Thursday, February 20, 2014
I'm Never Going To Do Long Distance
It’s so easy to say, “I’m never going to do long distance.” There’s no way it could ever work, right? It isn’t worth staying up late, or having meaningless Skype dates, and of course, dealing with slutty members of the opposite sex. It’s hard, stressful, tiring, and really demanding. Why would you want to do that to yourself? Isn’t it better to leave things while they’re good rather than stretch it out too far and hate each other in the end?
I used to think that way. I used to think so negatively of long distance relationships especially since I am an impatient and somewhat jealous person. I like seeing the people I love, and spending quality time with them. Because of that, I knew that personally I could never be a long-distance girlfriend. I felt like too much effort had to be put into it to make it work, and the rewards didn’t even match up.
But as usual, things never turn out the way we want them to. We don’t plan for most of the things that happen in our lives. However, when things get hard, I guess that love, as cheesy as it sounds, becomes the biggest driving force in our lives. It blocks all logic and reason, and gives us the strength to do the things we never thought we could do.
Because of long distance, I learned that I could be patient and a lot less jealous. Skype dates are fun, but of course girls, from whatever corner of the world, are still really slutty. There’s nothing I can do about that. However, what I was able to control was myself. I gave myself room to grow, and it turned out to be one of the best things that ever happened to me. I became more independent, more trusting, and more appreciative of the little things that make relationships so incredibly beautiful.
Still, some days are harder than others. And I’m still constantly trying to find my way. But I’m learning a whole new angle of how love can be. It’s not seeing each other everyday, or having the same friends, and knowing everything about one another at the exact moment it happened. It’s about sacrifice, maturity, patience, trust, loyalty, and mystery.
It’s so easy to say, “I’m never going to do long distance.” And the truth is that it can actually physically hurt to miss someone. But I have learned that it can also be loving, mature, beautiful, and rewarding. No love is perfect, and distance can be a bitch, but in the end, love is always worth it.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Human Relationships and The Face
by Maya Teope
Relationships seem to break so easily. In fact, goodbye's are said so quickly that sometimes it seems as though the time people had spend together had no meaning at all.
In different social relationships I think that people strive hard to look for particular things in the people they interact with. When these particularities aren't met, the bond breaks easily. But the fact that there is a set standard is what makes the bonds weak in the first place. So I think that the thing that's missing in most relationships is the acknowledgement of The Face.
For me, The Face is something that's beyond what we see in a person. There's more to a person than what we see. After all, there's a lot about them we don't know about. And that's why they are mysterious beings that keeps us wondering everyday. But sometimes our wondering doesn't go into depths and stop at what we simply see and thus fail to see The Face.
I've met so many different people from various social groups and I've always encountered complaints of each member about another. Some people would call their friend horrible behind their back and I think that those type of people stopped trying to know their friend because they already established the notion that the person is "horrible". I think that bonds are shallow if The Face of the other is not acknowledged because in fact, The Face merely shows the other's reality in a sense. Everyone has their own flaws. Only when we appreciate the other fully despite these flaws do we see The Face. And I think that once we start seeing The Face, it becomes harder to judge, hate and discriminate. By looking at The Face we welcome the real joy of being with the other.
Relationships seem to break so easily. In fact, goodbye's are said so quickly that sometimes it seems as though the time people had spend together had no meaning at all.
In different social relationships I think that people strive hard to look for particular things in the people they interact with. When these particularities aren't met, the bond breaks easily. But the fact that there is a set standard is what makes the bonds weak in the first place. So I think that the thing that's missing in most relationships is the acknowledgement of The Face.
For me, The Face is something that's beyond what we see in a person. There's more to a person than what we see. After all, there's a lot about them we don't know about. And that's why they are mysterious beings that keeps us wondering everyday. But sometimes our wondering doesn't go into depths and stop at what we simply see and thus fail to see The Face.
I've met so many different people from various social groups and I've always encountered complaints of each member about another. Some people would call their friend horrible behind their back and I think that those type of people stopped trying to know their friend because they already established the notion that the person is "horrible". I think that bonds are shallow if The Face of the other is not acknowledged because in fact, The Face merely shows the other's reality in a sense. Everyone has their own flaws. Only when we appreciate the other fully despite these flaws do we see The Face. And I think that once we start seeing The Face, it becomes harder to judge, hate and discriminate. By looking at The Face we welcome the real joy of being with the other.
#spoileralert
by Celina Cua
Amour will leave you at a loss. A lot of French films actually do that but the ambiguity in this film is really striking. Not to say that it’s a terrible movie—it’s actually the opposite but it requires an appreciation that does not comes as easy as when one watches a Hollywood film.
The movie ran for two hours and so the last hour of the 6-9 class was allotted for the discussion. A little past 9, Mr. Calasanz started concluding the class with some points for reflection. One of his suggestions was the possibility that maybe the movie just doesn’t make sense, that the most one can do is just make little narratives that tie at most some scenes together. A grand story was not really accessible. So, for a whole hour, everyone was just taking a shot at making sense of the movie and then Mr. Calasanz suggests that maybe it doesn’t have to make sense. Mindboggling talaga.
