No Matter What You Do....

1. Do NOT ask help on the internet.
2. Do NOT be an idiot NOT to know Photoshop.
3. Erase the thread you don't like, for Pete's sake....

Check the link to verify if my observation is correct.

More Upside Down People: David Blaine and .... who is that girl?

Kelly Ripa interviews illusionist David Blaine while both of them are hanging upside down above Central Park's Wollman Rink in New York. Blaine begins his latest endurance challenge 'David Blaine: Dive of Death' Monday morning Sept. 22, 2008. Blaine is set to hang upside down without a safety net for 60 hours. He will then conclude his exhibition with a plunge.

(AP Photo/Tina Fineberg)

From Yahoo News / Associated Press.

Upside down house

This won't be uprooted by hurricanes. Kinda like.... "skip that one. Have I been here already?"

US Box Office Winners for the week

We have a new number one this week, making its grand debut on number one. It earned US$15Million in the first three days of release. It stars Samuel L. Jackson, who recently was cited as the number two person in the All Time Top 100 Stars At The Box Office List. According to the list, Samuel L. Jackson has 76 movies to date, and the combined total of those movies amount to US$ 4.403 Billion at the Box Office. Lakeview Terrace is another one of those box office successes across SLJ's name. Here is the top 5 list for last week, according to The Numbers.

1. Lakeview Terrace
2. Burn After Reading
3. My Best Friend's Girl
4. Igor
5. Righteous Kill

Only the second and the fifth spot are occupied by movies in the top 5 last week. My Best Friend's Girl stars Kate Hudson, Diane Cook and Alec Badwin. Igor is John Cusack. Incidentally, 3 of the top 5 this week are comedy movies (Burn After Reading, My Best Friend's Girl, and Igor).

First Game goes to Ateneo

8 points ang lamang. But Ateneo led all the way. Except for that moment 2:58 before the second quarter buzzer. Pero after so many fouls, Ateneo led that quarter again 36-29, ending with a rainbow connection from Reyes.

I don't play basketball, but I love watching the sports. When we were young, my brother and I would pretend we are Joe Cantada and Andy Jao. I would even write down the stats of each team: Assists, Defensive-Offensive Rebounds, Turnovers, etc.

For the first game in this classic match, what ailed DLSU was their ultra-sour shooting. They forced many turnovers on Ateneo side, but clearly, it wasn't enough. A good defense will be clouded by a poor offense. Larry Bird once said that the best defense is a good offense. Perhaps, the Archers were Lakers fan back then. Or they simply cannot deliver.

Also, the inside game went to Ateneo. Raba - the big guy from Ateneo - made 25 or so points, and pulled ten or so rebounds. He massacred the defenders of La Salle inside. On the other side, when it was the turn of La Salle to shoot, they cannot go past the Jesuit walls. So, they resort to three pointers. Which is good really if it were a practice game. BUT IT WAS THE CHAMPIONSHIP FOR GODSAKE!

Harry Potter: A New Hope.... errr... I mean....

(From http://www.saynotocrack.com )

Ateneo versus La Salle in the 71st UAAP

It's final. Ateneo versus La Salle in the 71st UAAP Championship. La Salle inched past the mighty FEU Tamaraws 67-62 in the game today, while the Blue Eagles murdered the UE Warriors 70-50.

This much awaited event will be the fourth time in the UAAP history, with Ateneo winning twice (1988 and 2002). La Salle defeated Ateneo in their 2001 encounter.

This is La Salle's seventeenth (17th) time in the UAAP Finals since joining in 1986.

Before and after marriage

(From my friend, Cielo Jao)

Before marriage.....

He: Yes. At last. It was so hard to wait.
She: Do you want me to leave?
He: No! Don't even think about it.
She: Do you love me?
He: Of course! Over and over!
She: Have you ever cheated on me?
He: No! Why are you even asking?
She: Will you kiss me?
He: Every chance I get.
She: Will you hit me?
He: Are you crazy! I'm not that kind of person!
She: Can I trust you?
He: Yes.
She: Darling!

After marriage....
Simply read from bottom to top.

New Number One!

