Change Means Growth

Nightfall is a novel written by Isaac Asimov that tells a story of a planet known as Lagash. This planet is surrounded by 6 suns, and therefore, does not experience nighttime. An archaeologist discovers that every 2000 years approximately, the existing civilization of that time collapses. Meanwhile, a group known as the "Cult" believes that the world will be destroyed because of darkness, wherein stars will appear and unleash fire. An astronomer connects the two and concludes that every 2049 years, the sun is eclipsed, thus causing "night". He theorized that the night horrified the people, causing them to panic and look desperately for a light source, so they started fires and this resulted to the destruction of the civilization. Because of this, the scientists prepared the people for the phenomenon. It ends with the occurrence of the night but unexpectedly, it wasn't the night that horrified people. It's when they see the stars and realize how big the universe is, which makes them horrified and thus caused yet another collapse of a civilization.

After contemplating about the novel, I realized that the readers can perceive it in a lot of ways. But I'd like to think that each element of the story represents our normal lives as humans. We live in a big world full of uncertainties. We live without knowing what happens next. No matter how prepared we are, there are times when life happens and we're suddenly in a situation we didn't want to be in or a situation too good to be true that it doesn't feel real at all. Life is full of unexpected twists and turns, and we try to predict things to come and prepare for it the best way possible. Like in the novel, they predicted the destruction of their world and tried to prepare for it. Unexpectedly though, things we didn't thought would happen usually happens. It takes us by surprise but we can't do anything about it. Either we live with it or we don't. In the novel, they didn't. They didn't accept the inevitable change. But in reality, there are these changes that come in our lives and we have to accept it, because these changes mean growth. They might be as horrifying as the revelation in the novel, but without these changes, we're stuck in a state where there is no leveling up. So we should learn how to accept change and accept that no matter how hard we try, we can never truly prepare ourselves from what's about to come.

Chrystine L. Cobarrubias
2013 - 59986

The Iron Butterfly

I have always known Imelda Marcos as the “Iron Butterfly”, the wife of the former 20-year president Ferdinand Marcos, the woman who owns a total of shoes more than all my clothes and my shoes combined. I'm not much into History but I know the gist of the story. And from what I heard and what I believe until now, her husband was a smart and great president. He somehow made Philippines better, although he abused his power and forgot why he ran for president in the first place: to serve the country. I believe Imelda Marcos has a huge part in his decisions, especially the declaration of Martial Law. For me, she was the reason for Ferdinand's downfall. And after watching the documentary, I started to get more irritated to her.

Her explanations for different things were illogical, at least for me. First, her reason for her all her shoes and her lavish style of clothing were, according to her, for the Filipinos to have a model and to help them see how to dress well. Yes, I understand her good intentions, but it doesn't make sense. It's like she's boasting about their riches. She said that when she goes to small towns, she has an obligation to dress well to let people see the right way in getting dressed. But really, can those Filipinos afford the clothes she wear? Why can't she just dress in simplicity and show that you don't need expensive clothes in order to look nice?

I also didn't like the way she was so confident about her beauty. Although I like what she said that “It is not expensive to be beautiful. It takes only a little effort to be presentable and beautiful. But it takes some effort.” These words though don't match to her actions and her other words. She is a smart woman but her words contradict. She said the quote above but it doesn't show with her luxurious lifestyle. It's good to be confident about one's self but too much confidence is not good anymore. And her self-confidence is just so apparent. She's so confident about herself that she thinks she'll be in the dictionary someday. I mean, okay she's a famous woman and a lot of people know her, not just from the Philippines but from other countries as well. But why did she have to boast about her beauty and herr legacy? A little humility wouldn't hurt. And I didn't really see that in her.

Lastly, I don't get what she meant when she said that they wanted to preserve democracy when her husband declared Martial Law. Where was the democracy in that? She is good in words and someone might actually believe her explanations because she does speak well. But a lot of what she said didn't really make any sense. It's sad that an intelligent woman like her wasted her beauty and power because of her seemingly narcissistic character.

Chrystine L. Cobarrubias

2013 - 59986

Understanding Them

     One of the scariest thing that could happen to me is to have cancer. Not just because of the pain I could be going through therapies or the incurability of the disease but also because of the sadness and depression that my loved ones and I could feel. Whenever I see cancer patients, I can feel from them the fear of dying and being left alone. I would never want to have cancer.

     I cannot distinctively describe what cancer patients could feel because I wouldn’t know and I believe that non-cancer patients could never relate as much as those who had experienced cancer.

     The podcast, “The Rhetoric of Cancer,” is a very good instrument for people like me to at least know the language of cancer patients. Through listening, the line that strike me was, “If I battle my cancer I’m putting myself in conflict against myself ……… to have embraced it [cancer] like a family member.” It strikes me because in that line I could at least relate to what cancer patients could feel. Isn’t it scary seeing yourself and battling with it. In the case of cancer patients, they are battling with cancer, which is a part of them – inside their bodies, and that means that they are fighting in what inside them. It seems that battling with oneself would be easy since that person would know what would be the weakness of himself but, the problem if he defeats the other means, he also loses. And here comes St. Francis of Assisi saying that cancer could be embraced like a family member. One could think that the statement could mean surrendering but in my opinion, embracing cancer is a good way to battle with it. Befriending your enemy – cancer – is a good way to lessen the depression and sadness of cancer patients could be feeling. What could one do when he knows that there is nothing that could cure his disease? So why not live your life to the fullest when you still have time. So I believe that St. Francis of Assisi is right. But that doesn’t mean doing nothing and letting yourself die, but rather, making use of your time efficiently.

