Vanishing Elephants

by Rucha Lim

the title is inspired by the Haruki Murakami novel


Imagine you’re off to a soiree, eager to meet new people. You cross the threshold to enter the living room when suddenly you see a huge grey, creature, flapping its ears and waving around its nose. It’s quite a shocking sight, right?

The other people in the room don’t seem to notice it, like an elephant somehow did belong in a living room, as if it was the most natural thing in the universe.

You glare at the elephant and think to yourself just what an elephant could be doing in a living room and why nobody seems to care. It’s such an affront to your reasoning and logic that you want to shout out and ask what the hell is wrong with everyone.

This is how most of us are when we encounter ways that we are unable to grasp.  It appears so strange to us that it just seems wrong.

When we see others doing that are beyond our comprehension, it’s uncanny. We see a fellow human being, someone of the same kind, doing things that run contrary with how we construct the world.

The thing is, we’re always viewing the world through some frame. We live in a world of images. We interact through the exchange and transformation of these images, as I’ve written before.

There will be times however that we cannot read each other’s symbols. We encounter roadblocks to true communication when images aren’t clear through the lens we see them with.

In such a situation, it is only appropriate to adjust one’s lens. Or when it’s your signs that aren’t being read properly, then you adjust your image.Just how do you explain to a 6-year-old where babies come from? You don’t talk to them about the reproductive process, but you don’t lie either, you give them a shorthand answer their young minds can understand.

It’s difficult to adjust though. It’s tough pretending the elephant in the middle of the room isn’t there. The thing is, you don’t really ignore it. What you do is to not mind the elephant but instead, be mindful of it.

What I mean is that you put differences in brackets.Recognize them as chasms to be leaped. Differences guide us in how we interact with each other. As Doctor Garcia once mentioned in class, recognition is the first step.

The abrasions caused by differences are usually our images and symbols sliding past each other, being misread. But we are more than the images we use. We can surpass, or if I may use the word, transcend them. Underneath all the layers of images and symbols we use to communicate is the human core; the being that desires communication with the Other.

Differences should help one be more sensitive to the Other but should never limit what is revealed in the encounter.In time, one learns to understand and accept these differences, seeing beyond them.One learns to adjust to people appropriately. Soon enough, the elephant vanishes.

Hate To Love

Redemption begins today.

At least that is what I want to think. I am still experiencing remnants of angst, but overall, I am quite relieved. A weight has been lifted off, and yes, I am exhaling loudly. Though my chest feels lighter, my brain is fried. Eyes were moist yet now they are dried. Even so, I want to write.

I want to share my experience of loving the Other. Yeah, I’m serious. That was what I had been reading about last night ‘til morning. We all know reading is helpful, truly helpful, but it is not enough. Sometimes, verbalizing what you read is inadequate. Actions do speak louder than words, after all.

I am not going to tell you what love is, no, I am so tired of definitions. Let me do phenomenology. I want to describe to you my experience, so that you just might catch a glimpse of love. Here I go: Today, I threw my usual indifference out of the window and lashed out at someone I hate to love.

Before you judge me, never mind, judge me all you want, you do not know who I am anyway. Even if you find out, oh well, it is all right, I guess.

This person is someone I see every single day, I wonder why, oh wait, is it because we live together? How could I forget!I do not know where to begin. Shall I start with the fact that he is so annoying?Ha, I sound like a stupid brat for saying that. Maybe I am.

It is not a he, is it? It is actually a she, isn’t it? Just stick with the idea that I am talking about a real human being, he or she, it does not matter. Forget about the gender.

He tells me when and what and HOW to eat. If you come over to my place, you would probably gush about how affectionate he is, and I would probably give you an abnormally large grin (not nose) and say,“I knowright?”

Eat with him every day and have him tell you that you need to heat the food, that he will eat less so that you will eat more, that if you are not hungry then he is not hungry, that you need to heat the food, really, do you know how to use the microwave? And by the way, this is chicken, that is fish, and here, have some veggies.

I want to tell him, please, let me decide on my own, I know what I want to eat, and do not worry, I know what a chicken looks like. Introducing the dishes is not necessary, because you did not cook them anyway. I thank you for your concern, but please eat even when I am not hungry.

I did tell him once, twice, or maybe thrice? Nah, I lost count. He does not understand. Never mind. This is nothing compared to the many times he ridiculed someone else in the house.And that someone else, though deaf, happens to be very dear to me, and having him point fingers and say vile things almost all the time is something very hard to tolerate.

He complains everyday. I no longer know when he is speaking the truth and when he is not, because of the lies he told me to make people look bad. I caught him in his lies!My anger was growing like a forest fire to the point that whenever I see him, I just run away to my room.

It became a habit, I do not know since when. Months ago?I gave up. My patience ran out, dry, rusty. I did not want to talk to him, listen to him, look at him, no.Why… no one in the house does anyway.However, he noticed, of course he noticed, and from time to time, I heard him ask, “Why don’t you talk to me anymore?”

It is so difficult. Love hurts. Indifference hurts, as well.

Today, he delivered a new complaint. People did not do what he wanted them to do. My mask cracked. I did not want to swear, but my head was so fuming hot when I asked, no, shouted, “Why can’t you, just for once, sing praise and say thank you? All you tell me are mistakes and faults. Can no good thing come out of your mouth?”

He got hurt and pointed fingers everywhere and decided to clam up. From an outsider’s point of view, you will accuse me of violence and feel compassion for the victim who accused me of siding with everyone else, everyone but not him.

And then I began to cool. He was right, you know.To accuse me. It has become my instinct to think that he is the culprit. I am no longer rational when I am around him. I lose my reason, my head to the anger that consumes me. Above all, I render myself…incapable of love.

Indifference is a poison. It is no better than hatred; it is worse.

My indifference caused me to desensitize, to crush my human emotions, and consequently, to lose grasp of my humanity. Let me insert some physics to lighten up the mood. You know about the law of action-reaction, right? When you sit on a hard chair for a long time, you or a specific part of you begin to feel sore, because the chair is pushing you back with the same amount of weight you are imposing on it.

And so when I, a human being, knowingly intentionally consciously hurt another human being, we share the pain, even when I say I do not care I do not care I do not care. That is how intimate the human relation is.The self-defense mechanism is not strong enough. It will not hold. It will break down.

In the end, the best would always becaring for the other person, even when that person hurts you.

Yet love is unexplainably and infinitely better than indifference. I cannot explain why, but is most certainly the reason why I am on the way to recovery. I am feeling like a human again.Throwing caution to the wind, I decided to open my mind and heart. I swallowed it all and said to him, “Let us reconcile. Please talk. And I will listen. Not a word from me.”

Time flew.An hour or two. He explained his side of things. I nodded and tried to maintain eye-contact which was so hard by the way. Little by little, I tried to join the conversation and invite him to look at the other side of things. It did not work, so I just, you know, I just listened to his misconceptions and lies about people (whose names he does not even know). And it was, well, bearable. Not so bad.

I survived. I listened just as I promised to listen, with an open and oddly fearless heart, and I tell you that it made all the difference in the world, because I was able to let go a part if not all of that is bitter and decaying within me.

I am ready. To take off my mask. I am ready. To break the silence.I am ready. To talk to him again. I am ready. To care.

