It's been a while.
I wonder how disappointed my old self might've been.
I wonder where the sense of fierce hope left.
I wonder where the charity, clarity, appreciation and energy left.
Whatever the case, press on. This life is not my own. We walk by faith and not by sight.
The tapestry has yet to unfold.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Screwtape on Humility
Screwtape examines the virtue of Humility:
Your patient has become humble; have you drawn his attention to the fact? All virtues are less formidable to us once the man is aware that he has them, but this is specially true of humility. Catch him at the moment when he is really poor in spirit and smuggle into his mind the gratifying reflection, ‘By jove! I’m being humble’, and almost immediately pride—pride at his own humility—will appear. If he awakes to the danger and tries to smother this new form of pride, make him proud of his attempt—and so on, through as many stages as you please. But don’t try this too long, for fear you awake his sense of humour and proportion, in which case he will merely laugh at you and go to bed.
But there are other profitable ways of fixing his attention on the virtue of Humility. By this virtue, as by all the others, our Enemy wants to turn the man’s attention away from self to Him, and to the man’s neighbours. All the abjection and self-hatred are designed, in the long run, solely for this end; unless they attain this end they do us little harm; and they may even do us good if they keep the man concerned with himself, and, above all, if self-contempt can be made the starting point for contempt of other selves, and thus for gloom, cynicism, and cruelty.
From The Screwtape Letters
Compiled in A Year with C.S. Lewis
From the http://www.biblegateway.com/devotionals/cs-lewis-daily/ on March 17.
Your patient has become humble; have you drawn his attention to the fact? All virtues are less formidable to us once the man is aware that he has them, but this is specially true of humility. Catch him at the moment when he is really poor in spirit and smuggle into his mind the gratifying reflection, ‘By jove! I’m being humble’, and almost immediately pride—pride at his own humility—will appear. If he awakes to the danger and tries to smother this new form of pride, make him proud of his attempt—and so on, through as many stages as you please. But don’t try this too long, for fear you awake his sense of humour and proportion, in which case he will merely laugh at you and go to bed.
But there are other profitable ways of fixing his attention on the virtue of Humility. By this virtue, as by all the others, our Enemy wants to turn the man’s attention away from self to Him, and to the man’s neighbours. All the abjection and self-hatred are designed, in the long run, solely for this end; unless they attain this end they do us little harm; and they may even do us good if they keep the man concerned with himself, and, above all, if self-contempt can be made the starting point for contempt of other selves, and thus for gloom, cynicism, and cruelty.
From The Screwtape Letters
Compiled in A Year with C.S. Lewis
From the http://www.biblegateway.com/devotionals/cs-lewis-daily/ on March 17.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Thankful for Olafur Arnalds
I don't understand why Jesus would die for useless, despicable people: others and myself included.
Sure, He put people in different socio-economic contexts, different genes, different blah blah blah. Whatever, it does not make it any more acceptable.
Rarhhhh. I feel so much frustration and hate recently.
That said, to quote a friend, empathy is probably an antidote against limbo-like frustration.
While I think there are friends who will identify with me, I am too tired to reach out and explain, and perhaps be understood at least emotionally, and perhaps find a better solution to the situation.
That said, I thank God for accessible music. I thank God for people who are so creative with composing music that just enables me to feel what some might call a cathartic release. At the moment, thank God for Olafur Arnalds and the Spotify team.
I remember talking about how much I preferred happy media. Yet in the darker moments, simply hearing this sort of dark and bleak music, reminds me that it's okay to feel so terrible and monstrous at times.
--
Today's interviews were not the best.
In the first, I think I accidentally used too many generalization statements.
In the second, I think I could've tied back my answers to her questions more frequently, especially in the one with the HR.
In both, I think I could have used more concrete examples to substantiate my points. In both, I could have come in with a more energetic, positively happy tone, even if it is faked. After all that's what Sheryl Sandberg talked a lot about, how even faking the mood makes that mood even more possible.
That reminds me of Tim Keller's saying of loving even when one does not feel like loving.
Hmmm. Still. ARGH.
Ah well. I shall finish my review on these interview experiences soon. And then get back on track to applying for more good roles - with passion, especially after reading J's encouraging note on sticking to the ideals - not for self even though the self is very much a part of it, but for the ideal of serving a larger purpose, strategically.
