Sunday, August 31, 2014

This week's message from God

Wisdom is knowing the difference between necessary and unnecessary pain. Pain is a part of our growing and learning process. To be a good person, there are 3 conditions: 1) deny yourself; 2) bear your cross; 3) follow God. (August 31 Gospel)

God does not make a mistake. There was no mistake on you. God loves you for who you are, no matter what you do. So just keep on living. (Mom's Night Out)

The meaning of life is living, appreciating nature, people, art, music... and dancing. especially dancing. (Only Lovers Left Alive)

Friday, August 29, 2014

bungi

it is that void left by your tooth for which i have devoted a certain spot
in my heart because your smile is now twice bright. each day
the number of candles left on the altar increases as disciples and pilgrims pay their respects.

never have they seen a smile that smiles.
have you?

sometimes i wonder if i could fill that void with my tongue, with your teeth on each side of the gap molding, framing it like samson between the two pillars but in this case, it is the tongue that yields and not the pillars. it is soft and

Friday, August 22, 2014

if i

if i could choose how to live, i'd choose the one in which i am always pressed up to you with the tiny tiny feathers on your neck tickling my pug-ly pug-ly nose
and then my world will always smell like cheezum and sweat and earwax and safeguard and i will be an elf

if i could choose how to die

Thursday, August 21, 2014

The Proverbial Balance Scale


The internet model of communication is simpler and more advantageous than that of the broadcast and of the telephone since the end-users are more in control and the system provides lesser limitations as to number of people who may communicate, and as to how they communicate. It is indeed a win-win situation. It is as if the only limits to communication are the personal circumstance (capacity to perceive and express, and the social influences to one’s being) and the choices of each person.
Benkler spoke of ‘control’ and the commercialization of information. In simpler words, he meant to say that the trend in the past 150 years was that information was only available to those who can afford it because communication is costly. However, a cheap form of communication, for example, broadcast (television and radio), is more susceptible to control. In one of my subjects in college, I came across the concept of “ideological state apparatuses”. Examples of these ISAs are the mass media, educational institutions, and religions. ISAs are the modes by which the powerful can influence and control people. The simpler and more accurate term for them would be “brainwashers”. As an example, take the GMA Network or ABS-CBN. Although we have different TV shows to choose from, we can only choose from those provided by the networks. Thus, there is already a limitation. Influence comes from watching what the networks present as, for example, the ‘real Filipino’ or the ‘real state of the Philippines’. It as if they tell us ‘this is how you should be’, ‘this is what you are’, ‘this is how they are’, and ‘this is how things are now’. Even the news, which are presented as impartial, unfeeling truths, had already been limited by the news writers, researchers, and cameramen.
In the video, Benkler discussed how the advent of the internet somehow changed the interplay between power and information. With the emergence of free software and peer-production, he said that the limit now is creativity and human wisdom. Everyone has the capacity to publish and have global reach. I beg to differ. Although influence and power of control has been extended to the middle class, there are still those who do not have access to the internet, and whose voices still have not been heard. Thus, commercialization of information is still present. Thus, when we talk of freedom and opportunities, it does not refer to all.
With all the freedom that we, the internet generation, have, what do we do with it? It makes me wonder sometimes: if communication has now been made easy because every person is just one text/instant/video message away, how come people are still lonely, misunderstood, and some even are sociopaths? The percentage of suicides and suicide attempts are higher in countries with the more advanced technology. Crimes, ranging from bullying to online store scams to pornography to terrorism, are easier to perpetrate thru the technology now available. Is this what we choose when we are free and almost limitless? Shouldn’t it be that the more civilized society is, the more understanding the minds of every person are?

Here is the video :)

Man vs. Machine vs. Man


It is ironic that I do not consider myself a fan of the internet and yet I make use of its ‘services’. I say that I am not a fan because if there would be no constraints as to time, resources, etc., I would prefer talking to someone tete-a-tete, writing and reading in paper, receiving letters, drawing with paint, and the many physical counterparts of things that cyberspace had simplified. I have assumptions on why people crave disclosing the tiny details of their tiny (in parity to the world wide web) lives in the internet, that I would rather not say here because I am sure we all have are own opinion about it. It is also ironic that I am not a fan when I was already acquainted with a computer as early as the 2nd grade and such was a time when not all schools offer computer subjects in their curriculum. The internet for me is only a helpful tool, and we can still function without it. This view is partly based on the idea that we human beings should not be slaves of technology and human interaction is best done in the flesh, not through packet switching, and partly based on my distrust of the internet system as a whole.

How can one not distrust the internet when these are happening nowadays?

  • News from the CNN that some hackers have in their possession 1.2 billion usernames and passwords
  • As if one internet is not enough? Clearly, the influence of the internet in people’s live will grow even more up to a point that we won’t be able to function without it.
  • This concept of the internet of things gave me a chilling effect. What else could this mean if not the sense that humans are now likened and used as computers?
Upon watching the video, I gained new insights. I realized that the internet is neutral and it is actually the person (his preferences, needs, and use of the internet) that shapes his outlook of the system. The internet is nothing but a set of codes that are changeable to fit the needs of people. Humans, not machines, will still rule.
My second realization is that a good law will not have bad consequences. People’s disagreement and contentions on forms of regulation are brought about by their distrust to the government that rules over them. This might not be the case in a world where citizens are secured that their rights and freedoms will not be abused by those in power. It is true that the enjoyment of a right may sometime entail a sacrifice of a bit of our freedom, as embodied under Article 19 of the New Civil Code. When we vote the leaders who will represent us, such freedom of choice is accompanied by the capitulation of our control over some aspects of society and though indirectly, of ourselves. That is why I agree with Lawrence Lessig when he said that legislators must understand the relationship of the modes of regulations with behavior. What he is implying is that we must choose our leaders well and pray that they realize the responsibility and the authority conferred by their office. Still, the flaw lies on humans. We all come from different backgrounds which shaped our system of beliefs. One person’s priority may not be another’s. The same applies to our legislators. The only hope I see is the eradication of the concept of “is-ism”. Nothing is constant.

Here is the video :)