You're Just Imagining Your Experience

my Art Appreciation for Humanities Majors Class paper (our task was to pick one, not both, which of experience or imagination produces art)

We all think that we are actually experiencing things in our life but really we all are just imagining that we are experiencing it. Art is then a product of our imagination, not our experience, because our experience is not really experience, we just imagine that we experience it.

How does one distinguish that we are actually experiencing it and if we are only imagining it. What if we are imagining things so good that it seems that we are actually experiencing it? That kind of imagination is what really produces art from us because it is so strong that it inspires us to make a piece of art, and so strong that we actually think we experience an imagined experience. Sure there may be basis for our experience, but we are also imagining these bases of our experiences, that’s how strong it is that we are inspired to do art with it.

Imagining it need not be unreal or separate from reality, it only needs to be perceived by us. Let’s say that we are given basic sensory stimulation of light, sound and touch. These stimulation at the very basic level are really just light, sound and touch and because of our imagination, we translate these stimulation into something we call “experience” where we get our inspiration to do art. And we say that we experience imagining where really we are imagining our experiences.

grant me

grant me wisdom

grant me peace

grant me freedom

from my unease

grant me conscience

grant me patience

grant not confusion

for my decision

for her

I was dreaming

that i was dreaming

that i was dreaming of you,

then i woke up,

and prayed for you,

and then i woke up,

and God granted it true,

you are my dream come true,

oh what bliss,

shall i say i love you?

Philippine elections... si villar ako kasi maganda commercial niya

i went to pangasinan and voted.

boy, what an experience, the line was long, it was so hot and there was no order. people were cutting lines, and the people who were in charge were either young adult girls who were too busy telling people to line up properly or were just too shy. and the people who would line up properly had one of their children line up for the WHOLE family which was like 5-7 people, so when the child nears the end of the line, the family members would swarm in and poof, another 10-15 mins of my time. i still need to drive back to manila and prepare for class after!

the following were things that i heard while in line:

*someone singing a politician's commercial

"si villar ako, ganda ng commercial niya eh"

"wag kang sumingit!"

"galing mo sumingit ah"

"ang init naman"

"si erap iboboto ko, kasi gaganti yun kay Gloria"

"sino si Gibo?"

i was supposed to vote for Gibo theodoro, but then i heard what people were saying and chills went through my spine. people were actually voting for villar and erap because of dumb reasons, and they might just win! VOTE NOYNOY because id rather have him there than any of those two. apparently, Erap was not convicted a few years ago and was not banned from running from office, and apparently Villar was an honest businessman. too bad for Gibo tho, he had the skills and the know how for the seat, but people did not really care. they were too hyped about the commercials or REVENGE. they were also too preoccupied with family ties and whom the politicians had relations with than what the politician can really do.

why is people's movements restricted?

It is good to see people acting on something that needs to be acted upon to. What came to my mind as I think of this topic is Al Gore’s metaphor on how people were not reactive to global warming. He said that we are like frog being slowly boiled down. Since the boiling is slow, we do not realize that we are slowly being surrounded by increasing temperature and then we would eventually die. At least Al Gore was one of those frogs that actually tried to solve that problem but this made me realize that I too was not aware of what was happening in the world. Sure I may make the excuse that I was still young when this was happening, but the fact that I should have had not been surprised of the idea still haunts me.

So why are people’s movement restricted? When I think of this, I remember on when I was still in high school and we and my team would battle the administrators to be able to do something that we want to do for a program or of the sorts. They would often win and that would restrict us to do what we want to do. All the red tape and the processes that is supposedly for helping was restricting. This can be translated to a bigger scale, which is the scale for the whole world. People would be restricted to act on their beliefs because maybe their country has a strict rule on religion, or practices. people are restricted to act because there are invisible human-ish things that prevents them even though they can physically do what they want to do. Countries even have restrictions to anything, even if it is necessary. An example is revolting on the streets (as discussed in class). Here in the Philippines, for a rally to happen they have to get a permit first and their venue must be proper which restricts the true essence of rallying and revolting. The impact is gone and any politician can just shrug those revolts easily.

People’s actions are restricted because bodies who try to find order in things sees these actions as causes of disorder. Globalization actually gave a new way of unrestricting people. For me this is the internet where everyone can post freely what they want and people can support their action if they have the same thought. And since the internet provides fast communications, people from different parts of the world can come together and act on what they think needs action. New organizations that can help people from countries with restrictions are now evident so that change is easier and less restricted.

can we move beyond conflict?

The picture that goes in my head whenever I think of the word conflict is that picture in some animes where two rivals look eye to eye and then an electric like light go against each other. In some ways this is how to describe conflict, as opposing parties have because of opposite goals. I would incorporate this to a conflict between two nations where one wants what the other wants to prevent. Or even in political campaigns. In my opinion conflicts are actually what slows down the process of change for the better but is still inevitable. A variation in perspectives prevents conflict to be fully rid of as there are always more than one way to look at the picture. And since everyone comes from different parts of the picture, everyone has a different way in looking at it. For an example, Hitler really believed that killing Jews would actually be better than not killing them, and obviously those countries that opposed Germany then thought otherwise. And so conflict was there and a war started. Could this have had been prevented? Maybe, if Hitler was convinced otherwise or if those countries who opposed him was convinced by Hitler otherwise, but is this even possible. And if it were possible, there would always be a we perspective that would come up and spark conflict.

So in answering the question, can we move beyond conflict, I realized that we need not remove conflict but we just need to handle it in a more productive manner. Conflict is actually there to motivate critical thinking so that whatever action people do, is a product of a well thought of goal and plan. But it just so happen that some conflicts were pushed overboard because either sides of the conflict were to hard on their side that wars were actually the thing that needed to happen. if there were something else that could have had ended it? Who knows, how do we know what could have had happened otherwise? So in handling conflict in a more productive way maybe one way of going beyond it.