As stupid as it might sound to you, (and to me):

Love has begun to set me free.

Love At First Sight

The question of the possibility of love at first sight was an interesting topic to ponder on and reflect, and to help you, I have taken excerpts from Bro. Patrick Nogoy, SJ's essay Love at First Sight. Brother Pat hopes that he will be able to publish his collection of works, together with a few other essays we can reflect on.


Posing the question:

The eyes are the windows of the soul. The popular cliché bears an intriguing philosophical problematic. There is an underlying double import: the eyes that reveal are the same apparatus that survey, capture, and comprehend an object. The eyes that open portals are the same swords that thrust open the heart of a stranger. The eyes that can unveil are the same cunning spies that trespass, transgress, and pin the target. The eyes are the windows of the soul; the eyes are the keys in unlocking the truth. 

xxx

The banality of eye contact is much pronounced in the Piraeus of everyday living— public transport, university walls, edifices of commerce, and herds of people going to and fro. How is it possible that these silent, (at times) sly, and sleek incidents of eye contact ferry the truth? Why does an instance, a moment that does not even last for minutes, a flash of eyes meeting from two anonymous individuals can become a cherished memory? How is love possible at first sight? 

On The Gaze:

In the spectacles of receiving, it is actually the Beloved that transgresses, transpierces, and trespasses the lover’s consciousness. Objects ordinarily pass by; the veil of anonymity is cast upon in everyday living—crowds walking to and fro, objects on display, nature on its usual rhythm of rising and resting. Yet, there are those moments that forever mark like tattoos, trespass the confines of consciousness, and awaken the lover from the dormancy of its loneliness. In a sudden flash of an instance, an object stands out (either a dress, meal, or gadget), the soft crisp air is noticed, or an anonymous person captivates. The richness or better yet, the soul of the object allows itself to be seen; it imposes itself in weight. The Beloved’s unique and infinite beauty creates a certain dis-stance—seismic quakes that awakens the lover out of its ordinary life. The distance is received in difference and weight. To receive is to open oneself to the beloved’s intimate exposition—a bursting and intruding revelation—her soul. The beauty in every object flames out, shining from shook foil (as Hopkins put it), even to the surprise of the object itself.  

xxx

In the crossing of gazes, the gaze does not call attention to itself and remains invisible since the lover gazes, guided by the aim to see, at the beloved, receiving all her glory. The opened eyes, the infrastructure that makes possible the crossing of each other’s richness leaving an indelible impression), hide in the shadows by simply allowing two souls to cross each other. The richness of the experience renders one mute since there is nothing objective nor even visible about it. All that remains to be told is that “our eyes crossed” and the rest is passed over to silence and happy memory. The crossing of gazes is everything there is for it remains a shared dreamed encounter which binds strangers into lovers. Jean-Luc Marion pens, “However, they see
their encounter, for they experience the weight of each impetus one against the other, a unique and common weight, balanced and shared. They see, with their always invisible gazes, the lived experience of their tensions…The crossed encounter is made to stand as lived experience of the invisible; however the  experienced vision of the lived experience never results in the visibility of an object…Neither the lover nor  the beloved encounter each other in passing, dreamily, each in the other. They experience one another in  the commonality of the lived experience of their unique tension—the weight of one gaze on the other, crushed by experiencing itself seen, crushing by seeing itself experienced.”

On The Wager at Love's Sight

Faith becomes an unceasing act of openness to another. The trace of the beloved that impresses upon the lover’s consciousness invites him to find ways to continuously engage the beloved that gazes back: get the name and phone number, invite her for dinner, scout her friends, dream of the first date, and the like. The relation is strengthened and incarnated through constant engagement, to a string of daily Yeses to that strange beloved that has become his Promise Land. Faith as constant openness binds the two parties and places them firmly into furnished identities of lover and beloved. The trace moves the lover to take another gaze—to see more clearly, in order to love more dearly, and follow the Beloved more nearly. Faith is a decision to come closer, to be taken in by the Beloved through one’s decision of openness.  

On The Presence and The Overcoming of Idolatry:

When the lover does not choose to gaze, his eyes are neutralized by the brilliance of the visible. He prowls instead of waits, ready to capture and consume whatever he sees. He chooses what to be seen, instead of letting himself be a vulnerable prey of the beloved’s beauty. In the same manner, the beloved can neutralize a lover’s gaze by avaoidance. She uses any available flesh in trying to hide her invisible soul, making her invulnerable against the lover. Idolatry strikes in its sensuous and sleek approach, releasing the dazzling beauty of objects’ flesh. The glitter of an idol captures one’s sight and imprisons it in the horizon of visibility. The idol provides a ready content for one to analyze, control, and consume. Whatever is visibly seen is  available for possession. Possessions provide an aim that can easily be manipulated and assimilated by consciousness in its objectification. Objectification leaves out the authentic infinite richness to be content with what is captured in the surface. Transcendence does not occur since possession deceives one to be content with flesh. 

 xxx

When the lover chooses to see, he becomes a conduit in reflecting the richness of his and the beloved’s own beauty. The lover’s beauty is exchanged with the beauty of the beloved that he receives. In crossing of the gazes, the beloved who chooses to return the gaze receives the transformed self of the lover. Thus, the compounded excess from the crossing of gazes is more than enough ground for a rational choice through an affirmative answer of further engagement. The infinite striving, as Kierkegaard proclaims, is realized in the decision to continuously engage, sustaining the first moment of the crossing of gazes. The crossing of gazes exposes the two parties to each other in their magnificent vulnerability, beginning from their very selves. Jean-Luc Marion writes, “Two gazes, definitely invisible, cross, and in this crossing, renounce their invisibility... To love would thus be defined as seeing the definitively invisible aim of my gaze nonetheless exposed by the aim of another invisible gaze…Loving no longer consists trivially in seeing or in being seen, nor in desiring or inciting desire, but in experiencing the crossing of the gazes within, first, the crossing of aims.”

 xxx

Engagement is the word utilized to refer to a couple waiting to be married. It is a reality that is the terra firma of the promise of marriage. Engagement pertains to the lover’s willingness to remain faithful in struggling with a chosen beloved. Engagement is the first instance of fidelity. It is the Beloved that rules and the Lover remains authentically as a subject—a sub-ject of the other. Ironically, it is only in being sub-ject to the Beloved (both the aim and the act) that the lover gains his true self. The lover becomes not only Beloved but also (and all the more), the act that he repeatedly does. That act is Love none other. Out of constant act, habit is weaved. Out of habit, character is forged. Out of character, destiny is realized. Fate finds its fulfillment in faith. Faith begins in the opening of one’s eyes. 

To read the whole essay, I guess we have to wait for the book to be released. We wish Brother Pat well, that he might find the time and resources to publish his work.

 

This Is How We Never Met

shared by Erika Tababa


This is a very interesting and light-hearted take on how we tend to give meanings to things instead of having them revealing themselves to us. I would really also like to connect this to my blog post about two weeks ago how we should have sometimes courage to just go up to another person and talk to them!

