The silence of the Leni people

Observing the posts in the facebook I notice a tendency. Those who really want Leni Robredo to win never ever…I mean never…discuss the possibility of the Smartmatic “breach of protocol”. That there is the possibility of manipulating election returns, as presented by IT experts, is not mentioned at all. In fact they post declarations of Leni winning already.

I think that there is an inner mechanism of “buffering brackets". First of all, it is their stand that Bongbong Marcos should not ever win. This accent has influenced their minds from the start. Now the counting of votes early on showed Marcos winning. When news broke out that possibly the system was manipulated by Smartmatic and that possibly Marcos was being cheated, there was no response from the Leni lovers. They were all mum. Then when unofficial announcements showed Leni winning these Leni lovers started to post them on their walls. Meanwhile the numbers were questioned and contested by different sectors.

At one point a Eucharistic mass was organized and held, without surprise,  at the Ateneo. Of course it is the Ateneo, a "yellow" university. 
I think it has been very difficult to aceept that Marcos was winning and to accept that cheating may have transpired. A “bracketing” was fixed in people’s minds to buffer against a possible truth. In this bracketing is the avoidance of all talk of cheating and the secret desire that, even if there is a possible cheating, Leni should win. Never mind if there is an injustice done to Bongbong Marcos; just let Leni win. A whole lot of energy is spent to bracket the idea of possible cheating and injustice and to impose upon themselves (through the Ateneo gesture) the belief that Leni has indeed won.

I am not for Leni, neither am I for Bongbong. But I am against cheating. If Leni is to win and Bongbong is to lose because of cheating then there is an injustice. People from both sides, the Leni side and the Bongbong side, have the duty to be vigilant against any possible cheating. They have the duty to raise voices against Comelec and Smartmatic. The silence of the Leni people is so eerie. Leni herself says nothing. I wonder if she would be willing to accept winning thanks to cheating.       

Duterte

     There is so much effort to "unify" parties opposed to Duterte. It appears that PNoy wants Poe to give way to Roxas for "the sake of the country." Of course Poe will not give in to this invitation. She is ahead in the poll surveys. She has her own political stand and even if that stand is similar to that of Roxas it is still a unique and different stand. Also, why shouldn't Roxas give way to Poe?

     This behaviour of PNoy reveals what has always been the problem with his six-year mandate. He and his cohorts have run the country by being too full of themselves. They refused to listen to real and solid criticism. They refused any form of opposition. They believed too much in themselves they refused to even see that something wrong was going on in their ranks. 

     Reality, as phenomenology would put it, is marked by the "accent of belief". Alfred Schutz has well described this in his "provinces of meaning". Each province has its accent of belief. Thus while watching a film we get carried away with the scene--we may get angry or feel sad--because at that particular moment we endow the scene with an accent of belief.  We believe in what is happening. Of course if we tell ourselves, in the middle of the scene, that "this is only a movie", we step out of it (and spoil the fun too). When we step out we go elsewhere. This time we enter into the accent of believing that "this is only a movie". While watching the scene and being so carried away with it, we bracket aside the "this is only a movie" belief. If we say "this is only a movie" then we bracket aside the emotional impact of the scene; we "neutralize" it.

     Pnoy and his cohorts got caught in a specific accent of reality and have bracketted aside all other avenues and horizons. This may have been strategically necessary for some time but reality is always horizonal and requires different sets of belief accents. To claim that only one province rests valid is to close the doors to the many other horizons.

     Meanwhile people have felt that they were part of the bracketted reality. Their horizons did not exist. They have been consistently "neutralized". They were not real, that is, they were not believed. The slogan "kayo ang boss ko" resonated only within the halls of Malacanang. It was pure propaganda. 

     Hence people got frustrated. Now emerges a man named Duterte who appears to be in touch with the bracketted horizons. Here is a man who appears to share the belief accent of the people. Of course it remains to be seen how Duterte himself organizes his view of reality; the evidence so far is unsettling.

     Up until now Pnoy and his cohorts do not seem to see the frustrations of people. It is so late in the day that Mar Roxas talks of correcting the shortcomings of the current administration. Who trusts this talk at this point in time? 

     Had PNoy listened more to criticism, had he opened horizons beyond those that fit his belief accent, had he not "neutralized" authentic opposition, the Duterte phenomenon would not happen. 

I am I am

1.     There is a “holy ground” where God reveals…a name. We return to that place from time to time to launch ourselves again in faith. Moses wants to know God in a personal way. Now, God reveals the name, “I am I am” not exclusively for Moses but for Moses to make that name known to others.

2.     Those who “know” God have the responsibility to witness in helping others enter in the same “knowledge”. When Jesus reveals to his disciples the name with which he addresses God as “Father” he tells his disciples what their responsibility will be in living as brothers and sisters to each other. Jesus tells them of their mission to build a fraternal world corresponding to God’s plan.