Globalization gives the world a new identity of being united. And through this, ideas, minds and perspectives start to look more uniformly and this could actually be the answer to handling conflict. Since people will look at things more similarly, the wavelength of the different perspectives wont vary as much and a productive way of handling the conflict will occur. Maybe a one world order is also an answer to this, but then what will happen next? As a one world order would imply the end. (if you know what I mean.)

what makes the world dangerous?

Adrenaline is the fight or flight hormone that is triggered whenever someone is presented with danger. For me, this says something. That we humans are made for danger and it is inevitable for danger to linger on. Different kinds of danger haunted humans in different time periods and humans try to do something about this to lessen the danger. But as they eliminate the threat of one danger, a new danger emerges. According to the book, this is like making a cycle of danger. That as we humans try to eliminate it, the stronger it gets. And that our own action of eliminating it, strengthens it. From wild beasts to fellow humans then to hand weapons and now nuclear weapons. Each a solution to the previous danger but in turn becomes the source of new danger.

It is currently the Lenten season and I remembered where danger started. Man wouldn’t have had any danger if they were still in the Garden of Eden where God protects man. But human sin kicked man out of the garden where danger is everywhere. Danger is really, even in the period before time, come from man and human downfalls. Greed, lust, jealousy, pride, gluttony, and the sorts motivate people to satisfy themselves and through this they make new dangers in the world.

So what makes the world dangerous? Well in my opinion, in the first place, if there were no humans there wont be any danger, being that humans coined the word, but also that without humans, everything will just be the natural course of nature. So man causes danger to the world. Danger that even the innocent, the weak and even the strong are exposed to, and that there is nothing anyone can do to eliminate it, well at least not now.

Maybe globalization was one of the attempts to eliminate danger in this world. Through globalization, everyone is interconnected and everyone knows what’s happening everywhere so that people can monitor each other. But along with this, globalization gave new mediums for danger to threaten people. The internet for an example gave new ways to define danger. Identities now can be stolen, people can hack and get information from other people and even wars can be started from the misuse of the internet. But maybe through globalization, a new way of eliminating danger can be discovered.

why do some people think they know what is good for others?

If I was asked why do some people think they know what is good for others, I would answer that because they think that they are like everyone else and that since they know that something is good for them that it is good for other people as well. This relatively aligns with the arguments in the chapter of the book where they say that people do this because they think they are helping. They think that if they do actually know something about anything, they would have this sense of responsibility to act on it. But I think this is not really a good way of giving people direction in what might be good for them. I say this because by letting people tell other people what is good for them, the receiver is not making the decisions and decisions that is not your own would often not give happiness. An example that I can think of is when parents choose the course that their children would take. Its good if the course that the parent chooses is the course that the child actually likes, but what if he/she doesn’t like the course? What then would happen? The child didn’t have the decision and would feel like they are living not their lives but the life their parents want them to live. They won’t give that much effort since the decision was not theirs and they are not accountable of that decision.

Another example is on how the United States handles issues around the world. How the US handled North Korea was an example on how other people actually think they know what is good for others. The US thinks that only because they have the power, the ability and the knowledge about nuclear weapons that they are allowed to intervene with the decision of the North Koreans. But again, this issue has another side, which since the US has the knowledge about nuclear weapons is that they might have a say on the issue. One can also say that the US has a sense of responsibility being one of the countries that gives the example to other countries.

Another example of this that I truly hate is when religious people think that they actually know what is best for other people. That they would say something and if one person does not follow, they would be branded as non-believers or that they will go to hell. In my opinion this kind of people are actually not who they say they are. If they actually were followers of their faith, they would know that this kind of behaviour is not what is good for the people they handle since this would make their faith unwanted and people would hate their faith. And these people might generalized everyone who might be under that same faith.

This is where globalization come in. globalization provides a less varied and more uniform way of thinking that through globalization, differences in religion, culture and even in personality can be identified and acted upon accordingly so that the proper “knowing” of what is good for others is practiced. Where one does not assume that what they know is the best for someone else and is open to possibilities of having other bests for others.

Why are some people better off than others? (Master Lecture)

The world is cruel. The world made it such that there might be no equality. This is why some people are better off than others. Inequality among races, nations, professions, age, and the list goes on. Inequality between the rich and the poor. Inequality that humans try their best to make equal, but really there is no way to do it. There are always ways to get the upper hand in any situation. Even in organizing a group, there is always the leader who is relatively better off than his or her members. And it is not so that it everyone should be equal anyway. No 2 people are the same and their own personal differences would require different treatments. But doing this in the level of the government would be messy. I mean, how would you give special treatment to millions. So I think it is inevitable to totally give everyone a fair treatment and so the government now adjusts to the majority of the people. So inequality is really an inevitable issue, even in the level of the government.

Finding equality is like satisfying a person, it is impossible. Everyone has a set of wants and needs and all these wants and needs that everyone in the whole world has cannot be satisfied by the limited resources the world offer. The world is not an infinite source of resources as global warming and shortages of resources exhibit. And eventually it will go down to inequality of the rich and poor since the rich can get what they want from the limited resources where as the poor can only manage to survive the day.

If we look at it, this inequality between the rich and poor is increasing. The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. The rich have all the opportunities and they would rather not share it to everyone. The rich have access to good education, and good jobs whereas the poor does not even have the slightest idea on where to start. Of course there have had been people who went from poor to rich but really, what are the chances of that happening. And if this ever happens, will these people go back to the poor and help them? I would guess not.

This reminded me of a politician I love to actually hate. This politician claims that he came from hanging on the brink of poverty and eventually became a successful politician that he is now. He claims that he could help the poor if he would sit in the office because he knows how it feels like to be poor. He knows and he knows how to stand up and fight poverty. But then again, if he knew this, why is he not doing anything? Why does he have controversies and issues that relate to corruption. Is this really the way to solve poverty? Maybe this is a statement on why some people are actually better off that other people, it is because people are selfish and would prioritize themselves over others and would lie cheat and steal to do this.

So what is the role of globalization in this inequality? I think globalization can help since through globalization, different parts of the world are connected and this connection would act as a police to those who would dare to abuse power and not help fight the inequality. Other people from different parts of the world can act on fighting inequality in different places. Also, here in the Philippines, through globalization, people who are poor can work abroad and might actually lessen the gap between the poor and the rich.

how is the internet changing the way we live?

