Focusing on “Focus”

by Remmon E. Barbaza
12 January 2013
Originally posted in Facebook

Andre Derain, "The Kitchen Table" (1922)

What is it about the domestic hearth that it serves as the focal point in every home?

In a recent discussion in my elective course, Philosophy of Technology, my class tackled Albert Borgmann’s thought on “focal things and practices,” which was a critical appropriation of Heidegger’s seminal text on the “question concerning technology.”

Without Borgmann I would not have bothered to inquire into the etymology of the word “focus.” Originally it is the Latin word for “domestic hearth” (also related to the German "Herd," which means stove). Borgmann points to things and practices around which people tend to gather, thus becoming focal points.

So we ask again, What is it about the domestic hearth, what is it about the stove, or the kitchen for that matter, that family members tend to gather around it?

I read somewhere that most of the scenes in American TV sitcoms take place in the kitchen, or that next to the house itself, the biggest investment one makes is the kitchen. We can add to this the dining room itself, although the two are often adjacent for obvious practical reasons. But the hearth itself, the stove—it is a source of warmth (especially in cold countries) and food to sustain our lives.

Borgmann wants to show the importance of focal things and practices, things that we use and things that we do that bind us as communities, that make us gather to build common lives and make memories. So we might paraphrase a Catholic saying—the family that prepares food together and cooks food together and eats together, stays together.

Heidegger himself distinguished between “objects” and “things.” In his lecture, “The Thing,” Heidegger said that our modern technological existence is characterized by the flooding of objects. These objects hardly touch our lives, and often they become obsolete as soon as they are introduced into the market. However, so Heidegger claims, we only really need a few things to live a truly human life. Not only that, he asserts that dwelling can only happen as "a staying with things." Not only do we stay with things, things also stay with us.

If focus then has to do with something domestic, with our very dwelling on earth, then might we not see the contemporary maladies of lack of focus, disorientation, the lack of rootedness, the absence of serenity (Meister Eckhart’s Gelassenheit), the dispersion of the soul (which sometimes goes by the name of multitasking, the stressful kind that drives us to do many things at the same time but accomplish nothing), might we not see these as symptoms of our inability to dwell on earth?

In discussing the bridge that Heidegger gave as an example of a thing that gathers people (think of the beautiful bridges all over the world, of lovers who are drawn towards them), one of my students remarked how different the bridge was from an elevated road (what we call a “flyover” in the Philippines), and how even the brokenhearted may jump from a bridge but not from a “flyover.” Even in the darkest moments of our lives, we seem to be able to distinguish between a mere object and a thing that truly gathers.

The Filipino word itself for thing, “bagay,” speaks of gathering. We also use the word to speak of “belonging.” When we have something that does not belong to another or to a place (hence cannot be gathered with them), we say, “Hindi ‘yan nababagay dito.” It also speaks of what is “proper.” What is proper can be appropriated in the sense of owning, and what can be owned is something that belongs, that is, to a whole. The things that we gather are those that belong to us, and in gathering around them we, too, belong to one another.

The dignity—indeed the charm—of things is precisely what Kaschnitz points to when she wrote, amidst the rubble of war, the following:

“Let us not disown things. They sustained us. And they uplifted us.  . . . Perhaps is the age really over in which things could exercise their old power and their old charms. Perhaps one will no longer have the time and the disposition to create them in such a way that they can be more than a necessity to us, more than a piece of short-lived equipment that can be replaced anytime. And it may be that by making things in this way our children will not be poorer, but richer, not narrower, but broader in spirit. But we, we who still saw the things go down in destruction, helplessly consumed by the flames, should neither disown nor forget them. For only when we become just to the one we lost do the gates of the inner world open themselves to us.”

What are the objects that crowd our existence and separate us from one another and from the world in which we live? What are the things that can gather us together, sustain us, uplift us, and allow us to dwell?

If, in the age of fast food, drive-thru’s, and 24/7 convenience stores, we find ourselves somehow lost or disoriented, if somehow we feel we live harassed lives—that is, without focus—perhaps we can rediscover something essential right in our homes, in our kitchen, before the warmth of the stove.

[Image above available in http://picturepost.blog.co.uk/2010/06/25/still-life-8864359/, accessed 12 January 2013.]

Karunungang Popular ng Relihiyosong Pilipino

by Venus Suarez on Friday, August 10, 2012 at 12:57am ·

*photo taken from the net.

Sa kasagsagan ng ulan at bahang dala ng habagat, hindi mapigilan ang karunungang popular ng mga ordinaryong mamamayan na iniuugnay ang kaganapang maladelubyo sa mga isyung moral at napapanahon katulad ng pagtigil ng debate sa pagpapasa ng batas reproduktibo.  Hindi sinasang-ayunan ng mga Katoliko ang iminumungkahing batas dahil sa oryentasyon nitong labag sa buhay.  Naging mabilis naman ang tugon sa karunungang popular na ito mula sa ilang sektor.  Pinili ng mga pabor sa isinusulong na batas reproduktibo ang reductio ad absurdum at pinaratangan pang nabubulagan daw ng panatismo ang mga nag-iisip nang gayon.  May mga matatalinong tao pa nga ang nagsulat na bagamat mga alagad ng matatayog na disiplina katulad ng Panitikang Ingles at Agham Panlipunan ng Sosyolohiya ay nagpumilit humalaw ng mga theolohikong konklusyon sa kaganapan at usapan tungkol sa koneksyon ng bagyo at usaping moral tulad ng Isinusulong na batas reproduktibo.