2013-52498

Nikka Marie Sales 

Time Travel

      Even when I was still a kid, I was wondering if I could go back in time or if I could see the future. I was wondering if I could change some of my decisions so that I could have taken all the opportunities that had been offered to me, if I could leap through time so that I could prepare for the challenges I would be encountering. Time travel seems so impossible but I always believe that it could happen.

      The presentation about time travel was very interesting and somehow convincing. Though, it hadn’t pointed out that time travelling is possible at this time, it had revealed the chance of it happening in the future. The scientists presented scientific methods that are nearly incomprehensive to ordinary people wondering about time travel. From the presentation, one could also learn that there is a fourth dimension, which is time and that time is like a foldable cloth. Learning that speed deals so much with time is also interesting. All those facts and possibilities that had been presented seemed to be unbelievable and dream like.

      If time travel is possible today, we all would be like lotto winner, the richest in the whole world, or the happiest people. It seems like everything is possible in time travel. One could win the lotto through seeing the future. One could change the destiny of himself or another through going back in time. Leaping through time could change everything – laws, principles, destiny, etc. Time travel is like cheating. So I believe that it is better for time travel not to be possible, to be just a dream or an ambition to be achieved. At least, there is still a chance for us to dream and imagine what could have happened or what can happen. It is better for time travel to remain a possibility. 

2013-52498

Nikka Marie Sales

Not a Battle

We humans are not invincible, but I'd like to believe that we are strong. I myself, as a person, would like to believe that after all of the obstacles and challenges I faced in life, I was able to overcome them all. Even if I fell, I stood up and showed that I can be strong. But despite this, I know that I'm not as strong as people with cancer. It's something different. Something that I think I can never imagine how to put myself in their shoes. I can feel sorry for them, and say "Everything will be okay." But no. I know that those words are never enough to comfort them. I can feel awed, and say "I know you're strong and you can do it." But no. I know those words aren't enough to encourage them. I can try and think that yes, it's really hard to be in that situation. But I can never feel what they are really feeling.

The "Rhetoric of Cancer" though, made me realize a lot of things. It's a whole new perspective of having cancer. I never even thought about those things before, not until I listened to the documentary. What really tapped me was the message saying that "If I battle my cancer, I’m putting myself in conflict against myself." (Andrew Graystone) I've always heard lines in movies and stories saying "We're gonna fight cancer." But this is the first time someone actually said something against fighting cancer. And thinking about it, it does make sense. Why would you fight something that is part of you? Not that you want the cancer and die. But maybe the point is, before you can survive cancer, you have to learn how to accept it as a part of you. And it's never right to say that someone who died of cancer lost his battle. Because no, they didn't lose. We should learn how to look at cancer in a different way, and not as a "battle" between the cancer and the patient. The body is not a war zone. It is a gift from God. I'd like to believe that there is a reason why things happen to people. And I think that God wouldn't want us to think that He made the body a war zone for other people. It doesn't really help when patients visualize cancer as an "enemy". As a Psychology major, I know that the negative can never heal the negative. It's not always "two negatives equal positive" like multiplication. No. Positivity is something that can help. And who thinks that "war", "enemy", "battle", and other fighting-related terms would be of help to someone who already feels negative feelings? Depression is always a part of having cancer, I guess. But I think that it will only worsen if we approach the sickness as a battle.

Chrystine L. Cobarrubias

2013 - 59986

Frankenstein: Who’s to blame?

The monster of Frankenstein is a favourite when Halloween season begins. Truly the hideous sight out the monster, which is composed of various dead body parts, assures screams and similar reactions from children to adults. Who would want to be in the same room with someone who is in a way “resurrected’ from the dead?

For some, it is a depiction of an experiment gone awry. For others, it signifies an abomination or something that does not deserve to live. It is nothing but a creation of man that had unforeseen and detrimental consequences. What people have not considered in this equation is, “who is the real monster in this situation”? Is it the monster that was accidentally brought to life and, finding the workings of his newly discovered world, brings more harm than good to others? Or is it Dr. Henry Frankenstein who did not consider any possible negative implication and just went on with conducting his experiment?

In this case, I chose the latter as the real monster in this movie despite his creation as the one possessing a horrific appearance. This is because being a monster is not determined by looks alone. Sometimes, it is seen by how we think and how we act regardless of what the consequences may be. I do not think that a botched experiment can be used as a justification for Dr. Frankenstein’s otherwise good intentions on bringing about scientific breakthroughs. In my opinion it is his playing god, the refusal to accept his limits as a man that made him the real monster in this situation. The creature, despite his unintentional murders of the other characters, had little to do with it. It was even the victim of the whole set-up. It was brought to life by someone who was propelled by self-interest masked behind good intentions of progress. This is why today we must also be wary of the implications of the various developments around us because these may lead to harmful consequences if we are not careful enough.   

