Week 32 - On Wants

"Somewhere along the line, that train always gets derailed."
- David Wong, 5 Ways You're Sabotaging Your Own Life (Without Knowing It)

So we had dinner this past week with one of the management folks which, interestingly, turned out to be the most interesting one I've experienced so far.

A lot of non-work things have been talked about (and by a lot I mean we spent over three hours in the restaurant), most of which I've been having a think about over the past few days.

I've known (and have acknowledged this) this for a very long time now - most days I daydream about things I'd rather do over the actual thing I'm doing (ie. work). Maybe I'm hoping to rationalize a lot of things (as I often tend to do), but the article linked above sort of hits the mark for the rather demotivating thoughts I've been having lately.

Please, do yourself a favor and read that article.

1. Do Not Focus on How to Accomplish Something Instead of Focusing on Why

Asking people to tell something relatively obscure about themselves has always been an interesting conversation starter. It's a good way to open up topics about people's interests, as well as find common ground on which everyone involved could relate to. Our dinner wasn't any different, so I'll start with that.

I know that the three or so people (and kajillion bots) who regularly drop by this blog are probably sick of it by now, but my answer was obviously something related to writing as an outlet.

The follow-up question was something along the lines of how I did it. Looking back, I'm guessing that my answer to how I did it was irrelevant as compared to why I did it. The (ironic) thing is that I can't really pinpoint a why. I could give different answers on different days, and any of them could be the truth on that particular day.

I guess people put value on things that are personally important to them. I guess that's why people seem to be so absorbed by the things they do, even if it doesn't make much sense to the people around them. Others may see an obsession but maybe people just have an affinity for different things. Humans are an incredibly subjective lot, even if it's something we hate to admit.

I wish I could apply that to other parts of my life.

2. Think About What Part of You Will Die

This bring up the question of time or, perhaps more accurately, of how other people seem to always have a staggering amount of things on their plate in addition to the doldrums of day-to-day life (compared to us).

I guess the best way to look at it is by looking at ourselves along with our priorities, and coming to terms with the fact that everything we do is inherently important to us whether we would care to admit it or not.

I'm not saying spending time chasing after our own shadows is a bad thing - in fact, that's how we learn more about ourselves and the world around us. I'm saying everyone has exactly the same amount of time given to them in a day to do whatever - eat, sleep, work, play - and it's a matter of choosing what we feel (and I mean really feel, without the influence of others) is worth a chunk of our time.

I remember our colleague telling us how much free time he suddenly had when he cut out television from his life years ago. Blame spending years on shift work, but it's something I can personally attest to.

If I was made to choose again, I think the price of no longer watching TV was well worth the time it freed up for other more (personally) meaningful things.

3. Do Not Pretend You'll Magically Become Someone Else and;
4. Do Not Focus on the Whole Instead of the Next Step

I guess the next two points go hand-in-hand.

It's obvious, but it bears repeating: there is no shortcut. There never has been, there never will be and there is no point in blissfully hoping for one.

It's all nice and well to say that everything begins with the first step (because it's true) but I guess it's also worth knowing that all of life is a continuous series of things to do right until our part in the Great Story ends.

Life is a personal project and it's the most flexible piece of work we'll ever do because we own the itinerary - most of which is a blank slate.

If there's something that's worth wanting bad enough to pursue as a goal (see the first point), we will always somehow find the time to do it amidst all the other things we have to do (see second point) and actually start working towards it instead of wishfully thinking we'd attain it someday (see point three) even if it takes a good long while (see point four).

5. Do Not Lie to Yourself About What You Actually Want

I guess David's last point is the most important. He said that at the heart of every unfulfilled ambition in life lies the confusion on the meaning of the word 'want'. He said that we use it in two very different ways - as a statement of intended action (as in "I want to save for a vacation") and as a statement of general preference over something we have no control of (as in "I want world peace").

I remember the first day of November last year. I wanted to write, and so I sat down and wrote. By the time the day ended the counter stood at over ten thousand words - roughly a fifth of the minimum required to finish the event. It felt good knowing that I had twenty-nine more days to work with the last eighty percent and I'll be damned if I fail. No, it felt right.

I guess that's what's both terrifying and fascinating when David said that as time goes on, everyone gets what they want.

We place personal stakes on the goals that we truly feel are genuinely important to us as a person. Maybe, just maybe, that's how the world (both inside and outside our head) is conquered.

Later!

Week 20 - Year One

Beautiful things come to us when we need them most.

I've been trying to write about this thought over the past week, desperately attempting to coincide with our anniversary.

I've failed.

For some incomprehensible reason, I've ran into a brick wall at each attempt. I've given it much thought for the past few days (and I swear I really did).

