Graces...

I never thought of getting an ace in the poetess' class. The most that I've had for an estimate was 1.5. Months back, I thought I must have waged an intellectual war with her. From November to February, I oftentimes end my saturday classes with momentary heartbreaks... (until I attend the evening mass, teehee!) Albeit my abrupt silence, thanks for recognizing that am trying (way) hard to get through the playful words. Thanks for my making my crude words of truth survive. Again, thanks for the flat one Ma'am Ophie.

And thanks to lit majors classmates for the wonderful friendship. (Ynna, Carla, Anderson, Ma'am Tet, Sir Benj, Sherwin, Burns, Eman, Kim, Essel, Daddy Ben, SIR JACK etc.) I love you all. See you around guys. =)

To Dr. Hornedo, just the same. Thanks for seeing my effort to dismiss my class in Arts and Letters early just to catch your lectures; and for appreciating my report, despite my being hyperventilated. Thanks for the ace. =)

The dream's still alive. Go for the gold na itu. (woohoo)

A PRIORI: from epistemology to ethics

So i shall have my last strike of vice before I get back into writing. After this, I'll just have Levinas and Merleau-Ponty (and occasions of sporting activities, that's for certain).

A priori is a mode of knowing that comes before experience. It obviously came from the word prior which means before. My first serious encounter of the term was with Immanuel Kant in the Preface of the Critique of Pure Reason where he extended this epistemic tool into metaphysics. We know numbers in an a priori sense, there is an immediate and internal experience of "number two" if one says "two." One does not necessarily need two trees nor bananas to think of "two" -- since this number comes to the mind prior than its representations. It means to say that when we speak of a priori, we do not just speak of how one knows but what one knows. Phenomenologists took the term seriously, while referring immediately to a kind of being that exists prior to experience. Instead of focusing on traditional mind-mechanisms like anamnesis (where one draws out what is essentially "his", i.e., had been internalized), a priori becomes a mode of existence -- a permanent and independent one. A good example of this is how we know about the existence of our nape. It takes a mirror, and not a direct encounter/experience to realize that we have one. Another would be the things that we are deprived from when we are invincibly ignorant -- we may know, yet we do not have the chance to do so. A thing is an a priori insofar as it is -- regardless of the knower, or of the mode of experience. Max Scheler, on the other hand, would talk of a priori values or fixed virtues that we strive to comply with in order to put up an ethical life. This means to say that even if we live according to experience, and according to our preferred order of values, we are always called to make things right -- to comply with an a priori, which is in accordance to our nature as human beings.

Traditionally , an a priori becomes an a priori because of its being fixed -- it is there, and is bound to exist because of its telos - reason or rationale. This should be easy when thinking of plain concepts. Epistemic products, plain mind-objects that are cold and abstract would be amenable to the fixed character of the a priori. However, this becomes a big problem when talking of human experience.

Nailing a friendship into a lifetime kind, for example, is putting a relation into a stable and fixed state. We could even say that friends who had been struggling to be good and worthy for each other are meant to be friends - the relation must have been fated -- and despite all the hardships, an implicit sense of commitment can always be seen that makes the link PERMANENT. For the thought that friendship shall last forever, these two persons could always believe that the link shall stay same -- through thick and thin, no matter what happens and no matter what they will. For every error, there is forgiveness. For allowing the other to grow, there's permissiveness. For the holy name of respect, there's proximity -- distance and space, while having in mind that friends shall always remain friends, if they truly are friends. There is then an a priori sense of friendship. Proof to this are the following lines, "No matter what happens, we remain friends. Regardless if you care or not, I would still accept you." (implicit: do whatever you want, you're a friend to me) OR "You'll always be a friend, regardless of what you say. I shall never betray you anyway." (implicit: you're a friend to me even if i disappoint you). Now I think these lines serve as threats.

I move that we should not be complacent with these wonderful a prioris. Sure I won't betray, but by my own doing I can always be turned away from. I can't keep human relations, and in this given example a wonderful friendship, just on my own. Being tired, feeling wounded and useless for being not listened to are heavy responses to complacency, because "friendship will always yet just be there -- no matter what". While a priori refers to the "relation" -- it cannot totally cover human experience. I am keeping not a linkage of ideas but of lived persons. Unfaltering love and concern does not mean "just being around", it means keeping up, saving things and values not because it allays my heavy heart within this particular moment but because it is slowly creating me as a person who is up to what is good. I think we should be reminded that flexing a priori to human experience calls for a sort of maintenance. We keep things that are fixedly good through an active sense of commitment. We are now called again to weigh, to understand values as how they come. To clear, this is not objectification, but a proper way of understanding a person in way he makes himself.

