speculum

After Ondoy: A Photographic Record

2009-10-06T15:43:00.032+08:00

It has been 10 days since tropical storm "Ondoy" (international name "Ketsana") ravaged the central areas of Luzon island in the Philippines, and many of the worst-affected--who lost loved ones, or were forced to flee the rising waters--are still struggling to recover from the grief and the ruin. This is starkly clear from the following images taken in town of Marilao, one of the worst-hit areas in Bulacan province.

The recorder had accompanied family members who journeyed to Marilao to visit a relative and to donate sacks of rice and boxes of instant noodles to the Shrine of the Divine Mercy, which is located near the inundated areas. Hence, unlike when they had gone to the headquarters of a television network, going to Divine Mercy church gave them a chance to see at first hand the results of the storm.

In the residential area where lived relatives of the recorder, the most evident mark of the past disaster was the ongoing cleanup. Like an obverse of the typical Philippine fiesta, wherein the streets would be crisscrossed with wires bearing colorfully festive vexilla, the streets were filled with drying clothes hung from wires string from opposite sides of the road.

To explain: the floodwaters, in many areas rising higher than 3 metres, had left layers of mud on everything they had touched. Therefore the streets were filled with various items left to dry after heavy washing, from blankets and beds to bags and books and, of course, clothes of every perceptible variety. Added to these were piles of debris, trash, and items discarded after the waters rendered them unusable, tangible reminders of the other, more painful losses from the flood.

And the residents of this area were the fortunate ones by comparison. Others had lost their homes entirely and had been forced to live on both sides of MacArthur Highway (a short drive from a large shopping mall), with many, especially children, begging for coin from the passing vehicles. Their makeshift houses, with walls and roofs made of cartons, plastics, and wheels (the last to make the materials too heavy to be blown away) present a heartbreaking picture of poverty.

Many of them had formerly lived by the side of the river, and had therefore been the first and worst victims when the dangerously-risen waters of Angat dam were released into the rivers. In one instance, this recorder was told, the victims had been 3 children whose mother had left to buy rice from the nearby public market. She had returned amid heavy rain to find water overtopping their home, "at halos mabaliw siya, hanggang ngayon" (and she was driven next to madness, even until now). As seen from the photo on top, that riverside is deserted now, save for persons scavenging for whatever can be salvaged from the remains of their former homes.

The victims are struggling to repair their lives, and we should help them at every step; and if, some would persist in the capitalist line that they should lift themselves by their bootstraps, then we should at least give them boots. Indeed, we note with joy how Church and State, private persons, and various organizations have mobilized to take up the slack and give to the afflicted.

Thus, in but half an hour in our relative's area, we saw two vans--bearing no banners and flanked by no media persons--anonymously distributing small plastic bags with food and clothing, and as we left we saw various residents returning from yet another vehicle. These were private persons acting with no portfolio save an outstanding generosity. I only hope that we will continue to give and resist the onset of donor fatigue when it comes, for the afflicted will surely need help on the long haul, and not for a mere 10 days.

May God bless us all.

Quote for the day:

“The right to food, like the right to water, has an important place within the pursuit of other rights, beginning with the fundamental right to life. It is therefore necessary to cultivate a public conscience that considers food and access to water as universal rights of all human beings, without distinction or discrimination.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, ii, 27)

*This will be re-posted on our main blog Scriptorium.

Capitalism is not the answer

2008-09-28T23:17:00.003+08:00

The love of money is not the solution, but lies at the root of the evil... (First posted here on September 1, 2008, on our main weblog Scriptorium. As the shocks of the last month have shown, there was so much it had failed to say...)

I'm just sharing a comment I made on the weblog of Brother Bo Sanchez, a member of the one true Church and a leader in the charismatic movement. Brother Sanchez had asked (here) for opinions on why certain non-believing nations prosper while some countries filled with Christians seem mired in poverty. The full answer, of course, is extremely complicated, mainly hinging on the compatibility of a dominant social ethos with market-driven capitalism, but the answer I wrote focused rather on the ideological assumptions implicit in the question, thus:

"I’d like to answer the question from a “natural” or non-Christian perspective.

"Naturally speaking, the question may be premised on the wrong notion of progress, based on the industrial hyper-capitalism that came to dominate the West around the 19th century. This doctrine, a marriage of utilitarian economics and secularized Puritan ethics, prioritizes ever-expanding production and consumption over “intangible” values like art and meaning, and the demands of the market over those of family and community.

"I do not think this hyper-capitalism constitutes a valid standard of progress, for as the critiques leveled by, among others, E.F. Schumacher, Amartya Sen, Rachel Carson have shown, it is a disordered ideology that endangers human values and, by damaging the environment, even human survival. Keynes himself noted that the capitalist engine required the violation of “traditional” rules propounded by almost every religion and philosophy before the Industrial Revolution, which shows its inconsistency with the distilled wisdom of humanity.

"We must ask, therefore, how did “progressive” nations emerge from poverty to wealth? Most often, it happened because of the possession of a strategic location or natural resource; through the use of surplus capital created by exploiting a subject people or the working class (e.g., [the way] white Anglo-Saxon Protestants stole a resource-rich continent from Native Americans and Mexicans); by adopting ideas of envy and greed destructive of communal ties; by having a work-ethic that prioritizes production over “intangible” happiness; or because of a social indifference to the needy that compels them to adopt industry.

"None of these are the result of “virtue” and “goodness”, and all of them lead to ecological destruction. In response to flavoredwater [a commenter on the same blog page] and others, I must point out that the earth can sustain even a population 10 times bigger than today’s, if people will moderate their greed for wealth and products they don’t need; but it cannot survive even a population 10 times smaller with our current average energy consumption.

"The problem then is not poverty, but greed and social injustice; and this can be solved not by envying the disordered systems of others, but by spreading Buddhist spiritualism or Christian social doctrine or eco-humanism; for the love of money does not point out the solution, but constitutes the root of the evil." (Links supplied.)

The answer is deliberately premised on strictly natural or "secular" bases, for non-Christians who might have difficulties identifying with supernaturalist reasoning. However, my current adherence to what I call rational or humane economics is premised on both natural (not-specifically-Christian) and supernatural (Christian) grounds. These grounds have been amply explained by G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, and Dorothy Day, as well as by contemporary proponents like Pope Benedict XVI (see John Allen) and Eugene McCarraher (see Vox Nova); but see also Mark and Louise Zwick, Stephen Hand (whom I deeply admire, and hope and pray may return from the edge of schism), and Anthony Basile's combative but incisive Crucified Between Two Thieves.

For a general introduction to the debate, please see E.F. Schumacher's Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered (which deconstructs the ideology of modern economic theory from a personalist perspective) and Robert Nelson's Economics as Religion (which does the same, but from a wealth-is-better viewpoint). Christians may also compare Laborem Exercens by the late Pope John Paul II (which affirms that labor is more important than capital), with Michael Novak's The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (which defends capitalism as being consistent with human values); and among online essays, "Capitalism is not Catholic" from Athanasius Contra Mundi and "Three Catholic Cheers for Capitalism" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

May God bless us all.

"The Western Air Temple" is finally out, and online!

2007-12-16T02:59:00.000+08:00

Everyone who loves Avatar: The Last Airbender as much as I do has been subsisting on the spoilers of "The Western Air Temple" posted on the various sites and fora; and a lot of us have been victimized by the annoying--actually, homicide-inspiring--fake videos going around, but this is the real deal! The episode was uploaded to Youtube from Canada (I think), where it was first shown, and watching it feels like seeing the Nile after crossing the Sahara. See it now!

Part 1 of "The Western Air Temple"

Part 2 of "The Western Air Temple"

Part 3 of "The Western Air Temple"

Brief comments follow (WITH SPOILERS--you have been warned):

I repeat, WITH SPOILERS! In accordance with normal practice, I posted this review only now, but if you haven't watched the episode, STOP here, now...