Maybe it's a bit of a cop-out (yet I'll never admit it squarely), but I realized that perhaps it's because I've written little things over the past year - snippets and notes that I'm pretty sure I can't really remember how to decrypt anymore (hah).

If there's anything to be said to sum things up (and something I could share with the world), it's that the promise of easily walking the elysian fields of perfection does not (and should never) define a relationship.

It's the acceptance that there will be happy days and there will be slightly sad ones (and there will be plenty days in-between) that makes it a journey of personal and mutual growth. And that's okay, because it is the belief that both people are working towards a net balance in the happy ones that makes it all worthwhile.

And speaking of journeys, a whole bunch of us headed for Corregidor last Saturday. It was a guided tour (from Sun Cruises) and I must admit that it was much more interesting than what I expected.

Pictures, a quick summary and whatnot after the cut, as always.

Some People Shouldn't Be Allowed On the Internet

Disclaimer: This is a lengthy and extremely angry rant. Think of the obfuscation as a Turing Test of sorts - because only people should understand this (if you catch my drift). You have been warned.

Nccneragyl, fbzr crbcyr unir gur rzbgvbany vagryyvtrapr bs n jnyahg.

V'yy trg fgenvtug gb gur cbvag urer. Fbpvny zrqvn, sbe gur zbfg cneg, vf n obba. Hasbeghangryl, fbzr crbcyr unir arire urneq bs gur napvrag nqntr gung fnlf jvgu terng cbjre pbzrf terng erfcbafvovyvgl.

Crefbanyyl, gurer ner cyragl bs guvatf V qba'g jnag frrvat ba zl Snprobbx srrq. Sbe bar, fgnghf zrffntrf bs crbcyr jub gel gb uhey vafhygf ng bar nabgure (naq fbzrgvzrf trg oybja gb n shyy fpnyr synzrjne) nyjnlf cebzcg zr gb erzbir gung crefba sebz zl srrq. Frysvrf ner bxnl, nf ybat nf gurl nera'g sybbqrq, juvyr rkgerzryl ibpny rkcerffvbaf bs nssrpgvba ner bxnl va zl obbx nf jryy - rira gubhtu gurl znl trg n yvggyr gbb qvfgheovat ng gvzrf. V'z abg na ngurvfg, ohg V guvax gurer'f n cbvag jurer funevat eryvtvbhf fghss juvyr npgvat yvxr n ovtbg orpbzrf nf boabkvbhf nf gubfr crbcyr jub guvax funevat cubgbf naq nfxvat sbe Yvxrf jbhyq fbzrubj punatr gur jbeyq. V qba'g xabj jurer fhpu sbyxf tbg gur vqrn gung Yvxrf, Pbzzragf naq Funerf tvir gurz cbvagf sbe gurve birevasyngrq rtbf.

Fcbvyre: vg jba'g.

Ubjrire, vs gurer'f nalguvat gung fubhyq evtugshyyl ryvpvg n shpxvat urngrq erfcbafr fhpu nf guvf, vg'f gubfr crbcyr jub jebatyl guvax gung gurve erny-yvsr fbpvny fgnaqvat vf fbzrubj qvpgngrq ol gurve vzntr bayvar. V'yy arire trg crbcyr jub guebj gnagehzf bire sevraq pbhagf (be rira hanafjrerq sevraq erdhrfgf, sbe gung znggre). V jbhyq arire haqrefgnaq ncrf jub jbhyq tb bhg bs gurve jnl naq fcraq zvahgrf, ubhef naq qnlf bs gurve yvsr vairfgvtngvat rirel fvatyr gvpx ba gurve srrqf naq ynzonfg nalbar jub guvaxf vf n guerng gb gurz be gb gurve "sevraqf".

Vs gung fbhaqf hahfhny, jryy thrff jung? Vg'f abg - gurer'f npghnyyl n grez sbe vg. Vg'f shaal gung "hasevraqvat" vf nccneragyl fbzrguvat gb pel nobhg abjnqnlf, naq vg'f rira shaavre gung crbcyr yrg gurve rzbgvbaf trg gur orggre bs gurz vafgrnq bs qbvat fbzrguvat ybtvpny fhpu nf, fnl, Tbbtyvat sbe n qnza rkcynangvba orsber qbvat fbzrguvat fghcvq fhpu nf oheavat oevqtrf naq znxvat zbebaf bhg bs gurzfryirf. Vs jr trg natel bire fbzrguvat naq oybj hc jvgubhg guvaxvat guvatf guebhtu, ubj qvssrerag ner jr sebz navznyf?