--
Sigh. The irony of needing to back up all of the things I do, and needing to change the way I am.
And knowing when to simply shut up and act. Or shut up and let things be.
When all others do not, in some cases do not even try, to simply make things better in this broken and difficult world.
--
Perhaps a difference that Olafur Arnalds' music has, compared to other dark music which I appreciate relatively less, is that it does end on a slightly positive note: a hint of a hope that never dies, even if it is mixed with a lot of sadness. I think that's the tone of how Jesus died, in remembering how He cried at His death, compared to the others who have more happily, willingly sacrificed themselves.
I fear I'll never grasp it, how He loves, how He remains patient, how He never gives up on the stupid, annoying people, like myself, whom He created.
Sure, He put people in different socio-economic contexts, different genes, different blah blah blah. Whatever, it does not make it any more acceptable.
Rarhhhh. I feel so much frustration and hate recently.
That said, to quote a friend, empathy is probably an antidote against limbo-like frustration.
While I think there are friends who will identify with me, I am too tired to reach out and explain, and perhaps be understood at least emotionally, and perhaps find a better solution to the situation.
That said, I thank God for accessible music. I thank God for people who are so creative with composing music that just enables me to feel what some might call a cathartic release. At the moment, thank God for Olafur Arnalds and the Spotify team.
I remember talking about how much I preferred happy media. Yet in the darker moments, simply hearing this sort of dark and bleak music, reminds me that it's okay to feel so terrible and monstrous at times.
--
Today's interviews were not the best.
In the first, I think I accidentally used too many generalization statements.
In the second, I think I could've tied back my answers to her questions more frequently, especially in the one with the HR.
In both, I think I could have used more concrete examples to substantiate my points. In both, I could have come in with a more energetic, positively happy tone, even if it is faked. After all that's what Sheryl Sandberg talked a lot about, how even faking the mood makes that mood even more possible.
That reminds me of Tim Keller's saying of loving even when one does not feel like loving.
Hmmm. Still. ARGH.
Ah well. I shall finish my review on these interview experiences soon. And then get back on track to applying for more good roles - with passion, especially after reading J's encouraging note on sticking to the ideals - not for self even though the self is very much a part of it, but for the ideal of serving a larger purpose, strategically.
--
Sigh. The irony of needing to back up all of the things I do, and needing to change the way I am.
And knowing when to simply shut up and act. Or shut up and let things be.
When all others do not, in some cases do not even try, to simply make things better in this broken and difficult world.
--
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.--
- Romans 8:28
Perhaps a difference that Olafur Arnalds' music has, compared to other dark music which I appreciate relatively less, is that it does end on a slightly positive note: a hint of a hope that never dies, even if it is mixed with a lot of sadness. I think that's the tone of how Jesus died, in remembering how He cried at His death, compared to the others who have more happily, willingly sacrificed themselves.
I fear I'll never grasp it, how He loves, how He remains patient, how He never gives up on the stupid, annoying people, like myself, whom He created.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Article on Homosexuality: The Idol Behind Same-Sex Desires
The Idol Behind Same-Sex Desires
by Jonathan Parnell on January 14, 2014
I don’t speak as an outsider when I say same-sex attraction is often tightly bound up with idolatry.
Contrary to heterosexual desires (a desire for what we are not, and cannot become), same-sex desires are cravings for what we want to see in ourselves, but lack. Often a powerful emotional over-dependency, and a profound need to be around someone to gain their approval and affirmation, arise in the heart as a result.
The allurement toward this idol is far more than sexual attraction alone. And it is hugely destructive. Among other things, it creates yearnings that cannot (or should not) be fulfilled, and terribly burdens friendships.
Bread and Life
In my own battle against the idolatrous impulses of same-sex attraction, these words of Jesus have grown very precious to me:
I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. (John 6:35)Bread is not my worry. Within a few hundred yards of my office, I can walk to three supermarkets and a dozen sandwich shops. I don’t wonder if I’ll be able to get my hands on bread. My challenge is options — deciding what kind of bread to buy.
If we can put aside our new year’s resolutions against processed carbs for a moment, in many parts of the world today, this is not the case; nor was it so in the time of Jesus. Bread was a staple; it was a life essential.
