On Doing Nothing

The other day I was on my way to Dasma, Cavite. To get there I took a "van" ride from my neighborhood to Pala-pala, right next to Dasma. On the way the aircon was not functioning. Everyone inside the van murmured about the problem. One whispered saying, jokingly, that she will have a heat stroke. I dared to call the attention of the driver. I told him about the problem and I asked if he could do anything about it. He just put his hand on the aircon vent and continued driving. He did not seem to care.
That was one illustration of telling a lie. We paid for our ride and part of what we paid for was to receive a correct service. We did not get the correct service. We were lied to. The driver did not comply with the "agreement".
Then I thought of the passengers and I felt frustrated over their indifference. But eventually I sensed that we were all "powerless" and that we just wanted to get to our destinations.
With all the injustices going on in our society we, "the people", stay silent. We just want to get to our "destinations".
I thought of Alfred Schutz and his "provinces of meaning". Some people are wealthy and powerful enough to financially sustain living in a province of meaning with the style of pure fun and entertainment. They do not have to go through the suffering of many other people of daily life. They exempt themselves and enter into a life-style that allows for a "province of meaning" outside that of the everyday.
But to sustain that financially means to prohibit others from access to proper living.    

Social Living

Recipes

A person is born in a society that is already existing. Even before birth there is already the social world. Each person is born in a specific family, a specific neighborhood or village, a specific country. Nobody chooses the circumstances of birth. Each of us is born in a place that already has its social ways. Each of us is born in a place where people work, relate with each other, speak a language, have ways of preparing food and wearing clothes, have musical forms, etc.

Society is experienced as having fixed ways and patterns. Every member of that society is born into those fixed patterns and continues to live within the fixed patterns. A person grows up from childhood and is made to be participant of the fixed ways of society. This participation is sometimes called “socialization”. As the word indicates, a person is made part of society. We might have our parents and elders, teachers in school, bosses in the workplace and they form us with skills and ways of behaving so that we can participate within society.

In our class we will often use the word “recipe” (Alfred Schutz). The word is borrowed from what we do when we cook. In cooking there are specified ingredients and specified preparations. In other words there are “recipes” for this or that type of cooking. If a recipe is not followed we are not sure what we are eating. Now this word can help us understand our social life. For us, in our class, we say that a recipe is a fixed social pattern which everyone in the social group follows. In a society notice that there are recipes for boys and girls in the family or school. There are recipes for proper dress wear. There are recipes for relating with older people. There are recipes for managing age. Look at a clear example. For a society when a young lady reaches a certain age she will have to consider getting married. It is recipe for that society.

Recipes are very helpful. They are “ready-made”. A person born in a society is made to fit-in the recipes of the society. There are already many ready-made patterns of behaving and acting in the social world. A person does not have to experiment and explore how to live in society. Recipes eliminate the trouble of starting something and exploring if it is right or wrong. Recipes are there already.

Recipes also make people feel “at home” in their social setting. People are not lost and ignorant of how to live in that society. They simply have to follow the recipes. They are socialized into the recipes.

Recipes also make people feel that they belong to each other. Every member of a society follow the same recipes. Everyone shares the common recipes. People feel that they are together; they are bonded by their social recipes. Individual members can move around, live, work, relax without much difficulties inside the common surrounding social world.

Let us try to observe this experience a bit more. Each of us is born in a social world with recipes. We note that the recipes have existed long before the person’s birth. So each of us experiences entering into a social world with recipes each of us did not make. We experience this very strong inside the family. When we come to school we also experience this a lot. As we move around the social world we really feel that we are in a world with many fixed patterns.

Voluntary groups

But then we also involve ourselves with “voluntary groups”. In a voluntary group we have to make recipes! We do not experience a totally ready-made social world. As the word itself indicates, we voluntarily enter into relationships and we start making recipes and create bonding. Take the example of getting married.

In getting married the man and the woman will have to build their relationship. They have to make their fixed patterns.

Yet a voluntary group is not completely independent of the fixed social recipes. When a man and a woman get married, yes they will have to fix their relationship and create patterns for themselves and their household. But they still assume that they are under the social practice of marriage with its legal features. There is still the social recipe for marriage and the couple did not create this.

Look at the voluntary groups we may have had in our own lives. We make friends, for example. We voluntarily choose who will be our friends. But the relationship is also characterized by social recipes for friendship. We might organize a club, say a sports club. This is a voluntary group. But even a club is characterized by social recipes. Yes we voluntarily define and redefine our relationships but we have to consider the general recipe settings.

Notice then that even if we act in voluntary ways and bond in voluntary ways, we are still under a fixed social world with fixed social recipes. We can look at our very personal lives and our very intimate relationships. No matter how personal and intimate we get we still live in a social setting. The fact that we have to speak a language is already proof of how we are “so inside” society.

Our social world is really complex today. We really experience this blending of fixed social recipes and voluntary bonding. We make friends. We join clubs. We link with associations. We enter into relationships in which we have to also create bonding and start recipes. In fact more and more today we experience the possibility of more voluntary relationships. How do we manage living in this complexity?       

