STAND UP!

“Jimmy?” said Grace

“Yes?” I said

“Brian’s feeling depressed.”

“What do you mean, depressed?”

“He failed the accounting exam”

Without saying a word, I went straight to his room. There he was, slumped in his chair. Brian looked up at me.

“Dad, I am so sorry. I let you down.”

Just as he was about to cry, I locked his eyes with mine, with such intensity that he couldn’t resist.

“You were never lucky. You were never meant to be lucky.”

He was shocked to hear those words for they were not words of consolation. He wanted what I would not give him. For that, I became defiant and determined to bring up his spirit.

I continued, “Understand that. You are the type who has to work hard to be fortunate. I know you. Those are not failures. They are shortcomings. You will always go through a pattern. Shortcomings, frustration, anger, pity.”

I straightened my back.

“Get up from that seat! Get up at this instant!”

He got up.

“I said, get up! Get up with dignity. Stand tall. Get up with the confidence to face the test. You have gone through this before. Get up! You will succeed. But you will have to go through a series of shortcomings. That is your fate. That is your pattern. You will succeed.  I don’t believe so. I know so. You are my son.  I have observed you from the time you were born, the time when you wanted something and you succeeded in getting it. You have the character, the determination. Never ever use the word ‘failure’. You have never failed because you never stopped trying. Failure is when you stop trying, when you give up. That was never you. Not getting what you want is a shortcoming. That’s how you work. That’s how you move closer to getting what you want, what you want to be.

I know you are hurting now. That’s good. It means you want it so bad. It means you will get it. You will get it.”

His chest raised, his back straightened.

His face relieved, regaining the determination he had momentarily lost.

I placed my hand on his shoulder. He got his consolation. At the right time.

“Thanks, Dad”, Brian said

I left his room with a smile.

I remembered him. I remembered the lessons he had taught me a long time ago.

“Thanks, Dad”

It's about Be-ing

It must have been when Chris was in his teens. He came up to me, and in a soft voice, he asked,

“Do you want me to be like you and mom?”

“What do you mean?” I asked.

“I mean, do I have to have a profession that society approves of?”

“Well, don’t put me with rest of the guys. I became a philosophy teacher and Papa and Mama weren’t so happy about my decision. Papa was silent. But, Mama kept on reminding me that I could still be a lawyer.”

“Yeah, Dad, that’s what I mean. Do I have to be like your brothers, a lawyer, a doctor?”

I was the last person to tell anyone to be that, although I have nothing against those who chose the kind of professions that society approves of.

I usually don’t like looking at anyone in the eyes. But, when it is called for, as in this case, I can gaze at anyone, as if to say, “Listen, for I am about to tell you something very serious. So, I looked into Chris’ eyes and spoke the words that have, I believe, an everlasting influence not only him, but also on his siblings. I said,

“Never try to be what you don’t want to be. Never be like anyone, just to get society’s approval or your parents’ approval. But, there’s one thing that I demand of you, and your brother and sister, I want you to be like me and your Mom. I want you to always learn your craft. I want you to develop self esteem, self determination, self-discipline, self confidence. I want you to continuously develop values that you will need when I am gone. Yes, don’t be a professor, or a lawyer, or a doctor, or an accountant, or an engineer. Be the best that you can be in whatever you choose to be. It’s not about having a title. It’s’ about being the best that you can be.”

Since then, Chris continuously yearns to gain knowledge about his interests. He has gone farther than any yoga instructor that he has come across. He’s become a chef that many senior chefs can be proud of. He has even gone farther than I did in understanding Indian philosophy.

This is not about being a yoga instructor or a chef or a great reader of a  particular philosophy. It’s about realizing one’s potentials and developing them as much as one can. Happiness, Aristotle once said, is the actualization of one potentials. In one word: self-actualization.

The Unluckiest Person In The World

This story was told to me by a Polish friend, Kasia.

“You know, Jimmy,” said Kasia, “I have a friend who is the unluckiest person in the world. He was so unlucky with everything that he touches.’

She continued:

“I remember the time when he decided to apply for a job in Germany.  He applied and was granted an interview. But he had no money. So, he renovated his old car to sell it off, use the money to buy the plane ticket and have some money left to rent an apartment. If everything goes according to plan, his wife will join him in Germany.

He had the car renovated. It was very nice and clean, and he thought that it would be easy to sell it off. In communist Poland, there weren’t many cars. It was a luxury to have owned one.