Really really recommend everyone to watch this to lighten up the hell-week vibes. :)

Le Visage de Dieu (The Face of God)

by Niko Pena


What is a face? Is it merely the front part of a person's head from the forehead to the chin? Is it the surface of a thing, esp. one that is presented to the viewer or has a particular function? Well, yes and no. Yes, because indeed these are correct definitions of the word “face”, but these are not the kinds of faces we are referring to when we mention the Face according to the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. In fact, in studying Levinas, we are faced with a synecdoche when he refers to the Face. A synecdoche is a figure of speech where a part may represent the whole or vise versa. Levinas uses the former version of a synecdoche, using the “face” to represent the whole of the reality that is the Other.

Why use the face, then? Why use something so small and seemingly insignificant to represent something so much more complex? I believe Levinas has used the word “face”, because it is something that is so relatable to us. It is something that is so universal and human that by using this as a visual cue, Levinas could then lead us to a more pressing point: the Face, that is, the reality of the Other.

But why is it that the face is vital and how does it relate to Levinas’ point? Through much reflection and by reviewing my notes from class, I was able to come up with two points that may guide us in making a better connection between the physical face and Levinas’ the Face.

The first point: the face easily identifies us and distinguishes us from each other. It is the same reason why people would wear masks or use make-up to hide and/or alter their faces, because without which, these people would be identified as who they really are.

The second point: the face has a power over us in such a way that it binds us to the Other. One might ask questions like “why is it that I cannot look someone in the eye when I’ve done something to harm or offend them?” or “why do I feel so self-conscious when I see strangers looking at me?” or even “why is it that it is so easy for me to do what I want when no one is looking?” There is just something in the face that makes us so self-aware and alert, something beyond the physical, something that belongs to the ethical and social realm that would always make us think twice of our actions.

So what do these two points have to do with Levinas’ the Face? The first point reminds us that the Other is external from us, something beyond us, ungraspable, uncontainable. The Other is someone whom we cannot integrate with because they are not us, being completely unique and different from us. Also, one person is quite different from another. The same principle would apply: we also cannot integrate one person with another because of their inherent uniqueness from each other.

The second point also notes that we are not alone in this world and, more importantly, that we are not only living for ourselves. Conversely, we are actually being called to live for the Other. And here we encounter a myriad of paradoxes that all stem from the very presence of the Other. For in encountering the Other, we receive demands that are not actually demands, have debts without actually incurring a debt and more strikingly, receiving resistance where there is no actual resistance. There is something in the Other that seems to say, “please don’t take advantage of me” or “please show me your mercy”. We feel these words bite into our hearts and embed themselves in our heads without the Other lifting a single finger. By being more keen to these “calls” and “demands”, we are taking steps to being more ethical and compassionate. We are taking steps to what it truly means to be human and cultured.

It is often said that we are all created in God’s image. But what does it really mean to be made as such? In the few years that I have been on this earth, I have learned that to be in God’s image is to be loving, merciful and compassionate. I have learned that to be God-like or Christ-like is really to live in such a way that caters to the Other.

I’ve recently watched a commentary by Fr. Robert Barron on YouTube. Fr. Robert Barron is a priest from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. He is also an author, scholar and Catholic evangelist. In his commentary entitled, “The God Who Doesn't Need Us”, he explains that the Christian God is very distinct from other gods, simply because, as the commentary’s title states, He doesn’t need us. He explains that other gods, particularly those from pagan cults, thrive on the sacrifices and praises they receive from humans. He further states that these gods would have the tendency to abuse us and manipulate us for their purposes because of their eternal need of our services. The Christian God is not like that. He doesn’t need any of us, our sacrifices or our praises. He didn’t need to create the world or the rest of the universe. He created everything for us.


This reminds me of a verse from Hosea regarding the sacrifices of the Israelites to the altar of God. The verse states: I want you to show love, not offer sacrifices. I want you to know me more than I want burnt offerings (Hosea 6:6).  Another verse says something similar: The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me’ (Matthew 25:40). These verses and pretty much anything regarding compassion and ethics, brings us back to what the Other demands from us. How must we truly relate to the Other exactly? Shall we take advantage of them and manipulate and abuse them for our selfish purposes? Of course not! We must relate to the Other with compassion, understanding, acceptance and mercy. We must regard them with love. Obviously not the romantic kind of love, but the kind of love where we would want the good of the Other to be realized. The kind of love where the focus is the Other and not the self. The kind of love where one enters a “give-and-give” relationship rather than a “give-and-take” relationship. The kind of love that drives one to solely live for the Other. This I believe is the bottom line of Levinas’ philosophy. Everything is for the Other. Everything is for the sake of the Face.

I'm Not Sorry That I Hated You

by Agassi Adre

Disclaimer: I would like to apologize to my friends, acquaintances, and all the people who kinda know me beforehand, for this is quite a testy topic that involves them. To these people: though initially true, I had come to like you guys and enjoy your company. So for the sake of benefiting from this reflection, give this one to me. Also, I hope that this does not taint your image of me that much. And to people who do not yet know me: let this not be a hindrance to our future meetings, this is my coping mechanism to overcome my social anxiety, and I hope that this does not make you hate me.


I've got a confession to make: I hated you when I first met you. We may be friends now, but when we first met, I had an incredible dislike (because maybe 'hate' is such a strong and possibly toxic word) for you. It wasn't because of how you dressed, or how you looked, or how you spoke, or how you presented yourself, but because this is how I am. The default setting for my brain when meeting new people is to categorize them as someone I wouldn't want to spend any time with. I don't care if a mutual friend introduces us or if your reputation precedes you, when I first meet you, I detest you.

In a way, this initial reaction I have towards people helps me see the world in a 'category-less' way. I don't care if you're a beggar or a politician, I loathe you from the start if we ever meet face to face. We've talked so much about being 'social' and 'sosyal', and maybe - and forgive me for being pretentious - this method that I use is a good way to be social. See, I do away with all the flair in meeting anyone: I rarely am awed or shocked by the image anyone presents, be it powerful and influential or meek and humble. Simply put, I don't really care who you are (unless you're uber famous like Emma Watson or Barack Obama or anyone of their caliber), and this then forces me to get to know you so as to debunk my antagonism towards you.

And as I am forced to get to know anyone better, I slowly develop an understanding of people that has so much clarity. I don't put anyone up on a pedestal nor look down on them, and this allows me to see you according to how I see everyone else: a human being. Maybe at this point, I should add that not only do I hate people on the first meeting, I also hate human beings in general (and yes, that includes me), for we are such unfathomable creatures that is so mind-boggling-ly paradoxical that it irritates me (and yes, once again, this applies to myself too). See, since I only categorize people as human beings, and not due to their social status or any other categories, the people I meet become, first and foremost, subjects to me: something outside of me that I have to understand and grasp. Because though I hate human beings, I am awed by us. And from this, I love seeing how people exist and live. As such, I become aware that people have lives, separate from mine, that they live apart from me, and that's when other people become so much beautiful to me, due to the fact that they are not me, and that they can exist away from me.

So, when I initially meet a person, I feel so much abhorrence towards them. And in my mind, that puts them in a place wherein I need to know if my hatred for them is justified, and so I get to know them, and through familiarization with them, most of the times, fortunately, my hatred is not justified, and I grow to enjoy their presence, just as I hope they enjoy mine.

