Purpose

Yen, Sam and I were discussing plans for the upcoming d'NA reunion, and we arrived upon the question, "what's the point of having reunions?"

In my opinion, reunions should be a means by which to foster integration among the d'NAers. The 2003 reunions testify to our failure at even beginning to achieve this. Now that the Sabbath has been abused, to use a metaphor, how should we change?

Yen asked, should we do away with reunions, or bring about a paradigm shift? We all knew that the latter is the only logical choice; question is, how?

I think integration should be the main goal of 2005, especially since there appeared to be stronger integration even during camp this year. For some reason, the 12 days we had last year didn't exactly lead to a well-integrated community; cliques were formed (many unconsciously) and everyone more or less developed within their respective cliques only.

So if we're going to integrate the community this time around to such an extent that the bonds would be secure, we'll need to think of how we can use the reunions, rather than think of them as an end in themselves. Up until now, the reunions have merely served as euphoria boosters to keep the 'camp spirit' alive.

This may be a long shot, but I think we need to reconsider our approach to reunions in light of their purpose as markers or checkpoints in the far more subtle and significant process of integration. Still trying to figure out how; meanwhile, the first 2005 Reunion is scheduled for either late January or early February.

I was chatting with Jon about self-security, how sometimes we tend to copy others in order to hide our true selves, sometimes even because we're insecure and unsure of who we are. I suggested that it is possible to copy others to a certain extent, until one reaches a certain point of departure -- the threshold of individuality which sets us apart.

For example, I can copy Jon in climbing the monkey bars and cracking lame jokes. But then there are some things Jon can do that I can't; above all, he's able to do it naturally, while I need to put in quite a bit of effort. It is at this point that the individuality of a person is put to the test: to continue in vain, trying to actually 'become' the person, or take a few steps backwards and acknowledging his own self?

Jon said that's why he's the way he is; others can't change that, for he simply will not conform to anything but that which is truly him. I guess that's true of all the great people of the past; they're not afraid of who they are. Sometimes they're not very special, but in an attempt to escape conformity, they end up carving a unique niche for themselves.

You will see examples of this in people like Beethoven, Shostakovich, van Gogh, even Jesus Christ. These people always get into trouble, simply because society as a whole cannot tolerate 'odd-ones out'; what's ironic is that they may actually be the normal ones, bold in their stride, and we the weirdos who're more satisfied with 'living like others'.

I saw Orion a few hours ago; the belt is probably one of the most recognizable clusters of stars (as viewed from earth). Jon and I kinda made a sort of exchange. I gave him the link to Sky and Telescope, which is this really exhaustive guide to astronomy and space observation (for beginners, that is), while he told me about the book Stars and Planets by Ian Ridpath. It sounds interesting and I plan to pick it up from Kinokuniya when I go there later this week.

Anyway my eyes can barely open; sleep is pounding on my door... till this point tonight.

Take care.