It has been some days since the anniversary of the infamous declaration of Martial Law. I saw posts from friends and former students attacking activists with questions (and sarcasm) like “Kahit naman sinong presidente, ayaw niyo pa rin, kailan ba kayo matatapos sa kaka-rally?!” or “Akala ko ba mataas presyo ng bilihin? Eh bakit nakagastos pa kayo para lang makagawa ng effigy na susunugin?” I write this in response to these. I write this not because I find my friends who post it to be stupid (although if they share fake news they sure are hopelessly stupid). I write this because I, too, once thought on the same lines. My own journey from passivist to activist Politically, I’m neither red nor yellow, in fact I want to assure you dear friend that I transcend all colors because I think therefore I am (wink to Descartes!). If we are in Europe, I might be called a left-leaning centrist: I seek to balance my conservative beliefs with my liberal ideals. I am someone who will offend both left and right since I always stands with Aristotle’s in medias res. But I have not always been like this. When I was in high school, the same age most of my “right-wing” former students, I am more of ultra-right wing, activist-detesting, nationalistic ideologue. I, too, question the worth of activism and their untiring efforts. I view them as hindrance to national progress and their criticism as unhelpful and infantile. And then I learned that I am the infantile one. When I took the PUPCET, I was so repulsed by the sight of anti-government streamers and placards. For me, this is vandalism. I wanted to enroll in another school, a Catholic University maybe, where my place in the ivory tower of well-maintained cuticle, immaculately clean shirts, and intellectual superiority will be safeguarded against the virus that was activism and communism. Yes, I was too Americanized I already have bias against that which I do not know. But God writes through crooked lines. I did not enter a private university so I have to stick with PUP where “activists and communists” thrive. Upon entering I made a pact with myself: 1.) Never join a frat; 2.) Never fail a subject; and 3.) Never join an activist group. I managed to fulfill the first two (although I almost missed number 2) but the last one I did not. I was taking AB Philosophy. I thought the loftiness and sophistry of philosophical ideas will save me from the dirt of social awareness but I was wrong—it soiled me more into social responsibility. The words of our great professor, Ka Abe Tuibeo still rings in my ears: “Kung wala kang ipinaglalaban sa buhay, you’re a worthless animal.” I began my philosophical studies hating Marx and ended haunted by his words, “Philosophers should not just question the world; it is they time to change the world.” In front of my own social security I found myself guilty of the very destituteness of the Other as Levinas gazes more and more on me. I realized that Thomas Aquinas’ quinque viae of proving God’s existence first proves to me that my neighbor exists and if so and if God exists too, then I am infinitely responsible to him. Even in Nietzsche’s proclamation of God’s death, I am still bounded by the look of the Other that Sartre said is also objectifying me. I am more and more becoming a social animal that a true human being is. And so awake from my dogmatic slumber, with Kant and Heidegger as my guides, I joined a moderate activist group. First it was just a matter of being pragmatic: I joined them then I got friends and tutorials on some subjects, I can even borrow books I need. But later on, I have really committed myself. Our group’s advocacy then is not too political but since politicians and capitalists almost always are brothers, then it becomes political. We advocate the restraining of greedy mining. I have not participated in a rally or a “hiking” and I left the group when I also left PUP and entered the seminary. But the lessons of social responsibility and beyond is still with me. Now I am just an “arm-chair activist” with no other weapon but my words. Still, as Ka Abe always say to us then, “Words are more violent than arms struggle.” Weapons will kill a man but words can give life to humanity. And so, I write this because I understand both sides of the fence. “Gawa nang gawa ng effigy na susunugin, aksaya lang sa pera” With the effigies to be burned and arm-chairs to be thrown, I too share the sentiments of many that it is just a waste of money. Yet one must not forget the symbolism these acts convey. In a sense, making an effigy and burning it is a form of an art and art is not just for consumption of us in the middle-class visiting a museum where artworks that cost billions were exhibited, art is the self-expression of the artist. Behind the seeming waste of resources, activists whose thoughts words can no longer present use these visual arts to express themselves. In denouncing them because of “wasting money for their cause” then we also denounce Pablo Picasso’s works which are his self-expression and rebellion against the capitalistic realism of his time, we