The Bread of Life
So we can see what Jesus is claiming here. He is no optional side dressing. He is the staple of life. He is what we need in order to truly live. Bread feeds our bodies, but Jesus feeds our souls. Without Christ we’re spiritually dead. He alone is our essential. He alone can truly satisfy: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst” (John 6:35).
Whatever my feelings say, no single earthly friend can ever satisfy me at this level — no friend was intended to satisfy me at this level. Jesus alone is sufficient soul-bread.
As someone who battles with same-sex attraction, this truth is liberating. The more I live in the light of it, the more I know it to be true. For as long as I am tempted to find that ultimate satisfaction in anyone else, this verse is ballast to my heart and soul. I can test him on it, certain he will always prove himself true and every man a liar. Life is far, far better when Jesus is at the center, and far, far worse when anyone else is.
Eternal Joy
Jesus offers what no same-sex partnership ever will. The greatest gift Jesus gives us . . . is Jesus. He is not the means to some other, separate end. The bread of life is not something else, with Jesus being the one who dispenses it for us. He is the prize.
The focus for Christians with same-sex attraction is not primarily healing. I, for one, would love to be a husband to a wife and a father to a child. But there is a far greater longing — a more urgent priority — to know more of Christ.
A “win” for me is not that my attractions shift from same-sex attractions to opposite-sex attractions. For although such a change would be from unnatural desires to natural ones, the struggle with temptation would remain. The theater of battle would have moved, but the fighting would remain as fierce.
No, the “win” for me, and for everyone who struggles with same-sex desires, is a greater love for Christ, and to have a deeper knowledge of the all-sufficiency of his grace. There is a prize greater than heterosexuality — a greater Bread — in the holy One who is what we are not or cannot be, in whom is found our ultimate and eternal satisfaction.Source: http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/the-idol-behind-same-sex-desires
Thursday, January 9, 2014
LKY: On the importance of speaking or writing well
News @ AsiaOne
Sun, Mar 01, 2009
The Straits Times
Thirty years ago today, on Feb 27, 1979, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew called a meeting of ministers, ministers of state and senior civil servants to discuss how government papers and minutes can be written in clear, clean prose.
Singapore's GDP has grown almost sevenfold since 1979. Marina Bay didn't exist then. Changi Airport was still two years away from completion. Singapore has been transformed beyond recognition in the last 30 years. But the same, alas, cannot be said of the quality of written English, which remains recognisably the same now as it did in 1979. We reprint excerpts of Mr Lee's address to mark a melancholy anniversary.
I WANT to discuss the importance of simple, clear, written English. This is not simple. Dr Goh Keng Swee gives every officer whom he thinks is promising and whose minutes or papers are deficient in clarity, a paperback edition of Sir Ernest Gowers' The Complete Plain Words.
It presupposes that the man who attempts to read the book has reached a certain level of literary competence. The book, written words, cannot convey to you the emphasis, the importance, the urgency of things, unless the receiver is a trained reader. And in any case, human beings are never moved by written words. It is the spoken word that arouses them to action. Arthur Koestler rightly pointed out that if Adolf Hitler's speeches had been written, not spoken, the Germans would never have gone to war. Similarly, Sukarno in print did not make great sense.
The spoken language is better learnt early; then you will have fluency. However, my thesis is that the written language can be mastered at any age without much disadvantage. It is learnt fastest when your written mistakes are pointed out to you by a teacher, friend, or senior officer. That was the way I learnt.
When I was in school my compositions were marked. When my children were in school they simply got grades for their written work. Their teachers had so many essays that they never attempted to correct the compositions. This has contributed to our present deplorable situation.
I want to convince you, first, of the importance of clear, written communication; second, that you can master it, if you apply yourself.
The use of words, the choice and arrangement of words in accordance with generally accepted rules of grammar, syntax and usage, can accurately convey ideas from one mind to another. It can be mastered.
When I was a law student I learnt that every word, every sentence has three possible meanings: what the speaker intends it to mean, what the hearer understands it to mean, and what it is commonly understood to mean. So when a coded message is sent in a telegram, the sender knows what he means, the receiver knows exactly what is meant, the ordinary person reading it can make no sense of it at all.
