Sketches: Strokes of the hand that crystallize hitherto unknown denizens of the mind and heart. Epiphanies that essay the realm of ideas and sentiments.
Kicks: Those cathartic maelstroms that satiate the insufficiency of this perfunctory world.
This page attempts to do just that: evoke kicks of sorts through sketches.
Comments, objections, suggestions and reactions, are most welcome.
This article was originally published in The Thomasian Philosopher, Vol. 9, 1991, pp. 17-27. I have been searching for the Filipino equivalent -- not necessarily translation -- of Concucius' Jen and one relevantly comes to mind, something that we Pinoys have apparently lost but are currently passionately longing for: Delicadeza.
Prolegomenon
“Cognitio certa per causas – certain knowledge through causes” [1] -- this maxim emphasizes the most important role assumed by the causes of reality in the formation of knowledge.This, in effect, has been made the famous definition of philosophy by Aristotle. As such, this has been considered the reason why philosophy in the West is traditionally considered a science, in fact, a science par excellence. Accordingly, true knowledge is the knowledge through causes and philosophy purports to disclose the ultimate causes.
In China, however, philosophy is not thought to be a science but an art.[2] It is the supreme art of realizing one’s life to the highest degree. In Chinese philosophy, it is not the causes of reality that are sought but the relations that reality bears to our life. It is the function of Chinese philosophy to establish these relations and discern the most suitable responses to them. Hence, philosophy becomes indispensable for the success of life, and conversely, it is the success of life that gives meaning to philosophy. This, in effect, makes Chinese philosophy appear so strikingly pragmatic and action-oriented. This emphasis on action has given Chinese philosophy a moral quality in all its dimensions. It is in this light that the tenets of Confucian philosophy is better understood and appreciated.
Greek philosophy, as disclosed by Aristotle, began with wonder. Chinese philosophy, on the other hand, did not begin with wonder but with concern or anxiety.[3]The Chinese way of thinking, as opposed to the Greeks, is practical, concrete and perceptual; they are not stargazers.[4] This is not only the typical expression of Chinese philosophy but also the general expression of the Chinese people themselves. They are the kind of people who would agree with Kierkegaard who rejected speculative philosophy that builds a conceptual palace which is doomed not to be lived in. The Chinese mentality of practicality also shuns empty speculation in philosophy – empty speculation in the sense that philosophical conceptualization is unrelated to the everyday life of man – and attempts to go beyond intellectualism, logicism and sheer verbalism. The “practically-minded” Chinese would therefore agree with Merleau-Ponty who says that “the world is not what I think but what I live through,” in association with others, and the world as man perceives and lives it, preceded the conceptualization of it.[5]
The Chinese mentality of practicality is by all means embodied in Confucianism. There can be little doubt that it was Confucius who opened China to the primacy of reflection, to the silent penetration of phenomena and to the philosophy of man. The Master’s thought is centered on man, for it is man who is the object of his interest. To know man, to love him, was his constant refrain. There is but a single thing that can disturb tranquility: not to know man.[6]
A truly practical-humanistic philosophy, Confucianism focuses its attention to man and what he does. Its radical premise is that the root of man is man himself. This means that Confucianism begins and ends in man. It is primarily concerned with man-as-the-actor” rather than man-as-the-thinker, with the everyday world of the people as they live it, and in terms of normative ethics, with how they ought to live. In its radical sphere, it gets at the roots of things, the everyday action of man living with other men in society. The basic premise of this radical philosophy is the primacy of praxis over theoria, and it is based on the idea that man is ultimately judged according to what he does, rather than what he thinks.
In this sense, the practical humanism of Confucian philosophy is embodied in a virtue which as Mencius clearly stated, is the “distinguishing characteristic of man,”[7] and which Confucius himself considered as the “all pervading unity”[8] of his philosophy.
This virtue expresses the idea that the truly and uniquely human quality of man (humanity) is intersubjectivity (sociality). Man is human by virtue of his sociality, and his existence is social existence. By way of action, man exists in the world in relation to others.
As it is the way of everyday action and sociality in one, this virtue likewise entails morality. As Jaspers succinctly puts it, it is “humanity and morality in one.”[9] In truth, this virtue sums up and is the pillar of the practical humanism of Confucius. It is, for Confucius, the primary existential index of human reality.
This same virtue will be the main problem to be tackled and discussed by the author in this work.
Its name: JEN.
