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.

Notes from the End of Life as We Know It 12: Breaking the Pod of I

by Agustin Martin Rodriguez

Why the World Mourned Steve Jobs

When Steve Jobs died, and his profile appeared in apple bites around the world, I was taken aback. So many people genuinely mourned his death. It was as if he was John Lennon or Princess Diana. The world was in mourning and apparently it was a little emptier without him. As they moved from shock to fond farewells and I wondered who it was that they felt they lost.

This is as much as I can figure out: Jobs was like the Beatles. His coming to the world pop culture taught us a new way of being in the world and he made our lives seem richer and more exciting. This he did by making the interphase between human and computer easy—even sexy. Through those solid, white machines that looked so clean and elegant to the equally elegant pods on which we dock and which have become our constant companion, Steve Jobs made us all cyborgs. Jobs and company taught us how to enhance our humanity by being attached to our computers. They were able to do this because they created systems where anyone with a simple capacity to understand symbols, has a deep enough pocket, and has a rationality that can navigate the rudimentary operations of computers can instantly connect to a digital world where communicating with anyone and accessing any information is simple. Users didn’t have to know much except to point and click, and to know what to point at and why.

In the old days, before these computers became popular, one had to be a low level expert in computer languages to be able to make these machines do more than rudimentary computing and word processing. Because of the mouse and the simplified commands for making computers do things, most people can now engage the internet with its web of relations, use all forms of communication technologies that reduce great distances, and compile massive amounts of information from the most sublime to the most shallow. These world shifting innovations served us well indeed. They allowed us to be more informed, creative, productive, connected, and engaged. They allowed us to globalize production and tighten the global factory system. It also democratized the creation, distribution, and acquisition of knowledge. At least it democratized it among people who shared Western rationalities and incomes. (Of course, the down side of this is that it could have furthered the marginalization of the others of global civilization. But that’s another story.)

The ease of computer use served the Filipino spirit well. Filipinos have an intense need to keep in touch with each other. We need to know what all our relatives are up to, how much their children are earning, who married whom, who made it to America, and who is the most unfortunate. We need to know where are classmates are, if they’re earning more than us, if they made it to America or even Singapore, and whose kids are better than ours. The computer and information systems have intensified this need and magnified them to almost obsessive proportions. The public access computers in the Ateneo library are occupied with people checking their Facebooks walls or Twitter accounts. Almost every minute there is some comment on life, some gushing about food, some sharing of some poem, or some linked article read that we have to be updated with.

Pinoys need to reach out and touch others and be affirmed by those others. Because of our connectedness to our computers, this need has become extremely intensified. We constantly have our phones in our hands and forward badly constructed quotes or text inanities just to be able to say something and incite a response. Some obsess about keeping people updated about their present activities such as “enjoying my expresso in Starbucks” or “sad because I missed my class.” Almost constantly and without rest, we are asking for affirmation. Here is my cupcake that I ate the other day. See the picture! Here are a hundred pictures of me sitting with my friends in a restaurant. Here! Read my thoughts on cupcakes with friends in a restaurant. I heard this. I read that. I liked this. Like it too! Here I am! The computer and information technologies we now have made it easier for us to obsess with ourselves and present ourselves instantly to our cyber publics.

These examples of what computers have done for us shows how tools really expand our capacities and serve our needs. We have the need and capacity to communicate. Computers expanded these capacities beyond the face to face. They even modify space and time for us. Space and time are relative now to the speed of transmission and the capacity of the technology to accommodate users.

Technology Enframes

We thank Steve Jobs because his technological innovations made so many things possible: love at a distance, massive barkadas, and intercontinental collaborations—not  to mention our almost limitless self-promotion. These innovations seem to show how technology is responsive to our needs and that they exist to serve us. After all technology is only supposed to expand or extend our capabilities. However, we don’t realize that technologies also frame the way we realize those capabilities. For example, how we communicate and how we handle knowledge—the content of it and the meaning of it as much as the means of it—is computer framed. Today powerpoint determines how we lecture. It is linear, visual, and simple. Everything you have to say is all there and you do have to go too deep. The same is true with reflections, sharing information, and campaigning. These happen on webpages  on the internet. But to share this information you have to be picture-filled, not text-heavy, uncomplicated, and simplistic even.