The Time Travel Fever

Why is the idea of time traveling so appealing to several people? Is it only treated as a scientific endeavor or is there a certain philosophical value contained in this concept? The desire for time traveling in my opinion is recognition and affirmation of our human limitations and constraints. But whatever the reason behind this pursuit is, the unending thirst for the ability to be able to travel through time and space plagues us all generation after generation. In the documentary shown, scientists who study time traveling are interviewed. While some of them have explored the physical theory and conceptualization behind it, others have attempted to build their own machines that aim to enable such to happen. However, to this day no one has successfully done it yet.

The hoopla in time traveling has become so intense that it has also become a widely used theme or plot in the science fiction genre of literature which allows people to play with their fantasy of doing so. However while people, scientists and non-scientists alike, explore the various potentials of time traveling, I think the question that comes after this is solved is “what now”. It is true that people may say that if this happens, there are now an infinite number of possibilities in the universe and the world to be explored. We have done a breakthrough in the physical laws that allowed us to venture uncharted territories that would uncover other secrets of the universe.

However, we must also consider what other implications this may bring. This also reminds me of the film The Fly wherein the scientist was on the verge of a breakthrough until an unfortunate error that brought vast implications in the lives of the members of the family. I myself am a fan of the possibility of time traveling. But looking at the video now together with other films about it, it made me think twice of what we really are getting into. Furthermore, if it indeed happens, the next question that we should consider is “what happens then”?

The Strongwoman

According to a popular adage, “Behind every great man is a great woman”. I find this most applicable to Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos. People always recognize Ferdinand Marcos for his intelligence, greatness, and notoriety especially when he declared Martial Law in the Philippines. However, not lagging behind, is the people’s recognition of his partner and first lady Imelda who never left his side. He may be the strongman but she is the face, fellow strategist, and main collaborator in his regime.

The aim of the documentary was to give a peek behind the curtain and see what Imelda Marcos was like. The film interestingly depicted her many colors. It portrays her intelligence, quirks, fanaticism, and her over-all character. It also shows her as a visionary, thinking about how she could improve and add beauty to the country by spearheading and funding projects aimed at beautifying the landscape and at enriching the culture of Filipinos ultimately leading to the country’s progress.

Furthermore the documentary showcases how she sees herself and how people see her. It is surprising how polarized the reactions were. We get to see in the film what her socio-political and cultural views are including how she copes with everyday political pressures and what keeps her strong. It also gives us an idea on why she continues to be popular and loved by other people despite their family’s notoriety.

The Imelda documentary shows that there indeed are different sides and angles to a story. It is interesting how she sees what happened during the Marcos regime in her perspective as opposed to what the opposition interviewees in the documentary thought. This also explores the complexity of man or woman that cannot be ever boxed in particular stereotypes. Politics as shown in this film indeed also molds our society and is crucial in making history. 

Making Harmonies

It is surprising for many that music can be linked with science. This is because the impression of most people on music is limited to the production of sound. It comes to a point when music is not as appreciated or is not given as much as the scientific field is given. Music is most of the time only attributed to the playing of certain instruments or to the singing of people in fancy dresses in sophisticated settings; but in reality there is so much more to it.

Music is methodical. It can be associated to science because of the factors needed not only to produce sound but to make it sound good. Some of these include the melody, tempo, beat, time signature, volume, and modulation. It can also be considered as mathematical since one has to deal with the proportion of sound. In order to produce a beautiful melody and harmony, careful thought is also put into the order and combination of notes and instruments. This is comparable to the careful mixing of chemicals and elements for chemists in their lab, or the proper combination of genes by geneticists and microbiologists in the field of biotechnology.

Music in actuality is not as simple as it appears. Its beauty lies in its complexity and intricacies. Compositions, especially for symphonies, are not done overnight but at times even takes years to be put together. On the other hand, it does not only take technicality to produce those sounds. It also needs the human ear and intuition to make rousing and heavenly music. Compositions are also stories which are told with the aid of sounds. Some are happy and giddy, others are solemn and sad. Ever wonder why they say horror movies are not as effective if there are no sound effects? It is because in actuality it is the sound that reels you in, makes your heart beat fast, and makes you feel the tingling sensation in your spine as you anticipate that moment on screen. This is how sophisticated music is.

The Clock is Ticking

How much do we value time? Do we just see it as a determinant if it is day or night, as a signal for the beginning and end of seasons, or as a reminder of significant events? What do we do with it? Some may say that they do everything they can with the time they have whether it is with work or with leisure. Others use time to bum around and to snuggle contentedly under the sheets. Such is not the case for Henry Bemis, the protagonist in the Twilight Zone episode.

Mr. Bemis valued books more than anything in the world. In the occurrence of a sudden explosion that left him as the only person alive with everything he needs to survive all throughout his lifetime, he could not have asked for anything more. He finally saw this as an opportunity to read every book he could possibly lay his hands on. Unfortunately this was short lived as Mr. Bemis has suffered a misfortune when his glasses broke forever preventing him from doing what he treasured most, reading.  

