UP Parish of Holy Sacrifice Schedule:
Maundy Thursday - 5PM
Good Friday - 3PM
Black Saturday - 8PM
We repent today as we repent for our sins everyday. Faith is internal and eternal. It is ahead of us wherever we go. :-)
Ciao!
***
Showing posts with label Philosophical Debates and Thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophical Debates and Thoughts. Show all posts
On Holy Thursday...
...every feet is washed by Jesus as we wash His...
UP Parish of Holy Sacrifice Schedule:
Ciao!
***
UP Parish of Holy Sacrifice Schedule:
Ciao!
***
Brilliant Minds...
... for without them, our lives would be simply benign...
Paul Ricoeur - Hermeneutics
Terence Tao - Prime Numbers
Brian Greene - String Theory/Theory of Everything
Pablo Picasso - Modern Art
D. W. Griffith - Modern Cinema
Paul Ricoeur - HermeneuticsTerence Tao - Prime NumbersBrian Greene - String Theory/Theory of EverythingPablo Picasso - Modern ArtD. W. Griffith - Modern Cinema
On Being Invited at Film-Philosophy III Conference
... and not going...
The invitation came via Facebook (here). And to actually see such an invitation to an international conference on film is enchanting and, of course, acutely complimentary. Film-Philosophy is perhaps one of the best finds in the internet that interlaces both film and philosophy. I read many of their essays and I love them all. But an international event such as this one is impossible in my case. July 2010 is the second month for my last academic year in my Engineering degree program and perhaps the busiest month before Midterms. Coming to England is great if someone will fund me with everything, from accommodations to transportation to shopping. and more importantly, I don't have a passport. But i would dream to be in England and walking on the cobble stones of London. I would if I could. But no!
Anyways, a few more days before the holidays. Busy, busy, busy!
Ciao!
***
The invitation came via Facebook (here). And to actually see such an invitation to an international conference on film is enchanting and, of course, acutely complimentary. Film-Philosophy is perhaps one of the best finds in the internet that interlaces both film and philosophy. I read many of their essays and I love them all. But an international event such as this one is impossible in my case. July 2010 is the second month for my last academic year in my Engineering degree program and perhaps the busiest month before Midterms. Coming to England is great if someone will fund me with everything, from accommodations to transportation to shopping. and more importantly, I don't have a passport. But i would dream to be in England and walking on the cobble stones of London. I would if I could. But no!
Anyways, a few more days before the holidays. Busy, busy, busy!
Ciao!
***
I strongly don't want to read...
...news anymore...
"10 more bodies..." My friend went on and on reading a news from ABS-CBNNEWS.COM and i wanted to get out of the room to fled from the emptiness, for it was horrendous! Horrendous in every sense of the word! What is happening to our moral fiber? Have we lost it? This is insanity, yeah, insanity with a big blow on our history.
......
"10 more bodies..." My friend went on and on reading a news from ABS-CBNNEWS.COM and i wanted to get out of the room to fled from the emptiness, for it was horrendous! Horrendous in every sense of the word! What is happening to our moral fiber? Have we lost it? This is insanity, yeah, insanity with a big blow on our history.......
Book Shopping along Laurel Avenue
...is a Saturday afternoon...
Initially, we have Truffaut to speak about Jules et Jim (1966)
Initially, we have Truffaut to speak about Jules et Jim (1966)
On the other hand, I am having preoccupations of my itinerary this afternoon. As soon as I finished watching the controversial Un Chant d'Amour (1950) in the order of understanding Jean Genet as a homophile, and the vehement contraption he developed on that, i wanted to have coffee at Starbucks and write on my dear old 200-page diary about the influence of Genet to Warhol and Warhol to LaBruce. The complication of such itinerary is melancholia. I have been locked on a strange mood yesterday, maybe because of my incapacity to create my long due stylistic analysis on Tokyo Story (1953). I cannot make my first sentence, and my outline sucks. Also, I am greatly frustrated by my resistance to reread Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov because of my lack of spirit, the lusterless boredom of nothingness.
So i went out in search for the time lost. I walked and had an idea, by 220pm, i wanted to shop for books, lots of them. I ended up at Laurel Avenue at the campus where two bookshops can be located: one, on top of Zago/Mister Doughnut Stall, where i also purchase most of my DVDs, and the other one, at the corner of Laurel Avenue and A. Roces Avenue in front of the Post office. I am in search of something from philosophy, maybe because i miss it as indicated by my previous post just this morning. I settled in at the second shop for lower book prices and i made a reservation on some books to be picked up after i have finished writing this post.