Learning who they are and debunking my initial impressions of them, I get to slowly know facets of their entirety. Dr. Garcia said that, and I paraphrase and condense, that it is through the encountering the Other that we understand that things do not necessarily come from us and that we can learn from them as well. Through this method, though it may seem cynical or pessimistic, I understand that I need others and others need me, because without either, we would each just assume that the world is made for us for our pleasure and that the Other is not important.

To See The Face of God

by Ralph Dalusung

17 January 2013
Discussed Text: Levinas, "Secrecy and Freedom," Ethics and Infinity


'm sure many of the people who will read this (if there will be any) have already watched one of the most popular movies out in theaters at the moment - Les Miserables. I'm sure some will find my decision to use the film/musical slightly corny or uninspired, but I would be lying to myself if I said the film didn't pull me out of my seat and entice me to ponder on some of our recent lessons. The funny thing is, the movie didn't "move me" until one of the last lines which went, "To love another person is to see the face of God." Just like that, a fast-rewind of the movie clicked in my mind and I began to see just how that line encompassed the movie. In fact, it encompasses a lot more than just the movie.

In class recently, we've discussed the idea of totality vs. infinity. We described God as "an infinite substance, omniscient and all powerful". God is Infinite, and thus we mortals cannot fully grasp nor comprehend Him or His nature. In fact, it's somewhat popularly known among many Christians that if we were to witness God in His "full glory", we would die. The Finite cannot contain the Infinite. How then are we supposed to see the face of God? How do we finite beings deal with the Infinite?

In Les Miserables, Jean Valjean's life is a testament to how loving the Other can enable one to see the face of God. As an escaped criminal on parole, Jean Valjean returned an old Bishop's kindness by stealing the silver valuables in the Church. When he was caught, the Bishop still saved his life and even let him have keep the silver valuables. He only asked that Jean use the silver to "become a better man". Jean, being a disillusioned slave and prisoner for 19 years, was so moved by the gesture that he promised to change his ways from then on. In contrast to the other people, the Bishop didn't see him as a poor criminal. Instead, he chose to see Jean as what he really was - a human being. And, being such, he had the capacity to do good.
In the same way, Jean chose not to see Fantine as a prostitute but as a desperate and loving mother. He chose to see Cosette not as a burden but as his own daughter. Even with his enemy, Javert, he chose not to see him as the man who had dealt him so much pain but as a man simply set on doing his job. In fact, there were a number of times wherein Jean could have exacted revenge on Javert, but he chose not to. In all these, he chose to love. He chose not to judge them for what they may have seemed, but to see that they were human beings with their own desires, own dreams and own motivations that he probably may never ever grasp fully.

We can contrast this to Javert who never stopped seeing Jean as an escaped criminal even when Jean had built a new life for himself. He stubbornly clung to his beliefs that Jean broke the law and that he deserved to die. In other words, he succumbed to totality. He was so consumed by this that when Jean spared his life once more, he could not connect Jean's kindness to Jean's identity as a human being. He couldn't cope with Jean's "ungraspability" as a human being and ended up taking his life.

The movie/musical illustrates how respecting the Other as one that we cannot fully grasp, one that we cannot contain in a labelled box, and accepting the Other's "otherness" without prejudice is to bask in the infinite that we, as Creatura, can partly receive from one another. To allow ourselves to reach out to the Other to caress, accepting all of the Other's unfathomable being, and not attempting to simply grasp, leads us to look at the Other as one whom we can love.

Les Miserables means "the miserable ones" or "the victims". In the movie, we see who les miserables are: from the poor and the starving to the even the wealthier people like Javert. The poor were les miserables because they were looked upon as trash and not human beings. The wealthy people like Javert were restless and unsatisfied with their lives as they were the ones who viewed things in black and white, or rich and poor. Jean was the one who chose not to totalize anyone and to instead do good for the Other no matter who the Other was.

Beyond the book, there are also "miserable ones" or "victims". The indigenous people from Casiguran were victimized by APECO as their livelihood and their identity as a people were disregarded in the name of economic growth. Many of the poor are viewed upon as paying the consequence for their own laziness and inadequacies rather than as victims of various other things. These victims were disregarded, ignored, judged and abandoned to suffering.

The best part of looking at the Other as one we can never fully grasp, or one that is infinite to us the same we that we may be infinite to the Other, is that we will always be surprised. Life will always hold more meaning for us, and thus accepting the Other for all that the Other is will lead us to show the Other acts of love. Thus, these acts will hold meaning in themselves and we as human beings in need of purpose will find something that can satisfy that need. So, to love another person is to see God, who is infinite, through that person. To choose to break the barriers of prejudices and to simply love the Other as a human being is to see infinity through the Other.

What Do You Think?

by Mikee de Ocampo

Prof. Socrates, Dr. Rabbi

by Anthony Perez

Take a moment and try to remember a “memorable” teacher of yours. I doesn't matter how embarrassing, kilig or crazy the reason can be.  These memories can trace as far back as your grade school days, or as recent as your previous collegiate semester.

Pictured him/her in your mind yet?

Did he wear those funny-looking glasses every day? Maybe he had that weird-sounding last name (which the entire class had to attach an unfortunate rhyming word to)?  Or perhaps, she was your ultimate crush back in the 6th grade.  

Trademark features and annoying monikers aside, a teacher’s style also becomes our lasting impression of them. Some will forever be the strict disciplinarian who made her homeroom class feel like boot-camp by making her 4th graders line up by height, specifically 1 arm’s length outside the classroom before the morning assembly- to reveal the violators of the fingernail, haircut and uniform rule.  My 2nd grade music teacher had the terrifying habit of flinging her eraser at those who could not read notes. I was the frequent recipient of a flying piece of cloth as I mumbled through do-re-mi. Others resembled more of a father/mother-figure with their warm voices and pleasant demeanor that dozed you off during Reading Period. As for some, well, you wondered how they even got the job in the first place.

Then, there are the teachers whom you could tell were simply special, and you just couldn't pinpoint exactly how. They belonged to an entirely separate category, not because of good- looks or high long test scores, but in how their classes seemed to be every student’s dream- a “once in a lifetime” learning opportunity that you’d gladly reminisce long after graduation. They embodied a radiating love of teaching that made their hour-long lectures feel so short, and even made them “cool” to hang out with during lunch breaks.

Here’s how you may have met that special adviser, tutor, coach etc.

1) You constantly doubt yourself, but he continues to trust in you and does not think you are a failure. He believes everything you’ll ever need is right inside of you. He’s like the algebra teacher who never gave up on you because after all, you haven’t completely forgotten how to add or divide. Until you get that A, he’s just waiting for you to finally realize “Ay, Kaya ko pala!”
             
 In her autobiography “The Story of My Life”, Helen Keller recalls a particular session with her beloved teacher Anne Sullivan.

“…my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand, she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten- a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then “w-a-t-e-r” meant the wonderful cool something flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free!”

2) As he sees you and your classmates sitting in your chairs, he knows that he stands before youths still naive of what the world around them holds. With that, he generously imparts his wisdom to the young minds eager to absorb the insights he shares, forming them to be prepared for whatever the future brings.
           