Bangkok Dangerous, released just three days prior, is the new number one this week at the US box office. It stars Nicolas Cage, and is an action movie. Rated R because of extreme violence, language, and sexuality, it is a remake of a 1999 movie of the same title. Its total budget is US$40 Million. Its first week turned in US$7.8 Million.

The other movies in the top 5 positions are:

2. Tropic Thunder (total gross US$96.8 M)
3. House Bunny (total gross US$37 M)
4. The Dark Knight (total gross US$ 512.2 M)
5. Traitor (total gross US$ 17.65M)

Babylon A.D. moved from 2 to 6 this week.

Every Agent Acts to Some Good.

(Image is from http://www.ps122.org/)


from Chapter III of Book III of Summa Contra Gentiles

A definite end has been proven in the previous chapter, and St. Thomas continued...

"THAT to which an agent definitely tends must be suited to it: for it would not tend to the thing except for some suitability to itself. But what is suitable to a thing is good for it. Therefore every agent acts to some good".

7. It is part of the same plan of action to shun evil and to seek good. But all things are found to shun evil. Intellectual agents shun a thing for this reason, that they apprehend its evil: while all physical agents, to the full extent of the power that is in them, resist destruction, because that is the evil of everything. All things therefore act to some good.

After this Chapter, the plan is clear. Proving that every person acts for an end in mind, he said that this end is some good. Now, there are questions on the notion of good. What about a person who is committing suicide? What about a person who steals money from the bank? Either the conclusion is incorrect, or we have a relative good for each person, destroying Morality and the notion of Good and Evil.

These objections will be answered by St. Thomas in the next two chapters. Let us see if his answers are acceptable.

Atheist Quotes (3)

Atheist Quote number 3 (of 101) from the Atheist Blog:

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature. - Frank Lloyd Wright


In the proof of God's existence, St. Thomas first tried to answer the twofold objection of evil and need. The above quote is something associated with the second objection. It runs thus:

"...it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose the existence of God." (Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, A. 3, Q.2)

In the time of Aquinas, science is still associated with philosophy, being called philosophy of nature. For him, and until the time of Newton (who called one of his masterpieces as "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica"), Natural science is a handmaid of metaphysics, the former serving the latter. Hence, for metaphysics, all things are reducible to an ultimate principle.

Wherefore, St. Thomas replied thus:

"Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article".

In a word, nature and will are not the ending, and that it needs to be reduced to the first principle of nature and will, which are clearly caused.

Now, for modern science, still the attitude is to content with proximate causes, because the latter are but correlates to the effects that are being investigated. It learned a lot from the arguments of Hume and the other skeptics (hey, this is labelling) that all we have is probability and not certainty. Hence, if what is considered proximate cause is merely a cause by probability, what more the ultimate ones? Hence, science stops there.

This attitude is not consistent with the practice in gravitational physics, which posits the existence of dark matter, from the "effects" on surrounding matter.

Frank Lloyd Wright's statement is a clear manifestation that the term God is understood by many differently. We will commit the error of equivocation if we talk about it to different people in the same way we thought it should be understood. That is why I wrote that we should not rely on definitions, nor reason through them.

Eight pages of beauty (comic)

Eight pages of beauty

Visit this site. Trust me. It's worth the time.

Flowchart for Procrastinating

This really fits me. Yung na sa kaliwa reflects my thesis. The answer is always "No". Hehehe... Image is from this site.

We must avoid the following...

We must avoid the following:

Speaking absolutely and going to extremes.    We must always think of the middle ground when we speak, trying to avoid extremes.  For one, there are always three sides of a story.  Your side, the other person's side, and the true side.  Whether one is equal to the other, no one knows.  Also, one should not forget that prima face carries circumstances that cannot be immediately inspected.  Either these will mitigate, or aggravate.  Hence, we must not pass absolute judgment, that is, without considering that there is the middle ground to contend with. 

For example, when asked about the primacy of matter or form, it is always easy to say "matter is more important", or "form is more important".  But, two thousand years of history prove that the debate lingers on.  When one focuses on one extreme, the other extreme rebels in a form of Hegelian dialectic.  Hence, an overstated thesis produces an antithesis, and the resulting chaos, hopefully, produces the synthesis.  However, the chaos may take thousands of years to resolve.

