Shrinking attention span

 The human capacity for paying attention has been shrinking rapidly, furthered to a great extent by the great advances made in communication technology.  

In cricket, Test matches running into 5 days were the craze.  Then came the One-day matches.  That transition took some time.  But the next phase of T20 was quick and brutal.  While those who love cricket genuinely and play the game know the worth of a Test match endurance and quality, most spectators would any day prefer a T20 game over a Test. 

In the entertainment field there were long movies, screened only in theatres.  That was the only place one could watch movies.  Then came the television and other platforms where one could watch old movies from the comfort of one's living room.  Then came sweeping the 'reels-era'. Now most people are addicted to scrolling reels on their mobile phones.  Not just in one's own living room, but anywhere and everywhere and every given time!  Movies lasted 2 to 3 hours. Now reels last not more than a minute.  

For information, one had to read newspapers.  Today printed newspapers are hardly subscribed for.  There are ample apps which provide 'news bits'. Just a para or a couple of lines.  That is sufficient.  From leading lengthy news articles to news slightly longer than the headlines, information grasping has shortened.  

The worse hit has been book-reading. Except, perhaps research scholars, and ardent book lovers, there are hardly any people who 'have the time' to read a book!  

More than the decline in attention span, the speed at which that span is declining is alarming.  Dopomine acceleration is indeed sabotaging the deepening of wisdom.  Information is today the biggest risk to knowledge and wisdom. 

Informed citizens

 A recent headline that caught my attention...

Read the full article, published on Down to Earth, which hits the nail on the head, not just about the Ganges and the right way of protecting it, but about everything that we hold important and valuable!

Felt truly good reading the content of this article.  After long, came across the following words, phrases and their interlinkages: curiosity, conservation, nature interpretation, 'the river we see, but don't understand', context-specific content, engagement vs information sharing, informed and engaged public, measuring success beyond buildings, creating connections, the greatest achievement is still not the number of people who walk through their doors, but the transformation that takes place after the visit, informed advocates rather than mere spectators, lasting impact depends on something less visible, but equally important (understanding)...

The arrived

 Every group has a variety of members and a greater assortment of leaders! The Salesian community or Province too is no exception. 

Glancing at the working style (without making any moral or character judgement) of the leaders of our communities, we get to see a wide variety.  There are those who are simple. They know they are not complicated or omnipotent and therefore go about their work, seeking assistance and are open to guidance. Then there are those who go about as if they know it all. No consultation. Unwilling to alter course, even if they recognise they have made a blunder. And it is always somebody else's fault - everytime.

I remember a particular phrase Fr Camillus, the former Provincial of Chennai, would use to describe the latter: the arrived confreres!

The amazing ability

Sherlock Holmes and his smart assistant Dr. Watson go on a camping trip, enjoy a heavy barbeque dinner with a bottle of whisky, set up their tent, and fall asleep. 

Some hours later, Holmes wakes his faithful friend. “Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see.” Watson replies, “I see millions of stars.” “What does that tell you?” Watson ponders for a minute. “Astronomically speaking, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo. Timewise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three. Theologically, it’s evident the Lord is all powerful and we are small and insignificant. Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. What does it tell you?” 

Holmes is silent for a moment, then speaks. “Watson, you idiot, someone has stolen our tent!” 

Watson had missed the most obvious observation. He was clever enough to notice the complexities of the stars, but he missed what was plain and simple. 

I remember this particular phrase in the book Jesus plan for a new world, which the author uses to describe the apostles, as to how they had "the amazing ability to miss the point." Even the most best of us sometimes miss the obvious.

The commode theory

 A few months ago, I came up with this 'commode theory'. It is basically a personal experience that has got me thinking and linking to life. 

You see, the flush tank in my room is a very moody one.  At time it functions with a single push of the button. At times, I have to keep the button pressed.  At times, after the flush tank is emptied, it keeps leaking and there is a whole lot of water wasted, by the time I realise it. 

Anyhow, the commode theory is about the commode!  The basic premise: Shit does not always get flushed properly! This depends on a couple of factors, beside the 'quality' of shit! At times the flush tank isn't sufficiently big. Sometimes the commode itself is not designed well enough to utilise the pressure of the flush tank's water. Other times, the plumbing isn't done well.  