And i have made choices:
Hopefully, some truth will come, somehow, somewhere, on my existential journey, in the light of life and death and feelings of despair.
Cheer up, myself.
Ciao!
***
So i went out in search for the time lost. I walked and had an idea, by 220pm, i wanted to shop for books, lots of them. I ended up at Laurel Avenue at the campus where two bookshops can be located: one, on top of Zago/Mister Doughnut Stall, where i also purchase most of my DVDs, and the other one, at the corner of Laurel Avenue and A. Roces Avenue in front of the Post office. I am in search of something from philosophy, maybe because i miss it as indicated by my previous post just this morning. I settled in at the second shop for lower book prices and i made a reservation on some books to be picked up after i have finished writing this post.
And i have made choices:
Hopefully, some truth will come, somehow, somewhere, on my existential journey, in the light of life and death and feelings of despair.
Cheer up, myself.
Ciao!
***
Spinoza, Wittgenstein and Nietzsche
...i miss them...
Before I ever engaged on film studies, I was totally immersed in philosophy. I am and always have been in love with it. A field of inquiry that connects everything that we see and do not. A peak, a zenith of every human understanding, the closest to truth and furthest from mental and metaphysical blunder, the meaning of one's life, P-H-I-L-O-S-O-P-H-Y. Marvin, you know my work on this. Even though i have shifted from field to field, from theoretical physics to literature to philosophy to film studies, what remains in my sun-colored Barcelona diary from December 2006 - September 2008 are my multi-colored thoughts, scattered in all directions, here and there, up then down, reflecting on the whole expanse of the history of philosophy, and the metaphysical truth of my existence.
I miss them so much. They are such philosophers who all wanted in life is to encompass the totality of reality, and the unreality which continuously blurs it.
--------------------
Fun Facts:
This is how Spinoza proves the existence of God taken from Part I: Concerning God of his magnum opus, Ethics.
Ciao!
***
Before I ever engaged on film studies, I was totally immersed in philosophy. I am and always have been in love with it. A field of inquiry that connects everything that we see and do not. A peak, a zenith of every human understanding, the closest to truth and furthest from mental and metaphysical blunder, the meaning of one's life, P-H-I-L-O-S-O-P-H-Y. Marvin, you know my work on this. Even though i have shifted from field to field, from theoretical physics to literature to philosophy to film studies, what remains in my sun-colored Barcelona diary from December 2006 - September 2008 are my multi-colored thoughts, scattered in all directions, here and there, up then down, reflecting on the whole expanse of the history of philosophy, and the metaphysical truth of my existence.
I miss them so much. They are such philosophers who all wanted in life is to encompass the totality of reality, and the unreality which continuously blurs it.
--------------------
Fun Facts:
This is how Spinoza proves the existence of God taken from Part I: Concerning God of his magnum opus, Ethics.
"The potentiality of non-existence is a negation of power, and contrariwise the potentiality of existence is a power, as is obvious. If, then, that which necessarily exists is nothing but finite beings, such finite beings are more powerful than a being absolutely infinite, which is obviously absurd ; therefore, either nothing exists, or else a being absolutely infinite necessarily exists also. Now we exist either in ourselves, or in something else which necessarily exists (see Axiom. i. and Prop. vii.). Therefore a being absolutely infinite-in other words, God (Def. vi.)—necessarily exists."--------------------
Ciao!
***
How high giants grow?
THE SAD NEWS...
How high giants grow?
***
Essential Links:
Kimboi's "Yellow" post.
