Xn3cTs

Approximating Distance and Distanciation in Hermeneutics
(A reflection on a reading of a few essays in Paul Ricoeur’s “Interpretation Theory” and “From Text to Action”, 2004)
by Michael Ian Lomongo

When I was still in college, I wrote an essay on the saying, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” I argued that what bred contempt, if ever, wasn’t so much the familiarity (or intimacy) itself (which logically, should breed more love and regard for the familiar), as the lack or absence of respect for the inexhaustible mystery of persons and things… The attitude of having figured out someone/thing so thoroughly that there is no more room for discovery and wonderment…

That’s what breeds contempt. Not familiarity. Not intimacy per se. Well, I was younger then and didn’t see the wisdom expressed in the prejudices of old sayings. I thought (and rightly) that the saying meant the need and value of keeping some distance in a relationship. But my mind couldn’t fathom how a relationship growing in intimacy/familiarity would require distance. How can intimacy be nurtured through distance? Distance… the opposite of proximity/intimacy… distance… keeping one’s cool, the lack/absence of warmth/passion… distance… coldness, indifference, apathy… How can something clearly negative bring about something positive? Sure, one kept one’s distance (the farther, the better) from strangers and enemies, but from familiars and friends (intimates)?

Read the rest of this page »

Tags: Distance, Gadamer, Hermeneutics, Interpretation, Nietzsche, Philosophy, Ricoeur
Posted in Philosophy | No Comments »

A friend once asked whether there is room for “soul” in pantheism.

Am just one pantheist among many, so I guess there could be room for the “soul” in a pantheist’s life. =)

In the first place, what do you mean by “soul”? (It can have poetic, mystical, metaphorical, even literal meanings…) If you mean by “soul,” a “thing”, I’m not very sure about it…

If you mean “life-force,” then traditional (Thomistic-Aristotelian) philosophy has always affirmed that every living being has this “soul” or “life-force” or “life-principle.” (That’s why, in the seminary, we used to laugh at Uthai, a Thai seminarian who vehemently argued that a stone has a soul. His argument: If the stone didn’t have soul, it wouldn’t be able to move when you throw or kick it.)

But if you’re a pantheist who believes that the universe is god, and this god is not an impersonal force (as opposed to a scientific kind of pantheism), then the soul/spirit is indeed present everywhere. Even in stones! The stone is god! The stone is alive! The stone has soul!

We can even go to the idea of reincarnation: if there is a soul, and there’s no permanent heaven or hell, then it’s quite logical to believe in reincarnation, until one so to say, goes back to the source (become Pure Consciousness).

As you can see, there are many possible permutations, so it can get quite muddled and confusing for someone who’s searching for absolute certainty.

But I do know of a certainty that really matters, the certainty of the heart. As Blaise Pascal would say, “The heart has reasons of its own, which reason itself doesn’t understand.”

Does it really matter whether there is a soul or not? I mean, does it help you live a good life?

If it does, then believe in it. If you find it quite useless, then dispose of it.

As for me, I’m a lying bastard, a mystic-poet, so I speak of the soul even when I don’t believe in it. Mwahaha! =D

I’d rather go for a drink, and get drunk with life, philosophy, and love!

best regards,
ian

Tags: Pantheism, Philosophy, Psychology, Soul, spirituality
Posted in Life, Philosophy, Psychology, spirituality | No Comments »

Pantheism, Underwears, Coffee, Bread, Tea, and Everything in Between

Whenever someone makes the wisecrack that pantheism is the love for underwears, I retort, “No, on the contrary, I, a true-blue pantheist, hate lingerie. In fact, I have this great urge to discard it whenever I see it on a sexy female body.” LOL

Token reference for nerds: “pantheism” comes from the greek words “pan” (everything) and “theos” (god). Thus, pantheism is the “belief that everything is god, or conversely, that god is everything.” I don’t know exactly how “pantheism” is related to “deism” (which Rizal practiced, as gleaned from his exchange of letters with Fr. Pastells while exiled in Dapitan) but I have a suspicion that “deism” probably still sees God as transcendent from the universe while pantheism sees God as immanent to the universe.

—

“Pan” and “te” are also spanish for “bread” and “tea.”

Anong konek?

After one has removed the underwear, one has “coffee.” Once satiated with “coffee,” then one can have bread and tea for breakfast.

=)

—

Became a pantheist by way of Nietzsche and Buddhism/Hinduism.

