? Are you? How do you solve this equation? Oh, I see. Thank you. Somehow your speech lighter, your countenance sadder. Don't understand why. Hm, I don't understand those equations on the board. A little bit hungry. Oh it's time for another lesson. Say, how much you grade her? Oh, mine a little bit lower. A few minutes before break. Ah, finally it's time. You stayed still. Somehow the nuances around you tell me, screaming 'Don't disturb me'. Go. Without you. Do you know why he's acting that way? What? What do you say? Really? Don't know he has that kind of problem. Laugh it off-- Keep contemplating. Hope you are alright. Thoughts filled, barely listens. Yeah, yeah. Finish eating. Buy you a drink, perhaps you'll cheer up a little. Go back to you. You look defensive. Push you the drink. No need! Pay me back? What for? That's what friends are for. Sit beside you. You stand up. Oh, I see. Yes, I will tell the teacher. Keep silent. Won't probe. If you feel like it, tell. If you don't - will hold my peace and wait. Time sure passes slow. What is she talking about? Don't understand. Another lesson. Keep to my text, because you look like you're going to bite. The day ends. Pack up. Leave. Won't see you for a day or two. Hope you manage.

Inevitable Goodbye

When that moment comes
I won't cry I won't weep
Although it hurts to be apart
from you
Although you are my precious:
Not being able to see you
to hear your voice
to be beside you
The glass of my heart
shatters in the sea of tears

Because we are never meant to be -
feelings condemned and despised
Why we met, at all?
Why it has to be with you
A strong bond not unlike blood forms

I don't know why
you can make my heart flutter
I don't know why
I am content in your presence
I don't know why
I think about you day and night
I don't know why
I look forward to see you
I don't know why
I'm attracted to you
I don't know why.
Do you feel the same?

My only hope
is that it is all a delusion
an un-eternal flame
a sweet dream -
if goodbye can wake me up
then wake me up
but I don't know
if I am a butterfly dreaming
or dreaming being a butterfly
So I can't tell
if I'm awake

When this thickening vessel
finally severs - it will be as if
my lifeline cut
So
before the connection complicates
before all my life pours into you
before my world revolves around you
before you discover my longing for you
Why not sever now
Or is it too late?

If our paths in future cross
Would the flame ignite,
would the dream come
once again
Would I have woken up
or still dreaming?

I will miss you
I love you
Though perhaps you will never know
how much
how deep
how strong
how painful
Me loving you is

Farewell
Now
and later

A Piece of Me

It was a night, not stormy
though rather drizzly.
There's a lot on my mind recently.
So I told you. This and that.
As usual, sarcasm and sharpness are
already my second and third languages. Infused.
Confession.
I did want provocation. Though a little bit more
was what I got. From you.
At first with guilt I was overwhelmed
Not the first time my words too sharp
New wounds create
I'm sorry if you are outraged
There must be a lot on your mind, too
I'm sorry if you are wounded
Though when the knife is pulled back
the wound will still remain
I'm sorry if you do not wish to see my face
for the rest of eternity
Our world is small, our paths will cross again it is bound
I'm sorry if you think I'm not
Perhaps that's the truth
I only tell the truth
with no sugar-coating
although with a little bit
Of hot spices
I only wish to tell you
that while I sharpen my knife
I blunt my senses
So when a matching sharpness comes
A wound it will create
A pain it won't inflict
So when tomorrow comes
I won't have to force it to
A smile, a nod
an acknowledgment of you
As if there wasn't anything wrong
Because there wasn't, really
So, will you?

Masochists

mas·och·ism /ˈmæsəˌkɪzəm, ˈmæz-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mas-uh-kiz-uhm, maz-] –noun

1.	Psychiatry. the condition in which sexual gratification depends on suffering, physical pain, and humiliation.

2.	gratification gained from pain, deprivation, degradation, etc., inflicted or imposed on oneself, either as a result of one's own actions or the actions of others, esp. the tendency to seek this form of gratification.

3.	the act of turning one's destructive tendencies inward or upon oneself.