For Coach John Wooden, leading his UCLA Bruins to 10 NCAA titles in 12 seasons wasn't his best accomplishment. Basketball players knew what X’s and O’s were all about, so his playbook focused on the more difficult challenge of forming his basketball players into young men of excellent character- beginning with how they picked up their towels after each practice. As Coach often told his boys, “You cannot be truly successful without the peace of mind that only comes through the self-satisfaction knowing you made the effort to become the best you are capable of becoming…”

“Teachers” aren't only limited to the academic sense. Our parents, friends or people we have yet to encounter, can surely inspire us in ways we never can imagine. The onus is on us to not “skip” them and welcome the lessons they carry onto us.
       

   “Imagine that every person in the world is enlightened but you. They are all your teachers, each doing just the right things to help you learn patience, perfect wisdom, perfect compassion.”

                                                              -The Buddha       

Alternative Business

by Rucha Lim


I’m going to mention a word.

I want you to take a mental snapshot of the first thing that comes into mind.

Ready?

“Business.”

Now, what did you think of?

For assuming, idealistic liberal arts students like me, it makes me think of corporate greed. It makes me think of men in suits who don’t care about the plight and suffering of the poor.

Can you blame me? There’s so much discourse demonizing the corporate world.

How many movies have there been where executive types are generally portrayed as solely profit-motivated and unfeeling of others? How many “deep” songs are there that lament the rat race that is working in a capitalist society? How many teleseryes have there been where the obstacle to true love was a greedy businessman?

I’ve met a lot of people who say going corporate is “Selling your soul to the system.” For a long time, I bought the idea. To me, business types were greedy people who only want to make money and don’t care about the welfare of their fellow humans. (unless they’re family)

It’s not (just) about the money

This all changed when I was fortunate enough to attend the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit on Small and Medium Enterprises. (APEC SME)

In partnership with the Makati Business Club, the Philippine Secretariat for the APEC Business Advisory Council, 10 people from various areas of business were called to talk about innovation in world of business.

Sounds boring for someone who’s not interested like me right? Well, that’s what I thought at first.

Though all speakers were brilliant in their own rights, there were three who really stood out differently from all the others. They were Anna Meloto-Wilk, Dr. Jaime Aristotle Alip, and Bambang Ismawan.

A Woman For Others

Anna Meloto-Wilk, an alumnus of Ateneo de Manila University, is the daughter of Antonio “Tony” Meloto who, as you may know, is the founder of Gawad Kalinga.

Aside from assisting her father in Gawad Kalinga, she’s the owner of “Human Nature,” a social entrepreneurship venture that strives to help fight poverty.

The business’ slogan is “Pro-Philippines, Pro-Poor, Pro-Environment.”

She explained that they were Pro-Philippines because the ingredients for their products are all from local farmers in the Philippines. She acknowledged to sometimes sourcing their packaging from China but she said that they will remember their commitment to be 100% Filipino and that though packaging in the Philippines is not as good, investing in them would be what drives Filipino products to become world class.

For the Pro-Poor angle, they initially hired from Gawad Kalinga communities and had a minimum wage of P475 a day and then raised it to P625 a day. Their goal for this year is to raise it to P900 a day. They also have a debt assistance program, and a “No-Firing” policy, which she says is in the spirit of “walang iwanan,” letting people the people learn from their mistakes as a commitment to their environment.

Finally, she said they were “Pro-Environment” as all their products are made from 100% biodegradable products, they minimize their use of packaging, and locally source all products to reduce their carbon footprint.

“My business is poverty eradication!”

Dr. Jaime “Aris” Alip is the founder of CARD Mutually Reinforcing Institutions, (CMDI) a microfinance bank.

He calls CMDI a bank for the poor and by the poor. His concept of microfinance was to empower the poor by allowing them loans without collateral and requiring minimal paperwork.

The catch was that only women could get loans. His reasoning was that when you give loans to women, they would prioritize food and education in contrast to men who would probably spend it for “social reasons.”

CMDI also offers microinsurance whose rates range from P5 - 15 per week. Today, CMDI has insured 9 million people which comprises 25% of all the insured in the Philippines, said Alip.

One of their goals in poverty eradication is women empowerment and they hold weekly formation sessions, educating women and giving them the means to start their own businesses. To Alip, empowerment is “not only access to access to credit but control of resources.”

Empowering Self-Reliance

The last speaker I’d like to talk about is Bambang Ismawan, founder of Indonesia’s Bina Swadaya (which means “empowering self-reliance).

Bina Swadaya is an NGO that fights to eradicate poverty in Indonesia, a country where 56% of the population is in poverty where 133 million people live on $2 a day, according to Ismawan.

According to him, poverty in Indonesia is caused by multitude of factors like their colonial history, instability of government, an economic dependence trap, corruption, collusion, nepotism, natural disasters, to name a few. (Sound familiar?)

Unfortunately, Ismawan was unable to finish his talk for lack of time so I can’t give much more details about it. In the little time he was able to speak however, he mentioned the main thrust of Bina Swadaya.

 He quoted C.K. Pralahad’s book, “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits.” The quote goes:
“If we stop thinking of the poor as victims or as a burden and start recognizing them as resilient and creative entrepreneurs and value-conscious consumers, a whole new world of opportunity will open up.”

Isn’t this applicable to our country as well? The poor are often perceived as this amorphous, generic mass of people as I just did in this sentence. The “masa” is always perceived as uncritical, uneducated victims to be saved. They’re the damsels in distress to be saved by the privileged knights performing their noblesse oblige.

But what if we viewed them as equals, as fellow knights who just happened to be disarmed? What do you do in such a situation? Why, you give back the weapons they have lost so that they may fight again. People shouldn’t be helped. They should be empowered so that they can help themselves. It’s providing them means to get back on their feet.

God’s Eye-View

My reason for telling all these stories is because they simply struck me. We have all these awesome people, doing what they can to make this world a better place.

For the past few weeks, I’ve reverted back to my dark cynicism in viewing the world. People are being killed, living in poverty, suffering injustices, and so on. The world to me, was a very bleak place to live in.

Indeed the world is a bleak place. There’s no doubt about that. But in spite of that, there are still people out there willing to do things to help out. Though they may not do everything, to borrow from Mother Teresa, “We ourselves feel that what we are doing is just a drop in the ocean. But the ocean would be less because of that missing drop.”

These are stories I never would have heard about if I just stayed in my own bubble, living my life with myself as the center. I think in stepping out and opening myself to alternative narratives, I’m able to see more of the world than I once did. Part of what I saw, was hope.

The summit ended with a closing statement by Maria Ressa, CEO of Rappler.com. She gave this concept of the “human super organism” wherein humans, though distinct of each other, are able to unite and act for a collective purpose that they would not be able to achieve as individuals.

What is needed to form this super organism is what she called “God’s Eye-View.” To her, it is through expanding our perceptions, going beyond and seeing the potential unity of things, almost as if you were an almighty God who sees the oneness of all creation.

This is not saying of course that everyone should do the same thing. As we have learned from Levinas, the Other is not alter-ego but simply alter. It is the purpose that is unified but it is the ways we commit to the purpose that are different.

I may be inspired by all the stories of these successful businesspeople but that doesn’t mean that I should take up business to do my part. Rather, it is as if I have glimpsed a horizon to be reached and that I, in my own individual way, propel humanity towards it.

