Du30 may be right after all . . .

[Photo credit: My Proof of Heaven, by Eben Alexander]

[Photo credit: My Proof of Heaven, by Eben Alexander]

By Paul Lazo

After reading an article about US President Donald Trump, I suddenly had a sense that there is “light” at the end of the tunnel. Not that I have ever failed to see a “light;” but at least the light seems brighter now. I will attempt to summarize my views of the article whose link I appended at the end of this post.

I’d like to start by taking a step backwards and looking at our situation relative to the progress of humanity from a macro perspective. Humanity as a whole, at least I believe so, is progressing to the utopia of shared everything, abundance, peace and harmony. The advances in technology, Artificial Intelligence, et.al, will completely change our notion of work and how we relate to each other. It will allow humanity to evolve to abundance for all, peace and harmony. Some of you may not believe what I am saying, but I will still ask that you keep reading – no worries if you stop – and say Paul is full of B*. I feel it is important that I share some of my crazy notions.

Allow me to digress for a moment by saying that I am Catholic (I promise I will not proselytize) and I pray the Our Father 2 or 3 times a day, maybe more. More than 10 years ago, a colleague of mine expressed his view on the verse, “…Your Kingdom Come, Your will be done, on Earth as it is in heaven.” He said that means that Heaven is here on Earth – of course that means we have to do God’s will, but that is not the point I want to discuss. The point is Heaven is not something “up there.” Heaven is here on Earth.

Having said that, let’s get back to how President Duterte, or “Du30“, plays a role in this. Our biggest struggle to create “Heaven on Earth” is our past. We have to be able to think and act in ways that do not come easy to us because of our past. Du30, I believe represents the worst of our past. Although his slogan of change is coming seems to say the exact opposite, his actions and statements point to the past, in fact so far into the past that it appears he is willing to become part of China.

Now, how can Du30 act as a catalyst to propel us forward towards abundance for all, peace and harmony?

At the rate he is going, he will eventually lay open all that is preventing us from moving forward. He will expose corruption. He will expose how being a victim and always pointing fingers at others is the answer. I can list so much more.

But, maybe that is exactly what we need.

As a people, we still have to confront our corruption and expose it for what it is. As a people, we still have to be able to look ourselves in the mirror and say “Damn, Paul, that was your fault!” We have to expose our habit of refusing to see the plight of the poor and our narcissistic behavior of “me first,” or crab mentality as others might say. Du30 will not clean this up. Instead he will display these behaviors to such a degree that I hope we will wake up as a people and realize that yes, Heaven is here on Earth, but we have to face the worst of ourselves and fix that first.

As promised here is the link to the article about President Trump: The Positive Reframe: Why Trump’s Inauguration is Not the Beginning of an Era — but the End

 

Comments
115 Responses to “Du30 may be right after all . . .”
  1. rub says:

    Agree. I support the war on drugs, the PNP cleansing, the cleaing of MM streets at any cost.

  2. Zen says:

    Ha, ha, ha. I call this the gospel of the ‘un’ righteous as lived by a vain, narcissistic fool ( I mean Duterte). It is too much for me to bear arguing and so I rest my case.

  3. Grammy says:

    This smacks of Adobo Chronicles and I hope it works. By golly.

  4. josephivo says:

    And who will drive this learning experience, polish the mirror?

    The press secretaries and their virtual armies? The turncoat politicians? The bubble dwelling elite? The “leading by example” SUV driving bishops? Or just we on our sentimental blog?

  5. madlanglupa says:

    Sometimes the worst self-righteous BOSS only manages to generate greater discontent and inspire to do something better, by forcing people to rethink their values and ask themselves why this malignancy in the leadership was allowed to happen in the first place?

  6. This requires a certain amount of awareness/self-awareness. We are plagued by our misguided educational system.

  7. “He is on hand to reassure us that we are merely seeing the pendulum swing back for a time. Yet he also wisely counselled that this was needed because the initial move forward had been blind to a range of crucial insights.

    All sides on a matter will contain important truths lodged amidst exaggerations, and bombast – yet will eventually be sifted through the wisdom of time.

    …The dark moments aren’t the end, they’re a challenging but even in some ways necessary part of an antithesis that will – eventually – locate a wiser point of synthesis.”

    ============

    • edgar lores says:

      *******
      Without the religious element, the logic of this essay is indeed that of dialectical materialism.

      The fallacy is that the binary of thesis and antithesis and their synthesis never occurs as expected. The antithesis of the thesis of feudalism was supposed to be capitalism, and the antithesis of the thesis of capitalism was supposed to be Marxism. To all intents and purposes, Marxism is dead, and the evolutionary process is still stuck at capitalism.
      *****

      • I actually just stumbled upon the said concept a few days ago. Though probably was an unknowing proponent of it already way before. haha

        Would also agree that it also seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy of some sorts. However, your reply seems to imply that expecting a synthesis is wrong? Though thinking about it more, I’d also have to agree with it to some extent as disagreeing may imply that the anti-thesis/thesis are the only things necessary for a synthesis. That is surely wrong as there are of course other factors. But to attempt to vocalize my take on it, the anti-thesis/thesis would still surely contribute a lot in calibrating the positions of both sides, for a better position.

        For your example about Capitalism and Marxism then being stuck at the former, I’d have to disagree as it seems to actually be a work in progress, if not already made. Correct me if I’m wrong but we are actually moving towards socialism at present? The synthesis of the Capitalism/Marxism dielectic?

        So it seems to raise an interesting question… What could be the next anti-thesis if assuming that socialism is the current thesis? Looking at the present, populism is the new anti-thesis. So what could be the new synthesis?

        • edgar lores says:

          *******
          Marxism was supposed to be the synthesis of Feudalism and Capitalism.

          And Marxism was supposed to be the ultimate synthesis. Marxism’s end was supposed to be absolute, the withering of the state, a worker’s paradise.

          But as I said, while the philosophy is attractive, it is simplistic, mainly because it conjugates binaries.

          1. There are many schools of philosophy, economics, religion, ethics, science, etc.

          2. There are categories in which for each thesis there is no antithesis. Speaking of gender, there is primarily male and female, but many variations in between. There can be an asexual reproduction.

          3. And progression is not necessarily the synthesis of two factors. It may be non-linear in that other factors, stochastic factors, come into play.
          *****

          • Agree with all your points. But of course, it shouldn’t probably be treated as a panacea. But it is surely still a great way to get an estimate between views? Though thinking about it now, it does seem to be no different from weighing the pro/cons, which is of course always good. But then again the crucial difference is probably that one should /first/ try to get as close to the middle as possible then just work your way from there? And in getting to the middle, it probably can’t be denied that people will always have some biases. And personally, the best why to overcome most of it is to try and disprove one’s own view and prove the other, rather than proving one’s own view and disproving the other? Well, that is how I try to process the thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis stuff anyways.

            • “What could be the next anti-thesis if assuming that socialism is the current thesis? Looking at the present, populism is the new anti-thesis. So what could be the new synthesis?”

              ip,

              You might want to pick jp’s experience re this topic further , I’m not fully divested as jp is , ie. I still go to McDonald’s and Walmart for stuff, so my experience is limited, if not vicarious.

              But the answers to your questions, is in jp’s personal experiences re this subject.

              You might also want to Google and peruse thru “the ArchDruid Report”.

              And just to add some context here, May Day is celebrated not so much because of Socialism or Marxism, but because of all the collective bargaining fights that occurred over here first,

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair (so all that stuff was tested and rejected here in America, if there’s any other anti-thesis, synthesis to be had, most probably it’ll come from America 😉 , so start picking jp’s brain on this ).

  8. andrewlim8 says:

    This essay is a Jedi mind trick, coming from the dark side. 🙂

    What you are arguing, including the attached Trump article is that the current wielders of power will give rise to positive changes in the future, BUT ONLY after much havoc has been wreaked upon society.

    But you are misleading the readers by arguing “DU30 may be right after all” . He is not and never was, never will be right, but something good will arise after all the chaos and misery these populists create. And that will come from the resistance, not from the populists.

  9. Bert says:

    I know I am dense, and so I need a little help from the author of this article, Mr. Paul Lazo, if he be kind enough to indulge me. I’ve read this piece of his for the upteenth times and still don’t get why President Duterte is right after all as the title implies.. I promise Mr. Lazo a free trip to my paradise Pacific island in Bicol if he can explain it to me in a more simple term I can understand.

    May I ask this question: President Duterte is right about what?

    • a distant observer says:

      I second that.
      I however can’t offer to the author of this article an invitation to a paradisiac island in Bicol 😉

    • The parallel link about Trump helps explain the thesis statement. Manong Herrera and Gege chemrock got the same gist as I have. It all comes to shame. PRD and Trump shame us by displaying our “worst” face for everybody to see. FilAms are surely doing a double take and donning their thinking caps because of the double whammy. There is nowhere to run so might as well be a change agent and fight to right both tilting ships.

      Paul has the final say as to your question though.

      • Bert says:

        JP, is that an admission on your part that the election of Trump as president a good thing for America and Duterte’s for the Philippines?

        If the answer is yes and they’re right after all, then why and what are you guys complaining about them?