4.	the tendency to find pleasure in self-denial, submissiveness, etc.

I believe that many of us are. No, no, not that kind. Not a psychology lecture on self-destructive tendency of humans either. It is just a mockery for my dear friends who like chilli and horror movies.
I believe what capsaicin molecules, substantially chilli, does is to bind to pain and 'hot' nerve receptors. And that horror flicks also causes some mental damage. The problem is that some certain people like to inflict these damages upon themselves.
Of course there are other self-inflicting activities like exercising. No, no, I'm not excusing my laziness to exercise. I agree that exercising is healthy. It is destructive because it accelerates oxidation rate. That means that more radicals are produced and the body ages faster. Well this is true, but the health resulted outweighs this price. Another one would be dangerous ventures like extreme sports. Again, the sense of adventure gained surpasses the dangers.
On the other hand, I don't see any outweighing results from chilli and horror flicks. Chilli first. Healthy? Nope. Sense of adventure? Where got? Makes your food more tasty? I'm sure... Horrors then. Thrill? Sure, but you got high blood pressure so you got more chance to get cardio-related diseases. That means higher chance dying from heart attack you know.
I won't venture too much and refer to my philosophy lecture about duality. If there is no 'bad', will there be good? If there is no hate there will be no love. If there are not two extremes but one, it won't be an extreme at all. Oops, I said it.
So you say there will be no pleasure without pain? Whatever. If there are no chilli-hating people, there won't be chilli loving people. Ha! Beat that!

On Anthropocentrism

Man is the measure of all things.
-- Protagoras

I came across the term 'anthropocentrism' a while back when I was reading a Physics book titled 'Constant of the Universe' or something of the like. Very interesting book. No sarcasm.
Its etymology explains what it is. Anthropo would be humans, centrism would be, well, centre. So humans at the centre.
I think this term really describe us well. It applies universally a bit like how Aristotle's golden mean can be applied to almost everything. Well all our actions can be described as anthropocentric I guess.
Take the area of science. There was a period where people believed in Ptolemian geocentrism - humans are thought to be at the centre of the universe. Literally anthropocentric. Units also reflect anthropocentric bias. We conveniently use pound, feet, meters and all common units because they suit OUR needs. Well, imagine using Angstrom to measure the length of your arm (or try Planck's units - even more absurd).
Recently, I attended a lecture about Morality and Ethics in my philosophy class. It was always at the back of my mind but the lecture put this concept about 'everything eventually goes to our end' into words. Surely we would not want to commit crimes since we do not want to go to jail. But this is true for the opposite as well. We make friends because it puts us to greater advantage to have many friends. We invest for connection in business world later on in the future. They will give us presents during our birthdays. They can help us when we are in a pinch. Basically they are USEFUL. That sounds awful, really - but if you think of everyone doing it and everyone is using everyone else and creating a win-win situation, it does not sound as bad. But it still does - because the seemingly purest intentions can be called selfish. The lecturer gave the example of Mother Teresa and her noble social work. Applying the above concept, Mother Teresa is seen to making herself feel good by doing the social work. Of course I disagree at this point since her work, while perhaps made her feel good, it also made many many more people feel good. So let me repeat: even the purest intentions can be called selfish.
On the same note, blogging can be viewed as anthropocentric, too. There are various motives of writing a blog. Some 'exhibit' their lives, some just threw thoughts, intending to pour their hearts out. But the question is: 'Why write in the Internet?' Since the Internet is an open network, people are bound to see your blog. It is like laying your diaries in the open: do you deny that you are hoping for people to see it by laying it in the open? Of course I'm guilty of this as well. I remain anonymous and do not reveal too much in my blog so that people would not know me, but somewhere inside I am hoping that people I know stumble upon my blog, recognise that it is me, then come up to me to say something like:'I was reading your blog yesterday. I don't know you can think of such good ideas and you write well, too!' Vanity is part of anthropocentrism, I think, since it makes us feel good in a way. So on the same note, people dressing up and acting cool are anthropocentric since it is kind of vanity. Not that I mind seeing cool people. I may envy them but certainly there is nothing wrong with looking good and cool.
So is anthropocentrism good or bad? In a way it is bad since we are all acting according to our self interests; and self interests often conflict. But I tend to think that it is neutral. It is part of being human. There is nothing wrong with making things convenient for ourselves, as long as we are not assuming, as in the case of geocentrism; and as long as, as Aristotle would say, it is 'in moderation' meaning that we don't exploit our anthropocentrism. Certainly our friends are useful but appreciate that it works the opposite way as well: we are useful to our friends. Use but be used as well. As long as we are humans, we cannot help but be anthropocentric. But appreciate that you are not the only human in the world; there are others and since they are humans, they are anthropocentric too. We have to compromise, or to sound more Aristotelian: take the 'moderation'.
We humans are ugly, aren't we? But that's what we are.