The notion of Jen in Confucianism
Historico-physiognomic conspectus
The term Jen had rarely been used in Chinese literature before Confucius. It first existed in the oracle of records, in the inscriptions on bronze ritual vessels, in the documents preserved by the Book of Documents, and others prior to Confucius. The meaning of this word, however, was limited to kindness.[10] It was exclusively regarded as an aristocratic virtue, i.e., as the kindness shown by a superior to an inferior.[11] Likewise, the term Jen is also found in the sections of pre-Confucian Book of History. While the introduction of this word in this work followed its original occurrence in the Lun Yu, or Analects, it represents a pre-Confucian concept in the Book of History.
This term has been translated as ‘Goodness’ (Waley), ‘Human-heartedness,’ ‘Man-to-man-ness’ (E.R. Hughes), ‘Love,’ (Bodde), ‘Benevolent Love’ (H.H. Dubs), ‘Magnanimity,’ ‘Benevolence,’ ‘Perfect Virtue’ (J. Legge), ‘Compassion,’ ‘True Manhood,’ (Lin Yu Tang), ‘Moral Character,’ (Ku Hu Ming), ‘Virtue’ (Creel) and ‘Humanity’ (Chan Wing Tsit).[12] As it is manifestly obvious, a uniform translation of this word would be impossible to arrive at considering the many varied ways of interpreting it, hence, falling short of the rich essence of Jen. Yet while these translations may not seem to be entirely satisfactory, the whole list together would afford us to see the kaleidoscopic notions it contains. Truly, all these renderings are attempts at capturing the central and normative focus of this philosophy.
Scholars in the past have offered different explanations of Jen on the force of its etymological consideration. Hsieh Lian-tso (1050-1103) of the Sung period, leads those who believed that Jen meant ‘seeds of man.’ This is based on the interpretation that the word Jen is written in two components, the symbol for ‘man’ on the left and a symbol for ‘seeds’ on the right. Hence, putting them together would mean ‘essence of man.’[13] This conclusion is derived from the analogy of the seeds inside the stones of peaches and apricots which are called t’ao-jen and hsin-jen respectively.[14] Hsieh is of the opinion that Jen as the essence of man and the seeds of peaches and apricots could not be separated from love when discussed as an ethical concept. For him, Jen was the principle, and love was its application.[15]
On the other hand, Cheng Hsuan (127-200 AD) of the Han period, represents those who believed that Jen meant “the correct relationship between two persons.” It is based on the interpretation that Jen is a compound ideogram taken from the character ‘jen’ which means ‘man’ and ‘erh’ which mean ‘two’ or ‘second’ in the Chinese numerical system. He upholds that it takes two persons for Jen to be experienced. A solitary person, sitting alone in his study, with his eyes closed, may have a virtuous logic in his mind but can hardly be said to be measuring up to the sage’s standards of Jen.[16]
The Shuo Wen defines it as “to love each other or the benevolence that must link man with his neighbor” as represented by the character ‘erh’ which connotes plurality, mutuality and reciprocity.[17] Similarly, Mencius defines it thus:
Jen (reverential love) is jen (man: the Chinese word for man is also pronounced as jen) Taken them together is JenJen (i.e., signifying the intersubjective relations proper among men.)[18]
Boodberg, expressing concern with the phonological analysis of related words in ancient Chinese pronunciation, traced the root meaning of Jen in “softness” and “weakness” which implies pliability.[19] His claims were later substantiated by the vast lore of Chinese and Japanese scholarships in the past years. Fang Yin Hsien likewise identified the original meaning of Jen in terms of two semiotic foci found in the concept.[20] These are: 1. that Jen is a conceptualization of a tender aspect of human feelings, i.e., love, and 2. that Jen is an altruistic concern for others, and thus a mature manifestation of humanity.[21]
Essentially, there is no conflict between the theory upheld by Hsieh Lian-tso and the theory upheld by Cheng Hsuan or that of Boodberg or Fang Yin Hsien. Indeed, a man has to be kind of heart to be able to love other persons. Man needs one or more persons to manifest his love, such as helping this other person or those other persons up and get ahead.
The holistic meaning of the word Jen can be best understood when Confucius entered the hypnotic realm of Chinese philosophy. His advent gave an entirely new concept out of this word by assigning to it many new meanings, sometimes as a collective name for all virtues, sometimes as the most elementary among the virtues and sometimes, as the highest among the virtues.[22] It seems that Confucius has employed it for the same reason that St. Paul used ‘agape’ instead of ‘eros’ for ‘love’.