        • Is being shamed good for anybody? The answer is NO. I do not need shaming in order to do the right thing but it appears that some people do as evidenced by their popularity. For the record, I did not vote for them. There is nothing wrong with telling it as it is and exercising our freedom of speech.

    • Paul Angelo Lazo says:

      Hi Bert, Thank you for asking. Maybe I can

      • Bert says:

        Good, Paul, thanks. I will be prepping my boat that will take us to my paradise Pacific island in Bicol. This coming summertime (April, May, June, July) is the best period of the year for snorkeling. Just bring along a good quality Speedo swim googles and we will be off to an exciting adventure. Hehehe, inggit si karl.

    • Paul Angelo Lazo says:

      Hi Bert, sorry for the error in the first “cut” reply. Let’s see if I can use a more personal analogy. If we were to graph our lives, it most cases, it would look like a roller coaster ride. At least mine does. What is indicative of the graph is that before we reach a new peak, we usually find ourselves in a low point in our lives. When we were experiencing the low point, we feel like it is the end of the world (Du30). However, once we manage to build up again and reach a higher peak, we look back at the low point and say to ourselves, maybe it is good that I had to go through the low point other wise I would have never reached this new high point. There is a Japanese saying that goes something like this. “We learn little from victory, much from defeat.” Du30 may be a “defeat,” however, we as a people can learn much from it. Going back to your question “President Duterte maybe right after all.” Maybe the title could have been more pointed,, Maybe I should have said, “President Duterte may be right for us (Filipinos) after all.”

      • Bert says:

        I never reneged on my promise, Paul. If you want me to take on that promise please ask our dear Joe here for my email address and I will be glad to hear more from you.

    • a distant observer says:

      Haha NHerrera, I always love your graphical depictions. This sarcastic one made me laugh.

    • stpaul says:

      😀 ROFL

    • NHerrera says:

      DO and stpaul,

      Thank you for your replies.

      I suppose the article of Paul Lazo can be read in different ways — as the varied comments here at TSH reveal. In my case, it was not meant as sarcasm, but rather a short note on what I believe was the message behind Paul’s article.

      The following item is vicarious. I note that in portrayal or stories of psychiatrists and their patients, the healing of the patients comes about only after the patients realized the ugly things remaining subconscious in their minds, brought to “light” by the psychiatrists — to use the word in Paul’s article. As I said, it is vicarious. Also, I may have watched a lot of movies on the subject. 🙂

      • a distant observer says:

        Thanks for the clarifications NHerrera. As you noted in an other comment on this article: “One gets from his article what one gets from reading the leaves in the tea — depending on one’s orientation”.

      • stpaul says:

        Thank you Sir NH.

        The social cost of EJKs is incalculable for this and the next generations to come. “This is not who we are (Justice Leonen).” We have blood in our hands if we don’t lift a finger. Cleansing with our poor as the sacrificial lambs is not true reform/cleansing.

  10. chemrock says:

    I have difficulty understanding this article, no offence meant, Paul.

    On one level is this a mind freak thing as Andrew suggest.

    On the other hand, is this sweet innocent view that Du30 represents everything that is bad in our past and by putting it all on display, we see our bad and thus we move forward so in his unintended way, Du30 becomes the catalyst for change. I like to see the good in people so I’ll assume this is the viewpoint.

    Shakers and movers in a society move a country along. If the shakers and movers are badass, sorry for the country. The damage that will be done takes years to recover. Marcos is long gone, but many of his henchmen and cronies are still embedded in our institutions and society and trying to make monkeys out of us to this day.

  11. a distant observer says:

    Paul, I can’t agree with your notion that “heaven is here on earth”. The verse you cited says “…Your Kingdom Come, Your will be done, on Earth as it is in heaven.”
    It doesn’t say that heaven will be here on earth, but that his kingdom will be here on earth, which is a subtle yet huge difference. As an observant Catholic, you probably see the difference. To put it in Christian terminology: This earth is full of pain, limitations and temptations because Satan is still allowed to play his games. This however is not true for heaven.

    • popoy del r cartanio says:

      IN praying over a sick person, with my hand
      on his/her forehead I ask our brains to say
      Silently together: “Lord, I know you are in heaven.
      I worship your name. To your kingdom I will come.
      Your will on me shall be done here on earth
      As it shall be in heaven. Forgive my wrongs as I
      Forgive those who have done me wrong . . . .”
      Done it only a few times, brain to brain
      Acceptance is a WOW. .

    • Paul Angelo Lazo says:

      Maybe, I am a crazy Catholic but “This earth is full of pain, limitations and temptations because Satan is still allowed to play his games.” Implies that Satan is an external force when I believe in reality Satan is a creation of man. When the Lord gave us free will He knew, we would create Satan and He knows that in the end the one’s who will conquer Satan is not him but us. The notion is similar to the idea that we have to find someone to blame for our woes. When we do conquer Satan, we will have Heaven on Earth and this is achieved by being able to define and admit who our Satan is or are. We have to look at the mirror and see how black our souls are to be able to defeat the blackness.

  12. edgar lores says:

    *******
    1. This is a tricky piece.

    2. It invokes the will of God and positions Duterte as part of God’s plan.

    3. The theological basis is Matthew 6:10 which forms part of the Lord’s Prayer: ”Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.”

    3.1. It is assumed that from this verse comes the concept of an interventionist God (or divine providence) that intervenes in human affairs. Not all Christians believe in the concept. There are those who believe that God granted mankind free will.

    3.2. I have four main difficulties with the concept of an interventionist God:

    3.2.1. The problem of evil. If God is omnipotent and is the author of Good then he must also the author of Evil. Whether omnipotent or not, he is either an underachiever or a sadist.

    3.2.2. The problem of miracles. If God intervenes – regularly or randomly – then everything would be arbitrary and science is then unacceptable. To paraphrase Einstein, God does play dice with the universe.

    3.2.3. The problem of predestination. If God’s causality is the same as worldly causality, then we are not free agents. What is the use of effort when all things shall come to pass as ordained?

    3.2.4. The problem of personal responsibility. Why should any person be accountable for his actions as we are all simply agents of God’s will? As Shakespeare wrote, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women are merely players…”

    4. Additionally, there are difficulties with the Lord’s Prayer.

    4.1. The quoted verse from the Lord’s Prayer contains several “petitions” of which only two are cited.

    o “Thy kingdom come” Is referred to as the second petition.
    o “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” is referred to as the third petition.

    4.2. The third petition only appears in the Gospel of Matthew. It does not appear in the version of the Lord’s Prayer in the Gospel of Luke. The Lord’s Prayer itself does not appear in the Gospel of Mark. It is not mentioned in John.

    4.3. The Prayer does not also appear in the non-canonical (Gnostic) Gospel of Thomas.

    4.4. Important: The third petition is just that – a request. The entire Prayer is a request (or a series of requests). The petition is NOT a statement or a claim that God’s will is being exercised on earth. It is simply an invitation, a wish, for things to be done on earth as they are in heaven.
    *****

  13. Grace Lim Reyes says:

    If this kind of argument were to prosper, I would believe that Filipinos are a masochistic lot, wanting to inflict pain upon themselves just to see the light. The assumption that DU30 will expose the negative side of being Filipinos and wake us all up is a bit absurd. Aren’t we all thinking creatures that could discern, analyze, sort out the right from wrong? If it takes somebody else to make that wake up call, then we fall into the same trap of not taking responsibility. It is being lazy and waiting for the fruit to drop from the tree. We must be proactive and not regress into the surrealistic and alternative reality that some people would want to ram down our throats!

  14. Kamote Procopio says:

    Misleading title but I agree on the last paragraphs.
    Filipinos may really need to experience this shaming and suffering before reacting or changing for the better.

  15. The Philippines is Mindanao, as Mindanao is the Philippines… DU30 is right in a sense that malls and the internet have been like Lotus to the Lotus Eaters,

    Grace Lim Reyes described her recent trips to the city, where now she’s scared, where before she wasn’t;

    When I was there all these elements, which Ms. Reyes described were already present , so how is it that I felt and saw this, but she only is seeing it now?

    the 3rd world is the 3rd world, I think there was an illusion of 2nd or 1st world , that blinded most Filipinos.

    OR Maybe it only occurred at night 10 years ago , but now it’s in the day light. So in a sense DU30 was right, he brought reality to the front doors of every Filipino—- ‘we are still very much 3rd world’.

    (that’s how i read this article by Mr. Lazo 😉 )

    • This is actually something that I’ve been wanting to ask ever since the issue with the police and how many seem to imply that the current admin is to be blamed for it. But since this is here already, let me forego tact and bump it up. 🙂

      So to make it brief:
      If the whole Duterte thing didn’t happen, would people be calling for a restructuring and a cleansing of the PNP? Did it really appear overnight? Or was it actually already there? Is it not that important?

      Probably same with drugs? As people are also saying that there should be more rehab, well, would you have asked for more rehabs if the current admin didn’t act like they did? To use one situation: People mostly opposed to Duterte seem to have chided him for saying that 1-B pesos could have been used for feeding the hungry, though it was still actually allocated for rehab. So to put it into perspective: would 1-B pesos be provided for drug rehab if, as to quote NHerrera, ‘the veneer wasn’t scratched away?