A buyer called and wanted to see the car. They agreed to meet at a certain place. But just as my friend drove the car out of the garage, a truck hit it and tore the car in half. The car was beyond repair. He was shaken but unharmed.

The surprising thing was that he did not get mad at the truck driver, or even at God. He had always known he was born with no luck. His brother, however, was the opposite. Unlike the others, my friend learned to accept his fate.

My friends and I couldn’t accept his fate. How could such a terribly nice, harmless, compassionate guy ever be so unlucky? So, I gathered our friends in Germany and Poland, to help him out. In Poland, I collected money that went to buying the plane ticket, and the apartment in Germany. I called our friends in Germany and told them that one of them was to pick him at the airport, and the other was to prepare the apartment. My friends and I wanted to give the gods of fate a good fight. At least for now.

So far so good. My friend arrived at the airport where our friend met him. They both got in the car and drove to the apartment where our other friend was waiting. The car, however, encountered some minor problems, and what should take only 30 minutes going to the apartment, had taken them 3 hours.

While, in Poland, we waited nervously for the latest news. Did he make it alive? Did he get to the apartment? Did he get there in time for the job interview?

The next day, my unlucky friend left for the company. The traffic was terrible. They got stuck for more than 2 hours. The friend, who was driving, was nervous and cursing. I imagined my unlucky friend just sitting there, quiet, his eyes closed.  

When they finally arrived, he took the elevator to the 11th floor, where he met with the manager.

The manager was stunned: “Didn’t you hear?” said the manager.

“Hear what?” asked my friend.

“The job was taken. I left a voicemail message.”

Disbelief. Anger. Resignation. That was how we all felt. But not my friend. He took it in stride.

The following day, he was back in Poland.”

Kasia turned her head towards me and said, with eyes that demanded your absolute, undivided attention:

“Jimmy, you’d think that if you knew you’re unlucky with things, you’d be angry, depressed and pessimistic, no?”

“Yet, my friend wasn’t all that. He took everything as it was. He never got mad or depressed. We felt bad for him. He was so nice. The nicest guy I have ever met. It’s so unfair.”’

“Are you still in touch with him?” I asked.

“Yes, of course. All his friends are still in touch with him, always looking out for him.”

Then her eyes let go of me. She kept quiet for a moment, as though she had stumbled upon a memory of a very, very important event that she could not, or didn’t want to share it with anyone else, not even with her husband.

“Um, Kasia?”

“Yes?”

“You okay?”

“Yes.”

“You know what?”

“What?”

“Your friend, he is really not that unlucky.”

She searched for answers in my eyes.

“He has friends like you. That makes him the luckiest person in the world.”

Her body now, turned completely focused on me, her eyes soft and endearing

Offers me a smile.

That said:

“Thank you, Jimmy. Thank you so much.”

You’re Entitled To Your Belief. But ...

Confucius once said - and I am paraphrasing him - that life is beset with so many problems that we do not need to add another, but confused problem of figuring out whether there is life after life. How to live well is what many people do not know. And, this is a ‘clear’ and factual problem worth thinking about. Problems are created when we mix and treat false thoughts as though they were amongst the facts of living.

What are false thoughts? What are true?

They say that your destiny is written in the stars; that is, your destiny has already been determined before you even begin to act with consciousness. But, I do not know this for sure. No one does. I only know it to be an unsubstantiated belief.

Like all other beliefs, an unsubstantiated belief is another interpretation about the meaning of one’s meaning of life. However, I do know that, because I am conscious (I have consciousness), I can refuse to be defined by something above or below me. It is my free consciousness that I am able to rebel against any thought that belittles the free state of consciousness, be it mine or yours. So, I say, not only do I support the idea that life - here and now, between heaven and hell that I know nothing of  -is worth thinking about, the fact that I am conscious of my acts and realize that I can change my attitude about them, I am after all a free, conscious being. With this consciousness, I am a rebel. This makes me side with the existentialists.

True, biology talks about DNA and other biological determinants. But it would be a logical mistake to jump to the conclusion that due to our physical appearance, our psychological make up, our natural inclination  being biologically determined, it does not follow that the meaning of my life is similarly predetermined. These are parts, and parts don’t tell us the entire picture. In fact, we do not know even the entire picture of a person.

