Node

by Gayle Ching

\’nōd\

Noun. Origin: Middle English, from Latin nodus knot, node; akin to Middle Irish naidm bond.

Some of its meanings: 1: a pathological swelling or enlargement (as of a rheumatic joint) 2: an entangling complication (as in a drama) 3: a discrete mass of one kind of tissue enclosed in tissue of a different kind

Thank you, Merriam-Webster, for providing this writer with plentiful meanings of a single word. Kudos to those wonderful, hardworking people for making dictionaries possible!

It is amazing to see how a four-letter world has such a diverse set of meanings. Similarly, the word, love, also spelled with four letters, has a vast and colorful variety of meanings, yet, at the same time, has been overused, abused, and perverted to suit the thoughts, goals, and deeds of the ever grasping, control-hungry and thoughtless I.

As stated repeatedly in class – perhaps a bit too much, for it might be quite tedious to hear the same concept almost every classroom discussion – Levinas places emphasis on ethics. Ethics is not merely a set of rules or a list of dos and don’ts, because the driving force comes from the inside, in stark contrast to moralism where the driving force is from the outside. To be ethical, therefore, is to be Other-centered, constantly approaching the Other face-to-face, interested in the overall development and growth of the Other for the Other, wherein the experiences of thoughtfulness, responsibility, and I daresay, love, coaxes and urges the imperial I to be decentered and drawn toward the Other, for the Other.

Levinas sees the word, love, somewhat disdainfully, for, as mentioned earlier, it has been perverted, overused, and abused over a span of long centuries. It is not surprising how the true meaning of the word itself has been added to and subtracted from. Be as it may, perhaps the word, love, itself is indescribably complex and misunderstood he dare not use it. Due to this, he, instead, prefers the word, responsibility.

Being ethical is being responsible. Responsibility is innate in all human beings. As a matter of fact, it is primarily fundamental of a person, the subject, to be responsible, for responsibility is not a supplement, rather it is a node, instilled in one’s being fundamentally. Notice the origins of the word, node: knot and bond. From the words themselves, having a node of responsibility, therefore, is being intertwined with Others and several Others.

“No man is an island, entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” These words written by John Donne, expresses the concept of the node as bond perfectly. The concept of the node, however, does not stop here.

The node as a pathological swelling may be regarded as the I’s uncomfortable swelling that could only be healed and soothed by decentering oneself. On another note, the node may also be identified with an entangling and dramatic complication, a trauma, wherein the I meets the Other and several Others, and causes him sheer trauma and astonishment that he will never live the same way again. Finally,

the node, being a discrete mass of one kind of tissue enclosed in tissue of a different kind, may pertain to the relation of the Finite and Infinite. The I is the Finite, one who can only see the externalities, the outer layer of tissue. The true Face of the Other is seemingly invisible; due to this, the Finite tends to reduce the Other as a non-I. The Infinite cannot and must not be reduced, for the Finite has not yet even seen the second layer of tissue underneath the first. Think of this analogy: humankind is likened to fruits. One is an apple; the Other is a banana, and the several Others are different fruits. The apple cannot say to the other fruits, “You are all non-apples!” Rather, the apple must respect the banana-ness and fruity-ness of the other fruits. The Other must be taken care of and to be thought about.

Nevertheless, it is not only the proximal Other to be pampered and sheltered; but, also to take notice of the presence of several distal Others present. Society is held bondage by the claws of a vicious cycle of structural injustice: the injustice of omission. Simply knowing one’s Other and several Others is never enough. The relation to the Other is not of knowledge, but of proximity; to be always on the Other’s and Others’ side. Moreover, it is an asymmetrical relation of non-reciprocity. Justice of charity must be done for all.