Have you tried googling yourself? It is actually funny that you can google anything nowadays. Even the most specific thing, you can google. I wonder if you can google “google.” What I am delivering here is that almost everyone everywhere has access to the internet that anything that anyone might have thought of is in the internet. And since information is power, through the internet which has unlimited amount of information, anyone everywhere anywhere anytime has the power to influence, inspire, sell, buy, flirt, court, and do whatever through the internet. And the best thing is that you only need fingers and even without fingers anyone can use the internet because of the new technology. But just like any other thing in this world, there is a negative in the internet. Here anyone can share their vices, can abuse people, can steal identities, money, can scam, can kill, can practice violence, and can even damage a person through the internet. Small children can be exposed to violence early on because of the internet that can break their futures and cause them to develop psychological disorders.

The internet have had been the reference of students nowadays but are everything in the internet true? Well since everyone in the net can write anything, how can you trust the internet? Well it is good now that there are trusted sites but still the fact that anyone can write anything and access the internet makes it untrustworthy. How can we be sure now that what students learn is genuine?

The internet provided a very fast way of communicating that made it easier for Filipinos to communicate with their loved ones who is working abroad. This is probably one of the best traits of the internet because this made having a family while working abroad easier. Also this gave way to new ways of knowing people, finding friends, staying in touch with friends and such. Also, the fast way of communicating business transactions so that developing countries like us can compete internationally.

The internet among other uses also gives entertainment to the people. Games, shows, videos, tutorials and such are among the things that I use the internet for entertainment. This gives people from all over the world quality entertainment wherever and how remote their location can be.

I cannot even imagine or remember life before the internet. I can’t think of a way how my parents searched for information, data and other stuff when there was no google yet, even if there was already the internet. But as I think of this, I cannot think of a way how thinking this is a good thing.

how does the nation-state work?

My understanding of a nation-state is that it is a community with a diverse culture that is not of the state as a whole but is all governed by one government. An example that I could think of is the Philippines. It is actually hard to get a grasp on the idea of a nation-state but having the Philippines as an example would make it easier to digest. On what I understood, it is like here in the Philippines where we have different identities like the Ilocanos, the Bisaya and such where all of these are under one government.

For me, globalization is exactly what a nation-state needs. It is a very diverse identity that all these identities needs one medium in which they are all equal and can trade, communicate and share. It has been that the different identities in this country didn’t really got along well with each other and now that the Philippines is starting to become globalized, this is starting to change for the better. Through the new ideas, technology and perspective that globalization has, the different identities’ strengths have had been bonded together such that this country might progress. It is in that one governing body that this country’s downfall came, but in my perspective, this country can go the distance.

A nation-state works just like what I have just mentioned, well at least according to how I understood it from the example the Philippines. The differences each of the identities have in the Philippines have had given due respect and understanding where these differences was used as an edge for the betterment of everyone in the country. Although these identities have now had been disperse all around the country, they still retained their culture, beliefs and practices. Not only are these identities been scattered around the Philippines, but also around the world still retaining the Ilocano, Bisaya, Pangalatok, and the Filipino way. Which kind of makes the whole world a big nation-state because of globalization.

why do we obey?

To whom do we obey? Or are we even obeying a person? We might just be obeying a faceless government. In my course, I would say that we obey because we have been conditioned to obey. Like if we obey we might get rewarded or if we do not obey we get punished. Using reinforcements like these will condition a person to obey. But there is a deeper and way different reason we obey.

The law would say do not steal. For an example, there is this person who wants to have a new gold watch. Stealing it would reward him/her but then the law says do not steal. That person would likely obey the law. This is one reason that we obey. Maybe, in some ways, not the law but a person of authority, but essentially we obey the law. For me, I feel that obedience to the law is the oil of a country. Without people obeying the government’s law, what power does this government have and is it really functioning as it should be? People obeying is the exact function of the government. To find order and equality, the government exists and the people should obey the government to achieve this purpose. The government is also looking after the people’s backs, to keep them on line and prevent harm to them. It is then logical to obey to the government because it is for everyone’s good. So is obeying the government all it is to it in obeying?

In my opinion, we cannot just obey the government. We should also think about what we are obeying. But in reality, this is hard since the government has the authority to apprehend you for not obeying. But what if the government was really wrong. Can they force you to obey? Sadly, there is a way to force people to obey. An example of which is former President Marcos’ martial law. He forced everyone to follow his dictations. But then again, are people really obeying in the sense of true obedience? What is obedience then? In the dictionary definition of obedience, it is a dutiful submissive behaviour. But were we submissive in that martial law? I think not. We were, at least people then, were not submissive to this law since they eventually revolted. Although there were people who were submissive to it, there were more people who fought against it. So what does this say about obedience? Maybe this might add that we obey because we believe that what we are obeying at is true and is right. But this would make obedience subjective and how will a government govern if people subjectively obeys the law? So maybe there is a way to obey objectively or maybe not. In the Christian perspective of obedience, Christians obey because of their love for God. That if they love God, they would obey His commandments. As I thought about this, I realized that this is actually not a bad idea. If we love our country, we will obey and do according to what will benefit it best. This actually changed my perspective in obedience. At first I thought of obedience in terms of an authority versus the obeying party, where as here, they go together and have a common not opposite paths. Maybe this is the way of obedience, not saying that everyone should do what I say and obey God, but get this way of obeying and applying it.

What is then the role of obedience in globalization. For me, globalization actually makes obedience harder, because people now in this globalized world would feel puny and would think that they are not that big of a part in this world that why should they obey? neither do they think more so love the world that they would sacrifice personal wants to do anything for the world. This kind of makes it seem that globalization is not that good at all, obedience wise, but then again, with globalization, the authority can be more effective in implementing the laws so that people are more afraid of not obeying, but to put it in a more positive light, through globalization, the temptation of not obeying is reduced so that people can trust and obey better.

who do we think we are?