CoryAquino.ph
Condrado de Quiros' "Difference" article in PDI (July 21, 2009)
Michale Tan's "Tita, Ate, Madam" article in PDI (July 10, 2009)
Video Supplement: From Ninoy Aquino TV
The Philippines:
We have crossed the threshold of our own history. Written in the palm of this woman, who "knew nothing", is a freedom that we still question today. Look at what we have, as people of this nation, a woman who have lost her life but save millions from the gratuitous insolence of that dark history of our lives. I am speaking not as an individual of sheer indifference but as a collective soul, who believes in faith and, above all, love. Today is August the first. We shed tears because of her death, emptiness looms over board, and we recall once again that unfolding in our history the moment when: in 1986, people crossed the streets over EDSA Ave. in Manila, with a pack of prayers and yellow ribbon. They wanted to free their nation. And they did. But somehow, years seemed to toll behind and the quest for freedom is still there. What then constitute a free state? I guess to answer this question without theory, the archaic language of Politics and Governance that have spurred the minds of thinkers and philosophers throughout our short human history, would require enough courage as that of a battalion of soldiers forging an unknown territory. It places oneself in a zone of fear, and one can unravel with a jolt if not eased. This is what Corazon Aquino faced when she was elected as the President of the Republic of the Philippines last 1986. And this is what i have known so far from my Kasaysayan lectures during my elementary years about the fate of my country more two decades ago. I realized how frail my own sentiments were at that time, and how impossibly numb i was as a young teenager. What concerns me, during Ma'am Chona's, my history teacher, lecture on the revolt of 1986, is nothing but the expectation of a pop quiz that she would give minutes later. I saw Ma'am Chona like a giant, a life force piercing through our young soul, enlivening our fragile little conscience with a solid story from our history. Along with many criticisms and prejudices in her lectures, she still put a central figure for emphasis: Corazon Aquino who stood not just a President of our nation but a symbol of hope, freedom and democracy. But look at what we have now, a symbol of life in her deathbed. What does it mean? What has become of our nation's freedom that embodies her? Have our freedom become stale and unclear? How free am I? What constitute my freedom? Questions after questions after questions, we suddenly become vacuous and meaningless yet we recover from this shocked day by day, through our constant prayers and hope that someday we come together and free ourselves from these endless agony of insecurities, imperfections, and repressions that our nation have truly incurred through the years of silence. I have to clamor this from my heart, though Corazon Aquino is not a perfect president, she has truly become a meaningful part of our lives, an inspiration to rebuild a fallen government after the Marcos regime.
Perhaps, I have become a monster and blamed her for giving headaches to landowners upon passing Republic Act No. 6657, also known as "The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform". Or to call her government the most unstable during the military insurrections for the first three years of her term. But these issues have lost their meanings in time.
We face new era.
She was such a giant, a woman who became a president, who knew only one thing: to change a nation in peace.
We have crossed the threshold of our own history. Written in the palm of this woman, who "knew nothing", is a freedom that we still question today. Look at what we have, as people of this nation, a woman who have lost her life but save millions from the gratuitous insolence of that dark history of our lives. I am speaking not as an individual of sheer indifference but as a collective soul, who believes in faith and, above all, love. Today is August the first. We shed tears because of her death, emptiness looms over board, and we recall once again that unfolding in our history the moment when: in 1986, people crossed the streets over EDSA Ave. in Manila, with a pack of prayers and yellow ribbon. They wanted to free their nation. And they did. But somehow, years seemed to toll behind and the quest for freedom is still there. What then constitute a free state? I guess to answer this question without theory, the archaic language of Politics and Governance that have spurred the minds of thinkers and philosophers throughout our short human history, would require enough courage as that of a battalion of soldiers forging an unknown territory. It places oneself in a zone of fear, and one can unravel with a jolt if not eased. This is what Corazon Aquino faced when she was elected as the President of the Republic of the Philippines last 1986. And this is what i have known so far from my Kasaysayan lectures during my elementary years about the fate of my country more two decades ago. I realized how frail my own sentiments were at that time, and how impossibly numb i was as a young teenager. What concerns me, during Ma'am Chona's, my history teacher, lecture on the revolt of 1986, is nothing but the expectation of a pop quiz that she would give minutes later. I saw Ma'am Chona like a giant, a life force piercing through our young soul, enlivening our fragile little conscience with a solid story from our history. Along with many criticisms and prejudices in her lectures, she still put a central figure for emphasis: Corazon Aquino who stood not just a President of our nation but a symbol of hope, freedom and democracy. But look at what we have now, a symbol of life in her deathbed. What does it mean? What has become of our nation's freedom that embodies her? Have our freedom become stale and unclear? How free am I? What constitute my freedom? Questions after questions after questions, we suddenly become vacuous and meaningless yet we recover from this shocked day by day, through our constant prayers and hope that someday we come together and free ourselves from these endless agony of insecurities, imperfections, and repressions that our nation have truly incurred through the years of silence. I have to clamor this from my heart, though Corazon Aquino is not a perfect president, she has truly become a meaningful part of our lives, an inspiration to rebuild a fallen government after the Marcos regime.
Perhaps, I have become a monster and blamed her for giving headaches to landowners upon passing Republic Act No. 6657, also known as "The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform". Or to call her government the most unstable during the military insurrections for the first three years of her term. But these issues have lost their meanings in time.
We face new era.
She was such a giant, a woman who became a president, who knew only one thing: to change a nation in peace.