Para nga namang napakahilaw ng pagbibigay koneksyon sa Henesis 8, 7-12 (delubyo at kwento ni Noe sa Lumang Tipan) sa Historikal na kaganapan sa Pilipinas:  Agosto (ika-8 buwan); ika-7 araw; taong 2012. Petsa ang 8-7-12 ng pagdating ng mapinsalang tubig dala ng habagat; isang araw matapos pinatawag ng Presidente Noynoy Aquino ang mga kaalyado niya sa kongreso na epektibo namang nagsikilos upang mapabilis ang pag-usad ng kontrobersiyal na batas reproduktibo.  Ang parallelismo daw ng mga petsa at ang sipi mula sa bibliya (parehong 8/ 7/ 12) ay malakas na pahiwatig para sa mga Pilipino na ibasura na ang kontrobersyal na batas.  Sa isang siping umiikot din sa internet, ipinaalalang noong taong 2009, ang petsa ng paghagupit ng bagyong Ondoy ay kinaumagahan din matapos ang araw ng pag-usad pasulong ng naturang batas.  Setyembre 22 kasi binigyang tibay ang mga panuntunan sa pagdedebate tungkol sa batas reproduktibo.  Setyembre 23 naman ang kasagsagan ng bagyo.  Muli ang mistulang nais ipabatid ng historikal na pagbabalik tanaw na ito ay simpleng pagbabasura na ng batas reproduktibo.

Bagamat sa unang tingin nga ay hilaw o para bagang walang masyadong pag-iisip, mabuting mas lalong titigan pa at baka naman may nalalampasang karunungan ang nagdudunong-dunungan.  Sa kasong ito ano ba talaga ang gustong sabihin ng mga taong nagsasalita nang gayon?  Literal nga lang ba ang pag-unawa natin sa kanilang binigkas o baka naman may gusto silang sabihin bagamat kinakapos sa pagsasasalita? Maaari kasing sa karunungan ng relihiyosong popular mayroong sinasabi na higit pa sa nabibigkas.

Isa sa mga alagad ng agham panlipunang naunang nagbigay ng seryosong pagdinig at pagsasaliksik sa karunungan ng masang Pilipino ang istoryador na si Reynaldo Ileto.  Sa aklat niyang "Pasyon and Revolution" bahagyang nadaanan ang kakatwang paghalaw ng mga Pilipino ng Relihiyosong kahulugan mula sa lahat lahat; lalo pa kung panahon ng kwaresma at mga Mahal na Araw.  Sa aklat na iyon ay padaplis na nadaanan ni IIeto ang mga kagawian at kasabihang relihiyoso ng mga mananampalatayang Pilipino kung Biyernes Santo.  Palibhasa may mga pamahiin tayong mga Pilipino kapag Biyernes Santo katulad ng hindi paliligo nang mas antala pa kaysa ikatlo ng hapon (bilang paggalang sa kamatayan ng Panginoon sa mga oras na iyon).  May pagbabawal nga ring maglakbay pa sa naturang oras sapagkat ang mahahakbangan (kung naglalakad) o masasgasaan (kung nagkakariton) na puno ng saging ay maaaring katawan ng Panginoon! Napakalapit ng mga relihiyosong pakahulugan sa ordinaryong buhay para sa Pilipino.  Ang araw araw nga niyang tanong, "ano kayang ibig sabihin nito?" ay paghahagilap sa kahulugan ng kanyang karanasan na hindi maitatatwang may bahid relihiyoso pa rin.

Sa halip na kutyain ni Ileto ang karunungang popular na iyon o itanghal ang sarili niya bilang mas naliliwanagan o matalino pa sa isip na gayon, ginamit niyang pagkakataong matuto ang pakikinig sa mga ito.  Sa kabuuan nga ng aklat niyang nagbibigay unawa sa pagitan ng akademya at masang Pilipino, kapuri puri ang narating ng kanyang sinulat.  "Laging may mas malalim pang minimithi ang mga Pilipino sa pag-aaklas at rebolusyon.  May tono pa ngang relihiyoso ang bawat rebolusyon sa Pilipinas sa isip ng masang Pilipino."  Sa liwanag ng mga nahanapan ni Ileto, maaari ngang matuto sa karunungang popular na ganito. Gaano man kamapamahiin iyon sa unang pandinig, sa mas malapit na pag-unawa mahihimigan din ang isang karunungang hindi man makikipagsabayan sa mga akademiko ay kagalang-galang din sa  kakayahang magbigay kahulugan.

Kung kukunin ang parehong kababaang-loob na binibigyang indikasyon ni Reynaldo Ileto sa kanyang pag-aaral, ano kaya talagang kahulugan ng mga sinasabi ngayon ng ordinaryong tao sa kaganapan ng daluyong ng baha sa lipunang Pilipino?  Marahil hindi makapagtatangkang mangusap para sa mga taong nagsasalita sa panig ng karunungang komun sa gitna ng mga kaganapang may pagdurusa tulad ng baha o anumang sakuna.  Subalit kung may postura ng pusong nais pang matuto, maaaring magmungkahi ng ilang balangkas ng pag-unawa upang makapagbigay daan sa mas malinaw na talastasan sa pagitan ng mga propesyunal na alagad ng akademya at karunungang popular ng ordinaryong tao.