The "local" and the "foreigner"

People who belong to another social group--let us say "foreigners" (or "outsiders" [Schutz]) do not exactly share the same recipes as the "locals" (or "insiders" [Schutz]). Of course two social groups can have many features in common (like two regions in a same country). But two groups can also be very different in many ways (like a European nation and a Polynesian nation). If members of one group start living in the locality of another group the locals may have difficulties understanding the foreigners. The locals have recipes that are so habitual, automatic and unquestioned. When they see the foreigners they notice that the foreigners do not follow the local recipes. The foreigners behave quite contrary to the "expected" (local) recipes. A resistance can build up towards the foreigners.
Foreigners may also feel a resistance towards the locals. Foreigners have their own recipes which for them are also habitual, automatically done and unquestioned. Locals may wonder why the foreigners behave in a different manner while foreigners may wonder why locals behave in a different manner. Of course, in many instances, groups living together may be more tolerant of each other. They might even adjust well towards each other. But we know of how many prejudices and biases also arise; some groups strongly reject each other. In other cases a local group will look down on itself and start emulating the foreign group.  Social scientists speak of "ethnocentrism" and even "xenocentrism".
Consider a foreigner coming to a place and settling there--for long or for short. For the foreigner the recipes of the locals are not all so obvious and clear. The local recipes are unfamiliar. The history of the locals is not the history of the foreigner; the foreigner may be attached to a different set of ancestors. The foreigner, in the eyes of the locals, is now a "newcomer" without a history.
The foreigner might try to "socialize" within the new place but still using recipes from home. The local recipes are not ready-made for the foreigner. The foreigner, up to this point, may be an observer of the locals, an observer and not yet a full participant. The foreigner needs to know how to act and behave according to the approved patterns of the locals, but the foreigner is still groping. This can be quite difficult.
Of course a lot depends on how deep the foreigner wants to participate in the local life. A lot depends also on how dependent the foreigner is on the resources of the locals. While being an apprentice, the foreigner has to keep a distance from local recipes to learn. The foreigner cannot just jump in. (The experience of participating in joke making can be an example. What is funny for the foreigner may be insulting to the locals.) Trial and error will have to be done over time. (Learning the local language is one example. Learning to appreciate the local dishes is also another example. Moving from a "high context" society to a "low context" society [Hall] can also be an example.)
At this point the foreigner cannot just apply the recipes from home and yet cannot fully plunge into the recipes of the locals. The foreigner is in-between. Adaptation may take time.
While the foreigner is learning to socialize in the new place many things of the locals remain puzzling. How far can the foreigner absorb--and trust--the recipes of the locals? The foreigner is still working with imagination and guess-work. The local recipes do not yet appear habitual, automatic and unquestioned. The foreigner still has questions regarding the local recipes. The foreigner then appears as a "distant participant" in the eyes of the locals. This can lead the locals to interpret the foreigner as "lacking loyalty" to the ways of the locals. The foreigner does not look like fully compliant with what is so obvious for the locals. Again this can lead to prejudices and biases towards the foreigner.
At what point is the foreigner already "at home" and sufficiently participating in the new place? At what point will the locals take the foreigner as "one of us" already?

Language

A bit part of what each of us knows do not come from personal and private experiences. A big part of what we know comes from parents, elders, teachers, etc. We learn recipes that are already present long before our birth. One of the most evident example is language. Before a person is born in a society people have already been speaking the language there. The newborn child enters into a society that is already speaking a language. The child does not have to create a new language; the child enters into (is socialized) into the language of that society.
Language may be something written in a dictionary. There are many words of the language recorded in the dictionary. But really, the dictionary does not reallt tell us the whole language. People do not speak like walking dictionaries. Words in a dictionary can be translated to other languages. But the language people use in daily life can hardly be fully translated into another language. We know this experience. When we try to translate certain expressions we use in our language to, say, English, we feel that whatever translation made is not "hitting the mark". Daily life speaking is really different from dictionary listing.
A dictionary can give a definition of a word; a definition can be in a few sentences. But note well how we speak and note well the meanings we give to the words we utter daily. A word or an expression can be filled with so many meanings that overflow. The dictionary does not capture the wealth of meanings. Some words and phrases we use can even have emotional colors. (Just think of how "pork-barrel" is understood today. It resonates with different meanings.) For a good example of richly meaningful language, let us look into the poetry of each of our countries. There is a level of language which really cannot be strictly translated into another language and cannot be fully encapsulated by a dictionary.
Yet let us admit that there is also the dictionary level of language. The different words and phrases may still be recorded in a dictionary. These might even be translated to another language. (Think of what Charles de Foucauld did with documenting the Touareg language of North Africa.)
Now, in each social group there are smaller groups with specific languages. For example in the military the soldiers coin terms and phrases proper to military use. The soldiers have "their own" language, in a way. They have words and phrases for military use. Think of scientists who have their specific languages. Think of people in business, people in computer programming, etc.
Much of what is in language is also an influence from history, notably from the history of the local literature. When locals speak they might be plugging in words and phrases taken from their literature (and arts). Of course this may happen quite automatically. In a Christian society people might, from time to time, plug in ideas from the Bible. In an Islamic society people might plug in ideas from the Koran.
Let us look at the different levels of knowledge (Schutz).
There is the level that is purely private. We might say that it is "mine". It is not shared with anyone else. We see this in our use of marks. When reading a book a person might stop and leave a bookmark to remind that person where to return to in the next reading. That is up to the person. The person might want to use a piece of carton, a piece of paper or a leaf from a tree. The person might just fold a page. It is all up to the parson--it is private to the person. So this level of language is private and it relies on the personal use of someone--the meaning is up to that person.
In nature there are events that make us conclude cause and effect. If we see smoke we might conclude there is fire. If we see thick clouds we might conclude that it will rain. There are events in nature and what they "mean" do not depend on us. This time it is not up to the person. Something is really going on out there in the environment and the person makes the connections. Maybe the connections are not accurate and can even be wrong. A person might think that a running nose is due to a fever but maybe it is due to an allergy. But the point is, here we rely on what is out there. Maybe this is not yet language-communication but it is already independent of each of us.
Finally there is the language-proper level. Here we use "signs". A sign means something to the person expressing it. It is derived from a person. A sign always refers back to an expression of someone.  In other words, someone wants to say something and uses a sign.
On the road we see road signs. Meeting someone we ask for a direction and the person uses the sign of a pointing finger. A parent might want to show gratitude to a child and make a huge smile. These are signs. They are made to express--they communicate.
Notice how different this is from natural events like smoke and fire. Smoke is not intended to "mean" anything for nature. There is a causal connection between the fire and the smoke. But smoke can be a sign if, for example during election for a Pope, the smoke is used to mean something.
Uttering words and phrases is a way of using signs. Writing a text is a way of using signs. Making gestures can be a way of using signs. Note that there is always the form of saying something by someone--a person. There is communication involved.
In daily life we might not pay attention to this anymore. We are flooded with signs everywhere from the spoken language to the written texts to the drawings and illustrations in shops, TV, videos, etc. As we use the computer we are face with so many signs--just think of the keyboard. We click on icons which are also signs. Signs are everywhere. Communication is everywhere.
Notice then that signs are not just means of expression they are also means of interpretation. If we do not understand the keys in a computer keyboard, how can we use it? If we do not understand the sign posted on a public toilet door, imagine what we might do. In other words we must also understand and interpret correctly the signs around us.
We are flooded with systems of signs. The written text of a book is a whole sign system. To communicate--express and interpret--we must be very at home with the system. We need to be formed in it. As children we were formed to speak and understand a system of language.
Without this formation we cannot participate in society. Society has it recipes, yes, and the recipes are embodied in language. We might now know who started all this--who started the recipes and the language. It does not matter in daily life. What is important is that we are formed into the communication system of signs.