      Or to make all these much briefer:
      Would you be yearning for the solutions that you want if the problems “didn’t happen”?

      ===

      And as for some other random musings: If you give the people prone to abuse more power and then they abuse it unabashed, could you not use it against them so that they can be put in their place? Given that Duterte shows some Machiavellian tendencies, could this be a ploy to bait and implicate people much higher up the ladder?

      To quote Dumlao, the guy behind the Korean kidnap-slay, when he was asked to tell the truth:

      “Hindi niyo sila kaya. […] Ang dami nila.”
      [You can’t (won’t be able to) handle them. […] They are many.]

      http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/598081/news/nation/rafael-dumlao-says-pnp-can-t-destroy-group-behind-jee-kidnap-slay-nbsp-glenn-dumlao

      So isn’t this is actually a good chance to make some reforms? To try to put it into perspective again: For the US, it just took days for people to concretely stand up to oppression. For the PH, it took months. (Yes, call me a hypocrite for using the ‘O’-word.)

      Heard lots of people wanting to offer free legal aid for victims of social media harassment. Even had some media coverage for it. But for the drug war victims? Really not much. (Except for the recent one that provided a concrete move. Not just general criticisms.).

      As Duterte said again and again and again: “FIle a case.”

      So where are they? Why no coverage?

      (There was this one but I also don’t have any updates about it.)
      http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/799884/pasay-cops-who-shot-father-son-face-raps

      ====

      I am open for corrections, castigations, or any other info. But I would like to apologize in advance as the arguments above are probably amoral, maybe even “unintellectual” at worst. As said above, I’m foregoing tact. So again, I’d like to apologize in advance.

      But do note that this kind of view is probably not just my own as it is probably shared by many other people. I’m just hoping that this could lead to some synthesis between the thesis and the anti-thesis?

  16. Oldmaninla says:

    DU30 is like a farmer, who will plow the field of the Philippines, till the soil, uproots the grass, so the next farmer group can plant the good rice for better tomorrow. DU30 will turn, clean drugs, corruption and crime, prepare the system for the next generation of Filipino generation.

    I see the natural process of preparing the land for planting good crops….

    By the old man

    • cwl says:

      The trouble is Duterte is not that kind of farmer.
      Clean drugs? ( the anti-drug is going nowhere except the 7,000 killed and the shame it brought to PNP after police scalawags use the war as cover to kidnap and strangle a korean inside Camp Crame) Corruption ? ( Not until he kill his brods involved in BI bribery) Prepare the system for the next generation? ( what system? he and his cohorts even look like amateurs in trying to destroy the democratic system they abhor)

    • I like farming analogies. There is some truth to what you said about PRD preparing the land for the next generation. I never doubted that the end he has in mind is supposed to benefit Filipinos but the means is highly questionable. I liken it to using harmful chemicals to eradicate the weeds (EJK), utilizing heavy machineries to erode the soil (PNP) and planting the wrong cover crops (evidence such as guns and shabu sachet) to nourish the soil. The end product will likely be a toxic crop.

      There is nothing natural about killing the downtrodden like sacrificial lambs for a bountiful but pernicious harvest.

    • Oldmaninla says:

      With all the misgivings, imperfections, lawlessness, the Philippines, as I see and watch, is undergoing a turmultous period seeking to change. Such was nations history in the making in the past in Europe, America and China, war and hardships before it precipitated to be a successful progressive nation. The past history of Southeast Asia nations, (except the democratic Philippines), these nations, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea started authoritarian governments, now progressive democracy. Japan is monarchy, now still monarchy-democracy, Hongkong is English authoritarian, now China protectorate-democracy.

      I used the farmer symbolic planting rice as a simple illustration, that before a successful bountiful rice harvest, the farmer has to turn the soil, uproots the weeds and grass, kill the insects and rats that destroy the crops, before planting will begin. Such is the natural process if democracy will eventually work in the Philippines.

      Change is the natural constant that is inimitable, this is the demand of our kabayan Filipinos during the last election. Is DU30 perfect leader?, I don’t think so. Was there a perfect leader before?

      America has American revolution and civil war, before republic-democracy. China has Mao destruction before Dengxiaping successful reform.

      Our kababayan Filipinos now is asking for change! Only Philippines history will tell later ……

      Meanwhile, like the imperfect farmer, he has to dream and plow the soil, prepare for planting soon.

      • chemrock says:

        Oldmnl
        The idea that a fascist thuggish short wired leader with populist ideologies who showed the populace their past negativities by giving them more of what they hated can move a country forward is a fallacy not rooted in world history. You might want to check with or inhouse historian, Irineo.

        A country progresses on the back of a good capable dedicated leadership who has a vision for the country, who maps out goals, plans how to reach those goals, sells that idea to and colesce the people behind them, and work hard at executing their tasks without fear or favour.

        • a distant observer says:

          You speak my mind chemrock…

        • Paul Angelo Lazo says:

          Food for your thoughts. Japan and Germany and much of Europe were able to prosper because they were razed to the ground during World War 2. Good men pushed their countries forward, but they were built on ashes. The Philippines after World War 2 was headed in the that direction as well. A direction of prosperity, but alas, we all know what happened in the 70’s .

    • Thea says:

      There are alternative ways to farm. If the farmer wants to lace poison on crops, just spray it with strong insecticides,herbicides and poisonous fertilizers to systematically kill the consumers. If the farmer believes that chemicals is not the only way to produce safe crops, he will sow his land with patience and devotion. Understand the farm and all its creatures and contribute to well-being of the consumers.

    • Bert says:

      He’s a farmer alright, planting corpses on his killing farm here and there and everywhere, believing perhaps that they’re good organic fertilizer.

  17. J. Bondurant says:

    Actually, that anonymous American government official who said that the Philippines is a nation of several million cowards and one S.O.B. is the one who was right.

  18. Duterte’s mindset is equivalent to the mindset of MOST Filipinos. Chemrock once mentioned the “barangay mind”. Getting to understand and run a CITY like Davao is a Great Leap Forward for such a mind. A COUNTRY is way too much – this is what Duterte’s barangay mind is learning now.

    Most Filipinos are conquered islanders and villagers, only a small percentage truly grasp the abstractions the foreign conquerors brought. Some only repeat them without true understanding, like Pacquiao misquoting the Bible, rule of law, justice and democracy is not grasped by most.

    The pain of realizing what doesn’t work – with a “real Filipino” trying it out and no elites seen as “foreign” to blame this time – may yet bring theory and practice closer together within Filipinos.

    • Oldmaninla says:

      Irineo, you hit home who are we! Barangay mind, islanders and villagers, democracy is not grasped by most,

      I’ll add sultanates islanders and astronisians, mixed with Chinoy traders and Spanish conquistadores, hacienderos…….

      This is the truth of who we are………Filipino is derivative from Filipe of Spain..started 1550.

  19. Let there be light! The MABINI lawyers are back! Renamed “Artikulo Tres” for Article 3 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights- “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” They are slated to bring justice to the EJK victims and their families.

    http://news.abs-cbn.com/focus/01/31/17/artikulo-tres-lawyers-vow-to-seek-justice-for-drug-war-victims

    • karlgarcia says:

      Not too long ago the MABINI lawyers were stuck to Binay’s name. It is nice to know that they are now fighting the good fight.

    • NHerrera says:

      Juana, karl:

      The MABINI lawyers seems to have re-discovered themselves under the new name of “‘Artikulo Tres.” Their championing Binay, a colleague in MABINI, was a big letdown, I agree.

    • madlanglupa says:

      We’re living now in interesting times. Old warriors have arisen to fight once more alongside with the young.

  20. Thea says:

    Geez, are we saying we have to suffer to see heaven? That Filipinos are blessed because they still can feast on simple things despite the cruelties of nature and her government? I say, never a man short of values and full of craziness will become correct. Are we trying to see correctness from old evil? We are not wearing wigs yet.

  21. Spoiler: The report below is about EJK and how PNP personnel are allegedly paid at their HQ for Tokhang and buy-bust hits and where vigilantes are supposedly getting kill orders and their pay. Cupin’s article at Rappler led me to the link:

    http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/if-you-are-poor-you-are-killed-extrajudicial-executions-in-the-philippines-war-on-drugs

    • Thea says:

      Perhaps, there was some truth on what a policeman told me before the election. That some policemen and funeral owners will get rich.

  22. NHerrera says:

    I note that especially lately the largest Philippine Broadsheet has found its voice once more, in keeping with its motto: Balanced News + Fearless Views.

    Today’s Editorial — Time of reckoning — is rather apt and consistent with the message in the article of Paul Lazo.

    http://opinion.inquirer.net/101304/time-of-reckoning-3#ixzz4XOjLe600

    My comments:

    1. Aside from DUI (Death Under Investigation) we have another addition to the local lexicon: Kipo or “killed in police operations.”

    2. I am being charitable here. Does it take the killing of the Korean Jee Ick Joo — a good man, a person without any criminal dealings, a friend to Filipinos and a long-time resident in the Philippines — for the ugly side of PNP to be revealed to President Duterte before he orders General Bato to disband all Anti-Illegal Drug Groups and focus instead on the cleansing of the “40 percent” corrupt PNP.

