Here I begin with the sentence “The World is so funny”. The world was created in such a way that God himself could differentiate who were who and what were the responsibilities assigned for? Among all his creations Human being was created to take care of the entire being in this world. But the question here again, did human being really take care of the entire creations?

I thought God made human being as one approved existence in one family. To my retrospection human being were named as “my son in one” by God. But to today’s world view we could not meet one another unlike God created all of us in one. Looking at the Aristotle’s Philosophy in regard to “form and matter” where he said form come first. To Platonism is based on idealism which idea comes first. Which one do we emphasize? God created human being or human beings are creating God in today’s context?

The whole world talks about the peace existence. Do we think that the world was created in peace from the beginning? Or the conflict came into existence in the process of the Heraclitus's theory of a perpetual flux world? To this quest you have to answer from your metaphysic. The answer will jump up from different perspective from different folks with own “JUSTIFICATION” which will appear so funny to one another because of “SELF JUSTIFICATION”. The argument begins here where one don’t agree with the other. It hears so funny seeing what the world is containing of. Here I oblige to all human being to think that we makes world funny or the world are funny to us?

From the philosophical perspective it is said that we need to think and create some thinking out of our rational power. The rational of one may not be true to the other but for the one who rationalized is true. Then we pose a question here, is that not so funny to say that it is right when it is not right to others? From the theological point of view what we think is not authentic unless it comes to the will of God. Then why God created Human being with a thinking capacity? Is it only to think about good and not the bad? And again what is bad and good for you and me? Why God created black and white people, why handsome, beautiful and ugly? I wish a cow could climb the tree, dog fly like a bird, a monkey being husband of a beautiful wife and an elephant under the command of an ant.

Societies and cultures are so funny when it comes to comparison. My country does not have a single wine shop because Biblically it is claimed to be a sin. Socially it has declared to be pollution and physical destruction. But look at the other side of the country, wine is made as a medicine and healthier resources compulsory to take every after meal. One boy traveled somewhere around the world and he was precautious to be aware of his dressing. No half long is entertained the moment you enter the particular destiny because it is considered to be the funny dressing and negative. But, what happen to the culture of those people? They can lift up their cloths name “Lungi” beyond the mini skirt which people could see their VIP. What a contradictory cultures which make the world so funny again.

Millions of religious people talks about their own religion, the truth, heaven and earth, hell and paradise who will lead to what and where? When one man talks about the truth from his religious perspective what is the understanding for the other person from the other religion? It will be a funny talk, why because we have forgotten the theology when we have an inter-religious talk. People talks about the poor and the rich, who are poor and who are rich, why the world not exist totally with poor people neither totally rich? What and how the world could have been if there is only rich people or if only poor people? Don’t you think that the world looks so beautiful with these two diverse ways of life? Can the coin be made with one side? I don’t think so. Then why people fight for the equality? Hence to the Stoics philosophy both pain and pleasure, poverty and riches, sickness and health, were supposed to be equally unimportant, which means it turned to be important.

Half of the world is with the conflicts and half is with not fully peace. Who is fighting for the conflicts and who is fighting for the peace? It seems so funny to see the world in this form. Why it is funny because the one who create conflicts is committed and sacrificial because peace is so destructive for them. Who is authentic and who is not? Who fights for what and who is not? What a funny argument and hard labor world. Albert Kammu’s philosophy of life relates to the absurd world. Many countries are inventing several atomic weapons, are these because they are highly intellectual or because they are insecure from others attack? Many arms groups, many factional, many terrorists have their own right fighting for. It looks so interesting to view because it functions like toys play and children’s kitchens play. What is wrong there to against? Yet, there is.

How is your contextualization with other culture and religious practices? Are there any possibilities where you can easily contextualize? I don’t know and I have no idea.

The idea here is “WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS NOT RIGHT? WHO IS NOT WRONG AND WHO IS WRONG?” It leads to the funny world when the world consists of a dialectical human being that never ends.

Therefore, as a part of this funny world, can you make this funny world into no funny world? Can you make this world and the nature a harmonic unity in Multiplicity?

Country boy

Lemwang W. Chuhwanglim