Face to Face With Death

Having a face-to-face encounter with a dying person is really heart-breaking. 

Two days after my phone conversation with my aunt who informed me that my other aunt was dying, I traveled almost seven hours on a bus to visit my dying aunt. 

Upon arrival, I rushed immediately to the ICU. As I was walking through the dark entrance, I remembered that the last time I saw her was almost a year ago. And so our last conversation. What happened? Why was I disconnected for so long?

At our first eye contact, my lovely aunt greeted me with a smile. Her face lighted up a bit. I could see the joy in her eyes somewhat overpowered the suffering that couldn't be hidden in her face. Joy and suffering seemed to come hand-in-hand in that moment as if they were best of friends — inseparable. I didn't know how to respond. I didn't know how to react. Should I cry? Should I smile? Would it be okay to show my pain?  Should I be happy? Should I ask, "How are you?" I Didn't know.

For a few seconds, I was stunned, literally unable to move. She was less than one arm away from me, but I didn't reach for her. With all my communication skill, I couldn't speak. Tears wanted so badly to escape my eyes, but didn't flow. Then she took the first move. She reached for me.

Unexpectedly, my dying aunt, still smiling, lying helplessly on her ICU bed, gently lifted her right arm and rendered me a military salute. That, I never anticipated.

In military practice, you cannot lower your arm when saluting an officer until that officer lowers his arm after acknowledging your salute. Only then, you can lower your arm and carry on.

Adding to my surprise, my dearest aunt — with all those hoses attached to her nose and throat, and with all those other medical gadgets wrapped to her wrist and clipped to her index finger — didn't lower her saluting arm. she waited for me to respond…militarily.

At that moment, my other aunt, the one who called me two days earlier, jerked me back to reality by saying, "Hey Arnold, she's saluting you! Respond! Salute back!" Then instantly I returned to myself. At last I was able to salute her back as an acknowledgement. After lowering my arm, she lowered hers, all according to how it must be done in the military.

I stayed with her in almost an hour, feeling helpless, inadequate, stupid, hopeless, and most of all feeling the pain — all the pain and suffering— she's going through. 

What I saw in there was a very strong and capable sharp mind trapped in a very weak, incapable, permanently damaged body. In my assessment, I could say that despite her condition, she still had the sharpest mind among us all in that room at the moment. She knew the time. She can even count hours and minutes. She remembers, for she knew I had a military background, she even insisted to follow the correct protocol in saluting. I was amazed! 

After the saluting moment, she opened her mouth which was already half open because of the tube attached to it. Without audible sound, she uttered a word I instantly recognized by reading her lips. She said, "your mama?" She was asking me where's my mom. She knew that my mom (her eldest sister) lives in Thailand, and she was asking me  through gesture if my mom is coming home. I quickly and enthusiastically answered that part. With confidence, I said, "Yes. She's coming today. She will arrive at the airport in six hours time, and I will get her there and bring her to you here." 

Then she lifted her right hand again and gestured the thumb's up sign. She smiled again while nodding.

I didn't expect either what happened next. She turned her head to my other aunt, and signaled that she needed a paper and a pen. Then she looked at me as if instructing me to pay attention to what she's going to write. I did not dare to resist or contradict. As she stroked the first letter, I fixed my eyes to the paper. I saw "W" and then "e" and then "l"

With all her remaining strength, in a very slow motion, she completed her message. It read:

Sister, Welcome back to the Philippines! I love you!

Then she attached her signature, looked at me and threw me a very sweet smile. That smile melted me instantly. My tears began to flow.

For me, it was a very humbling experience. I felt stupid and lousy. I couldn't respond appropriately on the first few seconds of our encounter, I didn't know what words to say, I didn't know what emotion to feel and how to express it. Or whether I should express it or not. I didn't know how to move or act. Everything for me was awkward, confusing, hurting!