When I was in grade 5, we were told to side with either democracy or socialism.  This is a social studies class.  Once in front - I forgot which side I was - but there, I gave the positive side and negative points of each.  I was 10 or 11 that time.  There was silence after that.  The kindly Mr. Montero chided me in jest, saying, "We should take a side.  This is a debate."  Everyone laughed at me.  Before I sat down, I answered, "Why should there be a debate?"  I still feel the same way.  Perhaps, it was caused by being the laughing stock that day.  At 10 or 11 years old.

Using univocation and equivocation interchangeably, or in the same respect.   Univocal predication happens when you speak in one sense, and mean the same for all terms using the term.  But, sometimes, we cannot mean the same for all terms.  When we say Simba is a lion, and Sir B. is a lion, we don't mean the same lion in the same respect.  The first term refers to the animal, while the next term refers to being either courageous or ruthless.  Clearly, the use in the second term is a literary device and should not be taken univocally.  Both are called lion by equivocation.  Speaking equivocally is not per se wrong.  Only, when you use it too much, and more so, if it gets used in reasoning, then what is the province of literature becomes intermingled with logic.  Plato once wrote that if we clear our terms, there will be no debates.  "The night is dark.  Darkness is the absence of light.  But, light is the opposite of heavy.  Therefore, the night has something that is opposite of heavy."   Of course, the reason for indicating univocation here is because of the ontological arguments on the univocation, equivocation, and (following St. Thomas) analogy of being.  As a summary, the problem of univocal and equivocal predication deals with clarity of terms, and mostly redound to logic.

Considering who is speaking rather than what is spoken.  When we become personal and attached to personas, rather than ideas, we dismiss the truth and beauty of other ideologies.  For example, Marx is always associated with Communism and atheism.  When one reads of Marx, he is already dismissed as enemy of religion.  As a consequence, we forget that the early apostles "share everything in common", and are in fact, the first communists.  Also, we don't get to learn the ideas of Marx in economics.  There was a time when the Church followed Plato instead of Aristotle, mainly because of Augustine.  When the Islamic philosophers discovered Aristotle, and translated his writings to Arabic, they wreaked havoc against the philosophy of Plato.  Gradually, Europe went Aristotle's way, and then, the Church gradually realized, through Aquinas, that we should not burn Aristotle's books, but find out what truth can be found therein.  Now, I dare say the same with Da Vinci's Code, Sartre, Hume, Russell, etc.  Because, in the end, as Aquinas said, we should regard the truth spoken, not the person who is speaking.  It is a shift from personality to ideas.

Relying on names to prove/disprove something.  As a corrolary to the above, we should not reason from "names" or labels.  Durant regards the Middle Ages philosophers from the Church as mere Scholastics.  Later, that term became associated with pedantic, meaningless blabber.  But, the problem is there is not a single thought within "Scholasticism".  Occam, Albertus Magnus, Scotus, Aquinas, Augustine, etc were all given the labels "Scholastic", but they are not in agreement even on the critical question of "How do we know?"  In the same way, when one speaks of being against orthodoxy, he is labelled as an existentialist.  When one questions about the certainty of man's cherished beliefs, then he is labeled as a skeptic.  When one speaks of not being sure about the proofs of God's existence, he is dubbed as an atheist.  Somehow, I think that this is due to the laziness of man's mind.  They do not want to ratiocinate - reason step by step - hence, in order to summarize a view, he labels somebody as one, hoping that it is sufficient and helpful.  Do not rely on labels.  When one reasons through labels, there is error in generalization, and we regard personalities and not ideas.  Do not regard the labels.  As Carl Jung said, every individual is an exception to the rule.   

*Relying merely on definitions.  Definitions are abstractions from reality.  In Aristotelian lingo, it is the differentiation of one existent from other members of the same genera.  When we defined man to be "rational animal", we are saying that "Man is an animal"  or that "man" belongs to the genus of "animal".  Further, we are saying that compared to animals, man differs in that it is "rational".  Now, what I am saying here is that we should not rely too much on definitions in trying to prove something.  For example, if we define "unicorn" as a "horse with one horn", we cannot reason from that definition, saying for instance that "since unicorn is a kind of a horse, then it runs faster than a human", since horses generally run faster than humans.  Definition does not imply existence.  The ontological proof of St. Anselm, and its "improvement" care of Descartes are examples of reasoning through definitions.  It may sound subtle, but it is devoid of substance. 