3.     “I am I am”. This tells us that God is someone to whom we cannot just attach any name we want. God is “un-nameable”, so to speak. We may be moved to know God but God reveals in a way that is not our way. What is, in fact, curious is that “I am I am” is also a revelation of a plan—a plan to be present always.

4.     The name can thus designate an open relationship in which it is always possible to encounter God. We are kept in the dynamism of a never ending discovering and rediscovering…

Conversion

1.     I remember a video clip I saw about a group of anti-RH bill people stepping out of the Church and saying to the pro-RH people waiting outside, “Your mother should have had you aborted”. Bad things should happen to people (who I think are bad).

2.       Jesus rejects this mentality. He rejects the mentality that says that some are “exemplary” and that bad things happen to those who do not resemble them. Jesus says that bad things happen to everyone independent of their being “morally good” or “morally bad”. In Luke we read that Jesus mirrors back to the “exemplary people” their mentality (see Lk13/2-5).

3.     Jesus invites his “audience” to take a look at themselves and their actions. They are invited to see the sense of their own lives under the eyes of a loving God. It is a call to conversion: “You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky; why do you not know how to interpret the present time? Settlement with an Opponent. “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?” (Lk12/56-57).

4.     Conversion is a call to change the mind—change the mentality. Luke has his style of illustrating this when, a little after the start of his gospel account we writes about Jesus saying that he came to call for conversion. A group of people recognizes the justice of God and they have themselves baptized by John (see Lk3/12). The “exemplary” minded others refuse the baptism (see Lk7/30). Still, in the style of organizing his text, Luke tells us of Jesus proclaiming through the use of parables—also a call for conversion. Certain persons suddenly accuse Jesus of conniving with Beelzebub (see 11/15). This opposition intensifies until the Jerusalem confrontation.

5.     In front of the way we may be judging one another is the call for conversion. If the “reign of God” is refused, well there is the “road to death”. It is, however, quite disappointing that this notion of “conversion” has been interpreted in ways at times distorted… turning off many people who see in it something so ecclesio-centric. Others like to see it as precisely “ecclesio-centric”. But to discuss this will require more space and time…not now. 

Manny Pacquiao and Gay Marriage

1.    Homosexuality is a private affair—a reality that society must respect. Gay marriage is another thing. It is not a purely private affair. It is a social affair. There is a social norm and the gay marriage is something new and added to what society is already having. Gay marriage is a new form of living as “family”, and if there is adoption a new living of “being a child”. We say that marriage is a “natural given”. A couple-man and woman—will have birth happening; a child comes into the world. Marriage is an institution in society implying thus a juridical aspect too; the law will protect the institution.

2.    Ok, so maybe today we have new ways of looking at things. Marriage is not anymore strictly linked with procreation. Marriage can be about sentiments, affection, feelings and not procreation. Ok, it is post-modernity, fine. The child does not necessarily have to be fruit of conjugal union. Well, conjugal union does not uniquely have to also lead to having a baby. Now, to have a baby—to desire having a baby—can also be done in other ways like adoption or surrogate ways.

3.    Ok, now is sentiment/feeling/affection now going to be the unique sense of marriage? Will the desire to have a child be part of marriage? If sentiment/feeling/affection can be norm for marriage then do we allow removing, for example, the prohibition of incest? If we delete the “natural given” of having babies then do we open the door for a papa to take his daughter for wife? …a mama takes her son for husband? …a sister takes her brother as husband? …a brother takes her sister as wife? Remember, we open the door to making marriage based solely on sentiment/feeling/affection.

4.    Who’s who in marriage? Well, if the “making baby” is dropped and sentiment/feeling/affection becomes norm, then “who’s who” can be anybody with anyone. In this case then a father need not be father; a mother need not be mother. Remember the norm has shifted to simply sentiment/feeling/affection norm…..

5.    Let us say that we do delete the prohibition to incest. Incest prohibition tells us that in marriage we are told to become members outside our own biological family.

6.    Now, let us go to the gay marriage issue. The legislator…will have to recognize the marriage as an affair of sentiment/feeling/affection outside the natural norm of making babies. This introduces in society a new psychic life…and psychic identity. It will redefine what is family.

7.    Ok, for the sake of the gay couple who want marriage, we might agree that this is about equality. If a man and a woman get married, why not the gays? Fine. Will this mean that hetero marriage will also be same as gay marriage? A man-woman couple is not exactly the same as, say, a man-man couple. To establish an equivalence will require changing—if not denying—a reality of differences.

8.    If we put gay marriage and hetero marriage in equal terms, then do we have to drop sexual differences? For the gays to exercise their right of equality we will have to stop making the difference between man and woman a foundation. A new form of humanity will have to emerge. Right now we still live in a world of differences. But with the equality right of gays then we might need a new way of living where we refuse differences.

9.    Now, a gay couple cannot have children. Maybe some might find this sad. To have procreation we need a man and a woman. But then, in gay marriage, the gay couple can ask for the right to have children. This is for the sake of equality, right? Does the gay couple adopt a child? Maybe, with fantastic science, a medical assistance can be done so one of them can have be pregnant and give birth to a baby. Science might just one day allow a man-male to hold a womb! Now the gay couple will have their right to have a baby. But then, remember that what prohibits them to naturally have a baby is not “rights” but…Nature.

10.  Ok, let us talk of adoption. Still there is a difference between adoption of a hetero couple and adoption of a gay couple. If a hetero couple adopts a child it is to address the problem of sterility. If it is a gay couple that adopts, well…it is to go around an impossibility with the help of the law. It is not natural, then. It is not exactly in the parameters of “human nature”.

11.  Until now we might be functioning in a society where not everything is possible. But then, if we allow gay marriage, then we can say that we are doing better in making the impossible happen. In other words, nothing will be impossible. It is now possible for gays to get married—what was once impossible is now possible. Galing, astig! We stretch beyond the parameters of the possible. The limit is put farther away. The line is farther away. Ok. In other words we do not have to obey nature, we have rights and science to extend our powers. Adoption and, as science can likely make it happen, medically assisted procreation can be done by the gay couple. What was impossible for nature before is now made possible thanks to science and laws. We stretch the possible beyond the limits we know—the limits of nature. Will this be giving us a security? We might want this to happen but…it has a play with power too.

12.  The hetero couple will “make a child”. The gay couple will “have a child made”. To “make a child” is to have two persons love each other; the fruit is a child and not a merchandise; not an object. To “have a child made” is…well, it looks like to have an object, a merchandise, a “product”. A woman’s womb will be for rent, for example. Or a man will have to change his biological system to have a womb implanted…. Which is strange.

13.  Now, in a hetero couple, there is the role of the mother and the role of the father to educate the child. How does this work if both parents are both males or both females? In a hetero couple the child can see who is father and who is mother. How does this work with a gay couple? Let us say that we allow gay marriage, it can happen that we remove the right of the child to have a father and a mother…. Di ba? So the child grows up with a different psyche and likely will not be like the other kids with their papas and mamas. The child with hetero parents can say, “My papa and my mama”. The child of a gay couple will say….well….

14.  If we say that the problem of gay marriage will be resolved by law…is the word “resolve” appropriate? How about “the will be created”?

Valentine’s day

1.     Valentine’s day is approaching. I have friends who work in motels (like Sogo) and they say that it will be a very busy day for them.

2.     I do not want to spoil the fun of Valentine’s day, but I would like to talk about Sarah and Abraham. Corny nu?

3.     Remember that Abraham was about 100 years old and Sarah was about 90 years old. Sarah could not anymore bear a child at that age. Well, when she learned that she will have a child, she laughed. She laughed not only because she knew she was old she also knew that her husband Abraham was…well, old too. They were both too old for anything to do with things like a “Sogo motel”, so to speak. Let me cite the verse: “Sarah laughed to herself and said, ‘Now that I am worn out and my husband is old, am I still to have sexual pleasure?’” (Gen.18/12).

4.       To have “sexual pleasure” can remind us of the Garden of Eden. The garden is “eden”…and pleasure is, according to those who know Biblical Hebrew is, “edna”. The verse goes this way: “The LORD God planted a garden in Eden” (Gen.2/8). Eden, according to Bible language experts, is (Aramaic) associated with the sense of “being fruitful”.  The Bible authors at certain moments liked to blend names together when the names sounded the same.

5.       The garden of Eden connotes joy, pleasure and also the fun of sexual pleasure. All that were given to the couple Adam and Eve.

6.       When Sarah laughed she was, at the same time, also considering the link between the pleasure and being fruitful—that is, procreating.

7.     In the book of wisdom we read, “…And in my mother’s womb I was molded into flesh in a ten-month period—body and blood, from the seed of a man, and the pleasure that accompanies marriage” (Wis.7/1-2). The text was written in Greek and the word used for pleasure, according to those who know Biblical Greek, is edone. It means pleasure. (Recall the word “hedonism”?). The verse tells us about the link between sexual pleasure and conception.

8.     Today with our modern minds conception is not necessarily linked with the sexual pleasure. But let us listen too—or dialogue with—ancient texts. We can note that pleasure of the flesh, in those ancient texts, played a role in procreation.

9.       Recently, with my students, we looked at the notion of “natural law” and how it was used in Church Magisterium texts. Pope Paul VI, for example, was an “old school” and “ancient times” thinker, “not modern enough” said his critics. Pope Paul VI associated sexual pleasure with conception and he could not see them separated. For modern minds this looked rather odd.

10.   My Buddhist friends say that there are five important Buddhist precepts two of which intrigue me. One precept says that there should be no sexual promiscuity. Another precept says not  to tell a lie. Well, the Buddha’s teaching is very old and pre-modern. But it is interesting to see how both precepts can seriously go together. Do sex without telling a lie. Curious indeed, eh?

11.   Valentines day is really, also, a time for corny people like me to think Biblically and see things in an odd way. But it is worth doing it too.