Beyond the Traffic Lights

by JB Capinpin

Thoughts Before the JEEP Program

Ever since first sem, I was already excited about the JEEP program offered by the OSCI in partnership with the Philosophy Department. The reason behind is because I perceived the JEEP experience to be one that will standout from the rest of the outreach activities I had previously participated. Going to the provinces and living with less fortunate Filipinos opened my eyes to the reality of poverty here in the Philippines, but it didn’t stick to me because it’s not everyday that I encounter these kinds of people.

And that is how the JEEP program becomes unique. We’re given the opportunity to see the world from the shoes of people whom we would more likely encounter. Given that, I think this JEEP experience will be more significant because we can apply our own experience when we deal these people after our JEEP program.

 The JEEP Orientation

Two Thursdays ago, we finally had our JEEP program orientation. We finally learned what the JEEP program was all about: the rationale behind it, the different opportunities out there, and the requirements. But what really struck me during that session was when we discussed the theme behind JEEP, U-Turn. Specifically, it was the essence of second meaning of the U-turn which made me reflect.

That same morning, I was driving to school from my house in Teacher’s Village. At the corner of C.P. Garcia and Katipunan Avenue there is a stoplight. When I reached that point that morning, I stopped because the stoplight was red. Suddenly, a truck was car behind me was honking; he was signaling me to go. Cars were still crossing in front of me so I did not dare move an inch.

Beside me was another car. The driver was checking the cars on the left; he was attempting to turn right. The stoplight was still red yet he slowly crept to make a right turn. He got away uncaught for violating the traffic light. After a few seconds, the stoplight turned green and I drove away.

I found it amusing that one of the JEEP formators, “Nono”, metioned that U-turns are a hassle to drivers. It was the immediate answer of anyone who always have to travel a couple of distances before he can go in the direction he wants. In a sense, it wastes time and resources. One could have saved these if it weren’t for these stupid u-turn slots. Then, Nono talked about the significance of u-turns. They are made to facilitate traffic and decongest roads. In other words, they aid in the traffic flow. This is perhaps one of the things we usually forget especially when dealing with traffic signs. It’s so easy for us to concentrate on our own agenda and how anything that delays us from reaching our destination is a threat or enemy. We treat these traffic policies and signs as obstacles on the road. However, we cant be naïve and simple-minded about it. They actually help in the overall traffic flow on the road. They were put in place in order to avoid more wastage of time and resources. If every driver acted on his own, the traffic conditions here would be much more severe. Understanding traffic signs must be seen in the context of the big picture. It is through the collective effort of every motorist to obey these traffic rules and regulations which will enable us to move around our country in a more efficient manner.

This does not go only for traffic signs, but also in the way we relate with the Other. Most of the time, our actions are influenced by how the Other appears to us. Our eyes are limited. Therefore, we must go beyond what the eyes can see whenever we relate or interact with the Other. We have to consider their entirety even though Levinas suggests that we can’t fully comprehend the Other because they are alter. This should not hinder us from accepting the Other just because they are not us. It is precisely the effort to know the Other as an Other which makes our relationships meaningful.

Estudyante Lamang

by Miguel Calayag


Pagka’t ako’y tao lamang. As Dr. Leo argued in class, it is such a poor conception and use of the tao, of the person. It is as if humanity is something to be ashamed of. I have problematized a permutation of this lamentation; this is a short piece on student activism.

I am a member of the Christian Union for Socialist and Democratic Advancement, also (perhaps infamously) known as CRUSADA. It is a political party within the Ateneo working to foster a campus culture conducive to political discourse. The Party is guided by Christian Social Democracy. We have forged partnerships with organizations such as the Ateneo Employees’ and Workers’ Union (AEWU), PALEA, and the marchers of Casiguran. We have held forums on the horrors of Martial Law and supported the commemoration of the victims of the brutal massacre in Maguindanao. And yet we are ridiculed. Some argue all our efforts are for naught.

One of the statements that made me ponder the most was this: Minsan mukhang nakakalimutan ng CRUSADA na estudyante lang tayo. Hindi ba estdyante lang naman tayo? Honestly, at first, there were lingering doubts. Was I forgetting that I was a student? Estudyante nga naman ako. Mag-aaral na lang ako kaysa mag rally o kaysa sa makinig sa kung anong speech ng kung anong labor union. I realized this question was asked to me before, what is Christian Social Democracy to a student?

I am not inclined to give a lecture. I only intend to share my thoughts on the matter. Perhaps, we are not just students. Hindi tayo estudyante lamang. We are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, we are citizens of a democratic Republic, we are neighbours, and we are strangers. Even granting the category of the student, to limit ourselves to this category violates the very purpose of the student: to learn. And learning is more than reading books and listening to lectures. It is also about learning to ask the right questions. Instead of asking “Hindi ba estudyante lang naman tayo?” perhaps we should ask “Hindi ba, hindi lamang tayo estudyante?”

Student activism in the form of establishing a partnership with the Ateneo labor union, for instance, as others may argue, is just a statement. But perhaps sometimes that is all that is needed and is a good start for further engagement. To tell the Other that we are here beside them. We are here to talk with or listen to them. Perhaps sometimes, that is enough (at least at the moment); that the student is friends with the worker, the librarian, photocopier operator, or the security guard and talks to him/her once in a while. After all, these people constitute the University as much as its students and teachers. They should not be merely relegated at the background, they are equals.

For those students who resonate with this idea, never think that student activism is useless. It is not. Moreover, student activism is not about picking up a gun or simply going through rallies, shouting at the top of one’s lungs. It is about engaging social, economic, and political issues as a student, however, ostensibly limited it may be. More importantly, hindi tayo estudyante lamang. Because one day, students (as if children) will be men and women, and when will they be for Others, if they do not begin – as simple and sincere as they can – now?

The Beauty of the Other

by Rimina Patolot

15 January 2013
Discussed Text: Levinas, "Secrecy and Freedom," Ethics and Infinity


In our last lecture, Levinas tried to show, through Descartes’ philosophy, the Face of the Other. There are certain insights in Descartes’ third meditation, Totality and Infinity, which can also do justice to the Other that Levinas has presented. This topic was very hard to digest for me as Levinas tried to show a structure of the idea of the Infinite – which involved thinking beyond thinking. And in this idea of the Infinite, we are be able to experience the Other as Face.

As Levinas goes back to Descartes’ philosophy, we recall the point where Descartes doubts everything, and is then left with just ideas in his mind. He then classifies the ideas left in his mind and comes with the idea of himself, on other persons, animals, and God – the Infinite. But then, where did these ideas come from? Either they came from him, or these ideas were put into him. Descartes then says that the idea of God is an infinite substance, eternal, immutable, independent, omniscient, omnipotent – an idea which is also found in traditional philosophy or metaphysics. However, he is interested in the structure, not in proving the existence of God. He goes on to point out that there are certain ideas in us which cannot be contained within ourselves. Thus, this idea which overflows may have been put into us, and not from us. Because, as Dr. Garcia has said, “How can a finite substance be the origin of an infinite substance? How can I contain something which I cannot contain? If the cause is finite, the effect cannot be infinite. The effect cannot be greater than the cause.”