Chrysalis [ 02. Alphonse ]

[See entire]

I went to the service five minutes early. The church is packed with mostly students from our college, but there are many who came from nearby community, too. A young man in front of me looked rather bewildered. I guess it is his first time too in this church. I took a seat beside him. His face was kind and pleasant. When he smiled at me, I couldn't help but begin a conversation.
"Hi. Are you in junior year, too?"
"No, I'm a sophomore."
"I'm Jake." I offered my hand.
"I'm Alphonse." He shook my hand.
"Just moved in?"
"Yes."
"Me also."
Silence.
After a while the service began. The songs were unfamiliar to me and the sermon was a little bit bleak. Or perhaps it was my mood.
After the service ends, I talked a bit more to Alphonse. For some reason it was comfortable talking to him although he and I didn't talk much. We talked about which part of the hostel we live, what courses we are taking and about the college in general before going our ways.

I went up to my room. I unpack my things and began arranging my room.

Night quietly fell. My labour was largely finished. I went to a 7-eleven nearby for a quick dinner.

Quiet. The streets were bustling but it is quiet. The chatters of people filled the air, but still, my heart was quiet. I returned to the hostel. Not many people there since the term hasn't begun.

I couldn't find my towel in the morning so I tried looking for it again but to no avail. I took out a spare towel and went to public bath. Nobody was there.

I took my time bathing and since there was no one, I hummed some songs that were sung in the morning service.

The following Sunday I was a little bit late. I spotted Alphonse and quickly occupied the empty seat beside him. He was mildly surprised but soon smiled with a silent "Hi again".

"Hullo," I replied.
I could recognise some songs in the service and the sermon was not bad. Alphonse and I had lunch together afterwards. Then we went our ways. I tried playing the songs in the service. There is a grand piano in the common room and it is open for public. Since the common room is usually quiet on Sunday afternoon, the piano was all mine. I'm not that great a pianist. I've never had a real piano lesson, so I can only play simple songs. But I often feel satisfied after playing, as if I have poured my heart out.
The next Sundays I looked forward to meet Alphonse in the service. We would have lunch together and had a light conversation then I would go to common room if I am in the mood.
On one Sunday afternoon, Alphonse asked, "What do you do after lunch?"
I said I usually went to common room to play piano.
"Oh, that's why sometimes I hear someone playing piano. So that's you. I never bothered to check."
When I went to the common room later in the day, Alphonse walked in when I was playing and sat at a chair nearby.
"Continue playing," he said, when I stopped.
So I continue. At the end of the song Alphonse said, "Can you teach me? I play, too but I'm not that great a pianist. I've never had a real piano lesson, so I can only play simple songs."
Exactly, I thought.
"Well, I don't play well, either."
The next Sundays, my routine includes playing piano with Alphonse listening faithfully, sometimes playing tunes that he knew.

Eros-Agape

And so another riddle for you
It's still about that rope;
It can branch
to two, or three, or more
o silky string
o steely chain
If it is so painful to break
If it is unmendable once brok'n
Why.
It is not a question
of the wisdom lovers
but a foolish lover babbling
Your answer, sir
to the riddle of humanity?