This episode made me think about what I would do with time if I had all the time in world. I thought of traveling, reading novels and seminal works of esteemed thinkers, playing the piano, watching a lot of movies, studying different fields, and spending time with the people I love. Looking at this list made me realize that I wanted to do a lot of things yet time and other activities constrained me from doing so. Suddenly anything that would enable me to make up for lost time seemed so appealing.

Mr. Bemis’ story taught me two things technology and life. We live in a world where technological advancement is so fast that we try to keep up with it without realizing what we are leaving behind. We must welcome progress yet not lose sight of what we have now. We must learn to prioritize things that are most important to us because it is not true that we have all the time in the world. We must learn to live in the moment. The clock is ticking.

Papaano nga ba lumaban?

                Tunay nga namang isang seryosong karanasan sa isang tao ang pagkakaroon ng cancer. Hindi ito isang karamdaman lamang na iinuman mo lang ng gamot at ipahinga ay ayos ka na. Isa sa mga penomenong kinatatakutan ng mga tao nat ikipinanghihina sa pagkakataong ikaw ay mapugaran nito. Kaya nga kahit na magkaiba man kami ng pananaw ni Andrew Graystone, nagawa kong intindihin kung saan siya nanggagaling, kung saan niya hinuhugot ang kaniyang mga sinasabi—humahanap siya ng mga paraan upang intindihin at tanggapin ang parte ng kaniyang katawan na nagdudulot sa kaniyang paghihirap. Gusto niyang salubungin at yakapin ang isang panauhin na hindi imbitado, at kahit kailanma’y hindi inaasam na dumalaw ito, sapagkat siya mismo ang lumikha nito at parte na ito ng kaniyang pagkatao.

                Hindi ko tinutuligsa ang kaniyang ipinaglalaban, ang akin lamang, mahirap talagang tanggapin na i-romanticized ang isang karamdamang maaaring humantong sa isang hangganan ng isang indibidwal. Pabor ako sa metaporang ginagamit sa pagtrato sa cancer. “Masculine” at “militaristic” ang pagsasalarawan ni Graystone rito sapagkat sa tuwing may cancer ang isang tao’y kadalasan ang mga salitang lumalabas upang bigyang-lakas ng loob ay “malakas ka, magagawa mong manalo sa laban!” o ‘di kaya’y “H’wag kang panghinaan ng loob, maging matibay ka at ituloy ang laban.” Sang-ayon ako na maaaring nag-impluwensiya nito ay media upang magkaroon ng bahid ng drama at mas pumatok sa masa ang balita ngunit sa parehong pagkakataon ay naniniwala ako na pagbibigay ito ng respeto at pagkakakilanlan sa isang taong kumakaharap sa isang kritikal na kondisyon. Para sa akin, kung isasalarawan ko ang cancer sa mabulaklak na pamamaraan (“I want to kiss my cancer goodbye” imbis na “cancer, you and me, outside!”), mas hindi ko magagawang magkaroon ng positibong pananaw sa buhay. Positibo ang aking pagtanggap sa karamdaman, ngunit ang hinuha kong magiging epekto nito’y hindi ko mabibigyan ng pokus ang mas nararapat bigyan ng pansin kaysa sa pagtanggap dito—ang paglunas sa sakit na ito.

                Ihinayag ni Graystone sa huli na parte na ang cancer ng kaniyang paglalakbay sa buhay, nagawa nitong mapaunlad at mapatibay ang kaniyang pagkatao nang malagpasan niya ito. Sa lahat ng kaniyang binitawang mga salita, nais kong malaman, papaano niya ito nilunasan? Minahal at tinanggap nga lang ba, o, siya rin ay “lumaban”?

                

Guevarra, Julie Ann Olino

2012-25207

'Di na natuto

            Kung ang sitwasyo’y mas nauna kong napanuod ang pelikula-dokumentaryong Imelda kaysa sa paulit-ulit na kinuha kong subject ukol sa kasaysayan ng Pilipinas, panigurado’y paniniwalaan ko ang lahat ng mga binibitawan niyang salita pati bibilhin ko ang mga larawang ipinapakalat niya. Madadala ako sa romansa nila ni dating Pangulong Ferdinand Marcos at tatangkilikin ang mga prinsipyo niya sa buhay na kayang-kayang isalarawan gamit ang hugis ng puso at iba pang mga pangunahing hugis. Halos kalahati ng palabas ay tumatawa ako o ngumingisi sabay iling sapagkat ang lahat ng mga depensa niya’y kung hindi taliwas ay sobrang ang babaw lamang. Tipong hindi makakayang pagtakpan ang kaniyang karumaldumal na nakaraan. Gaya nga ng sinabi ng isa sa mga nakapanayaman, “hindi siya makawala sa sarili niyang realidad” o “gumagawa siya ng sarili niyang realidad” hindi ako sigurado ngunit alam ko ganyan ang ipinaparating niya. Tunay nga naman, base sa mga isinasagot niya sa lahat ng mga katanungan, na ibang-iba ang mga pangyayari nuon sa mga ihinahayag niya. Hindi ako makapaniwala na siya ang asawa ng mabagsik na diktador ng Pilipinas—tila isang batang babaeng ipinagmamalaki ang mga regalo niyang natanggap, mga “medalya” kuno niya, at ng kaniyang kahali-halinang pagmumukha. Bilib nga rin ako sa kaniya sapagkat nagawa niyang humarap sa kamera at isalaysay pati ang parte ng kaniyang pagkatao na masalimuot nang balikan.

