Isang Tulang Tagalog

I wrote this Tagalog poem for my friend Jom who reads my blog but says he does not appreciate English poems.

Jom, dedikeyted ito sayo at sa alaala ng hapong iyon sa UP track oval kung saan gumawa tayo ng tula tungkol sa gamu-gamo habang nakaupo sa ilalim ng isang puno at pinapanood ang pagdadapithapon.

Sila

Naglakad kang paika-ika pasilangan kung saan ang mga
Tula’y alikabok na nilalanghap, hindi binabasa.
Halika, sabi mo, maupo tayo sa sahig at sumandal sa
Dingding na singgaspang ng mortal na alapaap na
Kung kalian nagkaugat ay saka pa lilisan.
Sabay kong naririnig ang lektyur tungkol sa rabies at ang
Pagtugtog mo ng gitara, ang iyong mediocre na
Pagkanta, ang mga halakhak, ang kaba at iba pang
Nanigas na alaala. Nagka déjà vu ako sa isang picture message
Sa 3310 na ipinakita sa akin ng isang katulad mo rin.
Nagkarebelasyon ng mutualism noong nagkatitigan tayo
Habang ako ay kasama sa prusisyon at ikaw naman
Ay masayang naglalaro ng basketbol.

Nakabibingi ang tawa mo nang ako’y masita ng isang
Manong sa Gensan dahil pinakialaman ko ang
Nahuli niyang tuna. Marahil sadya akong curious at ikaw
Man ay naging inkwisitib din nang makita mo ang
Bibig ng dambuhalang isda. Panay tungkol sa durian ang
Mga usapan natin noon, lalo na kung nandiyan sila,
Ang lupon ng sensurang nagluwal sa ating pagkamakata.

Banal na araw ang linggo kung kaya’t ito ang napili mong
Sermonan ng mga idyom na walang kahulugan.
Napaisip ako noon, nagdaan sa maraming decision blocks,
Hanggang mala-Cinderella na tayong tumatakbo pababa ng
Hagdanan, hinahanap ang pinto ng pagtakas.
Sigurado akong bawat burgis na napunta roon mula noon ay
Nagigising sa gitna ng gabi sa nagsusumigaw na multo
Ng kasaysayang iniwan natin sa bawat sulok at bawat hibla,
Sa bawat buhay na hindi nabubunyag, sa bawat
Pira-pirasong pagdadakila. Nahabol mo ako at nahabol
Din kita.

Akin yun, at sinadya kong magtapon ng mitsang
Sasakal sa iyong pagka-bathala. Sumunod siya, sumunod
Sila, mga guhit ng tisa sa pader na naghihiwalay sa
Dalawang uri ng paghinga. Gayundin and mga tanong at
Gayundin ang mga kasinungalingang naghihintay sa pagdaan
Ng mga sandaling umaalon at lumalamon.
Ikaw marahil ay isinumpang maging solitaryo.

Walang bersong aangkop sa tunaw na pag-alala.

Ngunit naglakad ka nang pasayaw, pasilangan, paroon at parito,
Na waring may mahahanap na pagkaluwalhati sa mga
Metro kwadradong ito. Ang mga mata mong bagong buwang
Humihigop sa pait ng mga talatang isinulat sa dugo.
Ikaw na gumising ng alas-singko ng umaga upang lumikha ng
Dibuhong pang farewell pala. Anong makikita sa labas ng
Kwadrong nakadapa at sa aklat ng pilosopiya?

Humihinga pa rin sila.





Perhaps when we find ourselves wanting everything, it is because we are dangerously close to wanting nothing. - Sylvia Plath

On Parallel Universes

The general hypothesis of the existence of a multiverse (or parallel universes) is something that is interpreted in many different ways in physics, psychology, religion, philosophy, literature, and art. But for this post, I’d like to look at this theory as something that posits the existence of ALL possible universes, and explore the implications of this supposition.

1. If we suppose that ALL possible universes exist, then one of the first things that probably comes to mind is that there are just too many, almost infinitely many, possibilities. Let us first postulate that a universe is composed of discreet units of matter, time, space, and energy (a word I will use to encompass all other “units of existence”). And then let’s try to enumerate all of the different parameters that will define the states of each discreet unit – position, momentum, spin, existence or non existence, etc. When you think of all the possible combinations and permutations of all discreet units, each with a defined state, the possibilities are practically endless. You can also think of possibilities in terms of abstractions like selves, lives, dreams, etc. Many people think of the idea of endless possibilities as something that is wonderful and inspiring but in this case, I think the idea of endless possibilities implies something disheartening. To me, the implication that stands out is that in one parallel universe, everything is the same except that in a faraway galaxy, two particles have switched positions or spins, without having any impact on our life on earth. And there are lots and lots, almost infinitely many, parallel universes where everything about us, our lives, and our experiences are the same. And so all these universes exist in parallel that if, for some reason, one of these universes (ours, or the universe we are conscious of, for example) ceases to exist, it wouldn’t matter the tiniest bit because there exists almost infinitely many “copies” of practically the same universe anyway. Now it is difficult enough to find value, purpose, and meaning in our lives that seems so insignificant in terms of the grander scheme of things (Thanks to my friend Billy for sharing the illustration of us being an extremely small speck of dust in the history of the (our) universe.). And this implication of the theory of the existence of parallel universes further compounds this feeling of despair.

2. Now let us explore another side of this hypothesis of parallel universes. Out of ALL possible universes, a set of infinitely many (I use “infinitely many” to mean extremely many which could be either finite or infinite, depending on whether you assume existence to be in discreet units or in continuous bands or loops) universes would inevitably have physical laws that are different from ours. And there is a set of infinitely many sets of infinitely many universes, all with different sets of physical laws. Thus, in some universes, we (or “selves” or entities which we can assume to be the same as or similar to us) are immortal, or can fly, or can easily teleport, or can be in multiple places at the same time, or have minds with an unlimited capability to comprehend. And in some universes, we are simply a bunch of separate particles or streams of light (or some other types of discreet units or continuous bands or loops), unable to interact and form complex units. So I guess this implication elicits a “limbo” feeling. We might feel frustrated that we do not exist in a universe where we are more powerful but at the same time we might feel fortunate to have existed in a universe where, at the very least, the particular set of physical laws favoured the existence of human life.

