william ernest henley's invictus

Out of the night that covers me,
black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
for my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
my head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
looms but the Horror of the shade,
and yet the menace of the years
finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
how charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

"the worst day of your life so far!"

a third of a decade spent in writing and of course an animated film expressed it more brilliantly; could anyone else has said it better? however, if one prefers an alternative long winded citation from Maurice Merleau-Ponty:


"everything we believed to be thought through, and thought through correctly - freedom and authority, the citizen against authority, the heroism of the citizen, liberal humanism, formal democracy and the real democracy which suppresses it and realizes it, revolutionary heroism and humanism - has all fallen into ruin. [...] Perhaps we are at one of those moments when history moves on. [...] But underneath a clamor is growing, an expectation. Why could it not be hope?"

l'etre, l'avoir, la question du je

kairos the greeks used to call it; beyond moments of catching up or keeping time. season that enables breathing afresh or resolute parting. moments of sincerity, tensed expansion and growth.

i viaggiatori e loro ombre

a film that featured an old song, "sarong banggi," hums of pitch darkness and light of dawn; there was the awe inspiring rhythmic dance of shadow and life...

critic cum writers scampered at comparing the film with greek tragedy, sophocles and the guy-king with inflamed feet (oedipus). it was a tragedy alright but again tragic is a psyche that wanted to feel educated by grasping at foreign parallels without going through one's own!

the film was not only about the boy who can't wait to be a man - it was also about the prostitute who has seen too many summers. it was the haunting of maternity that confronts the truth "one can only give what one has." in the tragedy of her parenthood, she can only impart to her own son what she is good at, unnatural as it may be.

the psyche that produced such an art is deeper than those who mime western tragedy. parents who struggled with "the family that prays together stays together" adage learned holiness in the sacrifice of being apart - unnatural as the saying may let it seem. the economy at near collapse is kept afloat by elders who went away and left their young; following "you can only give what you have" they fore go naked freedom, warm comfort and a firm stance on one's own soil.

oh yes it was finding oneself in the tragic awakening of breaking the rules of nature and the laws of the gods. however, it was in its unnaturallity that it found stasis; in its journey to the ends of inhuman wretchedness that it felt humane peace; in its brokenness that cries to heaven and confronts whoever's there!

creative untruth

perhaps the greatness of a lie is that one is not aware of it instantly. if the what that is before her is transparent to itself then she would have named it right away.

the advent of theory and critical thinking has lead this generation to values of tolerance, deliberation, issues of marginalization and reclaiming voices. these are gains that ought to be held otherwise the barbarity of power and legitimation will hold sway again. the model of listener that it apparently endorses however may yet be the antithesis of the tradition of critical reading of texts that freed us from dogmatism and bigotry. the model of the liberal hearer, uncommited and ever tentative is a caricature of post structuralism and post modernity. if there is a learning at all then attention is of paramount importance and listening includes weighing while understanding involves one to embody commitment - be it serious or playful.

Bernard Lonergan critiqued contemporary thought for stopping at understanding and failing to move onto the critical step of judgment and expression. one needs to know if one has done good he is quoted as saying in the halifax lectures. that assertion may sound like remnants of a good boy stage of moral development according to Lawrence Kohlberg. a desire to be affirmed by peers who surround him. however it also moves to a certain direction. perhaps one ought to return to discourses with virtue and truthfulness as concerns. perhaps one can read better mindful of hunger and excesses not only in meaning but also in suffering. Jacques derrida did not want to stop only at the academic level of reading and rereading texts, he wanted more involvement in issues of prudence and ethical responsibility.

grammar of dissent

the nexus of signified and signifiers were lost during the last post. the authors are dead alright, their biographical notes in no way weigh heavier than their written works. what lights up the horizon with grit and brimstone though is that discourses and texts are again loci of action and commitment. and yes truth is in again. i.e., if one is wide eyed enough to get wind of terry eagleton's books. so then - bother and think, post-gender and gender less bloggers who have fallen to hedonistic slumber with the post-structuralist pomo generation - from and with the ashes ludicrously kick some butt!

conflict of horizons

if inspector jabert, eponine, cosette and marius are to speak about jean valjean - no doubt they will come up with conflicting images. facets and information about the person's character may even be confused as each one lay claim on a certain personality. a reader/listener may be tempted to say - jean valjean is essentially schismatic, a contested persona - therefore it is not wise to ever bother asking about him.

who is the true jean valjean? yes you may ask that but such query on a literary character is irrelevant. Fiction cares not about questions of factual truth! it is not lying either, however. if the characters speak about another character, they may not be in the realm of what you call truth, and yet they cannot be called liars either. but that being the point - it is unwise to not bother about the character of jean valjean for carrying schismatic and contesting perspectives. if at all the characters in presenting him to us are inviting us to know who he is.

Mark Twain spoke about a terrible character in what some claim as sacred writings. Twain's words are limited in that he reads the different accounts as if they are a slate of zeroes and ones in a binary logic board. different writers came up with conflicting things? what's new with that? i bet if we ask his mother, friend and enemy to write Twain's elegy then we'll have the same thing too. the last writer may not even give us an elegy at all! but this time it's no longer in the realm of literary characters for we're in a wilder and more complicated terrain. should we not bother with who he is? should tom sawyer and huck finn be relegated to rotting bookshelves and not be read ever again? of course not, these are all invitations for us to know him more...