Watching my dearest aunt on her face-to-face encounter with death made me think how short life is and how much and how far we divert from the most important matters in life. On her last moments, everything that mattered to my aunt was her precious relationships. All her academic achievements, previous prestige, her titles and other possessions faded in thin air as if they were not important at all. Everything that's important on her dying hours were her precious relationships — her family, her best friends.

After that encounter, I went outside the hospital to grasp for fresh air, I went to the nearby mall to buy some food I could stock. I watched people around me — those people at the streets, at the mall, at the stores, even those people at the hospital. I asked myself, what am I busy right now in my life? Do these things that preoccupy my heart and mind right now will still preoccupy me on my death bed when my time comes? Or like my dear aunt, will they vanish in thin air too, like a non-important item ready to be dislodged in the trash anytime?

I sensed a misalignment — a very profound one. Many people I worked with, and that includes me, live their lives (our lives) accumulating things and experiences that I think wouldn't even matter when the time comes. Many of us preoccupy our daily life with activities that will not make sense on our deathbed.

My dear aunt, on her last days, didn't even remember she was a beauty queen during her time. She didn't mention any of her possessions, or how much money she left on the bank. She did not boast about her brilliant ideas and her incoming projects. No, during those days, her last days, her focus was her loved ones, she wrote repeatedly the names of her family, one by one on papers. She wrote repeatedly the words "I love you!" both in English and in our local dialect.

I didn't sense a feeling of regret from her. I didn't see bitterness either. The nurse even told me, "I admire your aunt! She's very patient — very slow to complain and that she never got angry when in pain. Unlike many patients who complain non-stop about their pain and become angry to the nurses, to the doctors, even to God."

Fast forwarding my life to that moment, to my last days, I ask myself, will I ever feel regret? Will I look back on the years that passed and say, "I should not have lived my life that way." 

All her life, she has been a great inspiration to me…yes up to the very last days of her consciousness. I think her face-to-face moment with death awakened in me the spirit of renewal, the desire to filter life on a daily basis, removing non-essentials, focusing only on what matters most in life, forgetting those things that will not make sense on my death bed when my time comes. She left me an impact that will last until my last breath. For as long as I live, she lives in my heart too.

Nourishment

When Alfred Lunt, one of the great actors of his time, played the leading role in Reunion in Vienna, he said, “There is nothing I need so much as nourishment for my self-esteem.

We nourish the bodies of our children and friends and employees, but how seldom do we nourish their self-esteem? We provide them with roast beef and potatoes to built energy, but we neglect to give them kind words of appreciation that would sing in their memories for years like the music of the morning stars.

How to Win Friends and Influence People|Page 28

Faith Connection

Showing Off versus Self-restraint

I love to watch martial arts movies; but I like Jackie Chan’s more than others. His movies are not violent and not brutal. Rather, they are funny and full of display of genuine art, gracefully performed in a very entertaining way. The one thing that stands out, however, why I love Jackie’s movies so much, is his self-restraint. Though an expert fighter, Jackie always avoids fights by evading challenges, sometimes leaving a connotation that he’s afraid to fight. What a powerful display of self-restraint: the one who can crash your head in a single blow may always choose NOT to, even at the expense of being labeled coward!

In daily life, I observe the very opposite. Many people with power are so excited in testing if it really works, trying to crash people’s heads as much as they can . . . doing it to as many people as they want as often as they can. Some people in position always find ways to exhibit their phantom power — displaying to everyone that they are above us all, that they know something others don’t, that they posses something that others lack. Yet, what they do just makes people repel. And when they observe that people avoid their company, they feel insulted and then they persist to be liked. A paradoxical cycle begins: the more they attract people with their titles and positions, the more people repel.

In contrast, true powerful people are not powerful because they are able to put down smaller people. They are powerful not because they are able to overcome their attackers. No! Instead, they are powerful because they are capable to overcome themselves. They have mastered to restrain themselves from hurting others, from fighting back, from taking revenge.