            Nais ko ring pagbigyan ng pansin ang konsepto niya ng pagiging isang “ina ng bayan” na ang obligasyon ay magtaguyod at maging ehemplo ng pagtangkilik ng pagmamahalan at “natural” na kagandahan. Hindi nga namang maitatanggi na naisagawa niya ito sa pamamagitan ng pagtatayo ng mga gusaling maaaring pagtampukan ng ating kultura, ngunit sang-ayon din naman ako sa kumento na hindi naman kaya ng Pilipinas ang ganoong leisure sa panahong iyon. Kahit sa ngayon, sino ba ang nakapapasok at nakapanunuod ng mga presentasyon ng ating kayamanan? Masyadong nasasala lamang ang manunuod. Para sa aki’y masyado niyang inisip na ang pagmamahal ay nakapokus sa kultural na aspekto at sa pakikipagbesuhan sa mga tao, nakalimutan niya ata na ang pagmamahal ay pagmamalasakit sa kalagayan ng mga tao. Doon sila mayroong malaking pagkukulang sapagkat masyadong nasentro ang motibo sa kanilang pamilya. Hindi ba’t ilang pares ng sapatos na may tatak na pangalan niya ang koleksyon niya ‘pagkat binabagay niya ito sa kaniyang mga gown? Hindi ba’t ilang mga kwintas, hikaw, singsing, at iba pang mga palamuti ang nakalap sa palasyo? Ang kagandahan ay siya, ‘yan ang totoong pinaniniwalaan niya. Ang pagmamahalan ay naipalaganap niya, ‘yun ang akala niya.

            

Once upon a time there's Frankenstein...

                Once upon a time, a man Desired to build His own man-made human. So They gather and put together different body parts of dead people and formed a body. With a click of THEIR buttons and a strike of a lightning, Frankenstein was born.

                 Yet people never saw him as one of them. Frankenstein is a monster in THEIR eyes, a freak that would do no good for them.   A creature built from remains of dead people is not only gruesome, but a sin to the God, disrespecting what He has given us naturally. No one accepted Frankenstein Because no one would like THEIR dead relative's body parts to be used to Create an artificial life. It is a way of manipulating life and going beyond what a natural man would do.

                Science is important and knowing what we can Achieve through the use of this field of study is essential and beneficial, yet not all deed we assume to be Useful was good and acceptable to the human race. Science has given us the Ability to Create our own machineries and choices to aid our daily life but help its always have something in return.   Positive or negative effects, we Should know when to stop or to continue When experimenting. Yes, we have infinite ways and chance of increasing the quality of our lives, but we Should also know how to define our boundaries and limitations not to hinder us from doing things but to show us that we are still human being that can not possibly do everything . We will always have imperfections. Making the monster dumb and not able to carry out a decent conversation shows that an artificial man-made life is never as good as its original. It would always have its limitations. But always remember, that these beings, even though not real still have THEIR own thoughts and also knows how to learn to cope up with the world and to hurt the world has already been too bad with him. 

Frankenstein, O Frankenstein!

How discontented could we be in this world? We, as a people, always aspire for greatness. Our greatness comes with the discovery of new possibilities, innovations, approving or disproving myths, acquiring intense knowledge and most especially trying to make the impossible incredibly possible. We actually see this in the movie Frankenstein, which makes us know that even in movies we can recall this aspiration. Frankenstein is a monster made in the movie. He is a monster made from cut and connect body parts from different cadavers that was brought to life by electricity from lightning. With him living and wandering the woods as a newly created being, no one knew how he came to be. He turns to be so scary and becomes a threat to all the people around him and somewhat alienated from the life he was supposed to live so happily. It is a saddening fact in the movie¸ Frankenstein lived in misery and was totally misled. He did not do anything to deserve that kind of life. Even the scientist who has put him to life was so careless. The scientist was undeniably selfish. He was self-gratifying; he pushed people to work on his immoral work which experimented on dead people’s bodies, and so on. This scientist perhaps is the model of an evil doctor and who needs some knocking of senses.
         I believe that scientists should always have the sense of responsibility in what they do. They have to respect the natural way of life and must see to it they follow the natural law. They also have to sense how what they are doing will affect the surrounding and the society. For scientists, new technology must not only be beneficial for the society but it should also be done according to ethics.
             I think Frankenstein just tells us that scientific endeavours must always cling to moral standards. We are not gods who create life, we are just mere instruments to make others see the beauty of the natural way of life. Because of this movie, I realized how joyful I am to see things in a perspective that I was created naturally by a supreme-being that envisioned me to grow and live happily and not as His experiment but for beautifying the earth. This is what greatness is about. Greatness is not only about discovering new things but also it is about taking part on sharing in the wonderful and natural world we are living in just by allowing things to happen naturally and not us playing gods ourselves.        

