Why We Blog

What is indisputably true is that the majority of bloggers create blogs to publish their own views and opinions on essentially any subject that interest them. In that respect, they are not your typical journalist reporting straight news. They act as pundits, dispensing their own opinions or editorializing on matters that pique their fancy. They are therefore your most opinionated group. And many will not be shy to remind any reader/commenter straying from the line laid out in the blogs about this sacrosanct right.

In other words, their behavior is quite congruent with human nature.

As children, we always wanted everyone around us to think, feel, and act like we do, or we balked. We gathered people around us who shared the same interests we do. And even as we got older, we still preferred to be with like-minded people, forming our closely-knit circle of friends. Excluding most everybody else as outsiders.

Though, mind you, as mature persons we know that we should not think too highly of all our opinions.

That pride is at the center of our avid quest in promoting our own deeply-held opinions. Because we know that we should be open-minded and not too foolish to believe that we know all the answers.

Though we have learned to accept that when one listens to others, the better likelihood is that we can learn more, rather than when we are constantly promoting and defending our own set opinions.

Though we have learned that at times, it is the better part of discretion not to express one’s opinions on all the things that are wrong in the world. And that listening and being silent work better toward peace and harmony.

That in most times, discussions center on the likes and dislikes of people, and are thus not that important to one’s life.

That it takes deep humility and delicate charity to restrain one’s deep urge to correct people and things at the slightest opportunity. That because of our inability to control this inclination so much hurt has been inflicted on neighbors all in the name of not compromising the “truth”.

That the control of the tongue is in many instances the greater virtue to practice, because we understand that peace is better prepared for in solitude and silence.

A Reprint Reminder

Jesus Vs Socrates

The name of Jesus Christ has once again invaded and pervaded in the world of US politics and media. Not because this week commemorates his Agony and Death on the Cross, but more like a little ball in any sport, being tossed to and fro in the frenzied attempt to score points. And in this regard some secularists are only too glad to oblige and kibitz from the sidelines. Paradoxically and uncharacteristically, not to cheer on but to lambaste and castigate all political sides for taking and hiding under the emblem of Christ.

The recalcitrant issue that has brought the name of Christ into the fray has been the illegal immigration problem besetting the US and which is now in the midst of very heated discussions and raucous protest demonstrations nationwide.

One can believe that the revered name of Christ has once again hogged the limelight because from the start, the still influential Catholic Church has unequivocally taken a strong stance in favor of the illegals and against what the government has been able to muster so far as possible equitable and humane solutions.

The politicians of all persuasion are simply making hay, riding on the ripples and waves stirred by powerful groups who have taken the cudgels for the “hapless” illegal aliens.

One particular piece, titled Christ Among The Partisans was written by Mr. Garry Wills who is professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University and the author of the book, most recently, of “What Jesus Meant.”

Never mind his very strident position enunciated on surgically separating Christ and all he represents as revealed in the Gospels from government and the political sphere because the association of the two is utterly incongruent. Instead his analogy of Christ with Socrates and Nietzsche was one I found most interesting.

He postulates:

The Jesus of the Gospels is not a great ethical teacher like Socrates, our leading humanitarian. He is an apocalyptic figure who steps outside the boundaries of normal morality to signal that the Father’s judgment is breaking into history. His miracles were not acts of charity but eschatological signs accepting the unclean, promising heavenly rewards, making last things first.

He is more a higher Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, than a higher Socrates. No politician is going to tell the lustful that they must pluck out their right eye. We cannot do what Jesus would do because we are not divine.

According to Mr. Wills, Christ is not a great ethical teacher and Socrates is a humanitarian, a leading one. And Christ can be likened to a higher Nietzsche, though he does not proceed to tell us why. Which would have been enlightening, especially for the uninitiated and inadequately schooled like me.

Theologians would probably describe Socrates as more a philosopher, in the same way that Nietzsche is also described as a philosopher, an existentialist at that so more attuned to the realities of the world we live in rather than the world beyond. I hope by a higher Nietzsche, Mr. Wills meant that Christ was more attuned to the realities of the world beyond, rather than the temporal kingdom of our reality.

But going back to the comparison of Jesus with Socrates, here is what a Jesuit theologian, Fr. Michael Buckley, writes about in his study of the two:

There is a classic comparison running through contemporary philosophy between Socrates and Jesus, a judgment between them in human excellence. Socrates went to his death with calmness and poise. He accepted the judgment of the court, discoursed on the alternatives suggested by death and the dialectical indications of immortality, found no cause for fear, drank the poison and died.

