the imagination

anyone can change the world.
each person is a part of the world.
how large a portion? that is a matter of perspective.
whose perspective? do certain persons' perspectives matter more?
that too is a matter of perspective.

i don't think it matters - every perspective matters.
these especially matter to the person from whom they originated.
a scholar or professor may say a certain thing, in how ever many words.
but the individual who listens only receives what s/he digests.
that is the perspective that matters to her/im.
that is the only perspective that matters.

so are we a fragmented hodge-podge of discrete realities?
are we really just a bunch of vaguely connected but ultimately separate bodies?
far from it.
so long as we can understand, empathise, and synthesise...
so long as we can interpret, intuit, and appreciate...
we are helplessly and utterly one.
it matters not the material matter that is discrete - not that much!
it matters that what this material matter carries can communicate.
and thus, we are all -
from the ones with least self-esteem or have lost all sense of dignity
to the ones towering above in awesome stature or full of pride -
an equivalent part of the world.

we make up reality.
we live in this reality.
we affect each other's reality.
and so we all have power - some seem more powerful, others seem less so.
but that is all merely seemingly so, for all of us are equivalent after all!
she who can change the lives of 1 billion may seem relatively influential,
yet she may not be able to change the heart of one daughter.
he who could barely love another person wholeheartedly
might have most deeply touched that person and most truly loved her without knowing.
we could all try our very best, thinking that the everyday is our responsibility;
that what we seem most capable of doing is what we should - or even must - do.
yet despite the immense planning and consolidated effort,
it is often that which is simplest which is most powerful.
we can be complex...
but we don't have to be so.

and with such a perspective...
can i change the world?
most definitely.
will i change the world?
i certainly hope so.
how will i change the world?
you tell me.

a thought on thought

why do you want me to think less?
or worse still: stop thinking?
did you think that i could?
did you think that i might somehow want to?
that thinking less or not thinking is somehow justifiable in my condition?
that my mission in life could do with less/no thinking?
or my vocation could somehow reason itself with less/no thinking?
why do you think i bother thinking in the first place?
was it all in vain?
do i ever only think vainly?
am i nothing more than a vain thinker?

question:
is this called "thinking too much"?
or is this called "the thinker stuck in an unthinking and unfeeling world"?

i do not know.
i do not dare claim to know.
you tell me.

Culture Unplugged Video

View this movie at cultureunplugged.com

the burden of experience

Senioritis.

once upon a time, i believed that seniors simply needed to be more involved, more visible, more acquainted with juniors, so as to pass on their experience, provide guidance in times of need, and keep CSS (or any ministry in Christ's name) faithful to her mission.

it seems i have underestimated the nuanced difficulties embedded within this seniors' call to continue serving.

once upon a time, i believed that the generation gap is a mere phantom menace created by burnt out seniors who can't be bothered to deal with younger people. unfortunately, it is also likely to be true that juniors themselves, embedded within a slightly different cultural milieu, with their own idiosyncratic judgement of the world's operational values, are indeed a distinct gap away from seniors.

it seems i have ignored one key issue in trying to bridge the senior-junior gap: that of cultural dissociation. and as my own less-than-gentle demeanor at times may have proven, it is still the senior's prerogative to modify his/her own demeanor and go to the junior's level. for how could we expect the young to mould themselves spontaneously and accomodate the old?

indeed, the burden of experience is such that an invaluable resource must be transferred onwards intact as far as possible - so that CSS (or others) maintain a form of consistent growth - in spite of resistance or reluctance on the part of either the senior or the junior. failing which, the growth of CSS is most guaranteed to be stunted; the aggregated progress of human wills thus faces stagnation.

in the case of advise on practical issues, seniors must vigilantly stand guard so that major pitfalls be avoided. it is possible that failure is needed to mother success; but catastrophic failure can obliterate any chance of future success being birthed. the burden is on the senior to be gentle, firm, assuring, and also custodian of practical progresses.

in the case of ministering spiritual growth, seniors must similarly stand vigilant guard: subtly mistaken ideas and the temptation to mediocrity are perpetual enemies. in gentle affirmation, we must not prostitute our Catholic values in false consolation to our fellow siblings' weak moments. we persevere as one Body, we help each other climb from our falls, we stand and continue marching forth.