So, what is a false thought (or, belief) ? In my previous article, I stated that for a statement to be true or false, it has to be verifiable. That is, there has to be solid proofs to judge whether a statement is true or false. An unverifiable statement, then, would be neither true nor false, for no proof or evidence exists to back up one’s assertion. You will find a similar idea In the philosophy of Kant. According to Kant, a concept that has no way of being proven to be true or false, is an empty and hollow concept. God, for example, is such a concept. However, for Kant, knowledge must leave room for faith.For logical positivists, who uphold the principle of verifiability, God is a meaningless concept: neither true nor false. For Kant as well as for the positivists, a false thought or knowledge would then be verifiable. While positivists would, in the case of God, consider the concept meaningless, Kant, on the other hand, would leave room for faith. He makes a stand on the existence of God, without any proof or evidence to back up his decision to believe. Ironically, so do the positivists: they decided to not believe in a God.

In some cases, especially in the field of science, I would abide by the principle of verifiability. But, from the perspective of life, I  - as in the case of Kant - need not wait for something to be verifiable to be able to make a stand on it. However, unlike Kant, I can still claim that a belief is false. You see, life forces everyone to pass judgment on a belief. There is no such middle ground from the perspective of life. So, how can I make such a claim that a belief can be true or false, if a belief can not be verified? Let us make it clear that for Kant, belief is neither true nor false. It is a choice. Yes, it is a choice; but we still can judge a belief to be true or false; however, not in the way logical positivists use these terms.

No knowledge of heaven or earth or what comes after life, can be definitively made - reflectively or unconsciously. It is a non verifiable belief; yet every individual has to make a stand. Life demands it. The best way to sense life’s demand is to observe it in its purity, without reflection: observe the flower, even after the storm; the child who has yet to be socially formed; the injured bird who fights to live; every living organism, in its non reflective stage, that is in its natural, prereflective stage, not knowing about heaven and hell, but the life that it lives: all testify to the fact that every living thing, humans or not, desire to continue its existence. This desire to exist is made conscious in humans in that every human being lives for a meaning. This meaning, therefore, complies to the desire to exist, meaningfully. Any belief that degrades the vicissitudes of, the trials and tribulations, the violent changes in, life, is, to me, a false belief.

Believe in a God, if you must, But a false belief in a God is a notion that God opposes self development, an expression of the desire to live with and in meaning. A false belief in a God is a notion that He will solve all human problems. A false notion of God is a notion that He punishes humans who opposes Him, and therefore deserves to die a violent death in the hands of his violent followers, his so called believers, who only have one agenda: to control other people.

But, a true belief is that which celebrates and embraces, therefore except all the changes, all the tests that life throws in his path. A true believer is one who does not seek to have a supreme being solve his problems, while he sits and prays and hopeless waits for a miracle. A true believer, on the contrary, is one who prays to his God - whom he has chosen to believe without waiting for verification - for strength, so he himself may solve the problems, or at least accept with courage the inevitability. A true believer is one who desires to exist with meaning, and therefore, focuses his energy and time on the here and now.

While everyone is entitled to his belief, we can still pass judgment on his belief. Life gives us that authority.

Trust, Belief, and Understanding

For more than a thousand years since Christianity introduced the articles of faith, i.e., Jesus Christ died but will come again; He is the son of God, Holy Trinity, etc., Christian and non-Christian thinkers have debated on the relationship between faith and reason. St. Augustine’s rendering of it is that faith seeks understanding. Understanding, said to be limited, cannot even grasp the meaning of the objects of faith. For that man will forever be in a state of despair, a state in which his heart and mind will forever seek answers to the fundamental questions of life and purpose. For Christians, it is necessary to believe first before understanding. Once understanding has faith to guide its quest, understanding will finally find the answer to the mysteries of life. And, man will find eternal happiness.

Why is this situation problematic?

Faith vs. Reason
Faith is a belief in certain things or metaphysical beings whose nature and ways are,  to any human being,  incomprehensible. Faith is unconditional; and as such, one is said to have faith when he places no terms and conditions for him to decide to believe.

Reason is a human ability to understand what is humanly comprehensible: Einstein’s General theory of relativity, which very few human beings understand, is nonetheless comprehensible; and, deep and universal human experiences such as selfless love and compassion. A child may not grasp the deeper meaning of life yet. By the time he grows in experience and reflection, those experiences become intelligible and appreciated. True, there are mysteries that cannot be solved in anyone’s lifetime, or more accurately are not to be solved. They are rather to be embraced by all human beings. These unsolvable mysteries weren’t meant to be solved. The encounter - if one finds time for reflection - only deepens our appreciation of life once we have stopped looking for answers and accept and them for what they are.