3. Let us expand this further and think beyond universes that follow different sets of physical laws. Let us think of the existence of universes that follow different models of existence, different from any conceivable human mathematical or philosophical model, outside the bounds of human understanding.

4. What if instead of the multiple universes existing in parallel, different universes actually intersect at certain points? What if the second law of thermodynamics is actually brought about by the constant, infinitely many, intersections in the multiverse which somehow creates some kind of disturbance in the general balance in each universe? If this is so, is it possible that the second law of thermodynamics is a truly “universal” (for lack of a better word) law, which applies to ALL possible universes? What are the other possible “universal” laws? What if certain human experiences (distinct, special, ordinary, remembered, forgotten, or unperceived) are caused by these intersections among universes? What if euphoria, déjà vu, death, the afterlife, human emotions (love, despair, anger, etc.), memory, and other elements of humanity are caused by this intersections and interactions of universes? And if so, is it possible that a certain version of “the human condition” exists in every possible universe, or is this just conceited humanist thinking?

5. What if instead of infinitely many parallel or intersecting universes existing equally, there is a “master universe” (our universe or the universe we are conscious of, for example) that selects elements, among the infinitely many universes, which get manifested in the “master universe,” which exists in a higher level or degree of existence? What if there are several (or infinitely many) layers in the hierarchy of “master universes” and our universe is the “ultimate master universe” at the top of this hierarchy? What if this “ultimate master universe” is not our universe but the heaven, nirvana, paradise, or the ultimate state of existence described by many religions, and so the journey towards this ultimate state of existence is actually a journey of a series of cross-overs from one layer in the “master universe” hierarchy to the next? What if this “master universe” hierarchy or the “ultimate master universe” itself is the “deity of existence” that chooses what exists or not? What law or model governs this “choice?” What is true existence?

6. What if all of these multiple universes simply exist in the human mind or in human consciousness such that in each human mind lives a unique set of infinitely many universes. (It is impossible to experimentally compare perceptions, like whether one person sees the same color yellow as another. It is possible that the perception-object correspondence simply matched.) What if there is a “master mind” or a “mega mind?”

Writing this blog post has been a very exciting mental exercise for me. As I write this paragraph, I am experiencing some kind of “good headache,” similar to the “tired but invigorated” feeling you have after a good workout.

Let me close by saying that I just love this constant struggle of making sense of the world, our lives, and existence in general. I admire people who have pursued this struggle to the point of “madness,” coming up with theories that are way beyond the capabilities of scientific experimentation. I love how the human mind has reached realms outside the boundaries of human strength and perception. I love how the human mind is capable of acknowledging its own limitations because this recognition creates a frustration that drives the human mind to push itself further.

I guess this struggle for meaning is a self-fulfilling end in itself. It is both the path and the destination. The struggle for meaning is not a quest for the truth, but the struggle itself is the truth.





*The image above is a photo of Moral Faculty, a drawing I worked on while reviewing for the board exams.

The Hero-Victim Complex

While watching The Dark Knight Rises with some friends, I started playing with the idea of the hero-victim complex in my head. This is something that probably rings a bell since everyone is familiar with the idea of the protagonist in movies and novels; a character who faces insurmountable challenges, only to emerge as the ultimate victor in the end. But I’d like to think that the idea of the hero-victim complex is quite different compared to this well-known idea of the protagonist who overcomes adversities. The hero-victim complex is something that lives in the psyche and the metaphysics of a hero (superhero, revolutionary hero, modern day hero, unsung hero, microhero, etc.), and which heavily influences how heroism is manifested in the social, historical, and philosophical context, and which greatly affects how the hero and his or her heroism is perceived. The hero-victim complex also lives in the collective psyche – society, culture, art, religion, institutions, etc.

I myself find it challenging to structuralize and articulate this idea and so by writing this blog post, I hope to achieve some clarity myself. To start, I’d like to look at the characters of the hero and the victim separately. The hero is empowered and independent. The hero creates things, makes decisions, and takes action to initiate radical change, often for the better. The victim, on the other hand, is powerless and is a captive unable to escape. The victim is created, molded, and changed without any choice of what it is to become.

Now, the previous paragraph is easy to understand because the human mind is structured to think in terms of binary opposites – light and dark, good and evil, hero and victim, etc. But I’d like to think of the hero-victim complex as something singular like a magnetic monopole. I’d like to avoid using terminologies like sides, components, elements, etc. because these would imply the hero and the victim as separate. And I’d also like to do away with the bias of the hero-victim complex being an affliction of heroes (the hero taking precedence over the victim), and so from this point on I’d use hero-victim as a label instead of hero or victim separately or preferentially. Instead, I’d like to think of the hero-victim complex as a moving, two-directional cycle.

First, I’d like to think of the hero-victim as a living person (postmodernism aside). The hero-victim is born into a family, into a society, into conditions that are imposed (by nature, by social status, by geography, by family and social values, and other condition creators) and these conditions literally create, shape, and continuously change the hero-victim. At the same time, the hero-victim practices the capability of choice and action so at the same time that the hero-victim is created, shaped, and changed, the hero-victim also creates, shapes, and changes its reality or its “world.” But these capabilities of choice and action are likewise constantly created, re-created, shaped, and changed by the hero-victim’s world. But the conditions to which the hero-victim is born into are also creations of the hero-victim’s consciousness, changed and adjusted as it sees fit. And so it is not really the hero victim and its “world” changing each other from opposite sides. The hero-victim is its world (its reality) and the hero-victim’s world is the hero-victim. They are one and the same, and nothing takes precedence over the other. And so the hero and the victim are neither complementary nor independent nor are they two sides of something dual. The hero-victim complex is indeed singular.

Now if I think of the hero-victim as a character in general (in history, in fiction, in social aspirations, etc.), it is easy to see the hero-victim as a projection of its meta-reality and the meta-reality as an extension of the hero-victim, and the hero-victim and its meta-reality being one and the same.

I’m not sure if what I have written makes any sense but writing this blog post has been a pleasure nonetheless. I will close with some of my random thoughts about The Dark Knight Rises:

1. I like the way they used androgyny to create an unexpected twist at the end.

2. I found it ironic that the Catwoman is supposed to be an icon of women empowerment but in the film, her waist looked like it’s been bound by a corset.

