Self-Criticism and Democracy || John Pesebre

Self-criticism has withstood as one of the enduring ideas of democracy. . . and it might have snowballed with the help of Xtianity.

It is expressed by many community actions in Christianity such as rebuke, admonition, call to repentance, confession of sin etc. It has a continuing story from the Bible such as of the prophets, apostles and Jesus himself. Jesus himself censured pharisees as fellow Jews; Paul rebuked; The prophets warned their own . . . albeit oftentimes without success but nonetheless such prophetic actions were divinely mandated.

For Biboy (February 21, 2014) || John Pesebre

Press your downy cheeks
On my chest
And rest
Till I have gained something
From this small harvest
Of pain and hope

Why #AfterModernity and #neighborology just need to shut up || John Pesebre

It is not hard to think that #AfterModernity is a castaway bastard child of evangelicalism's attempt to create a postmodern marionette in its community. Bastard child because while true postmodernity thrives in self-reference and second guessing its confidence, these emergent "evangelicals" are like over-demanding, over-confident millenials who want to set the tone of how an epoch should behave.
A pomo has a unique sense of insecurity not because of any behavioral crease but an awareness of the yeast of absolutism and coercive effect of metanarratives in finite creatures like you and me. They have experienced the pressure of the abusive corporate West and the discontent in colonial hegemony. A true pomo understands that his mission to complain and to create a motif of incredulity against modernity are rooted in his displeasure on abuses of modernity and not in its contributions to freedom of knowledge (cf. Kant's "Was ist Aufklarung?) and the "affirmation of the ordinary life" (cf. Charles Taylor) and the higher order of knowledge in science (cf. Polanyi) and many more.

Kaso the very thing you least expect to see sa #AfterModernity marionettes (aka postmodernist evangelicals kuno) are the very thing that characterizes them -- over-confident, smug, pedantic and dismissive of the linguistic communities such as those who developed creeds or confessions.

All I can say is that if these marionettes chauffeuring themselves in caravans of a new order of thinking for evangelicals are going to believe that they are not on their way out of town, they are, as David Foster Wallace puts it, no longer --

self-conscious, self-conscious of itself as text, self-conscious of the writer as persona, self-conscious about the effects that narrative had on readers and the fact that the readers probably knew that

and that, as Wallace continues,

a lot of the schticks of post-modernism — irony, cynicism, irreverence — are now part of whatever it is that’s enervating in the culture itself.

Then it's time for these naive but sly modernists called #AfterModernity, to SHUT UP and stop making quasi-tyranical amorphous or nebulous statements and just do what they are good at: shallow #neighborology and social gospelling.

Epal Thots sa Self-Referentiality ng mga Noyp || John Pesebre

 "[Artur] Sandauer traced the problem of self-referentiality from Romantic irony and Byronic auto-irony. . . Sandauer simultaneously linked the origins of self-referentiality in modern prose with the secularization of art, the idea of progress and the potentializing of the creative personality."* 

It will remain to be a realization for much of the Filipino populace (and in particular the Christian) to uncover the value and reproach of self-referentiality -- eto yung ang consciousness mo, ang mga foundation ng morality, ang bracketing mo ng mundo, ay naka reference sa'yo. Nasa sentro ka non. Na secularize siya kaya naman yung humanism niya oftentimes walang real spiritual foundation. Sabi Nietzsche hindi na jan madala kasi "there's a monkey standing in the way." Kung meron ka mang metaphysics, tinitingnan mo lang siya as metaphysical terms, not objects (cf. "metaphysical nominalism," William of Ockham). Ontic na lang siya, hindi na ontological IMHO.

Valuable siya kasi ngayon hindi mo na pwedeng lantarang alisan ng dignity ang individual kasi that individual will reference ang kanyang karapatan na ika nga nung isang pilosofo na si John Rawls na maski estado hindi pdeng alisin. Alam na niya ang potency ng self-reference niya. So pag may na-bully, yung taong tutulong sa nabully -- doctor man o magulang o counselor -- mag-a-appeal yan sa stregnth ng self-referential value sa pagkatao nung na bully para marunong siyang tumayo at mag uphold. If you want this to be even more a collective behavior of a people, pde mo siyang tawaging methodological individualism (f. Max Weber, Ludwig von Mises, Talcott Parsons).

Ang reproach naman is that self-reference can claim to be the foundation or ground ng realidad (metaphysics). Ire-reference niya ang sarili niya tulad ng sinabi ni Henley sa "Invictus" na "I am the master of my faith,/ I am the captain of my soul." So kapag may umaapi sa kanya he will destroy other people by deposing yung umaapi as less ang worth compared sa kanyang self-referential value & dignity. How he does that is true self-aggrandizing or buhat bangko na moral arguments or virtue signalling. Uulanin ka niyan ng moral argument dahil ang pinag uusapan niyo or ang authority ng kausap nila threatens yung kanilang self-referential propositions of worth. Naging atomistic or radical individualist na.

