A Reflection on the Film Serbis

by Patrick Cruz

Until now, the weight attached to the steps of each character in the film Serbis still resounds to my ears-- the heavy steps of Alan (Coco Martin) back when he was very confused at a point in his life, until he made that decision to leave the place, counter flow with the people around him; the uncertain steps of Nayda (Jacklyn Jose) as she began to rethink on things that could have happened had she done what should have been rightly done; and the light steps of Nanay Flor (Gina Pareno) as she chose to make most out of the seemingly ordinary things she has in life.

Ironically, this weight that had pulled these characters down was the same weight that had raised the people watching to moral height, at least for me. A point was emphasized by Mr. Calasanz when he discussed a closed circle—a relationship with the Other that goes back to self, which is actually false infinity. In the film, it can be seen how Alan had never understood not only on how his partner felt for his actions, but also how truly human his partner is. This main character had seen the Other only as a form of nourishment, a tool for his own growth. He constantly went back to himself, alone, assuring his own security and without realizing further the unfruitfulness of the relation. He lay asymptotic to the other person, who seemed near for him, but actually almost at the other end. With all of these, the film had raised an idea about a relation different from what was first depicted at first in the film-- a movement of self for the Other, without returning back to self.

First, this movement is characterized by a journey--  a journey to and with the Other; to as one recognizes the mystery of the other, and with as one and the Other move together. Here, one realizes that the Other is a person totally different from me. A man is much different from a woman, and also with the other men. Each has his own story, his own experience, his own background, etc. Thus, in this relation, the Other is no longer reduced to the Same and the his otherness already starts to flourish. Moreover, the fact that the Other is different to me calls for an extension of self, to respond towards the mystery. In a relation, one risks for the Other, escaping from the security he has created around himself, escaping from that false infinity. It is through this notion that one fully participates in the relation, making him and the Other grow together. Nevertheless, this act has and will always involve a free choice from each person participating in it.

Second, it must be clarified that this movement does not remove the love of self; in fact, it purifies that love. It does so by realizing that it is only through the Other that one genuinely loves himself. A person who relates to people but only in reference to himself does not fully love himself. That is because he hinders the possibilities of broadening more his horizon, by not taking risks to include more people in his sphere and to truly interact with them as humans. Hence, when this person gets into a situation demanding a disinterest of self, he simply refers back to himself, getting stuck in that circular relationship. As risk has not been taken and fear dominates, his love of self is not completely pure. On the other hand, when one journeys for the Other, he expands himself by taking risks for the otherness of the Other. He then realizes his own fullness as human in contact with other people, making the love of self much purer.


To end, I can say that: “Ang ugnayan sa ibang tao ay ang pakikibahagi sa ibang tao-- ang paulit-ulit na pagtataya ng sarili kalakip ng pagpapasyang tuklasin ang kaibahan ng iba, sa pag-asang sa paghahanap nito, higit na mabibigyan nang karampatang kasagutan ang tanong na paulit-ulit na gumagambala sa atin: ‘Ano nga ba ang maging isang tao?’ “

We Can Be Something More

by Luis Tanjuatco

Last week, we had a topic about the I and the Other, but this time it was in relation to the Parent (Mother or Father) and to their Child (Son or Daughter). It really made me think about my given path in life. Is what I’m doing in my life what I really want? Is this the right choice I’m making? Or is it because my parents forced me to do so?

My dad is a businessman and my mom was a chef, but instead of choosing the same path they took, I believe that my rightful place is to become a doctor. My parents fully support me on this journey and choice that I’ve made and they’ve allowed me to grow in many ways possible. I just can’t imagine what would it be like if they hindered me from choosing this path and becoming something else or even forcing me to follow in their footsteps. I see though that some of my friends don’t have the liberty and freedom to choose what they want to be when they get older. Sometimes, even the parents don’t support them for their decisions. Parents force their kids to take college degrees and job choices that the parents want them to be and not allowing their child to choose. It is somewhat like the parents are imaging and making them a shadow of themselves. This should not be the case.

Parents should learn to let go and to allow their child to choose what they want to do in their lives. Forcing them to choose something that they aren't will just make them depressed and miserable. Parents should let their kids become something great in their lives, maybe even becoming something better or more successful than themselves. The best thing that a mom and/or dad can do is to simply support them on their journey. No matter how hard or rough it may seem, even if they make mistakes, parents should always believe in their children that they could be something more.

Panliligaw

by Dominic Echiverri

Panliligaw translates to courting. But if we break the word down, the root word is "ligaw".

Ligaw = to court, to woo; likewise, ligaw = to confuse, to mislead.