*Not defining properly used terms.  Kant and the German philosophers were understandably, but unforgivably, fond of using terms that have not been properly defined.  In logic, we say that reasoning by ambiguation is a fallacy.  Argumentum ad absurdum? 

*Relying on divine promulgations to prove what we assert as logical propositions.   I think that this is clearly the most fallacious of all logical fallacies.  Kant started out greatly in his Critique.  Only, when it comes to the heat of the philosophical battle, he had to save his Puritan tradition, and squeezed the idea of God.  It is akin to the proposition (which, I admit is literary in nature) that "if God were non-existent, it will be necessary to invent him". 

We should not reason immediately from the point of view of the infinite because there is no clarity of its existence.  What more, its essence?  What more if such propositions end in the admittance that in God, existence is equal to essence.  In this kind of reasoning, we end up in circles.  Will Durant said that this results in subtlety, not wisdom.  Here is the departure point with St. Thomas.  St. Thomas started with his Summa proving already the existence of God in the second question.  That, I think is too soon.  Now, it may be fit during such a time.  But now, it is rarely the case.  If, at second question, you tackle the existence of God, it will not be enough to convince of the reasons therein.  Of course, it is understood that Summa is a summary. 

Argumentum ad Deus (forgive the Latin, I can't find my Latin guide), I call it.  It is arguing from God.  Euthanasia is evil.  Why?  Because God dislikes it.  It is simplistically foolish, but let us not reason immediately from that point of view.  If there is a need to reason later, let us first reason from matters of fact.  Which, will make our arguments stronger. 

The problem will ultrarealism is that it reasons using the infinity of mathematics.  Whence, God = infinity.  Descartes reasons first from the existence of one, then posits infinity, then reasons the existence of 2, 3 and so on.  Like mathematical induction, he reduced all of philosophy to abstract terms.  The first step was alright.  When he immediately posited God in that there is clearly the existent God, else there is a malevolent being playing around with our mind etc.... then, everything is reduced to rubble.  For mathematics, it is probably acceptable.  In reality, it is not.

*Speaking in finality.  Research always keeps an open mind because further studies on the same subject may prove previous ones to be wrong.  Saves you a lot of embarrassment.

*Not starting from experience.   If reasoning will start from a priori principles, they won't be conclusive, even though it is backed by an eight-hundred-page explanation.  Again, the process matters primarily.  If the starting point be gunned down, every deduction from that starting point falls as well.  We must start, and derive our knowledge from, experience.  It is the only way to go.

*Not considering what the other is saying.  As a corollary to the point raised above on not considering the person but the ideas, in our quest for truth, it is important to consider all points of view.  We cannot dismiss the reasons and ideas of Muslims, or Jews, or atheists, for the reason that they are wrong.  In our quest for truth, as in mathematics, we will realize that there may be many paths to the one truth.  And if they lead us to different truths, either those truths are merely part of a bigger truth, or they are not truths at all. 

*Proceeding in reasoning as if nothing was accomplished prior to our existence. From above, it is thus only rightful that we proceed in our quest for truth, by considering all the accomplishments of previous generations.  Although it is good to develop the paths to the truth on your own, it is best to "stand on the shoulders of giants", to consider things according to what the past thinkers thought of them, only, this time, we will be applying the advancement of science and technology, and modern thought.

*Refusing to consider the evidence of scientific research

*Obstinately refusing to assent to believing a testimony from a reliable source, considering the content of what is being proposed, and the person of the testimony-giver who can not be doubted on things pertaining to his/her own expertise.

*Looking down to previous learning and not improving on historical thought.

*Focusing only on the errors of past thinkers.