Not everyone pays attention to this.  But I'm sure everyone experiences it!  However, not everyone needs to know this.  Neither is there any harm in everyone knowing this.  Some who know this apply the knowledge in selecting the type, model of commode.  Most just don't bother, as long as there is a flush tank and a commode! Perhaps the engineer or the plumber is one who actually needs to have the best knowledge about it, but it could also be that he isn't using one (I mean, a western commode!). 

At times, the ones who reflect about this, can do nothing about it - because the commode is already in place!! One only has to find hacks - like me - to make it work, the best it can! 

So the theory itself? Shit happens to everyone; but not everyone thinks about it. And not all those who do, can or need to do anything about it! 

Self-deceiving illusion

 Very often we live in a world of our own.  We fail to see our own shortcomings but see others faults very clearly. We speak and act as if what I think and do are the best and the most appropriate means to success.  What others think or do is always messy and insufficient.  

The tragedy is when we consistently do this, and make ourselves believe that this self-image is right. Everything else and everyone else has to change. Not I!  

Blessed are those who can view themselves with the same lens as we see others.  And see others, as we see ourselves! 

Knowledge and wisdom

 Knowledge and wisdom

That tomato is a fruit and not a vegetable is knowledge. 

Not including tomato in a fruit salad is wisdom! 

Philosophy and wisdom

If philosophy is the love or study of wisdom, then by that logic philosophers should be the most wise people on earth.  Now that statement can be treated more as a joke than a reality!  Why the lacuna between study of wisdom and being wise? 

I think the chasm lies in the fact that most philosophers get embroiled with logic, arguments, reasoning and reading, it is purely at the intellectual level.  In life, these hardly make an impact.  When these do not percolate my convictions, principles, values and day-to-day decisions of life, how would it make impact others, leave along the society at large?  Wisdom comes from letting these ideas and theories being worked out in real life, with real people and relations. Not merely in the abstract world of ideas and thoughts.  In that sense, I still hold that my Mum is a more wise person than I, in spite of my years of study of philosophy!

I agree that reading and thinking and philosophising helps.  But wisdom comes from living life, not merely reading about life or thinking about life.  We become wise engaging with real life-situations and people - the more challenging and complex these are, the better the possibility of we growing wise.  Reading and thinking and engaging in an intellectual debate (however intense) are safe bets - not life-altering.  Real life situations and the challenges they throw up, demand radical decisions and careful consideration.  That's the route to wisdom. 

Mind, Cognition and Consciousness

Bibliography and resource tank for 'Mind and consciousness':

• Interview with Robert Lawrence Kuhn 'What is extended mind' (Aeon)
• Andy Clark and David Chalmers (1998) 'The Extended mind'
• Chalmers, 'The logical possibility of Zombies'
• Chalmers, 'Consciousness and its place in nature'
• Rorty, 'Incorrigibility as the mark of the mental' (self-knowledge, awareness, consciousness)
• Jackson, 'What Mary didn't know'  ... video: https://aeon.co/videos/can-you-know-everything-about-colour-if-you-see-in-black-and-white-a-thought-experiment 
• Crane, 'Intentionality as the mark of the mental' 
• Searle, 'Minds, brains and programs'
• Rorty, 'Mind-body identity, privacy and categories'
• Smart, 'Sensations and brain processes' (materialism)
• Sellars, Empiricism and the philosophy of mind XI-XVI 
• Putnam, 'The nature of mental states' 