I also know some people with high position yet they don’t seem to use it to take advantage of smaller people. Like the great Jackie in the movies, they don’t display phantom power, rather they hide their true power so that smaller people will not be afraid of them. They reach out. They, at times, even share power to smaller people like me. In return, I look at them with great reverence, acknowledging the true great power they have.

There, another yet opposite paradox is set in motion: the more they don’t show off their power, the more they become great, and the greatness becomes evident.

They use their power to overcome themselves, their own weaknesses, their own temptations, instead of controlling others. They remind me of a motto that struck me so strongly when I was in college:

If I can defeat others, I am strong; if I can defeat myself, I am stronger.

For years, I worked out my own attitude to align to that motto. And I find it again and again that it’s not always easy.

———————-

Knowing that in every rule there’s an exception, here’s what I see In quick view of this two-sided paradox:

Those people who exhibit their power are those who actually don’t have it; while those people who really have it don’t display it.

Faith connection

But how do they do that?

Faith.

It takes faith to feel comfortable in the presence of uncomfortable paradoxes.

Faith is courage in action. In my part, it takes courage not to use my position. It takes courage not to use my power to crash their heads, specially those who attack me. It takes courage to face the consequence of not striking back.

To be painfully honest, it is always difficult, doubting, troubling, not so assuring. It is challenging. It goes against my human instinct, against my normal reason. That’s why I need faith. Because If everything is so assured faith is no longer necessary. If everything is clear, easy and without doubt . . . if everything is doubt-proof, flows normally with everyday reason, then, I don’t need faith at all. All I need is believe.

Faith, according to the Bible is, “Being sure of what we hope for, and being certain of what we do not see.”  In contrast, belief is based entirely in proof and evidence, in what is seen and measured, in what can be calculated and explained. To see is to believe, remember?

As a layman, I see my faith as an inner battle triumphantly manifested in the choices I make after I made it. When the martial arts expert refrain from accepting a challenge or from striking back after being hardly hit, perhaps he’s not displaying belief in himself, maybe he’s exercising faith — believing against all his human logic that by doing so, that by avoiding the fight, he gains victory. Yet, without proof, without evidence, he acts with assurance.

“You can win more friends in two months by becoming interested in people than you can in two years to get other people interested in you.”

Dale Carnegie

How often do I fall into the trap of attracting people only to painfully discover that I am achieving perfectly well the very opposite of my goal! Against the normal flow, I learned that if I want to attract people I have to approach them in reverse: I need to be attracted to them. Instead of using my position or any superficial things, I’d rather selflessly concentrate on people, highlighting and appreciating what they have — a sign of being attracted.

What proof do I have that they will surely like me in return? Nothing. I only have faith.

Paradox: Incompatible Truths In Painful Harmony

Incompatible Truths

Recently I was reviewing my mailbox, deleting all emails that I thought no longer necessary and retaining those emails that intrigued me.

In November 2007, I received an unsolicited beautiful message from a friend. When I checked, I noticed that my friend just received it from a long chain of recipients-turned-into-messengers who were probably as intrigued as I was when I read it, and so excitedly passed it to every friend, thereby spreading it like a virus until it hit my mailbox.

The message was claimed to be the words of George Carlin, a famous American comedian. Here is an excerpt of that message: a sample of striking paradox soaked deeply into the profoundness of truth hidden in our modern reality.

The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider Freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less, we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness.

We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.

We’ve learned how to make a living, but not a life. We’ve added years to life not life to years. We’ve been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We’ve done larger things, but not better things.

We’ve cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We’ve conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We’ve learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete. . .

I admire how George Carlin saw through the undetectable, the invisibles, the unnoticeable, through the unseen reality at work beyond our daily rushed life. He beautifully declares observations with conflicting expectations, bringing incompatible truths together in painful harmony.

Reading through his message line by line, I cannot but agree with its truthfulness. How true! We have wider highways but narrower perspectives, we have more possessions with reduced values. We have conquered almost every space, including the outer space but not our tiny inner space, we have mastered the atoms but not our own unforgiveness and prejudice. We are like big men with little character living in gorgeous expensive houses that is far from home, completing varying advanced degrees and then proudly exposing our senselessness, by parading how much knowledge we acquired while hiding our inability to make sound judgement.