Research and knowledge sharing have also been changed. For one, there is the democratization of knowledge. Anyone who can type and upload can share anything they want and make people think they are worth reading and quoting. We can also share our talents and make stars of ourselves without having the imprimatur of the controllers of music and entertainment. This certainly opens up the realms of art and culture, but it also floods our world with distractions that may not be worth spending much time on. And many people do spend time watching Youtube videos of babies bumping into walls or monkeys sticking their fingers in their anuses. For another, we have access to truly great things worth dwelling on such as the Apu Trilogy, early Greek music, the complete works of Kant, and scholarly commentary about all these things.

However, the nature of the technology does not encourage dwelling and deepening even of the most profound things we can acquire from it. For instance, because we can download the whole discography of Santana or every quartet of Beethoven, or the filmography of Fassbinder or Tarkovsky, in a matter of a day, we tend to acquire and acquire and flood our hard drives with so much stuff that we feel compelled to just to through everything. When we used to acquire one album at a time, and then it was difficult to acquire more than one at a time, we tended to dwell on those singular things we acquired. After all, one tends of savor the one thing one worked to get. But this cacophony of sound, this wealth of great art, tends to reduce the work to just another thing to consume on the level of the Youtube video of the monkeys dancing and that blog about cupcakes you just have to read.

In this way, we are enframed by the technologies we have. With the advent of these new systems of communicating, sharing, knowing; with our attachment to the computer and electronic systems; we are caught in a way of being that, if we are  not careful, can utterly transform the way we engage the real. How we think, how we know, how we process and deepen our knowledge, are profoundly being shaped by the new electronic media. Even our construction of self is being shaped by this. The fact that you have to posit yourself in Facebook, Twitter, or blog fashion determines how you project yourself. After all, there is a dominant rationality that controls these systems and formats the self-presentation that we are allowed to make. The limitations of space and style, shapes what we want to share and how we should share it. You are a different self in your diary than in your blog. Your posted self follows a format often already shaped by the Western users of that system. If we are not aware of any other way of presenting ourselves, we may just start believing what we project to be the very depths of our selves.

No Time To Think, No Time To Sleep

After the spread of communications technologies as we know them, we are left in a state of restlessness and sleeplessness because the rhythm of opening and retreating has been transformed to relentless exposing. We are called by our computer to always be online because there is always someone online doing something. We can’t really shut the computer anymore because we need to get the new thing, the latest scoop, the currently obsessed about thing. The movement of receiving and processing or reflecting has been disrupted by the bulk of things we have to process and the constant stream of shared information that floods our screens. There is no more time or inclination to be quiet and take things in. And the private spaces where the self can be formed and grow without being continuously bombarded with external noise is lost. We sit in front of computers constantly shifting our attention from task to task, clicking from page to page, processing, digesting, at the speed of digital transfers.

I was talking to a young person, a particularly smart and reflective writer, about the speed at which information was being transferred and accessed and how that robs many young people of the quiet time to reflect. And she said, And why is it so important to reflect? This is what Steve Jobs and the other computer revolutionaries have sold us. This is the new normal of human engagement and interaction, of coming to knowledge, and becoming ourselves. 

The new normal is good because it makes things easy. However, it is also makes us accept these ways uncritically. Without too many people realizing that it was happening, meetings were organized through cell phones, people stopped updating each other personally but through Facebook, protests were brought together through Twitter, and discussion groups were done through YM. Not too many people realized either that although you could gather people through Twitter, you could not educate them on the intricacies of issues through that. Sharing one’s life became less personal because one merely posted on a wall rather than communicating one’s feelings and thoughts to friends. Meetings and discussions over YM had to be superficial because the space constraints determined that we could not explore too deeply our thoughts in that space.  But that was the new normal and everyone accepted that.

image from http://southinkucannance.blogspot.com/2011/11/parking-garage-peep-show.html

However, things are happening too fast, and the new normal is being marketed too forcefully for the young to be able to critically reflect on the value and truth of these things. In fact, they no longer see any alternatives to this normal. Before most people realized it, we were bought into a way of being that we have not decided on nor have we reflected on its value. We just have to have a cell phone because otherwise our community will be limited. We have to have a Facebook account or we will be left out of the loop. We will have to have internet because we will be capability deprived on so many levels.

Today, because of these technologies, we are forced to express ourselves uniformly in ways constructed by others who have more access to us because of the internet. We feel we need to keep presenting ourselves and engaging our publics because otherwise we will be left out. We no longer have time or space to withdraw from the stream of images, information, and ideas. We are forced to be always with our machines and have almost forgotten what it means to be other than machine connected. We have become infolded. We have been pushed to present ourselves and obsess about what we are incessantly but as framed by the formats of the new media. We have also been led to frame the presencing of others such that we can only see them as they present themselves to us in the form of the enframing media.