When you write minutes or memoranda, do not write in code, so that only those privy to your thoughts can understand. Write simply so that any other officer who knows nothing of the subject can understand you. To do this, avoid confusion and give words their ordinary meanings.
Our biggest obstacle to better English is shyness. It is a psychological barrier. Nobody likes to stop and ask, 'Please, what does that mean?' or 'Please tell me, where have I gone wrong?' To pretend you know when you don't know is abysmal folly. Then we begin to take in each other's mistakes and repeat them, compounding our problems.
The facility to express yourself in a written language is yet another facet or manifestation of your ability, plus application and discipline. It is a fallacy to believe that because it is the English language, the Englishman has a natural advantage in writing it. That is not so. He has a natural advantage in speaking the language because he spoke it as a child, but not in writing it. It has nothing to do with race. You are not born with a language. You learn it.
Without effective written communication within the government, there will be misunderstanding and confusion. Let me give a few recent illustrations of writing so sloppy that I had to seek clarification of their meanings:
It is non sequitur. We need technological and managerial assistance anyway. The first part does not lead to the second part.
Well, then say so. But somebody wanted to impress me by dressing up his ideas in big words. Next time impress me with the simple way you get your ideas across.
If we do not make a determined effort to change, the process of government will slow down. It will snarl up. I have noted this steady deterioration over the last 20 years. I want to reverse it. If we start with those at the top, we can achieve a dramatic improvement in two years, provided the effort is made.
Now I want to discuss how we can do this:
To begin with, before you can put ideas into words, you must have ideas. Otherwise, you are attempting the impossible.
The written English we want is clean, clear prose - not elegant, not stylish, just clean, clear prose. It means simplifying, polishing and tightening.
Remember: That which is written without much effort is seldom read with much pleasure. The more the pleasure, you can assume, as a rule of thumb, the greater the effort.
When you send me or your minister a minute or a memo - or a draft that has to be published like the President's Address - do not try to impress by using big words; impress by the clarity of your ideas.
I speak as a practitioner. If I had not been able to reduce complex ideas into simple words and project them vividly for mass understanding, I would not be here.
The communists simplified ideas into slogans to sway the people's feelings - to get them to move in directions which would have done us harm. I had to counter them. I learnt fast. The first thing I had to do was to express ideas in simple words.
My experience is that attending courses helps but not as much as lessons tailored for you. You have written a memo. Somebody runs through it and points out your errors: 'You could have said it this way'; 'this is an error'; 'this can be broken into two sentences' and so on.
In other words, superiors and peers and even subordinates who spot errors should be encouraged to point them out. My personal assistants point out my mistakes; I tell them to.
Some final examples on how urgent the problem is, from two papers coming before Cabinet: The first, a very well-written paper; the other badly written. But even the well-written paper contained a repetitious phrase which confused me. Because it was well-written, I thought the repeated words must be there to convey a special meaning:
Let me read from the second paper, which tried to explain why we must set up an institute:
What the officer meant was: 'There is acute need because there is no department which offers advice on occupational safety and health.'
We have taken each other's mistakes. He had constantly read 'as at present', 'as of yesterday', 'as of tomorrow', so he just stuffed in three unnecessary words - 'as at present' - into his paper.
There is such a thing as a language environment. Ours is a bad one. Those of you who have come back from a long stay in a good English-speaking environment would have felt the shock when reading The Straits Times on returning.
I spent a month in Vancouver in October 1968. Then I went on to Harvard University in Boston. For one month, I read the papers in Vancouver. They were not much better than The Straits Times. They had one million people, English-speaking. But there was no sparkle in their pages.
The contrast in Harvard was dazzling. From the undergraduate paper, The Harvard Crimson, to the Boston Globe, from the New York Times to the Washington Post, every page crackled with novel ideas, smartly presented. Powerful minds had ordered those words. Ideas had been thought out and dressed in clean, clear prose. They were from the best trained minds of an English-speaking population.
Let us try to do better. We are not doing justice to ourselves. I know the ability is there; it has just not been trained to use the written word correctly and concisely. And it is not too late to start.
It is not possible to conduct the business of government by talking to each other with the help of gesticulation. You have to write it down. And it must be complete, clear and unambiguous.