V trg vg - fbzr crbcyr ner abg grpu-fniil. Ubjrire, bar bs gur yrffbaf gung crbcyr va trareny frrz gb sbetrg abjnqnlf vf gung jr fubhyq tvir bguref gur orarsvg bs n qbhog. Gurer'f nyfb n grez sbe vg, sbe shpx'f fnxr. Vg fubjf ubj fbzrbar unf fhpu n shpxgneqrqyl zvavfphyr jbeyqivrj jura gurl pbhyqa'g rira frr gur tbbq va bguref. Zbfg crbcyr jr'yy rire zrrg ner qrprag naq jba'g npg yvxr nffubyrf jvgubhg cebibpngvba.

Jbefr pbzrf gb jbefg, ab bar qvrf sebz ybfvat n sevraq bayvar (hayrff gung fbzrbar vf n zbeba). Unf nalbar rire ernyyl pnerq jung gurve arvtuobe'f hapyr sebz gra lrnef ntb (jubz gurl'ir arire ernyyl fcbxra gb) ngr sbe oernxsnfg? Shpx ab. Thrff jung? Gurer'f nyfb n grez sbe gung.

Fbpvny zrqvn gbbyf ner whfg gung - gbbyf. Vs nalbar guvaxf bgurejvfr, gurl fubhyq tebj gur shpx hc. 

You're welcome. Jeez.

The Trouble With Parrots

"I mean, why have a civilization anymore if we no longer are interested in being civilized?"
- Frank, God Bless America

So I've always been under the impression that proper discourse is a crucial element of a good education. A lot of human civilization's crucial discoveries are born out of conflict between opposing schools of thought. More often than not, intellectual rivals are motivated by mutual respect.

Then this happened. Followed by this. As a side note, I'm going to assume that both articles have been written by a single person, as the writing styles are similar, not to mention the arguments that were presented.

I'm not even going to argue against the writer's points on the RH Bill. He has presented his stance and that is a freedom he could enjoy (and I'd respect).

I'm not going to argue against his notion that the entire community he belongs to shares his views. The online backlash the articles received should be enough proof that he is mistaken.

I'm not going to bash (most of) the numerous fallacies that the pieces contain, even if Logic is a course taught on the first semester of a student's first year. Nor am I going to insult the editorial board for releasing the article before proofreading it and ensuring that it did not contain spelling and grammatical errors.

And I'm not going to ridicule the writer for committing friendly fire, and insulting other Filipinos, other students, other educators and perhaps most importantly, other Thomasians. It's his right, misguided as it is, to cast the first stone. It's his right to play the holier-than-thou card.

What I cannot accept, though, is the fact that the writer had to mock the importance of discourse, given the topic at hand. I do not understand why he had to throw away civility and resort to petty mudslinging to drive his points. I fail to see the purpose of dismissing educators and equating them to merely tools of indoctrination. There are plenty of ways to win an argument, but it's utterly pathetic when the first resort is an ad hominem attack.

I'm not sure if the writer was referring to the same university that I call my alma mater. I've spent four years in the University of Santo Tomas, and never was there an occasion where intelligent discourse had to give way to blind faith. UST has always been (and hopefully will remain) an institute of higher learning, and not a center for indoctrination.

Freedom may not be absolute, and I would agree with the writer on that statement. Our own freedom is limited by the respect we are morally obligated to show towards other people's freedom.

I've often pointed back to the late Pope John Paul II's encyclical Fides et Ratio, to show the dangers of practicing blind faith without reason, and vice versa.

Lastly, and on a completely unrelated note, I'd like to point out that Galileo was excommunicated for his scientific beliefs. Look how that turned out.

(In case the articles are taken down, I've also saved the articles in pastebin here and here.)

Deconstructing Bullshit With Logic 101: MLMs

So around three years ago, I've written a piece about networking companies. My stance has not changed.

I can't believe someone I know (and trusted, to a certain extent) had the gall to invite me and one of my close friends to a catch-up dinner, only to realize that they were trying to sucker us into one of those. They could have been straightforward, so I could have politely declined them.

The amount of fallacies I heard was off the charts, and it made recall my Logic 101 days. I may not remember every single one (so I'm listing a few from Wikipedia), but I know bullshit when I hear it.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority)
Of course they had to start off by stating that the founder was a recipient of an (apparently) prestigious award in bio-sciences and therefore, he knows his shit.

Unfortunately, a quick Google search turned up three awards with that name. Not only were they being intentionally ambiguous, but it turns out that the founder's name wasn't even in the lists of recipients for any of the three.

Appeal to Celebrity
They also claimed that their products were used by celebrities, hence validating their effectiveness. A problem with people these days is that they automatically consider celebrities authority figures, even if they don't really have the qualifications.

