Melancholic Torpor.

The eternal midnight dew travels from its lacrimal origin
And across the vast expanse of melancholic decrepitude.
It vividly pierces into the precipice of abyss and uncertainty,
Obnoxiously protracting the state of an entrenched forlorn.

The eternal midnight dew gushes forth unceasingly,
Furtively notating each isolated moment of void emptiness.
The languished attempted to exhaust its endless torrent.
But in the state of unmitigated solitude, it lingered adrift.

Adrift, in the provocation of unsolicited uncertainties,
Indignation restively churns around the feet of the languished.
Rippled vagaries outline the blurred and hazy horizons.
And shatteringly obscured, are the shafts of the daylight.

Condescendingly, commiserations thrive within the sphere
Of the languished, from whom the eternal midnight dew
Streams wantonly. Betraying its earnest desires like a
Blasphemous entity consuming all that is with undue cause.

Shadows of misfortunes left along the gusty, twisted path,
Crafting the languished into an unknown and undefined soul.
Destiny took its course appallingly against what is deemed,
Hundredfold times, by the languished in its deepest yearnings.

Discretely, each desperations unfolds itself in the midst
Of transcendence, in moments undiscerned, unwanted.
The languished is drenched within its eternal midnight dew.
And to the Dark Night, it calls upon to heed its plea.

On [Pre-marital] Sex.

In the present society where traditional values and morals are rudimentarily shaken, should issues and discussions on sex remain an indefatigable taboo?

“Why do individuals engage in pre-marital sex? And why don’t they?”

In one of my classes, those questions were raised but were answered unconvincingly. The answers broached were delimited to the reasons that pre-marital sex occurs because of the vulnerable upbringing of the individuals involved, the weak value system they have, and the loose ties of their respective families.

I raised a different point, such that “some individuals involved themselves into pre-marital sex because it is an inherent or innate human nature to get physical or to express intimacy…” And I went blank.

La profesora interrupted and seemed to imply that inherent was so strong a term that it is not enough basis to assume why individuals engage in pre-marital sex, neither intimacy plays a definite role in it. And la profesora including some of my blockmate expressed anxious disapproval.

Problem is I wasn’t able to explain my point with clarity and lucidity. My answer should have gone this way:

The engagement to pre-marital sex stems from two reasons, one biological and the other psychological. Biologically, the libidinal tendency or urge of any human being is inherent or innate. It is something endogenous to the physical construction of man, or of any animal for that matter, and the outlet towards its fulfillment is exogenous, meaning a partner is needed to mate with or, in the absence of one, alone by itself with playful visual imagination. Further, the emission of some hormones triggers the brain with signals or impulses that causes the libido to go high. And it usually during adolescence, where most of the physical and hormonal changes take place, that the urge manifests itself vividly that some individuals tend to consciously surrender. So, it is inherently human nature.

But it does not stop there, whether or not to give in with the urge is entrusted to the psychological conditioning and rational capaicty of the individual. By psychological, it refers to the use of mental ability in coming up with a decision backed up, perhaps, by the mores and standards that the individual adheres to. The psychological aspect then decides whether or not to give in to such repercussion of the biological aspect.

Understandably, individuals engage themselves into pre-marital sex because one, the urge is there powerfully thriving within their body systems, and two, their psychological or rational aspect failed to encumber the thriving of that urge. Sex as a human desire is therefore inevitable but to give up to such human a desire is very optional.

---

It is interesting to note how the society have come to view sex and sexuality. The strict social norms and ethical standards impregnated to the individual lead him to quell down many of his animalistic tendencies, most of his innate nature. There is nothing wrong with that since it is directed towards a noble end of attaining order and organization in the society.

But, to what extent must these norms and standards limit the individual? To how much extent do these have control over the individual? Don’t such restrictions limit the individual’s utilization of his rational capacity and free will? If submission to human desires is irrational, is controlling the capacity of individual to decide upon himself not irrational? And say for instance that those restrictions are rationally constructed to curb man’s irrational tendencies, to how much rational are those inhibiting forces made?

This is not to suggest that pre-marital sex is right. Neither it is wrong. But the society views the latter. The latter, stringently holding on conventional grounds, imply however that the society posed upon itself strict compliance to norms, morals and standards that have the tendency to become non-human and machinistic. It thereby causes the individual to develop inhibitions and guilty feelings, non-conducive for his free learning and liberal development.

It seems that the society must have reduced itself into a helpless pretentious sham.

The Rise of the New Individual.

"You're beginning to see the telescoping nature of the evolutionary paradigm"
- from the film, Waking Life

Human evolution and development has quite amazingly been becoming swift and rapid. Tracing the trajectory, the process signals the "evolution of human as a biological organism, and then the development of its interaction within the environment."