1) May pitak sa puso ng ordinaryong taong nangungusap sa misteryosong diskurso ng koneksyon ng mga kaganapan ng sakuna at mensahe mula sa langit ang biblikal na kamulatan sa "Galit ng Diyos."  Nakakagitla ang usapang ganito lalo na para sa mga akademikong mas nais balingan ang katotohanan ng Diyos bilang maaawain, mapagbigay at mapagpatawad.  Gayunman, binibigyang balanse ng popular na karunungan ang mistulang lalambot lambot at domestikadong imahen na ito ng Diyos na pinapaboran ng mga may pinag-aralan.  Sa pagpapapaalala ng mga taong nangungusap gamit ang wika ng ordinaryong karunungan, mabuti ring kilanlin Siyang Manglilikha na may hawak pa rin ng buhay at lahat ng kaganapan sa kalikasan ang Siyang tinutukoy ng usapan ukol sa Diyos.  Sa mga salita pa ng tanyag na nag-aral sa balangkas ng relihiyosong karanasan, ang pakikitungo sa Banal ay laging "mysterium tremendum et fascinans" (Rudolf Otto).

2)  May pagbalik samakatuwid ang karunungang popular sa kamulatan sa kaganapan ng DIyos na pinapahiwatig din sa atin sa pamamagitan ng kanyang Galit.  Malinaw na may ekspresyon sa bibliya ito [Job 36, 8; Bilang 32, 23; Hebreo 9, 27; Lukas 13, 5; Hebreo 2, 3] at sa dimensiyon nga nitong subhetibo natuturingan natin ang karanasan bilang "banal na takot sa Diyos."  May kakabit na kilabot at banal na takot ang pakikitungo sa Diyos.  Paalala pa ng banal na kasulatan, "takot sa Diyos ang simula ng karunungan" [Karunungan 1, 7].  Maaari samakatuwid na unawain ang mga pananalita nitong mga huling araw sa delubyo at mga kaganapang may kinalaman sa isyung moral na pagpapaalalang marapat pa ring tandaan ang banal na takot sa Diyos, nagkukubli man itong sangkap ng usapang batas sa lipunan.   Ang karunungang popular ay naghahagilap ng salita upang ipaalala ang nahantungang konklusyon ni Ileto sa kanyang aklat, "may himig relihiyoso para sa Pilipino kahit ang usapang batas pampubliko."

3)  Nangangahulugan ba ito ng isang Mapagparusang Diyos na kabaligtaran ng pinapaborang imahen ng mga edukado (Maawain, Mapagbigay at Mapagpatawad)?  Ang katolikong tulong sa pagbasa ng bibilya lalo na ng Lumang Tipan ay may pagkiling hindi lamang sa literal na nilalaman ng mga nakasulat kundi lalo pa sa mensahe nito.  Kaya nga sa sabay na katotohanang Mapagpatawad nga ang Diyos subalit siyang Husgado ding lilitis sa katapusan ng ating buhay mas nabubuo ang isang pagpapakilala ng Diyos sa kanyang sarili na hindi lamang may pagpili sa kung saan kumportable ang nagbabasa.  Sa sabay na katotohanan ng Mapagbigay na Diyos at Makatarungan sa kanyang Galit mababang loob ding pagtalima at pakikinig sa pagpapakilala ng tunay na Diyos ang angkop na tugon sa Kaniya na nagpapakilala ng kalooban at katotohanan ng kanyang Sarili.  Hindi ito usapan ng alin ang pipiliin sa dalawang imahen ng Diyos.  Usapan ito ng handa ba tayong dinggin at tanggapin kahit ang bahagi ng pagpapakilala ng Diyos na gagambala sa atin?

Sa katapusan, ang pagsisikap na unawain ang popular na karunungan na binibigyang ekpresyon nitong mga huling araw nang bigyang koneksyon kahit pa ang mga mistulang mababaw at sala-salabit lang na mga bilang, siping biblikal at pangkasalukuyang mga kaganapan ay kapupulutan pa rin ng mensaheng napapanahon at hindi lumilipas.  Ang Diyos na siyang saligan ng ating buhay, pagkilos at pag-iral ang siyang haharapin natin at pananagutan sa ginawa natin bilang tao, Pilipino, mambabatas, gurong akademiko at ordinaryong mamamayan.

Ignatius: Through the Features of Jesuits’ Faces

by Remmon E. Barbaza
Feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola
31 July 2012

Quezon City, Philippines

St. Ignatius and St. Philip Neri

“For Christ plays in ten thousand places, lovely in limbs and lovely in eyes not his, to the Father, through the features of men’s faces.” These lines from the Jesuit poet Gerard Manley Hopkins perhaps capture for me my own personal Ignatius. For Ignatius, too, as a companion of Jesus, must be playing in ten thousand places, through the features of men’s faces.

My first close encounter with the face of a Jesuit was way back in my college days at the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City, in the 1980s. The Catholic chaplain then was Fr. Guido Arguelles, S.J. He was so funny he could make you laugh even without him saying a word. He would simply look at you through his huge, thick glasses, his mouth agape and teeth that somehow reminded you of Jerry Lewis, and then he would begin to smile and you would know he was about to burst into laughter. It didn’t matter what made him laugh—you were bound to laugh with him as well. One time he was supposed to have told a penitent, “I absolve you of all your sins. For your penance, look at my face.” That must have been the first thing I learned about Ignatius and his Jesuit companions: not to take oneself seriously, even as one was serious about the welfare of others, not to be so overwhelmed by anything as to lose one’s faith.