We say that who we are depends on who our friends is. How we interacted to the world around us. But these things still are dependent on who we are in the world. We cant see through race, even if we say we can. We cant see through language, even if we say we can. We cant see through nationality, even if we say we can. And we cant see through age even though we say we can. Sure, we are varied because of our interactions with other people and the world. We may be a race different from the common race in our country. We may not act our age but what we see in paper matters. Yes, there are people with a less cloudy perspective on equality but as I see it, there are more people that still are enslaved by their biases, prejudices and stereotypes. But then saying this, it is possible to infer that the world is uniformly like this. Like having one culture, as the hyperglobalist would like. It is like the matrix movie for the hyperglobalist, they want a global society where the limitation of geography ends.

There is this stand up comedian named Russel Peters said a joke about how everyone is racist, it is just that every race is racist in a different way. He would also joke a lot about how different people’s cultures vary that it is funny. The anti-globalist or the sceptics on the other hand want to preserve the differences in culture and does not want a unified culture for the whole world, preserving these identities like the jokes from Russel Peters.

One more approach in this matter is the transformationalists. For them, they want the cake on both parties. They want both hyperglobalist and anti-globalist. They would like to keep both the identity of the cultures and unify them at the same time. For me, this is particularly hard to understand because of the messy-ness. If one would look at where this would be going, one might say “who knows?” and maybe this is why they do it. At least here, a better future is possible.

In my opinion, who we are now, in this time, is a choice. We can now choose who we want to be because of technology. Like the movie surrogates, people can choose on how they would look like and this crossed barriers that can not have had been crossed ever did that not happen. But as the movie went, we might regret having this technology. This made me realize that who we are is imperfect, wanting perfection that we cant have, as we always want what we cant have. Ultimately, in the most basic sense, we are human.

what can we do to stop people from harming othes? (revised)

What can we do to stop people from harming others? This seems impossible. How can we control what others do? Do we need to control them to stop them? Why do the do it? What is it?

Harm is defined in the dictionary as physical or mental damage. For me, to be able to think of something do to prevent people from harming others, we have to know why do we ourselves hurt. So I asked my self, why I harm others. For me, if I ever need to harm others, it is because of survival. To prevent others from harming me in anyway. Survival of the fittest, as they say. A sort of last resort. I would do it to protect myself. So to harm is to survive. Answering this question makes it more and harder to think of a way to prevent others from hurting other people.

I realized that someone actually thought of a way to do this. Religion. If we all believed on a good God, who loves us and would protect us, there won’t be a need to harm other people. But this again is faulty. I then realized that there were instances in the past where religion brought pain. Wars even! But maybe in the first place, religion was not the best way to handle God. And this is why people still hurt others. How to handle God is another matter all together, which I think wont and shouldn’t be handled in this blog.

So what do we do now? Maybe heaven is the only place, if it exists, is where harm is not happening. All we can do is pray.

As I think about this topic, finding hope to solve, if solving would be the right term, even is a far shot to what can be attained. But humans are remarkable on how we can find ways even in the most hopeless cases. There are actually acts to prevent harm, even in the most specific things. I saw this site: http://www.ihra.net/ which deals with lessening the harm done by people who take drugs. Specific. But harm is still not eliminated. I also found another site which prevents as much harm that could be inflicted to children in the school context: http://thearcsf1.blogspot.com/2010/01/call-to-prevent-harm-to-children.html. Specific, yet still deals with prevention.

Maybe stopping harm is a big dream altogether. But if you would look at it in another light, these simple acts of trying to stop harm is actually STOPPING harm. Meaning it is stopping harm in the action sense. This action may not terminate harm altogether NOW, but who are we to say that harm wont stop. It may stop at infinity, by these small simple and specific actions.

But then, need we handle “harm” in a very general way. Maybe we can handle harm in the simplest way. Thinking of this, I thought of how our discipline office prevent harm. It is funny how students look at the DO’s office. Some of them look at it as if it is the enemy of fun. Some look at it as the police and would even want to be part of it. It is said in the DO’s overview webpage that they the Discipline Office (DO) is responsible for promoting student discipline, for ensuring the safety and welfare of the students, and for maintaining peace, order and cleanliness in the University. It seeks to prevent, rather than correct, unseemly student behaviour (dlsu website http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/offices/sps/do/). The student handbook is their set of laws and this is how they would prevent harm. A set of laws can prevent harm they can also be harmful. They can be legal but not legitimate. Being legal is following the laws and being legitimate is justifying and action to be situational-ly correct, well at least in my understanding. An example of which is pleading for self-defense in the act of killing which is against the law. This way the law can at least provide a fighting chance in preventing harm to people from other people. But the thing is, this is still subject to human judgement and biases. People will still decide on this and how can we prevent these people from harming anyone? What if the are corrupt and have personal interests in mind and not fairness? This issue is currently the baseline thought of Filipinos when it comes to the Philippines law. Well at least this is what I commonly hear from people I talk with whom have had been wronged by someone but does not want to do something about it because they lack faith in the government.

So how do we handle this? A biased government not able to function its purpose, as how these people would think. It is good that the Philippines allow globalization, because through globalization, laws from other countries or even international laws can be implemented. Meaning outside influence can help people think better of the government. Examples from people from different countries might give the filipino a new perspective in doing part in preventing harm to other people and themselves.

why does politics turn to violence?

One of the Ten Commandments is “thou shall not kill.” I wonder how people thought how serious this commandment is to be able to justify doing it. It is a commandment from God and yet people who claim to believe in God is able to justify doing it by using an argument that came from human cognition. I wonder how they were able to sleep at night where they disobeyed a God because a human told them to. Well maybe humans are innately evil or at least more susceptible to perform aggressive tasks just like what Milgram’s experiment showed. If so, then maybe what one would commonly hear from people that people in power are alligators, capable only of caring for themselves and shedding a tear here and now to greater DEMONstrate how selfish they really are. Well, maybe they are just unique that way. All are motives are selfish anyway. Or is it?