Katara's confrontation with Zuko is fascinating. The only times anyone else in Avatar uses that tone with anyone was when Azula terrorized her ship's crew in "The Avatar State" (Book 2, chapter 1) and, later, the Dai Li. The parallelism is uncanny, and seems to point to an important Katara-Azula plot element, maybe a water-fire confrontation.
Zuko's transformation from the Prince of Darkness to the Royal Wuss is very funny, and allows him to displace Sokka as the main comic relief in the episode. This actually accentuates his strength as a character, since it shows that he has the moral and emotional courage to do everything necessary--i.e., shed his pride and abase himself before the utter mistrust of former enemies--to become a better human being. Perhaps his character will turn out to be the best-written in the series.
I hope that's not how Combustion Man ends. It seems pretty unimpressive concerning his lethal power, and unworthy of the danger he poses to the Gaang. Here's hoping we'll see him again, and watch him have a more epic exit.
On part 3, pause the vid at exactly between 6min 28s and 6min 29s. Trust me, it will blow your mind...
And finally, the episode feels incomplete somehow, and a bit rushed. My brother (who introduced me to the series) says it seems less like an independent episode and more like Part 3 of "Black Sun"--kind of like George Lazenby after Sean Connery: good, but the predecessor set the bar a bit higher. It's not the best chapter, in other words, but then again, after a long drought, even lukewarm water is good water.

Oh, and P.S., I vote for Zutara and Tophaang:)

Of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy: Which is the true Church?

2007-11-25T20:07:00.000+08:00

Both sides share the blame for the separation; and yet there is still only one Church, hence Pope John Paul II’s fervent wish that the Church breathe again with her two lungs...

I'm just sharing a short essay I wrote on Yahoo! Answers, where an inquirer named David recently asked whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy represented the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" founded by Christ. Briefly stating the differences, especially as to Papal authority and the filioque, he said: "I want to know what Catholics, Orthodox and I guess Protestants think about this. Who abandoned whom?"

My reply was as follows:

"The answer is somewhat complicated, so this'll be long...

"It's true that the early Church always believed in the existence of a single universal Church composed of a set of particular churches. According to Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 AD), the "credentials" of [the] Church [as Church] could be verified through a twofold test: (a) Apostolic succession through the bishops, of which the main illustration he used was the Roman succession from the Apostle Peter, which would then guarantee (b) the faithful transmission of Apostolic tradition (see also 2 Thess 2:15).

"However, the traditionalism of the 2nd element did not mean mechanical repetition, but an organic development of the Faith as its understanding was deepened through the centuries (cf. the Commonitorium of Vincent of Lerins). By the time of the early Councils, this meant the use of both old & new philosophical terminology (e.g., homoousios, hypostasis) to define what Christians believed on the nature of God, Christ, and salvation; hence the progressively modified formulations of the ancient creeds (or "symbols"), as new questions and disputes arose.

"Herein lies the 1st major Catholic-Orthodox difference, for by the mid-1st millenium, Western thinkers came to see a major, even fatal problem in the early theology of the Trinity: Given that the Divine Persons have one being and substance, so that they are distinguished only by their relations (the Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten by the Father, etc.), then how are the Son and the Spirit to be distinguished if both of them directly come from the Father alone? Also, if the Son is equal to the Father in Godhead, how can He not share the power to generate the Spirit?

"When the western churches (and lastly, Rome) incorporated this insight/innovation into the Creed of Constantinople, the eastern churches viewed this as a corruption of the Faith of the Eastern Councils. This was strange, in view of the frank innovations made in those same Councils (one thinks that the East stopped favoring development when the West started doing the developing), but understandable if we remember how lowly the half-barbarian West and its theology was viewed by the civilized East. In fact, even before this doctrinal controversy had erupted, the East had declared canonical war on the West when, in the Quinisext Council under the East Roman Emperor, it condemned Western customs of prayer that differed from the Eastern and [the Emperor] even sent an army to compel the Pope to submit.

"This leads to the 2nd major Catholic-Orthodox difference: on the role of the Papacy. In the early Church, Rome was accorded a passive primacy (i.e., in "soft" power); hence Irenaeus' dictum that the whole Church must agree with Rome--"which presides in charity", according to Ignatius of Antioch. Active primacy (i.e., in "hard" power), however, was another matter; for while Eastern patriarchs like John Chrysostom, Athanasius, etc. would appeal to, and be championed by, Rome when beleaguered by secular and ecclesiastical politics, they would often resist Papal authority in other times. In practice, real control was held by the Emperor, who thus presided over the disagreeing bishops; and Rome, though given "primacy of honor", was a spare tire when it came to "primacy of jurisdiction".

"The major break came when, in the Reform of the 11th century, the Church in the West attempted to break free of the State control that had characterized both East and West for centuries, which attempt meant, among others, a shift in central jurisdiction from Emperor to Pope. This was resisted in both East and West, for it amounted to revolution, and the established bishops didn't take kindly to the confrontational tactics of Reformers like Hildebrand and Silva-Candida. The East-West estrangement was formalized as a result, and the attempted unions of succeeding centuries failed because of Eastern hostility and Western stupidity--though the West would still send an army to help the East against Muslim attack as late as 1396.

"In short, both sides share the blame for the separation; and yet, based on the foregoing, I'm of the opinion that there is still only one Church, with its main body centered on the Roman See, but with its particular churches jurisdictionally divided into several pieces; for Roman doctrine is more consistent with the tradition-development and faith-reason pattern of the early Church, and with its recognition of Papal primacy, of which universal jurisdiction is an organic but historically-influenced development. Nonetheless, one cannot deny the value of the conservatism of the East, which helps anchor the Church in times of intellectual ferment; hence Pope John Paul II’s fervent wish that the Church breathe [again] with her two lungs.

"Sorry for the length, but I do hope it helps. For further discussion, you could email me if you like, but in any case, God bless you."

C'est tout, and, if you were also asking about these or similar matters, Dear Reader, I hope this illuminates the subject somewhat. Deus vobiscum.

History as Christian Vocation

2007-10-23T20:11:00.000+08:00

Christianity therefore calls her to believe not merely in a series of abstract intellectual principles and moral precepts--the existence of God, human dignity and freedom, the demand for justice--but in a constellation of historical assertions, centering on Yeshua, but extending to preceding Jewish and Gentile history, and to the subsequent history of the Church, the community of Christian believers.

So long as there is an unreserved "obedience of the understanding", a knowledge of that history is not deemed absolutely essential to salvation, save as to the central facts of the life of Yeshua; but belief in every article of the Creed, obedience of every commandment, the conduct of every act of worship, is rooted in that history and contains an implicit affirmation of its truth; and every explanation, defense, deepening of Christian religious heritage requires, at some point, a return to the historical foundations of Christianity.

The vocation of the Christian historian, the believer who makes it a point to study and understand the temporal roots of her Faith, is therefore a vital munus, a mission and ministry, within the greater munus of the Apostolic Church. Being mission and ministry, it therefore implies a twofold dignity that is both freedom and responsibility: The Christian historian must remain a Christian, and must affirm the historical and trans-historical assertions upon which her Faith rests; this provides freedom from needless doubt, freedom from the need to speculate on the origin, meaning, and purpose of human life, but entails the concomitant responsibility to stand by that Faith and proclaim it without compromise or question.

At the same time, she must be truly a historian, basing her historical findings on the evidence and method of her research; this provides an intellectual freedom to speculate and explore, but also imposes the responsibility to adhere to historical methodology, and to stand by the historical conclusions that are thus reached. These are both based on her Faith, which calls her to fearlessly believe that its assertions will stand the test of inquiry, and that the conclusions of doctrinal tradition and historical science can therefore never truly be inconsistent.

These, in turn, are ultimately based on the ancient idea that truth cannot contradict truth, and on the likewise ancient Christian notion that the same God Who created the capacity to believe also created the capacity to think, that the same God, the source and standard of truth, revealed both the data of Faith and the facts gleaned by Reason, and that Faith and Reason can hence never truly be contradictory.