Jesus - how much to the contrary. Jesus was almost hysterical with terror and fear, “with loud cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death.” He looked repeatedly to his friends for comfort and prayed for an escape from death, and he found neither.

Finally he established control over himself and moved into his death in silence and lonely isolation, even into the terrible interior suffering of the hidden divinity, the absence of God.

From the above, one is led to the conclusion that measured in human excellence, as perceived by us humans, “cool” Socrates has the edge over almost hysterical Jesus.

But the differences in their deaths may account for the flagrant signs of weakness, at least physical and not necessarily moral. The death sentence of Socrates was for him to drink the hemlock and lie down to die. And this he did with nary a whimper, but with stately calm and ease.

However, the death sentence of Christ was quite different. He had to undergo all that agony and suffering, both physical and mental, before actually dying. Even actual death took a while after the crucifixion. And even as pure man, he must have had forethought and foreshadowing of all this. This was a process not unique to his case, but common for all criminals sentenced to die.

This may account for the physical weaknesses exhibited by Christ as contrasted with the obvious strength shown by Socrates.

But another theologian, Fr. Ron Rolheiser, goes further to declare that Christ indeed was more profoundly weak than Socrates. And his beautiful prose clearly lays out a very strong case of a most human Christ, foibles and all:

Now I believe that Jesus was a more profoundly weak man than Socrates, more liable to physical pain and weariness, more sensitive to human rejection and contempt, more affected by love and hate. Socrates never wept over Athens. Socrates never expressed sorrow and pain over the betrayal of friends. He was possessed and integral, never overextended, convinced that the just person could never suffer genuine hurt. And for this reason, Socrates - one of the greatest and most heroic people who have ever existed, a paradigm of what humanity can achieve within the individual - was a philosopher. And for the same reason, Jesus of Nazareth was a priest - ambiguous, suffering, mysterious, and salvific.

In what way precisely was Jesus a weaker man than Socrates?

In his incapacity to protect himself against pain, in his vulnerability, and in the interior anguish and exterior humiliation that this congenital, moral trait inevitably produces. In contemporary language, Socrates was simply set together better as a human being than Jesus was, at least in terms of how we normally judge this.

In Socrates there was, certainly in the face of opposition and death, a poise, an ease, an interior peace, and an attractive calm that was absent in Jesus. Socrates was “cool” in a way that Jesus wasn’t. Socrates always looked attractive. Jesus didn’t. Jesus sweated blood (no glamour there), shed tears that he was unable to hide, and was stripped naked and humiliated in front of his loved ones. You don’t look attractive when that happens and you can’t hide the pain of that from others.

And yet, that’s exactly what we most want to do. In our world there’s a powerful, omnipresent pressure (put forth even in the name of religion, humanity, and maturity) to protect ourselves against pain and humiliation, to never, never be vulnerable enough so as to risk falling flat on our faces. At all cost, no matter what other kinds of pain we must endure, we don’t want to be caught needy, being the one who has to ask, the one who has to beg, the one who’s embarrassed, the one who doesn’t look good.

And so we try to arrange ourselves, our lives, and our relationships in such a way so as not to be too affected by things, so as to avoid the tension of interior anguish, and so as to never risk not looking good. The attractive persona (“cool”) of Socrates more than the humble, all-too human, tears of Jesus is our ideal.

But, and this is the point, by protecting ourselves in this way we don’t ever become vulnerable enough to enter into an intimacy with others and the world that is salvific and priestly. We never save anyone, even though we look good. What’s meant by that?

To love is to care. But as soon as we begin to do that, we open ourselves to weakness, sensitivity, and humiliation. Why?

Because to be sensitive is to know that it’s better to be sad than bitter, better to be hurting than hard, better to shed tears than be indifferent, better to taste death than never risk living, better to feel rejection than never to have loved, better to groan in interior anguish than to prematurely resolve tension, and better, for the sake of love, family, faith, and commitment, to sometimes look the fool, the needy one, the simpleton, than to always successfully hide what’s most true inside us so as to be the one who never has a hair, a feeling, or an opinion that’s out of place.