Come to think of it, politicians are actually smarter than what most people think. They actually were able to do things they want to do, without even doing it. They have people do it for them. People they fool and persuade into doing things that only a person with a twisted mind would do on their own. If these politicians want oil, they just tell their armies to attach the middle-east. If they want land for their people, they’ll just invade a neighbouring country. Or if they feel paranoid that they might be invaded next, they start a world war. Politicians make people do these stuff by using any means that they can use. They’ll use knowledge the wrong way to get their way. They know that people can be manipulated easily if this came from an authority (from an article by Bourke in Edkins’ book), so they use their authority. They would make people think that if they don’t kill their “enemy,” their enemy will kill them (from an article by Bourke in Edkins’ book). And how do they cover up? They would make it seem that they are against killing and “fight” against those people who find pleasure in killing whenever these politicians can.

In an article by Bourke, she mentioned about how technology dehumanizes violence, since through technology, violence can be done by people without having being there. People can remotely do violence with a push of a button.

There is this idea that I remember from one of my chemistry classes. That behaviour of chemicals would follow the path of least resistance. Where it is easiest, is the best way to go. Violence now is so easy and subtle that it is scarier than ever. There might come a time where violence would be the easiest way out and people will choose this path. maybe that is why politics turn to violence.

how can we end poverty? (can we?)

Being a psychology student in one of the countries most expensive schools, I would often think on how other people see me. My course’s purpose is basically to help people live a fuller life, in contrary to the common notion that we only handle ‘crazy’ people, and when I thought of how other people think of me being a student in one of the countries most expensive schools, I realized that I might actually be at a handicap. That who needs most help belongs to that population under the poverty line. But then I remembered what one of my major classes’ professors told his class. He said that the Filipino population that are under the poverty line are actually mentally healthier provided that they have a supportive neighbourhood who shares their status of poverty. But the thought that the people who needs help most would look at me and might not let me help them since they might think that I am working for my own benefit, bothers me since this would mean that I might not be as effective to help them. I want to help them change their lives, not to give band-aid help which is what politicians give to them most of the time.

But to end poverty, one needs power. A person of no influential power can only do so much as to perform what I call “damage-control” of poverty to people and not give long term help.

While thinking about how to end poverty, I realized that I do not even know what that means. To end poverty. What would that be? Everyone will be rich? Everyone will be satisfied with their living? Everyone will be secure? Ending poverty seems to be impossible. The article of Pasha in the book by Edkins, even said that ending poverty is impossible in the foreseeable future. That despite certain campaigns and movements by different groups of people to fight poverty, no notion is perfect and often these notions does not serve effective to everyone in the world who is labelled poor.

As I write this entry, I can overhear one of the politicians commercial. This politician claims that he was once poor and under the belt of poverty and that he knows how to help these people. He said that if he wants to be richer than he is, he would just remain as a businessman and not enter politics at all, to counter the accusations that are against him saying that he only entered politics to be richer. In my opinion, he really understands how is it to be poor. He takes advantage of this knowledge! The way his campaign is designed would attract these people who are suffering from poverty. He knows that at least 30 percent of his country’s population cannot but what is needed for survival (according to nscb.gov.ph) and this is only those that can not buy what is basic, how much more if we factor in those people who just manages to sustain their lives in the most bare way, where their lives are stagnant and is not improving. When I listen to the news, the issue of inflation would often scare me because I would think of people who can only manage to maintain a stagnant sustainable living. The costs of the common needs would increase, these people would not be sustainable anymore, and they would be under the belt of poverty. And this politician knows all about this. And yet with this knowledge, he still has exceptionally luxurious properties which he tries his best to hide. How can this person say things like he can help the poor when his way of life shouts the opposite. How can people actually trust such a being? And yet according to statistics mentioned in the news, more people are still voting for this politician and what I think is that most of these people are poor. How can poverty end with such things happening to this world?

Maybe ending poverty is just a dream and we can do is act and act and act until there is no more hope. But then having hope is what pushes us to act on this issue and without action, how can we end a problem? So maybe, the cure for poverty is hope. It may not seem effective, but because of hope, we developed initiative to act. We were able to think of possible solutions and maybe, in the future, one of these solutions, campaigns and movements might just end poverty. I truly hope so.

How is the world divided economically

The world is unfair. It is imperfect, and will stay as such. Different areas of the world experience different things. Different humidity, different seasons, different temperatures, different wildlife, different species of plants, different land forms, different languages, different race, and so on. The world is so different that there could be no safe definition of fair, and yet we try to be fair. This reminds me of a Francis Magalona song, Kaleidoscope World. We all are truly different. The only similar thing about all of us is the fact that we are grouped together, and even in these groups, differences are still prevalent.

Since a lot of physical things around us, it is hard to find order. But how I see it, we humans developed something that can give order despite these physical stuffs in the physical dimension. We humans created something beyond the physical, invisible, that only we humans have: our thoughts. Through our thoughts, we created this invisible “laws” that gives order to the differences around us. This also explains the physical stuff that we deal with. Thoughts about similar things were grouped and eventually, there came theories, laws and such that could explain, predict and manipulate the physical dimension. One of which is economics. According to the article by Peterson, economics Is defined as the study of the production and distribution of goods and wealth. It is also stated in that article that economics is associated with a lot of other theories, laws and sciences that influences the trends and measurements in economics.

And so, if we were to look at the world economically, we can look at how the world is divided economically. As to my understanding, the world would be divided economically as influenced by the differences in each location. Because economics is influenced by a lot of things, it may be that the division of the world economically can be because of certain unique things about every part of the world. According to my understanding of the article, the division of wealth in the world favors the west more than the east part of the world. Even though civilizations started in the east, the west excelled in the wealth department. What I understood was that these differences were the compelling factor that pushed the west to excel and the east to lay passive, and in some areas, these differences was what made them desperate. The west were divided in small groups where competition was very strong, where as in the east, the groups were bigger, though there exists smaller groups, the larger groups prevailed and one can assume that competition would not be as suffocating as those in the west. I think, that this competition was what pushed the western people to give extra effort and the eastern people to become more lax. The pressure for excellence in the west pushed them to a more advanced competitive culture and the lack of pressure in the east caused them to develop a culture that would tackle something very different of that of the western culture. Like for an example, the western technologies were more advanced in wars, exploration, mobility and communication, where as the technologies of the east were more advanced medically and in trading. The weapons of the western people were designed to kill other people where as the technologies of weapons in the east were mostly for hunting. I think that this difference was what lead to the economic division we have now.