Interestingly, the biological evolution of man took an extensively long and intricate process. It started outright from the formation of life, from the configuration of the most minute, single-celled organism, which took several billion years. By way of a very complicated process that simple manifestation of life evolved into many complex life forms that include man. The evolution of mankind itself involved several million years from the hominid to the Neanderthal to the Cro-magnon to the Homo Sapien.

Next, when man began to realize his inherent capacities, his anthropological development so started. Man’s innate nature to connect and interact with one another catapulted into the formation of the family and of the society. It took thousand-hundred years for this process alone, equally manifested through and by the agricultural, scientific and industrial revolutions.

What transpired for the last several billion, million and hundred-thousand years is a very protracted time-scale of human development. Quite ostensibly, it manifests that such development is centered on the collectivity - a passive, external process where man is subject to the collective impulse.

By way of looking human evolution and development as it happens now, the focal point of the trajectory has already shifted. The process is as well telescoped, meaning it is magnified seven, eight times. The pace is becoming faster and central to it is the amplification of man as an individual. “It now becomes an individual-centered process emanating from his ultimate needs and desires.”

Now, under the new evolutionary paradigm the new individual is to rise. The product is neo-human with “a new individuality, new consciousness.” It pods on the accumulated intelligence of the past and on the abilities discovered critically discerning each into a new level of understanding, grasping what seems to be relevant, and incorporating it into a new and refined visions.

Pink Chucks.

Last Night,

You were zapped by the pair of pink chucks.

Your mind drifted away from afar,

Traveling across the conduits of your past,

Excavating from each boxes

Of your memories,

The feelings you’ve once had

But you find impossible to transcend from.

Was it him, who knocked

And beat you off from your real senses?

Or was it the feeling itself,

And the blissful moments you two shared,

That perturbs your soul once more?

Or was it both?

Tonight,

You are wearing a pair of pink chucks.

You impressed an aura of vibrant upturn.

Though your gorgeous chinky, little eyes

Mirrors the deep emotion you thrived.

Though your boisterous, yet melodic laughter

Echoes a horizon only you could understand.

Though your unfettered gestures

Reveal clandestinely your silent admiration.

Your soul surreptitiously conveys a lingering desire

To continue writing your unfinished story –

What could have been a beautiful illustration

Of ebullient emotion and ardent passion.

Tomorrow,

You’ll continue to wear those pink chucks.

You’ll always look good on those pair of chucks.

Lest you’ll finally realized that more than

Him, the person you’ve been pining for,

And the feelings you’ve been trying to re-capture,

You are capable of manifesting true and real emotion

You can reveal love – so pure, intense and firm

That it can withstand the rigid glare of the sun,

Or the tarnishing smears of the humid air.

That it can last forever in a lifetime,

Even more than the pink chucks can ever endure.

Infinite Expressions.

"So much of our experience is intangible."
- from the film, Waking Life

There are numerous ways by which certain thoughts, feelings, or emotions are expressed. There are almost infinite conduits of conveying the innermost desires and yearnings of an otherwise solitary human being. No matter how deep or shallow, no matter how concrete or vague what kept inside will always find an interminable and viable channel through which it can freely gush.

Humanity’s need to express stems directly from the inescapable necessity of having to take its place in a society, and of having to interact and to connect with one another for the sheer goal of survival and of progress. It streams directly from every one’s “desire to transcend isolation and have some sort of connection.” And it all begins from humanity’s desire to transcend, if not at all bridge the gap of, imperfections overwhelmingly deluding it.

Language, the most viable form of human expression, is itself created out of imperfection. Like any other inventions, it is spawned by “some kind of striving and of a frustration.” And when language is almost perfected, or established, in human civilizations, communication became more efficient and expression became easier.

But to how far does language –– of inherently meaningless phonemes and morphemes – encompass each thought and emotion? To how much extent does language –– of inert words and mere symbol –convey reality and epitomize the exactness of thoughts and emotions contained, needing to be expressed?

Language makes sense so long as it encompasses the thoughts and emotions embodied in one’s experience. Language thrives within the context in which it is used, and in which meanings are assigned to as far as it is it relevant to one’s personal experiences.

Ordinarily, a certain word coming from a concrete source is received. It reaches the auditory senses, translated into electronic impulses and travels through the “Byzantine conduits” in the brain where it is interpreted. The process of interpretation involves the retrieval of previous experiences, of memories, by which understanding is made possible. The presence or absence of it from the wide array of experience-memories inside the brain determines how it is understood, and how relevant it is.