3. I just had this thought that maybe civilizations follow something like the second law of thermodynamics, that as a civilization progresses it also becomes more chaotic and anarchic until it collapses – similar to the eventual heat death of the universe.

4. Marion Cotillard’s acting really stood out. I especially liked the death scene where she looked like she was doing a modelesque pose.

5. One of my favorite lines from the film: “There’s a vertebra protruding from your back. We have to put it back.”

Thoughts on a Paradox

There's this paradox I had read about in a book of philosophical problems back when I was in high school.  The paradox is about the impossibility of doing anything.  The paradox is illustrated through the simple example of closing a door.  Before you can close a door, you need to half-close it, but before you can half-close a door, you need to half-half-close it, and so on.  Thus, the act of closing a door has to be accomplished through an infinite number of steps.  But it is imposible to do a set of infinitely many tasks within a finite amount of time.  Therefore, the paradoxical conclusion is that it is impossible to close a door, or to do anything for that matter.

Of course, the conclusion is paradoxical because we are consciously aware that we are able to close doors, among other things.  Therefore, for the main premise of the paradox (that doing anything requires going through an infinite number of steps), it does not only have to make logical sense (which it does), but it also has to be reconciled with "reality."  Let me take you through some of my thoughts on how the paradox can be resolved.

1.  We never really get to do or finish anything.  What we perceive as "accomplished tasks" are actually all unfinished work.  Because we only have a finite amount of time, we only manage to do a fraction of the set of infinite steps.  Maybe this is the origin of human imperfection and the futility of the human struggle.  We strive to do things perfectly but we will always be doomed to fail.  A person's life, mission, purpose, or search for meaning and happiness will always be unfinished and incomplete.  Immortality, divinity, and eternal happiness will only be possible if we have in our possession an infinite amount of time.

2.  We all know from basic geometry that a line (one dimension) is made up of infinitely many points (zero dimensions), and a plane (two dimensions)  is made up of infinitely many lines (one dimension), and so on.  Thus, a collection of infinitely many things, if made finite, will result to something that exists somewhere one dimension higher.  Thus, one possibility is that when we do anything (close a door, for instance), the infinitely many steps that need to be accomplished are accomplished somewhere one dimension lower.  The collection of the infinitely many steps, transcend to an existence that is one dimension higher, and results to something finite.  One implication of this is that the "theory of everything" could be something based on fundamental entities in one or two dimensions.  Another implication is that it is possible that finite and concrete existence exists in even higher dimensions than the three-dimensional (four, if you count time) world we are aware of.

3.  The paradox can be resolved whether it is postulated that reality is independent from consciousness or that reality is dependent on consciousness.  If reality is independent from consciousness, then perhaps in the "actual reality," it is possible to do infinitely many things within a finite amount of time, or maybe some other "reality laws" apply - the possibilities are endless.  And regardless of this reality, our consciousness perceives the accomplishment of something finite within a finite amount of time.  If reality is dependent on consciousness, then the "reality law" of finite things happening within a finite amount of time, despite the paradox, is merely a creation of consciousness.

Paradoxes are always interesting because they challenge the way we make sense of the world by presenting something that makes sense and doesn't make sense at the same time.  Also, paradoxes are intrinsically conflicted and they provoke a conflict in the mind, and so they are representations of the human spirit, for is it not true that throughout history, it is conflicts, whether intra or inter-conflicts, that have pushed humanity forward?

In support of the paradox's conclusion that it is impossible to do anything, I will omit the last word in this




PS.  But if I did that I would have been successful at omitting or not writing the last word in this post.  I guess that's another paradox.  Being unable to do something (complete a blog post, for example) leads you to being able to do something else (the opposite of what you were not able to do, among other things) and so it is impossible to not do anything.

Froth

Froth
I have heard stories of resilience, of throat singers
And man-made fossils carved on alabaster screams.
I dream of cosmopolitania as the froth of the sea
Touches my feet, with pieces of geologic regret.

Bamboo, decayed spaces, permanent shadows,
Floating without resistance, scratching torches.
Draperies beg for mercy, for absolute cold, against
The exit performance, the sporadic fastidiousness.

I am curious about the urge for grotesque poses,
Whether to simulate, or forget the skipped meals.
I am too complex to live a single life, or to make
Copies of my revenge, ubiquitous like an ancient god.

I have heard stories of tragedy, cycles of intrusions
And departures, same banal caresses, dry wind.
I dream of froth in all its shapes, as the partitions
Ricochet in this revelation, before it disintegrates.

  

Don't spend time beating on a wall, hoping to transform it into a door. - Coco Chanel

On Quantum Entanglement

I first heard of quantum entanglement in a visiting professor’s exit lecture when I was in college. Or at least it was the first time I took interest in it since the topic was probably covered in passing in one of my physics classes. I don’t have a deep understanding of quantum entanglement but I guess I know enough to get myself motivated to write a blog post on my thoughts about the theory and its implications.

From what I understand, quantum entanglement is a phenomenon wherein the quantum states of two particles become “entangled,” even when they are separated by distance. When one parameter (among many parameters) that describes the quantum state of one particle gets measured (or becomes definite; note that one principle in quantum mechanics is that only one parameter that describes the quantum state of a particle can become definite at one time, and as one parameter becomes more definite, the other parameters become more uncertain), the other particle consequently assumes the corresponding value of that parameter. For example, if it becomes definite that one particle has a positive spin, then as a consequence, it also becomes definite that the other particle has a negative spin. Likewise, if it becomes definite that one particle changes spin from positive to negative, then the other particle also changes spin from negative to positive because correspondence in this case pertains to the conservation of spin. Again, it is emphasized that quantum entanglement holds true even when the two particles are separated by distance.

Quantum entanglement may seem too abstract when we think of it in terms of subatomic particles and quantum state parameters but, at least in my case, I got to appreciate it more when I zoomed out and thought of its implications in the “macro” world. I thought of quantum entanglement in terms of people, events, thoughts, and decisions. Maybe I used quantum entanglement as a metaphor rather than really think about its direct and consequential implications based on its theoretical structure. Nonetheless, I believe that metaphorical translation is not necessarily a “lower” form of mental exercise compared to more structured mind-stimulating activities like mathematical derivation and formal logic.