A poignant picture of a Christ who is magnificent in his humanity. A most perfect model for man, who himself is heir to a flawed nature and consigned to a life of countless trials and defeats.

God gave us a son incarnate, purposely and assiduously mirrored to the image of fallen man. But yet, man who has been given a reprieve and enjoined to follow in the footsteps of the GodMan on the path to his own redemption.

Objectivity Vs Opinion

"Things known are in the knower according to the mode of the knower."

Thomas Aquinas

Objective versus Opinionated. Straight News versus Opinion writing. Unbiased news versus Biased news. Fox News versus other members of TV media. Mainstream media versus Blogosphere.

Most know and accept that the lines are drawn the way they are above. But do we take the time and effort to find out why the lines are there in the first place?

Fox News trumpets itself as being factual, fair and balanced in giving news and rendering opinions. O’Reilly of Fox touts himself as a venerable traditionalist, neither conservative nor liberal. And ratings-wise, his network rules the cable TV kingdom. But what does it make of the others in both cableTV and broadcastTV media? Slate’s Michael Kinsey now says that in today’s journalism objectivity in news is an unreachable goal, which is best left on a pedestal.

Everywhere one turns to read or listen, issues about objectivity in news reporting and other journalistic pursuits are constantly served and analyzed as questioned criterion for credibility and reliability. Even with regard to straight news, many pundits recommend that consumers read as many sources for news to arrive at the truth, because buried in all the redundant clutter are patent or insipient biases of those who report news.

It has become all too blurry and confusing for a typical consumer like me. I used to consume news much like the way one turns on radio. Turn the dial and stop on the first station that comes up and consume its feeds. After that, you can consider yourself well-informed by turning on that same radio, with the dial untouched and listening religiously to its feeds.

But obviously somewhere along the way this became insufficient. One now has to turn the dial every which way and listen to all the different voices coming out before one can arrive at the truth about the news.

Do we even know the differences between objectivity against opinion, or being objective against being opinionated?

We ought to get back to basics and define those two terms. Hopefully, one can then delineate certain thresholds to differentiate one from the other.

Here’s sampling of definitions of objectivity:

Is the universal understanding of a social action which is based on the combination of adequate interpretation of motivation and its empirical verification. Without adequate interpretation, our understanding left unsatisfied. But without empirical demonstration, a theoretical interpretation would be empty.

State of being detached from, and external to, whatever is being perceived or affirmed, often previously seen as aiding neutrality and therefore accuracy in judgment, but now seen as impossible or inappropriate in both science and theology.

The ability to view something without influence of feelings or emotions.

Expressing no particular opinion, neither for nor against, a topic or issue.

Now for opinion:

A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from..”

Opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something.

In academic terms, is the judgment or viewpoint reached after analyzing, assessing and evaluating arguments, claims and evidence. Academic opinion is objective, like that of a judge who weighs the evidence (for and against) and judges each case on its merits. (Personal opinion which is based on beliefs or codes of ethics, rather than evidence, is not acceptable in academic terms as it cannot be tested in the same way.) See What is Opinion? (in detail)What is Opinion in Academic Work? (in detail) Opinion in academic work does not mean personal opinion. It means the view-point or conclusion you come to after considering the evidence for or against a particular theory (analysis/explanation of events) and with reference to factual evidence or the logic structure of someone else's argument. Opinion in academic terms has to be demonstrated using evidence. The role of students is to select evidence which is appropriate and present it in such a way that any intelligent person could come to a similar conclusion (opinion).

A belief or judgment that is strongly held, but without actual proof of its truth.

What about being objective or being opinionated?

Objective:

Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"

Independent of the perceiving individual; in Spinoza, as existing in thought.

The ideal that the media producer or reporter is representing a balanced viewpoint on issues. The ideal that media producers are fair, accurate, unbiased conduits for information. Opposite of subjective.

And opinionated:

Obstinate in your opinions.

Let us then collate all these disparate definitions and come up with one definition for each term or point of view. Hopefully we should be able to distinguish the differences (and/or similarities) between the two.

Our collated definition of objectivity:

A detached universal understanding of an act supported by empirical demonstration and verification, aiding in neutrality and accuracy in judgment, and uninfluenced or undistorted by feelings and emotions. Which understanding is independent of the person giving the report and is the ideal that media producers are fair, accurate, unbiased conduits of information.