The next face I remember was that of Fr. Roque Ferriols, S.J., with whom I took my first-ever philosophy course—sinaunang Griyego (ancient Greek philosophy)—in 1987 as a Jesuit pre-novice at the Ateneo de Manila University. Anybody who had the privilege of studying under Padre Roque and devoted full attention to every word he said and closely followed the movements of his thought in class could attest to the experience of what it really meant to study. As he sat there on the table before the blackboard, deep in his thoughts while lecturing in class (“danasin mo si Parmenides,” he would say—go through an experience of Parmenides, and manifest that experience in your own words, as if that experience was most concrete and palpable), one would begin to see his face fixed, as if onto something that was at once real and urgent. Listening to the lectures of Padre Roque was like getting hit by a lightning, and once you get hit there was no possibility of recovery. This must be the second thing I learned about Ignatius and his Jesuits: that the development of the intellect is essential to being human. Simone Weil herself saw the link between evil and the repugnance we feel whenever we have to do some intellectual work. I thus understood why Ignatius rebuffed the proposal of some younger Jesuits to cut short their seminary formation under the pretext of starting their apostolic work earlier.

The third face I remember was that of Scholastic Richie Fernando, S.J. Before he left for his regency assignment in Cambodia (it must have been in 1995), some of us Jesuit scholastics dropped by his room at the Arrupe International Residence inside the Ateneo de Manila University campus, mostly curious about the preparations he was making for his mission, but also wishing him good luck. Richie showed me a new pair of heavy duty, steel toe Caterpillar boots that a relative must have given him, jokingly telling me that they would protect him from land mines. I remember the face of Richie that night when I saw him the last time—beneath the childlike playfulness (and even some naughtiness perhaps), there just was this look in his face that told me he was extremely happy about going to Cambodia, there was this fire in his eyes that told me of this quiet passion burning within. A year later, I would hear of the tragic news of his death as he tried to prevent a distraught Cambodian student from pulling the pin of a hand grenade, which eventually blew and killed him instantly, but in the process saved the life of that student and those of others around him. This is another thing I learned about Ignatius through the face of a Jesuit: there is a fire burning within all of us, but we must keep it aflame, let it burn, and burn for the right things. We can call this fire zeal or passion. Father Pedro Arrupe called it love, saying that this love will decide everything for us.

There are many other Jesuit faces etched in my mind that somehow tell me who Ignatius was—the face of a Jesuit deep in prayer, or of another doing manual work in the most practical way. These faces help me imagine the Ignatius who showed us that God is in all things, and who invited us to bless all things in God. In them as in those of their many collaborators, I find God playing in ten thousand places, through the features of women’s and men’s faces.

[Image showing St Ignatius and St Philip Neri, available from: http://www.holyname.co.uk/news/2010/06/friendship-of-saints/]

"Hindi laging tanga ang pilosopo": Kung paano ginagawa ng pilosopiya na maging dakila ang magaling

Isang maliit na detalye sa paglalarawan ni Padre Roque Ferriols sa pilosopong Thales ang katawag-tawag ng pansin:

"Isang araw daw naglalakad [si Thales na] nagmamasid ng mga bituin.  Sa tindi ng kanyang pagtatanaw nakaligtaan niya na may balon pala sa kanyang pinagpapasyalan.  Nahulog siya at isang dalagang taga-Thrakia ay napabungisngis [nang] husto.

Nang huwag mapahiya ang pilosopiya, minabuti niyang mag-astrolohiya.  Tagsibol noon at nakita niya sa mga bituin na pagsapit ng taglagas magiging bunton-bunton ang ani ng olibo.  Kaya't pinasya niyang bilhin ang lahat ng mga gilingan ng olibo sa bayang iyon.  Sa kasariwaan ng tagsibol walang nag-aabalang umantabay sa taglagas.  Binili niya [nang] murang-mura ang lahat ng gilingan.  Noong sumapit na ang taglagas, siya lamang ang may gilingan.  Pinagbili niya [nang] mahal na mahal.  Hindi niya ito ginawa dahil sa tubo kundi upang matahuan ang madla na hindi laging tanga ang pilosopo." (Sinaunang Griyego, 8)

"Hindi laging tanga ang pilosopo."  Isang malaking hamon lagi ang makakuha ng maraming magmemejor sa pilosopiya, (at gayon na rin sa Humanidades!).  Marahil dahil sa matinding pangangailangang makapaglagay ng pagkain sa mesa o para mapalobo pa ang bulsa, hindi kaiga-igaya ang pilosopiya.  Ang madalas na tanong ay kung ano ang gagawin ng may diploma sa pilosopiya kapag nakatapos siya.  Ang takbuhan ng marami ay abogasya.  Ito na ata ang pinakaprestihiyosong maaabot ng philo major.  Ang mga talunan, magtuturo, mag-aaral uli, o papasa bilang bankero o sa human resources.  May katotohanan yata na tanga lang ang magpi-pilosopiya; walang pera sa pilosopiya.

Subalit, may ibang pinapakita ang sipi sa itaas ukol sa pilosopo.  Hindi daw laging tanga ang pilosopo, ika ni Padre Ferriols sa pamamagitan ni Thales.  At may dahilan para sang-ayunan ang pagtatayang ito.

Una, sa modernong panahon na matindi na ang pagkakahiwalay ng mga iba't ibang larangan sa isa't isa at masinop na ang espesyalisasyon sa mga gawain, hindi para sa pilosopo ang komersyo at negosyo.  Tapos na ang panahong natiyempuhan ni Thales.   Mas mainam ang ganitong gawain para sa may galing sa pagpapaikot ng pera at pagmamando sa kumpanya.  Ngunit, tanging pilosopo lamang ang makakakita ng kabuuan ng mga hiwa-hiwalay na bahagi ng sales, marketing, production at networking.  Ang mata ng pilosopo ang bubuo sa lahat ng magkakaibang kilos na ito bilang isa na may isang pinatutunguhan at layunin.  Ang pilosopiya ang magpapaunawa at magpapaalala sa negosyante sa mga dahilan ng pagsisikap at kahulugan ng pagpupunyagi.  Ang pilosopiya ang boses ng karunungan na magsasabi sa negosyanteng ginagawa niya ang lahat ng ginagawa niya dahil gusto niyang maging ganap at masaya.  Ang pilosopiya ang magbibigay sa tao ng kaganapang hinahanap niya.

