Thursday, December 31, 1998
December 1998
This is another “day after Christmas” and I let a rush of sentimentality stream through my blood’s veins by reading an entry I’ve typed on this same keyboard three hundred and sixty five days past. Then I let the suitable music fade up: “Brick” by Ben Folds Five, to “Chloe Dancer” by Mudhoney.
It’s funny how a year has already fledged past and I still find myself cooking up exactly the same stew in my head. By that I mean, I would tell of exactly the same things, and perhaps even use the same words and phrases. What is even funnier is that it’s just so dead accurate. I have no idea what this proves or whether this would bend in some positive or negative impact in my life, it doesn’t seem to matter any longer.
To put it concretely, I want to talk about my being included in the dean’s list (so much for all my whining), or say something about M____, or something about Christmas and the everlastingly declining economic situation. This gives a hint that nothing really changes, but on the contrary, many things do, if not everything does. Sometimes though, the proximity of the times that I do not want to be distanced from has not enabled me to see the patterns of change in my thought, deed and existence. There are a million arguments surrounding it, but at this point I’m convinced enough, if not biased enough to concede to change. Carl Sagan would even be at my back to tell me that I am the legacy of fifteen billion years of cosmic evolution.
I’ve been asking myself long enough, is the entire universe designed in a fashion of order, or does everything run on chaos? I’d prefer the latter (it appeals to me both personally, philosophically and even scientifically) until H. told me that some nut came up a theory that there is order in chaos. Not that there is any truth in that or it is not dissimilar to asking, if there is any point at all in asking: is infinity finite? If it would be equated mathematically, is there a final decimal to the Pi, 3.1416…x? Does mathematics represent reality as it is?
Music is the highest form of aesthetic contemplation, so Schopenhauer tells me. And so I came to appreciate it with even much more fervor. Aside from the usual NU and RT tracks, the chill out project, the groove garden, and the sounds of Malate’s bars, L____ has introduced me to jazz which is just so beautiful as she is. And she is --- at all respects known to humanity. She is now trekking Sagada hand in hand with her boyfriend, and I can hear them listen to the music of the world as winds whisper and the sun sets glowing at them across those caves.
Monday, November 30, 1998
November 1998
“Sexuality is fluid.” The words came out of her mouth with such fluency that sexuality seems to have made some movement… that it actually flowed.
Somewhere in that conversation she spoke of her contention, that is, bisexuality is a non-issue. You never really ask yourself why you are a heterosexual. And thus, you should not ask yourself why you are a homosexual or a bisexual. In the same way, you never really ask yourself for the scientific explanation of a soul. There are no factors that shape these things. We produce paradigms, reasons, and even theories that would more or less be mere fabrications of a more dominant sex. Did she call that hegemony? All that and her talk of post-modernism, and what not, was told in cleverness, and with a rare conviction you would find only in people like her. Add that rather charming appeal to an even more charming physique. The dark lenses of her of her iron-rimmed glasses made quite unique a vision.
Somewhere in that conversation I wanted to savour her in all her lusciousness.
There was even an additional sweet to the cake --- she lent me, (or did I confiscate it?) her Singles motion picture soundtrack CD.
This didn’t complete the picture though. Everything isn’t so heavenly. Hers was an unconscious effort to increase the burden of my intellectual incompetence. I’m an ignorant, pseudo-intellectual oddball, and she makes me feel it to the bone.
Earlier today I also had a good exchange with ___ & ____. The former was concerned with homosexuality/bisexuality again: it’s historical foundations and its advantages, that is: being able to transfer the beauty of a wo/man to another, as well as that edge in knowing where to touch the body of the same sex since it is of your own. But I don’t think that would be carnally appetizing --- that’s a matter of sexual preference. The latter was concerned once more with Marx, society, politics and economics --- which is a generic blend.
And now it will be Plato all night.
Pity how I can never make up for the two months that simply dragged on.
Alienated Labor Model. Marx is a domesticated name in all schools of thought. It’s too hyped that it’s almost nauseating sometimes. The more popularity is appropriated to an idea, the more it becomes unattractive. But every time I come across it in any subject, I’m always dazed by it as if I only heard it for the first time. It prompts a loud, upbeat sound, as if it were some grunge tune, like “Breath” by Pearl Jam. It’s lyrics would include words like consumer fetishism, elitism, use and exchange value, etc.
I have my own criticisms of it, in general. Marx’ philosophy is quite consistent, not only logical and intelligible but also purposeful and progressive in theory. It is not even incorrect to say that Communism is “heaven on earth.” But it is utopic, to an extent that it can be no different to Plato or More’s Utopia in answering that essential question which pops: how can it be justifiably carried on in society? How can you implement that? Marx philosophy should be an active one, it cannot simply, passively abide on theory. But Marx wouldn’t be here to answer to those questions, as did those who tried to do so in Cuba, China or Russia had earned reputations as corrupt leaders, that’s why Communism wasn’t a success. Besides, Communism will not correspond with man’s seemingly selfish, aggressive human nature. I can say more but I admit, the entire paragraph is bullshit.
I suddenly remember running through his biography and realizing that he could pass as a saint.
This morning, we were reading on Alienated Labor. From here Marx speaks of the alienation, dehumanization and objectification of the laborer, since s/he lives for the product, and s/he becomes something to be consumed, something that is objectified. Labor is definitely not rightfully compensated. The irony is that the more s/he produces, the more s/he becomes objectified and alienated. Greedy Capitalists and Institutions which constitute a wee percent of the population, enjoy the only real profit. The worker is physically exploited and mentally debased. Capitalism is a system that robs us of ourselves and of our freedom. I like that analogy with religion that sounded like the other leftwing Hegelian, Feuerbach.