So, if reason cannot grasp that which is way beyond the realm of human experience, then it does not make sense – not only in the logical sense, but also in the human sense that it can be understood by the most mature of men – to put trust in that which no man can ever hope to gain knowledge.

My stand is very simple: if I can’t make sense of it all, then I do not try to make sense of it all. If these objects of faith are beyond human comprehension, then why should I even be bothered by them at all. If they can not be verified to be true or false; worse, still not experiential like the mysteries of livingness, then why bother myself with them? Life is complex, whose mysteries are experiential, to be embraced, not to be solved. Why then complicate life even further with things that are beyond the realm of human experience? Why not deal and live with the mysteries and problems of life rather than waste time and energy on things outside human experience?


Belief and Trust
I think that the long time problem between faith and reason can be dissolved (as opposed to being solved) by introducing ‘trust’.

I learn to trust and therefore believe in a living person because he is ethically principled. Trust and therefore belief is directed towards a living person, not in someone who died a long time ago. If the living person was influenced by someone whom I have never met, and this living person is ethically principled and spoke dearly of this influential person, then I shall consider his life and the moral stories told about him by a living person whom I have encountered. The formation of trust and belief is established in my direct encounter with a person who deserves my trust and loyalty.

Does that mean I accept - or must accept - everything that he says to be true? Many would think that a follower should. But, our ethics prohibits the formation of a master and slave mentality, a shepherd and his flock. On the contrary, disagreement of views is encouraged and encouraging: on the one hand, it shows that the revered person has taught, through his ethical actions, the value of independent and responsible thinking; on the other, his admirer deepens his respect and love for him. This is a dynamic relationship that no follower or master can appreciate.

Such is belief and trust that deepens our understanding of human relationships, of the encountered mysteries of life. Given time, in his own way, everyone will attain that understanding. It is called wisdom.

I Still Believe In Santa Claus

I had just come from an office Christmas party. There was a discussion about whether one should tell little children about Santa Claus. Clearly, this co worker, who is a mother to 3 very young children, saw no point of telling her kids about a bearded white man who does not exist. To pretend that he and only he gives out presents to kids is, for her, plain and simple, a lie.

A lie is defined as a false statement with a deliberate intention to deceive. That Santa Claus does not exist is a true statement, and to say otherwise is a false statement. But, were the parents harboring a deliberate intention to deceive?

The young mother to 3 very young children thinks so. And, so do historians and non-Christians, and atheists, and other Christians, like the young mother, who given the chance, would like to put an end to this particular season.

As for me, I know that to make a claim that Santa exists is not a true statement. Yet, I do not not see Santa as existing in the material sense of the word. He does exist in the spiritual sense of the word the way my deceased father does. My father has not existed in the material, factual world for more than 2 decades. But, because his children still think of him, relive the memories they had had with him and, more importantly, practice his moral and spiritual values, his presence is felt as though he were physically alive. It is the same with Santa Claus, whose spiritual presence had taught me, when I was young child, and now as middle aged man, the value of giving more than receiving, and the rekindling of the sense of togetherness, and the remembrance of those who are unfortunate.

But, how can we tell our young children about these spiritual values? To them, these values are intangible and abstract. What they need is to see the embodiment of these spiritual values. So, why not tell them the truth about who does the giving?

I don’t have an answer to that. All I can say that when I was a child, Christmas season and Santa Claus was the most exciting, and an extremely magical event. As a child, I loved the festivity, and I cherish many memorable moments I had with my family and Santa Claus, whom I believe to exist because of the gifts that I always find another the Christmas tree.

As I grew older, I was sad to discover that Santa Claus did not exist and that the gifts were not from him. And, yet, because of my age, I appreciated something more important, more special: it was the act of giving. It was my father who told me how much he loved to see his children become so excited and happy. It was not until I became a father myself that I understood what my father had done for me and my siblings and my mother; and, lastly, for himself. In return, we gave him a gift: a memory of a beautiful family so close knit and so much love in the air.

This is why I still believe in Santa Claus.

Play By The Rules, Please!

The bathroom door is locked. Someone is in. I say, “Peter”. Paul answered: “No, it’s me”. A very simple situation: I asked a question, I assume (hypothesis) that it was Peter using the bathroom. My assumption was wrong. A very simple, verifiable answer shot back. In this case, and others like it, there is no need to speculate.