This article was first published in The Straits Times.
Keep it clear, keep it simple
A speech from MM Lee 30 years ago still holds true today when it comes to clear, clean written English. -ST
Sun, Mar 01, 2009
The Straits Times
Thirty years ago today, on Feb 27, 1979, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew called a meeting of ministers, ministers of state and senior civil servants to discuss how government papers and minutes can be written in clear, clean prose.
Singapore's GDP has grown almost sevenfold since 1979. Marina Bay didn't exist then. Changi Airport was still two years away from completion. Singapore has been transformed beyond recognition in the last 30 years. But the same, alas, cannot be said of the quality of written English, which remains recognisably the same now as it did in 1979. We reprint excerpts of Mr Lee's address to mark a melancholy anniversary.
I WANT to discuss the importance of simple, clear, written English. This is not simple. Dr Goh Keng Swee gives every officer whom he thinks is promising and whose minutes or papers are deficient in clarity, a paperback edition of Sir Ernest Gowers' The Complete Plain Words.
It presupposes that the man who attempts to read the book has reached a certain level of literary competence. The book, written words, cannot convey to you the emphasis, the importance, the urgency of things, unless the receiver is a trained reader. And in any case, human beings are never moved by written words. It is the spoken word that arouses them to action. Arthur Koestler rightly pointed out that if Adolf Hitler's speeches had been written, not spoken, the Germans would never have gone to war. Similarly, Sukarno in print did not make great sense.
The spoken language is better learnt early; then you will have fluency. However, my thesis is that the written language can be mastered at any age without much disadvantage. It is learnt fastest when your written mistakes are pointed out to you by a teacher, friend, or senior officer. That was the way I learnt.
When I was in school my compositions were marked. When my children were in school they simply got grades for their written work. Their teachers had so many essays that they never attempted to correct the compositions. This has contributed to our present deplorable situation.
I want to convince you, first, of the importance of clear, written communication; second, that you can master it, if you apply yourself.
The use of words, the choice and arrangement of words in accordance with generally accepted rules of grammar, syntax and usage, can accurately convey ideas from one mind to another. It can be mastered.
When I was a law student I learnt that every word, every sentence has three possible meanings: what the speaker intends it to mean, what the hearer understands it to mean, and what it is commonly understood to mean. So when a coded message is sent in a telegram, the sender knows what he means, the receiver knows exactly what is meant, the ordinary person reading it can make no sense of it at all.
When you write minutes or memoranda, do not write in code, so that only those privy to your thoughts can understand. Write simply so that any other officer who knows nothing of the subject can understand you. To do this, avoid confusion and give words their ordinary meanings.
Our biggest obstacle to better English is shyness. It is a psychological barrier. Nobody likes to stop and ask, 'Please, what does that mean?' or 'Please tell me, where have I gone wrong?' To pretend you know when you don't know is abysmal folly. Then we begin to take in each other's mistakes and repeat them, compounding our problems.
The facility to express yourself in a written language is yet another facet or manifestation of your ability, plus application and discipline. It is a fallacy to believe that because it is the English language, the Englishman has a natural advantage in writing it. That is not so. He has a natural advantage in speaking the language because he spoke it as a child, but not in writing it. It has nothing to do with race. You are not born with a language. You learn it.
Without effective written communication within the government, there will be misunderstanding and confusion. Let me give a few recent illustrations of writing so sloppy that I had to seek clarification of their meanings:
- 'With increasing urbanisation and industrialisation, we will require continued assistance particularly in the technological and managerial fields.'
It is non sequitur. We need technological and managerial assistance anyway. The first part does not lead to the second part.
- 'It is necessary to study the correlation between language aptitude, intelligence and values and attitudes to ensure that the various echelons of leaders are not only effectively bilingual but also of the desirable calibre.'
Well, then say so. But somebody wanted to impress me by dressing up his ideas in big words. Next time impress me with the simple way you get your ideas across.
- 'France is the fourth major industrial country in Europe after West Germany, Britain and Italy.'
- 'The Third World has the stamina to sustain pressure for the Common fund. Progress will probably be incremental with acceleration possible if moderation prevails.'