As time progressed, the division turned inward into each country where more detailed differences divided people economically. From the article, certain terms like capitalism can be read. In my opinion, certain ideas were inevitable and are a product of the evolution of our world. Since populations increased a lot, demand for food and other things increased, and so a need for a high supply in such pushed humans to develop and evolve which resulted to these ideas of capitalism and such. But the world kept its being unfair and there are still flaws on how things work. Sure these ideas give comfort and an easier way of living but the down side that was cited in the book was that people who does not have land or other capital for living are forced to work just for survival. But negative as these ideas may seem, there are also ideas that gives the world a fighting chance to grow. Ideas like having a democratic mind, as cited from the book, thinking critically, and discerning what to believe and not to believe so that we can have a control on our thoughts and not let the negative of what has evolved of us humans affect our thoughts.

Does colonialism and slavery belong to the past?

Wayne Dyer said “Freedom means you are unobstructed in living your life as you choose. Anything less is a form of slavery.” One can say that, well then, if this is what slavery is, then we all are slaves since all of us don’t have the choice to do what we want with our lives. I can say that I am a slave since I have not choice but to belong in this culture, and society where I must go to school and study, since there are no other secure way to have a good living in the future. I can also say that I am a slave of my race; I cannot choose to live in another race’s body. I can say that I am a slave of my choice course curriculum’s floating subjects since I cannot choose which one I like to take.
That is one way of looking at it, but would be unfair to those who are really slaves of our time. An example, was from the article of Kate Manzo in the Edkins, 2009, book. In this article, she mentioned the situation of child labourers in the cocoa industry. They are not paid and are forced to work. But you can say how are they different from me? I can’t choose, they can’t choose. But the difference is that they are not given the decision. But for me, their decision is made for them without even their consent. For me, they are not even given the luxury to know about this decision, nor were they given the information on what could have had happened to them if they were to live a different life.
I would often ask myself asking, is my country really free? Has our time of being colonized passed and we can still govern ourselves? All throughout my life, my mom would explain certain negative “Filipino” actions is because of our colonial mentality. Actions like preferring imported products over locally produced products. Or the fact that we Filipinos desire Caucasian physical qualities. I have had been branding these Filipino actions as such and would blame those countries who colonized us for everything negative that is happening in this country. To how I connected all of those, I do not know how, but everyone can and will say that corruption, katamaran (laziness), crab mentality, and other negative aspects about us Filipinos is because of those who colonized us. We say that we learned corruption from the Spaniards who corrupted our lands. We say that the Spaniards is the reason why we are lazier than how it should be. That the Spaniards would call us lazy because we would rest when it is noon, and use this explanation rather than saying that we rest because it is too hot to work when it is noon. So I would often say that we are still colonized in a certain way, and we can not rid of this just yet, or ever. Despite the fact that we now live in a modern world, I would think that being modern would not rid us of our colonial mentality and are still colonized. But are we?
A dictionary definition of colonialism is the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people. Two thoughts came to my mind when I read this about us Filipinos being colonized. First, it is that we Filipinos are those who are colonized and not the Philippines. And secondly, that we are not colonized because this country I governed by its people and not of other countries. It is in the definition that colonialism is not exclusively a nation’s influence to another, but it may also be a nation’s influence to a certain group of people. We, the Filipinos whom I identify as Filipinos in my mind and in the limitations of my subjectivity and perspective, are the people who are colonized, but there are other Philippine citizens who are not. May it be of the next generation or that of other parts of the Philippines I have not yet experienced. This first thought gave me the impression that we still, or they, can change for the better, if one would define not being colonized better. This made me think, that maybe, this colonial mentality, my subjective perspective conceive as Filipino have, the next definition of Filipino does not have. Maybe my lack of hope did influence my foresight in this matter and there is still hope yet for Filipinos to be branded my subjective, based on my perspective, as not colonized.
My second though, that our nation seemingly is not governed by another nation, and that makes us not colonized, made me think that maybe what me and my mom conceived as colonial mentality is what is Filipino. Maybe we are not colonized and this is really our own culture. Because of this, I remembered a joke that my dad told me. He told be about Batanes (I think) and that the stores there have not bantays (sales person/clerk). The norm there is that if you want to buy something from the store, you would just get what you want and pay, since it is assumed that everyone there knows the price. My dad said that this was because that area of the Philippines is so far away that “hindi nila alam na Pilipino sila, kaya sila ganun.” (they do not know that they are Filipino, that’s why they are like that). So maybe, what is Filipino is really that, with colonial mentality, imperfect.
We brand this time that we have now as modern. And we think that since we are the modern men of the world, we must have the ideal values, behaviors, cognitions. (Well at least I think this is what we think). But how can we really call ourselves modern if shades of the past, of slavery and colonialism, still haunt us?

Why is the world divided territorially?

In the beginning, God created man. And so on and so forth. But when Adam ate the forbidden fruit, they were thrown out of the Garden of Eden and were forced to live a hard life, where they had to work for food and they had to protect themselves. My point here is that even in the beginning, if you believe in the bible, there exist already the concept of territory. The Garden of Eden had its own territory and the place where Adam and eve was thrown to had its own territory.

Well of course at first, there were no specific and definite territories, only the concept remained. But as civilizations developed and populations grew, the world started to get crowded and it is inevitable for people to have some sort of means of order. So, as Elden mentioned some of the examples, there became territories. An example of having territories is losing them. Whenever certain states would conquer other states, the rights to the territories of the conquered state would naturally be given to the victor state. Through the idea of territories, order was maintained even during conflicts and wars. Another example was that after World War 1, as stated in the book. When the central powers lost the war, their territories were divided by the victors.

