I think this isn’t the perfect time for me to write something like this, especially in these times wherein we are on the midst of a terrible academic crisis: from the painstaking undergrad thesis up to those extracurricular activities (i.e. debate trainings, org activities, academic contests), which also requires so much time to the point of taking away our free days from the academe. It just happens that some things need to get out of my head as I believe it is the panacea for me to get rid of overthinking too much, which causes only headache in my part as I struggle to survive the rigors of being a junior political science student.
Time really flies that the next academic year would be my final year in college (hoping that God will let that happen) and then voila! But I don’t expect too much from it for I suffered a lot of consequences of being too excited a few years back when I ultimately want to end things in the easiest way as possible, without even enjoying every moment that counts. Too much regrets came later on as I entered my freshmen year a few years back. Finally, I learned my lesson which I would never ever repeat again.
Third year of my college life is the turning point of my life. Just a few weeks ago, I have finally aced the solution that, more or less, is vital for me moving on from things that make me overthink too much. For the past two years, I am grudging of so many changes to those people I thought I am really close with. I always tell myself about them being unfair. Or is it really unfair? Well, I cannot really answer much of that. I do not think that being busy or what is an excuse to get away from those people you just want to avoid. Ever since I left high school, I lived on the philosophy that my adviser has inculcated to our section – to find time when there is none. I am too stubborn to see the reality that I have faced ever since and being too childish to accept that they have changed, my adjustment period lasted not only one but two years. Two years of being unable to accept the reality that they already moved on and have their own life and, heck, enjoying it while I am not. Change is really inevitable, I admit that. But I cannot find a better way to adjust myself in such changes. Later did I realize that it only takes a piece of advice to at least be enlightened, ergo, I decided to go with the flow.
I need to avoid them, just as what they are doing right now. I need to forget them, just as what they are also doing right now and I’ll enjoy the rest of my years never meeting them again as a whole…for good.
But this is stupid. I cannot simply do that. What I just need is a breakaway and a little bit of space. Maybe they’ll realize soon that they have been foolish for the past years. And then they would regret such in the near future. Maybe yes, I have been bitter to them ignoring invitations in regards to meet-ups or mini-reunions. But maybe that’s just it. I am just tired of those things. But I’ll always treasure the moments I had with those people (with style).
As of today, I am feeling better not thinking anymore about those things. I need to focus for my future: graduate on time, enter either the graduate school or law school (kinda crazy). And hopefully, I could reach the point of being able to self-actualize and be like Buddha (just kidding, haha).
Linggo, Nobyembre 24, 2013
Linggo, Oktubre 13, 2013
Does Science Threaten Religion?
Source: Sociology 11th edition, John Macionis. P. 520 based on Gould (1981), Huchingson (1994), and Appleborne (1996)
About 400 years ago, the Italian physicist and astronomer Galileo (1564-1642) helped start the Scientific Revolution with a series of startling discoveries. Dropping objects from the leaning tower of Pisa, he discovered some of the laws of gravity; making his telescope, he observed the stars and found that Earth orbited the sun, not the other way around.
For his trouble, Galileo was challenged by the Roman Catholic Church, which had preached for centuries that earth stood motionless at the center of the universe. Galileo only made matters worse by responding that religious leaders had no business talking about matters of science. Before long, he found his work banned and himself under house arrest.
As Galileo’s treatment shows, right from the start, science has had an uneasy relationship with religion. In the twentieth century, the two clashed again over the issue of creation. Charles Darwin’s masterwork, On Origin of Species , states that humanity evolved from lower forms of life over a billion years. Yet this theory seems to fly in the face of the biblical account of creation found in Genesis, which states that “God created the heavens and the earth,” introducing life on the third day and, on the fifth and sixth days, animal life, including human beings fashioned in God’s own image.
Galileo would certainly have been an eager observer of the famous “Scopes monkey trial.” In 1925, the state of Tennessee put a small-town science teacher named John Thomas Scopes on trial for teaching Darwinian evolution in local high school. State law forbade teaching “any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible” and especially the idea that “man descended from a lower order of animals.” Scopes was found guilty and fined $100. His conviction was reversed on appeal, so the case never reached the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Tennessee law stayed on the books until 1967. A year later, the Supreme Court, in Epperson v. Arkansas struck down all such laws as unconstitutional government support of religion.