I do recall watching the recent adaption of Les Miserables and utterly caused a raw swelling and trauma in me. The protagonist, Jean Valjean, was caught red-handed stealing the silverware displayed in the priest’s humble abode. Policemen dragged him before the priest for questioning. The priest replied with a smile and told the officers that the man did not steal; rather he was giving him all his silverware. To boot, the priest took more of his precious silverware and gave it to Jean in the presence of the police. Ever since, I was never the same.

“Me voici! (Me here for you!) Pues sus heme aqui! (Here I am; send me!)” I would like to believe that those words have become the humble priest’s battle cry. He undertook this task with much audacity, because stepping out of one’s comfort zone is arduous. It requires willpower, for the imperial I is dethroned. Jean Valjean unknowingly made an appeal, an ordaining call to the priest. And the priest wholeheartedly answered the call.

With all honesty, I myself, is incapable of this feat. With no second thoughts and without battering an eyelid, if I were in the priest’s place and situation, I would tell the police who caught the blasted thief to get him out of my sight immediately. However, no one said that being ethical is impossible. If we would just start with responding to the call of the small, we would eventually adjust, as our ego boundaries would break. Granted, it will really hurt. But in the end, it will no longer be painful, as there would only be room for more love. This shift would gradually enable us to respond to the call of the greater. In the end, this requires us to extend our hand and turn an ear to those Others and several Others that are calling. Because the Other demands and begs at the same time, it is up to us yet also not up to us to preserve the integrity of our relation, the node, knot, and bond, with the Other and Others


Man is not essentially for himself; he is involved in all humankind. He is an island, but a piece of a larger mainland.

The Consequences of Doing Good

by Fuze Andrey

It was mentioned in class that it is hard for us to do good if the world itself is bad. In my opinion, it’s not that people don’t want to do good, it’s just that people are afraid of doing good or doing the right thing because many people would go against you. To further explain this, I would like to give an example about the politicians of our government. A lot, but certainly not all, of our government officials are corrupt and of course they have their accomplices that would help them do what they want. If you are one of the accomplices of the government official, you would most likely follow the orders of your boss because you would also benefit from it even though you know that what you are doing is against the law. You are afraid of doing what’s right because you would face a lot of enemies that could threaten you and your family. This is what’s happening in the Janet Lim-Napoles’ case. For sure she has a lot of accomplices but only a few of them were able to break their silence and went against her. This is because they are afraid of what these powerful people can do to them and to their families. It’s hard for them to do the right thing and confess what they know to the public because their lives are on stake. Sometimes doing good is the hardest thing to do because of the many consequences that comes with it.

Furthermore, when we were still young, we were always taught of doing good or doing the right thing in this world but as we grow older, we learn that there are bad things in this world that is hard for us to resist or to refuse because of certain circumstances. For example, you have a family that you have to feed three times a day everyday and you are currently having a financial crisis, you lost your job and you can’t find a new one for a very long time now, then a friend of yours offered you a job that pays a lot but is illegal. You know that it is wrong to accept that job because you might end up in jail but because you are worried about the well-being of your family, you decided to take the job because you don’t want your family to suffer. In this specific situation, the needs of your family became more important than doing the right thing. This is where the saying “Desperate times call for desperate measures” take place because sometimes, even though we know that what we are doing is wrong we tend to accept the consequences that comes with it because we have an important and maybe an acceptable reason for doing it. Just like in my example, family comes first. So sometimes we tend do the wrong things for the right reasons, and this is one of them.

In other cases, people usually go with the flow because they are afraid of being judged or of what other people might think about them just like what the “Bandwagon mentality” is about. We are afraid of going against the current because we typically don’t want to be alone in this world. The reason why we go with the flow is because we don’t want to be left out. But the ironic thing is that as we go against the


flow, we try to seek for people with the same motive as we have. So in this “bad” world of ours, it is kind of necessary for us to try and go against the current and do good to others and while doing that, we should look for other people with the same idea as we are. This could be a solution to this problem, by finding other people that wants to do good like we do, we can spread out and influence others.

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.

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.

#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.

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.

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?’ “