If there is such a thing as a Nietzschean Buddhist, that’s what I am right now.

best regards,
panth-ian of the gods

Tags: Buddhism, Deism, Hinduism, Nietzsche, Pantheism, Philosophy, Rizal, spirituality
Posted in Filipinos, Life, Love, Nietzsche, Philosophy, spirituality | No Comments »

Everything happens in the now. But even if everything happens in the “now,” we do not experience this. Consciousness, experience is time-bound.The theory of eternal recurrence is, if i’m not mistaken, also held by some eastern/hindi religions. Also by the stoics. Basically, it’s the theory that everything which has happened has already happened and will happen again infinitely. The premise is that if the world is finite and we have infinite time, all the permutations in the world will take place and be repeated again and again and again. To simplify, let’s say the whole world is made up of A, B, and C. At one point, the order would be like this: ABC; another, ACB; still another, BCA… and so on, until you will have to come back to ABC.

For my idol Nietzsche, it is a theory or a postulate which can be used to help us to live better (like heaven/hell, reincarnation, etc.).

Would you want the kind of life that you’re living be lived again? And again? And again?

Live then with the goal of eradicating, or at least, minimizing regrets.

best regards,
ian

Tags: Eternal Recurrence, Life, Nietzsche, Philosophy, spirituality
Posted in Life, Nietzsche, Philosophy, spirituality | 1 Comment »

Tags: Art, Balinguynguy, Life, One Sorry Horse, Painting, Philosophy, Taka
Posted in Art, Life, Painting, Philosophy | No Comments »

Artist’s Statement for ONE SORRY HORSE

How does one incorporate the mistakes of one’s life into the very essence of who and what one is? How does one transform the accidentals of one’s life into what is essential?

I first wanted to present the idea of a “holy horse,” not in a satirical manner, nor through the presentation of purity (as in a “white horse”). Besides, the idea of a “virginal horse” seems to be a contradiction in terms. Instead, I wanted to convey the idea of a holy compassion that one gains by plodding through the dirty dust and murky waters of life. (Think of Milarepa and St. Augustine of Hippo.)

But in the process of discovering how to present this visually through the taka, I made a lot of serious mistakes. I didn’t know what to make of these “accidents” until I thought of making this bewilderment the very point of the exercise. The remorse I felt for not reining in my instincts was brought into the work, and deliberate “accidents” (dismembered ears and tail) were added to the accidental mistakes (splotches of paint originally intended to dirty the “holy horse”) to signify the loving acceptance of one’s fate.

“Balinguynguy,” as friends fondly call it, was born out of a mistake.

And I wouldn’t want it to be otherwise.

best regards,

ian

Tags: Art, Life, Painting, Philosophy, Taka
Posted in Art, Life, Painting, Philosophy | No Comments »

Mwahahahaha! Just had to let the cosmic laughter resonate, no, reverberate in my body…

Everything is grace! Even when shit happens… Divine piss, holy shit!

I have always been wary of spirituality/religiosity that denied/denigrated the body. Non summus angeli! (We’re no angels!)

Read the rest of this page »

Tags: Authenticity, Books, Buddhism, Illusion, Masks, Movies, Philosophy, spirituality
Posted in Art, Books, Life, Love, Movies, Philosophy, Theater, Translation, Writing, spirituality | No Comments »

“… Listen to Me in the truth of your soul. Listen to Me in the feelings of your heart. Listen to Me in the quiet of your mind.

“Hear Me, everywhere. Whenever you have a question, simply know that I have answered it already. Then open your eyes to your world. My response could be in an article already published. In the sermon already written and about to be delivered. In the movie now being made. In the song just yesterday composed. In the words about to be said by a loved one. In the heart of a new friend about to be made.

“My Truth is in the whisper of the wind, the babble of the brook, the crack of the thunder, the tap of the rain.

“It is the feel of the earth, the fragrance of the lily, the warmth of the sun, the pull of the moon.

“My Truth – and your surest help in time of need – is as awesome as the night sky, and as simply, incontrovertibly, trustful as a baby’s gurgle.

“It is as loud as a pounding heartbeat – and as quiet as a breath taken in unity with Me.

“I will not leave you, I cannot leave you, for you are My creation and My product, My daughter and My son, My purpose and My… ‘Self.’”

—

The above quotation is from the last portion of Neale Donald Walsch’s “Conversations with God, Book 1.” I’m quoting it at length because I think it gives a general idea of what pantheism is all about.