There are a lot of benefits in the concept of territories. They have strategic values for economics, politics and even science, as stated in the book. Benefits like having a territory with similar climates, landforms and bodies of water would mean that the government can apply certain adjustments for these differences to take advantage of these. For me, a benefit of having territories is that it would give people a sense of having a home where they would feel most comfortable. This is of course from my own perspective that is influenced by my course, psychology.

Good as territory may seem, there are also a downside for territory. One disadvantage is stated from the book where countries has less problems and are richer, that has less crimes and more jobs would be a hotter country for migration where as less fortunate countries that tries to go up would have their people migrating. This for me kind of makes things harder for the less fortunate people since people leaving these countries are bringing their skills and smarts with them that would mean that the less fortunate countries would have less means for development and the more fortunate countries would have more people to use for development that there would be other manpower that wont be used for development, waste of skills.

How do we find out what’s going on in the world?

How would you know if it is the end of the world? Would it be an asteroid hitting the earth? Would it be that we all kill ourselves through a nuclear war? Might it be alien invading the earth? Or maybe it is our loved ones breaking up with us?

In this modern world, the means by we get information about what is happening in the world is through the media. But there are certain factors that should be thought of in this source of information. The most controversial factor is bias and perspective of the news. Bias is the “siding” of a certain media to a side of the story that, more often than not, would distort the truth in the information. And also, the truth now may not be the truth tomorrow. Certain biases could be because of religious beliefs, political parties, gender, sexual preference, racism, sexists, and emotions. Religious beliefs have had been notorious in this aspect. The church, for the religions that are of the church, has great power over the media and can influence information to make it seem more beneficial to it. An example of which is what happened to Galileo. Galileo discovered that the world is indeed not flat but is round in nature. Though Galileo’s discovery is now debunked, he was more likely in the right track and obviously, the church’s belief that the world is flat was far of to the truth we hold now. Politics can also greatly affect the information we get from media. They can distort the stories behind wars that could make it seem right, even if the main purpose of the war was only for personal interest. Also politics can influence media to either exaggerate or to shrink certain news that could affect the current state of the government. Also politics can use the media to either hide or reveal disputes and controversies that if revealed, can cause great distress or confidence in the government side. Also, racism and sexism can influence the media. In certain countries, news of female abuse would be muffled because that country is male dominated, or certain news may be delivered as to seem that a certain race caused a dispute. Emotions also affect how the media deliver the information. Death of a hero, fear of natural calamities, love for country, hate for the “terrorists,” etc. again, the label, “terrorists,” was also from the media. They would not be terrorist to that where the bias is at their side.

Media can be of different forms, newspaper, movies, television shows, the internet, etc. but how do we know what’s real from the lies? One certain philosophy in handling information is best used in this. One must be curious about what is happening. One must not just rely on one source of information and analyse what really did this source make of the date they used? Did they make you seemed biased to a situation?

Well, maybe we all have our own brands of the end. But a question for the sake of it: how will you now if it is really the end and will you be sure?

Master Lecture: How do we begin to think about the world?

Thinking about the world. Sounds hard. Imagine, thinking about every corner of a round world.

We are like dust in the wind, so as the song goes, we are but minor specs in this world that we live in. Who we are, what do we do, our likes, our dislikes, out hopes, our dreams, all of these are like our own world, massive, big, infinite, but is confined in the minds of this spec of dust. Like dust in the wind, one might say that that dust hold little importance to the world, but then again, one spec like this can trigger a world war, can trigger the start of a new religion, can trigger the unity of nations, a paradox. This should be why we should think about the world. We may be specs of useless dust, but it is this way of thinking that would make this spec part of that sand clock that could be part of time.

In school, it is inevitable that there exists this group of “cool” people. They are an exclusive group and not everyone can be a member, well, mainly because if everyone was a member then no one is cool anymore. There must be those who are uncool for comparison. Similarly, for me, the world is similar to this structure of school society. There is always this group, in the world’s case, a group of nations where everyone wants to be part of, but only a few lucky population, race, and culture can be a part of. Of course everyone is supposedly allowed to go to these nations but why is it that this freedom seems to not exist? In this world that we live in, one cannot just go from one nation to another. You must have certain things to go to this place and even after that you cant be a part of that nation, you can only stay there for a certain amount of time. Imagine this during old time when this norm does not exist yet, imagine telling them that they cannot stay to other parts of the world. Imagine that they are nomads and are looking for more abundant areas and you tell them that they can not go to this certain area where there are fat animals and blooming trees, they might just as well kill you and go on with their lives. But now, it is o so very different. But of course there are reasons for the existence of this norm. Conflict is often caused by confusion, miscommunication, misinterpretation and personal interests that this kind of norm was developed. To prevent conflict among nations, they world developed this set of rules where everyone should abide in. the freedom of people to choose where to live was taken away from them. This is the price we pay to prevent killings, wars. But was it worth it? Giving up this freedom to prevent deaths? There might be other reasons though. Like who can be our allies? Knowing who might be our enemies? To whom to we ask help? Who can understand? Where to find certain specifics? We can compare our differences because of this. Also to find order in things, it is inevitable that in every part of the world that there are differences in almost everything: climate, animal species, land forms, culture, breed of tress, race, etc. that in all this differences, we can group together with those who are just like us and find a common understanding on how to deal with these differences differently from each other.

In everything that was mentioned, there is a common thing, which everything is invisible and is only in the human mind. The subjective human mind. There is really no one way of thinking about the world because of the subjectivity of the human mind. To deal with this subjectivity, we use a common pattern of this subjectivity and start from there to tell how people should think about the world. This is where ethics probably started. Ethics is a subjective way of deciding where certain factors are considered. People developed this to find order and to know how to deal with individuality. To punish what is different and to reward what is common.

So how do we really start to think about the world? Well this question did answer itself. We start to think about the world by asking questions about the world. One question in particular is who do we think we are? Are we mere specs of dust or are we moving bodies that can cause the end.