A New Unfolding to a Generation Infolded

As life as we know it comes to an end, we are called by the play of the real to be more mindful of what comes to presence. The end of abundant food, the end of petroleum, the end of fertile soil, the end of free flowing water, and the end of consumer driven civilizations calls us to be open to the presencing of the end in order for us to articulate what is given to begin. In our time, the play of Being is  being given otherwise than how we have framed it. A new way of realizing human presencing is being challenged from us and we must rise to the call of it. But how do we respond to the call of presencing when we are already framed as the beings who are the masters of and mastered by enframing. We are already framed to let others presence as framed. We even frame our presencing as presentable as posts on a wall or tweets on a screen. We are self-absorbed totalities obsessed with presenting ourselves and consuming the self-presentation of others.

However, from the stasis of our self-absorption, we are being called to open to the advent of the play of eternity. How can we open to the eternal call of Being in play if all we can see is our selves and all we can accept is always already framed? We need to be able to realize an opening which demands a kind of thinking that is able to engage the play of what come to presence in the complexity of its play, in the complexity of its presentation. Only in this way can we be persons who are able to contemplate the play of being that gives presencing. If we are enframing and infolded, we cannot begin to open to what calls us forth to opening.

Unfortunately, the new technologies make us believe that being infolded is the only normal. We are i-pods. The pod of an I enclosed in itself, unable to open freely, to be given freely to what comes calling in presence. We are the plugged pod that cannot break open even when the time of ripening comes because we cannot even begin to sense the invitation to ripening in the air. But we cannot afford to be these petrified pods as we come to the end of life as we know it. Already, the earth is moving to eject us like destructive parasites in the fever of global warming. We will only survive this trying time if we can image new ways of being in the world that are genuinely responsive to the giving of the play of the earth’s presencing and make atonements. But how can we delicately respond if we are I pods—self contained, self-involved pods who interphase with each other in ways determined by enframing systems? We need to break the pods, and relearn opening.

We need to choose to cultivate the capacity to genuinely contemplate the play of presence. This means weaning ourselves from the obsessive distractedness with our machines. It means being able to withdraw from being plugged into the machineries of enframing and being able to contemplate, to reflect, to withdraw into our quiet. Only then will be begin to sense the stirring of rebirth at the end of life as we know it. Only then will the nourishment of renewal coax our pods into new birth.

Moralists vs. Institutionalists: Arguing about Corona's Impeachment

by Rowie Azada-Palacios

My social network feeds are aflame with squabbles about whether the impeachment of Justice Renato Corona was a good thing or not.

I've been trying to make sense of the issue. In particular, I've been trying to understand why the two sides interpret the impeachment events so differently. One side sees the impeachment as a step towards the fortunate ouster of a partial, perhaps corrupt chief justice who, in their view, is willing to coddle a former president to whom he owes favors. The other side sees the impeachment--or at least the events immediately preceding it and the rhetoric surrounding it--as an attack on the very foundations of democracy.

image from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2011/12/aquino-corona.jpg

I presume, here, of course, that both sides are honest, thinking, rational, and moral in their assessment of the issue. And I grant that what I'm about to describe is an oversimplification of views which are probably much more complex or nuanced, but I present these as an initial framework to begin thinking about the public debate that has ensued.

How can the same events be interpreted so differently? My hypothesis is that we have here a difference in paradigms. One camp, I'll call the "Moralists." The other camp, I'll call the "Institutionalists."

Let me say, at the get-go, that both camps make valid points.

The Moralists believe that the chief problem of the country is immoral personalities. The first order of business in reforming the country is getting rid of immoral personalities who are in power, and replacing them with moral people. This is more important to them than the meticulousness of institutional process, and if forced to choose between the meticulousness of procedure, and the ouster of an immoral leader, they will choose the ouster. Institutions are merely a tool towards a moral order, and if the institutions fail to uphold morality, then the institutions can be bent or reshaped.

The Institutionalists believe that the chief problem of the country is weak institutions. For them, the first order of business in reforming the country is fixing and strengthening democratic institutions. To this end, they are willing to tolerate the presence of a few "immoral" officials if they think that that is what is necessary to strengthen and maintain the integrity of institutions. In fact, Institutionalists might even dismiss the notion of "immorality" altogether, viewing moral quarrels instead as accidents of pluralism. Institutions are the remedy to pluralism: they are what allow us to work harmoniously despite our differences, and thus, they must be protected at all costs, to prevent society from descending into chaos.