Kinakapitalan ng economics yung una; ng secular man yung pangalawa. By secular here I nuance it in its temporal or time aspect as "here and now" (Latin, "hic et nunc"). Kinakapitalan siya kasi yun ang pundasyon ng kanyang narrative. Naka self-reference ang kanyang meaning-making; how he views existence or being niya at iba pa like relationships, materials, belief in God atbp as self-referentially bolstering. Ini-instrumentalize niya para sa kanyang sarili lahat ng existence -- abstract man yan (like love and virtues) o physical (like wealth, parents, etc). In short naging self-perpetuating invictus or unconquerable soul.

Pero come to think of it saan galing yang hugot na yan ng self-referentiality? Di ba sa consciousness mo din lang naman as you look at the outside world? At san galing yang lingwahe ng cobsciousness mo? Di ba dahil lang sa mga naibigay sa'yo na pamamaraan ng pag-iisip? At dahil di mo rin alam kung san galing at gusto mo ng stable sa tingin mo na pundasyon, you will conceive what the secular age individual will conceive -- SELF-REFERENCE.

So ang moralidad mo, happiness mo, value mo, narrative mo, cultural purpose, etc will all be self-referential.

This is the postmodern condition that has run its course as David Foster Wallace would put it. Dati ang postmodernity helped facilitate the escape from tyranny of structures, language, grand stories, and universality. Ngayon it has become a structure of tyranny where each individual or community tries to enervate and envenom another with their own tyrannical structures, language, grand stories, and universality.

What is the chief end of man?
To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

-------------------------------
* Joanna Grądziel-Wójcik, "Literature’s Perpetuum Mobile, or A Few Words on Self-Referentiality," Forum of Poetics_, (Fall 2015): 86-95.

Jollibee drama || John Pesebre

Among the many advantages ng commercial that revolves around particular cultural themes like family, unrequited love, mga ala-ala, parental authority, etc ay maaring nababago ang inclinations ng isang kultura. By inclination, I mean yung direksyon ng puso at isipan. Ilagay mo yang napaka-intimate na setting na yan sa isang collective context like isang kultura, you will probably see yung cultural inclination na yon will THEN become cultural motions or exercises . . . I hope. Zeitgeist papunta sa Aktionsarten. Kung dati bwisitin sa pag-ibig, ngayon hindi na -- thanks dun sa "Vow" ng Jollibee.

Sa mga pockets of social action na yan nabuo ang maraming tema upang maitaguyod, after the collapse of the ancient Gaeco-Roman empire, ang Western civilization like compassion as social virtue, dignity of the individual, role of women (chivalry), abolitionism, etc. na namana nating demokratikong Pinoy. Themes like that of the Jollibee commercial. Hindi niya lang ibibring up na na i-evaluate ang inclinations ng heart/mind mo, it will naturally move you to visible exercises nung theme. Phronesis ika nga ni Aristotle. Or yung "think about such things" ni Paul sa Philippians 4:8.
Yan ang isang natural outrgrowth ng modern notion ng freedom ng reason (cf. Kant, "Was ist Aufklarung?) -- na yung tema will have its own laissez faire -- yung kalayaan niyang mamuhay at mag grow sa topography ng culture. Ganun daw lumalatag ang aspeto ng kultura sa isang lipunan. Parang yung tatakpan mo yung buong kama mo ng kumot, nag iiba itsura niya.

Ang critique naman na valid din jan ay yung makabuo siya ng culture of industry na we will only be reminded of these themes lang around context of the market and selling, o kung pano nila tayo gustong mag isip. Slowly nade-desensitize tayo to acquire things which either we do not need or destructive sa ating sarili. We became alienated further sa non-market na pag iisip -- yung makipag exchange ng goods ang laman ng kokote natin. All the while thinking na we are making motions derived out of cultural themes.

Ang trope o paghahalintulad na maaring mabuo sa isipan kasi ng tao is either "love=motions to love" or "love = motions to chicken joy." Wala sigurong problema kung from time to time lang kaso napaka pervasive ng effect ng industriya na kultura ang sini-simulate. Maya-maya tataas incidence ng mga health problems. Mamaya wala ka nang sariling bait at nag aantay na lang ng stimulus galing sa merkado para sa iyong kaligayahan. Sabay bili.

Tila baga nasa sosyudad ka ng kontrol.