• Philosophical problem of consciousness (consciousness - scientific and philosophical answers)
• Why science can't explain consciousness (scientific perspective)
• Consciousness is real (phenomenal C vs Access C; dualism and illusionism;  a different way of speaking about 'illusionism';  argument to show C as an efficacious biological reality)
• Neither person nor cadaver (who decides when a person is dead?  Issues with 'brain-death', how the controversial theory of brain-death was approved, dilemmas with regard to the 'point' of death...) 
• How to make the study of consciousness scientifically tractable (redefining 'subjectivity') 
• Our reality and why Consciousness is important (discusses objective consciousness)
• Science and the turf war of consciousness (Book review of Galileo's Error: Foundations for a new science of consciousness... where in the author is proposing panpsychism as a solution for the whole debate about consciousness, especially the body-mind problem since Galileo's days)
• Consciousness: how can we solve the greatest mystery in science? (Contemporary - 2019 - theories of consciousness;  the Templeton competition, initiated to arrive at a definitive understanding of consciousness;  a set of rival theories - IIT, GNWT, Mechanistic, magicalist, Higher order theories, Predictive coding theories, Attention schema theory, Illusionism, Quantum theories...;  good summary of contemporary names and theories working in the field of consciousness)
• The transition to minimal consciousness (article defending the proposal that animals too have consciousness.  Consciousness requires 'unlimited associative learning' - "refers to an animal's ability to ascribe motivational value to a compound stimulus or action pattern and to use it as the basis for future learning" (p. 5).  This is found in  invertebrates. 
• Semi-unlimited associative learning (Critique of the article: gap between unlimited and limited associative learning.) 
• The evolution of the sensitive soul (Book that states learning is the driving force behind the evolution of basic consciousness)
•  Inflate and explode (Critique of eliminativism and illusionism)
• Why your brain is not a computer (newspaper article: arguments and reasons from the field of psychology and neuroscience to show that the brain/mind cannot be considered or is not reducible to a computer; how the metaphor of 'the brain as a computer' has been eroded and is no longer valid)
• We are the world (Aeon) The object identity theory which holds that the consciousness is not in the brain or the mind, but outside us.  It is in our experience of the world, through the body.  So consciousness is not in the brain within us, nor in the world outside, but in our experience of the world, as a bodily being.  We are the experience.  It is the world relative to our experience that moves us. 
• Frames of Consciousness (Aeon) Latest technological advances and ethical questions related to study of brain, especially deciding when is a patient conscious or not?

Does or Is

We find it reasonable and easy to answer certain direct questions about things we see around us.  But the same ease and rationale fails us when we ascend further to the domain of persons and non-material realities. 
Why does this biscuit exist?
Why does this bulb exist?
Why does this car exist?
Why does this building exist?
Why does this office exist?
Why do I exist?
Why does the world exist?
Why does anything exist at all?
Note the increasing difficulty in answering the above set of questions. Why so?

The more distanced and uninvolved we stay, the easier to answer.  The more intimate and involved we get, the more difficult it gets to answer.

Gets us back to 'know thyself'.  Same with language. 

Perhaps we have been answering the wrong question all along: instead of answering what it IS we have been answering what it DOES.  We have been answering 'what does language do?' rather than 'What IS language?'.  We have equated DOES and IS.

Perhaps we don't have an access point beyond 'does'.  To answer, 'is' we need to get out of language.  (Do we?) And there is no 'getting out of language'.

Formation and knowledge

Reading this particular article on Aeon about walking and applying the philosophy of Gilbert Ryle to it, I was wondering if this can be applied to the whole process of formation and that particular phase of intellectual formation too.

Just a handful of us formators back in the province believe that a student discerning his vocation to priestly or religious life ought to have a rather meaningful and sensible intellectual capacity.  Lacking in which he or she will make things and life miserable for others and themselves - the exact opposite of what ministry seeks to do in service of the people! Most formators feel that intellectual capacity should not be a major factor to be considered when deciding whether a person continues being a religious or priest or not. 

Ryle seems to suggest that if self-teaching is activated, that would suffice for improving a skill. 

We can think about Ryle’s view as a middle way between the just-do-it view and intellectualism. Intellectualism claims that skilled action requires thought, and gives a picture of thought as deliberate, conscious internal activity. The just-do-it view observes that it is not plausible that skill requires this kind of conscious thinking, and concludes that thought is the enemy of skill. Ryle agrees with the just-do-it view that conscious thought is not a requirement of skill, but offers an alternative view of thinking as engaged problem solving, claiming that this kind of thought is a requirement of skilled action.

If I'm reading it right, Ryle would say that just because is a person is kind and considerate, does exempt him or her from engaging in a very intellectual exercise of thinking. Nonetheless, to actually continue being kind and considerate and develop it as a skill rather than blindly repeat certain kind actions and utterances, a particular kind of thought is essential. 

One need not be an expert in oceanography to be a priest or religious but if one is not competent to reflect on ones own ministry and willing to make sufficient effort to learn from it, even if already 'good' at it, then one certainly is not worthy of becoming a priest or religious. Openness and humility to learn, require a certain kind of thinking to actualize and bear fruit.  

Hope vs Skepticism

What if we cannot know the final judgement (either in Christian terms or in ordinary day to day life experience)? 