denounce Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy where he denounces the corruption of both the secular and ecclesiastical authorities of his time, we denounce Juan Luna’s Spoliarium that so vividly present the brutality of colonial rule as just a waste of oil and canvass. Again, the words of the cop that became viral sounds right: “May pinaglalaban sila.” Puro rally at pagtuligsa sa gobyerno, wala naman naitulong sa bayan… My answer to this is a flat, loud “You’re wrong dearest.” Most of the liberties we take for granted in a modern liberal state is not inherently part of democracy and were only successfully installed when people rose up and incessantly “rallied” for it. Examples? The 8-hour maximum work-time, the illegality of minors working, and slavery. When modern democracies sprung up in the late 18th century, capitalism is also on the rise. It is just normal to see people working 12-14 hours a day with a wage depending on the employer (yes, there’s no minimum wage) and children as young as five years old as workers. Only when people “rallied” against it that it was scrapped. Universal suffrage. When states adopted democracy, suffrage or voting is reserved only for men—white men, educated, bourgeoisie, white men. All others are excluded. It is only thru activism that states adopted the universal suffrage. And of course, how do you call Rizal’s works if not a form of activism? Did not Rizal help shape the destiny of this country? Kailan ba matatapos ang pagrarally ng mga lintek na aktibistang ‘yan? NEVER. Yes, you read it right, never. When revolutions become successful and the former slaves become masters, it is inevitable that the former revolutionary will someday morph into a dictator. This is an irrevocable burden of justice: justice carries violence even as it fights violence. A former critic who successfully overthrows the governor and becomes himself the governor may one day find himself silencing his own critics (the Bolsheviks of Russia is an example with Stalin as the apex). That is why the French Jewish Philosopher of Responsibility, Emmanuel Levinas, tells us that there is a need for a continuing revolution. A justice that always seek improvement. Like Hegel’s dialectic, the human dilemma is that every synthesis becomes a thesis and as such needs an anti-thesis to perfect and correct itself and make a new synthesis and the process repeats. An idea becomes polished only when challenged. The human condition is that we are innovative animals—we cannot just sit idly looking at what we have and say, “Hey, it’s already beautiful I won’t change it.” Change, according to Heraclitus, is the only permanent thing in the world. Even when opposition seems pestering and annoying, its views are still beneficial to the improvement of a project. Conclusion We cannot achieve utopia (in fact that’s why it is called u-topia meaning a place that does not and will not exist) but as human beings we have to try and try and try. The constitution enshrines it with the words: “in order to build a more just and humane society.” The catechism tells us that human life on earth is a preparation for heaven, and if so then we should strive to let His “Kingdom come” and His “will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” It is a daily call. Complacency always leads to social perdition. Whether you choose to go to the streets, or write a critical essay about our social condition in the silence of your room, or try to live out your daily life trying to change the world in your own small ways, these are all what makes as human and humane. Only he who comfortably sits, cellphone on hand, spewing hatred against socially-committed persons, sharing fake news, secure in his world with his enclosed mind is not worthy to called a human being. - Anonymous Lenz 09/25/18
The political circus known in the Philippines as the national elections has just ended and it ended with a blast. Not really literal. The national entertainment ended with the usual accusations of fraud (indeed there are no losers in the Philippines). But the most important thing that happened is the re-enactment of the fight between a widow and fraud war hero. And of course their last names were well-known. The 1986 Constitution of the Republic orders the congress to pass a law against “Political Dynasty” but we can prove the existence of the Lochness monster first and the existence of alien life forms before we can even see a law against politicos with the same family name sitting at different posts in the government at the same time or the same post one after another. Indeed, what could we expect from Dynasts themselves? But why is it so? Why do Filipinos continue to vote for people only because of their family names? Before we proceed I would like to be clear: not all of our leaders who bear the famous names were automatically evil and contorted. That will be an unjust generalization that only the ignoramus (most of them also in public positions) will raise. Now to the issue. The answer for me lies in the very fabric of our culture. It is no secret