To be continued....
Original article above was first written on 1/11/2008

The Thinking Man

(originally written 5/15/2008)

Traveling from Sta. Rosa to Makiling Hiway in Calamba gives one a lot of time to reflect.  It's not as long as my travel to Malolos, so there is a smaller chance to doze to sleep.  This morning, going through the same travel and inner reflection, I looked at the faces of the different people riding that jeepney.  Outside, hundreds of vehicles are going to and fro, eager to arrive early for their destination.  I asked myself this question - What might be going on in their minds?  Are they thinking the same things as I am?  Do they also wonder why there are existents instead of nothing?  Are they concerned about the so-called problem of universals, or whether there are innate ideas in the mind?  I looked at them one more time, and as one middle-aged person looks at the breast of a girl sitting beside him, I realized that majority of the people do not think about these things.

What is going on in their heads?  What motivates them?  Ah, perhaps they are thinking of their loved ones, or the cellphone they will purchase next month.  Perhaps, they are thinking about their ugly bosses, or about their routines in their offices.  Perhaps too, they are thinking about their children, and how they will live in this sick and dying world.

All these things considering, most people if at all, think only about the intermediate future.  In chess, it's like thinking along 1-2 moves in advance.  Mostly also, people think about themselves alone, or their family members. 

When one thinks for the good of more people - education for example, s/he is dubbed as an altruistic person.  S/he thinks not merely for him/herself, but rather for others.  Of course, there is the question of whether the person's goal is primarily for the good of another, or rather, merely a ploy to get more acceptance, fame, etc.  But, beyond that, we seldom find these people.  For one, how could anyone thinks of the good of somebody else if his/her own needs are wanting?  If these people do come around, they are as poets - they see everything other people see, but are able to find the right words to express them.  If these people think, they think of deeper connections between/among things, and usually apply these connections to their lives.

The question necessarily falls into this:  What is thinking?  What makes a certain person think, and another person to remain unthinking?  If man is a thinking being, and this sets him apart from animals, it must be crowned with precious gems, and be the goal of every person.  The end of man, says St. Thomas in Summa Contra Gentiles, following Aristotle, is to know.  This sets him apart from animals.  The intellective power in man is the highest in him, and therefore, its operation must be the proper end of man.  This conclusion he reached after dismissing fame, glory, riches, love (human love), pleasures of flesh (sex and food) as proper end of man. 

If the philosophers are right and in agreement with this, it must be true to say that indeed, to say the least, thinking and the intellective process is important in every human life.

But what makes a man thinking?

“Thinking man” appeared many times in the Essay of Human Understanding by Locke, and in the Critique of Pure Reason, among others.

Let me describe to you a thinking person.  Forgive the poetry.

A thinking person is someone who reasons not because of pressure.  If s/he does, his/her “thinking” cannot be considered a human act because of lack of volition. 

Further, s/he reasons not because of age-old traditions, and assumptions made by his/her parents and/or ancestors.  S/he does not reason through the reasoning of people who are called wise by his/her peers.  S/he does not reason primarily because of needs and aspirations although it is very hard to do.

S/he reasons not through assumptions, nor assumes without reason.

S/he does not snuggle in the bed of indolence and contentment.

Nor does s/he stop struggling because the world already “knows” the answers; nor because somebody finally wrote a refereed article on a scientific journal.

Or wrote a book about it.

Or was given prestigious awards for it.

Because, ultimately, the world has not the final answers.

The world commits blunders every now and then.  The world usually favors a Sophist than a Socrates, a Ptolemy than a Copernicus.  The world usually condemns a Galileo. And yes, it even condemns a Baptist, or a Jesus who cries out truth! Truth! But there is no truth.  The world does not recognize light, says the Beloved, because it was born in darkness.  Thomas Aquinas points out that this darkness is the twofold birthmarks of ignorance and sin.  It is needless to assume these things here, but there is some agreement in the “dark” plight of man – of knowing, or wishing eternity, but never being able to grasp it; of being the most spiritual of the physical world, and the most physical of the so-called spiritual world. 