How high giants grow?
"The more you look at it, particularly in light of recent events, the more you see the awesome differences between Corazon Aquino and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. At first blush, they have similarities too, which are that they are both women and the product of People Power. But at second blush, even those similarities are differences."
- Condrado de Quiros (here)
***
Essential Links:
Kimboi's "Yellow" post.
CoryAquino.ph
Condrado de Quiros' "Difference" article in PDI (July 21, 2009)
Michale Tan's "Tita, Ate, Madam" article in PDI (July 10, 2009)
Video Supplement: From Ninoy Aquino TV
A Note on Serious Writing
a short commentary
A clip from 'The Hours' depicting the power of writing.
I submitted myself to critique a short animated film, Drux Flux (2008) by Theordore Ushev. This is, ladies and gentlemen, my first attempt to criticize a film by heart, though my first criticism was submitted to my English teacher last January as a reaction paper requirement. It's been days now since i started talking about postmodernism and the avant-gardism in my critique, and now, after reading the article "Film and Postmodernism" by John Jill, I started to think that my arguments failed.
Mainly because i committed the most stupid mistake of all: CATEGORY ERROR. It seems a bit odd to term this as 'the most stupid mistake of all' but actually, for any serious writer, mixing categories is not a good way to handle one's arguments. Plainly, the fact when one reads your article or essay, let us say a young film studies major who do not exactly know the difference between Lacan's interpretation of semiotics to that of Saussure, it should be 'a-must' that it follows a simple, well-planned structure to let the reader know what he should think and how should he think about it.
One thing to avoid is a category mistake. Category mistake, proposed by Gilbert Ryle to attack Descartes' concept of mind and body, is committed when 'we talk of something in terms appropriate only to something of a radically different kind.' [link]
Let me give you an example:
Simple ones:
"Every apple is a pig."
"Adrian Mendizabal is a scientific knowledge."
Compound ones:
"Adrian is a dormer. Manuel is also a dormer. Ms. Tirona is the dorm manager. But where is the dormitory?"
"A postmodern society is characterize by intertextuality (a principle which denies the existence of grand absolute universal truths)." ----- [this is my very obvious mistake that i wrote on my criticism and on a post at Jan's Blog, by the way, thank you so much Jan for posting my comment as a guest post]
Why is the last example a categorical mistake?
When one talks about a society, it ascribes a property characteristic of a society. It prompts a discussion about society, sociological issues, culture, etc. It may discuss social philosophy but this requires a sufficient analysis on the philosophy attributed to that society. Let us say we are talking about the 'postmodern society'. It cannot be characterized as being 'intertexual' because they are totally and radically different categories. Intertextuality is a philosophical principle, a product of a Lyotard's attempt to define the 'postmodern condition' of thought.
However, when one says about the 'postmodern society' it follows that the writer must give descriptions like a postmodern society should be media-driven, indicative of a fast-paced lifestyle, technologically advance, etc. It cannot be mentioned in terms of philosophy because philosophy is different category. The term follows a different formulaic structure of thoughts .
haha! this is really a high-end type of clarifying a mistake, i really apologize for that.
But this is what i want you to understand:
1) Do not commit a categorical mistake when writing. It's atrocious. Although the famous Descartes committed one, it should be avoided.
2) Serious writing requires a good way to carry arguments, not just blubber out words and connecting ideas with others.
3) Film criticism, for me, is a form of serious writing which requires dedication and time.
Yeah! i admit it, I'm a perfectionist when it comes to writing. Well, i consider writing as an art. The way one puts sentences in a paragraph to add effects to the readers is an art. I mostly think that sentences are like blocks of wood with shapes which can arranged into many forms to depict different moods or effects. To look at it a fundamental level, punctuation works similar to sentence placement as well.
Creative writing works differently. A creative writer manipulates each element: words, sentences, paragraphs, punctuations etc. to create an imagery or an idea. every move is crucial.
Anyway i just want to wrap this insanely philosophical view on writing by giving away this music video. It is a conglomeration of my favorite song 'Breathe me' by Sia and one of my favorite scenes in 'The Hours'.
Enjoy. Write well.
Mainly because i committed the most stupid mistake of all: CATEGORY ERROR. It seems a bit odd to term this as 'the most stupid mistake of all' but actually, for any serious writer, mixing categories is not a good way to handle one's arguments. Plainly, the fact when one reads your article or essay, let us say a young film studies major who do not exactly know the difference between Lacan's interpretation of semiotics to that of Saussure, it should be 'a-must' that it follows a simple, well-planned structure to let the reader know what he should think and how should he think about it.