But what does the word Jen really mean in the Confucian sense? It is clearly indicated by the texts that the disciples repeatedly asked the Master about this particular virtue while he gave them more than one answer. In some cases, he simply indicated that certain virtue or act is Jen; in other cases, he took the negative approach by stating that a certain act is not Jen. The overall impression we would gather is that Confucius emphasized how to practice Jen and become virtuous rather than explain what Jen really is. His was a pronounced emphasis on the how rather than on the what, a stress on the method and approach rather than on the definition or description, an accentuation on the quomodo sit rather than on the an sit.
Using Jen as a collective of all virtues, he said,
A gentleman never violates Jen even for a short while during a meal, or when he is in a haste to go somewhere, or when he is in the midst of some dangerous situation (such as being pursued by an enemy or a ferocious beast).[23]
This implies that the gentleman should remain virtuous whatever the circumstance.
Using Jen as an elementary virtue, he once told Fan Ch’ih: “Jen is to love all men.”[24] On another occasion, he also said: “A beautiful neighborhood is a neighborhood with some Jen men in it.”[25] Again, on a similar occasion, he asked: “Is Jen so far away? Jen comes to me whenever I want to have it.”[26] Using Jen as the highest of all virtues, he said: “The strong-willed scholars and Jen-minded men will not seek life at the expense of Jen, but rather sacrifice their lives to preserve Jen.”[27]
Again in another occasion, he said: “Jen is more essential to man than fire and water. I have seen a man die from stepping into fire and water, but I have never seen a man die from stepping into Jen.”[28]Jen as the highest of all virtues is claimed to be the doctrine of martyrdom of Confucius.[29]
There are as many as fifty-nine variations of the definition of Jen. Varied as they are, or they may have different applications depending on who is practicing it and when it is being practiced, there is no contradiction among them.[30]
Indeed, Jen is a very important and inexhaustible subject. It is the most talked-about topic in the Confucian philosophy. This is proven when a conference was held in Shantung in 1962 in honor of the 2440th anniversary of Confucius’ death. Here, a disagreement among scholars concerning the interpretations of the word Jen emerged. Fung Yu-lan, a delegate to the conference, placed emphasis upon the “class-transcending” character of Jen as a universal virtue which Confucius has also defined as ai-jen (love men). Chao Chi-pin on the other hand, insisted that the word Jen in the Lun Yu or the Analects, refers only to one social class: the slave-owning aristocrats. He asserted that Confucius limited the meaning of love (Jen) to the upper classes, excluding from its realm the “people” (min) who were only fit to be “ruled from above.” Yang Jung-Kuo, probably the best known critic of Confucius today, attacked the Confucian Jen by attacking Confucius himself, evidently committing an ad hominem fallacy. He charged Confucius as a political reactionary who supported the status quo against the rising land-owning feudal classes as well as mercantile interests, a social parasite who “ate without tilling the soil, dressed without weaving, playing with his lips and tongue and making arbitrary standards of right and wrong.”[31]
Here, we must comment that this anti-Confucius campaign itself manifests two contradictions: a tendency toward political and intellectual anarchism through indiscriminate attacks on the principles of authority and of continuity with the past; and another, toward a more rigid form of ideological control.
Truly, the importance and relevance of Jen will always be a focus of concern among philosophical circles. It appears in the Lun Yu 105 times and is discussed 59 times. Confucius put the greatest emphasis on it because he considered it as the virtue to accompany a person all his life. Hence, a person has to rely on it all the time for whatever he thinks, whatever he does, or whatever he says.
He who lives by Jen has but one anxiety in his heart: not to know man.[33]
These statements of Confucius may well serve as the compendium of everything he stood for in relation to Jen and intersubjectivity. It is clear enough from this stand that what he had in mind was not a man with empty speculations – empty speculations in the sense that philosophical conceptualization is unrelated to the everyday life of man – not with a man concerned only with himself, but a man concerned with others, a man with reference to man, a subject before a subject, a being in confrontation with another being; never a-man-as-such but always a-man-in-relation-to.