Objective meaning

For a specific social group there are recipes and language that are communicable and understandable for the members of that society. Members of that society accept and follow, without much questioning, the fixed ways of the society. This is what we mean here by "objective". What is objective does not depend on an individual's choices and changes. Whether the individual agrees or not, accepts or not, a recipe and a language are fixed and observed by society. So for us in this class we say that a recipe and a language are objective when people in a society observe them and follow them and live according to their prescriptions.
We need this level of objectivity. Imagine if a word means different meanings for each person, society will be chaotic. Somehow all members of society express and understand "objectively"--according to the ways of that society.
But this does not exclude our own personal and even private meanings and behavior. An objective sign may be used for personal reasons. Take the example of cursing with a pointed finger. Objectively, in a society, for example, that raising of the finger is taken as an insult and is a curse. It is a "bad" gesture. That is the objective meaning for that society. But maybe a person will use the gesture to express charm or to express a joke. The gesture may objectively mean "bad sign" but it is used, in a specific instance, to be a joke and does not include insult or harm.
In daily life this happens a lot. We use the objective signs and add our own personal meanings to them. Signs have objective meanings that members of society understand. But a person might want to use a sign to express a personal meaning within a specific situation. (Just think of the "smiley sign" we sometimes add to our electronic messages.)

Interests and relevance

In the course of a day we are filled with interests. As soon as we wake up, say, in the morning we start organizing ourselves according to interests. Some things are very relevant at a particular moment while other things are not. We pay close attention to certain things while we forgo attention to other things. Take the example of making a cup of coffee for breakfast. What is most important at that moment? There is of course the coffee and there is hot water. There is the importance of having a cup. Maybe connected to that is the relevance of sitting at a table. Maybe still connected to that is the piece of bread. Still connected to that may be the newspaper. Of course the newspaper is not so directly relevant to making the coffee but there are people who like to read the papers while they have their morning coffee. For them the two are more or less connected and relevant to each other. As they prepare their coffee they pick up the newspaper and lay it on the table. Let us go farther from the activity of making coffee. What about the traffic conditions in the city? What about the weather? To an extent these are not that relevant to coffee making, not for this particular moment. What about molecular biology and philosophical metaphysics? They probably really have nothing to do with making coffee this morning. Notice then that somehow an organization or a structuring is made at each moment of the day.
So a person wakes up and makes coffee, takes a shower, moves to take a ride to work, starts working, takes a break, returns to work and later starts moving back home. There is a lot of structuring going on, a lot of shifting of interests and relevance. At each particular moment the person organizes things from what is most relevant to what is least relevant. At work the person is constantly shifting relevance. But playing football is completely irrelevant; it has nothing to do with the work. Maybe on weekends the person plays football with neighborhood friends; during that time relevance will again be structured. Very likely the relevance of what the person does at work is, during a football game, really irrelevant.
During the structuring and re-structuring of relevance a person might choose and decide on what will be relevant. So while making coffee a person might not feel the need to have the water very hot and maybe the person does not want very strong coffee. That is the person's own choice. That is "up to the person". But notice that at the same time there are elements that are not of the person's choices. The bitterness of the coffee and the rate of time of heating the coffee may be quite beyond the person's own choices. The bitterness of the coffee depends on how it is manufactured and on what type of coffee. The rate of heating time depends on the stove. These are not anymore things initiated by the person. When that same person goes to work the person may be deciding on the pace of work; so maybe at this moment he or she would prefer to go slow and take it easy. But there is the presence of the boss and there is the demand of production to meet. These elements do not arise from the choice of the person working. In the midst of the choice to work hard or to take it easy, there are things that the worker needs to face too--elements that are already there independent of the decisions of the person working. 
As we structure our interests and relevance we make choices and decisions within a given world that already exists and is fixed. We move around in daily life making our initiatives but we do that in an existing world.

"Typification" (Schutz)