Water boils at 100 degree celsius. I want to know if it would boil high up in the mountain. To find the answer, I climb to the peak of a mountain, and there, my question is answered. This takes some time and a bit more determination to find the answer. Nevertheless, the answer is definitive. There is no need to speculate.

Einstein’s General theory of relativity was first thought on paper. At the time it was formulated, there was no technology to verify the truth or falsity of his theory. It took several decades to find out. Nevertheless, the answer was definitive.

The situation is slightly different with the theory of evolution. Yes, we do have fossils of animals that lived millions of years ago. Yes, we do have some evidence that the environment can alter DNA. But, you’ll need to live long enough to see species evolve to another but different species. And, we were told that this process takes more than 10,000 years. But when it comes to choosing which theory best explains how species come to be, the theory of evolution wins out - at least for now.

So, if you’re looking for answers to your specific questions, then you only need to point to the facts that everyone can see; or, in the case of theories, judge the one that best explains a wide collection of related facts. Whether it is a theory or an assertion about facts, facts always have to take the center role. Without involving facts, you can’t form a judgment. These are rules of the game that scientists, lawyers, police (to name a few) that they play. And, there are many players who join in, but who are not scientists, lawyers or the police. However, because of the great majority of people joining in, people tend to believe in the kind of truth that came out of this game. So much so that they would also apply the very same notion of truth on other games that don’t share the same rules.

Think of the debate on the existence of God. Many try to prove the existence of Supreme being by referring to facts. Yet, these very facts could also be used to prove otherwise. It’s as though proving God’s existence with the rules that scientists, lawyers, and politicians, would be a valid reason for believing in a God (or, the immortality of the human soul). None has seen God the way we experience storms, floods, killing, deformity, etc. And, yet these things are taken as proofs for God’s existence. And, yet these very same ‘proofs’ are also used to support His non-existence.

If you’re going to play chess, don’t apply the rules of checkers, or basketball, or baseball. It just doesn’t work. No matter what, people just go ahead and do it. The break the rules all the time.

The True Fountain Of Youth

They say about people past their prime that the phrase ‘you can’t teach old dogs new tricks’ seem to apply to them. Every new technology seems to be so difficult for older people to learn and enjoy. They feel that these new technological gadgets like email, the internet, cell phone, etc, make life too complicated, they would rather keep things simple by doing what they are already familiar with. To a certain extent, there is no need to further complicate one’s life when what they are comfortable with things that still serve their practical needs. However, if you want to stay competitive in the workforce, you will need to adapt to the present times. Very few people past their prime succeed in keeping fit - not just physically, but mentally. How so?

First, take a look at the young. They’re naturally curious, adventurous, and they have very few things to worry or to be afraid about. That is why they are reckless. In a sense, they are building a past for they, at that human stage of development, have none. And, because they have no past to reminisce, then their whole attention is towards the present. Today and tomorrow, two time segments have no clear demarcation. Certainly, the young know fear; but their curiosity and adventurism gets the better of them. This is why they learn new things, more confidently. Without their knowing, their motto is ‘Where there is a will, there is a way’. It’s no wonder that Nike’s “Just do it” resonates with the young and the bold. But the young lack wisdom and do silly things. That is not their excuse. It is a fact of being young.

The ones past their prime have a long past. It’s the familiar faces, streets, people, certain ways of behaving, the same objects of fear, and pleasure - that make up their comfort zone.. All are stored in their past, in their memory. And, even if they are still afraid of certain things that occasionally make their entrance in the present, the old are comforted by the fact that they familiar with what they’re afraid of. It’s the unknown, the unfamiliar that they are most afraid of. That is why they stay away from anything new and unfamiliar, different and strange. “You can’t teach old dogs new tricks’ would seem to capture the general attitude of the old.

Yet, it’s those over 40 (or, 45) and older who have a lot to gain. They have a repertoire of knowledge, of wisdom (sometimes), and if they remember how they have learned when they were young, then they would, should know better that there is really, really nothing to be afraid of. From their experiences, they have learned from trials and tribulations. And, what they should have realized was that they survived, and at times, triumph. But because of fear, they stuck to it and forgot that they had actually survived and lived to tell the stories. They should have acknowledge the fact that because of fear, or rather despite of fear, they survived and lived to tell their stories. To spell it out: they remembered much of what they fear that they have overlooked the pleasure of accomplishment. It was their choice, and unfortunately, many, belonging to that age group, have chosen to stick to what is familiar: places, people, ways of behaving, ways of thinking. They could have learned new things about present reality; yet they had chosen to believe that they’re way too old for that. It’s thinking old that prevents one from thinking new.