    3. Senator Lacson is right. Cleansing of PNP should have been done before the campaign on Anti-illegal Drugs.

    • NHerrera says:

      If I may add:

      The order of PRD on the AIDG disbandment and the cleansing of PNP is expected to decrease (to zero?) the rate of Kipo victims. But while that may be the effect, there is negative implication in the occurrence rate of any of these mutually exclusive cases:

      1. DUI DUIo

      Go figure.

      • NHerrera says:

        Oops that did not come out right.

        If I may add:

        The order of PRD on the AIDG disbandment and the cleansing of PNP is expected to decrease (to zero?) the rate of Kipo victims. But while that may be the effect, there is negative implication in the occurrence rate of any of these mutually exclusive cases:

        1. DUI DUIo

        Go figure.

      • NHerrera says:

        Trying this again

        If I may add:

        The order of PRD on the AIDG disbandment and the cleansing of PNP is expected to decrease (to zero?) the rate of Kipo victims. But while that may be the effect, there is negative implication in the occurrence rate of any of these mutually exclusive cases:

        1. DUI less than DUIo = status before the order
        2. DUI equal to DUIo
        3. DUI greater than DUIo

        Go figure.

        • NHerrera says:

          Nota bene

          Using the mathematical symbol for less than; equal to; and greater than consecutively distorts one’s notes in the comment box. I will be careful next time. Sorry Joe/ Paul for taking up space.

  23. gerverg1885 says:

    “his actions and statements point to the past” aptly describes that infamous past where Marcos and his loyalists reigned supreme and robbed the country blind while killings occurred with regular impunity.

    Du30s actions and statements now point to a bleak future of retrogression. Utopia of shared everything is unachievable because only his minions who continue to spread lies and disinformation continue to follow and believe him.

    Peace and harmony, at the rate it is going, is easy to promise but in what direction is his leadership headed to with the unabated killings would be anybody’s wild guess.

  24. josephivo says:

    Kepner Tregoe taught us long time ago to describe a situation from 2 sides, what it is and what it is not. Often one can learn more from the “is not” side. And this is what you suggest, I guess: When talking about good governance we better learn from Du30, he has a lot to tell about the “is not” side.

  25. https://journals.sub.uni-hamburg.de/giga/jsaa/article/view/1011/1016

    Curato, Nicole (2016), Politics of Anxiety, Politics of Hope: Penal Populism and Duterte’s Rise to Power, in: Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 35, 3, 91–109.

    As the president’s catalogue of gaffes grows longer, his level of public support remains solid, manifested by a 91 per cent trust rating during his first week in office (Pulse Asia Research 2016a). A political economy perspective suggests that Duterte’s popularity comes from a frustrated middle class that has been excluded from the Philippines’ economic gains in the past six years. Duterte’s politics of “I will” holds the promise of swifter delivery of services that are much needed in urban centres with crumbling public infrastructure. Others have taken a less charitable view and warned against the emergence of a fascist movement

  26. Francis says:

    Far easier for that self-reflection to occur in the past than now. Gossip. Print. A few channels of communication and information—a few channels of lies. Now? Internet. Many—some might even say countless—channels of communication and information. And lies.

    Hypothesis: People couldn’t be trapped in their own bubbles of belief and half-truth then because friend or foe—not that they shared the same channels of communication, but that the few channels didn’t overwhelm them. So intuition was useful and pragmatism—with the lack of information—expected. Now? Too many channels of communication and we drown in data and info. Intuition is poor in helping to parse info about an increasingly complex society—racism intuitive but not correct, for instance. Pragmatism is passe; with abundance of information, easy to be an armchair ideologue especially with the wonderful pairing of confirmation bias and Google.

    Also worsening situation—postmodernism. No philosophical expert—but people completely taking the wrong lessons and worst aspects of it. Postmodernism: everything is subjective. Many thought it meant: experts are just as biased as I–the common man–am, my opinions are just as valid–no, more valid–than this “expert” who does not know how I feel. Pigheaded. Should be: I am flawed and so is the expert, so we should all be tolerant of each other in the spirit of humility—for we are all humble before the ineffability of the Truth.

    Condition for the possibility of self-reflection arising from Trump and Duterte failings as pointed out in the article: intellectual empathy. Lots of it, especially in a Twitter-rant-obsessed world that so fetishes fierceness and wit. Only way to transcend the thought bubbles which I cannot think of anyway of overcoming. And only way to live with the thought bubbles is if we consider each other as Filipinos–as brothers and sisters–despite all partisan differences.

  27. NHerrera says:

    THE SLOW BOAT TO CHINA

    This Sandiganbayan decision, if made not long after the SC decided to have Enrile released on bail for humanitarian grounds — would have been more welcome. Late as it is, it is nevertheless welcome. Still that is the problem hereabouts — the sl…o…w administration of Justice.

    http://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/national/sandiganbayan-denies-enrile%E2%80%99s-plea-to-dismiss-plunder-case/ar-AAmtWL7?li=AAb280R&ocid=spartanntp

  28. paugie says:

    May I thank you for the link. I liked the message of the link.
    I will still have to digest your article in light of the link.
    Prior to reading the link, I found it hard to make heads or tails of your article. Hopefully, now I can try again.
    The comments are shedding light, too. So may I thank those who commented on it.
    Shalom.

    • NHerrera says:

      So far the author of the article, Paul Lazo, has not responded to the comments of the contributors. At least his piece is, to my mind, provocative. One gets from his article what one gets from reading the leaves in the tea — depending on one’s orientation. 🙂

    • Good of you to visit the blog and offer an observation, paugie.

  29. karlgarcia says:

    “We have to expose our habit of refusing to see the plight of the poor and our narcissistic behavior of “me first,” or crab mentality as others might say. Du30 will not clean this up. Instead he will display these behaviors to such a degree that I hope we will wake up as a people and realize that yes, Heaven is here on Earth, but we have to face the worst of ourselves and fix that first.”

    As we all know the poor is the main victim of war on drugs.
    Juana has said that it is time to have economic programs for the poor and not just dole outs.
    The elimination of poverty is being done by killing the poor.

    Crab mentality abounds prime example is that twitter bash of our miss universe candidate.

    We lost our sense of values in the case of that guy who would not give in to the bus who counter flowed, and the passengers cursed him and said he was just making a scene and being epal about it.Indeed we have to help ourselves in fixing our attitude and values, that is the wakeup call that is needed.

    • NHerrera says:

      Sad indeed when black (in thinking) is the new white. Examples of more negatives to be exposed to the “light” in the context of what I believe I get from Paul Lazo.

  30. a distant observer says:

    This is off-topic to this article and rather a request. Is there anyone who would be willing to present to us the state and workings of the Philippine health care system? I would like to learn more about that and would love to write an article about this topic in the future, but I know there are other visitors of this site who are much more competent than me to treat this topic.

  31. Paul Angelo Lazo says:

    Thank you all for you varied and insightful replies. After doing my best to read through all of them, two things stood out. The title… well yeah it was not the best, Maybe, it should have read President Du30 is right FOR US after all. The second string that I see is that many of the responses are responding within the span of President Du30’s term and maybe the next president. President Du30 in the short run and the immediate future will cause a great deal of misery, I am not doubting that. But, maybe it is this misery that will allow us, as a people, to get our act together. I can assure you, when Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia in the ’65 it was not a happy time for Singapore; they took the opportunity to rebuild. Japan and Germany were razed to ground after world war 2, but look at where they are now. In all these cases we are looking at decades of “time” not just just one decade.

    After all, We learn little from victory, much from defeat – Japanese proverb.

    As for the comments that are religious in nature, my intent was not to have a religious discussion, we all know where those go. I will refrain from answering them.

    Please keep the comments coming 🙂

    • “As for the comments that are religious in nature, my intent was not to have a religious discussion, we all know where those go. I will refrain from answering them.”

      But, Paul, I think you’ve scratched on something very relevant to the point of your article re religion and how Filipinos understand spirituality in general.

      Einstein categorized this in 3: firstly, religion/spirituality based on fear; the second, based on morality ; and the third, based on a feeling, he called the cosmic religious feeling—- for the most part edgar, Joe, and pretty much everyone here harps on the second one;

      while I tend to invoke the third, but I myself don’t really understand it, though I invoke it consistently to see how it bounces off other people’s minds (like sonar, I get a better feel for this cosmic religious feeling Einstein’s talking about).

      So if we were to follow this categorization, I’d wager the bulk of Filipinos live their lives in the first only—- they see the second, the way I see the third… very abstract and fuzzy, hell even doubt it.

      Hence a guy with fancy cars (planes and helicopters) or good looking girls at his side or fancy clothing, comes along and says that he speaks for God, Filipinos will tend to buy it.

      How do you make Filipinos stop wearing gold crucifixes, speak about religion in terms of heaven and hell only , and to look past materialism? I’ve been watching HBO’s “the Young Pope”, and there’s tons of one liners like:

      To know God is to Suffer;

      even Spinoza’s To really love God is to NOT expect God to Love you in Return.