Opposite Truths

Dealing with our own paradoxes in life may not be easy. Most of us when facing two incompatible truths tend to choose one and neglect the other. And when we do, we face an undesirable consequence.

As I write this article, I am in the process of choosing between justice and grace — two principles that are both important in bringing peace both to our society as well as to our hearts. I am in a position that calls for the implementation of “just” practices in my work place. Yet I am also a Christian where my entire faith is founded in the profound message of grace and forgiveness. The whole doctrine of my belief begins and ends with the grace of God through Jesus Christ.

I am called to support justice, yet I am also called to dispense grace. But they seem to me as opposite as east and west. Like oil and water, they seem to repel each other.

I feel like lying in between two opposing yet equally powerful and important truths that are incompatible with each other—a paradoxical situation—where I need to choose. Yet when I do, I will violate the other.

How can I balance justice and grace in my heart? How can I keep them both to peacefully coexist side by side in my daily life?

How should I deal with my own paradoxes. Perhaps I just need to be comfortable with it. Perhaps I need faith . . . but how?

I’m just wondering.

Icon Without Substance

A Story: More than a decade ago

I will never forget how my teacher taught me the basics of Microsoft Windows. Right after graduating from college, 15 years ago, I enrolled in a computer literacy program—a two-week course covering the Windows basic applications: word, excel, powerpoint, and internet explorer.

However, before I was exposed to the application softwares, I was first taught how to navigate through the Windows operating system—exploring the complex forest-like stacks of cascaded folders, from system folder to utilities to MyDocuments. I learned how to open, create and delete a folder, and to transfer them from one location to another. “When you create a folder be sure not to forget the name, and always remember where you saved it, otherwise, you will consume time locating it the next time you’ll need it,” my teacher warned me. He then followed with, “You will use the same technique when creating a file, so always remember that.

Then he taught me how to create a shortcut icon. Sometimes, when I want immediate access to a folder I saved in MyDocuments, I may create a shortcut icon in the desktop. Whenever I double-click the shortcut, Windows automatically open the original folder saved hidden in MyDocuments.

However,” this time, a stern warning, “when you delete the original folder (in MyDocuments), the shortcut icon (in the desktop) is not automatically deleted with it. So when you try to open it, Windows will pop up a message — with a flashlight waving left and right as if searching for something—saying that the original folder cannot be located.” When the original file is gone, its shortcut icon becomes useless.

Fifteen years have passed and his message remained clear and fresh in my head: an icon without substance is meaningless.

Technology and Society

How does technology affect other areas of our life?

_______________________________________________

Is the visible world around us all there is?” My favorite author Philip Yancey circles around this question in his book Rumors of Another World. I like that thought-provoking book. It explores the possibility of another world that coexists in our physical world. It challenges me to continually pay attention to the bigger picture we call life. It makes me always aware of many other unseen and unexplored realms that are in constant contact with every aspect of our life that are equally important.

Technology for easier life

It is a common acknowledgement that tools are purposely designed to make people’s tasks easier. Since technology is considered as a tool, it follows that technology is developed to make our lives easier. Well, I don’t argue against that. We are surrounded by tools everywhere…and that significantly makes our many tasks easier. I no longer need to roam around the city streets to look for tools. Inside my small room I have electric fan, exhaust fan, lockers, bookshelf, single and double beds, chair, floor and ceiling, walls, pens and papers, and everything else that I can touch, measure, and count—they are all designed to make my life in this planet easier. Even this very computer that I am using in writing this article makes my tasks more efficient and less tiring. In general terms, all of those things that I use inside my room are all tools—they are products of technology—designed to make lives easier and more efficient. I totally agree.