One thing to avoid is a category mistake. Category mistake, proposed by Gilbert Ryle to attack Descartes' concept of mind and body, is committed when 'we talk of something in terms appropriate only to something of a radically different kind.' [link]
Let me give you an example:
Simple ones:
"Every apple is a pig."
"Adrian Mendizabal is a scientific knowledge."
Compound ones:
"Adrian is a dormer. Manuel is also a dormer. Ms. Tirona is the dorm manager. But where is the dormitory?"
"A postmodern society is characterize by intertextuality (a principle which denies the existence of grand absolute universal truths)." ----- [this is my very obvious mistake that i wrote on my criticism and on a post at Jan's Blog, by the way, thank you so much Jan for posting my comment as a guest post]
Why is the last example a categorical mistake?
When one talks about a society, it ascribes a property characteristic of a society. It prompts a discussion about society, sociological issues, culture, etc. It may discuss social philosophy but this requires a sufficient analysis on the philosophy attributed to that society. Let us say we are talking about the 'postmodern society'. It cannot be characterized as being 'intertexual' because they are totally and radically different categories. Intertextuality is a philosophical principle, a product of a Lyotard's attempt to define the 'postmodern condition' of thought.
However, when one says about the 'postmodern society' it follows that the writer must give descriptions like a postmodern society should be media-driven, indicative of a fast-paced lifestyle, technologically advance, etc. It cannot be mentioned in terms of philosophy because philosophy is different category. The term follows a different formulaic structure of thoughts .
haha! this is really a high-end type of clarifying a mistake, i really apologize for that.
But this is what i want you to understand:
1) Do not commit a categorical mistake when writing. It's atrocious. Although the famous Descartes committed one, it should be avoided.
2) Serious writing requires a good way to carry arguments, not just blubber out words and connecting ideas with others.
3) Film criticism, for me, is a form of serious writing which requires dedication and time.
Yeah! i admit it, I'm a perfectionist when it comes to writing. Well, i consider writing as an art. The way one puts sentences in a paragraph to add effects to the readers is an art. I mostly think that sentences are like blocks of wood with shapes which can arranged into many forms to depict different moods or effects. To look at it a fundamental level, punctuation works similar to sentence placement as well.
Creative writing works differently. A creative writer manipulates each element: words, sentences, paragraphs, punctuations etc. to create an imagery or an idea. every move is crucial.
Anyway i just want to wrap this insanely philosophical view on writing by giving away this music video. It is a conglomeration of my favorite song 'Breathe me' by Sia and one of my favorite scenes in 'The Hours'.
Enjoy. Write well.
A great mix!
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Relevant Days of Pleasure: An Account of My Sem Break - 1st BOUT
Relevant Days of Pleasure:
An Account of My Sem Break
1st BOUT
a philosophical thought and a reflection
An Account of My Sem Break
1st BOUT
a philosophical thought and a reflection
BUS TERMINAL: Philosophically Trapped in my seat
The shards of time became known to me as I rode on a bus from Manila. My reference point of my journey was Cubao Terminal. For me, it is one of the busiest bus terminals in Metro Manila that is close to my heart. A lot of things happened out there and a lot of things have changed. I noticed that there were empty chairs lying on the long aisle of the station. i sat on a bench in front of Station 12 waiting for my bus to arrive at 530 PM and i was beginning to fear that this tumultuous moment shall be gone forever. So i wrote a quick account of my short experience on that bench sitting alone.
I saw a old woman and she came to me asking a question. I hesitated at first, looking at my Starbucks Venti Coffee to ignore her presence, but i pledge to talked to her again. She asked me if i saw a little carton lying around here, just a small one that a rat of a size of my palm would fit. I could picture how the carton would appear, but i shrugged my head and said no. I could not bear my position: sitting on bench with the rest of my unwanted things by side. She was in front of me helpless of her strap bags curling her wrists. I wanted to help her. But i just sat there with a heart of a stone.
What could i possibly do? Pity is such a wounded word to even perceive in my dark, luring eyes. I wonder if i could offer her a seat. I was still hesitating with a bad heart. I thought, "What could be her importance to me? A old woman carrying some heavy load, why should i take a burden of someone whom i have no relations? What is this fear that i must endure?"
I thought of these immeasurable questions for quite sometime but i offered her a sit beside me. i haven't looked at her and focused on the music coming from my small iPod. Yet the voices of conscience whispered frightful and thrilling words, the ones that i was bound to share to all those who wanted to be happy.