On "Frankenstein's Bride"

   Hey guys! Happy happy belated Valentine's day to all of you. I'm so apologetic right now that I made this video for all you girls out there.
   Whether you were out on a date with your loved one (or ones, ehem) or were locked away in your room, eating ice cream, reading internet posts and watching anime, I hope you had fun on that day, on your own special way. Though, "survived" would probably be the operative term considering what happened during my Valentine's day. Traffic was awful, didn't you think so? I spent around an hour commuting from UP to SM North. Luckily our cousin was there and treated us at Tokyo Tokyo (hurray!). Anyway, how was your V-day experience? Comment it below! :3 Anyway, don't you think calling it V-day is like similar to D-day? Makes it scary when you think about it.

   Anyway! Enough with the chitty-chatty long intro. That's enough effort, I guess. This is a blog anyway. Even our old friend Frankenstein's monster got a bride for a gift. I'm sure we can't have mail-order brides here (or can we?) so he really has that going for him. But maybe he doesn't since he scared the crap out of his surprisingly fashionable wife. It's like screaming that women, as society dictates, whether organic or synthetic, are scared of ugly, disfigured men. The giant nuts and bolts probably just amplifies the terror it experienced. I'm having a dilemma here anyway. I already called it "it", but should it be called a "she"? Should only organic lives be addressed in a gender-sensitive manner? Calling it "it" is discrimination, but I'm not really sure if it has the same rights that we have. To begin maybe, we should determine if it can be categorized as a human being or some other creature. I can see a lot of arguments that could come from both sides. Unless the Church enters again with their rock hard ideologies, telling the masses that something synthetic and, what more, is developed from rotting carcasses/cadavers is an abomination and should not be called human. Seriously. They're like old, white, senile women. Once they have a stand, they will readily cast it into rock and start feeding it to people, especially onto the non-consenting ones. They will tend to ignore the facts and get mad at  and persecute people who got the logic perfectly, but whose principles and theories do not align with their ideologies. But anyway, this CAN be an INTERESTING debate in class. It's not like I'm implying anything. *wink wink* Just saying. LOL.

   That was all ranting up there. Don't worry about catching my train of thought. I purposefully ingested an icy chocolate milk box as a fuel for the train. Can't catch it myself. You can try if you want. Anyway, aside from the fact that Frankenstein's monster and her bride were parts from different people just stitched together, I was more curious about the little creatures that Victor's mentor created. Totally miniature beings. They're more exciting and appealing to me since they were apparently more perfect and capable of good reasoning and speech. In contrast with the monster that only knew a few nouns + good and bad and the bride who just screamed her lungs out in protest about the whole idea of being given a hideous monster as a friend. Anyway, interestingly, the miniatures humans have been given various roles already. I do not understand how that even happened. More importantly, how were they created? I can't imagine gene splicing as a part of the process, considering that at the time, even gene splicing was still inconceivable. Still, it is commendable that they were able to have wild imaginations, which surely inspired scientists and writers of future generations.

   Anyway, if there was any monster that would gain any favor from the audiences, it would probably be this guy. Yes, this is the monster. This is the monster from the movie (Now Showing in Theatres Nationwide) I, FRANKENSTEIN. Contemporary society has this MegaTrend going on. They're trying to make scary monsters (and nice sprites, get it?) of the past look attractive by turning them into eye candy. Take for example, witches, who for centuries have been burned and persecuted. They have been turned into beautiful maidens by movies and animations. Special mention, *drum roll* tuturu! HARRY FREAKIN' POTTER. Witches, you say? I see EMMA FREAKIN' WATSON. That's who. Blame Rowling for all this. Actually, no. Don't. Rowling is actually a great person. She introduced us to the wonderful wizarding world. Anyway, witches are still people, so who are we kidding? It's those fairy tales that tell us that ugly people are evil, since they're usually witches. That's why when we grow up, let's keep everything fair. Let's not describe witches as ugly. That's RACIST. You wanna blame someone? Blame Meyer. Yeah. That's who. The creator of Twilight and 108 year old white hot sparkling virgin vampires. I mean, man, seriously? 108 year old vampires are supposed to be scary, blood-sucking creatures and all. And she just ruined our childhoods by adding the "white, hot, sparkling, virgin" series of implicit descriptions. I mean, white and hot should probably be okay, since that's part of our MegaTrend right now, but seriously? Sparkling vampires? What, is he the descendant of Tinkerbell or something? Get it straight Meyer. Not to mention that he's a virgin. Now he's got some issues there. Maybe he's a sociopath. Make sure he doesn't get your number. If you're Bella-like. Or if you actually inject perfume into your bloodstream. He probably won't accept your offer of sex, but he'd probably shower you with his glamorous sparkling skin to death. Or carry you off to forests like King Kong in New York.