True, there are more physical limitations as one ages; but that does not mean you’re an old dog. True, there is less brain power; but that should not stop anyone from learning about how he had learned when he was young so as to learn anew. Really, when one is already old (-er), what is there to lose?

Existential Truth and Factual Truth: What They Say About Religious Texts

Once you are in possession of a truth you can either tell the truth or hide it from the others. This is one kind of truth, factual truth, that makes lying possible. When a person lies to the other, he is hiding the facts from him. Factual truth therefore is a social one: there are witnesses, not just one, who can tell the truth or who can hide the truth, and therefore, lie about the situation. And there are people from whom the facts can be hidden.

On the other hand, Existential truth deals with the meaning of events whether or not these events actually occurred. Existential truth can be experienced by anyone for everyone, given a certain level of human experience, understands and have experienced some of the human conditions like compassion, hurt, suffering, love, relationships, wonder, meaning of life etc. That is why we are touched by events in our lives, news of human interest, books, and movies.

Existential truth does not require a group of witnesses other than one’s self. However, like factual truth, existential truth is a social. Existential truth can be shared with people who have undergone certain universal experiences that they can appreciate the meaning behind every human story. Unlike factual truth, Existential truth is deeply subjective. It is a revelation of a deeper meaning of life. It is not a fact like tables and chairs, or newly discovered papers or artifacts of a thousand years ago. Existential truth is the result of one’s special relationship with reality that is invisible (not in the manner by which objects are hidden) to those who are not prepared to ‘see’. It has not changed since the dawn of humankind. Existential truth, to be revealed, requires a certain level of experience. This is why children are not yet capable of  ‘seeing’ for they lack human experiences to grasp the deeper meaning of living.

What of historical truth? Although there is no one today who has lived long to see Abraham Lincoln (or Jesus Christ), there would still be some ‘facts’ that have been preserved. These facts don’t tell the whole story, for it is impossible to gather every fact of a life of a human being or earth. So, it is left to the historians to make sense out of the facts and come up with a reasonable theory or interpretation about the meaning of historical events. Facts like Abraham and the holocaust of WW2 are factual truths that can be told and be lied about. But history in general are really about plausible interpretation that tries to make sense of what little facts we know about the past.

Yet, a history that is worth writing about is a story that carries within its womb a deeper meaning for everyone to learn from about themselves and their stations in life. In that regard, there can be some existential truth to be gotten. Read or, even still, watch a movie on Abraham Lincoln, and you will find situations of making hard choices that everyone can relate to.

So, we go back to religious texts. Do they consist of factual events, hence speak of factual truths? It is hard to say because the events occurred a long time ago, and for hundreds of years many interpretations have been believed to be coming straight from the lips of God. Yet, what is more significant and the reason why religious texts are relevant is because it deals mainly with Existential Truth.

There is no reason to lie; unless literal-minded individuals takeover and treat the main texts as a collection of facts. And, impose their ‘interpretation’ on everyone else.

Love Is A Rational Act

So, if Love is not feeling (certainly it is accompanied by an intense feeling), what is it then? Let’s say that it is a rational decision. I may have an intense feeling for a person, but I may choose not to love him or her. On the other hand, I may choose to love him or her, yet I may not have the kind of feeling that is associated with romance. Dr. Martin Luther King, for example, has much love for Americans, regardless of their race or religion. But, he is not ‘romantically’ linked to anyone in particular except his wife. A husband may have extra-marital affairs, and may choose to love his wife.

I am not endorsing extra marital affairs. I only want to show that it is possible to distinguish love and an intense feeling that has often been confused with love. We still need to explore the distinction, more so, the nature of love.

Love may be accompanied with an intense feeling; but love may be absent when there is only an intense feeling. I may have a fling, a lust, an unexplainable sexual attraction, so intense that I want her only for myself. This intensity of sexual attraction is so strong, I am led to believe that I had no choice in this matter. Now, this intense feeling can be directed to more than one person. It is so easy to persuade yourself that you are in love, when in fact, you merely experience an intense feeling that the other, as an object, can satisfy. (And, what happens when you have satisfied yourself?)