Moralists look at the country in terms of personalities, and distinguish them from each other according to the categories of "moral" and "immoral." Institutionalists look at the country in terms of institutions.

An insistence on morality and a belief in institutions are not mutually exclusive, of course. Most Moralists also value institutions, and most Institutionalists also shun immorality. The difference, rather, is one of prioritization.

Moralists believe that institutions are useless if they are not led by good people. Institutionalists believe that strong institutions can help a country weather the effects of the worst leadership.

Let's take the Chief Justice as an example. Moralists look at Corona and see a PERSON, an immoral one, someone who has been partial in his decisions. They are happy to see this immoral person ousted, and are willing to tolerate a certain degree of "railroading" if the end-goal of ridding the government of immoral persons is achieved.

Institutionalists look at Corona and see the INSTITUTION he symbolizes, the Supreme Court. Whether or not they like Corona, they see him primarily as the leader of the Supreme Court, and attacks on him (not just the impeachment, but also the rhetorical attacks) as an assault on the Supreme Court. They are upset that the Supreme Court is being attacked, and worry that this could weaken the institutional order that was created by the 1987 Constitution.

Who is right? Each side has a justifiable point. But it's easy to see why the two sides will never agree on this particular issue.

Seedling Banks to Reverse Global Warming

by Rainier A. Ibana*

Two weeks ago, the Rev. Fr. Cezar M. Echano, beloved Parish Priest of St. John the Baptist in Daet, Camarines Norte, sent some seeds from the fruits that he consumed while in Davao City. Since I was not around, our helper placed them on the drier in preparation for planting. As soon as I arrived, I immediately inserted some of the durian seeds into the soil since they might accumulate molds from the left-over pulps which were not peeled by our helper. One week later, roots began to come out of the seeds. I then brought them out of the shade so that leaves can spring out from them.

The best part of planting is when leaves sprout from the shell that has long embraced its kernel. I usually visit our backyard in the morning to look for seedlings that might need help in coming out to the world of light, air and water. I sometimes forget my temporality during these morning rituals as I bend down to unwrap these sprouting gifts of creation. Taking away the shells and allowing the sprouts to spring out into the air remind me of Michaelangelo’s painting that depicts God the Father touching the tip of Adam’s pointing finger during the early moments of creation.


It takes a while before these seeds can come out of their shells. Sour sops (Guyabanos) take more than fifteen days to emerge and sometimes one already feels the verge of disappointment before their fragile stems awkwardly push out the head-shaped seeds from the soil. It will take another week before the empty shells are pushed out and one is tempted to intervene by peeling the pods from the emerging buds. But an early intervention might damage the plant while a later one might no longer be needed as the leaves will naturally spit out the shell that has enslaved them for too long.


Cacao and santol seeds, on the other hand, spring out like water fountains that have long been suppressed by large and heavy rocks from the soil. They sprout in a matter of days and they grow on their own for as long as the cacao seedlings are not over-exposed to the scorching heat while santol stems become sturdier the more they are struck by the sun’s bright rays. Each type of seed has its own peculiar needs in order to flourish.

Papayas, I discovered, are very delicate. One cannot merely throw them anywhere for them to grow on their own. They need a special place where the rays of the morning sun can penetrate the darkness that engulfs them and their roots can rot and wither from too much water. I found out that they grow best under the window sill where the morning light can bless them while the roof protects them from the rain. They can be transplanted only when their stems have become firm and their roots have not yet penetrated the soil too deeply. One has to dig carefully in order to keep the main roots’ grasp on the soil that has nurtured and nourished them.

I have recently consumed many kinds of fruits and planted their seeds depending on the seasons: malig-ang, mangoes and santol in the Summer; avocados in July, rambutans and lanzones in October and November; chicos, mabolos, atis, chesas, jackfruits, pomelos, mangosteens, sampalok, and other endogenous fruit-bearing seeds during particular months of the year. I have even ventured into growing exotic species such as longan, lychees and dates in order to someday relish their succulent pulps. Helping them grow has become a part of the morning rituals that daily energize my body and spirit. Instead of merely jogging or doing calisthenics, I discovered that engaging the earth by putting soil in bags and carrying seedlings to spaces where light dawns on them are more fruitful ways of getting some physical exercise.