Pangalawa, ang pilosopiya rin ang magtuturo sa tao na makita ang kanyang kapwa bilang tao.  Malaking bagay ito sa anumang gawaing papasukin ng tao.  Kailangan niyang matuto makilahok at makisama.  Kailangan niyang matutong makipag-usap mata sa mata kung ibig niyang umangat sa buhay.  Maaaring mayroon ang tao ng mga kakayahan upang magpatakbo ng negosyo, ng husay para makapag-opera ng pasyente, ng boses para ipunin ang mga tao para sa isang causa, subalit kung wala siyang puso, ang lahat ng kanyang gagawin ay pawang trabaho lamang, pagsunod sa mga nakatakdang dapat (Job Description/Management By Objectives).


Ito ang mapupulot natin sa mga kwento sa likod ng mga tanyag na mga tao--Cory Aquino, Archbishop Chito Tagle at maging ang hari ng komedya na si Dolphy.  Sa mga eulohiya kay Dolphy, sinasabi ng kanyang mga kaibigan kung gaano kamapagpakumbaba ang hari.  Marunong daw siya makisama sa mga crew ng produksyon.  Kinukumusta raw niya ang mga ito pati na rin ang kanilang mga pamilya--isang pakikipagkwentuhang sinsero, may pagnanais talagang makibalita at makilala sila.  Tinuring ni Dolphy ang mga mababang taong ito bilang tao, wala ang pang-uring "mababa" bago ang pagiging tao nila.  Totoo na mahusay si Dolphy sa sining ng pagpapatawa, ngunit ang nagpaiba sa kanya ay ang kanyang pakikipagkapwa.  At ito nga ang iminumulat ng pilosopiya sa mag-aaral nito.

Sa praktikal na nibel, ang pagturing sa gwardiya, sa waiter, o sa taga-xerox bilang tao ay magbabalik ng hindi matutumbasang sukli.  Dahil mabait ka sa gwardiya at kinilala mo siya, sa panahong wala kang ID, labag sa reglamento ng paaralan, palalagpasin ka niya dahil kilala ka niya.  Dahil mabait ka sa waiter, bibigyan ka niya ng espesyal na serbisyo.  Dahil mabait ka kay Ate Alma, kahit mahaba ang pila sa xerox, uunahin niya ang sa iyo.  At hindi ito hiningi sa kanila.  Kusa nila itong ibinibigay sa 'yo dahil kilala ka nila, nakikita nilang tinu(tu)ring mo silang tao.  Mula sa totoong pakikipagkapwa ang pagbabalik din ng pakikipagkapwa.

Hindi katangahan maging makatao dahil sa huli, mga kapwa tao rin ang makakasalamuha natin, makakasama at magbibigay sa atin ng ating pangalan at titulo.  Maaaring magaling (good) ang isang tao sa kanyang sining o propesyon, subalit ang pilosopiya ang gagawa sa kanya na maging dakila (great).  Ang kadakilaan ay ipinagkakaloob sa tao ng mga taong kanyang nahipo at pinakitunguhan bilang tao.  Hindi magiging mataas ang isang tao dahil lamang sa kanyang husay.  Nakakarating siya sa tuktok dahil sa pagbubuhat sa kanya ng mga taong kanyang nirespeto at tinulungan noong siya ay wala pang titulo o pangalan.  Walang dakilang tao ang hindi marunong makipagkapwa.  Ang dakilang tao ay naging dakila dahil sa kanyang kapwa.  Ang pilosopiya ang nagtuturo sa atin na kilalanin ang kapwa.

Hindi laging tanga lamang ang pilosopo.  May iniimpok siyang hindi sinasadya, na sa huling sukatan ng moderno at mapanimbang na mga mata, sa pilosopo ang kaganapan at kadakilaan.

The Length of Lent

by Remmon E. Barbaza

After going through this Holy Week and finally reaching the joyous day of Easter, we will have gone through the whole length of Lent. Indeed, we are told that the word “Lent” has its roots in “long,” with the Old English “lencten” meaning spring. We can make a guess and say that perhaps it has to do with the lengthening of day during spring.

But the fact that Lent traditionally lasts for 40 days tells us that it is perhaps really meant to be experienced as a very long period, since we are also told that in the Biblical tradition that is what the number 40 really signified (among other things).

Lent is not just meant to be experienced as a very long period, but also as a very long period in an utterly barren place that is the desert. And that can be quite frightening. Because we are also told that the number 40 in the Bible meant a period of testing, spending 40 days in the desert must be the ultimate test.

Tuareg, Algeria. Photograph by Brent Stirton, National Geographic.

What are we being tested for? What is being tested—measured—by the length of Lent?

As Kafka once observed, “the distance to my fellow-men is for me a very long one.” Imagine then the distance between God and mortals! We cannot even begin to fathom the terror of this distance, a terror that can be deadening in its silence. Even the Son of Man experienced the deadening silence of this distance when, in the very moment when He needed comfort and assurance, He felt abandoned by His very own Father.

But the distance between God and mortals becomes palpable not just as we experience the absence or even withdrawal of God, but also when in our sinfulness and capacity for evil we realize we cannot be helped except through the grace of God.