Pantheism is, simply put, the belief that God is everything, or conversely, that everything is God. Of course, some philosophers have pointed out that pantheism is virtually an atheism. To believe that everything is God is to make the idea of “God” profane. If God is immanent (to the universe) and not transcendent, then why use the word “God” at all? The very notion of “God,” they argue, presupposes the idea of “transcendence.” Pantheism, insofar as it denies the transcendence of God, is virtually an atheism.

Read the rest of this page »

Tags: Books, Conversations with God, Hegel, Life, Nietzsche, Philosophy, spirituality, Translation, Writing
Posted in Books, Life, Nietzsche, Philosophy, Translation, Writing, spirituality | No Comments »

From a posting in an e-group:

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

—————————————-

Definition:

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person’s character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.

(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person’s circumstances.

(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.

Examples:

(i) You may argue that God doesn’t exist, but you are just following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)

(ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about taxation because he won’t be hurt by the increase. (ad hominem circumstantial)

(iii) We should disregard Share B.C.’s argument because they are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem circumstantial)

(iv) You say I shouldn’t drink, but you haven’t been sober for more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

Proof:

Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.

References:
Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80

26 May 1995 / 06 January 1996

—————————————-

My comments on the above posting regarding the fallacy of “argumentum ad hominem.” (I can’t help it. It’s the philosophaster in me.)

I think there are valid forms of “argumentum ad hominem,” namely, the “circumstantial,” and the “tu quoque.” (“Et tu, Brute?” Translation: “You also, Brutus?”). (I also think that the “circumstantial” and “tu quoque” argumentum ad hominem is one and the same thing.) I mean, I agree completely with friend Fredda’s statement that she writes in order to live. It is precisely because of this connection between our work/actions and our lives that the “circumstantial/tu quoque argumentum ad hominem” (also related to the English “poisoning the well” fallacy) can be accepted as a valid form of argument, and therefore not a fallacy (a logical fallacy, yes, but definitely not an ontological fallacy). Ideas/theories/arguments not backed up by LIFE are just that: ideas… worthless. Crap. (Well, crap has its value/use from time to time.)

What is a fallacy (logically and ontologically), and therefore out of line, is the “abusive” argumentum ad hominem. It’s done out of spite, in the absence of love/compassion. Unless it’s done playfully (in a teasing manner), in which case it loses (or at least reduces) its “abusive” quality.

sincerely,
ian, a.k.a. dee-dee (Shiva the destroyer)

—————————————-

“Let Saigons be bygones.” – Bart Guingona

Tags: Argumentum ad Hominem, Logic, Philosophy
Posted in Philosophy | No Comments »

Books Liked/Loved:

The Count of Monte Cristo (Alexander Dumas)
El Filibusterismo (Jose Rizal)
The Little Prince (Antoine de Saint-Exupery)
The Favourite Game (Leonard Cohen)
Thus Spoke Zarathustra / Genealogy of Morals (Friedrich Nietzsche)
The Trial / Metamorphosis (Franz Kafka)
Doktor Faustus (Thomas Mann)
Cubao Midnight Express (Tony Perez)
The Alphabet of Grace (Frederick Buechner)
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (Robert Pirsig)
Written on the Body (Jeanette Winterson)
The Brothers Karamazov (Fyodor Dostoyevski)
The Unbearable Lightness of Being (Milan Kundera)
Personal (Rene Villanueva)
Foucault’s Pendulum (Umberto Eco)
Lady Chatterley’s Lover (D.H. Lawrence)
Siddharta / Narcissus and Goldmund (Herman Hesse)
The Book of Lights (Chaim Potok)
Angela’s Ashes (Frank McCourt)
The God of Small Things (Arundhati Roy)
A Little Book on the Human Shadow / Iron John (Robert Bly)
It Is Here Now – Are You? (Bhagavan Das)
The Last Three Minutes (Paul Davies)
The Dancing Wu-Li Masters (Gary Zukav)
The Clowns of God (Morris West)
Zen Guitar (Philip Toshio Sudo)
Sophie’s Choice (William Styron)
The Artist’s Way (Julia Cameron)
The Day of the Jackal (Frederick Forsyth)
Inside the Music (interviews with contemporary musicians)
Writing Down the Bones (Natalie Goldberg)
Ordinary People (Judith Guest)
The Teachings of Don Juan (Carlos Castaneda)

Tags: Art, Books, Life, Literature, Love, Music, Nietzsche, Philosophy, Poetry, Psychology, spirituality, Writing
Posted in Books | No Comments »