Today-almost four centuries after Galileo was silenced-many people still debate the apparently conflicting claims of science and religion. A third of U.S. adults (and also many church leaders)say that the Bible is the literal word of God, and many of them reject any scientific findings that run counter to it (NORC, 2003: 157)
But a middle ground is emerging: Half of U.S. adults (and also many church leaders) say the Bible is a book of truths inspired by God without being correct in a literal, scientific sense. That is, science and religion are two different ways of understanding that answer different questions. Both Galileo and Darwin devoted their lives to investigating how the natural world works. Yet only religion can address why we and the natural world exist in the first place.
The basic difference between science and religion helps explain why our nation is both the most scientific and the most religious in the world. As one of the scientist recently noted, the mathematical odds that a cosmic “big bang” 12 billion years ago created the universe and led to the formation of life as we know it is even smaller than the chance of winning a state lottery twenty weeks in a row. Doesn’t such a scientific fact suggest an intelligent and purposeful power in our creation? Can’t a person be a religious believer and at the same time a scientific investigator.
In 1992, a Vatican commission concluded that the church’s silencing of Galileo was wrong. Today, most scientific and religious leaders agree that science and religion represent important but different truths. Many also believe that in today’s rush to scientific discovery, our world has never been more in need of the moral guidance provided by religion.
About 400 years ago, the Italian physicist and astronomer Galileo (1564-1642) helped start the Scientific Revolution with a series of startling discoveries. Dropping objects from the leaning tower of Pisa, he discovered some of the laws of gravity; making his telescope, he observed the stars and found that Earth orbited the sun, not the other way around.
For his trouble, Galileo was challenged by the Roman Catholic Church, which had preached for centuries that earth stood motionless at the center of the universe. Galileo only made matters worse by responding that religious leaders had no business talking about matters of science. Before long, he found his work banned and himself under house arrest.
Galileo would certainly have been an eager observer of the famous “Scopes monkey trial.” In 1925, the state of Tennessee put a small-town science teacher named John Thomas Scopes on trial for teaching Darwinian evolution in local high school. State law forbade teaching “any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible” and especially the idea that “man descended from a lower order of animals.” Scopes was found guilty and fined $100. His conviction was reversed on appeal, so the case never reached the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Tennessee law stayed on the books until 1967. A year later, the Supreme Court, in Epperson v. Arkansas struck down all such laws as unconstitutional government support of religion.
Today-almost four centuries after Galileo was silenced-many people still debate the apparently conflicting claims of science and religion. A third of U.S. adults (and also many church leaders)say that the Bible is the literal word of God, and many of them reject any scientific findings that run counter to it (NORC, 2003: 157)
But a middle ground is emerging: Half of U.S. adults (and also many church leaders) say the Bible is a book of truths inspired by God without being correct in a literal, scientific sense. That is, science and religion are two different ways of understanding that answer different questions. Both Galileo and Darwin devoted their lives to investigating how the natural world works. Yet only religion can address why we and the natural world exist in the first place.
The basic difference between science and religion helps explain why our nation is both the most scientific and the most religious in the world. As one of the scientist recently noted, the mathematical odds that a cosmic “big bang” 12 billion years ago created the universe and led to the formation of life as we know it is even smaller than the chance of winning a state lottery twenty weeks in a row. Doesn’t such a scientific fact suggest an intelligent and purposeful power in our creation? Can’t a person be a religious believer and at the same time a scientific investigator.
In 1992, a Vatican commission concluded that the church’s silencing of Galileo was wrong. Today, most scientific and religious leaders agree that science and religion represent important but different truths. Many also believe that in today’s rush to scientific discovery, our world has never been more in need of the moral guidance provided by religion.
Sabado, Oktubre 5, 2013
Dark Abyss -Arvin Villanueva
Wala akong alam
Kailan mo pa alam?
Kailan ka pa ganyan?
Alam ko ay wala
Lahat ay tapos na
Tapos na bang lahat?
Lahat tapos na ba?
Tapos na ang lahat
Ikaw ay nagpaalam
Nagpaalam ka ba?
Bakit nagpaalam?
Nagpaalam ay ikaw
Hindi kita mahal
Mahal kita hindi
Kita hindi mahal
Wala akong mahal
Hindi ako patay
Patay ako hindi
Ako hindi patay
Ikaw pala'y patay
Kailan mo pa alam?
Kailan ka pa ganyan?
Alam ko ay wala
Lahat ay tapos na
Tapos na bang lahat?
Lahat tapos na ba?
Tapos na ang lahat
Ikaw ay nagpaalam
Nagpaalam ka ba?
Bakit nagpaalam?