Remember what we said about "objectivity". It is what people in a society accept altogether. it is what has become common for people in that society. Members of that society accept and follow, without much questioning, their fixed ways. What is objective is not private to an individual alone. Objectivity is social. Recipes are objective social patterns. Let us look at recipes from a new angle which we shall call as "typification" (Schutz; see Weber).
Our experiences are characterized by naming things and people and events. We call this animal "dog", that tree as "mango tree", that person as "old man" or "uncle", that work as "manual work" and that walk as "very tiring". We many not know everything about the things and people we encounter yet we name them. We give an "accent of belief" in them--we believe they are real and true elements of daily life. We "conclude" about what they are even if we do not have full details about them. 
This animal here is a dog and I call it dog. What breed is it? I do not know. Who owns it? I do not know. What is the anatomy? I do not know. Yet I conclude it is "a dog". Together with this conclusion are certain expectations about the dog. I am sure it says "bowow", it wags its tail when pleased, it gets hungry, it can bite, etc. How much do I need to know about the animal? Maybe in daily life it is enough to be familiar with it. Again, there is no need to deepen knowledge of details about this animal. In general and as far as my interest is--as far as relevant details allow--I conclude that it is a "dog".
If we stop for a while and really observe our experiences, we may be surprised to see how unique each and every experience can be. I see this animal on the street this morning and then I see it again this afternoon. My experience this morning may not exactly be the same as this afternoon. This morning it was bright and shiny and the sun was really beating down. Well, this afternoon it is cloudy and bit humid. So the color of the dog this morning was brighter than its color this afternoon. Yet, I conclude: it is the same dog. 
Just look at our experiences and see how unique they are. A friend of long ago shows up and I relate with my friend and I conclude that she is "the same friend". Actually over the years she gained many experiences and lessons in her life and she is not exactly the very same person today. Yet, notice how "concluding" happens: she is the same person I knew before. 
In daily life we make many conclusions about things and people and events. We conclude about and we give names to our experiences. As we do this, notice how we "trust" our conclusions. We will discuss this notion of "trust" later.
We might use what is commonly said today, "we put them in boxes". We box-in our experiences. Even if they can be very unique and ever changing experiences we still "freeze" them in boxes. We do not feel the need to focus on the unique differences nor on the very many details involved. It is enough that they are put in more or less well-made "boxes". We "typify" them--put them in categories and types. Later we will discuss the role of relevance in doing this.
But right now do we not notice that this itself is recipe living? In social recipes we put many things in boxes: we box-in people, we box-in age roles, we box-in sex roles, we box-in career paths, etc. In a country there might be different regions each having a language or dialect different from the rest. Is it not often that people from a specific region box-in, typify, people from other regions? The northern people are "thrifty" while those from the south are "lazy". At times people in a country emulate so much people from another country, a case of "xeno-centrism". In a country financial assistance of extended family members may be an obligation and it is typified. In another country this assistance might not be obligatory at all.
Observe that as we typify our experiences we arrange our types according to relevance or interests. This animal I see in the street is a dog and I see not further need to know more. In my typifying the animal I might include conclusions like it is a "possibly harmful animal" and "it escaped from its owner". Do I need to know more and say more? No. What my type concludes is enough. My familiarity is enough, I do not need to go further. For example, the dog's breed and anatomy do not serve as relevant information. So my type "dog" is marked by what I say is relevant and what I say is "enough" is the way I structure my relevance.
In society we see this happening. Social typifications are organized according to social relevance. What social members consider as relevant marks the features of their typifications. An over admiration for foreigners has its relevance structures. A discrimination against certain regions has its relevance structures. The classification of what career is "better" has its relevance structures. The idea that at a certain age one must get married has its relevance structures. Let us try to point how relevance is operating here.
One reason why we box-in our experiences is because we have routine, daily problems and we want to have routine solutions for them. We do not want to complicate life, do we? For all relevant purposes this animal in the street is "dog" and, we might add, "possibly can bite". Anatomy and breed do not enter as relevant features of the type "dog". I need to be careful about the presence of a stray animal so my type is limited to this. I organize my typification according to this routine case. Becoming an expert of the animal kingdom is not within the scope of daily routine and is not a routine problem. Hence my type "dog" does not include the scientific details about the animal.
Another reason why we box-in our experiences is because we have roles to play in society. We behave according to those roles. A child is expected to behave this and that way. A lady is expected to act this or that way. A policeman is expected to act in this or that way. A priest is expected to act in this or that way. So we box-in these many aspects of daily life--we typify them according to the expected roles they play in society.
Another reason why we typify experiences is to guide our relationships with each other. We conform to what is important and relevant for everyone in the social group. We can deviate but we must consider what people take as important. We enter the "importance" boxes. Consider the ways of being polite in a social group. Maybe for a social group it is typical for a teenager to be very polite to elders. A young person then is guided by this whenever he or she is with an elderly.
Notice then what is very relevant for people when living in recipe life--with types. Notice what is relevant to everyone. Life has to be standardized. There are standards--rules, mores and norms--that guide (and propel) society. Typification is a way of standardizing. All the unique differences and massive details are tapered off so that there are common, boxed, ways of living. We live according to what is "enough" for the social group. Do we need to go further than what is "enough"? There is no need. So long was we stay within the standards and so long as we live standardized there is no need to go further. What we have is enough.
Later we will discuss one important area of social life in which knowledge is "distributed". Although there is a tapering of information and details for a standardized social living each social member deepens access to particular information. Hence we find "experts" and "specialists" in society. This, again, will be a discussion later on. Right now let us simply say that social life is standardized.
We really do not have to live like this strictly. Many say, for example, that one must "think out of the box". But can we really live out of a box? Can we really be out of any box? If we move out of a box, where do we go?
Boxing-in experiences is part of recipe living: we typify our experiences. Now the typifications we do are quite social. Inter-regional typing for example is very social. People name their experiences and they typify their surrounding world. Each person born into a social group with its network of typifications is socialized into this network. It is "objective" in as much as it is what "everyone in the social group" does.
Ok, it is true that we have our private lives too. We can do things privately and in very unique ways. We can, in principle, live as we want. We might want to look for new horizons of living and we might want to do alternative living. Fine. But no matter how private we want to be we still live within a social world and there are standards still to obey. Our private interests cannot just rule over social relevance. Somewhere along the way we need to align ourselves with social interests and social boxes. Typification precisely plays this role of tapering off the over-personalized and over-privatized ways. Everyone is expected to be in a common way of standard living. Everyone must still live inside the social box.
Sociologists have topics about social control and deviance. We have an idea now of what those topics could mean.