We have to struggle past these assumptions.  In the beginning, we have to be tossed from wave to wave of such deluge of doctrines.  There will be apparent inconsistencies, because of our insistence on the process of thought.  Again, this is so, since our way of reasoning proceeds from resolved proposition to another proposition.  Thomists would call it ratiocination, and would add a clause – as opposed to angels who know by intellection.  But, the end should see us firm in our beliefs – actually, things that we will eventually believe, through much reasoning and even experimentation.  The purpose of doubting then should be certainty.  We don’t doubt for the sake of doubting.  We don’t argue for the sake of arguing.  We must end in truth.

Therefore, I seek truth.  And start by disowning the assumptions of my youth.

Please support me...

Guys, you will not believe this at first, but you will after you finish watching the clip here.

Please support me, ok? I am counting on all of you.

Of Death and Dying (NSFW)

(From http://cemetery.ci.lubbock.tx.us)


From my comment on a former student's blog about the topic. Methinks, it's better for me just to comment on other people's blogs and just post them here.


Indeed, we're just a passing shadow. Once so glorious, now no more.
Before we finally hit the sack of unending sleep, or hell, or heaven, or rebirth -
before all those options, we must realize that...

It does not matter what is at the beginning,
Nor what is left at the end;
It's not the foretaste,
Nor the aftertaste;
but those in between
It's those little things that we do to one another,
...those little smiles and kindness that we share
with or without the idea of reward or punishment
of heaven or hell
those things are what really matters...
and if in the end
life is but a fleeting shadow
that is here now but gone forevermore
we will never regret
and will simply let
life flow
within us
and without us

and this, for the purpose of
life
and life to the fullest.

We never become sad.
We are part of one another
The stars are in you
and the cosmic forces flow
within you and without you

Death is just the beginning
Life alone remains
Love alone remains

I stop there.


In the end, all things must pass. As intellectual beings (or beings endowed by intellect), the only way to cope in this uncertainty, is the resignation, the acceptance that... all things pass. Material as we are, composed of parts that succumb to destruction, we must also succumb to the same. We must think and feel as if everyday may be the last day of our lives. It is a resignation to the plan of the cosmos. Whether or not such plan is endowed by an architect or designer, we must be willing to succumb to material corruption, to succumb to pain and death.

In order to appreciate the half-torn, ugly leaf that falls to the ground, because it helped bring forth a beautiful flower.

Chris Brown's Forever at Number one

According to MediaBase, as aired on its program American Top 40, the number one song in US for the week ending August 30, 2008 is .... (not much surprise)....

Forever by Chris Brown.

Chris Brown is probably THE artist of the year in terms of number one songs.  For the period covering January 1 - August 30, 2008, he has appeared in three (3) number one songs:

With You (5 weeks, March 22 to April 19)

No Air by Jordin Sparks (1 week, May 3) as featured artist

Forever (August 30 - )

*Chris Brown made his debut in the film "Stomp the Yard".  He is famous among American teens.  In 2007, he won the Teen Choice Awards for Choice Music: Male Artist, and R&B Artist.  This year, he won again in the Teen Choice Awards for R&B Track - "Forever", and for Rap/Hip Hop Track, "Shawty Get Loose" (shared with Lil Mama and T-Pain. 

**Mediabase is a music industry website based on the monitoring of more than 1,800 radio stations across the US and Canada.  

Image here is from the Wren's Nest.  The author said that the person who took this picture is anonymous.  Hence, let me join him in saying thank you to anonymous.

Why I Wear Glasses

(From http://tolppa.apina.biz)

10 Suicides Recreated in LEGO

The other 9, you could see here.

Cellphone driving...

They don't mix. Sometimes.

TDK breaks record! Tropic Thunder still at number 1.

Okay, I know. House Bunny moved down to number 4 this weekend. TDK (The Dark Knight) hangs on at number 3. TDK has garnered more than 500Million Dollars in the Box-Office, making it the biggest movie of the year. In the US, using inflation-adjusted data, TDK is now the 12th biggest movie blockbuster since 1977, challenging Close Encounters of the Third Kind at 11. In fact, it now has the record of the biggest weekend sales at US$158.4 Million (July 18, 2008), junking the previous record holder "Spider-Man 3".

Rounding up the top 5 positions are Babylon A.D. at number 2, and Traitor at 5. Both movies are newly-released.