Anyway, I believe that there are generally two ways to think of the implications of quantum entanglement in the “macro” level:

1. We can never do anything without making an impact on other people or other things. We can never change without changing others. All our actions, words, decisions, and thoughts directly affect others’ actions, words, decisions, and thoughts. An event (a milestone, a tragedy, etc.) in one place is directly link to a corresponding event in a place that’s far away. If we apply quantum entanglement in the time dimension, we can go as far as saying an action done by a person at one time is directly linked to a corresponding action done by another person at a different time (maybe in another century or millennium). Quantum entanglement kind of reminds me of chaos theory but quantum entanglement postulates a more direct interaction even of particles separated by distance instead of the “spreading out” or “butterfly effect” in chaos theory. This first perspective can be summarized as: We should be thoughtful of all our actions, words, thoughts, and decisions and assess their corresponding impacts on people, things, and the world in general. I believe this thought is quite empowering and motivational.

2. Nothing we ever do, say, think about, or decide on is our own. We are never independent. Everything we say or do is directly linked to the words and actions of a corresponding person somewhere. Nothing is ever original. Everything that is created and every momentous event is a direct consequence of a corresponding creation or event at some distant point in space or time. We have no free will. Every decision is a result of a corresponding decision made somewhere else. Life in this world has no meaning except to satisfy the rules of correspondence that bind entangled entities together. I believe this second perspective brings despair.

I think it doesn’t really matter which perspective or “school of thought” we want to dwell on and, in the case of postmodernists, it is not even necessary to think of either of the two or any other alternative perspective as truer than the others. To somehow provide closure for this blog post, I guess the point is that there is always something even in the most difficult, abstract, and complex scientific ideas and theories which we can find as significant to us and to our lives. They do not only serve as metaphors but, more often than not, they represent certain perceived realities and truths about our existence.

And are we not all, in one way or another, in our own quests for truth?

Social Diving

This is not a book review but again, I would like to write about something I read in a Chuck Palahniuk book.  This time I'm writing about the idea of social diving which I read about in the book Haunted. The book itself is quite unique because it is both an anthology and a novel.  The book is about a group of people who joined a writer's retreat which turned out to be a reality show kind of setup wherein extreme experiences and living conditions were imposed on them by the deranged organizer, supposedly to push each of them to create a masterpiece.  In the book, the writer's retreat participants took turns reciting their own stories as they grew more desperate to be the ultimate "winner" of the "reality show."  A total of 23 stories are featured in the book which also includes 21 narrative poems.

I like buying anthologies because I could read one essay or one story at a time, whenever I have the time to read, until I finish the book.  However, I found the ludicrously imaginative stories in Haunted so addictive that I finished reading the book in two sittings (I still needed to do other things.).

My favorite story is entitled Slumming by the character nicknamed Lady Baglady.  It's a story about a group of affluent (filthy rich) people who took up the hobby of slumming or social diving by disguising themselves to appear destitute and living the lives of homeless people for a night.  They enjoyed the anonymity, freedom, and sense of adventure that this new hobby gave them until it all ended in tragedy. (You have to read the story yourself to find out what the tragedy was.)

Anyway, I found this story really interesting not only because social climbing is a hot topic which my friends and I often make fun of, but also because this story got me reflecting on a few difficult questions.

1. Are we, as humans, doomed to endlessly seek salvation (in pop culture: happiness) and never find it?  The lyrics of a gospel song says that we are born with a hole that needs to be filled but how come people never agree what to fill it with?  How come external pressures (from society, family, authorities, etc.) often push us to do things or follow paths that are not consistent with what we want to do or what we think we want to do?  Why do we keep on not having things we want and not wanting things that we have?

2. Do the rich ever really envy the poor or is this just propaganda so that the poor will stay comfortable with what they have and not aspire to be rich?  Do the poor ever not envy the rich or is this just propaganda for the rich to think there is something desirable in being poor?

3.  Is there room for a possible collaboration between poor people who want to do social climbing and rich people who want to do social diving?  Something like a "social exchange" night wherein rich and poor people would switch clothes, homes, names, and lives?

4.  Is there really such a thing as salvation or happiness?  Or is salvation or happiness a mere abstraction that we created to provide a sense of meaning and direction to our futile existence?  And isn't it that a sense of meaning leads to happiness and if happiness brings a sense of meaning then isn't happiness self-fulfilling?  If it is so, then is there a way to happiness or is happiness the way?  If it is, then salvation or happiness is the way to what?

I'm sure there are a lot more questions that could arise from reading the story but the list above is quite a handful already so I'll stop here.

In summary, I think people will always find new things to do with their lives and playing with opposites (social diving vs social climbing) is always a good start in inventing and reinventing things.  And if social divers actually exist in real life (I believe they do), I guess they find the thought of "there's no way but down" quite intriguing and motivational.

I hope that, at the very least, this post encouraged you to take up a new hobby. 

The Best Things in Life are Yellow

My friends and I sometimes discuss how great artists often have "tortured souls" - how a lot of musicians, poets, and visual artists go through periods of severe depression, experience tragic losses, live as outcasts, get afflicted with all sorts of physical and mental illnesses, and eventually take their own lives; and how they draw from and translate these life experiences to create gripping, memorable, and timeless works of art.

I think the reason why music, literature, and visuals created by artists with "tortured souls" end up becoming famous (a lot of times after the artist's death) is that people like to use these works of art as a form of escape from their otherwise mundane and meaningless existence.  Most people follow a formula or a template in living their lives - finish school, find a job, buy a car and a house, build a family, do good, and die happy.  However, even though the social pressures to conform with these life formulas and templates are strong, there is always that primal craving to experience life in its rawest form, the desire to live life to the extreme.  Thus, these artists with "tortured souls" become the sacrificial lambs who go through these turbulent life experiences, create art from them, and eventually become icons of the inseparability of the artist's self, life,and art.  And it's as if this whole package of the tortured artist's self, life, and art is sealed in a can or ground up to make tablets to be sold to and be consumed by people to supplement their dreary and worthless lives.