Nagpaalam ay ikaw
Hindi kita mahal
Mahal kita hindi
Kita hindi mahal
Wala akong mahal
Hindi ako patay
Patay ako hindi
Ako hindi patay
Ikaw pala'y patay
Sabado, Hunyo 1, 2013
ANG PHL “STANDARD TIME”
Isang batas na nag-set sa isang standard na oras sa mga ahensya ng gobyerno at pati na rin sa mga media (TV o radio) na nagaanunsyo ng oras sa madlangbayan. At para na rin siguro sa ikabubuti ng sambayanan kaya naisipang ipasa itong batas na ito para mawala na ang tinatawag na “Filipino time”.
Pero ikinalulungkot kong sabihin, Filipino time will always be Filipino time.Kultura na sa atin yan, mapa-eskwela o di kaya ay sa trabaho ganyan ang karamihan sa atin: laging late. Truth hurts.
Sa mundo kung saan professionalism ang pinapairal at nasa modernong sibilisasyon na tayo, isang mortal sin ang malate. I do not condemn here but I also do not take anything else for granted kahit na itong simpleng bagay lamang na ito. Biktima ako lagi ng pagiging on-time. Hindi na mabilang. Mapasimpleng kitaan lang sa mall o di kaya ay formal event, di mawawala at meron talagang malalate. Buti pa si Gandalf. Buti pa si Gandalf. Buti pa si Gandalf…
Ayos lang naman ang 5-10 minutes na pagiging late, malay natin nadapa siya, nag-cr muna at nagpaganda o di kaya ay nagpark pa ng kanyang Mercedes Benz sa basement. Ayos lang din naman kung reasonable ang rason mo kaya na-hassle ka sa pagpunta (i.e. nasiraan ng sapatos, binato ng kamatis o natapunan ng kape gaya ng isang komersyal ng isang candy.)
Pero kung dumating ka ng kalagitnaan na ng event (tipong isang oras mahigit na ang nakalipas), malamang sa malamang hindi mo maidadahilan na late ang relos mo o di kaya’y mabagal ang pag-ikot . Hindi ang relos o kaya ang orasan mo ang may problema. Ikaw. Kaya sa pag-set ng PHL standard time, maliit ang assurance na maitatama nito ang nakakamatay na kulturang meron ang bawat Pilipino: ang pagiging late.
DISCLAIMER: Baka mamaya sabihin ninyo ang yabang ko naman. Aaminin ko, na-late an rin naman ako kaso bihira lang mangyari at kung mangyari man, may justification iyon at reasonable. Uulitin ko, okay lang malate, huwag lang sumobra. Hindi cocaine o heroine ang pagiging late, kinaadikan niyo na kasi.
Understanding is the Hardest Thing to Understand
Hindi ako psychologist at kailanman ay hindi ako naging magaling na counselor sa mga taong humihingi ng advise sa akin. Mahirap kasi kahit na alam mo yung buong salaysay na ikukuwento niya sa iyo, di mo pa rin talaga mailulugar ang sarili mo sa kalagayan niya. Hindi mo malalaman kung yung advise na ibibigay mo ay makakatulong o mas lalo lamang makakasama sa kanya kaya bihira lang talaga akong mag-advise sa mga taong nangangailangan. Yung tipong mga dalawa hanggang apat na sentences lang, tapos ang usapan. At titingin na lang siya sa iyo na para bang gumawa ka ng isang malaking kalokohan.
“Yun lang talaga? Ang haba ng kwento ko ah!”
Kaya minsan nakakabilib ang mga psychologist; kahit papaaano nakakagawa sila ng mga paliwanag na katanggap-tanggap sa isang taong nag-crack na o di kaya ay problemado sa pagkasira ng iPhone niya, pagkamatay ng pusa niya at ang malaking pimple sa ilong niya.
That’s why understanding is the hardest thing to understand because you do not even know what to understand about it. Simply put, nakakabobo.
“Yun lang talaga? Ang haba ng kwento ko ah!”
Kaya minsan nakakabilib ang mga psychologist; kahit papaaano nakakagawa sila ng mga paliwanag na katanggap-tanggap sa isang taong nag-crack na o di kaya ay problemado sa pagkasira ng iPhone niya, pagkamatay ng pusa niya at ang malaking pimple sa ilong niya.
That’s why understanding is the hardest thing to understand because you do not even know what to understand about it. Simply put, nakakabobo.