Our acting in the Social World

We are familiar with daydreaming and imagining things. Our fantasies can run in many directions. Yet while doing the fantasies we cannot say that "something is happening". We make no decisions and we make no definite goals regarding our fantasies.
But then when we try to solve a mathematical problem in the head we can say that we are already "doing something". A decision is made: "I will solve this problem". Maybe it is all in the head but still there is already a decision made. Action involves decision making.
More often often our actions are done bodily. We walk to a place, we ride a bus, we write, we talk, we hammer nails, we cook food, etc. We have specific plans and goals to accomplish and we decide on making them happen. Of course we may not always succeed. My plan to serve a delicious dish turns out to be a catastrophe to my guests. But the point is, as we go through our actions we try to fulfill goals.
Each person has in mind goals and plans. There are immediate goals and there are long term goals. There are even goals people make for their whole lives. What do people really have inside their heads? What exactly do they want? What exactly are their goals? If we look closely enough we have to admit that we do not really know completely what each person has in mind as goals. We might conjecture. Watching a lady rush to riding a bus I might conclude that she wants to be at work at the right hour. But how sure am I with that conclusion? What exactly is going on in her mind? What does she intend with her running to the bus? Do I see her goals not just for today but for her whole lifetime? That person herself is in the best position to know her goals and plans. The observer can guess, conjecture, make conclusions. Yet each person is the author of his or her actions. Observes stay from a distance.
But of course there can be more accuracy in knowing the circumstances that lead a person to act. An observer can look into the given conditions of a person. A psychotherapist does this by delving into the past histories of the client. The psychotherapist can find out, to quite an accurate point, the circumstances that make the client behave in this or that way.
Circumstances can be accessible to both the observer and the person acting. Both can look back and check. But during the course of acting only the person acting has full access to the plans of the action. An observer cannot fully see what is the goal set by the person doing the action.
In society, in principle, each person lives a private and personal life. In principle nobody can fully see what is going on in the head of anybody else. Each person maneuvers through the web of relationships and facts. Within the setting of a social world each person weaves his or her own personal story.
Yet we notice one common fact: we all seem to be doing the same things and same actions. It is "recipe". A school child preparing for school goes through the actions of wearing the school uniform just like so many other children. It is "recipe" for school children. A mother prepares the evening meal and goes through the actions of cooking a common cultural dish just like so many other mothers at home. It is "recipe" for all household mothers. A young man reaching a certain age goes through the actions of seeking a career path just like so many other young men. It is "recipe" for all college graduates. A young lady reaching a certain age goes through the action of getting married just like so many other women. It is "recipe" for all late teen or young adult ladies.
Although we really are private persons our actions show that we do things just as everybody else in society does. Somehow we do not look as private and personal as we say. We tend to be more like our social recipes rather than be so unique and original.
We are within a social world and our social world is marked by the successful actions people have done in the past--and continue doing now. Although we can, in principle, do things in our own very private and very original ways we have gotten into the habit of doing what everybody else does. It is "recipe". We have seen that the actions of people have passed the test of time. We have seen our own actions having passed the test of time. So why live "outside the box" when what we and social members do are already proven practical, successful and very feasible. All actions are quite familiar so why explore the unfamiliar? (We will discuss the possibility of social change later.)
Within the context of social living even as we try to live personal lives we still "hook on" the typical and common ways of doing things. Somehow we drop the unique, original and personal and we live just like everybody else does. We "economize" on our actions by following what has already passed the test of time. Our lives tend to be lived in routine ways.
Hence what do we notice? There is a general routine of actions for the day, for the week, for the year...even for a lifetime. All social members move and act together towards a common, general life-plan. To use our terminology above, there is a "recipe" way of living for members of society.

Culture

Let us pause for a while and consider this word which we have not used so far. The word is "culture". We are fragile humans. We really need one another. It is quite impossible to live in complete isolation from others. Just imagine never being raised by a family or by any human. Just imagine never learning a language and never knowing how to use tools. Just imagine never having any share in social recipes!
We really rely on what so many contribute in social life. People in the past have done many things--tools, technology, politics, education, the arts, etc. What they have done are transmitted over time. We inherit their recipes for living.
We continue to live according to those recipes. Somehow social life is not chaotic; social life has a form of stability. We can locate ourselves in society and know where we belong. Culture is what social members have made for the stability of social life. People adapt to their environment and culture is what makes them adapt. Over time this success in adaptation is passed on from generation to generation.
We might be very critical of our societies and this is valid. We do have questions about how we live our social lives especially today. But no matter how critical we get we cannot deny the fact that we still need to live in some form of social stability. We do not opt for anarchy and complete chaos. In fact a complete chaos is not real. No matter how unstable a society can get there is a minimum of stability. Culture will always be present.
We usually associate culture with song and dance and food preparation. We associate culture with the style of wear of each social group. These are, indeed, "cultural". But culture is more than just these. These are included within culture. As we just said above, culture is people's way of adapting to the environment--adapting to life--and securing stability in that adaptation. To have that stability people transmit they actions and successes to coming generations. Thus culture is also a matter of stability over time, from generation to generation.

The presence of other people: what actually happens?

At this point we need to look closer into our social relationships and have an idea of what is going, what are the "mechanics" in relationships.

The Well-informed in the Common Sense World

In our surrounding world what do we see? We see plants, animals, houses, people, machines, etc. Let us include the stars and the sun and the moon and the clouds. We see these and we classify them. We see a dog in the street and we see it as, say, street dog. Maybe it is “owned” by someone. Ok, we might also have books and web sites telling us what the dog is.

We know it as a dog and we have a name for it, our languages call it by name. We assume that other people see that—and name it—a dog. (Aso, chien, hound, anjing, in whatever language.) It may be quite ridiculous to ask if we really see a dog. It will be ridiculous to ask if what we see is exactly the same as what we think and know. I know it is a dog and it is a dog. We see things in our surrounding world and we have different names for them. The world in which we live is a world of defined things and people with definite qualities.