At the background of these gardening activities is the awareness that I am positively doing something in favour of the environment by creating more carbon sinks that will help cool down the earth and thus mitigate climate change and perhaps even reverse global warming. I would like to believe that these seedlings are growing much faster than they would normally do because they are also trying to catch up with the excessive carbons that have been released to the environment by our modern lifestyles. These oxygen producing organisms can indeed contribute to our efforts to cool down the earth and enhance the chances of survival for oxygen-consuming animals like ourselves.

If more people, like Fr. Echano, could deposit the seeds from the fruits that they have consumed in seedling banks like the one we have in our backyard and if we can institutionalize more of these seedling banks in our schools, parishes, town plazas, seminaries, homes and other vacant lots, then we can have a tremendous multiplier effect in preserving the integrity and sustainability of creation in our God-given corner of the planet.

We can perhaps better appreciate our daily contribution to the mitigation of climate change and our hope for the reversal of global warming trends if we view it within a larger planetary vision wherein our survival as Earthlings is intertwined with the future of Gaia, the mother Earth on whom we stand as she revolves around the sun and traverses our universe. As astronaut Michael Collins wrote about his experience of stepping on the moon:
“.... I looked back at my fragile home – a glistening, inviting beacon, delicate blue and white, a tiny outpost suspended in the black infinity. Earth is to be treasured and nurtured, something precious that must endure....”



*Rainier A. Ibana, a native of Daet, Camarines Norte, Chairs the Environmental Ethics Committee of UNESCO’s World Commission on the Ethics of Science and Technology and currently serves as President of the Asia-Pacific Philosophy Education Network for Democracy. He has recently been reappointed by the President of the Philippines as a Member of the UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines wherein he serves as Vice-Chair of its Human and Social Sciences Committee. He is on leave as Full Professor of Philosophy at Ateneo de Manila University.

Notes From The End Of The World As We Know It 11: Education at the End of Life as we Know It

by Agustin Martin Rodriguez

The other night, my children were having the most delightful and intelligent conversation. My son had not seen his sister in a while and he was so excited to be sitting at the table with her again. And, as usual, when he is excited or happy, the words flowed at a torrential rate. He was telling her about his latest favorite thing, which was to be read Greek myths to. As he was sharing various points of interest, he blurted out: “And you know, ate, how silly this Pygmalion was? He fell in love with his own statue. His own statue that he made! How ridiculous is that?” This was my just turned six year old son who, later on, with similar explicatives, explained how sad it was that Prometheus had to be punished for stealing fire for the people. With this, my son and his 20 year old ate engaged each other in a conversation on the tragic and ethical issues explored by these myths. In truth, that conversation wasn’t as profound as I’m making it sound. Most of it sounded more like: “I know! That’s so sad right?” and “Why would anyone open the box? That’s so dumb!” But the reason I thought that this conversation was so intelligent was not because my son knew his mythology. That’s not a sign of intelligence but of exposure to a certain culture because of one’s class. Rather, the reason I thought that this conversation was so smart, was because my six year old was able to pick up on and analyze the elements of high tragedy in the myths and comment on them from his own perspective.


I am starting with this story because my son is not so manifestly smart in school. You see he goes to a traditional pre-school where they are made to sit on a desk and follow a rather fixed curriculum. It’s a wonderful curriculum, mind you. But it is a very traditional one and pushes all the children to learn standard things according to a standard plan and does not really allow them to explore learning with their various intelligences. This is why my son, who can discuss Greek mythology and argue against the necessity of hell if God is a loving God, is not one of the smartest kids in school. For the longest time, they were even reporting that he did not complete sentences when at home he would be using words like “ridiculous” correctly and as part of complex sentences. Thus, my son hated school even if he loves seeing his teacher and classmates.

I remember when I was in school how I too was not very happy. More so than my son because, in the old days, teachers thought that threats and fear were their best tools to coax learning. So I always felt like a dunce because, despite the threats and the fear, I could never get the lessons as quickly or as rightly as the other kids. I was always in the middle, insignificant and never feeling particularly bright or capable. The kids on top had tutors, driven parents who either drilled their students constantly and/or brought food to school for the teachers on an almost daily basis. I was there to passively get knowledge drilled into my head. My happiest time in school was play time or, later, illicit smoking breaks. I don’t think traditional school suited me because one was either one of the herd who was asked simply to receive information and skills, or one excelled because one was driven and tutored to empty excellence. In the end it was never about discovery.