This does not mean, of course, that apparent contradictions will not come into view. Indeed, they have often appeared in the past, in those days when Babylon and Assyria were both believed to be myth for lack of independent (i.e., non-Biblical) verification, when Pontius Pilatus was considered a figment of Christian imagination, when St. Augustine's theory of the evolution of germinal to higher forms was considered errant nonsense, when Creation from nothing contradicted the apparent eternity of the world.

Consistently, those doubts were later resolved in favor of the traditional Christian assertions, after archaeological, palaeontological and astrophysical exploration uncovered evidence-sand-covered cities, etched names, evolving animal forms, and cosmic expansion from a primeval Big Bang-that showed the lack of any real contradiction. There is no sinecure, however, in the triumphs of the past, for history moves forward, and new questions will arise to which Faith and Reason, following their respective methods, will initially give inconsistent answers.

In those times, the Christian historian must be faithful to the dual dignity she chose, and must strive to reconcile both; but when that is impossible with her methods and the facts at her disposal, as a Christian first, she must acknowledge the supremacy of Revelation: she must affirm the truths of Faith, which have the infallible guarantee of God's direct revelation and guidance, over Reason, which is subject to human error in method, ignorance in premises, and prideful obstinacy or innocent mistake in conclusions.

At the same time, she must faithfully record her findings as a historian, explaining the methods of her search and the bases of her conclusions, explaining too that they apparently contradict the infallible content of her Faith, always confident that better methods, new data, and wiser minds will someday prove that history and Christian belief actually express the same truth. Till then she must bear with the criticisms of both her fellow historians and fellow believers, endure even the anguish of doubt in her soul. Such is the price of truth; and to be Christian is to affirm the truth even at the cost of death, in union with Yeshua, the Logos made human flesh, Who spoke truth even in the face of execution. Such would be the cross of the Christian historian; and given her task, such too would be her salvation.

Deceive and conquer: why GMA will stay in power (part 1)

2007-10-22T21:51:00.000+08:00

In the past few weeks, the Philippines has been convulsed by a somewhat surreal group of scandals and mini-scandals surrounding President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (or GMA/PGMA). First, a son of Speaker Jose De Venecia (JDV) alleged that the Mainland Chinese company ZTE had bribed Philippine officials to secure a major contract, with the knowledge of the President’s husband. Then, a reportedly weak impeachment complaint against GMA--one that, if denied due course, would “immunize” her for another year--became the focus of allegations that she was trying to manipulate the impeachment process. A few weeks after, it was revealed that officials attending a meeting at the Presidential Palace had received “Christmas gifts” of half-a-million pesos each; and as that scandal began to snowball, a massive explosion rocked an uptown mall and fuelled speculation that it was the government’s handiwork.

Under normal circumstances, such a series of events would be the writing on the wall for a leader. In particular, the resulting clash between the President and the Speaker seems to spell her doom: The support of the savvy JDV had been instrumental in defeating prior attempts to unseat her, and his defection could enable the House Opposition to marshal enough votes to impeach GMA--who would then be tried and probably convicted by the Opposition-dominated Senate. Even more, the Catholic Bishops have publicly demanded an explanation for the “gifts”; a key GMA ally, former-President Fidel V. Ramos (FVR), has publicly criticized her; and there are rumbles of dissatisfaction in the military. With all these factors ranged against her, why is it nonetheless probable, even almost certain, that GMA will hang on to power?

The Political Ecology

The first reason for GMA’s past and future longevity is the existence of a structurally favorable political climate. By this, I do not mean that GMA enjoys popular support--far from it, in fact--, but rather that, in terms of institutions, it is unlikely that any force or group of forces will have the strength to remove her through peaceful mass action or by mobilizing legal processes of removal.

To explain: I think the Philippine political system is best understood if we see its major players as estates divided into blocs composed of factions. An estate, following Weber’s usage, is a group distinguished by its specific social functions and conventions (rather than by mere economic standing, as in the case of a class); blocs are subgroups made cohesive by a common ideology, orientation, or interest, and which are the actual Philippine equivalents of political parties; and factions are groups usually united by personal antipathy or allegiance. In the Philippines, the estates would be the Thinkers or “lords spiritual” (its Blocs being the Church, the Left, and the urban intelligentsia); the Warriors (i.e., the regular military, the armed Left, and the criminal and private armies); the Commons (the urban middle class, and the rural electorates); and the Magnates or “lords temporal” (i.e., the political elite, big business, and organized crime). There are other estates and other blocs, but they are not as politically significant.

Two special cases should be mentioned: (a) the urban poor, which first became a cohesive bloc as the mass base of former President Estrada, but was neutralized by the suppression of the pro-Estrada protests of May 2001; and (b) organized labour, which has tremendous potential power but whose organization and numbers are exerted for economic and not for political ends. The political mobilization of these groups, as partially occurred for opposing sides in 2001, would end the unchallenged hegemony of liberal-patrimonial politics in the Philippines, but is not likely for the moment.

There is no space here for a detailed explanation of these estates and blocs, most of which were politicized during and immediately after the regime of former President Marcos; but for our purposes, it suffices to make the following tentative observations:

(1) Since 1986, the successful removal of a sitting President through peaceful mass action has required a coalition composed of at least one bloc from each estate. Hence, the 1986 EDSA revolt was carried out by an alliance of the Church, the non-aligned intelligentsia, the urban middle class, the military, and the Opposition factions of big business and the political elite; and the 2001 EDSA revolt required the same broad alliance, with the addition of the intellectual Left, which directly participated in the protests.

(2) Of these blocs/factions, the most important have been the military, the Church, the urban middle class (as the popular base of the protests), and the opposition faction of the political elite (which provides the leadership). The absence of any one of these blocs/factions, especially the last, renders removal of a President through peaceful mass action unlikely.

(3) A successful removal through peaceful mass action requires a correlation of forces that favors removal; that is, in leadership, will, and political strength, the pro-ouster coalition must have the advantage over the administration. Thus, the 1986 coalition was marshaled against a regime weakened by economic crisis, the President’s wasting illness, and the attacks of the intellectual and armed Left; and the 2001 coalition confronted a President whose main political base was the isolated and untested urban poor, and who had neither the skill nor the machinery to counter-mobilize it.

At present, however, the preconditions for successful removal of the President through peaceful mass action simply do not exist, as was amply demonstrated in the almost-successful ouster attempt of 2005. To begin with, the main social blocs have been isolated, neutralized, or weakened. For one, the urban middle class, especially the all-important 18-35 age range, is sheltered from economic pressure (like that faced by the urban poor) by the existence of outsourcing and emigrant (OFW) employment, which also siphons off discontented urban intellectuals; and it is diverted from politics by the expansion of the emigrant- and outsourcing-driven consumer market.

Also, even if it were politically active, the urban middle class has declined in relative strength with the politicization of the rural electorate, which tends to be less pro-Opposition than the urban sectors. The presence of this new countervailing force allowed GMA to fight the 2005 ouster-movement by counter-mobilizing the provinces, somewhat like the 14th-century Valois mobilizing rural France against the Jacquerie; and with the dominance of patrimonial politics in rural Philippines, which, as I explained in another essay, is under Presidential control, she can well use the provinces again to resist urban protest.

As for the Church, her past influence had been largely due to Jaime Cardinal Sin, who dominated the clergy through force of personality and his control of Manila’s mega-diocese; but his death in 2005 deprived the bishops of an activist leader with both will & power, and the Church thus reverted to her customary ideological divisions--among activists advocating mass action & aggressive pursuit of structural reforms; prudentialists favoring indirect reform efforts (e.g., influencing existing leaders) or, at most, legal procedures; and neutralists who prefer non-intervention in temporal matters. GMA’s aides have hence used the bishops’ disunity, and the weak language of their consensus decisions, to combat activist bishops by emphasizing their minority status; and in 2005, the victory of the non-activist bishops (who believed GMA’s promise to comply with the constitutional impeachment process) effectively killed the oust-GMA movement. Until the rise of a new paramount leader, or the creation of a solid consensus, the Church is neutralized as an active political force.