• Suspend judgement.
• In suspending judgement we can either have the attitude of a skeptic and say 'nothing can be known - end of everything!' Or have hope!  
• Neither despair nor presumption. 
• Which of the two attitudes (skepticism or hope) we adopt decides the mood. 

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Know not how and why, but have been reading quite a few interesting articles about Artificial Intelligence in the past two days. Not so much the technical or mechanical aspect but the rational and philosophical dimension of AI. My general impressions and views, as of now:

What Artificial Intelligence (AI) has actually achieved is 'human intelligence'. It has only managed to create what human beings can think or do, better. But isn't AI about rational thinking and independent behaviour? The machines and robots have been programmed or coded with the various possibilities from the vast amount of available data, and generated algorithms thereof, to choose a particular act. It does not 'think' beyond the given data or possibilities. The created AI has only inherited the collated and multiplied human intelligence, but with its limitations as well. (Now this supposes a distinction between human thinking/act and rational thinking/act.)

Secondly, the inherited intelligence is that of a select group of inventors, not of all mankind. Example is the response of Google assistant, American made and Alisa, a Russian make to the statement, “I am sad.” Google's reply: “I wish I had arms to give you a hug.” Alisa's reply: “No one said life is going to be fun.” The former reply is typically a Western capitalist response to an emotional state and the latter a hard hitting fact of life reply as per Russian culture.

While consensus on what exactly does 'cognition' or 'understanding' mean and how it is achieved is elusive, to expect or attribute the same to AI will be even more complicated. Other crucial issues AI is yet to address: subjective consciousness, creativity, meaning… (Or is it that AI researchers and developers are not interested in mechanizing these essential features of the humankind!?)

The x-ray and the photo

Whenever or whomever we love or are fascinated by, we need to grow or strive to attain a holistic view of the person.  It is possible that in the process of gaining a better view of the person from all possible angles, our admiration for him or her may dwindle.  However, that is  a better risk than basing all our love and admiration on merely one particular view we hold, and are unwilling to put that to test or view other perspectives. 

Recently someone narrated this analogy to drive home the point that when studying a historical figure one needs to have a multi-dimensional approach rather than be stuck to one view alone, or worse, deny alternate views.  When a surgeon has to perform an operation on his mother, the photographs he has of her are of little or no use; what he needs are the most specialized x-rays.  But, in his office or at his desk, he does not place an x-ray but the most memorable 'live' photo of her!  The x-ray has its place, so does the photograph.  None to be demeaned, but the worth of each to be noted as varying for differing purposes. 

An echo chamber

Read an interesting article on Aeon today: Why it is hard to escape an echo chamber?

As I read this article all I could think, at every instance or para of it was the present grip of Mr Modi on the Indian electorate.  The BJP that is presenting itself is very different from that of the BJP represented by Vajpayee or even Advani.  The former, was distinctly clear about its agenda, course of action and vision.  It made no veiled presentation of itself.  Everyone, not just members of the party, knew what its aims and objectives were.  Not so with the present BJP.  What it has succeeded indeed is turn the Indian mind into an echo chamber.  In doing so it has not blocked itself from 'other voices', merely branded them untrustworthy, corrupted and therefore not worth anything.  Far from doublespeak, or even momentary epistemic glimpses, the echo chamber sounds rational, interested in the truth, active throughout and resonates with voices; but merely endorsing its own principles.  Even the contrary voices somehow are so manipulated (not by changing their content, but by changing the mind of the listener), that they endorse the principles of the 'ghetto'. 

The solution out of this echo chamber?  Trust!  There are numerous voices that resonate in a society.  However we know not whom and what to trust.  Unless we begin to trust a voice and that voice proves itself trustworthy, we will only further entrench ourselves in the echo chamber. 

To be more fair to the reading of the article, I can even look at my own Catholic upbringing as a echo chamber.  However, as long as one is willing to look at, evaluate and even trust other contrary sources, is open minded about the authority of sources other than Catholic sources, am willing to be won over by the goodness I observe, acknowledge and appreciate in others, especially non-Christians... I would think I'm not an ostrich in an echo chamber.  