in the case of crisis, of misunderstanding, of failure to communicate, once more seniors must stand guard with vigilance. we are called to be stalwarts of peaceful stability in a social world prone to (unnecessary) mutual judgement. in other words, we remain fiercely objective in our own judgement of events and history, always only admonishing the act and yet profoundly loving the actor. no malaise may afflict Christ's mystical body that it cannot heal herself with love.

and so, senioritis is not a mere symptom of slack leadership among the seniors; it is a wake up call to serve with greater intensity in especially the background departments. senioritis is a Weberian ideal type against which we measure our own actions; a modern pericope parallel to Christ's "plank in our own eyes" (Mt 7:4) which implores the sensitive soul to seek perfection in service.

we do not yet have senioritis; but we must be vigilant and Christ-like so we may yet give Him glory.

emotion and reason

i have a theory, and most may agree, that we humans generally appeal to emotion before reason. in any given situation, the heart asks, "do i feel like it?" before consulting the mind, "does it make sense to do this?" this sequence usually functions quite well, since ultimately the person does appeal to both faculties. my theory here is that while emotions are appealed to first, it does not always follow that it decides the final choice.

yet given this simple sequence, it is already likely that many are won out by their emotion before they reach reason: "i don't feel like it" is as good as a stopping point in any train of deliberation.

emotion has a crucial purpose. it allows us to "empathise intuitively" - i use the terms loosely, echoing lay perceptions. when a person feels like doing something, driven by any of a plethora of "categorised" emotions (fear, anger, hate, love, joy, etc.), that person tends to be driven towards said activity for some implicit purpose. further deconstruction may make this little exercise excruciatingly detailed, so i'll suffice for now to leave this as a brief assumption thusly: emotions imply purpose, which may be empathic for self or others.

yet therein already lies the possibility that emotion is "abused" - not all empathic intuition necessarily ties in to its assumed purpose directly. sometimes, feeling like doing something may not necessarily mean the action attains what it was intuitively supposed to attain. this is especially true when the drive is an extreme emotion - thus, abuse of emotion. alternatively, such extreme emotion can be said to purify the purpose (or motive) of the action to the point where all other considerations are ignored.

this is why reason is of utmost importance. in fact, humans who function solely on emotion (i.e. make most decision on a whim) are not likely to do very well, all things considered. intuition may make a good leap from assumption to proposition sometimes, but otherwise, its reliability is not grounded. tempering that emotion with reason helps to avoid absurd extreme reactions rather effectively. reason challenges the person to prove the assumptions, to demonstrate veracity, and most importantly, to judge the plausibility of causality in any given situation.

reason thus grants analysis to intuition - a rather potent combination for self-aware creatures to find their way around any environment. unfortunately, there exists a third case: that of reason without emotion. in many situations, emotion allows the person to skip a few steps of analysis, substituting trust, courage, or determination as "proof" of causality/motive/purpose. in such cases, emotions help individuals to gauge other individuals without the need to deconstruct them on the spot. it also allows us to believe firmly in induction (unlike a certain Hume). overanalysis leads to a state of rationality which would appear "irrational" to those who use emotion as a placeholder. hence, bureaucracies and bureaucrats may seem inhuman at times.

so, are emotions rational? given a social context, where webs of meaning intertwine, it would be an excessively laborious task to analyse certain human intricacies (cf. private investigators, investigative journalism, the uncertainty of social sciences), hence substituting the intuitive judgement would not only be rational, but even necessary, for society to continue functioning. doubtless, the desired mix of emotion/reason in any given scenario may not be attained by the present actors - especially if stress levels are excessive (i.e. wars, deadlines, modern capitalist families) - and so many emotion-reason-deliberated outcomes may seem utterly irrational or unpredictable. this lack of calculability, counter-intuitively, should be anticipated, because of the given contexts. there are few ceteris paribus situations (or they are highly improbable) in human agency.

i initially intended just to explore how a mainly emotionally-driven person differs from a mainly reason-driven person, and then to suggest that a balanced application of emotion-reason may be the most efficient - especially in the earlier suggested sequence. however, it seems that the many terms i've skimmed have turned out to be key assumptions which need to be inquired. here is a list of blatant assumptions employed thus far:

• the link between emotion and intuition: are they necessarily tied together? could they be different in practice?
• different types of emotions: these lead to vastly different outcomes. should they still be considered under one header? should there be various classes?
• emotion implying purpose: this is the most unsatisfying claim of all - yet very central. do emotions necessarily imply "purpose"?
• definition of purpose: i use this word as a clear equal to motive and cause. is there a need to fine-tune this usage? should distinctions be drawn?
• the link between reason and "being analytical": is that the only way of using reason? iow, are non-analytical persons less reasonable? what is the precise connection?
  