Moreover, the weakening of the urban sectors also weakens the Church, for her active political power in the Philippines largely stems from her alliance with the urban middle class: The Church’s size, organization and Christian-democratic social ideals makes her the main institutional voice of the liberal-democratic ideology of the urban middle class; and thus does she mobilize the masses. With the middle class depoliticized, the Church has no liberal mass opinion to crystallize and no activist class to mobilize; and being barred by law from building a formal party, she is a voice without arms, railing weakly against the present dictatorship. Her passive political power remains, but while it may influence or moderate, it cannot compel the stubborn or oust the incorrigible.

This would not be so bad if the oppositionist faction of the political elite provided effective leadership; but the present opposition is even more fragmented than in the early 1980’s, when it had a figurehead in Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino, Jr. and at least had the excuse of being actively persecuted. Thus, the 2004 opposition effort, even without the alleged election fraud, scuttled itself with the Angara-Sotto-Lacson divisions; and the present crop has no less than 5 paramount leaders, to say nothing of the independents. This is less a matter of structure than it is of character, for opposition unity today demands nothing less than the self-sacrificing courage of a Salvador Laurel, Jr., who, after uniting the anti-Marcos factions, agreed to play 2nd fiddle in the 1986 elections (to say naught of Senator Aquino walking to his death). That none of the opposition leaders today has done a Laurel bespeaks their selfishness and pride, which are GMA’s spiritual fifth column within the opposition.

As a result, the opposition has failed to present a credible alternative to GMA--or more precisely, a single credible alternative around which anti-GMA efforts could coalesce--and has failed to build a united machinery beyond the tactical electoral alliances. This explains as nothing else the subsisting strength of Fortress Gloria; for can one imagine Normandy without SACEUR? The irony is that, though there is no lack of possible leaders and organizers within the opposition (Senator Aquilino Pimentel, for one, is a statesman par excellence), its members have become so desperate for alternatives that they are scavenging outward. Senator Pimentel even suggested settling for the Dan-Quaylish Vice-President Noli De Castro, a man whose reputation for competence moves even the most staunchly atheistic oppositionist to beg heaven for GMA’s continued health (and it is said that the bishops chose moderation in 2005 precisely in fear of the “Noli factor”.)

Lastly, the military will not move against the President. First, it has never moved without a clear opposition-Church-middle-class alliance (the initial 1986 coup and the Oakwood mutiny fizzled out for this reason), and such an alliance, as shown above, is presently impossible. Second, the years after 2001 have led to a re-emphasis not on the military’s activist tradition but on its “professionalism”, interpreted in the narrow sense of political neutrality. Third, the military leadership has a vested interest in the continuity of the GMA government, especially since her regime, in membership if not in structure, has to a large extent become a civilian-military complex. For one, retired officers now populate appointive posts; and, though the custom of appointing them began under FVR, the present practice is to appoint indiscriminately, whereas FVR at least sifted for true officers and gentlemen like Rodolfo Biazon, Renato De Villa, and Arturo Enrile.

The inertia of the military (except, that is, of the Marines, who were fed to the cannons in Jolo) means that no peaceful mass action will ever succeed in ousting the President. For all Philippine mass actions have a time limit of about 5 days, after which the protests would fizzle out; and in those 5 days it is absolutely critical that the ouster coalition successfully intimidate a sitting President into resigning. In both 1986 and 2001, this occurred when the mass of the military, bowing to the “will of the people” (understood in the Rousseauist sense), defected from the President, but without military support, a middle-class protest movement has no way to intimidate a leader into removing herself. Nor can it launch a general strike, as was once done to save the Weimar coalition, for organized labor in the Philippines is divided and unpolitical, and, besides, has no history of concerted action with the urban middle class.

Without a strong oppositionist coalition therefore, how can the correlation of forces not favor GMA? Finally, in my opinion, even if the 1986 coalition were intact now and stood at its strongest, the advantage will still lie with GMA, not through power but through mind and will. For she may well be the most brilliant and ruthless political operator this country has ever known, with more cunning than the Prince and less compunction than Kautilya; and she has learned well the lessons of EDSA and how to outflank it, while her disunited opponents are still stuck behind the Maginot Line. To this therefore we shall turn in part 2 of this essay.

Personal Favorites

2007-10-19T11:20:00.000+08:00

Once upon a time--or back in high school (ah! the fading memories)--my friends would give us those Q&A things (called 'slambooks' in the Philippines) that they forced us to sign on pain of death; pain of death, that is, since no one in his/her right mind would otherwise answer such nauseating queries as "how do you define love". However, I did like how those Q&A's asked what were our favorite songs, books, food, movies, etc., if only because they made us clarify vague impressions and forced us to go beyond "'cause I like it" and ask, "just why do I like this?"

Which is all just a overlong way of saying that I also made a list of personal "likes"--yes, I'm a recovering egotist, and I am looking for that impossibility called Egotists Anonymous--in case anyone (?) is actually interested (Are you there, Dear Reader? It's me, indignus). So anyway, here are my favorites--which, I have to say, doesn't necessarily mean recommended:

website: Stephen Hand's wonderfully orthodox and progressive TCRNews.com (Traditional Catholic Reflections & Reports), which, after dying for a while, now lives anew as an e-zine/blog called The Bride and the Dragon. TCRNews remembered, as many other orthodox sites did not, that the social current of Christian Tradition is strongly subsidiarist, personalist, communitarian, un-capitalist, un-liberal and un-neoconservative; which, by the way, is why Michael Novak's thesis in The Catholic Ethic seems so forced, and why the concession in Centesimus (that, maybe, maybe, the "modern business economy" isn't completely bad, so long as the capitalist corporation doesn't put profits before people and the capitalist market serves real human needs--that is, so long as they stop being capitalist) was so hesitant.
fiction: Walter Miller's A Canticle for Leibowitz; J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings; Colleen McCullough's brilliant Masters of Rome series, especially Grass Crown and Caesar's Women, and her Thorn Birds; Frank Herbert's Dune series; the Father Brown stories of G.K. Chesterton; A.S. Byatt's Possession; C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters
poems: Hopkins' stiff but heartfelt Nondum and his dancing Pied Beauty; C.S. Lewis' Joys that Sting and As the Ruin Falls; T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men; G.K. Chesterton's A Ballade on Suicide; Wordsworth's 3rd Lucy poem
literary authors: (Fiction) J.R.R. Tolkien, Colleen McCullough, Peter David, G.K. Chesterton, Frank Herbert; (Poetry and drama) Wordsworth, Gerald Manley Hopkins, Lord Tennyson, Shakespeare
non-fiction: everything by G.K. Chesterton, especially his Orthodoxy; Margaret Visser's The Geometry of Love; C. Warren Hollister's classic Medieval Europe, in my opinion still the best introduction to Latin ("Medieval") civilization; Karl Adam's The Spirit of Catholicism (best read after Newman's Grammar and before his Development); Etienne Gilson's Elements of Christian Philosophy (out of nostalgia, although Brian Davies' introduction to Aquinas is better written); Edmund Burke's biased but very incisive Reflections; the equally biased Western Tradition of Will Durrant
non-fiction authors: St. Thomas Aquinas (with Aristotle, Shankara, and Kant, the most brilliant philosopher who ever lived, but about as wonderfully exciting to read as a paper on quantum tunneling in cyclotrons), Epictetus, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Alexis de Tocqueville, Hillaire Belloc (at least with some of his works), and the fascinatingly doubtful Zechariah Sitchin
TV series and shows: Threshold (which I so wish they'd revive), The Closer, Firefly, Dresden Files, Jeopardy, Batman (both the 60's version with Adam West and the Bruce Timm TAS)
movies: Casablanca (‘have watched it ten times on last count); Sabrina; Exorcist; Lethal Weapon I-IV; Top Secret; True Lies; The Abyss; Kill Bill
visual artists: Bernini, El Greco, Raphael
"classical" music; composers: Gregorian and Baroque chorus; Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Handel
"modern" music; singers; songs: Gospel, Old Motown; Platters, Nat King Cole, Boyz II Men; Only You, Stardust, Great Pretender, More than Words, Buttercup, Ain't No Sunshine, In the Still of the Night
city: Rome and Marseilles, with Marseilles being, however, a distant second; for where else, besides Rome, will you see so many and so varied masterpieces on the very side streets?
cuisine: Italian and Provencal--and I can't decide which comes first...