Of all creatures in this planet, men have, above all, a big heart. In his most vulnerable state, his mind does not wonder anymore. The words of his heart becomes clearer than what the mind conceives. It is the state that one can experience during his most fragile stage of growth: birth. The process of becoming a man is more complex than the process of becoming a human. A man has social role, a role that exists between men living in a cultured society. This role must fruitfully satisfies the moralistic absolutes of the universe.
To be human is to be isolated from this moralistic absolutes and led his life in an amoral way. To be a man is to be bounded with such moralistic absolutes that the universe withholds and endured for millions of years since the beginning of creation. The moral absolutes are inescapable. Every human must know it exists. Moral absolutes transforms humans into men and men lead their lives under this rudimentary concepts.
During fertilization, when the egg meets the sperm, a human is formed but not a man. Moral absolutes are injected during this formation. The existence of human in a mother's womb where he exchanges responses from the mother made him exist as a man not a human. He can now call himself a man who is good, and to be a man he must adhere to this moral absolutes that are still of great mystery to us. A moral being is man not a human.
Mother and Child.
In my quest to understanding my OLD LADY DILEMMA, my mind wonder deeper and deeper into this question of moral absolutism and the importance of throwing a hand into someone in despair.
To be moral is to be good as well as to be a man. Can this be altruism? A selfless act for the welfare of others? Or it can be much, and even more than just a traditional value that most cultures around the world exercise? What makes this act universal? What is absolute in this act?
How can this act be moral without being affected by culture?
During the process of birth, the transformation of human to man entails a transformation of the heart. This heart is the beacon of all biasness and neutrality, all human things, all men things are embodied in this complex system of thoughts and actions. The heart can be very personal possession of our own but it speaks a universal language: emotions. This emotions manifests in all fields of character, which means it both exists independently in the external and internal field of a being. The heart can be viewed as two unparalleled perspectives, depending on which field it has been portrayed (externally-smiling: internally-joy or elation) but it can only mean one thing.
This heart, in order to exists, must transform from isolation of an amoral human heart into a heart of a man who has claimed it's moral absolute through the process of human formation. this heart of a man has a fundamental role to be good and to be social. The heart yields to the power to feel not only ourselves (as what an amoral heart would only do) but also others. This power is sympathy. A heart of man has a power to be good and to sympathize with other hearts as well.
On this OLD LADY DILEMMA, this power becomes fundamentally realized. The need for a seat is not suggested by altruism alone, but basically suggested by the sympathy of the heart to give space and freedom to this old lady.
Altruism and welfare are culturally based concepts. I seek for a more fundamental ground to solve this dilemma and came with an answer: Our hearts, of men, are principally good and sympathetic. Each action, when we subject ourselves into the world at large are determined by this reference. How far, how much deviations from these truths are a matter of character of men. When we were created, we were transformed from amoral humans to moral men.
It is a matter of heart that distinguishes our moral fibers from other men. No man is amoral. Every man has a heart.
Ciao! God bless!
I saw a old woman and she came to me asking a question. I hesitated at first, looking at my Starbucks Venti Coffee to ignore her presence, but i pledge to talked to her again. She asked me if i saw a little carton lying around here, just a small one that a rat of a size of my palm would fit. I could picture how the carton would appear, but i shrugged my head and said no. I could not bear my position: sitting on bench with the rest of my unwanted things by side. She was in front of me helpless of her strap bags curling her wrists. I wanted to help her. But i just sat there with a heart of a stone.
What could i possibly do? Pity is such a wounded word to even perceive in my dark, luring eyes. I wonder if i could offer her a seat. I was still hesitating with a bad heart. I thought, "What could be her importance to me? A old woman carrying some heavy load, why should i take a burden of someone whom i have no relations? What is this fear that i must endure?"
I thought of these immeasurable questions for quite sometime but i offered her a sit beside me. i haven't looked at her and focused on the music coming from my small iPod. Yet the voices of conscience whispered frightful and thrilling words, the ones that i was bound to share to all those who wanted to be happy.
Of all creatures in this planet, men have, above all, a big heart. In his most vulnerable state, his mind does not wonder anymore. The words of his heart becomes clearer than what the mind conceives. It is the state that one can experience during his most fragile stage of growth: birth. The process of becoming a man is more complex than the process of becoming a human. A man has social role, a role that exists between men living in a cultured society. This role must fruitfully satisfies the moralistic absolutes of the universe.