Retreating into the desert and staying there for 40 days can really be a most frightening prospect, not just because the desert is barren, but also because there is nothing much to do there. In the desert, boredom can kill us in a much more terrifying way than the lack of water and food can.

The German word for boredom is “Langeweile,” literally, a very long while. Boredom is the experience of a very long while during which there is hardly anything to do. Our contemporary world detests boredom, and so we either suppress it or cover it over. “Kill boredom,” says one billboard ad for jeans.

But the German thinker, Heidegger, tells us that boredom is a profound human experience that we would do better not to run away from, but rather bear in the fullness of its weight. Boredom contains within it the possibility of letting us see ourselves and the world with clear eyes, precisely at that moment when the world and its meaning seems to slip away from our hands, when a seemingly unbridgeable distance stands between us and everything we hold dear and familiar.

Perhaps our question then is not only what it is that the length of Lent measures—to which we replied initially as perhaps the measure of the distance between God and mortals. Perhaps an equally decisive question is what allows us to measure this distance, this length that is Lent.

The German poet, Hölderlin, tells us that poetry is the measure of the distance between mortals and the divine, and that we mortals measure ourselves against the divine all the time. That is the reason why we call ourselves, and us alone, mortals, even though we assume that animals and plants die, too. We are mortals only as measured against the immortal God.

This “poet of poets,” as Heidegger called Hölderlin, also meant that poetry is the measure of all measures. The same poet said that “full of merit, yet poetically the human being dwells,” reminding us that it is not all the things and benefits that we derive from the earth by and in themselves that will enable us to live human lives, however full we are of them. Rather, it is the way we dwell on earth that makes us human.

John the Evangelist must have sensed God to be a poet (or the poet in God) when he described with such beauty and simplicity what the Incarnation was all about: “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”

My former teacher in Filipino literature, the poet Benilda Santos, once told our class that the reason why the Pharisees and the scribes never understood Jesus was that He was speaking poetically all the time, whereas the former were trapped in legalistic (and even moralistic) thinking. Indeed only through poetic sensitivity and insight can one understand the Teacher when He tells us to look at the birds in the sky and the lilies in the field in order not to be crippled by useless anxieties, or that He would destroy the temple and build it again after three days, or that the bread He was about to break was His body.

To be sure, the Pharisees and the scribes were also measuring all the time. But their measure was not poetic. Theirs was the measure of calculation and control, of scheming and machinations. Fundamentally, they were measuring everything against themselves, and thereby were to be found wanting.

Thus, only the pure, poetic soul can really go through the whole length of Lent. Without poetry—which is a gift, and a gift most supreme—we cannot even begin to understand what it means for us to be dust, and how unto dust we shall return. Without poetry we cannot understand why it is in dying that we can live, and how only by denying ourselves can we gain everything. Without poetry we cannot understand the glory in the very humiliation of the Cross.

What is the length of Lent? What does the length of Lent measure?

Only poetry—the measure of all measures—can enable us not only to go through the length of Lent, but also to realize that only in bearing the weight of the distance between God and mortals do we discover His abiding nearness.

But if God must be a poet—He is, after all, the Word made flesh, who dwelt among us—then He Himself is the measure of all measures. He is Poetry made flesh. And so as we endure this very long time in the desert—the whole length of Lent—may we find, as we stand before the Cross and await His glorious resurrection, our true measure.

* Photo above available in http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/tuareg-desert-walk/. Accessed 3 April 2012.

Notes From the End Of Life as We Know It 13: Stewardship and Evolution

by Agustin Martin Rodriguez

Scientists say that the universe was born of a great release of energy from one particle that was densely packed with matter. The matter from that single particle is the very stuff of the stars and the planets and the atoms that form us. The energy that broke that particle up is the very energy that allows stars to blaze into being, the earth to revolve around the sun, and for a multiplicity of complex beings to emerge and flourish. The very matter and energy of that first big bang led to the birth of life in a small, blue planet; and from life emerged consciousness, then self-consciousness from one of its weakest and most naked creatures.

Beginning with the creative explosion of the big bang, to the precise formation of stars and planetary systems, to the coming to fore of a planet that allowed for the flourishing of life, to the birth of homo sapiens, one can draw a straight line that seems to lead inevitably to the emergence of the human person. However, the emergence of the human person, not to mention life and a life sustaining planet, seems like such a long shot from the big bang. The road of evolution from cosmic dust to spirit capable of willing and thinking seems so improbable. And yet it is so, and we who are able to wonder ask if, accident upon accident, the blind movement of creative drive in the universe intended us.

Whether accidental or intentioned, here we are in the universe. Philosophers have always wondered about our mysterious presence in the universe. They have always wondered why, among the myriad creatures, one had to emerge with an awareness of itself as existing, as bearing a value, as being toward potential nothingness. Why was it necessary, when life was able to grow in abundance for millions of years without humans, for one being to emerge that could question its own value and the meaning of its existence? Was self-consciousness just the best strategy for survival of a weak naked mammal? Was it just the best tool to build social formations that would allow us to dominate the food chain and so it just continued to develop from its first accidental manifestation in a mammal? Some archeologists believe so. Still, we persist with wondering about ourselves and what we are about—the only beings in the planet, and perhaps the universe, who can look at themselves and their world and wonder what existence is all about.