The Latin word for blog

2007-10-18T21:30:00.000+08:00

Question: What are the Latin words for ‘blog' and ‘blogging'? If there aren't any as yet, may we use blogis and blogere?

You might ask, upon reading this, why in the name of all practicality I'm even asking. Well, you see, I was organizing my links the other day into--from my own linguistic preference--Latin categories, hence sacra for Christian sites, sacrosancta for those with Church resources, and saecula for all others. And then, when I was about to make a category for blog links, I got stymied: I didn't know the Latin word for ‘blog'. How would I, then, link to, for instance, my favorite Christian blogs (e.g., American Papist, Vatican Watcher, Shouts in the Piazza, and Insight Scoop) and to interesting entries like this one, to say nothing of miscellanies like Electric Shadows, that oh-so-cool journal of Hongkong movie classics? To an obsessive-compulsive manic-depressive, this was a serous problem indeed.

My Latin is quite rusty (I had to check with Wikipedia and with an online dictionary), but I do think there are indeed several candidates for the honor of being the Latin word for ‘blog'. There are diurnus/diurnalis (‘daily') and ephemeris, which could both mean diary or journal; and there's the more general scriptus ('something written') or the analogous words epistula (‘letter') and liber (‘book'). These, however, though they suitably convey the ‘log' part of ‘weblog', seem to ignore the ‘web'; and so we have to compound whichever ‘journal' word we use with, maybe, aetherealis (‘of the ether') or electronicus/a/um (which doesn't need translation). This then raises the problem of length, for with a compound like scriptus electronicus (‘electronic writing') to mean a blog, my category name for Christian blogs would have to be scripti electronici sancti, which sounds just a bit awkward. Put in ‘movie blogs' and you have something really bad, epistulae aethereales de imaginibus motilis ('ethereal/online letters on moving images'), which is obviously unusable.

So, if there's as yet no one-word Latin term for ‘blog', why not just use blogis (blogis, blogis), with a hard ‘g' at the middle (as in ‘giraffe')? I suppose blog (blog, blogis), blogum (blogum, blogi), and blogus (blogus, blogi) would do just as well, but I'm thinking blogis sounds nicer, whereas blogum and blogus sound like ‘bubblegum' and ‘bogus'. As for blog (blog, blogis), I think blogis would have a better plural genitive, blogium, while blog (blog, blogis) would have blogum, which brings us back to bubblegum. Hence blogis, which would decline like this:

singular: blogis, blogis, blogi, blogem, blogis, bloge

plural: bloges, blogium, blogibus, bloges, bloges, blogibus

As to the verb ‘to blog', well, what if we apply the same principles and--instead of using circumlocutions like in aethere scribo (‘I'm writing online', literally, ‘I'm writing in the ether')--, we simply say blogere for ‘blogging'? So if we want to say (where or to whom, I have no idea) ‘I blogged about the new bishop', we could simply write, de episcopo novo blogevit, short and sweet, and if we'll ask, ‘do you guys blog about the war?', we just have to say de bello blogetisne? Hence blogere.

Since, like I said, my Latin's rather rusty, please correct me, Dear Reader, at any time, in case I slipped up somewhere in the foregoing. And, if someone's thought about it before, please tell me so I can make proper acknowledgements; but anyway, think about it in the meantime: blogis (blogis, blogis) as a noun and blogere (blogeo, blogere, blogevi, blogetus) as a verb. For me, I'm just glad that I have a new category name, and that I don't have to "neurotize" about it so much:-) Deus vobiscum.

History as Christian Vocation

2007-10-18T21:24:00.000+08:00

Every Christian is by necessity a historian, a student and transmitter of history, for her Faith is at heart, a historical religion. At its core lies the affirmation that the eternal, trans-historical God, the Maker and Sustainer of human history, became a part of that history, a human being named Yehoshua (or Yeshua), Son of Miryam, in a specific place and time within a particular socio-cultural milieu --1st century Palestine, with its syncretism of Hebraist, Persian, and Greco-Hellenistic elements within the political framework of Roman clientship, Herodian dynasticism, and Judaeo-ecclesiastical power.

Christianity therefore calls her to believe not merely in a series of abstract intellectual principles and moral precepts--the existence of God, human dignity and freedom, the demand for justice--but in a constellation of historical assertions, centering on Yeshua, but extending to preceding Jewish and Gentile history, and to the subsequent history of the Church, the community of Christian believers. It's true that so long as there is an unreserved "obedience of the understanding", a knowledge of that history is not deemed absolutely essential to salvation, save as to the central facts of the life of Yeshua; but belief in every article of the Creed, obedience of every commandment, the conduct of every act of worship, is rooted in that history and contains an implicit affirmation of its truth; and every explanation, defense, deepening of Christian religious heritage requires, at some point, a return to the historical foundations of Christianity.

The vocation of the Christian historian, the believer who makes it a point to study and understand the temporal roots of her Faith, is therefore a vital munus, a mission and ministry, within the greater munus of the Apostolic Church. Being mission and ministry, it therefore implies a twofold dignity that is both freedom and responsibility: The Christian historian must remain a Christian, and must affirm the historical and trans-historical assertions upon which her Faith rests; this provides freedom from needless doubt, freedom from the need to speculate on the origin, meaning, and purpose of human life, but entails the concomitant responsibility to stand by that Faith and proclaim it without compromise or question.

At the same time, she must be truly a historian, basing her historical findings on the evidence and method of her research; this provides an intellectual freedom to speculate and explore, but also imposes the responsibility to adhere to historical methodology, and to stand by the historical conclusions that are thus reached. These are both based on her Faith, which calls her to fearlessly believe that its assertions will stand the test of inquiry, and that the conclusions of doctrinal tradition and historical science can therefore never truly be inconsistent. These, in turn, are ultimately based on the ancient idea that truth cannot contradict truth, and on the likewise ancient Christian notion that the same God Who created the capacity to believe also created the capacity to think, that the same God, the source and standard of truth, revealed both the data of Faith and the facts gleaned by Reason, and that Faith and Reason can hence never truly be contradictory.

This does not mean, of course, that apparent contradictions will not come into view. Indeed, they have often appeared in the past, in those days when Babylon and Assyria were both believed to be myth for lack of independent (i.e., non-Biblical) verification, when Pontius Pilatus was considered a figment of Christian imagination, when St. Augustine's theory of the evolution of germinal to higher forms was considered errant nonsense, when Creation from nothing contradicted the apparent eternity of the world. Consistently, those doubts were later resolved in favor of the traditional Christian assertions, after archaeological, palaeontological and astrophysical exploration uncovered evidence-sand-covered cities, etched names, evolving animal forms, and cosmic expansion from a primeval Big Bang-that showed the lack of any real contradiction. There is no sinecure, however, in the triumphs of the past, for history moves forward, and new questions will arise to which Faith and Reason, following their respective methods, will initially give inconsistent answers.

In those times, the Christian historian must be faithful to the dual dignity she chose, and must strive to reconcile both; but when that is impossible with her methods and the facts at her disposal, as a Christian first, she must acknowledge the supremacy of Revelation: she must affirm the truths of Faith, which have the infallible guarantee of God's direct revelation and guidance, over Reason, which is subject to human error in method, ignorance in premises, and prideful obstinacy or innocent mistake in conclusions.

