Love is typing a Rant........... :DDD

Live Long and Prosper \\\///

The Frail Old Man

                 I look at the frail old man. Eyeballs are bulging out, lips are shaped to an involuntary frown due to old age, as he struggle to make himself stand for the Gospel reading. He stood there. His fragile arms stretched out to hold the bench in front of him, as if his last remaining glory depended on it. I guess it does. 

                  He was once a feared man. An aggressive politician towering above the other public servants. He fought with might, defending the "alleged" criminals, accepting bribes, among many other rumors which I have no access for confirmation aside from what our laundress would tell me. I guess people would shiver with just a sight of his mighty presence. For he was the personification of a perfect traditional trapo politician: Rich, Fat, round belly with that loud laugh, influential friends, sharp suit, polished shoes and rude. I bet some people would bow down and kiss his feet if he'd order them to. His arrogance was overwhelming. 

                  He got all his the money but his sickness did not allow him to eat anything but dried kangkong with no salt. He had all the luxury cars but was advised to have less travel. He lost weight which transformed his image from a grand well fed being to an aging dependent. With his money, they got a private nurse, whose more concern was the next pay check rather than the patient. Such is the pang of the wheel of life. He was never humble and not one of his relatives enjoy his company.  He is alone in a mansion, except for a few occasional visitors,  girls who would dare the embrace of his shaky soggy arms. 

                  I heard he was just out from the hospital after surviving another heart attack. I watch him closely...His eyes bulging, and his neck became highly animated whenever he tried to swallow something. His skin reminded me of a crumpled japanese paper in my art class. His hair, though neatly combed sideways, failed to hide the balding scalp. He is so old, I thought. If I push him, he would probably break and shatter to thousands of indistinguishable pieces. His red striped polo shirt now hang loosely on his body. I feel sad for him. I feel sorry for him and for the past he never will get back. I remember I used to play with his daughters in his small house when he had a family. They all left him now. I look at him, all the glory is gone. I pitied him. 

                    When the mass was over, I went near the man. His nurse was one of my classmates in the past and I assisted him as he carefully transferred the delicate man from the church bench to his wheelchair, it was as if we were moving an antic porcelain worth millions. The once powerful old man then looked up, gave me thanks and was wheeled out of the church. 

                    I then watch them go, not knowing and not having the slightest idea that it would be his last day on earth.

The Law Makers, the Law and the Ignorant
As they all say, the ignorance of law is no excuse. This is the sentence that slaps you in the face for a violation you have no intention of committing. In any country or institution, this sentence wins over the ignorant member who is then left to pay for the consequence. I had this experience once, a traffic officer shouted at me because I was violating a no loading rule in a particular street. I had no idea of the rule because everyone was making that place the "waiting place" for the jeep ever since I stayed in that place. Then this officer appeared out of nowhere and started to drive us away, flagging the invisible "no loading and unloading" in that area. We had no choice but obey the ugly man and the jeepney driver to pay for their so called "violations".

The mandate against the ignorance of law may have held straws during the earlier and much simpler times, today however this statement is practically impossible. In the Philippines, every year 250,000 proposals, bills etc are being handed forward in the hopes that those be approved and become laws. And every year the law expands by the approval of hundreds of laws, thousands of ordinances etcetera. And each of these proposals, (emphasis on the word "each"), holds more than 100,000 words.

How in the world did the law makers expect people to cope with this legal information overload? The idea that ignorance to the law is no excuse, is absurd considering that the mind on the average can only contain 8,000 words, not to mention, the transition the pinoy mind has to undergo to understand the law written in a foreign language. And yet I can exist in this part of the country and can potentially violate at least 1,700,000 laws i never knew existed. No one canever keep track of all the new dos and donts of this democratic country, yet law makers still keep writing and printing new laws bombarding the entire country with useless papers.

What happens really is that, all these new laws are printed, reprinted, distributed to the people who approves, after that, they all then dwindle and disappear into the labyrinths of our law where only a few hopeful law students will ever knew about its existence.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.... apparently its more like the ignorance of law makers should never be an excuse - perhaps they really should just retire and contribute less damage to the society by becoming voluntary mute and leave us all with the much simpler laws which makes more sense.