What is the human place in the universe? Without the human person, no creature would articulate the coming to presence of the universe; no being would look upon its existence and the existence of others with a deep awareness of their value, the symmetry of creation, and the potential eternity of finite reality. Only we appreciate the beauty and tragedy of the end of a day. Only we can appreciate the fragile and enduring joy of a child walking hand in hand with her mortal father. Only we can articulate and immortalize the magnificence of a birth and a death. The human being seems to have emerged from the dust of stars in order to be able to look back at her own existence and the existence of all things around her and articulate their eternal value. And we do articulate the eternal value and truth of all things through our creative acts. When we shape the earth to be a better dwelling for the flouring of life in its infinite richness, when we nurture life and participate in its flourishing, we participate in the constant creativity of evolution. When we bring nature to its potential as true and beautiful, we bring a value added to nature that no other being will ever be able to bring.

It seems that this is the reason the creative drive in the universe pushed toward the creation of the human being: it needed a creature with enough inwardness to affirm its existence as meaningful and valuable. Our being here is a standing before the evolution of nature, before the gift of what need not be but is. It can be argued that the creative energy that created the universe brought us forth to witness its miraculous becoming and to articulate its meaning, to narrate its history and celebrate its passing with our creative work.

Ironically, we who were brought forth to witness and cooperate in the unfolding of the creative energies of the universe are the creatures primarily at the fore of the earth’s degradation. Despite our capacity to participate in the creativity of the universe, we are the cause of global warming, environmental destruction, and the loss of much of life’s variety—not to mention the suffering of our fellow human beings. Most of these destructive acts we realized without thinking, without reflection, and without self awareness. It is as if we shut off our most essential gift when we built unsustainable and destructive civilizations. Instead of realizing our gift of creativity and self-awareness, we still persist in acting unmindfully against the world’s creativity.
Today, more than at any time, human beings are being called to restore their proper relationship to the universe. Millions of years of evolution brought forth this creature that could purposely articulate why there is anything, and to celebrate that there is with their acts of creation. We are called to remember this role and dwell more mindfully upon the earth in order to properly celebrate what is unfolding.

We are at the end of life as we know it, and we are called to pursue our being in the world with more mindfulness. We are called to participate in the cosmic becoming as person’s able to bring this becoming to fullness through our contemplation and our celebration of it, on one hand, and through our creative and respectful self-realization in the earth, on the other. We are at the beginning of life as we have yet to imagine it. We are being invited to realize our potential as thinkers, as creatures of imagination and will, as spirits of great compassion and wisdom. We are called to realize our potential as evolution’s youngest offspring.

An Unsettling Impeachment

by Agustin Martin G. Rodriguez

Before I begin, and before you read this, I would like to make this disclosure. My wife was a court attorney at the office of the Chief Justice for 6 years. However, I only met him once and that was when CJ Corona swore my wife in as a judge. I do not know him as a person or as a Chief Justice except for what most people know from the papers and some amusing office stories I hear from my wife. I am writing this not because of any loyalty for him but because I voted for the Liberal Party and I had high hopes that this party would be the traditional party that could rise above traditional politics. If you think that my thoughts here will be biased because of any of these things I disclosed, then you should skip this piece.


The impeachment of CJ Renato Corona shocks me and leaves a hollow feeling at the base of my stomach. I know that the way I am thinking about this issue and how I am reacting to it places me squarely on the other side of the fence of people I have campaigned for good governance and democratic reform with, but I can’t help it. I have been trying to make sense of my own reaction to this whole event because it bothers me to be thinking so differently from the people I so admire and struggled with for the marginalized, and so far this is the most I can make of how I feel.



I believe that my unease is multi-layered and so I will begin by exploring the layers of it. The first layer of disquiet is this: everyone is so angry at the Court for having shot down the truth commission idea. Truly, I was one of those people who wanted so much to have a truth commission to unearth the perceived evil that the GMA people accomplished. More than that, I wanted her to pay for the evil if indeed it can be proved. However, the truth commission was not so well conceived that it could arguably shown to violate the constitution. In ruling that the executive order (EO 1) creating the Truth Commission is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court’s majority declared the EO violated the equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution when it singled out the GMA administration as the subject of the Commission’s investigation. The majority believed that there are no substantial distinctions between the GMA administration and other past administrations to justify being singled out in the EO. The dissenters, however, disagreed and believed that it is reasonable to say that the GMA administration is different from other past administrations and can be treated differently. There is no definitive answer either way, and it would have taken a minor revision for the order to be approved by the Court. The Chief Justice sided with the Court’s majority. It is difficult to see why he should be condemned for his stance on an issue which is contentious or for a majority opinion he did not even write. If we wanted that Commission to unearth the evil that GMA Inc was and is, then why didn’t the government lawyers do their job well? Shouldn’t something like this have been crafted with such impeccable legal logic that it could not be faulted for its unconstitutionality? And yet it was so easily shot down, and when it was shot down they didn’t just go ahead and do the revision. I don’t think we should fault the Supreme Court for the administration’s sloppy lawyering. And yet we did—so much that we want CJ Corona to fall for it. Even if the Court was acting out of misplaced loyalty to the fallen ring master, why are they being blamed for the administration’s shoddy work?