If we do not make a determined effort to change, the process of government will slow down. It will snarl up. I have noted this steady deterioration over the last 20 years. I want to reverse it. If we start with those at the top, we can achieve a dramatic improvement in two years, provided the effort is made.
Now I want to discuss how we can do this:
To begin with, before you can put ideas into words, you must have ideas. Otherwise, you are attempting the impossible.
The written English we want is clean, clear prose - not elegant, not stylish, just clean, clear prose. It means simplifying, polishing and tightening.
Remember: That which is written without much effort is seldom read with much pleasure. The more the pleasure, you can assume, as a rule of thumb, the greater the effort.
When you send me or your minister a minute or a memo - or a draft that has to be published like the President's Address - do not try to impress by using big words; impress by the clarity of your ideas.
I speak as a practitioner. If I had not been able to reduce complex ideas into simple words and project them vividly for mass understanding, I would not be here.
The communists simplified ideas into slogans to sway the people's feelings - to get them to move in directions which would have done us harm. I had to counter them. I learnt fast. The first thing I had to do was to express ideas in simple words.
My experience is that attending courses helps but not as much as lessons tailored for you. You have written a memo. Somebody runs through it and points out your errors: 'You could have said it this way'; 'this is an error'; 'this can be broken into two sentences' and so on.
In other words, superiors and peers and even subordinates who spot errors should be encouraged to point them out. My personal assistants point out my mistakes; I tell them to.
Some final examples on how urgent the problem is, from two papers coming before Cabinet: The first, a very well-written paper; the other badly written. But even the well-written paper contained a repetitious phrase which confused me. Because it was well-written, I thought the repeated words must be there to convey a special meaning:
- 'If the basis for valuation is to be on a basis other than open market value as evidenced by sales, arbitrariness and protracted litigation would occur, thus tarnishing the credibility of government machinery.'
Let me read from the second paper, which tried to explain why we must set up an institute:
- 'The need for such services is made more acute as at present, there is no technical agency offering consultancy services in occupational safety and health.'
What the officer meant was: 'There is acute need because there is no department which offers advice on occupational safety and health.'
We have taken each other's mistakes. He had constantly read 'as at present', 'as of yesterday', 'as of tomorrow', so he just stuffed in three unnecessary words - 'as at present' - into his paper.
There is such a thing as a language environment. Ours is a bad one. Those of you who have come back from a long stay in a good English-speaking environment would have felt the shock when reading The Straits Times on returning.
I spent a month in Vancouver in October 1968. Then I went on to Harvard University in Boston. For one month, I read the papers in Vancouver. They were not much better than The Straits Times. They had one million people, English-speaking. But there was no sparkle in their pages.
The contrast in Harvard was dazzling. From the undergraduate paper, The Harvard Crimson, to the Boston Globe, from the New York Times to the Washington Post, every page crackled with novel ideas, smartly presented. Powerful minds had ordered those words. Ideas had been thought out and dressed in clean, clear prose. They were from the best trained minds of an English-speaking population.
Let us try to do better. We are not doing justice to ourselves. I know the ability is there; it has just not been trained to use the written word correctly and concisely. And it is not too late to start.
It is not possible to conduct the business of government by talking to each other with the help of gesticulation. You have to write it down. And it must be complete, clear and unambiguous.
This article was first published in The Straits Times.
C. S. Lewis On the seven deadly sins.
TO ARTHUR GREEVES:
10 February 1930
When I said that your besetting sin was Indolence and mine Pride I was thinking of the old classification of the seven deadly sins: They are Gula (Gluttony), Luxuria (Unchastity), Accidia (Indolence), Ira (Anger), Superbia (Pride), Invidia (Envy), Avaritia (Avarice). Accidia, which is sometimes called Tristitia (despondence) is the kind of indolence which comes from indifference to the good—the mood in which though it tries to play on us we have no string to respond. Pride, on the other hand, is the mother of all sins, and the original sin of Lucifer—so you are rather better off than I am. You at your worst are an instrument unstrung: I am an instrument strung but preferring to play itself because it thinks it knows the tune better than the Musician.
From The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume I
An article that is very pertinent to me! What an analogy to describe, how laziness comes from indifference to the good. I'd rather think goldfish: a temporary forgetfulness of the better things that can be done than the present sloth. It can also be related to pride: that I think what I think is better than the good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)