From what we have learned last semester, Descartes says that an idea is true if it is clear and distinct. And this idea of the Infinite is very clear and distinct. He realizes this reality goes beyond our understanding – exactly why it is difficult for us to comprehend. And as God goes beyond our comprehension, we think more than what we can think when we think of Him. We can think about Him, but we don’t really know Him. Because a God that can be comprehended, cannot be a God. Descartes then ends his third meditation, in admiration and gratitude of this all perfect God.

I admit that I was perplexed by how Descartes illustrated the idea of the Infinite at first. I cannot even fully grasp it until now, so I'm trying to be careful in conveying my ideas about what I have understood from the lecture. But then, I realized that that was the point. To think beyond your thinking. To know that you don’t know. To understand that you can’t understand. This process of us trying to figure it out is part of the experience, because this reality can neither stand on mere reasons nor understanding. And in the end, this kind of thinking will make us admire this reality, and even be grateful for it.

So why did Levinas try to show this particular structure in Descartes' philosophy? Instead of saying that the idea of the Infinite is found in God, he said that it is in the Other - the Human Other, as philosophy has human experience as its basis. Thinking about the Other escapes the grasp of the "I." And from this, I realized that we do experience the Face of the Other as Infinite in our everyday lives. When we communicate with each other, we discover things that are beyond what we think. That's why it feels great to get to know someone you just met, and listening to other people's interests and experiences - we realize that there's something so much more than just the things in your mind. And from this, we become more thankful for such experiences because we are able to go beyond our thinking through the experience of the Other.

In line with the experience of the Other as Face, I'd like to share this "Youtube movie" with you, because I have personally experienced the Other in a very beautiful way through this 90-minute video. I have already watched this before, but watching it after our lecture, I came to appreciate it in a whole new way. Assembled by Kevin McDonald, "Life in a Day" is a compilation of videos uploaded by different users from all over the world, showing what it was like in a single day of their lives on a normal day, July 24, 2010. I was very emotionally involved with some of the stories, and I had many realizations upon watching it. I opted not to give an overview of the video, nor what my realizations were, as I want you to experience it first-hand. I hope that you find the beauty of the Face of the Other through this video - the beauty of the Other that escapes our grasps. And that even in this brief experience of the Other, we experience the Infinite.

Need Beyond Need

by Jaime Dayrit

15 January 2013


Yesterday's class was pretty interesting, despite the fact that we were 'just' revisiting Descartes. This man is known as the 'whipping boy' of Western philosophy; and in spite of this, it was nice to see/hear some appreciation of his ideas, for a change. Levinas said that there was structure in Descartes' 3rd meditation; that is, his idea about the infinite. He said our minds are chock full of ideas; of people, of things, of places, and even of God. However, he further states that because we are finite beings, it is unfathomable for us to be capable to conjure up something that is infinite; for the logic stands that the cause cannot be any less than the effect it creates. Therefore, there must be another reality (not necessarily God) that is, in fact, infinite, and that reality or entity has created us and placed its imprint on us, thus our seeming ability to comprehend that which is beyond us. This idea was particularly refreshing for me; because seeing some sort of roots of not just Christianity, but of religion as a whole; the belief that there is a 'higher power',  stem from another view - that of logic, amused me greatly.

Levinas goes on to evoke that 'there are experiences not found in our heads', that 'not everything comes from ourselves.' This again brings to mind the morals of our past lessons; that indeed, the world or the universe does not revolve around us. Meaning to say, since there is indeed another reality separate from us, we should come to understand that we, as individuals, are not the sole actors/actresses in the vast play called life. Thus, it is further implied that what should really come to light is the importance of relationships. Moreover, relationships that are not based solely on need. Whether we know it or not, relationships already exist between people; we just have to look for it and build upon it. And if need isn't the driving force of these relationships, then what should? The answer lies in desire, or in other words, need that is beyond need. Desire is what drives us, like passion, to be with the people we want, not simply because we rely on them for our existence, but rather because we are for them, instead of just ourselves. Relationships should be us coming out of ourselves, and going for the other. Doc G gave me an analogy that I think is quite apt. Take your relationship with God, for instance. Some people only go to Him because they need or want Him to help them in some way; perhaps to pass a test, to get this, to have that, etc. But that is wrong. People should be going to Him because of their own desire, because they WANT to be with Him. It is this way that they have transcended themselves beyond their needs, and they have become for the other. Similarly, this is what every one of us should strive for in our own lives.

The Urgency of Time

by Erika Tababa


I asked a question in class that I’m still thinking about 2 days after it was answered. The fox reminds us to be patient so we can “tame” him. This advice is also applicable to almost all relationships we are part of- be it as a friend, a lover, a conniver in all your marauding and being up to no good, and even as Catholic. This patience is required to get to know the Other, to try to understand their story, to begin to care and treasure the time spent with them. It pains and disturbs me to no end that such special relationships is in danger of being lost in the hundreds and thousands of all other possibilities. That the person in the elevator wearing a Dr. Who pin on her bag could have been on of your closest friends if only you asked whether the 11th doctor was their favorite or if they also watch Sherlock. Asking which can immediately create a special bond- you obsess over the same things and you can honestly teat this stranger like you’ve known each other since you were 12.

But you don’t. You don’t ask because you were scared of looking like a freak to the three other people in the elevator if the person ignores you or looks at you funny. Or maybe you were so anxious at looking at the speed of your descent because you didn’t want to be late for class that you didn’t even notice the pin. You then walk out of that elevator, one friend poorer.

So many other scenarios. So many other things that can close a vein of a beautiful possibility that could have grown and taken you to greater heights of being and living.

I want to curse it- this possibility of an impossibility. This pathos of being mortal. That there is such a limited time to explore the possibilities of all great relationships. Why can we push a button to filter all the possible “worthwhile” relationships and label them as such, making them not merely possibilities but eventualities.

Alas. This is as absurd as Adam Sandler’s life remote on Click. It’s an unfortunate reality we have to live in. Or is it?

Let us consider an alternative to our reality. Try rejecting what we have right now. Imagine a setting where we have an endless “supply” of time, where you can “sample” every possibility. Fleet through everyone and then decide whether they can be special or not. Suppose that were so, we can spend an eternity trying every flower in the world and never end up producing any good honey. You will not be able to cherish any of the memories you made because you’re confident, that fo sho, you can do it again, relive it again. One way or the other, down the infinite road ahead of you. And you live with that, with all the friends and non-friends in the world. What would that mean?

Nothing but bad honey. Or maybe like the thousand and so friends you have on Facebook.

We need the urgency of time. That everyday is a mystery, not a boring predictable eventuality. Every memory you make, cherished. Because you’ll never be 18 again, it’ll never be the same again. Living with the idea that “you only live once”, you try to make the most out of it. Even sometimes fee “tampo” because the Other didn’t show up because of other responsibilities, of other things that take up their time. It’s because we have a limited stretch in this world that we must choose to be responsible for the friendship you currently have with an acquaintance. Nevermind the girl with the pin. Don’t lament over it. It’s all theoretical, all the consequence of our mortality, of our ephemeral concrete existence. Instead, try to reconnect with an old friend. Maybe introduce them to Sherlock if you’re so grumped out about losing the friend in the elevator. Make your friends mean more than a million acquaintances.  That’s what makes them special. Tell them how much you want to spend more time with them, tell them there’s so much more you can share together, so much more differences you can fascinate about.