Perhaps one of the more illustrative examples of an artist with a "tortured soul" is Vincent van Gogh.  It's been speculated that he suffered from various illnesses including epilepsy and bipolar disorder.  His life was filled with turmoil and despair (one familiar anecdote is of him cutting off his left ear during a time of great loneliness) and it is generally believed that he died by committing suicide at the age of 37.  Although he was considerably prolific during his most productive years, he was only able to sell one painting while he was alive.  Of course, things have changed a lot since his death and he is now one of the most recognizable painters of all time and his paintings rank among the most expensive paintings ever sold.

One of the most highlighted elements in Vincent van Gogh's life and art is his obsession with the color yellow.  His house, its furnishings, and decorations were colored yellow and he also wrote about the beauty of the color yellow in his letters.  Moreover, most of his paintings during his last years showed the extensive use of the color yellow and the overall yellow tint.

It is hypothesized that this obsession with the color yellow was due to xanthopsia or yellow vision caused by poisoning from digitalis (used as treatment for his epilepsy) and his excessive intake of absinthe liquor.

And so I decided to make this post an homage to Vincent van Gogh, by sharing photos from a recent dinner out with friends, edited to highlight the color yellow.  My resources and skills in photo editing are limited so I'm not sure if I was able to achieve what I wanted the photos to become.

Nonetheless, I think everything in this post (the discussion on artists with "tortured souls," the feature on Vincent van Gogh, and the photos from the dinner out) goes well together since during the dinner, my friends and I found ourselves reflecting on our lives, its meaning, and what to do with it next.

The night ended with us still clueless.

He who despairs of the human condition is a coward, but he who has hope for it is a fool. - Albert Camus  

New Hobby: Drawing 2 + Thoughts on Filipino Happiness

I have a couple of new drawings and like I said last time, I tried to do human figures.  But I wouldn't really want to simply post my drawings without any other content to go with them so I decided to also write a "commentary" on something I read about recently. (I originally intended to write a poem in Tagalog but I thought that would take a little more time and inspiration)

I am subscribed to the monthly online Gallup Management Journal and for this month's edition, one of the headlines that caught my eye says "Chinese Among Least Likely in Asia to See Their Job as Ideal: Chinese workers also less likely to get to do what they do best at job."  The article basically talks about the results of surveys that Gallup conducted in 22 Asian countries in 2011 for the purpose of studying how employees and workers in different Asian countries perceive their job situations and how these different perceptions (of having or not having an "ideal" job, of whether or not they get to do what they do best in their jobs, of being productive on the job or not, and of whether they receive fair pay or not) are linked to each other.  I really don't have much to say about the conclusion asserted by the headline since I have limited knowledge on the Chinese people and their culture, history, and social psychology.  But what really surprised me was that if China was on the bottom half of the the list for both rankings (21st for likelihood for employees to see their jobs as ideal and 19th for likelihood of employees to think they get to do what they do best at their jobs), the Philippines was on the top half of the list for both rankings (2nd for likelihood for employees to see their jobs as ideal and 8th for likelihood of employees to think they get to do what they do best at their jobs).  Thus, the headline can actually be re-written as "Filipinos Among Most Likely in Asia to See Their Job as Ideal: Filipino workers also most likely to get to do what they do best at job."

But maybe I shouldn't be surprised at all.  I remember reading, a few months back, about the results of a study which asserts that Filipinos are among the happiest in the world.  And as much as I'd like to be proud and "happy" about this, I can't help but dissect this phenomenon of Filipino happiness and optimism and look into its root and its core and speculate on how events in our history have molded our social psyche to develop the Filipino brands of happiness, optimism, and hospitality.

Much of this I have learned in my Philippine History class in college.  This was supposed to be a "progressive" history class which aimed to glorify the Filipino people and to make students proud to be Filipino but honestly, it didn't quite work for me.

Our professor taught us about a modern theory on the origin of the Filipino race, which is very different from the "three waves of migration theory" we were taught in grade school.  The modern theory basically teaches that Filipinos are part of the bigger Austronesian race which originated from southern China and crossed the land bridges to the Philippines and eventually spread out to as far as Madagascar in the West and the Pacific Islands in the East.  So the Philippines was basically the "first stop" to this spread of the Austronesian people.  Our professor also painted a very romantic picture of the Austronesian people being seafarers who are used to living a life in the sea without bounds - adventurous and daring explorers, which supposedly translates to Austronesians, and consequently, Filipinos being naturally inquisitive, creative, freethinking, and innovative.  But if that's the case, I guess the proto-Filipinos were among the least adventurous of all the early Austronesians because they were the ones who decided to settle down on the "first stop" instead of setting out to explore and see what more the world can offer.

But regardless of this, the proto-Filipinos were able to establish a thriving civilization in this archipelago of more than 7,000 islands, a civilization with its own distinct culture and social structure although the proto-Filipinos did not think of themselves as one people at this point.

Then the colonizers came and the proto-Filipinos fought back as hard as they could and they would win some battles and lose some like in any other fight.  And I know that a lot of people would say otherwise, but I daresay the proto-Filipinos were defeated.  And for me, it's not really the opponent's military strength and strategic colonization plan that defeated the proto-Filipinos but the series of betrayals committed by the leaders to whom they relied on.  The Babaylans, who were highly regarded as spiritual leaders and who were among the first ones to lead uprisings against the Spaniards, began to incorporate, and eventually fully integrate, elements of Catholicism into their teachings and principles.  The datus and rajahs eventually sided with the enemies to preserve whatever power and wealth they had left.  It was around the same time that the collective consciousness of Filipinos as one people started to emerge and I believe that this consciousness was born broken and violated, with Filipinos bitter and in despair over the betrayals of their leaders, and Filipinos questioning their identity as a people.

It has not chaged ever since.  Ours is a history of betrayals, distrust, defeats, shame, and disappointments.  Leaders, whether they come from the ruling class, the intelligentia, or the masses, always fail to turn this country around and to regain the dignity of the Filipino people.  We all know this familiar picture of the Philippines plagued with poverty, corruption, and social injustice.

Of course people become ashamed and angry about all of this but for most people, living with constant shame and anger is just too must.  And so the Filipino people have to resort to social narcotics to numb the pain of this shame and anger.  Apart from religion, mass media, and other social institutions, this brand of Filipino hospitality, optimism, and happiness serves as a more subtle form of social narcotic.