Nevertheless, one relevant point that was brought up was the possibility of a legitimate limit to being for Others. I can’t exactly remember it accurately but how I understood it was that sometimes there comes a point wherein you’ve given so much that you just can’t. This is of course assuming that you’re constantly living the Law of the Other. In reality, although it is a decision between two lifestyles, the law of the I and the law of the Other is a perpetual challenge that should manifest in most, if not every, action or decision one makes.
The film features an old couple in their 80s, Anne and Georges. Anne has a stroke, which leaves the right half of her body paralyzed. Georges remains to be a good husband, being constantly kind, and taking care of Anne. As time passes by and Anne’s condition becomes worse, taking care of Anne becomes harder and has arguably taken a toll on their relationship. One day, as Anne experiences a fit, Georges tells her a story from his childhood to calm her down, and then he grabs a pillow and smothers her with it. Earlier in the movie, when Anne was just recently diagnosed, she said that she wanted to die already and not go through all of that. The movie ends with a scene of Georges hearing noise from the kitchen, and when he comes out, he sees Anne, alive and well again, washing the dishes. She instructs him to wear his shoes and they both leave the apartment with her leading the way.
Being in a similar situation as Georges who had to take care of the degenerating Anne, the love of his life, what would you do? How much can you give? Can you give what is required of you? How do you know what is required of you? Would you also go that far? Their story makes you sad since it was emphasized a million times in the film how “in sync” they were and how loving and full of kindness their relationship was.
I am not sure if I am allowed to ask those questions. In class, we discuss how we should respect the Other, how we should not totalize them, and that we must see them as Face. I subscribe to Levinas and his philosophy and I recognize that in living out his ethics, one must constantly make an effort, and it’s going to be harder than it is easier. That’s why it is dis-inter-esse. It’s painful; the separation from the self is also not automatic. Was it right for Georges to do that to Anne? What if that was what Anne wanted? Being “in sync” and after Anne saying earlier that she wants to die already, it can be argued that Georges knew what Anne wanted and he did that for her. Maybe killing her was actually a sacrifice on his part? But we say Anne is absolutely other and Georges did not have any right to do that. But at that extreme level, when Anne couldn’t walk, couldn’t talk, with a body and mind corrupted already, isn’t it better to have done that than watch her reduce even further? Seeing your spouse like that would also corrupt you.
To what extent can you give yourself—not just in the level of ethics but also ontology? And maybe it’s also too idealistic to separate the both during extreme situations. When it’s really too much is it really such a wrong thing to think of yourself? How do you even know what is required of you? Some situations leave you confused. We can’t tell if he killed Anne for her sake, for his sake, or even both.
We recall the solitude of being; being is the most private thing. My existence is intransitive. The other is absolutely other and thus, I am also absolutely other to others. Can we really escape this?
P.S.
I really encourage everyone to sit in that class. They watch interesting films, discuss it for an hour or so, maybe go for drinks after to continue philosophizing about the film, and have the honor of learning from the great Mr. Calasanz.
Amour will leave you at a loss. A lot of French films actually do that but the ambiguity in this film is really striking. Not to say that it’s a terrible movie—it’s actually the opposite but it requires an appreciation that does not comes as easy as when one watches a Hollywood film.
The movie ran for two hours and so the last hour of the 6-9 class was allotted for the discussion. A little past 9, Mr. Calasanz started concluding the class with some points for reflection. One of his suggestions was the possibility that maybe the movie just doesn’t make sense, that the most one can do is just make little narratives that tie at most some scenes together. A grand story was not really accessible. So, for a whole hour, everyone was just taking a shot at making sense of the movie and then Mr. Calasanz suggests that maybe it doesn’t have to make sense. Mindboggling talaga.
Nevertheless, one relevant point that was brought up was the possibility of a legitimate limit to being for Others. I can’t exactly remember it accurately but how I understood it was that sometimes there comes a point wherein you’ve given so much that you just can’t. This is of course assuming that you’re constantly living the Law of the Other. In reality, although it is a decision between two lifestyles, the law of the I and the law of the Other is a perpetual challenge that should manifest in most, if not every, action or decision one makes.
The film features an old couple in their 80s, Anne and Georges. Anne has a stroke, which leaves the right half of her body paralyzed. Georges remains to be a good husband, being constantly kind, and taking care of Anne. As time passes by and Anne’s condition becomes worse, taking care of Anne becomes harder and has arguably taken a toll on their relationship. One day, as Anne experiences a fit, Georges tells her a story from his childhood to calm her down, and then he grabs a pillow and smothers her with it. Earlier in the movie, when Anne was just recently diagnosed, she said that she wanted to die already and not go through all of that. The movie ends with a scene of Georges hearing noise from the kitchen, and when he comes out, he sees Anne, alive and well again, washing the dishes. She instructs him to wear his shoes and they both leave the apartment with her leading the way.