However, I am in constant quest as to why we want easier life instead of stronger one, instead of more significant, more meaningful one. Why? That part I honestly don’t understand. Is our physical world around us—the world that has already been conquered by artists and scientists—all there is? Is that all we have? If not, why focus too much in its mastery? Sadly enough, our society, with all its old and modern technology obviously suggests that that’s all there is—nothing more.

Society and its intricately woven parts

Stephen Covey’s books 7 Habits, The 8Th Habit, and Principle-Centered Leadership tremendously altered the way I see myself, other people and the society as a whole. As frequently as I reflect about my life, I am constantly reminded of my four dimensions as a person: my body, heart, mind, and spirit. No matter how much I concentrate on one dimension, if I stubbornly neglect the others, I won’t be a whole person, I won’t be complete.

The four dimensions are not exclusive for people. Organizations are like people in a way that every organization has its own unique personality, that is, organizations have body, heart, mind, and spirit as well. Societies are not exempted either. They are just bigger and more complicated. Societies, like people and organizations also have physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual aspects. It’s just that they are more complex, maybe due to its size compared to a single person. It doesn’t matter whether one is a person or an organization or a society there is always a lingering pattern: they all have body, heart, mind and spirit.

What is the connection? When we say that technology makes our life easier, do we mean life as described through the four dimensions? Or are we simply succumbed only to the dimension that is seen, measured, and those that we can control—the physical dimension?

Technology is a tool. It is neutral. Meaning, we can use technology to make life easier; but we can also use it to make life miserable. It’s up to us. Tools are designed to be used in certain ways. There are always Do’s and Don’ts. Users should always be informed or sometimes trained on how to use a tool. Otherwise he may defeat the very purpose of the tool he’s using. Worse yet, he may hurt himself in the process. And even worse is if the consequence is delayed for years before he realizes that the way he’s been using the tool that he’s been using is all wrong . . . and then it’s too late to rectify.

What’s the point? The point is . . . technology is neither good nor bad. If it helps our physical life easier, that’s good. But if technology negatively affects the other dimensions—especially the emotional and spiritual dimensions—of our life, even though it tremendously helps our physical and mental life, then it’s counterproductive. It’s not just useless, it becomes destructive. No matter how much help technology offers us, if it pulls us away from being cooperative, ethical, conscientious, industrious, and GOD-fearing, no matter how much easier life may become, if it pulls us away from being integrated, from being whole, then it is not being helpful at all. We are being deceived by our own assumptions.

Look at what Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution did to the relationship between science and religion. How about Sigmund Freud’s theory about human psychology? What has science brought us in terms of peace, love, integrity, authenticity, respect, and ethics? Technology is okay—as long as it doesn’t destroy the other dimensions of our lives. World Wide Web is good as an information tool. But how does it affect the younger ones? How about other technologies like guns, nuclear weapons, nano technology? Technology is supposed to be neutral. But now many are not. They destroy our paradigms, alter our beliefs, refocus our values, and the saddest part, they paralyze our conscience. Do I still need to prove this claim?

How about in education? Many schools are excellent when it comes to academics but totally poor when it comes to humility and character. They are absolutely illiterate when it comes to bringing knowledge to their emotions. Remember, education is also a tool. If it helps us improve our mental dimension and yet destroy our emotional and spiritual side, what good does it do?

In Principle-Centered Leadership, Stephen Covey mentions Gandhi’s teaching about seven things that destroy us:

  • wealth without work
  • pleasure without conscience
  • knowledge without character
  • commerce without morality
  • science without humanity
  • worship without sacrifice
  • politics without principles

Howard Gardner, in his year 2008 book The 5 Minds for the Future, discusses the limits of science and technology. He says that,

“ … science can never constitute a sufficient education. Science can never tell you what to do in class or at work. Why? What you do as a teacher or manager has to be determined by your value system—and neither science nor technology has a built-in value system.”

Although he advocates about the importance of having a disciplined mind, synthesizing and creating minds, he did not undermine other parts. In fact he includes respectful mind and the ethical mind. Doctor Gardner strikes balance.