Levinas discusses love and and filiation, and on the matter of identifying with and being for the Other, the general misconception or fault of love is that it seems to be a matter of convenience. "I like this person because she has the features that I want to see, she's the person I want to complement my personality, she has those which keep ME interested". Love, and courting, are misidentified as means of finding someone who reflects the I. "The rule of the I" of Western Philosophy where the central figure is oneself.

And this seems to be the dis-inter-esse, or the disinterest, which in breaking down, shows this movement towards the radically other, the Other who is radically different a selfsame.

Basically, it seems Levinas wants us to stop the panliligaw.

If your panliligaw holds true to the original Filipino breakdown of the verb, you mislead the person to thinking you like her because you find qualities that she uniquely exhibits or presents as her own. You confuse the person by identifying and highlighting notable traits about her as if they were genuinely and uniquely hers, when in fact, these traits are mainly what satisfy or interest YOU and it doesn't really matter how it contributes or exudes HER, the radically other.

Examples:
Crush kita kasi ang ganda ng mata mo (kasi may thing ka para sa mga mata)
Crush kita kasi ang ganda ng boses mo (kasi may thing ka sa mga tila pangmalandi ang boses)
Crush kita kasi ang cute mo tumawa (kasi may thing ka sa mga tumatawa na parang si Joker)

But as you can see, it isn't because it makes her, her. Cut the crap: you like those traits because they satisfy or they interest YOU. And in the process of panliligaw, you make her believe those are her strongest or most completing assets.

This confusion, however, actually also works against oneself. It makes one believe that he is in love with that person, when in fact, he is in love with someone who reflects what HE wants to see. The Her is lost because the I dictated or constituted what makes her "otherness".

The Other is reduced to an extension of the Self.

Examples:
She's beautiful (interpretation: pangtrophy wife ang dating, matching my confidence)
He's soooooo hawt (interpretation: pag eto nakuha ko, ultimate revenge sa chismosa kong blockmate)
She got that smart thang going on (interpretation: convenient reviewmate bago mag-Finals. G)

Levinas' assertion is this dis-inter-esse, which for me is the radical movement of going out (dis) and be in full contact (inter) with the other (esse), which definitely constitutes separating oneself from, or suspending, one's own biases.

Instead of dressing up the Other in a cloud of I's, why not allow the Other to exude that Other-ness to the I? After all (and to quote something cliche): it's not always about you.

Breaking the Law

by Patrick Cruz

Rethinking that time when I had made the choice of joining the relief efforts for the areas struck by Typhoon Yolanda, I question myself: is it really for them, or just for me?

In many cases, not just in that particular situation, that I constantly raise that question to myself. More often, I end up still remaining clueless because the issue at hand seems to be putting me in a circular track. But as Dr. Garcia discussed Levinas’ Law of the I and Law of the Other, certain things got clarified. Before going to this, the laws, Law of the I and Law of the Other, must first be understood carefully. Law of the I basically defines one who has already gone out for the other, but still chooses to return to himself purposively. All the things that this person does is always in reference to himself, where he is the center of the universe and he has already become the law. He sees things merely interconnected for his own benefit and his personal growth. He never creates ultimately meaningful relationships as he is afraid to fully set off from himself and risk for the people around him. For example, when this person lends a hand to his friend, he already thinks that his friend would start to have utang na loob to him. This person knows that someday, he should also ask a favor to him. The same case can be said when a person simply gives a help he’s most comfortable with. Every interaction with other is always seen as an opportunity for nourishment of one’s self alone, without having any concern on the other.

Totally opposite to this idea is the Law of the Other. This law defines a person who has gone out for the other and remains journeying through the mystery of the other. Here, Levinas speaks about dis-inter-ested-ness, how a person removes himself as the center of his own universe and includes other people to share his own. The person remains in the loving struggle of seeking the otherness of the other in building more meaningful relationships.


As I said earlier, certain things became clear as these ideas occupied my mind. One is that certainly, a person does things not only for himself. I might have felt the joy after I have helped, but that only comes after the choice that I made, where the affected people are much included. Another is that a person cannot fully relate with the other people by simply sharing tangential worlds with them. He must fully open himself in order to construct a bigger universe where more and more people can come in, even if he does not realize yet his growth along the way. There, I have sought for them, and not to find a place for myself. Truly, though I have not known yet to whom the efforts I exerted went to, I will always seek them and they will always remain to me.

On Choosing and Making Friends

by Christian Gallardo

Emmanuel Levinas made the distinction between the “Law of the I” and the “Law of the Other”. He stated that the pattern of the Western thought, which follows the “Law of the I”, is that the I goes to the Other but only to go back to one’s self. On the contrary, the pattern of the “Law of the Other” is that the I goes to Other and remains there. From this we can imply that the “Law of the I” goes to the Other with the intention of a gain for one’s self. It reduces the “alterity” of the Other in a way that the Other is reduced to what the functionality is for the I. Hence, its relationship is more egoistic. On the other hand, the relationship of the “Law of the Other” is altruistic and selfless, meaning, it is not based on any gain or benefits, rather, it is based on caring or being responsible for the Other which respects its uniqueness.