In fact the world in which we live is a familiar world. We are not shocked and surprised with what we see. We do not see cows floating in air. We do not see ducks playing cards. We do not see people with ten arms and hands. We do not see our friends talk in extra-planetary languages. We do not see the walls of a room change colors every time we open and shut our eyes. Maybe in cartoons these can happen. In fantasy and dreams these can happen. But in concrete daily life we have a specific accent of reality which we cannot just brush away and deny. 

We accept our daily experiences as real and as what everybody else accepts them to be. This is how we can understand the meaning of “common sense”. Common sense is what everyone accepts as true, correct and real. It is precisely “common” to everyone.

To live in society we move according to “common sense”. It is “common sense” that this is a dog. It is “common sense” that this is a child. Let us talk about growing up. It is “common sense” that at a certain age a young lady gets married. It is “common sense” that after college a young man should work. It is "common sense" that we should not commit adultery. It is "common sense" that God exists and we should go to mass each Sunday. Etc. Each social group has its sets of “common sense” from very small matters to deep matters of morals and religion. (It may be very interesting to discuss the different "common sense" living of people from other countries).

Just consider a bit more this “common sense”. It is what everyone in the social group accepts as true and real. It is not put to question. It is quite enough for social members to live and function daily with “common sense”. Thus our surrounding world is a “taken for granted” world that is familiar and unquestioned.

We experience our world in a very automatic way. But very often what we see is not completely what we know. We may look at a dog and say it is a dog and that’s it. But do we know the anatomy and physiology of the dog? Do we know what type of dog it is…from which classification of dogs? De we know the exact weight of the dog? In “common sense” living we might not need to go further that what we see. We might not need to penetrate the details of what we see.

So we see people, things, animals, machines, clouds, etc. Do we know them completely? Do we know the complete details of each and every thing we see? We are satisfied with the familiarity we have about them without needing to go into so many details. Well, we can also consider the things we do. For example we buy something from a store. We pay the cashier. That may be enough for us. But do we know the whole economics behind money and production and costs and inflation etc.? Maybe it is enough to buy that product, that’s it. Whatever happens in all the details behind what we do is not our immediate concern. We do not perhaps even need to know the name and family circumstances of the cashier behind the counter. We just move on living in a familiar world.

This is why we hear some people say: “change your way of looking at things” or “see things differently” or “step out of the box” or “go further and know more”. Why say these things? Maybe because we have been so “at home” with our daily lives of “common sense” that we fail to notice other important matters—matters that need attention. But to try and “go further” does not just happen anytime.

Let us consider being “disappointed” with our experiences. We accept our daily experiences and we live flowing with everybody else. But then maybe we face experiences that disappoint us. We keep on buying the same product everyday without looking into details. Later we realize it causes cancer. Ah, we are “disappointed”. What we have been accepting everyday “disappoints” us. Just look back at the different moments in life when we were disappointed. There may have been small disappointments and there may have been big and serious disappointments. The small disappointments may not have required major adjustments. But big disappointments may have affected us deeply.

(We say disappointment but of course there are also pleasantly surprising experiences, like falling in love. Somehow the routine of daily life may have been shaken too by the pleasantly surprising experiences. But let us focus on disappointments).

Now when we are disappointed we take a position. We cannot just go on as if nothing is happening. We cannot pretend that all is still in the routine flow of life. Now we start looking further and deeper into our experiences. What we before simply accepted without questions now require that we raise questions; we want to penetrate the horizons that we have not previously looked into.

Now, look at how we have been living in the everyday life of “common sense”. Why do we get disappointed? This is because daily life has its “charm”. We are so “at home” in it that it “charms” us. We want to maintain it, sustain it, cultivate it. We do not want to “rock the boat”, so to speak. We cannot accept to live a life in which we are always troubled and disturbed. We do not want to be always on the look-out. Precisely, daily life is “home” for us.  We let our experiences stay as valid as possible and everyone more or less inter-acts smoothly. We do not quite explore the possibility of other ways of living. Maybe the term “comfort zone” can also help us here. Our daily life is a “comfort zone” in which we fit snugly.

Language is an important area of solidifying the validity of daily life. Language has a social force. Remember that we name things and we identify experiences with the function of language. We set daily life permanently with the use of language. Everyone in the social group speaks the same language; everyone communicates with the same language—the same way of naming things and same way of identifying things, telling us what is true, real, and approved. Our “comfort” in daily life is facilitated by language. We “read” our surrounding world in the same way as everybody else in society. Remember that when we name things we just do not make sounds we also suppose a defined way of dealing with things. When we see a dog we just do not stay with the word “dog”. In that word many things are implicated like “pet”, “it has an owner”, “it can bite”, “I will not harm it because it does not belong to me”, etc. Our language is not just a set of words like empty cans. Language puts to order our surrounding world. This includes putting to order also our actions and inter-actions. This includes how we orient to our surrounding world, how we relate, how we interpret and act. Language has a strong social force. (One of the high points in the use of language is "ideology", a topic for another essay).

This tells us the importance of being “well-informed”. In the ordinary flow of daily life we just accept things as they are, we “take for granted” our experiences. Can we not go further and deepen our views of the horizons? This is what it means to be “well-informed”. It means that we want to know more, see more, understand more….more than just what is “common sense”. It may especially be important to investigate further those social areas that have power over us. To be well-informed is to see where there is power at work dictating to us how we should conduct our lives. We buy things and we do not know the complex economics behind that act. Can we not try to be a bit more informed then? We eat and drink products without knowing all the ingredients there. Can we not try to be a bit more informed? We pay taxes without knowing where exactly our taxes go. Can we not try to be more informed?

To be well-informed is not just knowing more, however. It is also trying to see a possible redefinition of daily life. We might need to redefine the surrounding world in a way that is different from “common sense” definition. To be well-informed is to also redefine identities and relationships. In other words, we need to look into our “idea of humanity”.