   Anyway, back to Frankenstein's monster. This is probably reflects our view of our current scientific capabilities as a species. Back then, at the time of Shelley, they just thought of patching him up and running really high voltages through him with the help of lightning charges. Now, they had a good job of patching him up, maybe with some plastic surgery or tissue reconstruction. His superhuman strength and immortality (since, well, he's already dead, what's the point of dying when you're dead) was retained. I don't know why, but monsters usually possess superhuman abilities, and that's usually annoying. Vampires, for example. They drink other people's blood. Big deal. It's not like drinking blood will make you stronger. But maybe it's connected to the fact that they're already dead. Yeah. That's probably it. Since Frankenstein's monster is already dead, speaking of his body at least, he probably doesn't experience the normal restraint of force that live humans experience. See, we always just use 1/3 of our full strength, even if we seemingly exert our greatest effort. But, with the help of adrenaline, the limit is lifted, allowing is to at exert a force of at least a ton on objects. With the lack of impulses to restrain this, his body is probably always working at full force. Thus, enabling him to have superhuman capacities. If this was not the explanation, I don't know what is (yet). Since getting the energy or strength out of nowhere would actually be out of the realm of science, and we all know that Frankenstein's monster was created using science and should therefore abide by the laws of science. Considering all that anyway, and his unbelievable fortitude + his really tough skin, he might have been able to survive the explosion in the climax of the movie. If he did, what do you think happened to him? That's a question for another time. ;)

The Monster in Science

            The book and film on Frankenstein greatly shows how addictive and powerful science can be. It is so influential it can even take over your humanity and morality. Although it is very beneficial and historical, it can also bore evil, obsession, and irresponsibility. In the story of Frankenstein, we learn the importance of moral responsibility.

            The story showed that Victor Frankenstein is an embodiment of the philosophy that we make our own heaven and hell. He created a huge but ugly creature, and upon giving it the breath of life, he realizes this creature is too horrible to accept. He took no responsibility in trying to fix his actions or take care of the creature. He was responsible for his creation as a father is for his child, but only tried to escape the creature. Because of this, the creature has been left to try to either become part of society, or to live alone in hiding, suffering, and pain. This outcome made me question an allegory in life: Is what is good must also be beautiful? I’m certain Victor never intended to make evil out of his experiment, since his creation was purely a showcase of his brilliance. But the ugliness that came out of this brilliance affected Victor’s integrity. His unwillingness to either accept the creature or at least comply with his requests prompted the abandoned creature to turn to vengeance and violence.

The difference between the movie adaptation of the monster and in the book is that the monster was able to carry a decent conversation. The monster was made dumb probably to add humor to the scenes and to show growth and development within the monster’s mind, since by the end of the film, the monster was smart enough to ask Victor to make a bride for him. Although the film and book was mostly a horror genre, adding humor made it more interesting. The monster’s intelligence development also added more importance to moral responsibility when it comes to science. You never know how big a mistake can turn out to be, so you must handle this mistake while it’s still early.

Through the story of Frankenstein, we learn that we can't take on the role of God. Victor tried to create life from death and the consequences were deadly and disastrous. He tried to defy the natural order, just like how science questions everything, rules over every explanation, and tries to make the impossible possible. The scientific researches and their successes, although beneficial, still have serious implications and must be handled responsibly. Defying this rule would result likely to what happened to Victor.

by Nicole Tesoro

2013-68145

On Dissent

   Always get your expectations right. That’s what they say. That’s why when it was announced that the forum will be about William of Occam and the lecture was really off, I was having doubts as to whether I was in the right room hall or not. Maybe I was in the right location, but the location itself has shifted to a parallel dimension. Regardless of what the actual state of affairs is, a short entry had to be written. Since not much information about Occam has been presented by the lecturer, aside from saying that Occam was persecuted, the topic had to change. Aligning myself to the lecturer’s topic, this entry will be about dissent and cultural change.

   As a background for understanding dissent and cultural change, he presented an introduction on Medieval Science. Apparently, the zeitgeist was like the The Script album: the struggle was between scientia (science) or episteme vs. doxa (opinion or faith). Politics and religion also had a pull on science. Credibility was measured by your authority. Proof didn’t matter if you did not hold a position of power. In addition, it was also heavily philosophical, and therefore relied more on logic than on empirical observations and data. The Medieval period was all about change. They wanted to know what changed and what remained constant, since the entities and relationships that remain constant are those that are from God and by God.

   Since this approach was terribly lacking, scientists had to engage in dissension. Dissent is basically, not consenting. No consensus is made. You do not agree. In this context, it is the breaking away from the current ideologies and ways of approaching science. Scientists who were involved in the dissension saw that in order to obtain knowledge (in spite of what the skeptics argue), they had to evolve. Using mathematical proofs derived from observing nature, they presented their different theories. Much like what Galileo did. And like Galileo, who was put on house arrest and whose work was made null and passed off as a mere intellectual exercise and void of all truth, many dissenters were persecuted, especially since it proved the officials in the higher echelons of power were mistaken and that their beliefs were inconsistent with what is actually the current natural state of affairs. 

   But because of this dissension, we achieved cultural change. With the changing of the mind-set from being authority-oriented to being proof-oriented, we are able to arrive at the current form of the scientific community. Valuing empirical data over authority paid off, causing great advances in science and technology. One current issue though, is the ethical issue still. Even if we are no longer being dictated what knowledge is (to some extent), there is still the issue of not stepping on the rights of others. 

   Changing mind-sets and shifting mental paradigms will allow us reach for cultural change. So the question is: “What mind-sets can we use in order to progress, given the Philippine context (while dodging the propaganda and the mind-sets that are being fed to us by first-world, capitalist countries)?”