Bearing witness to the authentic grandeur of man, Confucius’ Jen takes its position directly before life. Existential, yet traditional, and more than any other, aware of the “bite of the real,” it realized the enormity of the problem of human existence – always beset by inevitable limits of time, space, contingency, encounters, friction and situations that involved not only oneself but others. Its emphasis is on man’s dedication to everyday life and ordinary action. Its radical premise is that the root of man is man himself. Its concern begins and ends in man. Indeed, it is noteworthy to mention that unlike Heidegger, Confucius saw fundamental ontology as an end in itself in his philosophical analysis rather than a basic means to disclose the hiddenness of Being.[34]
The basic premise of this radical philosophy is the primacy of praxis over theoria. It shuns what Kierkegarrd called the “chimera of abstraction” in favor of a concrete analysis of human experience as man lives it. Knowledge is the beginning of action, and action, the consummation of knowledge. It stands on the fact that whether one wants to accept it or not, man is involved in mankind and lives everyday life in relation to others. He is not and cannot be the prisoner of his own self, or for that matter, of the crowd. He is not enclosed in his subjectivity and secluded from the world. Man in isolation is not only a fiction but also an infraction of being human. Man is open to the world, and as Merleau-Ponty sees it, man as an intentional being is nothing but “a network of relationships.” Man exists and he knows himself in the world, never apart from it. The other is his “twin” and the “flesh of his flesh.” The self and the other are like interlocking gears.[35]
As a thorough-going practical humanism, Confucius’ Jen affirms this-worldly life. Without even getting involved in metaphysical speculations, it sets forth clear and concrete rule of conduct capable of application in daily life. It is made clear by the fact that Confucius never formulated a theory of the universe and did not bother about the theory of knowledge which to him was only a means towards the end of moral cultivation. When he was asked about the spirits of the dead, Confucius answered: “While you are not able to serve men, how can you serve the spirit?”[36] Concerning death, he queried: “While you do not know life, how can you know about death?”[37]
The practicalism of Confucius’ Jen even extends itself in the use of language. Hermeneutics plays a most important role in the relationship between the theoria and praxis. Spoken words have their practical imports as a prelude to the performance of action. For Confucius’ Jen, words have a performatory function. Every word contains an implication which constitutes the essence of the class of things to which the word is applied. A notable demonstration of this is his words:
Without knowing the force of words, it is impossible to know men.[38] When the superior man is heard to speak, his language is firm and decided.[39] The virtuous will be sure to speak correctly, but those whose speech is good may not always be virtuous.[40]
Confucius likewise suggested that:
The first thing the ruler (of Wei) had to do in administering the government is to rectify names, for if names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language is not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.[41]
This principle of Confucius has been called the principle of Cheng Ming or the Rectification of Names. We may conclude that, unlike Wittgenstein who was obsessed with the bewitchment of language in its philosophical analysis, Confucius saw the importance of ordinary language in its performatory value. The finality of words is achieved in the performance of action, and thus, the actual performance of action is higher than the words themselves.[42]
B.2. Jen: A principle of reciprocity
Do to others what you would have them do to you.[43] Treat others the way you would have them treat you: this sums up the law and the prophets.[44]
As a quality that is above all social, Confucius’ Jen expresses a reality that is much more complex than goodness, humanism, compassion and benevolence. According to Confucius:
He who lives by Jen, if he wishes to establish himself, establishes others … if he wishes to lift himself up, he uplifts others.[45]
Jen signifies the proper intersubjective relations among men, the inner reality of man as situated in society. It is associated with both loyalty – loyalty to one’s own heart and conscience – and reciprocity in respect of and in consideration for others.[46]
This is the positive aspect of the practice of Jen which Confucius called Chung or “conscientiousness to others” which means, “Do unto others what you wish yourself.” The negative aspect which Confucius called Shu or “altruism” is rightly put by Confucius himself: “Do not do to others what you do not wish yourself.”[47]
As a whole, the practice is called the principle of Chung and Shu which is the way to practice Jen.[48] The virtue of Jen is not realized if one performs Chung but not the Shu or if one performs the Shu but not the Chung. This principle works in two directions which should be in constant interplay. Indeed, Confucius has rightly enunciated the Golden Rule.
The Chinese word for Chung is made up of the components “middle” and “heart.” With one’s heart in the very center, neither to the left nor to the right, one will be able to achieve Chung which is faithfulness to one’s self, to one’s own nature and to the humanity that is one. Only then can one be faithful to one’s fellowmen as shown in the virtue of Shu. This word means “as one’s heart,” that is, to do to others as your heart prompts or urges you. It is “fellow feeling” or consideration for the feeling of others. Above all, Shu is altruism, to cherish the other’s heart as if it were one’s own.