How do religious beliefs affect politics?

What is your religion? This question have had been asked to practically everyone in the whole world. I would tell you how I would NOT answer it. I would not answer it by saying I am a Christian. But I believe in Jesus Christ as my saviour, and that He is God’s son. I read the Bible for guidance and I go to church. So why would I say that I am not a Christian? Well first of all, Muslims would describe a Christian as an adulterous drunkard whose greed is bigger than his faith. But of course Christians would disagree and would throw an insult the other direction immediately. Well, one can’t blame Muslims for saying this because a lot of people claim that they are Christians but do things that are against Christian teaching.

Examples are politicians. They thrive to get the support of the Christian church for elections but right after winning that election, they go straight back to corrupting the government and stealing loads and load of money from the people who put him there, at that position in the first place. Of course these politicians say that the are Christians, but are they really? These politicians know that religion is a major factor in politics. Since religion penetrates the human’s use of logic and reasoning in making decisions, it is the best tool for politicians to attract voters. Religion really affects politics. An example is politics is different for areas that have different religions. We see how different the Chinese government to ours. We can see how different they handle political issues, how different they make their laws, how different they chose their political leaders and how different they handle their people. Another is that religion has its own rights and wrongs and most of the laws and punishments are derived from this. If not, the people would see a politician as unethical if they would make a law against their religion. In contrast, how different would they treat a politician that made a law that is in accordance to their religion? The point is that religion affects people and people are what politics is all about. This suggests that religion really has a great affect in politics. Certain religions have unequal treatment for the two sexes, so consequently, political issues like feminism, women rights, circumstances that would benefit one sex, would arise in this country with this kind of religion. Religion also has specific roles for certain members of a family, so consequently the government with this kind of religion would have a similar structure of power. Religion also has great power over media, and media is one of the windows to politics.

For me, religion is a really big part of politics. Though religion may not predict what would happen in politics, religion might not be enough for politics to function greatly, it is a major contributing factor to the existence of political issues and other parts of politics. It may be a positive effect like a baseline amount of rights for people, animas and the environment, or negatively like have discrimination in laws and biases in the sex of the political leaders. Politics can use religion and religion can use politics. So where does this put us? I think, knowing this, that it is really up to the person on how they would let their religion affect their own brand of politics. Will you use this relationship wisely or use it to your benefit?

What Happens if We Dont Think in Human Terms revised

In the movie, avatar, the main character Jake said something while he was telling the Na'vi's what's going to happen next. He said that he came from a world different from that of the Na'vi's. he came from a world where there is no green and because they have killed their mother. in this case, Jake was really thinking outside human terms. He was outside what humans in this movie intend to do. He was aware of what happened because people were only thinking in human terms and this lead to their world having no green in it and having a dead mother earth. And although he was not thinking for the environment, he might as well as be since he was thinking in an alien's perspective. Why? Well, humans nowadays have full control of the world and everything on it that everything on the world other than humans would might as well be considered alien. How they are now, what they have become was not what they should be. Animals are used and reproduced to suit human needs and wants. Plants were killed and turned into things only beneficial to humans. Animals and plants do not belong to this kind of world, not in this world on humans at least, such, they might as well be aliens. This is what thinking in human terms is like. But what if we think not in human terms? We would be outside selfish greed, capitalistic thinking, we would be more aware of what is happening around us.

The world would always thrive to achieve balance. A state where everything would be at homeostasis. so people thinking in human terms would push this world to reach a balance that would lead to losing its capability to sustain life. So to prevent this, one must think not in human terms. One big problem in thinking in human terms is that, this would consequently lead to the new generations to be indifferent to the things that are happening around them. They did not see how much change really happened because they were not there, and so they become indifferent. People tend to small things that are happening and would only care if it would be a very obvious sign that this change is threatening their way of life, and only then do they act, and more often, by this time, the damage would be massive enough. We were thinking in human terms when we started the industrial revolution, that lead to new diseases, this changed the world. we were thinking in human terms when we decided it was okay to use coals as a source for energy, pollution resulted, the world changed because of this. The bulk, if not all, of our history, we have been thinking in human terms, when do we stop?

For me, we humans should feel that we are accountable to everything that is happening. We should feel about this at one point and look in this perspective at another point. Not only do we address the fact that we need trees, but we must also address the issue of what happened now that we have a lack of tress. This is only an example of what would happen if we think not in human terms. There have been new improvements to the thinking of not in human terms. There is a new term in psychology, the term EI, or environmental intelligence. This measures one person's ability to see and predict what would happen if they would do something to the environment. For an example, one would have a higher EI if they knew what happens to their trash, where would it be placed, would there be recycling, would it be burned, if it would be burned what would happen, etc. Our EI, is relatively higher now compared to the past few hundred years. We are now more aware of what is happening around us. More and more people now are thinking not in human terms and changes have been happening. A number of people now accept the issue of global warming; people now are using science as a tool to help the environment where as before it was used to destroy it. People now are prioritizing the environment more than they used to. This is what would happen if we don’t think in human terms and finally, a part of human history where we can say that our mother earth is at the centre not us.

What Happens if We Dont Think in Human Terms

the first seven words in the title would suggest something negative would come out of this question. what happens if we don't think? consequently, the first thing that would come out of our minds after being asked this question is to think of something negative to parallel our answers to the presumed questions. but, need we think of this as negative?

my answer to this question is that thinking in human terms, in my opinion, is what brought us to what we are now, a thriving uppermost part of the food chain, and if we do otherwise, then how can we be greater than what we are now. in my opinion, being the best that we can be is everyone's goal, and to think in human terms implies that we simply think for our benefits to improve ourselves. but one can say that thinking for our own benefits might not be as good as it promises to be. like what if we do not think about the environment, about other animals whom we share this world with. well it is not that do no think of them, we do, in fact in that master plan of thinking in human terms, in my opinion, means that we must think ahead and prepare for the possible threats that might hit us, and to do this, we must think for the whole world as well, for their own improvement.