Intense feeling is what it is. If both parties feel the same for each other, they form a relationship that excludes everyone else. As they get to know each other in a more intimate way, it is possible for love to form. There is a commitment, a devotion to one another. Let us call it a romantic love. In a relationship overwhelmed only by an intense feeling, there is no romantic love.

Is there love between a parent and child? Perhaps, not yet with a child, who only learns at a very stage to accept that a parent is the only living object that he has learned to rely on. There is no intense feeling that a child has for a parent. There is only a connection that, through time and being together, deepens and widens as the child witnesses how the parent places much attention and care upon him. This connection is not a cause, however, to loving a parent. It is a condition, and a very important one. For without it, the child would not be able to come to love his parent.

Between friends, it may not be appropriate to say that they are in love with each other. There is nonetheless love - not in the way sexual partners have for each other. Friendship may have begun with similar interests and harmless fondness for each other. Like an intense feeling, the beginnings of a friendship may benefit both self interests. But a true friendship that enters the realm of love transcends self interests.

Love, then, transcends self interest. It is not an intense feeling for it would only wish to satisfy the ego. Love, then, since it transcends self interest, is a decision to care for the other as an other (as a subject), even at the expense of the self (for the self ceases to seek the satisfaction of self interest).

What's Love Got To Do With It?

We know what it feels like when we like something. It could be ice cream, your favorite dish, an IPOD, a new smartphone, an idea. We want it because we don't have it yet. We want it because possessing would satisfy us.

Sometimes, we want more of it. We can't seem to get enough. At other times, we've had too much of it, and we just lose interest until such time we come to miss it, and we go through the same prociess of liking, wanting and possessing; and, dropping it.

We like something because of what it does to us. It is an object. It is a utility. It was given a value that has no value of its own. Or, maybe it has a value of its own; but no one has any interest in it if it is not of value to him or her. The external value takes over the internal value. And, it is liked, not for its sake, but for what it can be use to the individual. Money is liked because we use it to buy something that we sought for. Stop liking it, and the thing loses its value. It not only ceases to be of value, it also ceases to be of use. The value is in its use. This is what liking does to an object, be it a thing or a person.

The negative thing about liking then, is the belief that you can't live without it. This is what markets want you to believe with all your guts. There was a time we didn't have an IPOD. We weren't craving for it. But, market created a need that we could live without. But, with marketing, people were conditioned. As one girl said: I could not live without my blackberry.

The positive thing about liking, however, is that we need objects to possess or consume in order to live. We need food. We need clothing. We need people to learn how things work, how to behave, we need to know what to value.

Without them, we would be nothing. We would not be able to function properly.

Liking then serves one purpose: to satisfy the individual. It is natural and necessary.

But, things can go wrong when we start confusing liking with some other experiences. Especially, when we confuse love with liking by infusing the features of liking into love. When that happens, the situation becomes a moral issue.

It becomes a moral issue when we 'love' someone for that person fills a void, a lack in us. This is what liking does, but when love is confused with it, then we tend to use people. Liking becomes confused with loving because of the intensity that is felt or developed over time. No one likes to call it liking, this intense feeling that we have for the other because then we becomes aware that we are using him or her. We would want to give it another name. We call it love.

But that does not change anything; except giving liking another fancy, romantic name. It does not change anything because the other is treated as has having an external value and therefore of use when we need to satisfy our biological or psychological need.

At time, we gradually transcend liking and enter the realm of love. Many want to believe that it was indeed the case with their mate. Nonetheless, unless we take the time to differentiate loving from liking, we can never be sure. Or, we may have mistakenly believe that what we experience is love, when it was never the case.

So, what is love if it is not a liking? Is it a feeling? Or, is it borne out of a rational decision?

Religious Texts: Not A Collection of Facts, But About Ethics

The good thing about reading fiction is that it reveals the various ways of interpreting a certain human condition such as love or compassion or suffering, or the meaning of life. Everyone can relate to a story one or another, talk about it in a way that the other can comprehend even though he may a different way of looking at it. The variety of interpretation of a certain human condition reveals that life is layered with meanings, all of them valid and existentially true.

Unlike scientific treatises, fiction invites the readers to engage in a world different from theirs. Fiction transcends the limited world view of a single individual and opens him up to other world views, and to deepen his appreciation of life, as well as his.

Story telling has a power just as effective as the written form of fiction; but, unlike the written word, the storyteller and the listener are physically present, making engagement much easier and smoother, and exciting.