Response

A silent revolution is needed. A subtle but intense campaign is necessary. Leadership reproduction is a must. Why leadership? Because our societies have already been overmanaged. People have already conquered science. We are now full of knowledge and are continuously acquiring more. We have plenty of pleasure. Commerce is in place, and many have wealth (although most are in poverty). In the list of seven dangerous things mentioned above, we already have pleasure, knowledge, commerce, science, and politics. What we lack however are conscience, character, morality, humanity, sacrifice, and principles—all of which are products of good leadership.

I think we should not take for granted that the technology we are about to bring to the society may destroy other areas of our life. In that case, no matter how much help technology provides to our physical tasks, if it destroys our inward self, our other dimensions, then it becomes ‘counterproductive,’ ‘counterefficient’, and ‘countereffective.’

The physical world that has already been mastered by people through science and technology is not all there is. There is more. Our society has heart, mind, and conscience as well. We can continue to make some research for more advanced technology, but we must do so without sacrificing our conscience, our character . . . without neglecting humanity, ethics, and principles. In other words, we need to strike balance. And I am convinced that leaders are the ones we can count on in providing that needed balance.

Can We Manage Science?

When I answered the posted question in our Discussion Forum about my understanding of the concept of CREATIVITY, and whether creativity can be managed or not, I accidentally provoked a somewhat unexpected almost violent reaction from a devoted classmate—devoted only to her paradigm—and blinded to others’ perspectives. At first, we just went circling around unclear premises. Fortunately, the discussion went very interesting and, I believe, very healthy as well, and even attracted other classmates who claimed to have learned and were enlightened somehow. Thanks to the challenger, the dialogue stretched us both!

In that controversial discussion about whether creativity can be managed or not, I delivered a quite unpopular approach by stating that, “CREATIVITY CANNOT BE MANAGED,” while at the same time explaining how it can be managed. Although the entire argument revolved around the idea that indeed creativity CAN BE MANAGED, I intended to state the opposite . . . to give emphasis on H O W creativity can be managed, that is, management is not done directly to creativity. Rather, if we want to manage creativity, we need to concentrate on its ENVIRONMENT and not to CREATIVITY itself. In other words, it’s the environment that fosters creativity that we can effectively manage. By ensuring that the factors that make creativity possible is what CREATIVITY MANAGEMENT is all about.

In this similar topic—CAN SCIENTISTS MANAGE SCIENCE?—I would like to take a similar approach, but with a little twist. I would argue here that yes, SCIENCE CAN BE MANAGED. And then at the end, I will challenge the very notion I have just established.

Science . . . and Arts

In my previous understanding, SCIENCE and ARTS are two different things. Sometimes I see them as a dichotomy—many things can EITHER be only art or only science. They are opposite. Now I understand there are also more abstract cases where both arts and science coexist. One example is leadership. For me, LEADERSHIP is both an art and a science. Another one is LOGIC—the art and science of correct thinking.

While leadership and logic are both art and science; management in general is mostly science. Also, while creativity is more than an art than a science, its management is more of a science than of an art. Therefore in my post about creativity, I argued that creativity and management are opposite. Here, however, I argue that science can be managed in a sense that both MANAGEMENT and SCIENCE are in the same end of the dichotomy. They are both sciences.

In simple and unelaborated way, science, according to my Encarta Dictionary is a SYSTEMATIC BODY OF KNOWLEDGE. In simpler terms, SCIENCE IS KNOWLEDGE. Now, substituting the synonymous terms in our topic, I would say that yes—SYSTEMATIC KNOWLEDGE CAN BE MANAGED.

Extending further, I consider that knowledge is a tool that we use every day. In that sense—SCIENCE AS A KNOWLEDGE, AND KNOWLEDGE BEING A TOOL—yes it can be managed in some degree.