Let them be THE Other. Not just another. (AW YEH WORDPLAY FO SHIZZLE).

Patience is a Virtue

by Emman Paredes

8 January 2013


In class we talked about the patience of reading versus the impatience of concept. Understanding the lecture, the central idea was that we must all get rid of our mentality of thinking that we know everything. In this life we must decenter ourselves, take a moment to look around, and absorb what life has to offer. Many a times we have this stubborn mindset that tells us we have everything we already need just from ourselves, that we know everything, that we can handle everything on our own.

A perfect metaphor would be reading because we certainly need to take time to read to be able to appreciate what we are reading. Also, when we read, there is a certain level of acceptance wherein we realize there is something we can get from this book that we did not have before reading it. There is a certain openness to what the book has to offer. We take a step back and allow something new from the outside, to enter within us.

Letting Go

by Avery Wong


My mind wasn't awake and ready to comment on this morning's excerpt of The Little Prince. Although what I said was true-- that it strikes a chord inside of me, I had the urge to write an entry for today's blog. What strikes me is the fact that The Little Prince was written in such a simple way, but at the same time carries with it some heavy stuff. It's in that naivety of the conversation between Little Prince and the fox that the text spoke to me.

"Just that," said the fox. "To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world . . ."

Just as we establish ties or form relationships, that person that we made a relationship with becomes someone different. Someone important to us. You discover more about the other person each day just as the The Little Prince slowly gets closer to the fox to tame him. But like some relationships,they come to an end.

So the little prince tamed the fox. And when the hour of his departure drew near--
"Ah," said the fox, "I shall cry."
"It is your own fault," said the little prince. "I never wished you any sort of harm; but you wanted me to tame you . . ."
"Yes, that is so," said the fox.
"But now you are going to cry!" said the little prince.
"Yes, that is so," said the fox.
"Then it has done you no good at all!"
"It has done me good," said the fox, "because of the color of the wheat fields." And then he added:
"Go and look again at the roses. You will understand now that yours is unique in all the world. Then come back to say goodbye to me, and I will make you a present of a secret." 

Letting go is the hardest part. When you have to leave a friend or when someone leaves you or even when you break up. It's a thing we have to face. The fox cries, not out of plain sadness because of it being attached to a person, but maybe of both a sadness (that something good has to end) and at the same time a kind of gratefulness that the Little Prince added more color/meaning to his life.

I think being able to accept the fact that a certain person won't be physically in your life anymore and yet recognize the fact that they have changed you and being grateful for it, takes great effort (especially if it's something like a break up). Even though  it was time for the Little Prince to leave, the relationship the fox shared with the Little Prince enabled The Little Prince to recognize the uniqueness of his rose. And maybe for us, we can learn to let go and thank. And possibly, realize the importance of things we've missed.

It's All About Giving

by Mikee de Ocampo


It was only this year that I came to terms with the fact that I had to stop expecting presents to open for Christmas. The last time I actually found something for me underneath our tree was when I was 10. You're probably wondering what happened to my parents and the act of giving your children gifts on the holidays. My parents gave me something, in an envelope which was handed to me before Christmas Eve. I won't deny how happy I was; I won't deny I was already planning what to do with what I just received. However, there's just something about tearing apart red, green or gold gift-wrapping paper that gives you this warm, giddy feeling. I was talking about it with my cousin and we were both counting how many gifts we opened. She had four and I had three. We had a thread on her wall about it which had several huhuhus and sad emoticons.

Every Christmas, my relatives organize a family reunion. This year, we all decided that everyone would come to Manila and we'd throw a party. I always found our reunions funny. There seemed like almost a hundred of us and I didn't know half the people in the party, but we'd greet each other like we've known each other forever. Some people in there were relatives I hadn't seen for years--my aunts had wrinkles, my grandmother's sisters had white hair, my cousins had children with them already, those kids I saw back then weren't kids anymore, and stuff like that. You could say it was pretty crazy and I felt weird. At eighteen years old, I felt old; I felt like I had seen so much, like I've witnessed a huge development. Probably close to the same feeling I'm going to have when I tell my kids "Hey, you know what I was in college when they passed the RH bill."

I know some people who have no grandparents anymore. I've met people who spend their holidays in hospitals because of a sick family member. A couple of people I know have only one parent and some don't even have parents anymore. I know a few who have lost their siblings.

The "meh" part of growing up is realizing you don't exactly need presents on Christmas anymore. You're old enough. They could give you a thousand bucks and you're good to go. Your uncle isn't going to send you a box with a doll or a toy robot inside. Your mom's friends aren't obliged to give you gifts any more; you're a big boy or a big girl now. It gets tough when everyone finds out you've got a job. No more falling in line for a couple of paper bills, this time it's your turn to shell out for the kids waiting for their aguinaldo. Yeah, I hear you. That’s all pretty shallow.

The good part of it is you're old enough to realize and understand the fact that it isn't about presents anymore. It's not about how much you received or where you went or what you ate. You find out it's all about who you're spending it with, who's involved in your personal Christmas experience. At the end of the day, you're just thankful these people are still around, still alive, still remembering you. How sad it is, to be looking at past photos from Christmas years ago and realizing the crowd gets smaller and smaller. Aren't you thankful your favorite grandmother is still alive? Still cooking your favorite dish, still asking you if you've got a girlfriend or a boyfriend? Who cares if Tita Ganito didn't give you anything? Think about the people I mentioned above earlier. Can you imagine yourself in their place? These kinds of people find happiness despite a loss, but hell, they would probably exchange a gazillion’s worth of pamasko to have their loved ones back but they keep going and well, life goes on.

The people we spend Christmas with are usually the people we love, people we care about. These people are part of our lives, are part of us, and are part of who we are. They make us who we are. Whatever we get from them, we remember and we share. I like to read because my late grandfather taught me how to appreciate it when I was a child. I now like watching tons of Asian films because Father Nic made such an impression on me. All the pick-up lines I teach my parents are from my funny friends. My dad used to tell me that I shouldn’t leave a drink on a table when I’m at party because someone might put something in it and rape me or something like that. Crazy, but it’s something I share with my friends all the time.

Say Tito Ganyan developed cancer. You feel something, right? That’s because he is a part of you and you are a part of him. You loved the man and it’s a family thing. You are of course independent from him, even if he loses his life, you are still there, but you are never the same. You have experienced a kind of loss. Whatever conversation you had with him, no matter how short; whatever habits you noticed he had, no matter how trivial; whatever skill he probably taught you, even if it was a simple, cheesy magic trick—you remember it. You talk about it with others; you share it to and with them. In that way he is sort of a part of you. He lives through you. I read this line once, it said that people die twice, when they stop breathing and when people say their name for the last time. Doctor Garcia has said that people don’t die, they just pass on. I guess they don’t die, because we remember them. For us, they still live, in a sense that we remember them and we still give importance to them no matter what.

Christmas is all about giving, yes, but not presents. Giving. It's giving significance to what you have right now. Holding it tight, savoring it, because you know it might not last. You live in the present, so take it in while you're there now. It’s not like you can go back in time and re-do stuff, right.