Our country, our land, and our people have been violated and exploited for so long that we have learned to put on the fake smile of a prostitute.  We are so tired of dishonest leaders and worsening social conditions that we have learned to settle, to be contented, to accept our fate, to think of ourselves less, and to be more tolerant to failures.  Amidst all our suffering, indignity, and resentment, we have learned to be happy.

But there's a reason why social narcotics are called as such - they never really end anything - the shame and anger remains.  Over time, we crave for more and more of these social narcotics and we Filipinos have been taking too much that we have become among the most religious and most media-crazy peoples in the world.  And we have also become among the happiest and most optimistic.

I guess we are all just waiting for salvation, for the true savior to get us off this addiction and to teach us how to be truly happy.  And maybe for some of us, we feel that we were destined to be that savior but we just don't know where to start.

For the meantime, let's take more of this drug called Filipino Happiness.


Okay, I think I've written more than enough so it's time to share my latest drawings.

Anyone who cannot come to terms with his life while he is alive needs one hand to ward off a little his despair over his fate... but with his other hand he can note down what he sees among the ruins. - Franz Kafka



Theory: Autosynthesizing Residues

This is what I do when I'm bored.  I come up with my own "theories" about the origin of the universe, how society works or should work, why things are the way they are, and anything under the sun that catches my fancy.  Usually, I just share these "theories" with my friends (who may or may not be enthusiastic about them) during conversations over dinner or coffee.  But this time, I decided to write about my new theory about the human mind and post it in this blog.  I just realized that I think and talk too much but I don't write enough and so some of my "theories" tend to be forgotten and eventually get lost into oblivion.  I know most of my "theories" are probably rubbish but what if one of those "lost theories" could have changed the world.

So let me tell you about the theory of autosynthesizing residues.



Autosynthesizing Residues

Residues are leftover “marks” on the brain which are acquired after the mind is exposed to a stimulus (from sensory experience, thinking, decision making, creative and imaginative processes, etc.). Residues do not reside in the regions of cognition, consciousness, or memory which means that they are not learned, perceived, nor remembered. Yet they also do not reside in the subconscious because they do not actively manifest as a pseudo-reality or alter-reality when the mind is in a subconscious or hypnotized state. Thus, they reside in a kind of meso-realm of the mind. Attempts to describe or characterize the nature of residues, the meso-realm where they are found, and the mechanism/s of acquisition will be made later on.

In this theory, it is proposed that residues possess the important property of autosynthesis. They combine, react, change form, and connect with each and the net result is the continuous synthesis of a dynamic network of residues which we will call a residue complex. In the process of autosynthesis, residues follow a set of “natural laws” or rules that are either deterministic or statistical (we are yet to speculate) in nature. The residue complex consequently develops special properties that enable it to respond to stimuli and form connections and networks with memories, perceptions, emotions, pieces of knowledge, and other “mind matter.” Thus, the residue complex becomes a distinct entity on its own.

It is also proposed that the residue complex is the primary driver of intuition and consequently, radical innovation and creativity. This is made possible by the residue complex’s capability to receive and process stimuli, and connect with mind matter in the conscious, subconscious, and cognitive realms of the mind.

It is also proposed that intelligence can be measured in terms of two parameters related to autosynthesizing residues. These two parameters are residue acquisition capability and residue autosynthesis capability. People with higher levels of intelligence have minds that acquire residues faster and more effectively. Likewise, their minds also create conditions that favor faster autosynthesis. However, it is acknowledged that this theory of autosynthesizing residues proposes a mechanism for intelligence but not a definition.

In summary, this theory of autosynthesizing residues posits the existence of another type of mind matter called residues which reside in a meso-realm of the mind and which form residue complexes. It further conjectures that residue complexes initiate intuition and that the parameters of residue acquisition capability and autosynthesis capability are directly linked to and can be used to measure human intelligence.




Democratic societies are unfit for the publication of such thunderous revelations as I am in the habit of making. - Salvador Dali

Bigots are the New Vampires

Last Sunday I watched Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter with my postmodernist friend Rain and I felt that the movie was very current even though it was a historical fiction.  I teared up several times throughout the movie because there was just a lot I could relate to.  In the film, Abraham Lincoln was fighting against slavery, racism, and bigotry as much as he was hunting vampires.  Actually, in  scenes where he was giving speeches, Abraham Lincoln reminded me of Harvey Milk, the great champion of gay rights.

And so I decided to write this as some kind of a tribute to the film.  If this post turns out a bit political then so be it.  In a sociology class when I was a freshman in college, we were taught that the personal is always political.  I believed it then and I still believe it now.  I believe that often the only way to achieve the personal happiness and freedom that we aspire for is to speak up, step forward, and fight for the truth inside our hearts.

This is not a movie review nor a poem.  This a simply my reflection on how vampires were portrayed in the film (disregarding all other portrayals of the vampire, especially portrayals that render them as benevolent and humane which I guess is a bit of "literary bigotry" on my part) and how I relate this portrayal to my disdain against bigots.

I begin by saying that bigots are the new vampires.

Bigots hunt for people and bite them against their will, either to take away their rights or to turn them into their kind.  Bigots have no respect for human freedom as they think of themselves as gods.

Bigots were doomed to live in darkness but somehow they find ways to roam freely and unharmed in broad daylight.  They put on special sunscreen and wear magical rings to pretend that they are among the enlightened.  Bigots are believable for they use reason and eloquence to support their prejudices and intolerance.

Bigots are everywhere and some of them have managed to take hold of substantial power, fame, and wealth.  They are government officials, religous leaders, celebrities, and business tycoons who are controllers and influencers of the political, economic, and cultural spheres of our society.  Thus, bigots are undeniably strong in all senses of the word.

Bigots live for hundreds or years but they do not grow any wiser.  They have closed all doors to progress and they seek to pull society back with them.  Change is their enemy for their hatred is rooted in severe pathological insecurities.

But bigots, like vampires, are already dead.  They are incapable of relishing the fullness of the joy and beauty of the human experience.

And bigots, like vampires, are the antagonists, the villains.  They are the enemies of humanity.  They are on the wrong side of history and they will be remembered as the ones who stood in the way of the human race moving forward.  Like vampires and all other antagonists, bigots never win.    