This principle was known among some of the later Confucianists as the “principle of applying a measuring square.” That is to say, it is a principle by which one uses oneself as a standard to regulate one’s conduct.[49] It is best exemplified in a very illuminating passage in the Ta-hsueh or the Great Learning which explains in detail how to practice this principle:
What you do not like about the person above you, do not do it to the person below you; what you do not like about the person below you, do not do it to the person above you. What you do not like about the person before you, do not do it to the person after you; what you do not like about the person after you, do not do it to the person before you. What you do not like about the person on your right, do not do it to the person on your left; what you do not like about the person on your left, do not do it to the person on your right.[50]
Similarly, in the Doctrine of the Mean, it is said:
What you do not like done to you, do not do to others. Serve your father as you would require your son to serve you. Serve your ruler as you would require your subordinate to serve you. Serve your elder brother as you would require your younger brother to serve you. Set the example in behaving to your friends as you would require them to behave to you.
The illustration given in the Ta-hsueh gives the negative aspect of the principle of Chung and Shu; that in the Doctrine of the Mean emphasizes the positive aspect. In both cases, the “measuring square” for determining conduct is one’s self and not in other things.
The principle of Chung and Shu is at the same time the principle of Jen, so that the practice of Chung and Shu means the practice of Jen.[51] This implies the carrying out of one’s duties and responsibilities in society. Hence, Jen becomes the alpha and the omega of one’s moral life.
Everyone has within himself the “measuring square” for conduct and can use it anytime. The simplicity of this method may perhaps help us understand Confucius better when he said: “Is Jen indeed far off? I crave for Jen and lo! Jen is at hand.”[52]
Likewise, be way of showing the importance of Jen in the philosophy of Confucius, he summarizes to us in this passage in the Lun Yu:
The master said: ‘Shen (the personal name of Tseng Tzu, one of his disciples), all my teachings are linked together by one principle.’ ‘Quite so,’ replied Tseng Tzu. When the master had left the room, the disciples asked: ‘What did he mean?’ Tseng Tzu replied: ‘our Master’s teaching consists of the principle of Chung and Shu, and that is all.’[53]
A return to Jen
“Return to Confucianism!”
These were the words pronounced in the old K’ung family mansion in Qufu during the 2467th anniversary of Confucius’ death. This very same exhortation was later on echoed in the Tiananmen Square by the tongues of the revolutionary students – student-idealists who were seeking political reforms and the disestablishment of Chinese communism, the same students who were brutally massacred on that fateful 4th day of June, 1989.
The trend of Confucianism in general and of Jen in particular has since then reasserted and magnified its influence in the philosophical circles. Confucianism became a knight armored with its Jen proclaiming its victory in the philosophical battlefields.
Truly, Confucian teachings have been adopted, developed and sometimes even distorted over the centuries. They were used to justify tyranny, suppress revolution and oppose progressive movements of all kinds. Its disestablishment as an ethical system has brought a total spiritual vacuum and a social disequilibrium in the Chinese way of life. An attempt was made to replace it with a new alternative, the still evolving Maoist ethic, which however, lacks complete structuring and comes to the people not from below but from above. For a time, the insoluble problems regarding the historical Confucius, his authentic message and the development of centuries of tradition have been set aside or considered irrelevant. We are presented no longer with arguments but with foregone conclusions. The anti-Confucius campaign has put an end to real discussion and debate.
Yet these attacks on Confucianism have itself become a reason for the resurrection of its spirit. It has become a stimulus to greater understanding of a heritage that has become a target of attack in its native land. Confucianism once more began to dominate philosophical circles and started to relive its former influence. Today, studies of Confucius’ ideas and their influence on Chinese culture are giving the Master more honors and recognitions. The merits in Confucian values, based on the centrality of human dignity, mutual concern, moral responsibilities and an openness to the transcendent, have been emphasized.
In fine, these values invite us to a new and meaningful study of the Classics, with the help of modern scientific scholarship, logic and hermeneutics. This work has become necessary to distinguish timeless values from time-bound ones and the relevant from the obsolete. Thus Dame History had only shown that for Confucianism to survive and be of use to modern man, it had to become young again as in the days of its first gestation when it was only “one of a hundred schools.”