At the same time, she must faithfully record her findings as a historian, explaining the methods of her search and the bases of her conclusions, explaining too that they apparently contradict the infallible content of her Faith, always confident that better methods, new data, and wiser minds will someday prove that history and Christian belief actually express the same truth. Till then she must bear with the criticisms of both her fellow historians and fellow believers, endure even the anguish of doubt in her soul. Such is the price of truth; and to be Christian is to affirm the truth even at the cost of death, in union with Yeshua, the Logos made human flesh, Who spoke truth even in the face of execution. Such would be the cross of the Christian historian; and given her task, such too would be her salvation.

The lost years of Jesus: where did he go?

2007-10-18T00:19:00.000+08:00

It is a well-known fact that the Canonical Gospels are largely silent on the years between the infancy of Christ (ca. 4-2 B.C.) and the beginning of His public ministry (ca. 26 A.D.). St. Luke's is the only exception, and his account skips from infancy to early adolescence, of which a story is told that is as haunting as it is sparse, to wit: His Mother and Yosif had taken the 12-year old Jesus to Jerusalem on a pilgrimage, and discovering that He had not gone with them on the trip back to Nazareth, found Him in the Temple after a frantic search. He had been learnedly discussing doctrine with the Temple scholars, and when Miryam reproached Him, Our Lord replied: "Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?" Thus they returned to Nazareth, and the Gospels resume their silence.

Various theories have been advanced to fill the gap. One of the most popular explanations is that Christ had joined and learned from the Essenic sect of deutero-Yahwism/proto-Judaism, pointing to the similarity between the main rituals He prescribed (the Eucharist and Baptism) and the corresponding rites practiced in Essenic monasticism, as well as the apparent identification between Jesus's messianic role and that of the Essenes' prophesied "Teacher of Righteousness." Another popular (and admittedly more interesting) theory--popularized by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, the founder of a millenarian cult in the United States--suggests that Christ went to India to learn under the teachers of Hinduism, where He contended with Brahmin religious authorities just as He later contended with proto-Judaic ecclesiastical leaders. Among other evidence, this theory points to the similarity between elements of Christian and Hindu doctrine, particularly between the Christian Trinity and the Hindu Trimurti of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.

Considering them in themselves, I think both theories are weakened by the dissimilarity between Jesus's teachings and practices and those of both Essenic Judaism and Hinduism. For one, the existence of an account of Christ in India is more plausibly attributed to the influence of Nestorian Christianity, which traveled far to the east as early as the 7th century AD, and whose proselytism led some Hindus to counter-attack by very practically making Jesus part of the Hindu pantheon, either as a minor deity or as an avatar of Vishnu.

More fundamentally, their soteriologies are radically different. Hindu/late-Brahmanist soteriology, at least in the philosophically dominant form of Vedanta, is one of acquired union: through human effort (e.g., meditation and cultic practice), one recovers one's true selfhood as the Absolute and is freed from the cycle of death and rebirth. In contrast, the doctrine of salvation proposed by Christ was received communion: Divine action leads us to share the life of God in the believing community (koinonia) and to obtain a multi-personal paradise. Its mysticalization of externalist-communalist Hebraic eschatology is diametrically contrary to the interiorist-individualist mysticism of Hinduism, etc., which helps explain Christendom's (and proto-Judaism's) eventual rejection of Gnosticism and its discomfort with the Platonizing individualism of even orthodox mystics like St. John of the Cross, to say nothing of Eckhart.

As to the Christian Trinity of Father, Son (identified with Divine Wisdom, or following Jewish Platonist language, the Divine logos/Word), and Holy Spirit, there are a host of other possible sources. In a passage highlighted by Simone Weil, for instance, Aristophanes writes how "by the side of Zeus there stand His Act and His Word"; and the Old Testament already intimates the existence of a personal Wisdom and a holy Spirit (Hebrew ruah, ‘breath') of God. Indeed, its earliest texts imply a personal and, in particular, a threefold plurality in the otherwise mono-substantial God (hence the plural form of Elohim), which makes a Trimurti derivation unnecessary. Besides, the theological underpinnings are different. The three Persons of the Christian Trinity are distinct entities in one God, whereas in the Hindu triad--which probably developed to reconcile the emergent Hindu culti of Vishnaism and Sivaism with the earlier Brahmanism--Vishnu and Shiva are but manifestations of Brahma, which, to certain Hindu schools, is the inner identity (or atman) of all beings. The Trimurti is thus closer to the Neo-Platonist triad, where the World-Soul and the Logos are emanations of the One, than it is to the Christian Trinity.

As to the Essenes, any similarity between Essenic Jewish practice and Jesus' could more easily be explained through their common root in Jewish religious ritual, the Passover liturgy of which provided the foundation for the Christian Eucharist (for instance, circular unleavened bread is used in both), and which recognized washing as a purificatory rite. As a demerit of the theory, in fact, Jesus' interaction with "sinners" (e.g., prostitutes and tax-collectors) is unthinkable among the austerely fundamentalist Essenes, as is His conception of a personal messianic mission being to constitute in Himself a sacrifice for sins and a mystical bridge between God and sinful humanity.

These reservations aside, either theory could be possible, though the Essenic theory has stronger logical support. After all, Apostolic Christianity has never been allergic to "baptizing" non-Christian ideas, which, provided they cohere with the Faith "once received", are considered to be species of general revelation (cf. Romans 1, Acts 17:23,27). However, even without supposing the Essene and Hindu parallels to be preparatio evangelica, an application of Ockham's razor demands that we take as most probable the simplest explanation that coheres with the data; and the simplest explanation is that Christ lived in Nazareth in Galilee, learned Jewish doctrine in the synagogue schools, and plied His trade as a carpenter until He began his public ministry. Some textual bases for this are the frequent Biblical description to Jesus as a Nazarene and as a Galilean; the early (probably pejorative) reference to Christians as Nazarenes; and the apparent familiarity of the Nazarenes with Jesus, His family, and His trade, which became the basis, in fact, for the early opposition to His ministry. The counter-proposal that 'Nazarene' only means nazirite is based largely on phonetic similarity and weak negative evidence (the absence of 1st-century records of Nazareth), and may be considered implausible. (One is reminded here of an even more dubious New Age theory that Christianity and Hinduism are wings of an original sun-worship that split in the 4th century AD, of which the main "proof" was that Christos and Krishna sound alike. It makes Edgar Cayce's ramblings sound scholarly by comparison.)

As to His tenets, one might note that Christ's teachings and practices appear to have basis in first-century Judaism. His teachings on the resurrection and the arrival of the Kingdom of God in the train of the Messiah were markedly those of apocalyptic Pharisaism, which dominated the synagogue schools; and so were the rituals He proposed, notably the purificatory washing of Baptism and the communal meal that echoes the Pasch. His moral teaching is both a development of Pharisaic doctrine and a reaction to its "liberalism": the "Golden Rule" echoes that of Hillel, while the idealistic rigorism of His precepts (e.g., "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect"), which Solomon Zeitlin deprecatingly but justifiably calls "utopian", reminds one of Shammai's. His allusion to forgiveness after death (Mt. 12:32) has strong roots in post-Exilic and especially Diaspora Jewish belief in the refrigerium, whose residue in modern Judaism is the Kaddish. Of similar but Sadducean genesis was His ecclesiasticism (Mt 23:2-3), which, we may note, passed to His followers and predisposed them to adopt the organization of the synagogue and the Proto-Judaic Church (e.g., the conciliar-presidential structure of the Bet Din, and the high priest's role as "vicar of God").

In short, therefore, the Nazareth solution, besides being simpler, has more plausible textual and historical support. In any case, however, without fuller evidence, there is no way to know for sure.