Until everyone is free, all of us are slaves. - from the film Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Self-Portraits of a Black Hole (Finding Frida)

Last Saturday night, I went to the Lampara album launch in Cafe Saguijo with some friends from work.  We were there to support Dan, a friend from work who is also the drummer of Lampara.  I had a great time listening to Lampara's music that is fresh and original yet still possesses a musical sensibility that you can easily relate to.  There were several other bands that played that night and it was a beautiful surprise when I saw a female guitarist that looked a lot like Frida Kahlo.  And so I was inspired to write this poem.

Self-Portraits of a Black Hole

Do we come into the earth like the plasma ashes of a comet’s odyssey,
A comet embracing salvation as it burns from flesh to light?
Do we come into the world already broken, children of the same mistakes,
Same regrets, same blinded hopes and crippled desires?

Do the gods cut themselves when gunshots have become music,
When they ache to be crushed between eternity’s walls?
Do the ages feed on the scabs of time, scratch the intolerable itch,
Agonize from the travesty of dead ends and closed loops?

Does a woman see her child’s birth as her own rebirth from haunted years,
The acrid shame in beauty, the narcissistic pain in heartbeats?
Does a man return to the womb to murder his second death,
To inhale his powdered bones and cough them out with blood?

Do we come into the earth without roots nor wings, only teeth,
For ripping faces, spitting chains, and biting our tongues?
Do we come into the world as orphans of legends and bombs,
And vanish like a scarred heat wave before the night?

I paint self-portraits because I am so often alone, because I am the person I know best. - Frida Kahlo

The Night Was Young

I wanted to write a poem but I decided to take a break from the "postmodernist" poems that I usually write (I'll post examples later).  Instead I opted to use saturated imagery and metaphors with conventional references.  I also tried my best to make this poem as rhythmic as possible although inevitably I still included discreet elements and discontinuity.

I also wanted to experiment with combining visuals with the verses.  And so I included photographs I took during yesterday's night out with friends.


The Night Was Young

The night was young as the brush strokes in your
Breath, always magnified like a big bang.
The night in her throat held the soul of an aeroplane,
Impalpable like viscous dreams changing skin.

Eyes of vitriol, moist bruises of lost youth,
Taste the pulsing stasis in my fingertips.
You were born with the name of bursting
Clouds, across footprints diverging into flames.

Your fever was the prodigal luster of cold
Ambrosia, a solitary feather’s silhouette against
The white pain of oral histories, poisonous
Nostalgia implodes like prophetic mist.

Beneath the elastomer, the death wish and the
Doubts of tortured electric void,
A labyrinth walks on a tightrope,
Questions the black branch of double vision.

A wagon of fate or faith, a jar of
Four-dimensional blurs of brothers and sons,
Of arsenic, of promises fired by a
Canon into a polaroid of your sixth sunset.

There’s an innocence that punctures your
Shoulders, where intuition sublimates towards
An orchard of transience, frames within frames of
Split euphoria from refracted truths.

The night was young, as it still is.
My carriage never left your back pockets.
If today an eyelash falls into a
Mirage, I’ll drink my somnambulist fears.





Poets do not finish their poems, they abandon them. – Paul Valéry

Rediscovering My Love for Books 1

I thought it would be a good idea to write another series in my blog apart from the "New Hobby: Drawing" series so I decided to start writing a series about something I've been interested in practically my whole life - books!

I remember when I was in high school, my appetite for books was at an all time high.  I would buy a few books occasionally since I was on a tight budget but I borrowed a lot of books from friends and I raided the school library and devoured every interesting book I could find.

When I was in college, I felt that I was simply too busy to read books as I was doing way too many things - studying hard to get high grades, leading projects and events for several student organizations, tutoring for extra income, going out with friends, and embracing all the great things that college life had to offer.  But when I started working, I rediscovered my love for books mainly because I got a job in a location where there isn't much to do after work.

Now, for my first post for this entry, I decided to write about my favorite bargain bookstore finds.  There is a bargain bookstore in a nearby mall where I currently live and it has been one of my favorite go-to places when I have nothing better to do.  I have found that this bargain bookstore sometimes have more interesting selections compared to that of popular bookstore chains, and the books are sold at ridiculously low prices too.  I have bought quite a lot of books from this bargain bookstore (more than two shoeboxes worth) but for this post, I'm going to write about three of my favorites.

1. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America

by Barbara Ehrenreich

Got it for Php 10

In this book, American journalist Barbara Ehrenreich documents her experience of trying to live the life of a low-wage earner in the US.  She travelled to three different states to work on several low-wage jobs: as a waitress in Florida, as a housekeeper in Maine, and as a saleslady in Minnesota.  One of the reasons I liked this book so much is that it presented a picture of America that is quite different from the image of prosperity and comfort that I am used to seeing in American movies and TV shows.  This book talks about how a growing number of Americans are going through the same struggles that most people in my third-world homeland Philippines are facing: poverty, unemployment and underemployment, low wages vs high cost of living, lack of affordable housing and health care, etc.  I found this book memorable because Enrenreich wrote with journalistic insight as well as with a truthfulness that is very raw and human.

One insight from the book that really hit me was, "people working in low-wage jobs cannot be simply considered as unskilled workers."  Low-wage or blue-collar jobs often require as much and sometimes even more mental and physical effort as white-collar jobs.  So white-collar workers should feel fortunate rather than entitled of the relative abundance and comfort that they get from their jobs.

Scoot Over, Skinny: The Fat Nonfiction Anthology

Edited by Donna Jarrell and Ira Sukrungruang

Got it for Php 20

This book is a collection of nonfiction on the many dimensions of human fatness: physical, personal, social, mental, and spiritual.  I found most of the essays, and this anthology as a whole, interesting because it gives a rather holistic portrayal of fatness as a complex and multifaceted human condition.  Some of my favorite essays are:

1.  "Tight Fits" by Ira Sukrungruang is a chronicle of Sukrungruang's trip to his parent's homeland Thailand and an exploration of the literal and metaphorical implications and consequences of being fat in his struggle to "fit in."

2. "The Man Who Wouldn't Stop Eating" by Atul Gawande gives an account of people suffering from morbid obesity who choose to undergo gastric bypass surgery which they see as their only hope of losing weight.

3. "Fat Guys Kick Ass" by Steven A. Shaw explains why fat guys "run the world."