The Mistaken Concept of Women Empowerment
self illumination

-the word feminists scream their hearts out with that common filipino expression "kung kaya ng lalake, kaya rin ng babae" But is this really equality? Is equality in this sense a sense of Justice?

Sometimes I get this irk feeling when feminists struggle desperately to encourage all women to do or exceed everything men do. As if gender is a battle, a war which at some point should have a winner and a loser, and that one should outwit the other. This is absurd and destructive.

Way back in history, some of the men indeed treated women as subordinate, as properties, as concubines, as less human beings. Feminist existentialist Simone de Beauvoir, in her controversial book "the Second Sex" explained how men treated women as "the other". She outlined and explained the unjust treatment of men towards women. Yes she was right, Yes these treatments were definitely wrong.. Injustice indeed. Yet to rectify the wrong doings of the past, would duplicating everything men do become the solution? Beating the men in all stuff they do? Women empowerment in this sense is a misconception, because through this it is like trying to become what you can never become, that is, a man. In this derrogatory sense, women "trying to beat men in all things they do" just enhances gender discrimination because at some point, we can only (in general sense) achieve averagely on things which we are not designed to do. We are all made for specific reasons. The point is, we never had the same strengths and weaknesses. The extreme feminists of the past have promoted "hatred" towards men, rather than further understanding of our own specie. This is my critique.

POWER, as all the superheroes redundantly advise to people, "comes from within". It comes from an enhanced uniqueness which spring out from what the person is made. Men and women are created for specific reasons and functions in this world. Thus they function differently YET complimentarily. So the POWER comes from the enhancement of our specialized role. The great chinese philosopher Confucius referred to this as "The Rectification of Names". In the Analects of Confucius Book 13, Confucuis said: “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success." Thus peace and cooperation in the society comes from doing what you should be doing and conflict comes when one assumes a role of the other. A father should behave like a father, a student like a student, a police officer like a police officer, a teacher like a teacher, men like men and a woman like a woman. Each has their own responsibility. These are the necessary factors to create a just society, for if a police officer behave like somebody he's not, say a business man, on duty, (collecting money for specialized service) then there is corruption. Power indeed comes from the enhancement of the roles specially assigned to us through our names.

Rather than trying to beat men in all things they do, the power of women comes from simply being a woman. It is the nature of woman to take good care of the children. And so I put in forward that mother can have more power than any great leaders in the world. A mother, by being a mother can proliferate her powers and ideas to a greater number of people. By taking good care of her children, she can create leaders out of them. An example is a mother who has 11 children. Majority of her life, she was at home taking good care of the children. Despite poverty, all her children were still able to finish school. Some became high ranking officials, well respected professionals, researchers and leaders. All her teachings and philosophies spread multiple times. Rectifying her name as a mother, she was able to influence so many people through her children, who became good leaders, and were admired by people, who then taught their children to become like them. The web effect is phenomenal. A research study on successful individuals concluded that all these successful people, without exception, were greatly influenced by their mothers.

Women can always change the course of history, although most of the time she is removed from the actual actors. Often unrecognized, she is mostly the invisible influencial factor that drives men to decide on things: within the mind of the decision makers (e.g. Imelda to Ferdinand Marcos), of the heroes (e.g. Teodora Alonso to Jose Rizal), of influencial artists (e.g. Yoko Ono to John Lennon), even the most influential person in history, Jesus Christ, was brought up by Mother Mary. They are behind some of the great creations of the world like Taj Mahal (Mumtaz Mahal to Emperor Shah Jahan) or China's 6,000 steps (Xu to Goujiang). These women did not stand side by side in synagogues to preach, or neither did Teodora Alonso wrote books, Imelda didn't even need to run for President, all they have done is be the woman that they are and inspired people to change the course of history, positively (rizal) or negatively (marcos). This is the kind of power which is unique to women, as strong as men, subtle yet entirely different from the power of men. As it is often stated, that behind every great man, there is a woman.