When I got to the university, all of a sudden, learning was so much fun and was so wonderful. It was so because, by this time, I had learned not to care about grades. I never actually did care about grades when I was in primary and secondary school because grades only made me feel mediocre and worthless. But when I reached college and started studying literature and philosophy, I was allowed to forget about grades. The less I cared about grades, the more I learned to learn and the higher my performance was evaluated—a fact that seems ironic to most, but not for people who know what learning is genuinely about.

I remember how it felt when I first discovered learning. It was when my literature and philosophy teachers first started talking about literary and philosophical works as living works to think about, to engage with, and build upon. Parmenides’ poem was a living testament that invited you to immerse in the first articulation of Being. Brilliantes offered a world of symbols and feelings that allowed you to explore your own. Later, my history teacher taught me that the pasyon was a framework for a whole revolution, and we could sift through the thought of Bonifacio and Jacinto for its traces. For the first time, we were invited to think and not to repeat. For the first time, dead people stopped being dead and we could see with them, feel with them, love and hate with them, imagine new worlds with them, and then we were invited to think our own thoughts in response. How wonderful was that? If study time in my youth was spent crying over homework that didn’t mean anything to me, this time I could not get enough of reading assigned texts in college. I believe that my daughter experienced the same kind of liberation when, from a traditional school, she was allowed to experience creative learning in a UN high school and later in the university where I teach. Learning, all of a sudden, was exhilarating because it was discovery and liberation. I was truly led out of the cave and I was basking in the living light. Certainly, this was not all the time because we had our share of uninspired teachers. But when the teachers were good, we soared.

Because of my own experience of liberation, I want to tell my son when he comes home from the school where he is not so smart not to worry. “
High school and grade school are meant to be like that—a cave of dark learning. There’s no other way to learn the basics but to sit and memorize and give back what your teachers want you to learn. Ate had to go through that and now she’s learning better things in college.” But then, I am beginning to hear about progressive schools. They say that in these schools, there are no grades and children are taught in a way that does not put a premium on what they can memorize but on how they can discover knowledge on their own. They are not stuffed into large classrooms where they are anonymous and uniform, but each one is encouraged to discover and realize their own special talents. In these schools, their learning rhythms are respected.

Just last month, my wife and I visited the open house of one such school. And we were so surprised to meet the children there. They seemed like such nerds. Not the annoying kind who were in your face because they needed to let you know what they knew so that you would think they were special, but the kind of children who were so obviously smart because they had learning and were excited by it. The kids did presentations on things they discovered in school and as they did, they spoke like a different breed from the children herded into traditional schools. They had knowledge that they genuinely understood—knowledge that empowered them because they knew how they got to it and why it matters. They seemed like products of a system that respected their creativity and capacity to participate in their own education. Because the school does not run according to competitiveness and the measure of grades, the students seemed to be into learning for the sake of wanting to know and to understand. They were independent learners that early. They obviously came to knowing because it was fun or it was important to them or it fascinated them and, therefore, they could and wanted to share it. There on the tables and floors of the school were eager children able to explain why ocean currents run the way they do, how plants depend on their roots for sustenance, and how proportions can be derived from a circle. A friend whose son studies in that school told me how her grade five son and his friends once obsessed about explaining the Euclid’s theorem and ended up spending some nights and days working on it.

I am excited for my son to study in a school like this after three years of dwelling in the cave. I can’t wait for his mind to be set free not just at home but also at school. I can’t wait for his independent, inquisitive, brave and adventurous mind to be affirmed by someone other than philosophy professors and his family. But more than this, I am excited for my son to be in a school where he will learn to be a leader in the age of the end of life as we know it.
As we come to the end of life as we know it, we will have to re-imagine civilization. Things we took for granted will no longer be the same. How we eat, how we manufacture, how we plant, how we are sheltered, and how we earn our living will have to change. We will have to rethink the meaning of development, of success, of the good life, of comfort, and of affluence. Who will lead us in this dreaming, this recreating? Will it be the children of the cave who were taught that learning is pleasing and conforming? Or will it be the children of the light who were taught to explore the wider world according to their passion and imagination? Will the children who had to be driven by competition, pressure, and the need for affirmation lead us? Or will it be the children who were empowered to discover, taught to cooperate in birthing knowledge, and inspired to challenge themselves to break boundaries?

My friends say that traditional schools are good for some children because strict structures make them flourish and progressive schools for others. I believe that. I am just glad that there are alternatives that will nourish the other children whose minds are dying to be set free because they will be facing a time when the structures we know will break down and better worlds will need to be built.