4. "Big Game Hunters" by Sarah Fenske talks about "hogging" or the practice of guys going out to look for quick hook-ups and one night stands with fat women.

5. "Fat Like Him" by Lori Gottlieb tells the story about a recovering anorexic's love affair with a morbidly obese man.

6. "Fat Lady" by Irvin Yalom talks about how a psychotherapist, while treating a morbidly obese patient, was compelled to examine and evaluate his own personal biases.

7. "Fat Lady Nuding" by Donna Jarrell tells the story of how a fat woman found inclusiveness and acceptance by attending nude parties. 

The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2007

Anthology edited by Richard Preston

Got if for Php 75 

This is one of many books from The Best American Writing series which gets published every year.  But there is a reason why this book is especially close to my heart.  This is the book where I first read about Joan Roughgarden's research.  Joan Roughgarden is a transgendered professor of Biology at Stanford University.  In her book "Evolution's Rainbow," she challenges Darwin's sexual selection theory which asserts that sex is basically for the purpose of reproduction and so all aspects of sexuality can be explained by this biological need to reproduce.  For example, Darwin's theory explains that males have stronger sex drives than females because "sperm are cheap and eggs are expensive."  Professor Roughgarden spent a significant amount of time doing research on animal sexual behaviors that are inconsistent with Darwin's sexual selection theory.  Of course, an important bulk of this research is on homosexual behavior observed in numerous animal species.  It turns out that homosexuality is not only a "human reality," as Hillary Clinton said in a speech, but it is also a much broader biological reality.  Professor Roughgarden proposes an explanation for these sexual behaviors that are inconsistent with Darwin's theory: that sexual behaviors like homosexuality exist for the purpose of collaboration and cementing social bonds.

Of course there are many other interesting science essays in this book, two of which are "Cooking for Eggheads" by Patricia Gadsby which is about molecular gastronomy - the scientific study of cooking and food, and "Health Secrets from the Morgue" by Michael Perry which presents insights on health in the context of performing an autopsy.

I think that reading books is such an exciting experience because it is like travelling to new places.  I remeber something I read in a Brown University viewbook where it was said that Scheherazade set out on a journey similar to Odysseus' 10-year adventure on his way home.  Scheherazade took the same journey without leaving her room because she set out on a journey of the mind by reading a lot of books.  She then shared stories from this adventure to the murderous king for 1001 nights until she was able to "bring peace and joy to my [the King's] heart, and peace and joy to my kingdom."

And I think that hunting for books in a bargain bookstore is a similar adventurous journey of discovering intriguing titles you've never heard of and experiencing the incomparable delight when these books surprisingly turn out to be loaded with extraordinary pleasures of the mind.

Stoking and Severing Origin

Lately, I've been reading a lot of books by Chuck Palahniuk and I now consider myself a fan.  I love Palahniuk's distinct satirical style as well as his explosive imagination that's always "at the edge of crazy" as one reviewer put it.  I now have five Palahniuk books in my possession: Haunted, Snuff, Choke, Pygmy, and Rant.  Every book has its own share of complex characters, memorable lines, and unexpected twists, and I'll probably write about some of them in my future posts.

For this post, I would like to write about one thing that I read about in a Palahniuk book which really left a mark in my mind.  It's about the idea of stoking and severing origin which I read about in Rant.  First, let me explain stoking and severing origin in my own words.

Stoking means you go back in time to repeatedly breed with your ancestor (of the opposite sex) such that you become your own grandfather, father, son, grandson, etc.  The effect is that you become stronger and stronger and you extend your life indefinitely.

Severing origin means you go back in time to kill your ancestor.  Now, you may recall the popular Grandfather's Paradox which supossedly makes the idea of time travel problematic.  The paradox arises in a thought experiement wherein someone travels back in time to kill his or her grandfather and consequently he or she whould not have existed in the first place to be able to kill his or her grandfather.  Now instead of a paradox, the idea of severing origin proposes a different ending to the thought experiment.  If someone goes back in time to kill his or her ancestor, then he or she would have gotten rid of his or her beginning.  Thus, he or she becomes someone with no beginning, and consequently, no end.  In other words, the person becomes immortal.

I love how Chuck Palahniuk was able to integrate something so philosophical and mind-stimulating into a fictional story but what I love even more is how this book got me thinking about the aspiration of immortality.

The premise of immortality seems simple enough - making yourself live forever or live eternally.  But it is actually a lot more complex when we try to consider the scientific and philosophical dilemmas that afflict the feasibility of immortality. 

The first dilemma is scientific.  To make immortality possible, there should be a way to make time infinite, whether it's linear time, relativistic time, warped or discreet time, etc.  But right now the most popular theory on the origin of time is that is was created, together with matter and space, during the big bang.  And since it was "created," time will also decay and eventually collapse into nothing, like it was prior to the big bang.  So how do you make time timeless?  How do you sever time's origin?  How do you make time without beginning and without end?  I think the bigger dilemma is not how to go back in time to kill your ancestor but how to kill time's ancestor.

The second dilemma is more philosophical.  Being immortal means making yourself exist forever.  The dilemma is that "the self" has always been one of the biggest philosophical questions ever.  What defines you?  What defines yourself?  Is it your physical state (your body), your consciousness, your memories, or the collective of these three, or is it something else.  One of the most profound philosophical statements is, "You never cross the same river twice."  Every single fraction of time, you shed skin cells, you undergo biochemical, developmental, and degenerative processes, you gain and lose memories, you slip in and out of different realms of consciousness.  So clearly, the "you" this moment will not be the same "you" in the next.  So what it is that defines your identity as you/yourself.  To make yourself immortal, you have to preserve this thing that makes you you.  But what in the world is this thing?

I also aspire for immortality simply for the reason that I find the popular sentiment of people not wanting to be immortal because they don't want to be lonely too philistine, unintellectual, and simplistic.  Clearly, temporary loneliness is a very small price to pay compared to the unimaginable possibilities that immortality would bring.  Actually, people seeking for religious salvation or people who want to go to heaven are actually aspiring for immortality.

But then again, as fate would have it, seriously considering the feasibility of immortality requires resolving dilemmas that seem beyond the human mind's cognitive capability.

But it's fair enough, when we come to think of it.  We haven't even figured out how to stop killing each other, so how can we expect to figure out how to live forever?