Miyerkules, Mayo 1, 2013
The War Between Science and Religion Will See New Light by Marcelo Gleiser (Physicist, Dartmouth College; Author, The Prophet and the Astronomer)
That the Debate or, Should I Say, War, Between Science and Religion Will See New Light
I'm optimistic that the debate or, should I say, war, between science and religion will see new light. Right now, the fracturing seems to be worsening, as further entrenchment occurs on both sides. Books from Edge colleagues trashing religion as collective hallucination or delusion, or, better still, as idiotic superstition, carry a simple message to people outside the sciences: we are as radical as the religious extremists, as inflexible and intolerant as the movements we seek to exterminate by our oh-so-crystal-clear-and-irresistibly-compelling rationalizations.
Although I'm also an atheist, I do not forget what is behind the power of religious thought. Quite simply: hope. Life is though, people suffer, and, rightly or wrongly, religion offers something for people to hold on to. Yes, it's wild to believe in supernatural influences in the world, yes it's crazy to devote your life to a God that seems to have vanished from the world for, under conservative estimates, "at least" 2000 years. But scientists cannot forget that most people need some sort of spiritual guidance, a kind of guidance science, at least as is taught today, cannot offer. Science has shown, and keeps showing, that we live in a cold, hard universe, completely indifferent to us and to life. And yet, people love, die, connect, fight, and must come to some sort of inner peace, of acceptance. What can science offer these people?
It is futile and naive to simply dismiss the real need people have for spirituality.
My hope is that people will begin to see science as a vehicle for mutual understanding and for respecting life. The more we study life and its mechanisms, the more we realize how rare it is, how precious it is. Sure, there may be life elsewhere, and it may even be intelligent. However, even if this is the case, odds are we are still going to be stuck with ourselves, in this planet or our solar neighborhood, for quite some time. Either we learn that science teaches us humility and respect for life and the environment, or we exterminate this most precious cosmic jewel. I am optimistic that scientists will teach people these lessons, instead of simply try to rob them of their faith and offering nothing in return.
I'm optimistic that the debate or, should I say, war, between science and religion will see new light. Right now, the fracturing seems to be worsening, as further entrenchment occurs on both sides. Books from Edge colleagues trashing religion as collective hallucination or delusion, or, better still, as idiotic superstition, carry a simple message to people outside the sciences: we are as radical as the religious extremists, as inflexible and intolerant as the movements we seek to exterminate by our oh-so-crystal-clear-and-irresistibly-compelling rationalizations.
Although I'm also an atheist, I do not forget what is behind the power of religious thought. Quite simply: hope. Life is though, people suffer, and, rightly or wrongly, religion offers something for people to hold on to. Yes, it's wild to believe in supernatural influences in the world, yes it's crazy to devote your life to a God that seems to have vanished from the world for, under conservative estimates, "at least" 2000 years. But scientists cannot forget that most people need some sort of spiritual guidance, a kind of guidance science, at least as is taught today, cannot offer. Science has shown, and keeps showing, that we live in a cold, hard universe, completely indifferent to us and to life. And yet, people love, die, connect, fight, and must come to some sort of inner peace, of acceptance. What can science offer these people?
It is futile and naive to simply dismiss the real need people have for spirituality.
My hope is that people will begin to see science as a vehicle for mutual understanding and for respecting life. The more we study life and its mechanisms, the more we realize how rare it is, how precious it is. Sure, there may be life elsewhere, and it may even be intelligent. However, even if this is the case, odds are we are still going to be stuck with ourselves, in this planet or our solar neighborhood, for quite some time. Either we learn that science teaches us humility and respect for life and the environment, or we exterminate this most precious cosmic jewel. I am optimistic that scientists will teach people these lessons, instead of simply try to rob them of their faith and offering nothing in return.
Lunes, Abril 1, 2013
Bionic Woman
Siya ba ay tao
O isang aso?
Asta’y malahayop
Ako’y nagdarahop
Sa milagro ng Poong
Na mawaglit ang poot
Nawa’y mahabag sana siya
Sa kalokohang gawa niya
Diyos ang may hatol, siyang bahala
Na gumawa ng nararapat
Alam mo kung sino ka’t ano ka
Ikaw’y guro ngunit tunay nga ba?
O puno ka lamang ng kayabangan,
At ito’y iyong ikinatutuwa?
O isang aso?
Asta’y malahayop
Ako’y nagdarahop
Sa milagro ng Poong
Na mawaglit ang poot
Nawa’y mahabag sana siya
Sa kalokohang gawa niya
Diyos ang may hatol, siyang bahala
Na gumawa ng nararapat
Alam mo kung sino ka’t ano ka
Ikaw’y guro ngunit tunay nga ba?
O puno ka lamang ng kayabangan,
At ito’y iyong ikinatutuwa?
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Komento (Atom)