Indeed, it has been shown that Confucianism, made politically humble and powerless, will eventually survive and become transformed, not as an ideology but as an ethical and philosophical influence both in China and outside. It may need to die but only to live again as a new synthesis to serve a new age, an age which is in dire need of the revival of its spirit.
Return to Jen!
[1] Cf., Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. Richard Hope (New York: The University of Michigan Press, 1960), Bk. I, Ch. 2.
[2] Cf., Fang Yu-lan, A Short History of Chinese Philosophy (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1952), I.2.
[3] Cf., Hajime Nakamura, “China,” Waysof Thinking of Eastern Peoples, ed. Philip P. Weiner (Honolulu: East and West Center Press, 1964), 175-294.
[4] D.T. Suzuki, Zen and Japanese Culture (New York: Pantheon Books, 1959), 3. Suzuki further states that the “Oriental people are sometimes said to be deficient in the power of philosophical thinking and analytical preciseness. Perhaps they are, but they have a richer store of the experience of reality itself, which refuses to be so sharply defined that ‘yes’ can never be ‘no,’ and ‘no,’ ‘yes’” (Suzuki, 236).
[5] Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenolgy of Perception, trans. Collin Smith (New York: The Humanities Press, 1962), xvi-xvii.
[6] Cf., Lun Yu, XII:22: “He who lives by Jen loves men; he knows men.” Also Lun Yu, I:16: “He who live by Jen has but one anxiety in his heart: not to know man.”
[31] See A Report in Che-hsueh Yen-chiu, I (1963), 54-57. See also, Julia Ching, “Confucianism: A Critical Re-assessment of the Heritage,” International Philosophical Quarterly, 15, No. 1 (March 1975) 3-33.
[34] Hwa Yol Jung, “Confucianism and Existentialism: Intersubjectivity as the Way of Man,” Philosophical and Phenomenological Research, 30, (1969), 191.
Cory was a hero. She was confronted with choices to do right and she chose to do them, not because of convenience, or vengeance, or power, but simply because they were right. She saw the depths by which power could be abused and yet she wielded it with humility and sincerity even while she was accused of reluctance. Beyond the presidency, she led more through the shining example of her own life. She needed no position in government – she happily and peacefully handed over power to a freely elected successor -- and yet she continued to exert “power and influence” mainly because she was looked up to and was respected by the people for her convictions, for her sincerity, for her abiding faith in the goodness of the Filipino.
More than being a hero, however, she was also a saint. Saints can do wrong, too, and are definitely not faultless but their lives always exemplify, in almost dramatic ways, the triumph of good against evil. Cory showed us that we are actually all called for holiness and that we can all be saints. Almost all through her life, she led a life of holiness, of sacrifices for the good of the many even at her and her own family’s expense. She walked with us, suffered with us, experienced our own pains and strived to show us how to rise above suffering if not to completely vanquish it -- all through the path of holiness, of deep and unwavering faith in God and of complete obedience to the Holy MotherChurch. And for which she was rightly called the Joan of Arc of the Philippines. With her, we collectively realized we are all capable of making miracles – we witnessed the miracle of Edsa and with her death, we are now witnessing the unfolding of another miracle – the miracle of being united once more.
In light of past and especially recent events in our country, political as well as religious, we definitely need someone whose life exemplifies the kind of life that Cory lived. Present in our times, right in our midst, among sinners that make us all. We definitely need someone whose life-example can help us turn our ways from darkness to light, from sinfulness to holiness, from defeat to glory, from death to life.
I humbly submit therefore that moves to officially make Cory a national hero commence. More than that, I humbly submit that moves to request the Church to study the possible beatification of Cory be made, too.
I took my kids on a ride around the metro the past couple of days. Our mission: to document anything that captures our attention by taking photos of the same. We focused our sights on anything that we see along the roads of Manila. Our main objective: to capture a historical moment and store it in a flashdrive for a possible learning experience or for future reference.
It became one memorable lesson in photography. It turned out as a review of the socio-political situation of the country. It became a chance to learn more about ... Life.
We had lots of fun. We had great bonding time. We found a lot of lessons, a lot of life, a lot of ourselves, just along the road.
Yes, it’s a pun and definitely not Bisaya-ish (and I hope the Bisayas wouldn’t mind). For the past days, we’ve been bombarded with – what else -- scandals. And videos. Of the sexual kind, of the celebrity kind. Of the really dirty kind. You all know what these scandals are and you all have found yourselves -- ano pa nga ba – scandalized.