There should't exist a competition for who is better, man or woman, because they simply cannot be compared. It's like comparing apples to oranges where there simply cannot be a "better" one. Women empowerment is not doing what men can do but simply by being and enhancing herself, rectifying her role. Indeed it cannot be denied that except for biological functions, humans of either sex can do what the other can do, man can sew, women can construct buildings, etc. But to have that desired empowerment women don't need to replicate men, rather they stay woman and be a woman, making the relation between men and women not a war of competing egos but making it an existence of cooperating and complimenting powers. This is justice, this is feminism. This is equality.

The lost spectacle of the Filipino Rally
u can only see as far as you think
I was tasked by my crime and delinquency professor to report regarding the reaction of the filipinos towards corruption in the Philippine government. I planned to present a photo essay and did several photo researches and different accounts on rally. Basing on the theoretical framework that rally is a peaceful objective and measurable account of people's reaction towards inconsistencies and injustices in the macro level. And to my dismay, i saw through the captured lines of memory, the dwindling of the spectacle of rally.

Here are some of my observations. In the 1986 EDSA rally, the hands, arms of the people were closely and with full strength held on to each other as if their lives depend on each others hand. They were immersed in the ideologies of the rally that all of them were oblivious to the image capturing devices. Result: strong emotions were widely captured by the lenses, candid photos of ordinary men, nuns, women,youth, leaders, with this indescribable sense of unity was in those photos.
22 years later, as perhaps the result of the degraded image of the government, the spectacle of the filipino rally is lost. The words "Gloria Resign" (yeah whatever) held no such unity of spirit that was present in all the EDSA 1 photos. Aside from that, the rally people, were detached from whatever ideologies that they were fighting for. Most were obviously conscious of their presence in that rally and despite the angry words from their exaggerated banners of "NO MORE GLORIA!", the rally people displayed their wide grins at the cams. They walk nonchalantly, with the full coverage of the media. They were all happily conscious.

Their ideologies has become inauthentic. In here the detachment from the metaphysical ideologies has in a way degraded the value of the rally as rally is a communal gathering of free will striving to overcome evils of society. In the 2008 rally, it was not a rally for freedom, I observed, but a display of selves.

A friend of mine was there and told me that he only did it for grades. Attendance were checked. Such lame reason but generally acceptable by people my age. It such dismaying when my professor recounted the EDSA1. He was there. He said that in those times, young people attended the rally for the sake of those who died and forgotten, for those who suffered the brutality and injustice, yes, they were all there voluntarily and not conditionally.

Sad thing is, a lot of people now still die and soon forgotten, a lot of people now, still suffer brutality and injustice... yet the difference is that, now, no one is really seriously fighting for them.

Ode to my immortal beloved
My heart still laments the loss of a friend, a loved one. I write in tears as his memory slip past the hurdles of reality. I will no longer be with him and I cry as he will no longer hear this...

He was my love and I was his. I'd walk around the world and feel his love even when he's not around and he said he did too. His eyes would be filled with happiness every time he greets me in the morning. He'd see me come from work and from the look in his eyes, I know he is happy and I am too. I held his hand, rough and callous against mine as we walk me to my destination. Often times, his arm protective around me. I'd breath in happiness, how I loved him. He would lower his gaze to meet mine, looking at me sincerely, I knew love was what I found. The days we shared were incomparable. We were happy.

When he got sick, I told him to hold  on and be strong for me. For a while he held on. But his sickness started to get a little worse each week. I looked for remedies, ways in order for him to regain health, but his body won't cooperate. I constantly reminded and recalled with him our happy days together and for several weeks, I thought he was getting better. He was not. I tried all the things I could think of but nothing worked. He grew more distant each day, his eyes swollen, his voice hoarse and my being crushed when one day he looked at me and did not remember who I was.