Post-truth and trust

For quite sometime now, this notion of post-truth has been in circulation.  Ever since Donald Trump took up the presidency of the US, it has gained all the more prominence.  Perhaps that's the only rational explanation one can offer to the otherwise seemingly bizarre and totally 'wrong' things one encounters or sees others hold as right. 

The age old debate between science and religion, as to which of them is right is now no more the central argument.  Why so?  Has it been resolved? Or is it that the issue is no more relevant?  Or is there is a sort of tiredness to keep getting at one another's throat that there is now a declared 'peace'? 

Perhaps the way science has reviewed itself over the past few decades has something to do with it.  Something religion is still shy of doing or at least some feeble attempts are being made in some parts.  In 1970 W. V. Quine and J. S. Ullian in their book The Web of Belief made a strange argument:  that scientific statements are truths not because of their fidelity to external facts but due to their internal coherence and persuasiveness they share with other narratives and statements.  Our beliefs face the test of experience not as each individual compartmentalized fact but as a web or layered body.  Moreover our interaction of individual experience is only with the margins of our belief, not the core of what we hold as true.  So whenever there is something that contradicts or challenges our belief, we are prompted to restore consistency.  But in choosing what to revise or change, we are not guided by facts alone.  The central challenge is not fidelity to external facts but semblance of the entire web.  And in this process, we might end either changing one of the marginal beliefs or even the core of the web.  What plays a crucial role in this whole process is the authority we choose to trust. 

If this principle is right, then it does explain how one can have two seemingly and 'apparent' contradictory beliefs which for one person are totally opposite and for another perfectly compatible.  It is just that they both choose a different authority source.  What then of the external fact? Does that no more have a say in what holds as true or false?  It does but again, what guarantee that what you see is right?  After all, for centuries science believed in geo-centrism.  Technology experts could think of mega data storage only in terms of cabinet files and godowns. 

Well, if that is the case of observable external facts, what about non-material unperceivable realities of life?  Of values and principles?  Though the complications are multiplied, the basic argument of Quine and Ullian about a 'web of belief' still holds true. 

The silent retreat

Four monks decided to meditate silently without speaking for two weeks. They began with enthusiasm and no one said a word the whole day.

By nightfall of the first day, the candle began to flicker and then went out. The first monk blurted out, "Oh, no! The candle is out." The second monk said, "Hey! We are not supposed to speak!" The third monk said in an irritated voice, "What is this? Why did you two break the silence?" The fourth monk smiled and said, "Wow! I'm the only one who hasn't spoken."

Reflection:
Each monk broke the silence for a different reason, each of which is a common stumbling block in our inner journey. The first monk got distracted by one aspect of his experience (the candle) and forgot what was more important - the practice of witnessing without reacting. The second monk was more worried about others following the rules than in actually practicing himself. The third monk let his anger towards the first two monks affect him. And the fourth monk lost his way because of pride. 

Why did the fourth monk speak at all? He could have simply maintained his silence and he would have been successful in his endeavor. But if he had, chances are, the other three might have continued to argue and not even noticed his silence. Some people are like this. Their motto is "If I'm doing something good, but no one notices, I might as well not be doing it at all." They believe that the reward is not in the effort, but in the recognition.

There is a beautiful quote, "It is the prudence​ of knowledge to speak; it is the privilege of wisdom to listen." As we learn to truly listen, witness and observe without impulsively reacting with distraction, judgement, anger and pride, then we understand the true meaning of silence. 

An enchanted world

One of the reasons cited by Charles Taylor (A Secular Age, p. 25) for the transition in people's belief system, from being almost impossible not to believe in God in 1500 to easily not believing in God in the year 2000, is

People lived in an "enchanted" world. 

Rather than explain the term, he then clarifies the meaning of the opposite of it, 'disenchantment'.  And he says, the modern era lives in a disenchanted mode.  Hence in comparison to this, he uses the term 'enchanted' to describe the bygone era.

Taylor is right in this diagnosis.  Today we are far less struck by wonder and amazement than the olden days.  Honestly speaking it is not because we know more or better but we think we know better.  It is not knowledge that throttles a sense of wonder but the pride or false self-esteem of 'owning' knowledge that stifles wonder. 

Just yesterday night did I learn that in Europe the use of wooden or porcelain plates for meals is a little more than a century old.  Prior to that people used bread as the base. And rich households would then throw this 'plate' to the poor or slaves! 

The more one learns, the more one realises how little one knows! 