for us that our line of thinking is western but our culture remains oriental. That is why we so long for the rational thing about this issue: i.e. repeal the culture of Political Dynasties. But again it is a culture. Kultura na. History tells us that our first foreign contact is not with the Western world but with the Chinese. Chinese philosophy highly regards loyalty to one’s family. Indeed, Confucius even suggested that when your father is wanted by the police because of crime you must not tell them where he is for loyalty to one’s family is a priority over loyalty to one’s country or to anything else. This is very contrary to our idea of justice but this is what most of us do most of the times. We cannot blame them. Again it is culture. This is also the reason why we tend to vote politicians with familiar family names. Ever wonder why there have been two Aquinos, two Macapagal (one is hyphenated with Arroyo), and one Marcos with his ever-aspiring Junior? Indeed, Cebu City is still the land of the Osmeñas or the Ramas. Cavite still have Aguinaldo in its political dynasties although the Remullas are far superior now. The Ejercito-Estrada clan which is relatively new in politics is like seedlings harvested to different parts of the country. Even the incoming President is still part of a dynasty no matter what they say. In the Philippines, the family is too important that people see the son/daughter as the product of the upbringing of the father and the mother. Kung ano and puno siya rin ang bunga. Indeed this is true in many aspects. But because of this we Filipinos always tend to look at children of good politicians (or even only perceived to be so) to be good leaders themselves. But how many times are we wrong in this presumption? Sabi nila kaya daw may nasasaktan kasi nag-assume. At times this presumption could be good and indeed true but the problem is that we are a people with historical dementia. We love anything American without remembering that they have killed and raped our ancestors in the context of charity because the Philippines “cannot stand alone” and then left us bankrupt after the Second World War. The son of the late dictator (second in the world in terms of billions of dollars corrupted) ranked second in the last vice presidential bid with his supporters defending the dark martial law days where they do not have the faintest idea what life is like. This also applies to our forgetfulness of the misdeeds of politicians that is why we still vote for them and their heirs (as if it’s their birth right). What then can be the answer to political dynasty? To be honest I do not know the answer but the answer must address not only the science of politics but also the intricacies of culture and philosophy. Photo credits to aboutcagayandeoro.com Yes, I am a hypocrite and I thank you for saying so. But one reminder my dear Lord of the Iglesia ni Digong, my Church is not. Dear Mr. President-elect:
Good day and may the God of the hypocrites continue to bless your ever shining righteousness! I am a hypocrite. I confess to be so. I attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass without even understanding a word from it. Indeed, I could have understood Latin more. Whenever I got out of the old-bricked parish, I still see the world as I do before I enter the “House of God”: I still consider beggars and the poor as people to pity but not to help. I profess the value of chastity yet I still indulge in fleshly allurement. I follow the Way while my actions draw people to another ways. I want the Truth but I lie in order to survive. Indeed, I also believe in the “survival of the fittest”. I want to gain eternal Life but not yet as I do love my present life of flesh and bones. Yes, I am a hypocrite and I thank you for saying so. But one reminder my dear Lord of the Iglesia ni Digong, my Church is not. Allow me to explain this: By “Church” we mean the Iglesia, Simbahan, Ecclesia from the Greek “ekklesia” which means the community of believers. We do not mean the Gothic or modern abstract structure. Rather, the Church is a conglomeration of individual hearts that have the same pulse – that great credo to the eternally invisible, known yet unknown, the Ultimate Absurdity, the coincidentia oppositorum. One thing most people think is that the Church is the bishops, the priests, deacons, seminarians, nuns and the pope. This is both right and wrong. Yes they are the Church leaders but they are not THE Church. The Church according to Saint Paul (I forgot where; and this is another hypocrisy I have), the Church is the “Body while Christ is her head”. What does this instigator/persecutor-turned-believer mean by this? St. Paul tells us that the Church is not only its leaders, rather it is the entire “family of God here on earth,” the entire people of goodwill along with Christ as their head. But since you said that the ancient scrolls no longer matter then let us not use it as reference (I myself do not like to be a bible scholar). By definition the Church is not only its leaders but also everyone who professes the same