Managing the evolution

Science has dramatically evolved in the past decades and is continuously evolving today. It didn’t evolve on its own, and it is not evolving on its own today. Science has many branches. We call each branch as a discipline. These diverse disciplines collaborate with one another to MANAGE the evolution of science. We manage science through CREATIVE research. BIOLOGY continues to evolve. This evolution affects the evolution of medicine. Simultaneously, PSYCHOLOGY is also continuously evolving thus affecting also the evolution of both BIOLOGY and medicine and probably other disciplines. ARCHITECTURE’S evolution is affected by the evolution of ENGINEERING which is in turn affected by the evolution of our knowledge of ELECTRICITY, CHEMISTRY and other disciplines as well. Our knowledge in chemistry, as it evolves, also affects the biologists’ knowledge in biology.

Science is one whole big body of knowledge of many branches that are somehow interconnected. Management of one branch affects the other branches. In other words, continuous research in one branch affects other related branches.

Science as a knowledge . . . as a Tool

As knowledge—a systematic body of big knowledge—I believe we can manage science. We don’t need to be scientists to manage our own knowledge. Some are disciplined in the field of medicine, some in architecture, some, in the science of Marine Engineering.

Marine engineers can of course manage their own knowledge in the science of marine engineering. Those engineers on board international vessels continue to be part of the evolution of this branch of science. New discoveries in PHYSICS affect the science of engineering. On board, the engineers continue to catch up to new technologies—modern machines they never thought possible before. Now however, facing the facts, marine engineers need to adjust. They need to manage their own knowledge about this specific knowledge (science in marine engineering), or else, they will be left behind.

Scientists in the maritime field continue to manage the science of marine engineering. And a lot of factors that they consider in their researches are those factors that come from the reports of the actual marine engineers on board, these engineers who keep on adjusting their knowledge just to catch up. As they manage the engine and the entire engine department onboard a vessel, they make lots of analyses and syntheses. These activities are always logged on in official record books. (Now they already have modern computer software that will do some parts of the analyses and syntheses.) Copies of these records are sent to the owners of these vessels and or other authority for continuous study. This will then be the basis for the new research. After the research, implementation follows. Installing of new and modern machines on board the vessels forces marine engineers to take special training and advance their knowledge of the marine engineering science as well. It’s a cycle between the engineers and scientists.

All of these happen because both the scientists and the ones in the field are successfully managing not only the science of marine engineering but science as a whole. As I have said, the branches are interrelated. Our discipline is benefiting from the science of ELECTRICITY and CHEMISTRY.

But . . . let’s think again

Although we can manage science in many aspects, there are areas that we cannot truly manage. Ironically, although science gives us easier life, it also threatens that easy life to end sooner, quicker. In medicine, the invention of pain relievers tremendously affects the psychology of many individuals. We no longer appreciate the gift of pain. Because of these pain relievers, we now tend to condemn PAIN and avoid it as much as possible without ever realizing that pain helps us survive. It affects our attitude.

Modern household technologies make us lazy and make us prone to complain. Because of those technologies that promote speed, we forget the virtue of being slow. We want everything fast and instant. Beauty products that are product of chemistry and biology continue to change how we perceive BEAUTY. Even software like Photoshop distorts our perception of beauty. Natural is no longer natural.

Modern science also brings us problems, dilemmas, and chaos beyond imagination. The wars, modern crimes, new diseases, and unpredictable weather are mostly products of the “successful management of science.”

That’s the irony. We tend to isolate science from arts and other areas of life even from our spiritual life. We tend to look at the past and consider all advances in science as success without realizing its negative effects in other areas of our life. Because of this, we are now in great danger. Global warming is just one, but this is global. It is affecting the entire planet. This global warming, a clear and present danger is just the product of so called DECADES OF SUCCESSFUL MANAGEMENT OF SCIENCE. My personal conviction tells me that if we are truly in control, we will be able to stop instead of aggravate these problems. The whole world is an INDIVISIBLE  WHOLE. We cannot manage just one area (like science) while neglecting other areas like our values, ethics, spiritual growth, relationships, and many other areas in our precious lives. We need to integrate all these into one. We need balance.

If we truly believe that we can totally manage science, we better think again.