• similarly for "proof", "demonstration", "veracity", etc. do these words merely sound rational, as opposed to being sui generis aspects of reason?
• reason and rationality: are these two necessarily paired? which causes/leads to which? are they necessary for each other?
• the use of examples need to be more thoroughly thought out, of course. especially "social" examples in lieu of their presumed complexities.
• can emotion or reason be used parsimoniously as categories? can this topic be inquired in a satisfying manner approaching from top to bottom?

kwik kwoth

it's easy to teach - it's difficult to teach with humility.

life is short. and then you die. THANK GOD! (and do it quickly.)

making decisions:
when choosing between 2 bad choices, be a realist.
when choosing between 2 good choices, be an idealist.

if you're lamenting that your life has no meaning,
if you're feeling trapped and everyone's out to get you,
if you're jaded by everything around you,
if you've lost faith in your own country and its people,
if you've given up your dreams...
try migrating.
to a third world country.

(p.s.: just a bunch of random thoughts coming to me during my moment in the bathroom. of course, they're lessons for me, above all. epiphany toilets rule!)

the point of social theory

how does society function?
how do humans interact within certain overarching environments?
what are norms and why do they compel?
why education? why freedom? why Catholicism?
can there be humans with no society?
...does society function?

social theory is [the remarkably serendipitous attempt] to describe, in a language [just the layman term] which is [usually only somewhat barely] internally rational [as opposed to universally rational, or internally irrational, or plain utter gibberish], the causes [as temporarily determined by the philosophical study of causality], or the processes [i.e. chains of causes and effects] which then result in particular social facts [as observed by the theorist to be observed/observable by everyone else, no less].

as already observable, each word [used so laconically] above could be supported by its own literature of formal theory. in other words, for a good sociologist [in the sense that s/he actually understands others hermeneu-... i mean, properly] to begin engaging any text, s/he must be rather linguistically talented [terminologically ill, verbosely endowed, suffer lexophilia to a less-than-annoying degree].

in themselves, social theories are generally composed, through herculean effort, to remain "neutral", "parsimonious", and "valuable". unfortunately [often also purposefully, for humanity's sake, or neurotically], these "ideals" are never standardised [are un-standardizable, indefinite, or simply piss too many people off with endless debate] such that all other serious sociologists [self-professed, self-qualified, or just selfish] would be compelled to critique it to bits. this does not exonerate the failure of the effort, no matter how herculean.

few social theories are truly compatible with one another - their genesis usually being "in response" to some other assumed-defective theory. occasionally, like-minded theorists may put aside their bickering and actually form a "school of thought" to rally behind and support a favourite theory. inconsequentially, said favourite theory does not thus become "canon" in sociology [or most social sciences], but instead, it simply becomes more widely read, greatly expanded ad nauseum, and create its own school of denigrates.

do theories become better? yes they do - to those who think they do. [no they don't - to everyone else.]

do theories advance our understanding of society? in an oblique way, but ultimately someone has to shirk off the old herculean efforts and actually begin formulating a "methodology" [kind of has its own arena of theory, really] to investigate actual social reality [systematically, formally, in some manner satisfying to the editors of would-be journals] before the theory can produce something fulfilling said purpose to non-sociologists. [certain theorists appear completely vindicated through efforts to simply theorise for theorising's sake - sola theoriae.]

where does that leave us - students of social theory? well, what doesn't kill us can only make us stronger. i just hope that those among us who may work on theory in future do something truly "neutral", "parsimonious", and "valuable" with their publications. [my powers of hoping must be phenomenal, however, judging by the social facts available to me in the form of sociology journals. it is akin to madness: doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.]

social theory isn't always intellectual masturbation. [but it almost seems like it.] even then, you don't always need to reach orgasm. [but someone almost always proves relentless in such pursuits.] and ultimately, life moves on. [to other so-called pursuits of less "folly" - as defined by who again?]

existential fatalism! what a way to approach this 15-week module! no no, gerg the pseudo-theory-hater would not appreciate your patronising applause. he would like a good grade instead. the hypocrite.