Basic to our “idea of humanity” is the recognition that the human, unlike the cow, for example, can reflect and discern. The human can slow down, for example, and not just be always dictated upon by the beliefs of “common sense”. The human is also capable of the uncertainty. Daily life common sense thinking is “at home” with all its beliefs. Uncertainty is not easy to live with. The human, however, can be “disappointed” and even “disenchanted” and can raise questions, criticize and look for changes. This is basic to “being-human” and to be well-informed is also to seek for how to exercise “being-human”.

Consider what is happening in the news today. People talk of the BBL, for example. We read about views coming from the government and views from critics. We might be led by our emotions to take an uncritical stand. Or we might stay indifferent. But here is one area where we can see the importance of being "well-informed".
Consider the issue of the PCOS machines during the last two elections. Some statements from COMELEC and its critics were quite technical. We can be easily swayed if we are not well informed. 
Consider environmental damage. Our everyday actions may be contributing to the damage, like our purchase of plastic products. How well-informed are we regarding the impact of our choices and actions?
Common sense living might be comfortable but we need to keep in mind that the forces affecting us are not simply "natural forces". A lot of things in our daily lives are effects of motives and powers. We are also made to "trust" those powers and accept the status quo. (How? Through ideology....a discussion for another essay.)   
Common sense living may actually be, to a large extent, piloted by particular powers, both economic and political. We need a certain amount of being well-informed. Maybe we cannot be experts in politics, economics or environment management. But can we at least be better informed and not just be "nakanganga"?

On Trust

Trust in Daily Life

Trust is always happening everyday. We trust persons; like we trust a friend or a teacher. We trust organizations and institutions like schools and shops and offices. When we drink a fruit juice that we buy we “trust” that it will refresh and will not kill us. When we use a computer we trust that it will function.

A minimum of trust 

Now we think a lot about the future. Modern life is so future oriented. We think of careers, savings, security, etc. So many things happen around us. Prices go up. Political leadership make decisions we do not comprehend. We navigate through a complex life. Our trust would rely less and less on what is predictable. Motives are hidden and yet they can influence institutions. Values, moral norms, religious beliefs...they are all changing. We are exposed to so many forms of information and to so many possible alternative life-styles. Even our local languages and dialects are filled with new foreign words and phrases--proof of the fusion of information and cultures. 
When we trust we often do not know all the details—we do not have full information. We might say, “I trust my teacher”. Yet do we have all information about the teacher? Do we know the extent of the teacher's competence? Not completely. We might say that as we drink a juice from the store, “I trust this drink”. Do we know everything in that drink? How often do we look at the ingredients?

When we trust we are a bit in the middle between complete knowledge and complete ignorance. We do not have full control of everything happening around us; we do not know everything that is going on around us. We rely a lot on trust. We trust the doctor and we think that the doctor knows much about an illness.

Imagine if we have to know everything before we trust. This is impossible. If we rely on full information all the time we might not trust anyone or anything. Imagine that we have to know details about the doctor in the emergency room before we allow medical attention. Imagine that we need to get all information about electricity before we switch on a lamp. Imagine that we have to know all information about someone before making friends with that person. 

At times trust may need time, ok. Before becoming full friends we might want to take time to know each other. But somewhere along the way we make a jump—a leap. We need to accept limits and decide. Just think of the many jumps we have done in life—the different commitments we have done. We have been “leaping” very often. We might want to use the word “risk”. We take risks in trust although we are not always aware of this.

We might feel risk when, for example, getting into a "life commitment"; let us say one is thinking of getting married. One gets in touch with his or her own proper decisions. Perhaps when commitments are less personal we feel less risk-taking. We might experience this during political elections. Still, we make leaps on a personal or an impersonal level. 

In the routine of daily life we might not give this much notice. We might not notice how often we leap and jump and make risks. But then consider a moment of  disappointed and deception.   

One may have been expecting a good relationship with a friend but then later realizes that the friend is cheating and deceiving. Noticing a deception does one not feel like withdrawing trust? 

Ok, let us say that it is possible to give a “second chance”. But somewhere along the way trust is already strained. One might take note of a possible danger to a future dealing with the friend. 

If we insist on trusting only to be later so disappointed do we not feel regret? We might say, “I took the risk and it was a mistake”.

One might trust his or her parents. One might trust an elder in the family. One might trust ateacher or a priest. We might admit that trust for these people are unconditional. Fine. Can trust be really unconditional? We trust as far as we are not deceived. Yes, we might trust some people unconditionally. We give full confidence and we cannot see how they can deceive us. We experience this, maybe, in the family. We experience this in ordinary daily life. Trust seems to be so routine. We do not have to calculate the risks. In routine we experience our expectations consistently met. We have friends who behave faithfully towards us, we use the electricity that is consistently charged, we drink juices and coffee that refresh us, we read the newspapers that inform us, we visit websites that entertain us, we have political leaders who are so honest (cough cough ubo ubo....), etc. 
Our trust is so routine we do not think that we make risks. We accept what our experiences tell us. We think that we are not being fooled by our experiences. Routine everyday life is like this. 

But what happens when we see the possibility of deception? We might then start calculating our trust. This is when we notice uncertainty, when we see that we are deceived. We might want to continue trusting but we are careful—we set limits. Trust becomes "conditional".

Conditional trust happens when we know that a deception can take place. If we go into business even with a friend we might want to set a contract and we place our signatures on legal documents. It is a strategy of trust that is conditional. We trust that we will not fool each other but if we do fool each other we have a contract to penalize that. Framing a contract is a strategy to protect trust and avoid cheating, deception and disappointment. When we are really deceived then we can withdraw the trust and be protected by the contract.

Trust therefore is the confidence we make in our lives towards people and things and institutions. It can be routine trust or it can be very calculated trust filled with conditions, depending on the risks we notice.