Upon hearing, I could not help but relate it with the aspect of choosing or making friends. When I entered High School, I was frequently advised by my parents to choose decent friends which would be a good influence to me throughout my life. I was reminded often, especially during my first year in high school, to stay away from drug addicts, cigarette smokers, students who cut classes just to hang around somewhere and the like. This reminder somehow instilled in me a thought that friends should be chosen, not made.

Furthermore, it turns out that when I entered High School, “cliques” are very common. Cliques refer to a group of people having a common interest or other features and they do not readily allow other people without such same interest or feature to join them. Hence, I encountered various “cliques”, from group of preppies, to nerds, to rock stars, to athletes and so on and forth. Furthermore, I also encountered some people who hang out with “friends” to make them stand out. And this proved to me that friends are really chosen, not made.

Although these are the type of relationships that Levinas is opposing to. One must not go out to the Other because of one’s selfish interest. One must not reduce the Other to what one wants it to be. We should not choose our friends. Instead, we should make friends. One must respect the Alterity of the Other- its uniqueness and mystery that makes life more exciting. True and good friends must respect the Alterity of each other anyway so friends must not force each other to conform and to be uniform. Rather, friends must allow each other to grow and develop “to be”.

In Life's U-Turn

by Eve Avila

NOTE: This is an article published over Rappler.

A handsome old man (the proprietor of the 3-star hotel where I stayed recently in Jodhpur, India) noticed that we were born in the same year (he saw it in the registry book) but asked how come I did not look my age. Then he was fast to say that it’s perhaps because my hair does not show as I wear a turban and I don’t have an elp. And what is that? He proceeded to demonstrate that it’s the flabby skin under the chin most commonly found among elderly women. I will be untruthful if I say I did not enjoy it when he pecked me on the cheek.

A few years before reaching the compulsory retirement age, I left my full-time job to volunteer overseas. After two years in Africa, I am back home and experiencing an identity crisis similar to a child who is in transition to becoming a teenager.

Should I be deliberate about trying not to look elderly and utter a white lie when casually asked in what year I was born? What for? Unless I make it a past-time to engage in a guessing game. In this modern world of inclusivity and equal opportunity, it has become acceptable to come-as-you are.

Feeling good

Regardless of my age, I still want to look good because it makes me feel good. When I feel good, I can make people around me feel good, too.

With age, my eyebrows are now disappearing with a speck of white hairs left. No problem. I have the time to pluck the white hairs and meticulously arch my brows. I even apply mascara now when before I thought it was a time-waster.

As I still do not have sagging upper arms (no elp), I am more emboldened to wear haltered or sleeveless tops especially during the summer months. I don’t worry about the underarm hairs because they are now maintenance-free, if not invisible, being sparse and white.

I wear a turban or a hat to protect my hair coloring which easily fades with the sun. But frankly, I think I look younger with those colorful head gears.

Carded

Accepting the truths associated with my age has indeed set me free. The first step to gaining that liberation was to apply for a senior citizens card.

A senior citizens card is far more superior than those issued by banks for their high net worth clients or international airline carriers for their frequent flyers or business and first class travelers. One is issued a senior citizens card not on the basis of how much money you have shelled-out to gain the special treatment. By simply letting nature take its course, one becomes privileged. So why not enjoy the ride?

As a senior citizen, I can jump queues almost everywhere, except when lining up for Holy Communion. I get special seats even in the cashier’s queue of a supermarket, discounts on purchases including movie house seats, restaurants, transport systems (except jeepneys, tricycles and taxis). But since my physique does not easily reveal my age, I have to brandish my senior citizens card lest I get heckled or maliciously stared at. It is wonderful to have a senior citizens card!

Annoyed

Embracing my new identify is however, not easy. I get annoyed when someone who looks older to me calls me 'ate', 'auntie', 'nanay' or 'lola'. The gall!

My tone changes to irritation when I talk to people who are wont to using “in” phrases such as “ask ko lang”, “wait lang”, “let me double-check” (even if it is the first time to check), “’Te/Kuya” (when it used to be Miss or Mister). I want to use ear plugs when I hear the word “pasensiya” profusely used in the context of "please tolerate my stupidity”.

I also have to get adjusted to the declining quality of service that I get from salespersons and call center agents.

These days, call center agents have become mere telephone operators. A far cry from the caliber of the agents some 4 to 5 years ago. Other than the deteriorating command of the English language with a universal accent, they seldom resolve phoned-in problems now. The recent trend is for them to say that they will forward your complaint to the department concerned. Are the call center agents burned-out or getting substandard training or turning out fast? Or has the business model of call centers been changed that the core service being offered (aided by the script) is just for someone to be on the line to receive calls and not solve complaints or problems?