I tried making him recall who I was. Sang to him our songs, wrote to him our love letters even reenacted some tantrums I had, just so he would remember. I tried every means, but I couldn't reach him. He is always staring at a distant, as if his eutopia is somewhere there. From time to time my heart leapt a thousand miles everytime I thought he remembered. But I was merely exagerrating small hints of recall. It turned out, they weren't hints of recall, they were merely guesses.

On the day he died, I held on to his hand. He spoke words he once had spoken but there were no emotions, his fingers touched my face but his eyes were blank. His body was numb from all the injectibles of the cruel world I wasn't able to protect him from. He was transformed. I then held on tight, his hand holding mine. Tears flowed down his cheek, he knew it was goodbye. I looked at him, he had forgotten us, who we both used to be.

He died that day and I couldn't do anything but cry. The image of him and me kept coming back in my memory and I con't do anything but cry. Crushed in the silence of my once two way world, I delve down to think of the nothingness all the years have dwindled into. ANd I slowly looked at the past that is now gone.

I left flowers by his side recently. Talked to him for a while and dedicated time for him, for us. His response was wind, as the grass swayed. He talked in whispers and gaps, I couldn't hear him. The wind is no longer the voice that once sang to me, the wind is no longer the hands that once held me, the wind is no longer the presence that once embraced me.

He is gone.

I left his place, the wind is getting stronger, and colder. It started to rain. I shivered under a shed and remember the times we shared an umbrella when it was raining and wondered how that memory suddenly made me feel warm.

I smiled, caught a jeepney. Everything is suddenly beautiful. He will be remembered.

Happily ever after
I wrote this blog a year ago. When I was alone in my apartment one polluted night.

Happily ever after is such an understatement or perhaps an overstatement. Its lika na apparition of an oasis in the middle of a thousand hectar dry dessert. Like an end that society succumb us to go to, a level that we must all attain, a graduation to be achieved where we, starry eyed we say, I'm done! I've reached it.
Well more than the beautiful couple in their ceremonial clothes and little girls with duplicate little dresses and flowers blossoming from church aisles, happily ever after does NOT come "after", whatever it was that must exist before the "happily ever". The hell that is in between the first kiss and that "vow" moment has been totally eradicated in this Walt Disney influenced phrase.
I am not a believer of some "future" with some prince charming a.k.a "the one". I cringe at every man or woman who say that they are still searching for "the one". Might as well become pygmalions and humanized the Harlequin leading mans or the perfect dream girls. Fact is "the one", as the "happily ever after guy/girl" is simply a figment of everyone's imagination.
They don't exist.
What exists is a nobody before you.
It's just up to you to transform this galatea from a piece of stone and turn it to flesh and blood.
That is the ever after....

God does not exist?

What would you do if you wake up one morning and find out that God does not exist?

This featured blog started all the fuss in my otherwise quite peaceful brain. It was a requirement for her Philo of Religion. The question was to be answered,.

I wanted to comment but then I got to sign up first and so I didn’t comment. I just directed the question at me instead.

A baffling question. It may seem.

Yeah. What would I do if I woke up one morning and find out God does not really exist?


I then laugh at myself. Why am I thinking of an answer to this question?

I don’t have the slightest logical evidence that He exist. How can I find something not existing one day, when I don’t even know if that something really (in common standards) exist in the first place? It’s a question of nothingness.

Assuming, I say I found out (that He does not exist), wouldn’t that assumption be inadmissible to human standards since His existence is deemed inadmissible (in common standard) long before?

The great scientific knowledge cannot prove that He does not exist, because it cannot prove in logical statement that He does.

But saying that He does not exist because it cannot be logically proven that He does, is an unscientific conclusion. Since by disregarding something because it cannot be proven is an “ad ignorantiam”. To make it more understandable, just because you cannot have knowledge of something that doesn’t mean that it does not exist. This is because the existence of anything is not dependent on your judgment or thinking diba?

And so to answer this question, If I wake up one day and find out that God does not really exist?

I say, I can’t, because this Being is beyond all my thinking.