The wonder of it is that so much of language is intangible, abstract and inherently dead concepts in the same way that experiences are intangible, incompletely perceived and unspeakable. Yet, the innate imperfection embodied by both language and experience makes sense when it is used, when it is manifested in various types of communication, in everyday conversation. The more experiences grow and the more language is used to encompass such experiences, the more the world makes sense between and among people who communicate their inner desires and yearnings, their thoughts, emotions and feelings. And the world seems connected as some form of communion is established.

Transient and fleeting these horizons maybe because of the differences in which experiences are handled and of the impossibility of conveying its eternal, universal and true meaning, the simple manner that it is conveyed, however, brings some sense of fulfillment and it is just the way it is.

Confluence of Choices and Decisions.

"Your life is yours to create."
- from the film, Waking Life

Today, I realized that existentialism is not just ordinarily a part or branch of post-modern philosophy. There is an essential demarcation that detaches significantly these two streams of thinking from each other –– the manner by which each stream views and assigns values to the individual self.

Post-modernists often see the individual as “a social construction, or as a confluence of forces, or as fragmented or marginalized.” Such distinctive notion is taken to farthest extreme to the point of leaving behind some absolute essentials. Simplistically, it reduces the concept of the individual as a product of his circumstances, and of the kind of society where he thrives. That the occurrence of every single event, be it success or failure, be it happiness or despair, is way beyond the grasp of the individual. That the individual is incidental, contingent to whatever it is that pre-exists and exists before him. Hence, it is the society, no more, no less that predetermines and contours the making of the individual.

The problem with this is suggestive of the infinite possibilities of excuses and of venting. Since the individual is viewed a social construct, all that happens to him are ascribed deferentially to societal dynamics rather than to the specific and unique individuality that he encumbers. All the commiseration, disappointment and failure that the individual experiences out of fear, resentment, and inability to cope are attributed to the variegated elements structuring the society. Ultimately, it somehow relinquishes from the individual the responsibility to take charge in the consequences of his actions.

And so inevitably, post-modernists often speak the language of transcendence, of emancipation, and of liberation from the tyrannical conventionalities and repressive conformities that sardonically barricades the free development of the individual self. This is precisely the reason why post-modern philosophy is often perceived as a philosophy of despair, relegating a sense of anguish, of anxiety and of angst about life and living.

Existentialism, like post-modern philosophy, seems to acquire the same reputation as philosophy of despair. But contrary to such conception, the truth is just the opposite.

Existentialism stresses singularity in the midst of social structuring by seeing “the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience.” Unlike post-modernism, it puts premium on the ability of the individual to decide and choose, and to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions. It does not matter what decisions are made and how it is made for as long as it is adequately remunerated with utmost responsibility.

When post-modernists awfully nag about the sad realities of life, existentialists gladly celebrates life as a kind of exuberance. When post-modernists grudgingly brood their angst and attribute their anguish over societal institutions, existentialists attribute no significant meaning on each happenstance but nonetheless, delight over living life in each moment with fervent passion, in the sense of taking upon themselves the responsibility of shaping their individuality, of making something out of themselves, and of feeling good about life and living. And when post-modernists become pessimists about the world, about life, existentialists turn it around into lucid optimism.

The confluence of choices and decisions delicately forms the individual self, of what it is to be and not throughout its existence and all through its inevitable interaction with society. The existence of the confluent societal forces often drive and compel the individual into action. Still, it is variable and circumstantial –– the individual self can choose not to falter, and can choose not to make irresponsible decisions by becoming censoriously cautious.

Coloring Outside the Lines.

“The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure, while always arriving"
–from Waking Life, a film on philosophy

Back when I was small, I used to follow what my teacher tells me, to strike the crayon lightly and accurately on the smooth surface of the papier, chasing dutifully the outlines of whatever it is illustrated and making sure that not even a single hue smudges beyond those fine lines.

I grew up practically the same, seeing things in black and white. There is nothing in between. It is either I color within the lines and get an incentive or I color outside the lines and fail. Of course, I unhesitatingly chose the former.

Unconsciously, it gradually taught me to become a compulsive perfectionist, in the most literal sense of the term. I began to see that the exquisite lies in the perfection of each minute detail. I began to perceive that the magnificent is substantiated by the absence of even a microscopic mistake.

Concomitantly, I became fearful when perfection elusively looms around rather than structurally substantiated. Fear becomes the abysmal entity that encapsulated my precarious being, causing me to become diffident, partially unaware of my relative strengths. Fear is that paralytic rhythm that incrementally impeded my becoming.