While opinion:

A strongly-held personal belief and judgment not founded on proof or certainty, thus is a personal assessment or evaluation to be differentiated from academic opinion or public opinion which are two different things.

Studying closely the two points of view one can readily distinguish the obvious and nuanced differences between them and thus be able to distinguish how well producers in media are doing in their straight news reporting and their rendering of opinions.

A little monkey wrench has been thrown by that above quote from Thomas Aquinas.

Succinctly stated, Aquinas meant that how we perceive and know is affected by our own individual context. Though we are born literally with minds looking like blank slates, our experiences as we grow up and interact with other people become the filter through which we understand things and events. And in like manner, how we report things and events is also uniquely affected by all this.

While perfect objectivity may indeed be an unachievable ideal in this imperfect world we live in, the primary responsibility of journalism should not be shunted aside either. A journalist is still bound to search for and report facts that are accurate if he is to report news, or straight news. While an opinion writer may not only be bound by a similar code, there is the added ethical caveat that must be subscribed to, which is intellectual honesty or forthrightness in his/her writings.

In the crucible of public opinion and the harsh realities of the public arena, how are these media producers to be judged, and who are the qualified judges?

Why not rely on the consumers and their choices? What use are revered principles, rules, and other good stuff taught and adhered to in journalism and by journalists if they fall short of their avowed goal of having people read, listen and cater to their products?

Before the era of cable television, the broadcast networks ruled supreme. The Big Three stood literally unchallenged. Not anymore. Cable TV networks are now close on their heels while the collective viewership of the Big Three continues to careen downward. In fairness, their numbers are still gargantuan compared to cable TV, but the continual downward spin is a portent of things to come. Remember also, that viewing broadcast media carries no cost, unlike cable TV. Thus as cable TV makes more inroads and connects and wires more distant places in the continent, we can expect their numbers to continue increasing.

In another milieu, before the birth of the blogosphere, the MSM ruled their own domain unchallenged, epitomized by the venerable broadsheets, news mags, and other glossy publications. Again, not anymore. The major newspapers in the continent continue to lose readership and reach. The newsmagazines are on the same path. Who will be next? I believe it is only all a matter of time.

A Real World Problem: Parking A Vehicle

I suppose if you live in Metro Manila, or tiny San Francisco, you would readily agree that parking your vehicle in most public places can qualify as a real world problem and maybe even a bit of a nightmare, at times.

Thus, this revealing bit of news was a welcomed development:
A car that parks itself!

So ladies and gentlemen, you lovers of Toyota, prepare your hearts and wallets for this next attraction. When realized, consider your eternal battles with parallel parking shelved and completely solved.

A little personal account will assist highlight the God-sent benefits of such a feature, in the eclectic world of vehicle ownership.

I bought a pick-up recently. More like a little Sherman tank given that it was a Ford F150. Many may squirm and cry, over-reaction. But consider poor me, weaned on compact cars all my life, starting with a 360cc dual-cylinder toy car hatchback in the 70’s aptly called Minica, manufactured by Mitsubishi, Japan, and marketed in size-strapped Philippines. In fairness, it did accommodate, more or less, a family of six, with my twin sons neatly crimped in the back area which passed as a trunk.

Thus, suffering under such a stiflingly constricted background, indeed getting an F150 is like moving from a car to a light Sherman tank (is there such a tank?). Though it definitely drives like a car, any car.

Still, there are parallel parking issues to be addressed. But, oh, the motivated car salesman advances: one of the features is a fool-proof buzzer that beeps as it nears an obstruction when one is in reverse. And it beeps louder as the object gets closer. What he did not tell me is that when the trunk lid is down as is usual when one carries over-sized loads, the buzzer beeps even when one is in the middle of a desert.

Thus, getting a car that parks itself will be heavenly, more so approvingly in leftover-space havens like Metro Manila and the craggy landscape of San Francisco.

Google Video: Some Old Elvis

Now, let's rock the whole place up, with some Elvis melodies of the 50's and beyond.

Music of Elvis Presley
Ballet San Jose Silicon Valley
6 min 27 sec - Nov 8, 2005
www.balletsanjose.org

Performed by Ballet San Jose Silicon Valley, Blue Suede Shoes follows the lives of three people growing up during the Elvis Era, from High School through adulthood. Artistic Director Dennis Nahat secured the use of original Elvis Presley master recordings as the backdrop for this ballet. This movie has some of the highlights from the 1:30 performance.