By friendship, we understand that there are things that we can always nail as fixed, hail as a priori or even fated, yet we may easily lose. Even if thought of, feelings may always make it slither away. And with that, one has to be careful. At this stance, we are not just dealing with concepts nor of cold commitments. We deal with reality.

we shall shatter this artificial world

The title of this entry originated from a part of Tracy's "note of thanks" (that's how we call our valedictory speech in UST). She'll be saying it proud later, but she and Amiel gave me a sneak preview of their speeches as early as two weeks ago.

Tracy had been told to change the word, "shatter" because it sounds heavy plus the fact that it could just appeal to the philosophical community. Amiel, perhaps for the inclusion of Fr. Ferriols, "ilundag mo beybe" safely passed the jurors. Probably, they found the phrase cute, but am not sure if everyone will have a grasp of what it truly means. Nonetheless, he was also adviced to reduce the metaphysical undertones of his address of petition (and that's the thomasian way of calling "salutation").

Amiel and Trace made highly existential speeches, close to being metaphysical but is very much meaningful. I am proud of the way these two (and the other 30ish) brilliant minds absorbed philosophy. As their welfare under my "loving" custody is coming to a technical close, I could but pray that they will carry on with their quest for meaning. I'll miss them sitting in my class, raising good questions -- nodding, even if I know that they're already half asleep (thanks for the support guys). Benjo reciting in class while converting everything to Lacan or Levinas. Kris Martus or Voltaire getting my microphone because I talk low and slow, and I need to be heard because we always talk along a "process". I shall miss them lurking around AB and at the eccle library, because of their research work, or in the case of the matronas -- sightseeing a few good philosophers. TGR and the boys' team complaining about the popularity of eccle's wonder twins. Perhaps not at YM, but I will surely miss these kids' actual company -- pulling me out of the Faculty room for some short talks and hearty laughs. Robert, dropping me off in front of sir bob, Rommel sharing his all-time hit jokes, JP harassing Peter and Peter talking of Wojtyla. The girls tracing friendster-dot-coms among themselves. The guys dreaming of becoming champions in basketball, and in engaging the lower years in their "philosophical" games. I shall miss everyone trying to have a grab of the microphone (during videoke sessions) with Tracy and Levi as the usual winners. The good talks, Kali's "new beginning" and many others.

I am so proud of what these kids have become, and Trace and Amiel's speeches will simply reveal. I am praying that they will always be spurred by the same interest for truth and meaning that they have right now. I am praying that their idealisms will never falter. I am so proud that they are able to recognize that philosophy is not but a rite of passage to another degree, to an occupation or so - but to a better self, and to better decisions in life. When requested to remove the term "shatter" from her speech, I advised Tracy to disobey and retain it, and she said that she also intends to do so. EVERYBODY DESERVES THAT HEAVY WORD. Having heard that, I was so happy -- this call for an authentic experience deserves to be heard. And yes, the call could only come from a philosopher -- an authentic philosopher.

True enough, we need to shatter accidents in order to arrive at meaning. And at times, we need to jump from our comfort zones. The things that used to numb our thoughtful sensibility to and for life, needs to annihilated. We are all confronted by a complicated world, the human challenge is to find ourselves in its midst and to conquer the world through decisions that we can die for. It is true that we dwell in the world, but it is also true that we have to act upon that same world. More than history and perhaps anything else, the most sovereign entity in this enterprise is man who grabs his life's steering wheel and determines the path he wishes to tread. This man is always entitled to his choice of path, but reason and the drive for authentic existence could just lead him to the truth and good -- and of course we talk not of those we carelessly dictate, but of the objective and authentic ones. To shatter, nonetheless, implies a kind of rebuilding. It is the moment where we identify ourselves apart from what we do not essentially need. In this stage, decisions can't be made just for pleasure, fun or perhaps because it's cute or gay. To shatter the artificial world means to choose for what is right and to die for it, to succumb into the difficulty, not because suffering makes an act noble, but because it is the only way to conquer the obstacles to an authentic life. It happens when we choose to give up the things that we could be entitled to, but are nonetheless unimportant to what we intend to become. To shatter means to sacrifice, for the sake of something higher. It means intentionally going beyond, because staying in the usual cage would only lead to a creation of endless and pointless circles. To shatter means to grab the chance of soaring high, not because what's up there is cute; but because through shattering, one becomes free.

This teacher, this intellectual midwife, or perhaps mother, is proud to hear her children speak of their thoughts and hearts that had been crystallized by four meaningful years of academic discipline. I am so proud, truly proud.

I have to warn you my beloved that life wouldn't be as easy as how it had been in college. (uhhm, had it been easy for you guys anyway) But you're fully-packed, very much loaded, it's just a matter of carrying on with the battle. With what you have right now, soar high and make us prouder. Continue your pilgrimage. Should you come back, you're forever welcome.