  1. i think it was Descartes who said that everything is in the mind. Our senses and the way we perceive is just the reflection on how we see say for example, if we see ourselve as beautiful then it just a reflection of pur thought that we see ourselves as that. and if others agree then that is a reflection of how they see. this idea is supported by i think sheriff, a communication analyst, who said that our perception of a though or a sign is based on several axioms connected. so if we see some thing plus our idea of beautiful then such idea or the sum of two existing entities emerges. my point is…if we think of man. the whole being with five sense(as based on the connection of ideas of am man) then we connect it to an idea of supreme, of somethings we cannot understand then the idea of god surfaces. blah blah. right? and then comes the idea of god as hope. then god as unreachable whenevr we cannot truely comprehend his existenc. blah blah… hehehe

    Comment by Pearly — March 7, 2007 @ 10:16 am | Edit This

  2. You cannot wake to find that a god exists, or does not exist, or any other supernatural entity for that matter. You believe or you don’t believe. I live my life without gods and without the supernatural but that doesn’t mean they and it doesn’t exist - they just don’t exist for me. I doubt very much that people lose their ‘faith’ overnight, more likely it’s a gradual process like when as a child you begin to suspect that your parents lied about Santa. So why worry about it?

    Comment by Juke — March 7, 2007 @ 7:41 pm | Edit This

  3. Well,as in the case of Santa Clause, there are some empirical proof that it is just a made belief. There can be a “discovery” of this made up belief because there is an objective proof that it is infact, “made up” (when parents reveal their own secrets). But the thing about God, is that, there can be no “discovery” that He “is not”, because primarily we dont have an objective hold that “He is”. That is why probably it is called faith, a submission to what is not completely known intellectually, it’s just that…Hmmm.. this is where my arguments stop. It is too “beyond” that II cannot grasp it and yet it is too “within” that I cannot just ignore it. ^_^

    Comment by Lovella — March 8, 2007 @ 1:59 am | Edit This

  4. I accept your distinction between Santa Claus and ‘god’ and your reasoning in respect of it.

    I think we are saying much the same thing except that you submit ‘to what is not completely known intellectually’ but then go on to give it form and call it ‘god’. Whereas I submit “to what is not completely known intellectually” but simply accept it as a mystery - something as yet unknown.

    Comment by Juke — March 8, 2007 @ 12:16 pm | Edit This

  5. but the fact that the Absolute could be considered as a mystery necessary implies that it is already known, that something “is”. Though the only problem in our part is that we can’t pinpoint any predicate available in the dictionary or in any language. We can only assume the predicate, say for example, God “is” love, or “is” perfect etc. But from the fact that we have the concept of a certain subject that we consider to be a mystery is already a manifestation that something is known… known does not necessarily mean understood.

    Comment by Lovella — March 8, 2007 @ 2:54 pm | Edit This

  6. I’m not sure that I understand you perfectly but here goes:

    By using the term ‘Absolute’ you are giving that which is “not completely known intellectually” an attribute - which is something you (or I) can only do as conjecture. We might sense or conceptualize that there is something beyond ourselves or outside the material universe, something that our intellect in its present state of development cannot grasp. We might choose to call this ’something’ God and then attempt to describe it’s nature, But whatever we choose to call it or however we choose to describe it - and anything other than ‘God’ is equally valid - by virtue of its unknown nature, our efforts remain conjecture and nothing more. Is this not why Christians and others rely on revelation to validate their belief?

    Comment by Juke — March 8, 2007 @ 5:22 pm | Edit This

  7. you got my point about my view of the Absolute. The Absolute is incomprehensible. The blog i posted presented some of my arguments why I can say that “incomprehensibility” is not “non existent”. ^_^
    We cannot speak of the Christians as a whole. Although the Catholics would like to be seen as a whole, but simple logic would direct our thoughts not to generalize Christians as a whole. This is a rather dangerous approach. Because this would tend to shun the essence of faith. Faith is primarily a subjective experience that extends to the community because each of this subjects can, in themselves, identify same experience with other subjects as well.
    Now this is where I believe some interpreters of Christianity has erred. They tend to install in the minds of the people that this-must-be-it, as if faith is an objective “distant” reality that must fed to the individual in order for him to be faithful. The people faced with these interpretations would find it extremely difficult to understand this presentation of faith, because in this sense, faith has become “alien” to our being. Alien because, it does not come from our own subjectivity.(But this does not mean that the Christian standard then must be ignored for the reason of some misinterpretations, that would be a serious offense to our own rationality)