      So the question is how to bring Filipinos to level 2 , I believe it’s still very much related to my original comment re 1st, 2nd, 3rd world (but flipped around numerically now 😉 ) , ie. are there level 2 to level 3 priests, or nuns, or even just regular folks in the Philippines ???

      http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

      • Scientists and Artists, according to Einstein would be the closest to a priesthood for Level 3.

        • Paul Angelo Lazo says:

          Interesting article. My essay is suggesting that as humanity, that is our general direction. Level 1 (or the highest level). I may not really know all the facts and maybe have some wrong but my thoughts are exactly that. Hinduism is not a religion but a guide. Humans wanted to control it so the put rituals to it forming religions. People are at different levels and what level they are in has nothing to do with race, religion, rank or position in society, money, influence etc. or position in their Church. In short just because you are a Cardinal or The Pope, it does not mean you are closer to God. Not so sure about Scientists and artists but the main idea is still there. Pope Francis knows this and it explains much about his humility – that despite being Pope, he is a normal human being; it just so happens that he leads the Roman Catholic Church. As for suffering, have you ever thought that the only way to achieve happiness is to know sadness. What brings you the greatest happiness will also bring you the greatest sadness. The misconception may lie in the thought that I have to focus on the sadness to explain the happiness.

          As for how do we convince people to stop being hypocrites, well, in reality behavior and values are never taught. In fact when working with Cultural issues in companies I tell the leadership that the culture of any organization is determined by the worst behavior the leadership is willing to accept. In short behavior or values are only “caught.” If you have children, the best you can do is to demonstrate the desired behavior so they will learn the correct values. If you don’t you can always adopt or through social services display the ideal behavior. It may often times feel hopeless but for the people you touch it may save them from falling back to level 3.

          As for Spinoza, his remark is on point. True love is about giving and never expecting anything back. It took my wife and I 20 years to figure that out, but it does exist. If we do good deeds on Earth or Proclaim His Greatness with the idea that the more we do these things we will be guaranteed a seat to Heaven, it is an incorrect premise. We do good deeds because it is the right thing to do, not because we expect a reward – Jesus did not expect us to love Him back – To really love God is to NOT expect God to Love you in Return.

          Hope this helps

          • “In fact when working with Cultural issues in companies I tell the leadership that the culture of any organization is determined by the worst behavior the leadership is willing to accept.”

            Paul,

            I totally get where you’re coming from now! Awesome response! Thanks!

            I hope you can follow up this article with another one but focusing on that nugget of thought above re “worst behavior”, as it applies to Filipino culture as well as in politics over there. I hope you do, Paul.

      • edgar lores says:

        *******
        Ahaha!
        *****

    • edgar lores says:

      *******
      The conscious intention may not be there, I agree, but the unconscious framing of the issue is certainly religious… however it may appear to be incidental.

      The framing of the issue are the references to (a) God’s will and (b) the notion that Earth and Heaven are the same loci.

      The underlying religious matrix is the conceit that all ruling authority, including the current dispensation, has been established by God. By God’s will here on Earth that is the future Heaven.

      The religious aspect is also relevant in that this essay seems to be a justification of how a devout Catholic (?) — who asserts he prays “Our Father” multiple times a day — reconciles with the malefic words and acts of Duterte.

      It goes to the heart of the question of how the most Christian nation in Asia reconciles itself with a president who is manifestly unChristian.

      In this context, I read this piece as an attempt by a believer to rationalize evil. It is a personal testimony of that rationalization.

      As to the perspective of time, I am on record as saying that from the perspective of history good and evil are undercurrents that intertwine in the river of history.

      I am also on record as saying that from the perspective of the present, of Now, we must fight evil.

      As to the notions that we learn little from victory and more from defeat and that prosperity is built on ashes, this begs the question. Have we learned from the Holocaust? Have we learned from the Marcos Dictatorship?

      How many more defeats must Homo Sapiens, the supposedly wise man, endure before the species realizes that there is now enough recorded historical data to avoid past mistakes?

      Each generation does not have to re-live the past and its woes. We have the faculties of reason and imagination to re-live the past and the current experiences of other nations vicariously.

      Thus, we can live kindly in the present and build kindly for the future.
      *****

      • Paul Angelo Lazo says:

        Hi Edgar, it seems that you really want to make this a religious issue. I have no desire to make this a religious issue; but, you certainly sound like a preacher to me. If you feel that I have been sneaky about an attempt to justify evil and assume that I am attempting to ignore the evils of Du30 then, I hope you understand that that very thought is no better then the thoughts you feel Catholics like myself have. It is very judgmental. I would appreciate a reduction in what I feel is a condescending tone.

        I will stay away from the religious arguments and focus on humanity as a whole and it’s general progress towards shared abundance and prosperity. Despite what you see and hear today, humanity has moved forward in a direction of shared abundance and prosperity. As you said, there is an intertwining between good and evil. We have to start way back when people began to record history. Humanity in general has been in a constant state of war. The wars we have today, in a relative sense are mere skirmishes to the World Wars and going further back the 100 years war, the Crusades etc, and even before that, The Roman Empire (which was largely built on it’s ability to continuously devour land) was a period of continuous warfare. What I see, form those dark ages, is a general march toward shared abundance and prosperity. The march forward is tortuous and in many occasions downright foolish and stupid. Being humans, this is a result of us repeating errors, but all in all, moving forward. Why do we continue to repeat errors and continue to drag humanity into wars? Maybe, warring is the comfort zone of humans and we do not want to evolve out of it (the reasons for this can be another long discussion, but let us set that aside for another day). As for Marcos and the Holocaust, let’s look at Marcos first. Filipinos still have to learn their lessons. Maybe Marcos was not enough. Enter Du30, maybe he will be the one to wake us up and allow us to learn our lessons thus the original post. As for the Holocaust, I am not too sure if we have fully learned our lesson. But since the holocaust, the sheer scale of an attempt to extinguish a race has not been repeated. We managed to set up international courts to judge dictators with genocidal tendencies. History will show that in all the centuries before the Holocaust there have been many attempts to purge Jews, Gypsies, Chinese, and nobody cared. Keep in mind that centuries before that, It was perfectly normal and and expected to raze insubordinate villages to the ground. The armies of the Pope would slaughter civilians and that was perfectly normal. Purging undesirable people from your lands was normal and nobody complained. War crimes did not really exist till after World War and the Holocaust. Yes there were attempts at genocide (Rawanda, Serbia Croatia) but there was a concerted effort to put the responsible behind bars (something that just did not happent 200 years before). Maybe to put it in different point of view all in all, humanity, over time, has learned to place greater value on life itself. Good is triumphing over evil but a pace that maybe cannot be comprehended yet. Now comes the tricky part. Technology has helped us move in the direction of shared abundance and prosperity. Artificial Intelligence (AI) will impact us in ways that we still cannot fathom. Imagine a world where we do not need to work any more. Imagine a world with no scarcity of any kind because technology will assure that there will always be enough to eat. Technology will be able to protect us from natural calamities and provide more than any one person could consume. Such a change will require humanity to make a leap outside it’s comfort zone. Presidents Trump, Du30, Putin and maybe even Prime Minister May, represent an attempt to stay in the comfort zone. They want to bring the world back to where they feel more comfortable. How many time does this have to repeat itself to make us learn? I cannot say. But I sincerely hope that I will see it in my life time – that might sound crazy, but I can assure you, forty years ago, if I told anyone that the Berlin Wall would fall one day, they would probably start preaching to me that that will never happen.

        • edgar lores says:

          *******
          Paul, thank you for the response.

          1. ”It seems that you really want to make this a religious issue.”

          1.1. The element of religion is the elephant in the room, and I certainly did not lead the pachyderm in.

          2. ”I have no desire to make this a religious issue; but, you certainly sound like a preacher to me.”

          2.1. Ad hominem.

          3. If you feel that I have been sneaky about an attempt to justify evil and assume that I am attempting to ignore the evils of Du30 then, I hope you understand that that very thought is no better then the thoughts you feel Catholics like myself have. It is very judgmental. I would appreciate a reduction in what I feel is a condescending tone.

          3.1. “Sneaky?” I have been quite candid in saying that this is a rationalization by a Catholic to avoid directly confronting the President’s unchristian behavior.

          3.1.1. And, yes, I expect better from Catholics. Here is a president who has cussed your pope, who castigates your Church and her bishops for being hypocrites, for being no better than him, and here you are saying, in effect, we need this man.

          3.2. “Judgmental?” The term is defined as “a negative word to describe someone who often rushes to judgment without reason.”

          3.2.1. Please point out where I have not used reason within the context of what I have said.

          3.3. “Condescending tone?”

          3.3.1. Strong rational argumentation might seem condescending but it is not.

          3.3.2. Please point out where I have used a condescending tone.

          3.3.3. I am sensitive to words and tone. For example, consider my dash-ed (or parenthetical) statement: “–who asserts he prays ‘Our Father’ multiple times a day.” I changed my original wording of “boasts” to “asserts” in order not to seem patronizing. “Assert” means “to state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.”