Phenomenon

It's been more than two weeks since I posted anything.  Not that I was busy.  Rather, was totally free!  Once again prove the age old dictum: Give work only to those who are busy; they will find time to do the additional job too.  To those who have none, don't give any!

Well, last night I watched a decent movie, Phenomenon.  Am surprised I never came across it earlier.  (By now, I must have watched practically most movies which seemed to appear on the IMDb list!).  I liked this movie in particular for the acting of John Travolta.  Never thought such role would be done any justice by an actor of Travolta's type (action, macho, rough type).  The movie is fantasy drama about a man named George Malley who suddenly becomes very bright and intelligent, after he sees a bright light on his 37th birthday.  He then begins to surprise everyone, himself included, with his vast knowledge, increased hunger for reading, psychokinesis skills and lots more.  Only later it is revealed to him that he has a sort of brain tumour that accelerates his brain's potential rather than impede it, but none the less fatal.

Two instances stand out from the movie for me.  The first is when he is angry that the townsfolk are not anymore paying attention to what he has to say but carry on probing him for what they think him to be (in touch with aliens!).  Trying to calm himself he works in his patch of the garden and at one point looks up to the gently swaying of the branches of a tree.  Honestly couldn't make out what exactly was the director hinting at through that scene which results in him becoming more calm and serene.  But one comment from a viewer that it is the realisation that only he is at rage with the rest of creation for not wanting to listen to him. The awareness that the rest of reality, in spite of knowing things and being aware of far greater truths, is still peaceful is a very humbling experience.

The second scene is when a renowned doctor wants to perform a surgery on him just for the advancement of science.  George denies him saying that he is missing out the whole point of exploring the human spirit and is instead focusing on only his brain.

Here's the scene where George explains to the children his imminent death...

A funny scene when the questioner states that he will be specific!

On another lighter note, cannot but mention one of the online viewer comments: 

Someone was diagnosed with a brain tumour and on being told this, asked his doctor if he would now have some superhuman powers.  The doctor replied, "You are not John Travolta and neither is this a movie!"

Dating God can be a nightmare!

A couple of days ago, the incident of a group of priests being asked to leave the pub because the doorman assumed them to be members of a stag party, wearing clerical habit, hit the news and has since become quite a sensation.  However, what surprised me more than the event itself was the news article published in the Daily Mail a few days ago.  Now the Daily Mail is anything but serious news is known to everyone.  Most often it is sleaze and gossip.  But for it to run an article stating why these men chose to be priests was quite amazing and really stood out for me.  I only happened to by chance come upon the article for I rarely pick up this particular newspaper, except for the daily sudoku, crossword and scrabble.

Here are a few points that stood out for me, most significantly about the recruitment and formation of priests:

• The expense of training a young man to be a priest is enormous and lengthy.  Is the person we have after ordination, really worth the expense and time and energy spent all along?  For the time, money and energy invested, what sort of person should this be?  What quality and mettle would this person be made of by the time of his ordination?  
• These men are different but not totally ignorant of the world in which they live and work.  They are people totally immersed in its everyday life.  Now that includes movies, TV shows, popular celebrities, trending talks and videos, ... they may not be huge fans of any but they certainly know it all.  They are not ignorant 'saints' who live in some fantasy world.  They've seen the world - they continue to know the world.  
• The influence of inspirational models ... (in the case of most of these priests, the life and death of John Paul II) it is enormous.  They may not be perpetual models of inspiration, but the trigger they offer in knowing more of Christ and the Church is sufficient enough to 'seduce' them for life. 
• When scandal and mistakes of past haunt the present it is easy to become depressed or even totally avoid or even label the whole church as 'bad'.  The alternative, choose to become 'good'. 
• All of these young men had great opportunities for a career in the world.  They did have high-paying jobs.  Yet they gave it up for they truly felt called for something other than career and money.  Now as priests earning a pittance compared to what they earlier earned, they have no regrets about the money.  The contentment is evident in what you have at hand.  
• What we give up as priests and religious are essential elements of human nature.  But everyone makes sacrifices - even married people.  And are happy to do so.  So it is not what we give up that matters most, but with what attitude we give up what we sacrifice that counts. 
• Liked the comment of one of the priests: We are dating God, building a relationship.  And ...dating God can be a nightmare! 

Read the whole article here.