Being in a similar situation as Georges who had to take care of the degenerating Anne, the love of his life, what would you do? How much can you give? Can you give what is required of you? How do you know what is required of you? Would you also go that far? Their story makes you sad since it was emphasized a million times in the film how “in sync” they were and how loving and full of kindness their relationship was.
I am not sure if I am allowed to ask those questions. In class, we discuss how we should respect the Other, how we should not totalize them, and that we must see them as Face. I subscribe to Levinas and his philosophy and I recognize that in living out his ethics, one must constantly make an effort, and it’s going to be harder than it is easier. That’s why it is dis-inter-esse. It’s painful; the separation from the self is also not automatic. Was it right for Georges to do that to Anne? What if that was what Anne wanted? Being “in sync” and after Anne saying earlier that she wants to die already, it can be argued that Georges knew what Anne wanted and he did that for her. Maybe killing her was actually a sacrifice on his part? But we say Anne is absolutely other and Georges did not have any right to do that. But at that extreme level, when Anne couldn’t walk, couldn’t talk, with a body and mind corrupted already, isn’t it better to have done that than watch her reduce even further? Seeing your spouse like that would also corrupt you.
To what extent can you give yourself—not just in the level of ethics but also ontology? And maybe it’s also too idealistic to separate the both during extreme situations. When it’s really too much is it really such a wrong thing to think of yourself? How do you even know what is required of you? Some situations leave you confused. We can’t tell if he killed Anne for her sake, for his sake, or even both.
We recall the solitude of being; being is the most private thing. My existence is intransitive. The other is absolutely other and thus, I am also absolutely other to others. Can we really escape this?
P.S.
I really encourage everyone to sit in that class. They watch interesting films, discuss it for an hour or so, maybe go for drinks after to continue philosophizing about the film, and have the honor of learning from the great Mr. Calasanz.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Recognizing the Otherness of the Other
by J.O. Pangilinan
It’s election time once again for many, if not all, organizations. Elections wouldn’t be complete without any competition. This, I guess, where respect for the other, in this case, the opponent, would be tested. Of course, every candidate would want to win and be elected for the desired position right? But I guess this is where Levinas comes in. Where exactly is that limit for competition? For me, putting Levinas into context, I think it is when you start to objectify the other through judgements, for instance. Here, respect should be greatly manifested.
By judging the opponent, one starts to objectify the other especially when the basis of such judgment is solely based on a candidacy document posted for public viewing, where it contains the plans and platform of the candidate. The mere description, or so this so called, knowledge, towards the other limits the alterity of the other – the otherness of the other. Shouldn’t we give chance to others to explain themselves? Shouldn’t we give that space wherein the other would be allowed to show his/her true self?
Upon hearing this instance of a candidate judging the other, what suddenly came to me was this concept of Levinas, the alerity of the other. How can one be himself/herself if we have this preconception of what the other is? How will we see the otherness of the other, since the interaction of the other is always an event? By this description of the other, he/she is confined to your idea of the him/herself. As a result, this prevents the other to be an event, someone of surprises. Similar to what we do to objects, we describe it based on its appearance, and because we know the characteristics of objects are finite – there is no event occurring.
I guess the point I’m trying to say here is that we may have our differences. We may have our unique wants and interests compared to the other, but we have to take a step back and see a clearer and wider picture of the whole; that we have commonalities; that we boil down to the same being. Thus we must learn to respect and understand others for their uniqueness. After all, we will never be exactly the same from one another. There will always be that set of differences that will set us apart no matter how much one tries to mimic the other.
It’s election time once again for many, if not all, organizations. Elections wouldn’t be complete without any competition. This, I guess, where respect for the other, in this case, the opponent, would be tested. Of course, every candidate would want to win and be elected for the desired position right? But I guess this is where Levinas comes in. Where exactly is that limit for competition? For me, putting Levinas into context, I think it is when you start to objectify the other through judgements, for instance. Here, respect should be greatly manifested.
By judging the opponent, one starts to objectify the other especially when the basis of such judgment is solely based on a candidacy document posted for public viewing, where it contains the plans and platform of the candidate. The mere description, or so this so called, knowledge, towards the other limits the alterity of the other – the otherness of the other. Shouldn’t we give chance to others to explain themselves? Shouldn’t we give that space wherein the other would be allowed to show his/her true self?
Upon hearing this instance of a candidate judging the other, what suddenly came to me was this concept of Levinas, the alerity of the other. How can one be himself/herself if we have this preconception of what the other is? How will we see the otherness of the other, since the interaction of the other is always an event? By this description of the other, he/she is confined to your idea of the him/herself. As a result, this prevents the other to be an event, someone of surprises. Similar to what we do to objects, we describe it based on its appearance, and because we know the characteristics of objects are finite – there is no event occurring.
I guess the point I’m trying to say here is that we may have our differences. We may have our unique wants and interests compared to the other, but we have to take a step back and see a clearer and wider picture of the whole; that we have commonalities; that we boil down to the same being. Thus we must learn to respect and understand others for their uniqueness. After all, we will never be exactly the same from one another. There will always be that set of differences that will set us apart no matter how much one tries to mimic the other.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
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?’ “
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.
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.
Friday, January 24, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)