          4. ”I will stay away from the religious arguments and focus on humanity as a whole and it’s general progress towards shared abundance and prosperity.”

          4.1. Goodo. But as I say, religion is the elephant in the room.

          5. ”Despite what you see and hear today, humanity has moved forward in a direction of shared abundance and prosperity. As you said, there is an intertwining between good and evil. We have to start way back when people began to record history. Humanity in general has been in a constant state of war. The wars we have today, in a relative sense are mere skirmishes to the World Wars and going further back the 100 years war, the Crusades etc, and even before that, The Roman Empire (which was largely built on it’s ability to continuously devour land) was a period of continuous warfare. What I see, form those dark ages, is a general march toward shared abundance and prosperity. The march forward is tortuous and in many occasions downright foolish and stupid. Being humans, this is a result of us repeating errors, but all in all, moving forward.”

          5.1. Generally, I agree.

          6. ”Why do we continue to repeat errors and continue to drag humanity into wars? Maybe, warring is the comfort zone of humans and we do not want to evolve out of it (the reasons for this can be another long discussion, but let us set that aside for another day).

          6.1. “Continue to repeat errors!” Not specifically referring to wars, but this is precisely my point in the last 4 paragraphs of my post to which you have replied. We can – we must – learn from history.

          7. ”As for Marcos and the Holocaust, let’s look at Marcos first. Filipinos still have to learn their lessons. Maybe Marcos was not enough. Enter Du30, maybe he will be the one to wake us up and allow us to learn our lessons thus the original post.”

          7.1. Surely, the horrors of the Marcos dictatorship and the Third Reich are sufficient – no, are more than sufficient – from which to learn. These are major didactic events.

          8. ”As for the Holocaust, I am not too sure if we have fully learned our lesson. But since the holocaust, the sheer scale of an attempt to extinguish a race has not been repeated. We managed to set up international courts to judge dictators with genocidal tendencies. History will show that in all the centuries before the Holocaust there have been many attempts to purge Jews, Gypsies, Chinese, and nobody cared. Keep in mind that centuries before that, It was perfectly normal and expected to raze insubordinate villages to the ground. The armies of the Pope would slaughter civilians and that was perfectly normal. Purging undesirable people from your lands was normal and nobody complained. War crimes did not really exist till after World War and the Holocaust. Yes there were attempts at genocide (Rawanda, Serbia Croatia) but there was a concerted effort to put the responsible behind bars (something that just did not happen 200 years before).”

          8.1. You sort of contradict yourself there.

          8.2. There is an ongoing “genocide” in the country and there is no concerted effort to stop Duterte. By not addressing the religious and moral aspects, your essay provides an apologia for the genocide.

          9. ”Maybe to put it in different point of view all in all, humanity, over time, has learned to place greater value on life itself. Good is triumphing over evil but a pace that maybe cannot be comprehended yet.”

          9.1. In the long view, in the view of Eternity, I should hope so. But as I said, in the perspective of the present, we must hasten and fight evil… and not provide semi-intellectual justifications for it. (Condescending? No, accurate. Please refer to my conversation with @intuitiveperceiving.)

          10. ”Now comes the tricky part. Technology has helped us move in the direction of shared abundance and prosperity. Artificial Intelligence (AI) will impact us in ways that we still cannot fathom. Imagine a world where we do not need to work any more. Imagine a world with no scarcity of any kind because technology will assure that there will always be enough to eat. Technology will be able to protect us from natural calamities and provide more than any one person could consume. Such a change will require humanity to make a leap outside it’s comfort zone. Presidents Trump, Du30, Putin and maybe even Prime Minister May, represent an attempt to stay in the comfort zone. They want to bring the world back to where they feel more comfortable.”

          10.1. No comment.

          11. ”How many time does this have to repeat itself to make us learn? I cannot say. But I sincerely hope that I will see it in my life time – that might sound crazy, but I can assure you, forty years ago, if I told anyone that the Berlin Wall would fall one day, they would probably start preaching to me that that will never happen.

          11.1. My point is there is no need for repetition.
          *****

          • Paul Angelo Lazo says:

            1. ”It seems that you really want to make this a religious issue.”
            1.1. The element of religion is the elephant in the room, and I certainly did not lead the pachyderm in.
            I made it clear in the beginning that I had no intention to make this religious, please read paragraph 3 again. Tell me where does it even suggest that I am using religion as a basis for my argument? The point I am making is that heaven can be attained here on earth. If you feel this is a religious statement, then kindly forgive me if I have crossed a line.
            2. ”I have no desire to make this a religious issue; but, you certainly sound like a preacher to me.”
            2.1. Ad hominem.
            Ad.hominem. as well. Just read your first paragraph. Unless you are Professor Xavier, you seem to have read my mind after reading one essay and a couple responses and the jump in using the conclusions you made as basis to redirect or question my arguments as religious or lack of morality as the focal point. By the way, this is a favorite tactic of Du30, kill the messenger and ignore the problem.
            3. If you feel that I have been sneaky about an attempt to justify evil and assume that I am attempting to ignore the evils of Du30 then, I hope you understand that that very thought is no better then the thoughts you feel Catholics like myself have. It is very judgmental. I would appreciate a reduction in what I feel is a condescending tone.
            3.1. “Sneaky?” I have been quite candid in saying that this is a rationalization by a Catholic to avoid directly confronting the President’s unchristian behavior.
            Little confused with this one. I never said you were sneaky, I said you suggested I was sneaky. Your first paragraph says it all “The conscious intention may not be there, I agree, but the unconscious framing of the issue is certainly religious… however it may appear to be incidental.” I find it strange that in our first significant conversation you seem to have drawn some conclusions about who I am as a person and what my sub conscious thinks. Simply by saying I say the our Father 2 to 3 or more times day,.. why did you choose the word “asserts?” Why did you not just say, Paul “says” or Paul “prays”. It seems you put the force in my words. Unless of course you know my daily routine from sun up to sun down and maybe you can tell me how many times I pray the “Our Father” Is this good reasoning? Would you feel that I too am condescending if I jumped to the same conclusion about you?
            3.1.1. And, yes, I expect better from Catholics. Here is a president who has cussed your pope, who castigates your Church and her bishops for being hypocrites, for being no better than him, and here you are saying, in effect, we need this man.
            Why use the term “Catholics? You should expect better from any decent human.
            3.2. “Judgmental?” The term is defined as “a negative word to describe someone who often rushes to judgment without reason.”
            3.2.1. Please point out where I have not used reason within the context of what I have said.
            3.3. “Condescending tone?”
            Ever since I said I was Catholic, you refer to Catholics as people from whom you expect more. Have you passed judgement on us?
            3.3.1. Strong rational argumentation might seem condescending but it is not.
            3.3.2. Please point out where I have used a condescending tone.
            The first paragraph was enough to tell me that you feel you have figured me out because you seem to have a lucid understanding of my conscious and sub conscious after reading an one essay and a couple responses.
            3.3.3. I am sensitive to words and tone. For example, consider my dash-ed (or parenthetical) statement: “–who asserts he prays ‘Our Father’ multiple times a day.” I changed my original wording of “boasts” to “asserts” in order not to seem patronizing. “Assert” means “to state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.”
            Why did you just not repeat my words? By using the words assert you are the person who put the “force” into it. Do you have any idea how often I pray the “Our Father” or for that matter even why I do?
            Or have you drawn scientific conclusion about who I am as a person after reading an article and an assortment of answers.
            4. ”I will stay away from the religious arguments and focus on humanity as a whole and it’s general progress towards shared abundance and prosperity.”
            4.1. Goodo. But as I say, religion is the elephant in the room.
            Who is making this article religious despite my clearly saying I do not want to be? Who is drawing conclusions about my subconscious? Who is drawing conclusions about me when I say I am Catholic?
            5. ”Despite what you see and hear today, humanity has moved forward in a direction of shared abundance and prosperity. As you said, there is an intertwining between good and evil. We have to start way back when people began to record history. Humanity in general has been in a constant state of war. The wars we have today, in a relative sense are mere skirmishes to the World Wars and going further back the 100 years war, the Crusades etc, and even before that, The Roman Empire (which was largely built on it’s ability to continuously devour land) was a period of continuous warfare. What I see, form those dark ages, is a general march toward shared abundance and prosperity. The march forward is tortuous and in many occasions downright foolish and stupid. Being humans, this is a result of us repeating errors, but all in all, moving forward.”
            5.1. Generally, I agree.
            6. ”Why do we continue to repeat errors and continue to drag humanity into wars? Maybe, warring is the comfort zone of humans and we do not want to evolve out of it (the reasons for this can be another long discussion, but let us set that aside for another day).
            6.1. “Continue to repeat errors!” Not specifically referring to wars, but this is precisely my point in the last 4 paragraphs of my post to which you have replied. We can – we must – learn from history.
            We are. As you agreed, humanity is moving forward” It may take generations or many of our lives, but we are learning
            7. ”As for Marcos and the Holocaust, let’s look at Marcos first. Filipinos still have to learn their lessons. Maybe Marcos was not enough. Enter Du30, maybe he will be the one to wake us up and allow us to learn our lessons thus the original post.”
            7.1. Surely, the horrors of the Marcos dictatorship and the Third Reich are sufficient – no, are more than sufficient – from which to learn. These are major didactic events.
            The Third Reich and Marcos cannot be compared. Maybe they can in the way the respective leaders were thinking but the scale is incomparable. The impact is incomparable as well. Look at history. You might feel that both events are surely enough, but what do the facts show you? Have we learned anything from Marcos? Has the world learned anything from Hitler? If the facts point at something else, how sure can you be that these events are enough?
            8. ”As for the Holocaust, I am not too sure if we have fully learned our lesson. But since the holocaust, the sheer scale of an attempt to extinguish a race has not been repeated. We managed to set up international courts to judge dictators with genocidal tendencies. History will show that in all the centuries before the Holocaust there have been many attempts to purge Jews, Gypsies, Chinese, and nobody cared. Keep in mind that centuries before that, It was perfectly normal and expected to raze insubordinate villages to the ground. The armies of the Pope would slaughter civilians and that was perfectly normal. Purging undesirable people from your lands was normal and nobody complained. War crimes did not really exist till after World War and the Holocaust. Yes there were attempts at genocide (Rawanda, Serbia Croatia) but there was a concerted effort to put the responsible behind bars (something that just did not happen 200 years before).”
            8.1. You sort of contradict yourself there.
            Maybe I do.
            8.2. There is an ongoing “genocide” in the country and there is no concerted effort to stop Duterte. By not addressing the religious and moral aspects, your essay provides an apologia for the genocide.
            If you conclude that this is an explanation for what is happening, I cannot and will not attempt to change that. There is no need to address religious matters because what is happening is something against humanity not against any particular religion. As for morality, yes of course it is immoral, but my essay is about what can or will we actually learn from all this immorality? We will only find out how immoral we are until we can define it (something Marcos – apparently did not achieve). Will Du30 be the man to allow us to see just how black our morals are?
            9. ”Maybe to put it in different point of view all in all, humanity, over time, has learned to place greater value on life itself. Good is triumphing over evil but a pace that maybe cannot be comprehended yet.”
            9.1. In the long view, in the view of Eternity, I should hope so. But as I said, in the perspective of the present, we must hasten and fight evil… and not provide semi-intellectual justifications for it. (Condescending? No, accurate. Please refer to my conversation with @intuitiveperceiving.)
            My initial word is “Maybe”… chosen because I am unsure of the conclusion. As for the perspective of the @intuitivepresent.. You have shown facts about what is wrong. And yes wrong, is wrong, wrong. I think we should be asking what have we learned from all of this? I can show you and I can tell you that you are wrong, but if you do not change, is the problem the receiver, or the sender – the way the message was sent? If there is no change despite all the fact supported arguments and maybe an nth revolution, have the all the facts and revolution been effective? Or maybe what we need is a conflagration to make us learn our lessons. I do not wish it, but it seems that despite Marcos and Du30 (until today) we still haven’t learned.
            10. ”Now comes the tricky part. Technology has helped us move in the direction of shared abundance and prosperity. Artificial Intelligence (AI) will impact us in ways that we still cannot fathom. Imagine a world where we do not need to work any more. Imagine a world with no scarcity of any kind because technology will assure that there will always be enough to eat. Technology will be able to protect us from natural calamities and provide more than any one person could consume. Such a change will require humanity to make a leap outside it’s comfort zone. Presidents Trump, Du30, Putin and maybe even Prime Minister May, represent an attempt to stay in the comfort zone. They want to bring the world back to where they feel more comfortable.”
            10.1. No comment.
            1
            1. ”How many time does this have to repeat itself to make us learn? I cannot say. But I sincerely hope that I will see it in my life time – that might sound crazy, but I can assure you, forty years ago, if I told anyone that the Berlin Wall would fall one day, they would probably start preaching to me that that will never happen.