To be human is to be isolated from this moralistic absolutes and led his life in an amoral way. To be a man is to be bounded with such moralistic absolutes that the universe withholds and endured for millions of years since the beginning of creation. The moral absolutes are inescapable. Every human must know it exists. Moral absolutes transforms humans into men and men lead their lives under this rudimentary concepts.
During fertilization, when the egg meets the sperm, a human is formed but not a man. Moral absolutes are injected during this formation. The existence of human in a mother's womb where he exchanges responses from the mother made him exist as a man not a human. He can now call himself a man who is good, and to be a man he must adhere to this moral absolutes that are still of great mystery to us. A moral being is man not a human.
Mother and Child.
Photo credit to this site (Click here!)
In my quest to understanding my OLD LADY DILEMMA, my mind wonder deeper and deeper into this question of moral absolutism and the importance of throwing a hand into someone in despair.
To be moral is to be good as well as to be a man. Can this be altruism? A selfless act for the welfare of others? Or it can be much, and even more than just a traditional value that most cultures around the world exercise? What makes this act universal? What is absolute in this act?
How can this act be moral without being affected by culture?
During the process of birth, the transformation of human to man entails a transformation of the heart. This heart is the beacon of all biasness and neutrality, all human things, all men things are embodied in this complex system of thoughts and actions. The heart can be very personal possession of our own but it speaks a universal language: emotions. This emotions manifests in all fields of character, which means it both exists independently in the external and internal field of a being. The heart can be viewed as two unparalleled perspectives, depending on which field it has been portrayed (externally-smiling: internally-joy or elation) but it can only mean one thing.
This heart, in order to exists, must transform from isolation of an amoral human heart into a heart of a man who has claimed it's moral absolute through the process of human formation. this heart of a man has a fundamental role to be good and to be social. The heart yields to the power to feel not only ourselves (as what an amoral heart would only do) but also others. This power is sympathy. A heart of man has a power to be good and to sympathize with other hearts as well.
On this OLD LADY DILEMMA, this power becomes fundamentally realized. The need for a seat is not suggested by altruism alone, but basically suggested by the sympathy of the heart to give space and freedom to this old lady.
Altruism and welfare are culturally based concepts. I seek for a more fundamental ground to solve this dilemma and came with an answer: Our hearts, of men, are principally good and sympathetic. Each action, when we subject ourselves into the world at large are determined by this reference. How far, how much deviations from these truths are a matter of character of men. When we were created, we were transformed from amoral humans to moral men.
It is a matter of heart that distinguishes our moral fibers from other men. No man is amoral. Every man has a heart.
Ciao! God bless!
All Saint's Day: Finding the Value of Death
All Saint's Day:
Finding the Value of Death
a reflection
A deep lament of a candle on my grandma D's tomb.
The flickering lights of candles in every corner, the stench of sodden earth and the line of people from the crowded entrance: my typical Saturday turned hiatus on a public cemetery of Sorsogon City.
In a sense i could just walk away from everything and take a ride to a local fast food store to have a cup of coffee, but i stood there with my mother and father putting a melancholic gaze at a concrete box where my late grandmother 'D' lie. The burning fear of being caught by my indecision and disinterest on all saint's day by my parents succumbed by my comfort of sitting back on a chair and watching smallville in my laptop. i stood there with my clammy hands on the pocket of my grunge jeans. I still wonder the importance of this occasion. I still wonder what could be more important than just looking at the flickering light of the candle in front of my grandparent's grave.
I wouldn't dare to ask my father because i should know by now the importance of this occasion given that I am a third year undergrad of the top school of my country. So i asked myself with good intentions. I reflected on this idea hopping to get a quick answer. What could make this an important occasion? The basic idea is being there, or so i thought.
At memorial garden where the rest of my late family members lies.
Ethics has a basic premise: existence of men in a cultured society. Ethical choice motivates me to continue this cultural action without a word. Religion seemed to complete this choice and converge it into a system of beliefs practice annually. It is a culturally bounded idea fulfilled by cultured society of men. This seemed to be a heavy explanation. It simply means that what i just did being there is an ethical obligation that one must achieve. It is more of a socio-cultural choice than a religious one.
In the Philippines, the celebration of all saint's day is a reunion and a sign. Reunion concept is heavily associated with the kind of family tie that exist in Philippine society. With family as a basic unit of society the success of this ethical choice is the collaboration of a family. The attachment of each individual in this basic unit is determined by their basic functions as human beings and as cultured beings. This certain bond with each other is so intense that we honor even those who have died. This occasion is the culmination of this honor and respect.
