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.

Push, yes: On the Beth Spangler audition || John Pesebre

Push, yes, push to the breaking point
like there is no day to look ahead
and let Providence give the breath, 
and the air and the dirt on my face.

My voice might crack, but not I
for I will sound my battle cries
till my agonies start to hound me
and my fears yell spit on my ear.

I do not tremble to be a tale
a cautionary tale of failure
because die I might, fall hard I may
but I will rise up, to the Day's bidding.

The worst foes || John Pesebre

(Credit)

too many beaches
too many trenches
too many bandages
a plot you recount
only to blow yourself up
inside a foxhole

the worst foes are those
that fight with you in the foxhole
who wreck your gun
and pull the pin on you

Pesebre: a poem || John Pesebre

(Credit)

a dawn of tears melts me
and i see the the sun tarry
to look at a world of pain
and unrequited love

a world that is awake with tears
and asleep in threat of bad dreams
from freaks, ogres & incubi
no rest for the weary

as that li'l babe in the manger
came to this world as King
yet laid not in wool, but hay
asleep not in a crib, but a trough

He came into this world
but His own knew Him not
accustomed to pain, He labored
to call His own with tears and blood.

-----
* Lucas 2:16 "Así que fueron de prisa y encontraron a María y a José, y al niño que estaba acostado en el PESEBRE."

Important principles when engaging in a discussion || T. Edward Damer

(Credit)

From T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2001), 5-6.

1. The Fallibility Principle

When alternative positions on any disputed issue are under review, each participant in the discussion should acknowledge that possibly none of the positions presented is deserving of acceptance and that, at best, only one of them is true or the most defensible position. Therefore, it is possible that thorough examination of the issue will reveal that one's own initial position is a false or indefensible one.

2. The Truth-Seeking Principle

Each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to ex­amine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in the positions of others, and allow other participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any position held with regard to any disputed issue.

3. The Clarity Principle

The formulations of all positions, defenses, and attacks should be free of any kind of lin­guistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.

4. The Burden of Proof Principle

The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position.

5. The Principle of Charity

If a participant's argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be expressed in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer. If there is any question about that intention or about implicit parts of the argument, the arguer should be given the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation.

6. The Relevance Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to set forth only reasons that are directly related to the merit of the position at issue.

7. The Acceptability Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to use reasons that are mutually acceptable to the participants and that meet standard criteria of acceptability.

8. The Sufficiency Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide rea­sons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the acceptance of the conclusion.

9. The Rebuttal Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or the position it supports and to the strongest argument on the other side of the issue.

10. The Resolution Principle

An issue should be considered resolved if the proponent for one of the alternative posi­tions successfully defends that position by presenting an argument that uses relevant and accept­able premises that together provide sufficient grounds to support the conclusion and provides an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or position at issue. Unless one can demonstrate that these conditions have not been met, one should accept the conclusion of the suc­cessful argument and consider the issue, for all practical purposes, to be settled. In the absence of a successful argument for any of the alternative positions, one is obligated to accept the position that is supported by the best of the good arguments presented.

11. The Suspension of Judgment Principle

If no position comes close to being successfully defended, or if two or more positions seem to be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue. If practical considerations seem to require an immediate decision, one should weigh the relative risks of gain or loss connected with the consequences of suspending judgment and decide the issue on those grounds.

12. The Reconsideration Principle

If a successful or at least good argument for a position is subsequently found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new doubts about the merit of that position, one is obligated to reopen the issue for further consideration and resolution.
The first three of these principles are commonly regarded as standard prin­ciples of intellectual inquiry. They are almost universally understood as underlying our very participation in serious discussion.

Upon reading Andrew Sullivan's "I Used to be a Human Being" || John Pesebre

The first thing I did
after reading Sully's NYmag piece
was go to our fridge
and take out everything
esp those pieces of cereal
stuck inside the fridge drawer;
then I got a good cloth
and scrubbed the hell out of it,

until the fridge was as dead silent

and clean.

Then I picked all the real food
and slowly put them in
making a mental note where
a potato for example
would direct me to
gratitude


read Andrew Sullivan's "I Used to be a Human Being".

#neighborology and the other side of the Anabaptists || John Pesebre

While many in recent memory, especially progressivist, postmodern evangelicals have attempted to whip on Protestantism with a moral argument such as this one, these arguments serve as propaganda and characterizations that are ill-informed or even motivated to show the entire picture.

The old Anabaptists were not your typical helpless old widow in one corner.

One of them Thomas Muntzer wrote to Martin Luther, "I would like to smell your frying carcass." Dr. Peter Hammond writes,
"In 1525, Muntzer was successful in rousing up many of the peasants of central Germany in the bloody, so-called Peasants Revolt, which it should be noted attracted several nobles to his side. "Let your swords be ever-warm with blood!" Muntzer exhorted his faithful followers. Muntzer's army of Anabaptists struck terror throughout the countryside, robbing, burning and destroying the property of the faithful, killing many thousands."

In the _Socialist Phenomenon_, Igor Shaferavich writes,
"Armed Anabaptists broke into houses and drove out everyone who was unwilling to accept second baptism. Winter was drawing to a close; it was a stormy day and wet snow was falling. An eyewitness account describes crowds of expelled citizens walking through the knee-deep snow. They had not been allowed even to take warm clothing with them. Women carrying children in their arms, old men leaning on staffs. At the city gate they were robbed once more."

So if ever you would see people such as those belonging to the postmodern wing of Philippine evangelicalism like #neighborology issue a moral argument such as this one, ask him, "Are you presenting the entire picture or are you characterizing based on selective information?"

Also, if one would allege that the Anabaptist deaths were carried out by Protestants, one would have to account why many of them perished under King Ferdinand of Austria who was a Holy Roman Emperor.

In his book Mennonites in Europe (Amazon), John Horsch writes,

[Ferdinand] commissioned a company of executioners to root out the Anabaptist faith in his lands. Those who were overtaken in the highways of fields were killed with the sword, others were dragged out of their houses and hanged on the door posts. Most of them had gone into hiding in the woods and mountains. In a forest near Lengbach seventeen were put to death. 

In the province of Swabia, in South Germany, four hundred mounted soldiers were, in 1528, sent out to put to death all Anabaptists on whom they could lay hands. Somewhat later the number of soldiers so commissioned was increased to eight hundred, and then to one thousand.

In various provinces an imperial provost marshal by the name of Berthold Aichele, with his assistants, put many Anabaptists to death. On Christmas day, 1531, he drove seventeen men and women into a farmhouse in Württemberg and burned the building together with the inmates. 

Three hundred and fifty Anabaptists were executed in the Palatinate before the year 1530.  

At Ensisheim, "the slaughterhouse of Alsace," as it was called, six hundred were killed within a few years. 

Within six weeks thirty-seven were burned, drowned, or beheaded at Linz, in Austria. 

In the town of Kitzbüchl in the Tyrol, sixty-eight were executed in one year.  

Two hundred and ten or more, were burned in the valley of the Inn River. 

The number of Anabaptist martyrs in the Tyrol and Görz, was estimated at one thousand at the end of the year 1531.

for more information on this go to "Were Anabaptists Persecuted for Their Faith" by Dr. William Hammond