            11.1. My point is there is no need for repetition.
            While there may be no need, historical facts show that repetition of errors is needed for us to learn. As you agreed, we are moving in the right direction. As I say, maybe at a pace we do not understand.
            *****
            Reply

            • edgar lores says:

              *******
              1. Refer to the third paragraph of your essay and to the second bullet point in 3.1 below.

              o With respect to your wish not to discuss religious matters, I will refrain from making any further comment about heaven on earth.

              2.1. Ad hominem is an “argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.”

              o Your position was “not to have a religious discussion.” My reaction was against your position. I said: “The conscious intention may not be there, I agree, but the unconscious framing of the issue is certainly religious….” I did not call you anything.

              3.1. I did not suggest you were sneaky and I am saying I am not sneaky either.

              o Let me ask: Why did you feel the need to preface your main thesis with these digressions: (a) you are a Catholic; (b) pray Our Father several times a day; and (c) Heaven here is (or will be) on earth?

              o My suggestion was that the religious “digression” was an unconscious religious “framing of the issue.” Religion is the foundational substratum of our worldview. Our religious beliefs, especially if we are devout, form the logic matrix underlying our main ideas concerning important moral issues. If we are not sincerely devout, there would be a disconnection between our religious beliefs and all other beliefs and actions. Refer also to the third paragraph on my Feb 2, 7:57 am post.

              o Not being aware of the unconscious is not sneaky. Sneaky means “marked by deception.” How can one practice deception when one is not aware the fact(s) beneath the lie?

              o I used the word “asserts” because of the multiple times – “2 or 3 times a day, maybe more” – that you pray. It may just be me, but I find that extraordinary. (Not for Muslims though.)

              o The last question is hypothetical. But I am on record saying that I rarely feel insulted… because I ask is the assertion true? If true, I will try to change. If untrue, what does it matter?

              3.1.1. I used the term Catholic because (a) you stated you were one, and (b) because Filipinos are predominantly Catholics. My original 3.1.1 post is a weighty argument.

              3.3. Yes, I have made a discernment, a judgment, but I am not being judgmental. (What is this phobia about making judgments? There is nothing wrong with making them. We do it all the time. Every opinion we have is a judgment or the result of one. The phobia is a misinterpretation of the biblical injunction.)

              3.3.2. Refer to the second bullet point under 3.1 above.

              o I have by no means figured you out. I have no desire to. I am simply stating what I think about what you have written.

              3.3.3. Asked and answered. Refer to the fourth bullet point under 3.1 above.

              o You will have to answer your own question on why you pray. I draw no conclusions. Just be aware that there may be other reasons for praying apart from the obvious wish to have our petitions granted.

              4.1. This is a forum. We present our ideas and engage in discussion. We may agree or not.

              6.1. Agree.

              7.1. I am not comparing the Marcos dictatorship with the Third Reich. I am saying these are horrible but separate historical events that we should learn from.

              8.1. Thank you.

              8.2. I have had my say.

              9.1. Thank you.

              o Here at TSH, we have been trying to figure out the problems associated with cognition. We have not arrived at an explanation but there is general agreement that all discussion is positive.

              11.1. “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” We have to break the cycle.
              *****

              • Paul Angelo Lazo says:

                1. Refer to the third paragraph of your essay and to the second bullet point in 3.1 below.
                o With respect to your wish not to discuss religious matters, I will refrain from making any further comment about heaven on earth.
                2.1. Ad hominem is an “argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.”
                If ad hominem means directed against another person, how is it that your argument is based on my conscious and subconscious? Is that an argument against me, or someone else or a position?
                o Your position was “not to have a religious discussion.” My reaction was against your position. I said: “The conscious intention may not be there, I agree, but the unconscious framing of the issue is certainly religious….” I did not call you anything.
                Same answer as 2.1. In what way is it not offensive to talk about another person conscious and subconscious and use that as a basis to disagree?
                3.1. I did not suggest you were sneaky and I am saying I am not sneaky either.
                Please answer previous remarks first.
                o Let me ask: Why did you feel the need to preface your main thesis with these digressions: (a) you are a Catholic; (b) pray Our Father several times a day; and (c) Heaven here is (or will be) on earth?
                o My suggestion was that the religious “digression” was an unconscious religious “framing of the issue.” Religion is the foundational substratum of our worldview. Our religious beliefs, especially if we are devout, form the logic matrix underlying our main ideas concerning important moral issues. If we are not sincerely devout, there would be a disconnection between our religious beliefs and all other beliefs and actions. Refer also to the third paragraph on my Feb 2, 7:57 am post.
                True, but how do you understand my beliefs? I said I was Catholic. Was I lumped into a box of Catholicism? The reference I made was to explain that I pray the Our Father and how my understanding of Heaven on Earth came to be. You should have asked this first before responding.
                My suggestion is do not attempt to make an analysis on someone’s consciousness and subconscious and make conclusions on how I understand and relate to my chosen religion. Please be more careful and ask for clarification.
                o Not being aware of the unconscious is not sneaky. Sneaky means “marked by deception.” How can one practice deception when one is not aware the fact(s) beneath the lie?
                In my view it is not a lie, you may disagree which is fine by me. But to say that I lied or I do not know what I speak of (facts beneath the lie) is offensive. More so if it is based on my Religious Chices. Thus the “sneaky” remark. If I offended you, kindly forgive the transgression.
                I used the word “asserts” because of the multiple times – “2 or 3 times a day, maybe more” – that you pray. It may just be me, but I find that extraordinary. (Not for Muslims though.).
                Catholics choose what prayers they say and how often to say them.. Some pray once in the morning and once at night. Some have have developed the habit of praying the Rosary at night or in the morning or both. I choose to pray the Our Father once in the morning once at noon and pray the rosary at night. I’m sure you can tell me how many Our Fathers that is. Or do I belong to a different group of Catholics? Again it seems conclusions were made about what Catholics are and are not and I was lumped into that group. Of course there also Catholics in the other extreme of the spectrum
                o The last question is hypothetical. But I am on record saying that I rarely feel insulted… because I ask is the assertion true? If true, I will try to change. If untrue, what does it matter?
                Please use a better word, “try” suggests you will not do it.
                3.1.1. I used the term Catholic because (a) you stated you were one, and (b) because Filipinos are predominantly Catholics. My original 3.1.1 post is a weighty argument.
                It seems you have a preconceived notion of what Catholics are.
                3.3. Yes, I have made a discernment, a judgment, but I am not being judgmental. (What is this phobia about making judgments? There is nothing wrong with making them. We do it all the time. Every opinion we have is a judgment or the result of one. The phobia is a misinterpretation of the biblical injunction.)
                Let’s not talk about Biblical injunctions. Unfortunately, you do come across as judgmental. You may not think so, but you do. Maybe I’m wrong but expressing one’s opinion is what this blog is all about.
                3.3.2. Refer to the second bullet point under 3.1 above.
                o I have by no means figured you out. I have no desire to. I am simply stating what I think about what you have written.
                Then why do you start with saying my conscious frame work and then refer to my sub conscious?
                3.3.3. Asked and answered. Refer to the fourth bullet point under 3.1 above.
                o You will have to answer your own question on why you pray. I draw no conclusions. Just be aware that there may be other reasons for praying apart from the obvious wish to have our petitions granted.
                Your last statement seems to imply that the basis of prayer to ask that our petitions be granted. I do not pray for my wishes to be granted I pray to clear my mind to allow me to think better.
                4.1. This is a forum. We present our ideas and engage in discussion. We may agree or not.
                Agreed. Please do not start with an Ad Hominem
                6.1. Agree.
                7.1. I am not comparing the Marcos dictatorship with the Third Reich. I am saying these are horrible but separate historical events that we should learn from.
                8.1. Thank you.
                8.2. I have had my say.
                9.1. Thank you.
                o Here at TSH, we have been trying to figure out the problems associated with cognition. We have not arrived at an explanation but there is general agreement that all discussion is positive.
                Agreed.
                11.1. “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” We have to break the cycle.
                *****
                Agreed. On occasion the cycle is broken and we move forward. History shows that we will repeat the cycle and only until we have beaten each other to an inch from death will we realize that repeating has to be stopped. Japan and Germany are classic cases. Much of Europe is in the same position and you will notice that the happiest nations on earth are mostly European They had to be razed to the ground through much suffering of its people just to be able to become the nations they are today. All on all though we are headed in the direction to “Heaven on Earth.”

              • edgar lores says:

                *******
                Paul,

                The crux of your objections to my comments centers around my use of the term “unconscious.”

                As I read it, you feel I have violated the privacy of your mind.

                First of all, I note that you have substituted the term “unconscious,” which I used, with the term “subconscious.” These are two different things. These terms have different meanings. I will take their adjectival meanings from Google:

                o Subconscious means “of or concerning the part of the mind of which one is not fully aware but which influences one’s actions and feelings.”

                o Unconscious means “done or existing without one realizing.”

                Note that “subconscious” has a negative connotation.

                Your understanding of the term I used and your subsequent confused substitution may be the reason for your sense of being offended. From the first definition, you seem to think I opened your cranium and peered into it.

                Not so. I have confined my remarks mainly on what you have written. If we take the second definition, please take note that I did not apply it to you. I used the term as an adjective to qualify the framing of your post. I specifically said, the “unconscious framing.” By this I meant the wider context of your essay was religious in nature… but that you did not realize it.

                Therefore, my use of the term is NOT an ad hominem.

                My first feedback was to find the logical connection between your religious references and your main thesis.

                Again, the main contention of my feedback is that your main thesis is based on your religious matrix. This contention is hardly surprising. As I said, and you have agreed, “Religion is the foundational substratum of our worldview.”

                The gist of my contention can be found in (a) item 2 of my Jan 31, 8:53 post and (b) the third paragraph of my Feb 2, 7:57 am post.

                The third paragraph states: ”The underlying religious matrix is the conceit that all ruling authority, including the current dispensation, has been established by God. By God’s will here on Earth that is the future Heaven.”

                The last sentence in your latest reply says, ”All on all though we are headed in the direction to ‘Heaven on Earth.’”

                If you superimpose this sentence upon my main contention, one will note that they coincide.

                Certainly, they do not coincide perfectly. The first part of my contention, the conceit, is outside the circle of coincidence. This is the religious aspect of your worldview, which I have said is the “unconscious framing” and which you have said you do not want to discuss.

                I will not make any further comments on the new ideas and info you have provided… except to note that you use the “Our Father” prayer as a serenity mantra. Thank you.
                *****

            • Paul Angelo Lazo says:

              Good points, as you said , “Religion is the foundational substratum of our worldview.” Is it religion or what we believe that is the foundation of the our worldview? Do not confuse the two. By using the term religion you can be easily misunderstood as discriminating and judgmental. Which is what happened. Paul is a Catholic and is supporting Catholic doctrine. Believing that, what I wrote was understood as Du30 explained from a Catholic point of view. Your arguments are strong but the premise is incorrect.

              • edgar lores says:

                *******
                Correct.

                We have many beliefs. And we can categorize them and put them into different baskets — political, economic, social, professional, love, crime, punishment, etc.

                I am deeply aware that religion is a very sensitive area.

                I give importance to religion as a separate substratum of belief because it is the basis of our psychological-existential security that is even more basic than our biological/physiological-existential security of food, clothing, and shelter.

                It answers the question of why we are here (ontology) and the question of where we are going (teleology).

                It establishes the meaning of life. Whereas the other beliefs go to the sustenance and maintenance of life and, higher up, the beliefs that support the qualitative and quantitative satisfactions of life.

                So religion — in all its theistic and non-theistic forms — forms the basic lens by which we see the world.
                *****

  32. caliphman says:

    To mitigate the horror of Duterte as short term pain for possibly greater long term gain is rather tortured and ludicrous logic. By that logic, in the end everything will be fine because in the long term we shall certainly be all dead. Perhaps there will still be an aplologist blog here at JoeAm for a de facto dictator like Duterte that presents a better case for the deprivations caused by his methods and style of governance.

    • Bert says:

      “By that logic, in the end everything will be fine because in the long term we shall certainly be all dead.”

      🙂 Hehehe, Words of wisdom of the day

    • Paul Angelo Lazo says:

      If that were true, humanity will have extinguished it self a long time ago. In order for us to grow, pain is necessary. In order for us to get better, pain is necessary. I am not attempting to side with Duterte or even explain his actions. What I am saying is that in order for us to become fully aware of who we are we have to be able to look ourselves in the mirror and see all that is not right with us. The more we continue to turn a blind eye, the more emboldened Duterte will become. How long do we have to live with Duterte for us realize we made a mistake. There are many good things about us and there are many bad things about us. In my thinking Duterte is representative of what is bad in us. We are always victims, we blame people. We are very emotional and cannot let go of things that happened 20 years or more ago. We do not mind breaking rules as long as we attain our goal, kahit pasaway, may diskarete parin. We value our pride more than our dignity. It is this very mentality that has to be changed and until we can admit it to ourselves nothing will change. Admission of personal faults is always painful and it usually occurs after we have hurt many people.

      • caliphman says:

        I doubt very much your point if view would go very well with the widow cradling her dead husband in her hands after having been dealt swift justice by Duterte’s vigilante’s. It’s not introspection or acceptance of guilt that your view exhorts that is needed but a coming to grips with brutish reality and how the rest of us still living can best deal with it. The only sure thing to grow in self-flagelation instead of holding this regime accountable for its horrors is the number of innocent dead victims that litter the streets daily.

    • Bert says:

      Prrrrt, referee ako:

      Thesis: “To mitigate the horror of Duterte as short term pain for possibly greater long term gain…”

      Protagonists: caliphman and Paul Angelo Lazo

      Where the protagonists stand on the issue:

      caliphman: “By that logic, in the end everything will be fine because in the long term we shall certainly be all dead.”

      Paul Angelo Lazo: “If that were true, humanity will have extinguished it self a long time ago. ”

      Verdict of the referee: It’s a tie. The protagonists were in agreement with the thesis.

      Ay, ano ba itong pinagsasabi ko. Sorry guys, still tipsy. Pinainom kasi ako ng lambanog ng aking kapitbahay, :).

  33. Pain can be truly pleasant – when it subsides. Eating after having been hungry is great.

    Losing all your valuables may bring you back to your true values – think positive!

  34. Very well said. Maybe there were parts that I may not agree but atleast appreciated your words of wisdom.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s