    We must always, as Jesuits would say, experience it first to be able to understand it, the way it should be.
    Just like swimming for example. Everybody can know swimming through reading; all its dos and donts, musts and must nots, but no one can learn HOW to swim with out experiencing swimming. One must throw oneself to the water and allow all the learned things to just come freely from the mind to be able to understand perfectly all the written texts. This is the way the person validates his belief what the swimming textbooks say.
    As for the faithful, all things comes spontaneously, the understanding of everything comes randomly, just like the swimmer in the pool, the knowledge has become a subjective response towards his surroundings.

    It is something between the swimmer and pool, something we onlookers cannot just say, he is just simply “relying” on some intellectual understanding of swimming.
    The validation of the belief of any faithful being (a Hindu,a Christian, a Buddhist, a Moslem,) does not or should not come from on lookers, it is just something between the faithful and his belief.
    Because it is basically subjective, it will be very difficult to construct an objective “fixed” standard of such infinitely diverse experiences. This is the reason why, for me, your question (Is this not why Christians and others rely on revelation to validate their belief?) is an inappropriate one. Though this is applicable to scientific knowledge which is basically objective. ^_^

    Comment by Lovella — March 10, 2007 @ 2:39 am | Edit This

  8. Thank you for taking the time to provide such an excellent and comprehensive reply. And one That I take no issue with.

    Comment by Juke — March 10, 2007 @ 10:42 am | Edit This

  9. Your welcome…^_^

    Comment by Lovella — March 13, 2007 @ 1:45 am | Edit This

  10. the question of divine existence sprouts from the internal longing of man to define the broad horizon that we cannot grasp due to our contingent and limited existence. while it is true that general logic cannot adequately impose a strategic explanation of a being with limitless perfection, it is also true that reality imposes upon us certain events and situations that are both illogical and irrational. the unjustified suffering of millions of people, for example, due to natural disaster or human greed. these premises are not in tune with logic as the field of reason was instituted for the purpose of asserting justice on the whole physical universe. having stated that, i believe that we should approach the question of divine existence with utmost prudence for the simple reason that we are dealing with a subject and an entity that is both beyond logic and beyond rational.

    it is not wise to relatively base the absolute existence of the divine on mere logic because we cannot put or fit absolute and limited perfection on a contingent box. it is wise to acknowledge that every man has the right to search with all his might and all his faculties the answers to his deepest qustions, may it be about the divine or his existential destiny, but it is also equally wise that man must acknowledge humility, for in the broader perspective of things, he remains a limited being - a stardust on the face of a super-broad universe.

    a famous philosopher and scientist, Pascal if i’m not mistaken, once said that he has no problems in entering a wager that there is a God because if later on it is proven beyond his death that there is none, he loses nothing; but if he’ll wager that there in none and the result becomes otherwise, then he’ll have problems.

    Ultimately, all questions will be answered. the universe itself in all its vastness was created so that we can have an adequate room to seek for answers. i strongly encourage that we search for answers not just from ourselves and from our magnificent faculty of reason but beyond ourselves. the whole universe awaits our questions. personally, when i have doubts and questions regarding God or any other great phenomenon, i gaze-up at the stars of heaven. i bring to them my questions and whatever supporting explanations i have, in return they impose upon me the principles of universal truth, order and justice. then i become contented for i know that in my limited existence, there is this Greatness that provides truth, order and justice to the universe without a single hint of scarcity.

  11. Comment by gelan bugsy — October 17, 2007 @ 6:32 am | Edit This


Log in

No account? Create an account