I think this is true too for the latest crisis that sparked this unsettling impeachment. When the Court issued a temporary restraining order against the DOJ watchlist which would have allowed GMA to travel, she was not yet charged of any crime and, in fact, the DOJ was still in the process of investigating her for possible prosecution. Unquestionably, the right to travel is in our bill of rights and may be impaired only “in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law.” Others opine that the there should have been a hearing first before the TRO was issued. But there is no law or rule requiring that. Again, this is not the decision of the Chief Justice but of the En Banc. It cannot be said that the majority of the Court which includes the Chief Justice had no basis in law for its ruling as in fact they were upholding a constitutional right. And yet since the dominant voices in society have determined that they decided wrongly then the Court is wrong and biased despite having legitimate bases for its decisions. Wouldn’t this whole crisis have been averted if the cases against the ex-first couple of corruption had been filed properly and earlier? It had been how many months already since the government was supposed to have prioritized this case, and still they could not come up with a properly filed case. Even if they say, as they do, that it was a difficult case to put together, still they were able to file it over the weekend after the TRO was issued. Why were they so slow before that if they could produce a case instantly when the TRO was issued? Wasn’t this another case of bad lawyering? The administration lawyers just have to admit that they were almost out maneuvered. What could have been their excuse for the delay? And why blame the Court for having decided a case in a way that could arguably have upheld a constitutional right? I am no lawyer, but I am a citizen and I would rather that the Supreme Court err on the protection of a citizen’s rights, no matter how evil, than for it to bend to the will of those in power or the popular sentiment. We cannot violate enshrined rights just because we want to make a person pay for her crimes: that is the slipperiest slope we can slip on. Just remember how our parents allowed Marcos to take liberties on our rights just to defeat the threats to social order.

The second important layer to my unease, and I believe it may be the unease of many others, concerns the very process of how we impeached the Chief Justice. As we now know, the impeachment complaint was passed around blitzkrieg fashion to make sure that the administration party mates and allies in the persecution of GMA signed the document immediately without having to subject this to discourse or deliberation. Classic railroading or bulldozing is what this was. And tactically, this move is extremely admirable. However, what the administration is doing with this impeachment is to accuse one of the leaders of the pillars of our government of corruption and of acting in a way that undermines the will and welfare of the people. Actually, what it is doing is accusing the majority of the Court of being corrupted by GMA Inc as seen in its collegial decisions. Whether the administration intended it or not, such a serious accusation undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court, because at heart we are saying that the Court’s most recent decisions were defined by the undue influence of the immediate past president. With such a serious accusation, one that would set in motion a process that would paralyze the Senate and start another media circus, the accusers should make their accusation with some seriousness grounded on deliberation. Otherwise, this just looks like the vindictive act of one section of the elite against another.

image from wikispaces

A colleague of mine thoughtfully suggested that perhaps the Liberal Party and its allies took on this tactic because they were responding to the very tactics of the enemy. I agree that this was perhaps a response to the perceived reprehensible tactics of GMA and her cohorts to which we were subjected in the last 10 years. She did seem to use the tyranny of her majority to undermine our economic and democratic systems. However, I heard from Secretary Rocamora, a reformer in the administration who heads the Anti-Poverty Commission, that this administration wants to realize reforms profoundly enough so that they cannot be undermined even by a non-reformist government. I admire that sentiment and goal, however, I see this impeachment strategy as a tactic so grossly low, something on the level of GMA herself, that it only furthers the cause of non-democratic governance. I agree with the administration reformers’ strategy that every act that the government accomplishes now should be a precedent as to how we should govern. This makes it doubly disturbing that we will persecute GMA and her allies through the tyrannical acts of an undiscursive and vindictive majority. Just because we are on the side of the good and reform does not justify our means which clearly exhibit the worst of process railroading. Of course, this is allowed by constitutional procedures, but it kills the discursive quest for articulating the just and the good.

The last layer of this controversy that disturbs me is this: ultimately, this whole process is all about the exercise of political power by those who have it. One of the LP traditional politicians actually said on TV that Corona should resign because they have the numbers in the Senate and he should just spare himself the embarrassment. That is just the most crass statement made on the impeachment and it reveals how this whole impeachment is a bullying by the administration of the persons who are an obstruction of their agenda. No matter how just one’s agenda is, one cannot and should not thoughtlessly move to destroy one’s enemy—especially when this destruction could destabilize our already fragile governance system. The recent attacks on the Supreme Court, with their virulence and lack of nuancing, have truly planted the seeds of doubt in the minds of the public. With such an intense accusation, I as a citizen would like to know if the Supreme Court’s decisions are grossly biased for GMA and if indeed they are a hindrance to our quest for justice and reform. In the end, this is what the impeachment is about. The administration feels that the Supreme Court cannot function as the supreme arbiter of the meaning of the laws and ours acts in relation to these—that is their message to the public. I for one, as a member of that public, a citizen who voted this party into power, would like to know if indeed this is true. And so the Chief Justice should not resign! The citizens need to know if they can trust their Supreme Court. Of course, all this hinges on the hope that the Senate will remain fair and just in the impeachment trial. And or course they must, because now more than ever we need to know.

I should be rejoicing during this time. Now that people who have the same reform agenda as I have are in power and they can get things done—and hopefully the right way. But I am not rejoicing. I am very unsettled. And of course, the more political among us will say that I am being naïve again. That in the real world, we need to act in any way that will push forward our reforms—and to a level that reform will be difficult to dismantle. However, we have seen how their zeal can actually damage procedures of good governance. These tactics could actually further entrench the ethos of injustice, corruption, and the tyranny of the majority.

I know that those pursuing GMA feel that they are doing all they can to fulfill their moral duty. And I agree: making those who have wronged us pay is a moral duty. However, to do our moral duty, we must do it properly—with attention to detail, respect for procedure, impeccable lawyering, and utmost respect for the spirit of the rule of law and democracy. The moral crusaders and reformists must remember that they are standing in for a majority whose genuine will and aspirations they do not really understand or know. And as they try to build a world that they imagine does respond to the will of the majority, they should not destroy the processes that will allow this majority to one day represent themselves.