Argumentum ad Consequentiam (Appeal to Consequences)
They stated that their products were tantamount to preventative measures (as opposed to hospitalization). Since prevention was better than the cure, their products were an effective substitute for hospitals.

Argumentum ad Invidiam (Appeal to Envy); Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to Popularity)
This really ticked me off. They had to show how 'rich' they were by bringing up spreadsheets of their individual monthly profits.

Unfortunately for them, I work because there is a profound sense of accomplishment in doing what I do. Call me idealistic or impractical, but chances are if I envy or admire you, it's probably because there's something I saw in you that I like which no amount of money can buy.

Also, popular is not always right. A lot of people are miserable because their happiness revolved around their ability to spend money.

They also bragged that their time was in their hands. If I had complete freedom over my time, I won't be talking to strangers until midnight on a fucking Friday evening in a room without airconditioning, especially if I had the money I was bragging about.

Argumentum ad Metum (Appeal to Fear)
They had all these diagrams about how cause X leads to Y disease and that what they sold would single-handedly cure or prevent many ailments.

Argumentum ad Odium (Appeal to Hatred)
They just had to bring up everyone's problem with authority figures. What they don't understand is that leaders (or the good ones, anyway) exist because they can handle problems that their subordinates would not touch with a ten-foot pole.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance)
They argued that so far, there have been no claims about the ineffectiveness of their products. They also pointed out that their products didn't have the label 'No approved therapeutic claims', which meant it was effective.

Argumentum ad Naturam (Appeal to Nature)
They argued that their products were completely derived from natural sources. It's really hard to prove that when you're selling tablets and whatnot, especially when you have to buy and sell their products to experience the effects. I believe in placebo to a certain degree, but not if it burns holes in my pocket.

Straw Man Fallacy
They actually had the balls to argue that they had better (not equal) footing compared to those who finished their schooling, and worked their way to Masters, Doctorates and certifications.

I could go on and on, but I realize I've wasted too much time overthinking this. It's sad that a lot of people are blinded by money these days, to the point that they'd immediately ride any bandwagon (hey, another fallacy!) that promises paychecks by using smokes and mirrors. If you have to resort to quick lies and flashism to sell your product, then you need to have a look at how you market your products. It's pretty retarded to state that all you money is spent on research and you have nothing allocated for advertising. For a retail company listed in the NYSE, that's a fucktardedly horrible idea.

Man was given intuition for a reason. The Internet exists for a reason.  Cliche as it may be, there's a reason you have heard the saying 'If it's too good to be true, it probably is.' Please do your research before jumping into these things. There are a lot of things you can do with the money you shell out.

Lastly, if you're planning to con people, at least get your facts straight. If someone says that Windows and Microsoft are separate companies with a straight face, even if she's really pretty (I'm a dude, sue me), it will be hard to sell your stuff.

An Appeal to Sapience

"Faith without reason leads to superstition. Reason without faith leads to nihilism and relativism."
-Pope John Paul II, Fides et Ratio (quote summarized)

So first off, just a few quick disclaimers, this is a rant, not a post about religion. Secondly, despite the tags, I am definitely NOT a fan of the work of the artist concerned. I have to be fucking clear as crystal on that point.

Lastly, look at the quote above, especially the first part, then look at the name of the person who said that.

Anyway, unless you live under a rock, you'd know that a certain artist has been making the rounds in the local news lately, not because of her work, but because of protests from certain religious groups and politicians with regards to her music. They claim that there are blatant and subliminal messages in her work, and that it influences whoever listens to it and turns them to the dark side of the Force.

I do not understand the bigotry that is prevalent in society nowadays. We talk about things like freedom of expression and the right to free speech, yet so many people who claim that they respect those rights quickly lose it the moment they do not agree or try to understand the idea being presented to them.

I do not believe in censorship. It is a massive 'fuck you' to the human capacity for judgement. It is an affront to free will. No one has the right to dictate what and what should not be seen, heard or experienced by any individual, much less an entire country. Humans, as intelligent creatures, are solely responsible for their actions, and it is illogical to shift blame to things that are external and completely unrelated to the problems at hand.

It is an insult to think that people would do irresponsible things because of what they perceive in pop culture. It is utterly irresponsible to spend taxpayer's money on matters like this, when there are more morally reprehensible issues plaguing our country. It is insane to say that people would be damned if they listen to certain songs, watch certain movies or play certain games.

It is a sad day for humanity when the same people who often preach about not casting the first stone  have already emptied their moral catapults at the first thing they see that they don't agree with.

TLDR: Come on, people. Don't make fools of yourselves. We have greater things to achieve, and this is not one of them.