Likewise, those behind the counters (even of reputable department stores) do not seem very knowledgeable about the products they are selling. Ask them about product features and they give you mediocre answers just to make a sale. Is this because of the trend of hiring casual or contractual salespersons who are replaced by a new batch before the end of the 6th month on the job? Do customers need to always remember “caveat emptor”? Being a senior citizen, I can only remember the times past when shopping was like an educational tour.

Beating the inevitable

If I have an issue about aging, it is the faculty of remembering. In my younger days, I often ascribed forgetfulness to being distracted, having too much on my plate or blaming my secretary. I simply have to devise ways now to combat this inevitability.

I don’t use a handbag because I am afraid to forget it. I have changed my wardrobe from office attire to T-shirts and pants with pockets. No need for a handbag when all I need to carry are my not-so-smart cell phone, a lipstick, and wallet with my senior citizens card, of course.

I don’t relish driving a car around the city anymore but I still enjoy long drives. With my 26-year old Jeep with a manual transmission, I sometimes forget what gear I am running on. At my age, my hearing is probably getting impaired that I do not hear my engine whining. But again, no problem. I have devised a method that if I am not on a top gear, I place my hand on the stick shift to remind me to watch out. It works, most of the time.

Nothing can spoil my fun though because I am now in possession of a great wealth – my own time.

I still wake up at 5:00 in the morning because by habit, I do not want to snub the beautiful sunshine by tarrying in bed. Nights and days were created for specific purposes and I look forward to what I can do best especially with my MacBook Pro.

With time in my hands, I am beginning to acquire the virtue of patience – something that I did not have in my younger days of rat race and ever-present sense of urgency. In a queue, I can wait for my turn even if it takes hours. No problem. I can easily start a small talk about trivial things. Unlike before when I need to fill the time by bringing something to read or tinkering with my Blackberry.

I have shelved my management and finance books; they belonged to my past life. Instead, I find constant guidance from Koheleth’s Ecclesiastes, Victor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, Louis Fisher’s Gandhi, and John Ruskin’s Unto the Last.

According to Ruskin, “there is no wealth but Life, including its powers of love, of joy and of admiration. The man is richest who, having perfected the functions of his own life to the utmost, has also the widest helpful influence, both personal, and by means of his possessions, over the lives of others.”

And when all is said and done, I hope that my children might have learned early enough from my experience.

The Precariousness of Presence

by Lyka Gonzalez

One could probably liken watching his or her favorite band or artist perform live to the spectacle of arriving in a city one has longed to explore. For one thing, the experience is magical. It’s magic: Intoxicating.

An instantaneous roar fills the arena upon the sound of the band’s opening song. The thundering energy of the crowd races your heart along with the tiny strands of hair in your body. Suddenly, you are in a moment of disbelief. The songs you used to continually listen to from your computer, radio, iPod or record player you are now hearing live. You are caught in this dreamlike state until a 9.5-inch tablet is raised before you virtually blocking your view.

Concert-goers often end up drowning in a sea of smartphones and tablets as other attendees exhaust their efforts in getting a recording of the event for themselves. What are their intentions behind this? Perhaps they intend to have a memento they can look back to from time to time. Perhaps they intend to post it on their Instagram and Facebook account afterwards. Would it not be more satisfying to look back on a lasting memory of the experience rather than trying to “relive” the performance on the screen? Is a digital recording really what you are paying for in that event? Whichever the reason, what is common between the two is how absent they makes us in the present.

Though aimed at improving the quality of life, technology makes its primary goal questionable today. In a society with growing number of social media platforms and constant advancement of technology, we unconsciously allow ourselves to be too forward-looking. We preoccupy ourselves with what we can look back to later on and what we will post afterwards that we fail to just be and experience the now. The digital age tries to connect us more with one another and perhaps with ourselves as well, but it has also enforced us to be overdependent on technology. The mindset we have grown to have and the dependency it has caused make us even more disconnected with each other and with the present. It puts genuine relationships and lasting experiences (pagsasamahan) into uncertainty. Instead of making us more in tune with ourselves and with each other, technology has distracted from lived experiences that make life more meaningful. As with all things, learning to live the experience begins in the littlest of changes. Often, it starts with a self-reminder. By calling your impulses to attention, you make yourself more mindful of your actions and opens your mind to other options. You become aware of yourself and your surroundings. Then, it continues in letting go. Being present and being in the present also start by simply putting that gadget down. Let go of your temporal inhibitions about what to save or “Share” afterwards. Shake those worries off. Listen to the music around you. Watch the lights dance before you. Immerse yourself in the vibrations of the crowd--of the moment.

Sing. Dance. Scream. Jump. Cry.

Just live it.