A "minimum" in society

Now, trust is very important for us to live properly in society. We need a minimum of trust in society to have a sense of security. We want to live in a world that is not fooling us, a world in which we are “at home”. We are not always anguished and we do not live in constant fear. Just imagine if we are always afraid of everything around us—we trust nothing and nobody—we might not want to leave our rooms. We will feel paralyzed in life. Imagine if every person we meet cannot be trusted! Imagine if all members of society mis-trust everyone, how can there be a social life? Trust is really a necessary part of social life. Let us see how trust is important in society. 

In our modern life each of us lives more or less independently of others. Each of us pursues personal plans and goals. Each has his or her interests. Somehow we are different from each other and we have different activities and goals. 

Now if each member of society lives so privately and deviant without considering what others think and feel social life will be chaotic and disordered. Somehow members of a social group need to have common values and norms. A social group needs a minimum of common norms and values. There are norms for dress wear, for food preparation, for music, for relationships between ages or sex, etc. Let us say that a solidarity has to be found among social members. What is this solidarity? 

From a social-scientific (sociological) point of view solidarity is what happens when social members accept the following of social norms. Every member of society behaves in such a way that there is cooperation, order and harmony. Every social member feels somehow responsible for the unity of the social group. Everyone accepts that there are “approved” ways of living together. Social members do not feel life to be at constant risk because everyone feels that others obey the common approved ways.

Trust here is the belief that each member of society is willing to comply with the approved social norms. In trust we believe that others are willing to live as members of the social group and not just as private and deviant individuals. When we ride the transport system we trust that there are people who act responsibly to maintain well the transport system. We trust that they will not fool us and allow the trains or buses to fall off rails and cliffs. We trust that they will follow the expected norm of maintaining a correct transport system. When we use money to buy in a store we trust that persons will recognize that money and its value; we trust that the cashier of the store and the producers selling accept the value of that money. We trust that, more or less, we get our money's worth. We are not duped.

Notice that while we live within common norms and values we avoid deviancy. We trust that we all behave within the parameters of our social norms. We trust that nobody conducts himself or herself deviant in disobedience to the norms. Any social group has its norms and will penalize deviant behavior. Trust presupposes “normalcy”.

The world today is quite complex. We are not so well informed about so many things. There are many developments happening and they can be so fast we might not keep up. There are many things going on in different parts of society we do not know what is going on there. With all this complexity we know we cannot do all and we cannot know all. We have to select relevant information. Others do the same.

In fact in society there are degrees of knowledge and ignorance. A doctor may be very good in the medical field but might be zero in, say, the legal field. It is the lawyer who is expert in the legal field. Social knowledge is distributed (Schutz). In a social world like our societies we need trust. We trust that our actions are coordinated. There are people we believe can take care of things we are ignorant of. There are people who will be responsible enough to handle things that we cannot handle. A patient who can do nothing with his or her illness trusts the doctor, believing that the doctor knows what to do with the illness. A client ignorant of property deals trusts the real estate broker and believes that the broker will process well the tax and other legal documents. Those who are on the side of precariousness and depend on authorities rely on the importance of trust.

Notice that here trust gives us the chance to reduce complexity; it helps simplify life. In other words we trust that others can take care of matters that we do not know of. We do not need to worry about it. Imagine if, during a moment of illness, we have to study anatomy and physiology; we have to study medicine to take care of our damaged health. That will be a very complex situation. Imagine if, during a moment when we sell a land property we have to first study the economics of supply and demand and be licensed real estate brokers. No, we do not need to do this. We can focus on an area of interest and trust that there are others who will be experts in other areas. We trust that those experts will take care of the areas we are handicapped in. We stop worrying too much; there are experts in different areas of our lives. We can focus on matters relevant to our interests and put trust in experts of other fields. 

This has a strong influence in the routine of social life. If we run into problems and difficulties we do not disrupt our routine. Part of the routine is to seek experts. We do not have to risk actions because we know that there are experts who can do things we cannot do. We trust the competence of others. We have a coherent and structured social life.

Thanks to trust we can relate with others. We can do things we want to do knowing that others will respect what we do. Think of a case in which we can leave our properties on our desk and take coffee outside and we trust that others in the room will not steal our things. If we do not have that trust we will never have that cup of coffee outside and we will stay at our desk. In trust we perceive each other mutually and freely; we behave according to what is the best for all of us. We cannot live together as thieves, for example. We trust that others will not steal from us; we trust that they will cheat. We--they and us--know it is best to respect each other’s dignity and properties.

We trust others when we have confidence that what they do will correspond to what we expect of them. When we live this way notice how freely we can move about without fear and anguish. Social life is coordinated. We trust others and we do not have to be always on the watch expecting cheating and misconduct now and then.

We feel more and more that we have to “work for" the future. We have to “make it happen”. We make risks. We do not just apply traditional ways to our future. We need to experiment and seek new ways. Yes, we take risks. What about trust? 

Trust cannot be simply a re-assurance of tradition, not anymore nowadays. We cannot anymore just trust based on what tradition tells us. Tradition may have emphasized, for example, the role of elders and priests. This does not work all the time today. Tradition may have emphasized the central role of the priest or shaman. Today this is not so strong. We do not just rely on what elders say. Is it not true, in fact, that we prefer young and new ideas? Because today we tend to be more risky in our choices and decisions, we need to calculate and discern what we must do.

Can we rely on “institutions”? Can we trust them? We say that we enter into modernity and this implies the "rational" functioning of institutions. We refer to money, contracts, measuring devices, technological instruments to come in-between our relationships. But do take less risks when dealing with institutions?

The use of money can be a good example here. We rely on the stability of money so we trust the “economic system”. Is it not true that if we have so much money we do not have to worry about trusting many others. We can “pay” our way through life. No matter how other people feel and think, we let money take care of our relationships. In money we trust, however. 

We get what we want and people do what we expect them to do thanks to money. It is all about money. We trust each other under the calculation of money. Trust does not have to be personal—it can be “functional” and certainly “economical”. We can rely on institutions to resolve many of our difficulties in life.

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?