But these things can be found on my notes, so I should choose to delve into another curiosity. G____ used his teaching career as prime example of how Capitalist Institutions, such as _____, has corrupted his philosophizing soul. And his career tallied accurately on how labor is alienated. There is a great irony on how his exchange value decreases as he teaches more students, and how easily the employer could dismiss him. His life is caged, and time is no longer devoted for human pleasures --- he is physically exploited and mentally debased. He speaks as if there is no fulfilment at all in the job, or not anymore. And there are a number of other striking, stark situations he mentioned. I cannot capture that hour here.
What is even of heavier significance is he insisted that Philosophy cannot offer a substantial future, with exception to being a top janitor or clerk. It is not a profession, but a vocation, so they say. “A philosopher with a wife is comedian.” –Nietzsche.
It’s always a disturbing thought that I’ve been grappling with since then. Now it dawns to me again, and it’s never been absolutely bothersome as this time, now that I’m almost half-done with college. I’ve always loathed the idea that fate toys me around, but I myself cannot keep a deliberate life because it is already happening without being planned out.
Somewhere in that conversation she spoke of her contention, that is, bisexuality is a non-issue. You never really ask yourself why you are a heterosexual. And thus, you should not ask yourself why you are a homosexual or a bisexual. In the same way, you never really ask yourself for the scientific explanation of a soul. There are no factors that shape these things. We produce paradigms, reasons, and even theories that would more or less be mere fabrications of a more dominant sex. Did she call that hegemony? All that and her talk of post-modernism, and what not, was told in cleverness, and with a rare conviction you would find only in people like her. Add that rather charming appeal to an even more charming physique. The dark lenses of her of her iron-rimmed glasses made quite unique a vision.
Somewhere in that conversation I wanted to savour her in all her lusciousness.
There was even an additional sweet to the cake --- she lent me, (or did I confiscate it?) her Singles motion picture soundtrack CD.
This didn’t complete the picture though. Everything isn’t so heavenly. Hers was an unconscious effort to increase the burden of my intellectual incompetence. I’m an ignorant, pseudo-intellectual oddball, and she makes me feel it to the bone.
Earlier today I also had a good exchange with ___ & ____. The former was concerned with homosexuality/bisexuality again: it’s historical foundations and its advantages, that is: being able to transfer the beauty of a wo/man to another, as well as that edge in knowing where to touch the body of the same sex since it is of your own. But I don’t think that would be carnally appetizing --- that’s a matter of sexual preference. The latter was concerned once more with Marx, society, politics and economics --- which is a generic blend.
And now it will be Plato all night.
Pity how I can never make up for the two months that simply dragged on.
Alienated Labor Model. Marx is a domesticated name in all schools of thought. It’s too hyped that it’s almost nauseating sometimes. The more popularity is appropriated to an idea, the more it becomes unattractive. But every time I come across it in any subject, I’m always dazed by it as if I only heard it for the first time. It prompts a loud, upbeat sound, as if it were some grunge tune, like “Breath” by Pearl Jam. It’s lyrics would include words like consumer fetishism, elitism, use and exchange value, etc.
I have my own criticisms of it, in general. Marx’ philosophy is quite consistent, not only logical and intelligible but also purposeful and progressive in theory. It is not even incorrect to say that Communism is “heaven on earth.” But it is utopic, to an extent that it can be no different to Plato or More’s Utopia in answering that essential question which pops: how can it be justifiably carried on in society? How can you implement that? Marx philosophy should be an active one, it cannot simply, passively abide on theory. But Marx wouldn’t be here to answer to those questions, as did those who tried to do so in Cuba, China or Russia had earned reputations as corrupt leaders, that’s why Communism wasn’t a success. Besides, Communism will not correspond with man’s seemingly selfish, aggressive human nature. I can say more but I admit, the entire paragraph is bullshit.
I suddenly remember running through his biography and realizing that he could pass as a saint.
This morning, we were reading on Alienated Labor. From here Marx speaks of the alienation, dehumanization and objectification of the laborer, since s/he lives for the product, and s/he becomes something to be consumed, something that is objectified. Labor is definitely not rightfully compensated. The irony is that the more s/he produces, the more s/he becomes objectified and alienated. Greedy Capitalists and Institutions which constitute a wee percent of the population, enjoy the only real profit. The worker is physically exploited and mentally debased. Capitalism is a system that robs us of ourselves and of our freedom. I like that analogy with religion that sounded like the other leftwing Hegelian, Feuerbach.
But these things can be found on my notes, so I should choose to delve into another curiosity. G____ used his teaching career as prime example of how Capitalist Institutions, such as _____, has corrupted his philosophizing soul. And his career tallied accurately on how labor is alienated. There is a great irony on how his exchange value decreases as he teaches more students, and how easily the employer could dismiss him. His life is caged, and time is no longer devoted for human pleasures --- he is physically exploited and mentally debased. He speaks as if there is no fulfilment at all in the job, or not anymore. And there are a number of other striking, stark situations he mentioned. I cannot capture that hour here.
What is even of heavier significance is he insisted that Philosophy cannot offer a substantial future, with exception to being a top janitor or clerk. It is not a profession, but a vocation, so they say. “A philosopher with a wife is comedian.” –Nietzsche.
It’s always a disturbing thought that I’ve been grappling with since then. Now it dawns to me again, and it’s never been absolutely bothersome as this time, now that I’m almost half-done with college. I’ve always loathed the idea that fate toys me around, but I myself cannot keep a deliberate life because it is already happening without being planned out.