"Anime Encourages Murder"? a conservative response

2007-10-03T13:09:00.000+08:00

I read the post "Anime Encourages Murder" on Blogs for Brownback (B4B) yesterday, Manila time, and I'm joining the chorus of persons who consider it one-sided and uninformed. To those who haven't read it--you can find it here--, it says, in sum, that anime is an art medium characterized by graphic sexual and violent images; that it is spread through illegal means by an "underground distribution network"; and that it leads to violent behavior on the part of its aficionados or otakus. Now, what was wrong with this conclusion was, simply, that it is based on an overly limited sampling of anime, as well as a misunderstanding of its nature as an art form.

For what, indeed, is anime? It's not enough to say that it is "Japanese animation", as the term ‘anime' also implicates matters of visual composition, narrative style, and, most of all, content. For instance, anime series and OAVs (or movies) more frequently attempt at rich painting-like imagery than do the more realistic films of the West, in which the cinematography of What Dreams May Come and The Fountain is considered very unusual. Also, anime titles more often use non-linear plots, as well as frozen instants dedicated to the contemplation of some character or a part of the environment, sometimes by presenting a mandala of perspectives--which, in Western movies, usually happens only when a lead character is dying. Formally, therefore, anime differs from Western film media, whether live-action or animation, by the greater scope of its stylistic variety.

As to content, anime is also distinctive for its wider range of, and approaches to, subjects, which allows it to have a bewildering array of sub-genres from fantasy and science fiction to realism and naturalism (in the Dreiser sense). Thus we have titles using Cabbalistic imagery like Evangelion, or a hodgepodge of martial arts concepts as does Naruto. An anime fan might watch an environmentalist fantasy like Nausicaa, a romantic police comedy like You're Under Arrest, or a scifi-punk movie like Akira with its violent mixture of evolutionary optimism and social pessimism; or prefer more "kiddie" fare like Astroboy and any number of martial-arts cooking series (yes, they exist). In short, anime, though it is animation, has a range of subjects as extensive as, or even more varied than, that of live-action films in the West, a fact incomprehensible to those unfamiliar with Japanese pop culture.

It was therefore wrong for B4B to treat hentai and ecchi as generally representative of anime, when these constitute just a small subset of anime, with ecchi being the equivalent of soft porn in live-action movies and hentai comprehending everything from hard porn to "snuff" videos. One cannot deny that these are morally contemptible and even socially harmful--their frequent use of "fan service", for one, is a sad example of how some anime titles objectify women--, but to say that anime as a genus leads to violent or even psychopathic behavior is much like saying that movies trigger violent behavior. It may be true of some movies, but would we include Sound of Music, Grand Illusion, Diary of a Country Priest, or High School Musical in that judgment?

I think the reason the author of the B4B post misjudged anime so badly was that he/she was judging it as animation from a Western perspective, rather than as a distinct genus of film art. Western animation, after all, is dominated by the child-oriented approach of Disney; and hyperrealist titles like Aeon Flux remain relative aberrations even after the rise of action realism with Bruce Timm's Batman, which still avoids graphic imagery. Hence, one who grew up on Disney and Hanna-Barbera would be understandably disturbed upon watching the relatively-harmless Ranma with its anatomical emphases, to say nothing of "tentacle anime", and might not go beyond them at all. Perhaps if the post author were familiar with Western comics (which includes "safe" fare like Archie and Asterix, "serious" series like X-Men and Batman, and" adult" titles like Sandman and 300, and is therefore as multidimensional as Japanese manga), he/she would have understood anime better.

To the people at B4B, therefore: Please correct the post on anime. If it's a joke, then it's a sad one; and if it's serious, then "methinks thou art sadder still." I share B4B's desire to protect human life and promote Judaeo-Christian values, though I do wish it emulated Pope John Paul II in giving equal emphasis to social justice; but these ends will not be promoted by misunderstanding social phenomena like anime, or by making a reductionist reference to the moral effect of Buddhism and Shintoism on Asians--which statement, whatever its correctness or incorrectness, should not have been made without some attempt at careful and nuanced analysis (and I speak here as a conservative Asian Christian). B4B is right about the need for God, and its passionate advocacy is admirable; but even zeal is nothing without wisdom; and as God is Truth, He will be better served by truth.

Why Jack Bauer must die (an imitation of Aquinas), part 3 of 3

2007-09-28T13:48:00.000+08:00

Previously on our blog, we discussed why Jack Bauer should be removed from 24. The following continuation was written between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.

ARTICLE 3

Whether Jack Bauer must die

It seems that Jack Bauer must not die.

Objection 1: For, as reiterated by Sir Philip Sidney, literature must both edify and entertain. However, it would not be edifying if the most heroic character of a television series should perish, when he should be portrayed as receiving his appropriate reward. Therefore Jack Bauer must not die.

Objection 2: Moreover, the killing of Jack Bauer would be dramatically superfluous. For a character's death is significant only if his survival matters to other characters. In 24, however, Jack Bauer is alienated from all who may have loved him, whether by death or otherwise. Therefore, killing him in the story would be a superfluity.

Objection 3: Furthermore, it is more dramatically appropriate for heroes to disappear mysteriously, "into the sunset", as it were, than to die. A mysterious disappearance would keep his heroic aura intact, whereas death makes him seem ordinary, since all humans die, as stressed by the epic Gilgamesh. Also, a mysterious disappearance retains the possibility of the hero returning where the portrayal of his death would not. Therefore Jack Bauer must not die.

On the contrary, in the last episode of Season 6, James Heller told Jack Bauer, "You're cursed". Now what is cursed ends in death, and therefore Jack Bauer must die.

I answer that: Jack Bauer must indeed die. Considering that, as shown in the second article, he must be removed from 24, the question remains as to how this will be done. Now a character may be removed (1) by being exiled or by being told to leave by other characters; (2) by leaving of his own desire; (3) by simply vanishing; (4) or by dying.

As to (1), Jack Bauer had been told to leave at the end of Season 4, and he had gone to exile at the end of Season 5, and another exit of this kind would therefore be unduly repetitive. As to (2), this would be inconsistent with Jack Bauer's devotion to duty, considering that his country would face new threats and he would certainly be called to action again. Possibility (3) is dramatically inappropriate, considering the past centrality of Bauer in the story. It would also leave matters unresolved, which would violate the need for katharsis in such an emotionally charged series.

Therefore we are left with (4), which would be appropriate, for 4 reasons. First, Jack Bauer has been written and portrayed as a very intense character, and nothing less than death would suffice to end his role in 24 in a fitting manner. Second, Jack Bauer is a violent anti-hero, and it is understood that such characters will end as they have lived, as happened in Scarface and Layer Cake. Third, as Heller told Bauer, "[e]verything you touch, one way or another, turns up dead." Now for whatever tends to cause death, death is somehow part of itself, as the effect must be proportionate to the cause, and death is a fit destiny for it.

Fourth, the whole story of 24 from the beginning has had, as an underlying theme, the tragedy of Jack Bauer, with his tragic flaw being his too-great devotion to duty, which he pursues at the cost of human relationships and standards. The last episode of Season 6 operated as his catastrophe, which awakened him to what his life has become. Being a tragedy, therefore, the Jack Bauer theme must end in a manner that inspires pity and fear, as Aristotle described in his Poetics; and for Jack Bauer, considering his violent and heroic life, this must be through dying in a tragic and heroic manner. Therefore Jack Bauer must die.

Reply to the 1st Obj.: Jack Bauer's death would be appropriate to the moral universe of 24, for his tragedy consists precisely in that he saved the right of others to have normal lives by having none of his own, and that he saved social order by himself violating it.

Now a violator of the social order may escape or suffer punishment. If he escapes, this would disrupt its ethical universe, considering that Jack had at last betrayed his intrinsic loyalty to country by risking its welfare for the sake of Audrey Raines; but if Jack Bauer is punished, this would be unjust considering that his past service. Hence, the only way to end things that is both satisfying and edifying is for Jack Bauer to die.