creed, the same yes to the Absurd. The Church is composed of every single I who believes. Thus like me there are more hypocritical I’s who go to Quiapo every Friday and afterwards fornicate with another illegally, buy pampalaglag, lie, steal public funds, go to the nearest fortune-teller and the lists go on and on. But the Church is not hypocritical. What about the rare breed of us, Mr. President? The rare breed we call the holy ones? Remember the Church is not only the living on this earth. Ecclesiology would tell us that the Church is composed of the militant (we, present on this earth), the suffering (i.e. in purgatory but sure of heaven) and the glorious ones (the Saints and the saints). Where then is the merit of a Mother Teresa who cared for the sick? Of a Don Bosco who cared for the youth? Where then is the merit of our beloved dead whose memory is still in our hearts (note: in our hearts not just minds because we remember how they fared well and cared for us and loved us). Where then is the merit of your own parents? But of course you might say you do not believe in ecclesiology’s business so allow me to cite others examples that are “flesh and bones”. I would just like to ask you Mr. President-elect, where are you when the priests defended the rights of the black slaves in America? Have you read of the real reason why the Church became so powerful in Europe? After the Fall of Rome and facing different attacks from the Vandals, the Visigoths, and other like, the temporal responsibility of protecting the people fall to their supposed to be spiritual guardian. Have you heard how the French Revolution committed genocide of a French Town just because the people there are still loyal to the Catholic Church. Yes, women and infants included. Or else let us go to recent history. Do you know Bishop Romero of El Salvador? Who died because he defended the rights of the people against the dictatorship? Have you read how many priests were hung inside their parishes, nuns raped and killed in their convents during the glorious “Religious freedom” in Mexico (watch: For Greater Glory) and the Revolucion Española just because they wear their habits? Do you know that Pope Pius XII allowed the printing of fake baptismal certificates to Jews during the Second World War? Do you know Saint Maximilian Maria Kolbe who offered himself to be killed in Hitler’s gas chambers in place of a father? Let’s go closer to home. When the Spanish authorities were abusing the natives did not the Synod of Manila condemned it? Who were the original founders of schools and towns? Ever wonder why most of our localities were named after saints? Where are our great politicos when your great Hero to be interred in the Heroes’ Cemetery declared Martial Law and rampant human rights violations were committed? All of them flee abroad. Even the Yellow martyr did. Who was left here? A Sin and his brother priests (and they are all sinners; another hypocrisy of ours). And after the Dictator’s fall, who pleaded the nation to have mercy and compassion to the fallen criminal and his gang… er, family? And the hypocrisy can still go further… Another thing your faithful ones would counter (even if it does not prove the point) is that the Church is “Yellow”. Bishop Soc is “Liberal”. Father so and so is “Aquino”. And the litany of Ad Hominems continue! I wonder how could that be sir since I myself did not vote for their appointed heir. Did the Nation forgot that the current oligarch in the palace when welcoming the man-in-white criticized the bishops for criticizing him? Did the Nation already forgotten the bitter war of words over the controversial RH Law the Second Aquino Administration so profoundly wants to be passed? Most importantly, who is there to defend the rights of farmers (especially of the Hacienda Luisita) against wealthy hacienderos (e.g. Cojuangcos, Aranetas, and the like… most of them Liberals)? No the Church is not yellow. Gold we might be since it is a liturgical colour in place of white. But yellow we are not. Yes, Mr. President-elect, most of us are hypocrites who do not have the right to kiss the sandals of your feet. Your community of believers are far superior to us in matters of righteousness. What with a Panelo who said that the Mamasapano Massacre (I prefer it be called the Ampatuan death eating) is a hoax. Surely we are of no worthiness to stand before your ever glorious righteousness. But Mr. President-elect, we might be hypocrites but the Church is not. If so, then she could just have broken her ethical and moral stands in order to gain your eyes of mercy turned toward us. Lastly I invite you, there is still one more seat here. As the song says, “All are welcome!” One more hypocrite is welcome. Love, The Hypocrite |
anonymous lenzJust a traveling someone in this reality we have fallen in love with... this we call our world... "What is essential is invisible to the eyes..." Tags
All
"The absolutely other is the Other" Archives
September 2018
"There is only one corner in the universe that you can be certain of improving and that's your own Self" |