Hereunder are six of these scandals:
6. Whatchayoucallit? Video-by-Hayden-Cam-of-Hurricane-Katrina-in-Action-Exposed? GMA network calls it the Hayden Cam Scandal; entries in Youtube call it the Hayden Kho-Katrina Halili Sex Video Scandal; some call it the Hayden Kho Sex Video Series; still others call it the Hayden Kho Sex Video Diary. What can one say? It’s the current talk of the nation, from the night owls of the metropolis to the crickets of the boondocks. The Senate, with actor Ramon “Bong” Revilla at the lead cast, is “acting” on it; The Department Store of Justice, with the flamboyant Raul Gonzales at the helm, is onto what they do best – explore and utilize injustice; the NBI, the PRC, women’s groups like Gabriela, even Malacanang, are on it, too. On top of that, the media networks and share-ware media in the cyberspace, blogs included, are on it like vultures circling over a corpse. And now, this blog … Ouch.
Who hasn’t seen the video/s? DVD copies are enjoying brisk sales with our politicians no less as the first takers. Senator Revilla says he’d seen three videos among what he claims he knows to be more than forty. Even Press Secretary Cerge Remonde has flaunted that he and his staff have seen the video and were even entertained – repeat: ENTERTAINED -- by it. Cabinet Secretary Silvestre Bello III proclaimed he watched it for “educational reasons” (Anyone knows the educational background of Sec. Bello?). The Optical and Media Board has called on the people to stop patronizing the pirates and to refrain from buying the video and threatened to arrest and hail to court those who would. Will they start with Senator Revilla, Remonde and Bello? Meanwhile, congressmen are said to secretly envy Hayden Kho for the latter's sexual exploits. And the nation awaits with bated breath the next installments in the video series – those of Vicky Belo and who knows who else (it may be someone you very well know). Get ready to be shocked, and if you aren’t numb yet, to be really scandalized to the bones.
5. H1N1 virus, also known as Swine flu, reaching the Philippine shores as silently as Silent Night. The day after its arrival was announced, the news appeared only at the left ear of the country’s leading daily, meriting a very short report. Why? Well, because everyone was sooo stuck with the Belo-Boy-Toy-with-the-Hayden-Cam issue which not surprisingly drowned other issues of national concern and monopolized the headlines for several days.
4. Former President Joseph “Erap” “Estrada” Ejercito insists that he can run for president again. Brandishing a study made by his team of legal perverts – one is actually tempted to say they are the legal equivalents of one Hayden Kho – the actor-turned-president-turned-convicted-plunderer and later on pardoned by the Philippine’s most unpopular and allegedly most corrupt president proclaims himself a presidentiable for 2010.
3. A Navy Lieutenant exposes military officials of pocketing millions in RP-US Balikatan exercises and gets sued and hunted in return. Navy Lt. Nancy Gadian, accused retired Lt. Gen. Eugenio Cedo, chief of Western Mindanao Command, of pocketing over P40 M in funds intended for RP-US Balikatan exercises in 2007 and soon finds herself sued for insubordination and lavish spending in the ESB. She receives death threats and is now in hiding.
2. Former Senate President and current presidentiable Manny Villar being investigated no less than by his peers in the Senate for the P200-million insertion in 2008 budget. Villar and his apologists claim that the insertion was scrutinized and approved by the Senate in the plenary. It was approved in the Bicameral Conference, too. Finally, the Bicam report was sent back to the Senate and was signed by most of the senators, the other presidentiables including, and was thereby approved and ratified. Now, the other presidentiables, in an obvious effort to bamboozle Villar’s chances at the presidency, are complaining it is illegal.
1. Our own mortal tendency towards scandals. Why are we naturally so inclined towards news about human folly? Why are we naturally so inclined towards scandals, especially of the sexual kind? Humans that we are, that fact still is most of the times, just scandalous.
Now, as mentioned, we’ve been seeing videos that have scandalized us lately. But why scan cyberspace for vandals, for those who cause scandals? Scandals are best left on their own and their perpetrators to suffer for their own misdeeds. Why not promote ordinary things done extraordinarily, simple accomplishments achieved heroically, some larger-than-life achievements? Why not some videos that uplift our collective spirit, our nationalistic spirit for that matter? Why not some videos that inspire, that make us wanting to do good, that awaken our virtues and heroic tendencies? There are a lot to be sure. And so I dare ask:
