Realistic Happiness: A Philosophical Consideration

I am indebted to the thoughts of Paul Diel, 

from a chapter of his book Psychologie de la Motivation.
Also I am indebted to the thoughts of Graf Durckheim
taken from the interview "Dialogue sur le chemin initiatique"   

Wouldn't it be very nice if we always get what we want? It would certainly be nice if each time we desire we get satisfied at once. But experience tells us that this is not always happening. In fact it can be rare. For one when we desire we try to "unite" with something, an object of desire. But we face resistance from the world. Our desire for friendship and company with others faces resistance coming from others. Maybe we want attention and time from them; they won't give it fully. We feel frustrated, maybe we start thinking, "Let's forget each other" or "Lumayas ka na, hangal!". Our desire for wealth faces resistance from the workplace, from the competition, from the economic conditions of the country, etc. We cannot always get what we want. When we are not reconciled with this fact our desire gets perverted. 
What is perverted desire? It is a desire that imagines overcoming and even eliminating real obstacles to getting what we want. A person is over jealous and desires to "own" the loved one. This person then thinks of being so in-control of the path of the loved one as if there is control over the obstacles to ownership. Imaginatively overcoming obstacles leads to the belief in acquiring the desired person, acquiring "rights" to the life of that person, acquiring hold of all conditions maintaining "ownership" of the beloved person.  
The reality is that the loved one has freedom and choice to relate with others; have new friends; connect with new relationships. The jealous one imagines being in-control of all that. The capacity to think well, the capacity to be lucid and understanding regresses into opaqueness. Then this is accompanied by tension and suspicion putting pressure on the love for the other. Perhaps the whole relationship becomes strained. There is unhappiness here; it can be the unhappiness of both persons.
As desire gets perverted imagination expands and gives more "accent of reality" to its (imagined) elimination of obstacles and its eventual (imagined) acquisition of the desired object. Imagination deepens to assume that dis-pleasure and dis-satisfaction can be overcome. Yet, all is imagined.  
Let us put this (perverted desire) in a more general form. It is a desire that imagines eliminating three basic facts. It imagines the elimination of change, the elimination of having no full control and the elimination of loneliness.

Change 
Change is constantly happening to us. The world around us changes; people change; we change. But a perverted desire imagines permanence. The person I love will change and will discover new horizons in life. That person will change and try out new things; that person will resist the permanence I desire. As I desire that not to happen. I tend to regress into opaqueness and I tie up with suffering.

No full control
Together with this refusal for change is the imagination that I can be in-control of what is happening around me. I can be in-charge. Hence there is the use of power to resist change; there is the power used to control the surrounding. I want to be "on top of the world looking down on creation", as the old song goes. I want to control situations. But the world resists our control. People resist our control. In one way or another they eventually snap away and seek their own independent and autonomous paths. The perverted desire, however, imagines eliminating loss of control.

Loneliness
This is a tough one. We do get lonely. We conserve ourselves, protect our egos, maintain its imagined permanence. We control it. But others do not fully see who we are. Others do not fully understand all that we say. Others do not always affirm us. Others are not always there when we need them. Others die. Then we feel lonely. A perverted desire imagines that this ego here can be so well protected from the "slings and arrows" of life; this "myself" will never be lonely.  

Already in ancient traditions there has been insight into the "legality" of life. The world has a "legal" system. There are names for this and we can think of terms like "natural law" or "dhamma", "logos", "cosmos", "diké", "Tao". The "least common denominator" of the ancient traditions speak of an "order" or "harmony" out there in the external world and "in here", in the interior world. (We cannot avoid this spatial distinction between the "external" and the "internal"; in phenomenological philosophy a "unity" is established due to what is technically termed as "intentionality". This post, however, does not aim to be technical. Hopefully we are forgiven for the terms "out there" and "in here".)
A Biblical reflection can help us here. In the Book of Genesis we read about the command allowing the human person to eat any fruit from any tree in the garden except the fruit from one, prohibited, tree (see Gen.2/16-17). The human person can do anything but there is a limit. This is the "legality" of life. We cannot be absolute unto ourselves and the world. The human condition is that of limits. The limits are not there to keep us from blooming. In fact to be limited is to allow blooming; to be limited is to adventure in life. Because we are not absolutes, we can move about and adventure. (We can add the verse that says that it is not good to be alone, in Gen.2/18. We adventure with others. This is actually fun!)
Perverted desire is the "failure" to connect with the "legality" of life because of its attachment to its imagination. Again a Biblical reflection can help. Refusing to accept limits (by eating from the prohibited tree) the human creates painful situations based on the imagined status of being absolute! Adam and Eve live in accusing each other. Cain kills Abel. People live promiscuous lives (in the Noah story) and people build proud and blind empires (in the Tower of Babel story). Maybe we can discuss this further.

Initially a desire can be emotional. It has its "affect" or "feeling" component. But somehow, due to its direction, desire already has a thinking component. When we desire we think of something that we want (or that we want removed). We re-present it in our mind. In desire, thus, there is the feeling component and there is the thinking component. That re-presented object in the mind affects us emotionally. "I like it" or "I dislike it". "I am so excited to have it" or "I am so scared to have it."  Desire has a direction (moving to an object of desire) and has an intensity (feeling for that object of desire). In principle desire is controllable. It is not a pure blind force. Let us illustrate this pictorially.   
A coconut falls uncontrollably from a tree. A bird, however, flies from branch to branch having an idea of where it will rest and when it will fly. Desire is more of that of the flying and resting bird, choosing tree branches. There is some form of lucidity in desire. 
A major indication of this lucidity is the fact that when we desire we can pause for a while and suspend action. We do not necessarily jump to action. "I desire for a glass of water but wait, let me finish this work...it's not going to take much time....and maybe instead of going to the kitchen I can go to the store and buy a drink there....shall I walk or shall I ride..." The action of taking that drink is, for the moment, suspended. We are capable of this.
We can, however, be mistaken in our actions. There is a danger too, especially in cases like in moral action. Hence desire needs a good amount of thinking and, more specifically, lucid thinking. We need to be clear with what we want.
The feeling component can push us to act insufficiently. Without a good amount of clarity and lucidity an action can be agitated action. The satisfaction we seek is not given and we are agitated.
To prevent much displeasure and dis-satisfaction we need to give more room to the thinking component. Think it over. Have a clearer understanding of what we want and the conditions surrounding the acquisition of what we want. We need understanding; we need to think and be better clear. The feeling side must slow down--"tamed"--so that action will not be premature.
Note then the two tasks involved in desire. One is to have a clearer insight over the reality of what we desire and the other is a more "taming" of our emotions. Yes, of course, in the flow of daily life we do many things routinely. We have a pattern of thinking and feeling. We get what we routinely want. But then we encounter situations that require more than routine action.
Desire becomes "sane" thanks to the suspension we do--we suspend action. We are capable of this and we do it. We somehow recognize the feelings we have and we think things over at the same time. All of us know this. We know the danger of getting carried away by our feelings and the danger of not thinking well enough of our decisions and actions. We know how sane a desire gets when we give ourselves a pause--a "suspension. In Tagalog we say, "pag-iisipan ko muna" ("I will think about it first").
Note the role of the obstacle to a desire. We want something, we just cannot get it, there is an obstacle hanging and preventing us from getting what we want. We feel some emotions and we think of what we really want and how we can get it. During the moment of suspended action the obstacle remains. We are still desiring and we are not moving to overcome what blocks us. We balance between emotions and clear thinking. What about the suspension that we do? That too now serves as an obstacle too! We impose upon ourselves the suspension--we prohibit immediate action so that we can be clearer with what we want and we can tame our feelings. We are creatures of desire, yes, and also creatures of self-mastery. We are capable of pausing. (We are not like the coconut falling from a tree, we are like the bird selecting branches to rest on.)
This self-mastery--this "equanimity"--directs desire to particular capacities. Thinking is developed to clearer thinking. Decision is more restrained and free. Feelings are regulated and tamed. Happy is the person who has a clear idea of what she or he wants, is composed and free and not impulsive. Already we have a picture of happiness. 
Now, it is not enough that we know what we want. It is not enough to have self-mastery of emotions and actions. We need an insight into desire. This insight is evaluative. Here we see the root word "value". We can also plug in what we said above about the order and harmony of all things--both external and internal. Life has its "legality". We may eat from all trees except from one tree. This is the legality of the human condition. Happy is the person who is not blinded by the imagination of being absolute and capable of eliminating all obstacles to desire. Desire needs to be evaluated according to the legality of life.
Evaluation has two aspects. On one hand we weigh the world "out there" and we check how far does it really offer us satisfaction. How permanent or impermanent is it? How controllable or uncontrollable is it? How "homely" or lonely does it get? On the other hand, evaluation also looks into ourselves; we weigh our capacity to eliminate obstacles when facing them. Note that in both ways we move to a more realistic insight into the legality of life. We refuse to be carried away impulses and we gain insight into the reality of life. 
What are stages of evaluation? We can consider three: first is the imaginative stage, second is intellectual stage and third is "spiritual" stage.

Imagination
Imagination is the most basic level of our evaluation of life. It is the level of images and sensations. Yes, there is a bit of thinking here but it is not fully in touch with the insight on the legality of life. It has a strong emotional component. It worries a lot about "getting what I want" without necessarily looking at what the hard facts are.

Intellect
The intellect--the thinking--looks more on goals, the practicality of what we want, the efforts we need to spend. It tries to understand the obstacles we face. This is less imaginative and more objective. It tries to see what is really "there"--objectively. 

The "spirit"
Here we adapt to the legality of life. We seek out insight not just on the practicality of our desires but on the definitive status of satisfaction, whether satisfaction has more permanence, control and joy. 

All three are there coordinating with each other. In the flow of daily life we imagine, think and live in the spirit. However, we can be perverts too. What is perversion here, what do we mean by this in the context of our discussion?
Perversion is getting tuck in the imaginative stage. We do not move out into looking at the practicality of what we do nor are we interested in having insight into the legality of life. The more we move to the thinking and spirit stages the more "sane" we get. The more we move to the imaginative side, the more "insane" we get. A desire based heavily on imagination does not promise a natural happiness. It does not know reality. It pretends to know it by assuming the reality of the imagined. It is contrary to natural happiness that is based on the legality of all things--the "dhamma". Because of sheer imagination, desire keeps on defending itself from the resistance of the world of change, dynamism and autonomy of persons. Because of sheer imagination desire lives in the belief of making permanence out of impermanence, of control out of mobility and movement, of ideology out of free thinking. Imagination in raw form is like forcing a basket ball underwater, spending energy and time holding that ball down. But the ball will move to the surface and the effort to keep it down is a waste. The effort can be used elsewhere.
Now, we suffer this way. We suffer because we live in the illusions of our imagined world. We fail to recognize the line separating imagination from reality. How do we correct this?
One way is by really being able to really overcome obstacles and change the world according to how we want it to run. Ok, this can happen too. But it requires lots of energy and power. It also requires that no resistance comes from the world telling us we are not its absolute masters. In many ways we do get away with changing the world and making it adapt to us and to what we want. How far can we do this?
The other way is by accepting the legality of life. We dissolve the desire to own, manipulate and reside absolutely in this world. We accept the reality of change, the reality of powerlessness and the reality of loneliness. Desires become sane and realistic--we are no longer haunted by the desires that are merely imagined and perverted. 

Culture
Let us add a reflection on culture. Culture is what helps us adapt to the world. A culture can teach us to be perverted or to be sane. There are possible institutions that promote our sanity or our perversion. Culture can be a ground to make us see better truth, beauty and goodness. Or it can be source of educating us to tell lies, to entertain ourselves promiscuously, and to corrupt our relationships. In other words culture can be marked by imagination or reality. What culture do we have?  

Two Homilies of Pope Francis

In class this morning we read together two homilies of the Pope—the Tacloban Homily and the Luneta Homily. They’re deep homilies….reminding me of the beatitude, “blessed are you who mourn”. Indeed, what can we do in front of the darkness we face? Jesus accompanies us all the way—the Lord on the cross. He accompanies us in our fragility, in our precarious conditions….even in our inability to fully address the darkness confronting us. 

Maybe all we can do is mourn, but we are so assured that Jesus mourns with us. 

Maybe it is necessary to be effective in our “advocacies” and “social involvements”. 

But we are also confronted with our own powerlessness. The temptation is to believe that we can “solve it all” or that we have enough strength and power to “correct it all”, as if it is all in our power. The victory, however, is, perhaps, elsewhere…in our powerlessness, in humility and in being a “child”. The victory is perhaps in clinging to our Mother’s mantle at the foot of the cross. 

Just as we read in Mark, the seed grows and sprouts in a mysterious way…in a way that is in the nailed hands of the Lord. I am reminded of Caryl Houselander’s image of the infant Christ with arms stretched out to stem the tide of darkness—arms that will, later, be on the cross. In a mysterious way the victory is achieved over darkness. 

Charles de Foucauld’s prayer starts this way, “Father I abandon myself into your hands”. 

Therese de Lisieux puts it this way: “You must navigate the tempestuous sea of the world with the love and utter trustfulness of a child who knows that his father loves him too much to forsake him in the hour of peril”.  This is how I “read” the Pope’s two homilies.   

The Social Role of the Family

The family and economic reality

The family can be seen in the light of economics. Pope John Paul II, for example, would talk of the family as standing on work. Work—labor—is what sustains the family. It is through work that the family is able to sustain itself (see Laborem Exercens 10).

The economic reality is basic; it is what allows the family to sustain itself. Only then can the family play a role in society through education and social links. The family is, yes, the place of love and all that stuff. But the poverty and misery wound family life. Misery prohibits the family to play it´s social role. The Church is interested in looking at the conditions of families, especially the poor families. Such families must be accorded just salary and access to private property.

Just salary

What is so important about a just salary? Well, it allows the worker to live decently and allows the family of the worker to live decently. With Pope Leo XIII this was underlined this in his Rerum Novarum. The Popes after him made their specific stands.

Pope Leo XIII denounced the exploitation of workers; the exploitation led to misery (see Rerum novarum 17). Workers were forced to accept working with very low salaries.  Workers were "simply surviving".

Later Pope Pius XI developed an idea of “just salary”. Three important factors had to be considered: the living condition of the workers and their families, the situation of the business, and common good (see Quadragesimo anno 76-82 and Divini redemptoris 52).

Later Pope John XXIII emphasized justice for workers. Workers, he said, must have just salary to lead a decent life—the life based on dignity—and to allow their families to live decently (see Mater et magistra 71). The Popes after also mentioned this.

Pope Benedict XVI gave a strong word regarding this. Work, he says, must give power to workers to live decently, let their families live decently and be able to send their children to education. This education must be available so that the children themselves will not have to work, not at their tender ages.  Workers must be in work conditions that allow them to be in touch with their human roots—on the level of family and faith (see Catitas in veritate 63).

Note then the link between the economic reality and the family. Note also the importance given to just alary. But then the Church would emphasize also the right to private property. Families must own property. We have discussed this notion of private property before, it is not new to the class.

Private Property

A parent must feed the children. The parent must look ahead into the future of the children. Later, when the children will have grown, they will be equipped with the capacity to defend themselves against the harshness of life. Later, children must be equipped to face unexpected cases of bad fortune. How can the parent make this possible? This is made possible through private property (see Rerum novarum 10).

Later Pope Pius XI will make a stand on this too. Through private property the children will be able to face uncertainties, against “surprises” that will throw them away. When a parent dies, it would be important to leave behind property that will secure the children (see Quadragesimo anno 68).

It would be wonderful to have systems like the security social. These systems help in allowing families to access private properties. Vatican II itself would emphasize private property. Private property allows for personal and family autonomy. Through private properties families can exercise social responsibilities. Families feel more free (see Gaudium et spes 71). Let us not forget the stand of the Church regarding private property. It is not an absolute. It has a social feature grounded on the principle of universal destination of goods (Ibid.).

Notice how less sentimental this approach to family is through economic reality. In many instances family problems can be more than about finances and economics. There are issues that touch on parenting and marriage dissolution, for example. These have created new forms of poverty.

The Family has a social role

Vatican II mentioned the family a source of social life (see Gaudium et spes 52). We learn to live with others through family life. The human person becomes human within relationships. In philosophy we say that we are “being-with-others”. The family plays the primordial role. When the family I wounded human life becomes wounded.

We tend to think of the family life as a kind of “stage” to living a free and blooming life. The family is to help us “move on”, so to speak. There is a kind of “individualistic” view here—as if the family’s role is simply to let a child be ready to assume a job and raise a family later. But consider the very social role of the family—how the family participates socially and not just to help an individual child.

Socially the family assures education in justice (see Justicia in mundo 57). Ok, fine, the individual child begins in the family—but this too is social. The child—and all children in families—learn about work in the family (see Laborem exercens 10). Our ideas of truth and goodness are formed in the family. We learn about love—how to love and how to be loved in the family. The notion of solidarity is learned in the family—first with the solidarity of husband with wife and later with children  (see Centeimus annus 39-40). 

In the family we develop “hidden talents”. We learn a lot of things in the family and we carry that with us as we grow up. Through those talents we feel capable to build relationships and give the best of ourselves in social responsibilities. If we look closely at what we do in the larger regions of society we really see what the family has contributed.

Mga Tula ng isang Mapagkunwari ... Kunwari Makata

Hwag mangarap sa bayan ng mga bastos
Sila na ang maingay sila pa ang ma-angal
Sumingit na sa bakuran mo sila pa ang may riklamo.
Sabihan mo ng karapatan
Hahanapan ka ng paglalabagan
Magsumikap ka ng malinis
Sa buwis ka nanakawan.
Hwag mangarap sa bayan ng mga bastos.

       (30 Nob 2014)

Dito sa bayan ng mga bastos
May mga prinsipyo ring
Pinagmamalaki at
Pinangangahalagahan.
Heto, mga halimbawa,
"Wala akong kapwa".
"Di bale'ng walang dangal basta't makaraos".
"Maging katuwatuwa sa kasinungalingan".
"Ang pagnanakaw ay karapatan".
Iilan lang ito sa napakarami pang iba na
Pinagmamalaki at
Pinangangahalagahan.
Dito sa bayan ng mga bastos.

      (2 Dis. 2014)

The wind started a tune
Through the cracks of a wall
And I turned to listen
That perhaps your voice too
Would whisper that you're here.
The rain kept drumming strong
On the iron sheet above my head,
No rhythm there, just banging banging drunk and lost
A thousand snares  and slits and stir
As if to say, it's empty now, my home.
      (29 Dec. 2014)

The storm keeps pounding on the field

I see nothing but a grey shroud of rain.

In the night when the beast should asleep be

I stay awake and alert; the roof’s my only shield.

I keep memory of all that is of pain

As though it’s all that’s left of me.  

The wind is now blowing wild

In the distance the boughs creak and break.

So much time does anguish need

To find its comfort at my side.

Shall it leave me in peace for my sake

As though it were serious enough indeed?

My bones are tired from all my mess

My flesh has weakened from any lust.

No prayer is on my lips; it’s now painted on the wall.

Still the unfathomable storm unleashes

Within this helpless man going fast

Down the abyss he did not forestall.    

        (31 Dec.2014)

I find myself in a dark night.

Moonless.

Nothing to be seen.

There lurks the imagined shadow

Of him who will slit my throat

When he sees me asleep.

Bravo, moonless night,

You make each move without trace.

My veins alert

My shoulders upright

And my hand bladed.

Now resumes

What I thought was over.

    (31 Dec 2014)

While the birds chirp machines fly by;          

Noise of engines and of men working

Not seeing night nor day; they all grind

Aimlessly.       

While the clouds calmly hover bullets fling out;       

Tongues of useless words speak of names    

That mortal soldiers die for

Aimlessly.

Each does the same to consume and consume                  

For one’s indoor dwelling  

Seeping with boredom and anxiety

Aimlessly.

Meanwhile

A mother and her child

Under a leaking thatched roof

Still keep their blessing in their hearts

For their savior has ventured to become flesh

To show the face of the Father

And the folly of living

Aimlessly.

    (1 Jan. 2015)

Did you know that

Memory is cellular too?

When the mother left the child at the doorway

To run so far  so bloody far away

She placed the child’s skin, flesh, entrails

Brain, legs and arms

At the mercy of fear to be alone

And be dismembered from all possible trust.

Did the mother know that henceforth

Harm and pain and loneliness

Will be the growing child’s faithful friends?

Did she ever wonder why there’s no forever

For her child whose every joy is never meant hello?

Did she ever know that every verse from her child’s lips

Will never be truly uttered without shame?

And when the mother decided to come home dying

Did she not know that the doorway’s gone

And her child’s stretched shadow shall have been cast

In a gloomy alley she’ll never visit?  

Yes, memory is cellular

As it is carried by every fiber of a disappearing man.

     (1 Jan 2015)

Sa bayan ng mga bastos

Ang salita ay masalimuot

Upang ang dukha’y di makaunawa

At nang sila’y tumugon nang tumugon

Sa mga hangarin ng nakakaunawa.

At bakit di nga naman?

Eh may mga mamamayan

Na di naman daw angkop

Sa hugis ng kayamanan

Kapangyarihan

Karangalan?

Ang mga dukha,

Masyadong marami na daw sila

Dapat bawasan

Upang maginhawaan naman

Ang mga maiiwan.

    (3 Enero 2015) 

Nagtanong si Manong

“Ano ba ang bastos

At lagi mong panggatong

Sa sigaw mong namamaos?”

“Manong”, ang aking sagot,

“Bastos ang walang galang sa dangal

Ang katuparan sa karapatan ay nilagot

At ang tutok ay sa sariling angal”.

“Ah”, wika ng matanda,

“Tumawid akong lumpo

At ni isa ang pumara,

Nasagi na, ako pa ang ginago”.

Tuloy ang kanyang paglalakad

Papauwi sa tahanang lurayluray

Kamay sa baywang nakaladkad

Ng nagmamanehong nagtago sa laway.

    (5 Enero 2015)

Sa bayan ng mga bastos

Pinipili kung sino’ng tao

Nangingibabaw ang sama’ng loob.

Pamumulitika’y walang paltos

Sari-sari’t panig wari’y sa totoo

At ang sa kabilang panig ay itinataob.

Sa bayan ng mga bastos

May akala mo’y kung sino

Malayo naman sa dukkha’t laging nakasaklob.

Sa sigaw nila’y namamaos

Sa bulong nama’y nagtatago

Inaaming tao rin sila’t may loob.

     (9 Marso 2015)

“The poor you will always have with you” (Mk.14/7) So do we tolerate poverty?

Sometimes it is hard to talk about poverty and social injustice—especially when we are do not experience the hardships. So instead of facing the issue, one might be tempted to say, taking from the Bible, “You will always have the poor with you”. So by saying this one might think that the issue is closed. There will always be the poor so it is better to accept this and move on. Now, did Jesus really say this? Yes, he did. What could he have meant by it?

The statement of Jesus is in a context that does not necessarily involve the poor—not directly. It is said in a story with a woman to whom the Good News is announced. In the account of Matthew the story happens a little bit before the last supper and the arrest of Jesus. A woman comes to Jesus and pours perfume on him. The perfume, we know, is very expensive. The gesture of the woman is a gesture honouring Jesus and it imitates the preparation of the dead before putting it in the tomb. So the woman foresees the cross of Jesus.

The disciples have a different view. They criticize the gesture—they do not like the devotion. It is a waste of money—the perfume is so expensive. Jesus answers them—in a rather dry way. Why get disturbed with what the woman just did. What she had done was beautiful. Jesus sees the gesture of the woman as beautiful.

The woman discerns the sacrifice of Jesus. She makes her own gesture—she participates by her sacrifice to the Lord. It is at this point when Jesus says, “You always have the poor with you…but you will not always have me”. There is a reference to Dt 15. It seems that only Jesus and the woman know the full sense of not having Jesus.

Just think about some people who are so “engaged” with the poor that their involvement affect their family lives and even their health. This is not in conformity with the Gospel. It is not exactly what Jesus had in mind. Our devotion is towards Jesus and not the poor themselves. Yes, we must love our neighbour—especially our poor neighbour—but we are devoted to Jesus.

The woman understands this…but not the disciples. The spiritual life must be guided properly to be able to manage well the service towards the poor.

Note the verse in Deuteronomy that Jesus cites. “There will be no poor with you” (Dt.15/4). Why? Because the Lord God will fill you will good things. The Lord God “will bless you abundantly in the land, he will give you to possess as a heritage”. In this situation nobody will be poor and needy. In the land to be given by the Lord, there will be enough for all. There will even be surplus that will allow trade and commerce with other nations (see Dt.15/6).

God never wants a world of lack. God never put the human in a world that cannot meet human basic needs. God had created a world of abundance for the human. But, again with Deuteronomy, there is a requirement involved: “listen to the voice of the LORD, your God, and carefully observe this entire commandment” (Dt.15/5). Abundance depends on fidelity to God.

Yet it does happen that there are the poor and people in need. So, Deuteronomy adds, “…you shall not harden your heart nor close your hand against your kin who is in need. Instead, you shall freely open your hand and generously lend what suffices to meet that need” (Dt.15/7-8). Strange, is it not, that even if God gives abundance there are still the poor.

Why are there the poor in Israel, so much so that God requires an open hand and support for the needy? In the promised land there is still injustice and people are not so faithful to the commands of the Lord. Israel has failed to comply to the Lord. (And is this not true also today?)

Let us return to Jesus. What might he mean when he says that the poor will always be with us? Jesus speaks of adoration. Jesus speaks of the poor in answer to the critique against the devotion of the woman. Jesus mentions Deuteronomy to remind the disciples that there are the poor because of the negligence of society—injustice is still the “favourite sport”. Self-centeredness is still the favourite “pass time”. The disciples do not care for the poor nor for the woman. Jesus reproaches his disciples. Deuteronomy gives a command. There are the poor and the needy…therefore “open your hand freely to your poor and to your needy kin in your land” (Dt 15/11). The land is a land of abundance given by the Lord God. There is enough for all. The human creature—in the likeness of the Lord God—is so gifted with creativity and the capacity for production and service to all. But the darkness of the human heart contradicts the created order of God.

When Jesus says that the poor will always be with us, he is triggering shame. The fact that there are poor is a cause of shame. We are reminded of the true cause of poverty: human darkness, human selfishness. No, Jesus is not justifying the presence of the poor.

Jesus is not giving a pretext about the poor. Jesus reminds the disciples—and us—that the poor are with us because we do not keep the commandments of God.

Our relationship with the Lord God has degenerated. It has degenerated up to the point of injustice to others and to nature itself.

Jesus is not teaching us toleration about poverty. He is not saying that there is nothing we can do about poverty since the poor is always present anyway. No. In fact, we should share…and when we share “…give generously and not with a stingy heart” (Dt 15/10). Share and the result will be “…that the LORD, your God, will bless you in all your works and undertakings”. 

A Reflection on Media and Politics

 “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. This is Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

A government tends to be totalitarian when the media are controlled by the political powers. Having dominion over information is basic to sitting in power. Media are necessary for a democratic society. 

Media are plenty in form. There are the newspapers, the television stations, the radio, and today the so-called “social media”. It would be quite “nice” if behind these media is diversity of information we can have access to.

Today even the “surveys” have become media too. They too have become means of communication and information. Surveys often serve the politicians. They are “cooked” or "skewed" to orient opinion in favor of certain political lines.

Access to information is basic to a democracy; no democratic system is without this access. But we can ask if this is completely observed in our country. Are the media not in partnership with those in political and economic powers? If this happens—this “partnership”—then the democracy ceases to be “for the people”. Is it not true that many of the media we find in our country today “owe” a lot to politicians (and public money)? A newspaper firm or a television firm have the capacity to use their power of disseminating information in favor of certain political lines. Let us not forget also that politicians “owe” a lot to media. Somehow media present politicians in a certain light favorable to those politicians. “Opposing media” are easily “tamed” by the dominant media. Media people have utang na loob to politicians and politicians have utang na loob to media people.

How do media serve politicians? One way is by making sure that “readers” or “listeners” do not reflect. Put them at a distance from what concerns them. Is it not true that politicians try to impress upon people the idea that people need not get involved with what concerns them. Let the politicians take care of people’s worries. So media will present information without substance. The television screen is filled with data of global magnitudes far from the actual local conditions. Opinions are filled with noise on very impertinent topics. Fear of everyone is promoted on situations that do not happen to everyone.

Ok, there are topics that are presented as well studied and well researched. But they are designed to agree to a system that is already in operation and handled by the present politicians. Media create among the people an illusion that is announced as necessary. Live according to a necessary illusion. This will justify the political powers presently sitting. Then put a big chunk of space and time for the spectacular—like pages on the lives of actors-actresses.

Most of media, helas, have given up their work to elaborate a space for discussion and reflection. Media have become, to a large extent, instruments of political propaganda.

Ok, it is also true that there are the critical minds who do not just swallow what media feed them. They are not the passive consumers of pages and screen shows. But, really we ask, how many are they? How many are those who think critically and stop and reflect…and discuss? Social media may be an index of how many they are. But even their posts are surrounded by propaganda and spectacles. Their views and opinions are flooded with images that, again, dethrone the concern for truth. Very often when we are so entertained we lose track of serious truth…and we might even approve of telling a lie so long as we are entertained. To have access to information is a human right. Information is part of the “common good”—that is, the conditions that allow us to “bloom”. To communicate is a right.

Still, we can be thankful for “social media”--like the facebook--because of their wider scope of freedom. Politicians are disturbed by social media; they find it difficult to control social media. Hence, without surprise, some politicians want to pass laws censoring social media. How effective are social media in our country--and by effective I mean "enough to mobilize people" to do changes and not just to rant in facebook posts?