Reply to the 2nd Obj.: Though Jack Bauer is no longer important to any character (save Chloe O'Brien, in a limited sense), he remains important to the universe of 24, in view of his continuing role as the person best suited to save his country. Hence, Jack Bauer's death would not be dramatically superfluous.

Reply to the 3rd Obj.: A mysterious disappearance "into the sunset" is only appropriate for characters that are and remain mysterious, like the Lone Ranger and the Baron Munchausen, while for better-known characters, this is ill-fitting and inconsistent. Also, the universality of death accentuates the fear and pity in a tragic heroic end, for it shows us why we can identify with a hero or heroine at the same time that we admire him or her, as witness the death of King Leonidas in 300. Therefore, Jack Bauer must die.

(Clock in the foreground, moves silently to zero, fades.)

Why Jack Bauer must die (a spoof of Thomas Aquinas), part 2 of 3

2007-09-26T10:08:00.000+08:00

Previously on this blog, we discussed whether we may judge if Jack Bauer should be removed from 24. The following continuation was written between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.

ARTICLE 2

Whether Jack Bauer should be removed from 24

It seems that Jack Bauer should not be removed from 24.

Objection 1: For in the past 6 seasons, Jack Bauer had been the central character of the series 24, and indeed he is 24, as affirmed by Movies Online. Now in any work or institution, the center should not be removed, for as noted by Yeats, when "[t]he center cannot hold... [m]ere anarchy is loosed upon the world." Therefore, removing Jack from 24 would result in chaos, and it should not be done.

Objection 2: Furthermore, the formal cause of 24's dramatic power is the intensity of the characters in the series. But Jack Bauer is the most intense character in the show, and to remove him would weaken the drama of its stories. Therefore Jack Bauer should not be removed from 24.

Objection 3: Also, immoderate change would make the subject of the change pine for the old state, as illustrated by the line, "I'll be seeing you, in all the old familiar places." Hence, 24 watchers would be alienated if Jack Bauer is removed, and therefore he must remain in 24.

I answer that: Jack Bauer should be removed from 24, because Jack Bauer has become increasingly marginal to the action of 24. In Day 5, at least, he was the central node of the story, from the assassination ex-President David Palmer that was pinned on Bauer to the fall of then-President Charles Logan. In Day 6, however, the significant action was done by other characters like Nadia Yassir, Tom Lennox, and Bill Buchanan. The attempt to place him, back at the center of the story, by focusing it on his desire to save Audrey Raines, merely highlighted the fact that Jack Bauer has actually become a barrier to the smooth progression of the plot.

Nor does there seem to be much chance for Jack Bauer to become fully-integrated into 24's action again. As Aristotle notes in his Ethics, a person is integrated in his society when he has relations of friendship; but in 24, almost all of Jack Bauer's friends have been lost by death or otherwise, and there is no person left to whom Jack is actually important. A similar situation would obtain if, in Star Trek, Dr. McCoy, Spock, and the rest of the crew had died, in which case Captain Kirk would become superfluous to the characters, even if he lasts longer in the story.

Now Jack Bauer, considering his intensity and action-worthiness, should be either central to the story or absent from it. Since he cannot be central any longer, then Jack Bauer must be removed from 24.

Reply to 1st Obj.: Even the center of a work or institution may change without being fatal to it, provided that the center thus changed does not constitute its very substance. Now the substance of 24 is not its characters, as shown by the frequent changes in cast, but its time-pressure action motif which gives it its name. Therefore Jack Bauer may be removed.

Reply to 2nd Obj.: The formal cause of a story is what makes it a story itself, which is the plot, without which the characters would become mere case studies. For 24, its substantial form is the intensity of its action, hence the suitability of relatively understated characters like Karen Hayes and Wayne Palmer. Therefore removing Jack Bauer would not be fatal to the show, provided a good story is provided.

Reply to 3rd Obj.: We must distinguish between ordered change, which respects the nature (physis) and purpose (telos) of what is changed, and disordered change, which does not. Ordered change being according to nature, it must be done, for, as John Henry Newman writes in his Development, "here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often."

Here, 24 is by nature and purpose an action-drama series, and it is for this that it has audiences, and such change as furthers this is therefore properly ordered. Hence, since removing Jack Bauer would help 24's action as shown in the body of this article, then it would be proper.

(Continued here)

Why Jack Bauer must die (a spoof of Thomas Aquinas), part 1 of 3

2007-09-24T18:54:00.001+08:00

The following was written between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.

Season 6 of the Fox drama series 24 was the worst season for its lead character Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland). On that "day", Jack was forced to torture his brother in an attempt to stop a nuclear attack, then saw him die soon afterwards (by their father's hand); he probably killed his own father; and he lost the woman he loved in the worst possible way. The very last scene has him looking down into the sea, and as the season stops there, the person watching cannot but wonder if, indeed, Bauer jumped into the water.

Of course, it is known that he would not, since Sutherland's contract subsists for 2 more seasons. However, since the watcher of television is, even prior to the infusion of grace, a person--that is, according to Boethius, an "individual substance of a rational nature"--, therefore the television watcher cannot avoid wondering what should happen to Bauer in the story. Such thought cannot but involve the phantasmata, which, if not rightly directed, could obfuscate or distract reason; and so, to avoid these faults, I shall, in stating my own opinion, follow the structure of the quaestio as used by Aquinas in his Summa, comprising 3 articles:

Whether we may judge if Jack Bauer should be removed from 24
Whether Jack Bauer should be removed from 24 (posted here)
Whether Jack Bauer must die (posted here)

ARTICLE 1

Whether we may judge if Jack Bauer should be removed from 24

It seems that we may not judge if Jack Bauer should be removed from 24.

Objection 1: For as 24 is a work of broadcast art, it should not be subject to judgment. Art is a matter of spontaneous and passionate expression, and to this discursive judgment is necessarily foreign.

Objection 2: Also, whether or not Jack Bauer should be removed is a creative decision of the writers and makers of 24. For us to judge whether or not to remove him would imperil their integrity as artists, and would demean their work. Thus, as MGM declares, ars gratia artis, "art [exists] for art's sake".

Objection 3: Furthermore, there is no point to deciding whether Jack Bauer should be removed. For whatever our judgment, the network and producers will have their way, as shown by their termination and non-revival of such esteemed programs as Wonder Falls, Firefly, and Gilmore Girls despite their respective followings.

On the contrary, it is said that art imitates life, and Newman tells us in his Grammar of Assent that: "Life is for action... [and] to act you must assume". Now assumption is an act of judgment, and so it is proper for us to judge if Jack Bauer should be removed from 24.

I answer that: We may indeed judge if "Jack Bauer" should be removed from 24, for as Otto Rank notes in Art and the Artist, the efficient cause of artistic creation is the will-to-form of the creator. Now the will should be guided by the practical reason or the faculty of judgment, as otherwise, it will merely obey the passions and thus become disordered. Therefore the judgment may, and indeed must guide, the making of art, which includes the television series 24.

Reply to 1st Obj.: Although it is indeed true that art is spontaneous expression, this is entirely compatible with the exercise of reason, as Michelangelo illustrated in his sonnets. Moreover, calling art passionate would only be true for Romantic art, and even these are fashioned when already recollecting in tranquility, as Wordsworth tells us in his Preface; that is, only when reason can already break through passion.

Reply to the 2nd Obj.: For us to so judge would not imperil the artistic integrity of the makers of 24. For 24 is broadcast art, which necessitates a shared field of meaning or, according to Rank, of collective ideology; and as Marshall McLuhan notes in The Gutenberg Galaxy, persons who don't share that field of meaning will not understand the work. But broadcast art is meant to be understood and appreciated, so it belongs to its very essence to conform in some sense with the semiotic world of the consumer. Therefore for us to judge 24 is no threat to artistic integrity.

Reply to the 3rd Obj.: The mere inability to execute our judgments does not make such judgments superfluous, for, in this case, it would still affect our response to the art presented to us, so that we can then watch or not watch 24.

(Continued here)