John Paul N. Ada

2010 - 46567

TIME , AREN’T YOU TIRED OF RUNNING?

                Time have three facts. First, synchronize watches throughout the universe is never possible. Second, time never passes in a constant rate. And third, we have a four dimensional world, not three, which includes the 3d for space and the last for time.

                Knowing these things was cool ...at the same time confusing. I never knew time was so complicated that it has certain characteristic like thee.  I am one of those guilty people taking advantage of time. I know it was a resource very scarce that was once accumulated nothing was able to create another copy of that time that has passed by.

                And still here I am, wasting time for social networking while typing this reaction paper.

                If only we could travel back through time... wasn’t it possible already? As I watched the video during class, few theories on how to travel through time were enumerated. During high school, we are taught that time can be warped by travelling in the speed of light. But travelling at this constant speed may cause damage to your body in a way it would expand or mutate your body shape.  So why risk travelling through time?

                Yet a lot of curious individuals are still trying to solve the question of how to get back in the past or go into the future. But the real question was why do we have to find ways to do it? Why can’t we just be contented of the fact that time is always running, it’s never getting tired and no one can stop it. Why can’t we just find ways to make it meaningful and sensible? To change things in the past or have a peek of what can we expect in the future is worthless if you’ll never know how to appreciate what you have in the present.

On Time Travel - Saikou no Jutsu: Tachyongiri (The greatest technique: Tachyon Strike)

There was once a young woman named Bright

Who traveled much faster than light

She went one day, in a relative way

And came back the previous night

     This was of the topics that was not discussed in film, even though they recited the poem in the beginning of the video. The idea of time dilation rests on relativity, and relativity to light. Since light is absolute and its speed does not change, it is made the standard entity for relativity. When you approach the speed of light, you become faster, obviously. But that also means that, if that is your normal speed, everything else is slow. So, the faster you go, the closer you get to the speed of light, and with that approach, everything else slower than or not as fast as you will seem to be, well, slow. Mathematically speaking, there is an inverse relationship between speed and the flow of time. The greater your speed, the slower the flow of time goes, in relation to our standard, absolute entity, light. So in theory, when the disparity between your speed and the speed of light hits zero (not that it will anyway, :p), time will stop, because essentially you are a god and is the fastest being in existence. Now, if there is an inverse relationship, what if the equilibrium is broken, and you travel faster than the speed of light?

     Let me reiterate. As your speed approaches the speed of light, the flow of time will approach zero. What if we exceed that speed? Yes, that’s right. The flow of time will go negative. Meaning, from a forward flow, slowing down to a halt, we move to a reverse flow of time. Essentially, we can go back to the past when we exceed the speed of light (not that it’ll happen). Since it has already been thought of, a name has been coined for the hypothetical particles in the universe that exceed the speed of light: tachyons.

     However, there are a number problems to consider before you try viewing this as a viable form of time travel. Time is not the only value that changes as you approach the speed of light. Mass approaches infinity as the velocity approaches zero. That means that you’ll get heavier and heavier, and would therefore require greater and greater amounts of energy in order to move you. Even at infinite energy, it wouldn’t be able to move an infinite mass. You would be at a standstill. Another, more morbid fact of lightspeed travel is the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. As you approach the speed of light, your length approaches zero. This might be fun for individuals with suicidal ideation and manic-depressive disorder (or demigods), but this is essentially lethal to any mortal. Think of being converted into a blindingly fast, really wide, flat disk of immense mass. Traveling with light would turn you into the Ultimate Killer Frisbee, capable of slicing planets in half and ripping a hole through galaxies. Hell, even Cerberus wouldn’t even dare catch you.

     With all this in mind, let’s stick to the String theory.

     Anyway, I think if you had the ability to convert weapons in to tachyons, that would beat traveling at sonic speeds. You would be able to beat your nemesis without moving, because you already attacked him in the past. Sounds complicated, but I think it'd be awesome. Saikou no Jutsu! Tachyongiri! Hyaa~

John Paul N. Ada

2010-46567

Viewing Cancer

The Rhetoric of Cancer documentary makes us see the language of cancer and that it is usually seen as a disease that is like a battle against things that are happening inside the body. Languages surrounding these disease is the hard part for the patients. They are often said to be "cancer victims" or "battling cancer" or that cancer is a battleground and it makes the cancer patients fear. Society has always lived knowing about cancer. The language of "battling cancer" would mean a struggle where it is something we could not defeat or an enemy. Another view that was presented was "living with cancer" to cope and positively love themselves again. It would not help if one hates his own body or feeling that you're at war with yourself. If people still use the term using the term fighting, it is quite hard to accept. Some people view it as a person that it has to go away.

I feel that in this documentary, society takes their part in the process of gaining knowledge. Society dictates what is to feel with new discoveries in the world. And, whatever we know, society will always have different views upon a certain discovery. The language used to describe some abstract discoveries are metaphors. This language puts an impact to how we view things and it can actually affect people. Hence, I learned that we have to work together in forming languages that would be for making metaphors that can help in the understanding of discoveries such as cancer. Moreover, sensitivity is a certain value that we need as a society.