This honor to the dead is true in all culture of the worlds. Egyptians are best at honorific treatment of the dead. The great deal of mummification and the formation of tombs and pyramids for honoring the dead even marked them as the founders of modern engineering and modern medicine. They even treat the dead as their gods in afterlife. The metaphysical significance of death is important to men.
Mummified dead of some Egyptian.
Photo credit to this site!
In a sense i could just walk away from everything and take a ride to a local fast food store to have a cup of coffee, but i stood there with my mother and father putting a melancholic gaze at a concrete box where my late grandmother 'D' lie. The burning fear of being caught by my indecision and disinterest on all saint's day by my parents succumbed by my comfort of sitting back on a chair and watching smallville in my laptop. i stood there with my clammy hands on the pocket of my grunge jeans. I still wonder the importance of this occasion. I still wonder what could be more important than just looking at the flickering light of the candle in front of my grandparent's grave.
I wouldn't dare to ask my father because i should know by now the importance of this occasion given that I am a third year undergrad of the top school of my country. So i asked myself with good intentions. I reflected on this idea hopping to get a quick answer. What could make this an important occasion? The basic idea is being there, or so i thought.
At memorial garden where the rest of my late family members lies. Ethics has a basic premise: existence of men in a cultured society. Ethical choice motivates me to continue this cultural action without a word. Religion seemed to complete this choice and converge it into a system of beliefs practice annually. It is a culturally bounded idea fulfilled by cultured society of men. This seemed to be a heavy explanation. It simply means that what i just did being there is an ethical obligation that one must achieve. It is more of a socio-cultural choice than a religious one.
In the Philippines, the celebration of all saint's day is a reunion and a sign. Reunion concept is heavily associated with the kind of family tie that exist in Philippine society. With family as a basic unit of society the success of this ethical choice is the collaboration of a family. The attachment of each individual in this basic unit is determined by their basic functions as human beings and as cultured beings. This certain bond with each other is so intense that we honor even those who have died. This occasion is the culmination of this honor and respect.
This honor to the dead is true in all culture of the worlds. Egyptians are best at honorific treatment of the dead. The great deal of mummification and the formation of tombs and pyramids for honoring the dead even marked them as the founders of modern engineering and modern medicine. They even treat the dead as their gods in afterlife. The metaphysical significance of death is important to men.
Mummified dead of some Egyptian.
Photo credit to this site!
Dying seems to be a fearful thing to experience but it is the most natural thing in the world. The philosophy of dying expands from the origin of our civilization until today and it has a basic idea: when we die we live an afterlife. Philosophical debates have led to some idea about this afterlife. The Catholics believe the Christian idea of death which suggests that the life after death is eternity with the God, or otherwise. Hindus believe in the reincarnation of the soul like what ancient Egyptians believe also. Existentialists believe that the life after death is nonexistent. This concern of dying is highly debated until now in metaphysics, a branch of philosophy tasked to answer questions like does God exist or does the life after death exist.
A burning candle of love offered to my grandfather
who passed away last year.
However, in my opinion the great deal of coming to the cemetery on All Saint's Day is both an ethical and spiritual task that is fundamental to those who believe in the life after death. Ethics dictates that we do this because culturally we are bound by close family ties to respect the attachment to a particular person. Metaphysics dictates that we go to the cemetery during this day because we lament with our existence as human beings with a soul trapped in a body and to honor the metaphysical process of death and life after death.
i went home that night overwhelmed with this idea.
I do not believe in the existence of ghosts living with us. There is nothing to fear about the dead. But i do believe in the existence of life after death. The life after death and the souls that belong to this circle shares a dissimilar world with us. It is not even a world but a place the God only provided for such eternal beings.
BE not afraid.
Ciao! God bless!
A burning candle of love offered to my grandfather
who passed away last year.
However, in my opinion the great deal of coming to the cemetery on All Saint's Day is both an ethical and spiritual task that is fundamental to those who believe in the life after death. Ethics dictates that we do this because culturally we are bound by close family ties to respect the attachment to a particular person. Metaphysics dictates that we go to the cemetery during this day because we lament with our existence as human beings with a soul trapped in a body and to honor the metaphysical process of death and life after death.
i went home that night overwhelmed with this idea.
I do not believe in the existence of ghosts living with us. There is nothing to fear about the dead. But i do believe in the existence of life after death. The life after death and the souls that belong to this circle shares a dissimilar world with us. It is not even a world but a place the God only provided for such eternal beings.
BE not afraid.
Ciao! God bless!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)