The whole point of mentioning fiction and its efficacy is to stress the fact that all religious texts are a work of fiction, which convey existential truths that serve as ways of moral living. Fiction and storytelling keeps the meaning fluid. It uses words, but it does not allow the words to be taken literally. A dialogue: a sharing of various interpretations ensure that life is not to be lived by following a word.

Religious texts then are meant to keep the spirit alive. The spirit lives not in the word. A word kills the spirit. Rather the spirit finds its life and rebirth in the variety of, and every, interpretation that is to be spoken and to be heard.

This is why I am against religious fundamentalism. It kills the variety of meanings. It kills the spirit ‘behind’ the word. When the spirit is imprisoned in a word, the word is taken literally. And, when the word is taken literally, other interpretations are prohibited. The solidified word, now, becomes a political weapon. It wields more power and explosion than any nuclear weapon known to man. Placed in the wrong hands, the solidified word will trigger another holocaust.

That was how the Crusade got its misguided direction. That was why the Islamists will continually be a threat to World Peace. That is why the Christian fundamentalist will make sure that peace will be won on their unconditional terms. You need not go that far to recognize that the beginnings of fundamentalism are borne right in our place of worship, possessing and brainwashing our young.

So, for the sake of humanity, for the sake of your children, for the sake of God, allow religious texts to be what it was meant to be – a work of fiction.

Tolerance Is Not Peaceful, But Morally Desirable

Homosexuality used to be a taboo. Speaking about it in public is offensive to many people, and also to their moral sensibility. It had led many religious people to believe that homosexuality is a sin. That was a hundred years ago, and you could still hear its echo. But, today, we recognize that homosexuality is not a sickness of the mind, and that every homosexual has as much right as any other heterosexual to live the lives they chose to live. Now, why did we finally acknowledge homosexuals? It was because homosexuals were not harming anyone. They were merely asserting themselves to be recognized as human beings. So, we have come to learn to live with them side by side. Killing in the name of God is one that no one should tolerate. Harming a human being is never justifiable, and I think that to link God and killing in his name is a perversion of His Message. It is unfortunate that some people take the written words in the literal sense. As I had said earlier, the Bible and other religious are stories that are fictitious but true - true in the existential sense. You can have your beliefs and customs. But, for as long as your beliefs and customs do not harm anyone, even one as young as a baby, then, I can live with the views that are different from those of mine. So that settles the issue, at least for most part of it. Let us now talk about situations in which beliefs and customs do not lead to physical harm, but nonetheless do feel as though harm has been done. Homosexuality was once an issue that brought some harm to close minded people but it never held any belief that would cause death to others. Let us, in other words, talk about those views that are not only so different from yours, but views that you simply, just simply cannot accept. You see it is so easy to talk about being tolerant of other views if you’re not involved, if you’re not in the center of it all. You may appear to be accepting. But that is not being tolerant; that is being indifferent. Tolerance is not indifference. Neither isindifference tolerance. The two have never been the same but only appear to be so. The two are confused, mistaken to be one for the other because you have not been involved. Your involvement tears them apart. So, you are involved in a discussion with someone whose views you cannot accept. How, then does tolerance come into play? Assuming that you agree with Voltaire who would defend the rights to freedom of speech even though he may vehemently disagree with him, what is tolerance? Remember you cannot get yourself to accept his views. You cannot, in your dreams, see his perspective. But, you ought to try. You can imagine - with a tremendous amount of effort - to see both the negative and positive aspects of a set of differing and opposing views. You may still not be able to give much justice to seeing the positive aspect. But, at least you tried. You may not be able to see things as he does. You try though, but you fail. And, you would think that tolerance failed. But, that’s missing the point of tolerance. Tolerance cannot be found in succeeding to see things as the other does, or accepting his views and beliefs. What then is tolerance? Tolerance is to be achieved in this trying, this effort to soften the hardness of your stance. It is standing vigil to the Opening to the views of the others. Tolerance is the effort of keeping the Open open, no matter how narrow it is. Tolerance therefore is that moral effort. And, it is that effort that you offer to the other that you makes you realize that you could be the one to whom the other, too, is making the effort to keep his Opening open. Because of that effort, the ‘sweating it out’ to stand vigil to this Opening, you will defend the other’s right to live. The Opening to the other is fragile. It can close any time. There is no letting down your guard. There is no peace in the struggle to keep it Open; in word, in being Tolerant.