Until recently, I found out that I have allowed restrictions to restrict myself and to direct the trajectory of my life. I boxed and locked myself inside a cavernous space of rigid conformity and unrelenting conventionality, out of trying to become perfect, out of fear and out of what is taught to me –– to keep the color within the lines.

Until recently, I unintentionally stumbled upon the idea that it is okay to color outside the lines as long as it is handled with utmost responsibility. Perhaps, the realization was the end point of an entrenched pessimism and languid reluctance that has been ingrained within me. Or perhaps, it suddenly dawned on me that I am human, and part of “human-ness” is to err, at times though not at all times. Or perhaps, it stemmed from the disappointment I have gotten from the kind of system I thrive in –– what it says are not always true, reliable, and relevant.

To see life in black and white is like seeing it from the eye of a deeply conceited, supercilious chauvinist; while to see it as freely flowing and randomly varied, and at times void of explanation and meaning, is to envision it from an open, cogent mind.

Life is a fleeting moment, of transition and of emancipation. It coherently resembles a state of constant fluidity and influx that each moment demands to be seized receptively without undue boundaries, and with relativity. I am not pre-determined, evident in the fact that I am left with choice to direct my life, and re-direct it in case of mishaps.

Coloring outside the lines isn't bad after all, like what I used to think.

Lucid Dream.

Is life a lucid dream? Are we dreaming that we are alive? Or that we are alive but remain to be in a state of constant reverie?

The concept of reality and illusion is far more beseeching than the human mind can ever ponder upon. To what extent can reality be real? And to what extent can illusion remains chimerical. To how much extent can we say that life is real, in as much as it is an illusion? Is there a demarcation that separates the two distinctively? If there is, to how much degree is it reliable and trustworthy? Still, it remains to be a rudimentary enigmatic jaunt, and perhaps indeterminable in a lifetime.

What obscured further the preponderance of reality and illusion is the fact that these subsist within the realm of social construction. To how far social constructs convey unyielding truth? To how far truths bear authenticity, preciseness and validity in and within itself? Simplistic, it remains shrouded – concealed with extreme earnestness, void even of the most miniscule orifice.

Thus, whether life is a lucid dream or eternal reality, the fact that these concepts are in themselves products of social construction not inherently qualified as universal, infinite truths reminds us that the creation of transcendent experience is possible, more than probable. Equally, it reminds us that what can satisfactorily be accepted as universal concepts are that of subjective reality, of fluid human society and of relative truths.

A certain truth is true by virtue of our experiences with it, of the meaning we assign to it, and of the degree they are relevant to us.

Perhaps, life is a lucid dream –– a vivid, circumstantial representation of individual experience that is pertinent to the time it occur and is occurring.

Detour.

A lucid notion. It was imbibed to be imminently approaching within an extremely close proximity. It was a prescience perceived almost faultlessly by the visionary senses. It was quite a laudable resonance, a reverberating thud of uniquely genial quality, to the acoustic senses. It was a majestic, inexplicable yet lucid sensation to the dazed intuition. Although it remained enigmatically bemusing, it was perfectly translucent and nearing. But an unconscious blunder was fortuitously committed. And then there was

A sudden detour transpired with apparent hesitations.

Sa Saliw ng Iyong Tugtugin.

Isayaw mo ako sa saliw ng iyong tugtugin
at tayo'y lilipad sa kawalan, nang walang pagaalinlangan.
Pitumpu't pitong dilim ang aking binilang
bago masilayan ang ningning ng iyong katauhan.
Ang pusyaw na nakalipas na dating sumasaklaw
sa katauhang puno ng pananabik at pag-asam,
ngayo'y batid na ang galak na di' matawaran.

Sa pagsuyong ating pinagdaanan,
kailanma'y di' inasahan na ganito ang kahihinatnan.
Tulad ng pagbigkis ng sinag ng araw sa paraisong luntian,
kasabay ng pagsaklaw ng alapaap sa malawak na kalangitan,
walang pag-alinlangan mong sakupin ang aking kabuuan.
Hirangin mo ako bilang iyo, simula ngayon at magpakailan man.
Unti-unti, ako'y iyong isayaw sa saliw ng iyong tugtugin
at walang pag-aalinlangan, tayo'y lilipad sa kawalan.

Sa kawalang kapwa natin hindi pa narating.
Sa kawalang sakop ang buo nating pagkatao.
Sa kawalang tayong dalawa ay magiging isa.
At sa kawalan, tayo ay patuloy na lilipad nang walang pag-aalinlangan,
habang sumasayaw sa saliw ng iyong tugtugin.
Sa ilang sandali pa ay maabot na natin ang sukdulan,
mananatiling hibang sa damdaming kapwa natin inuusal.