Assess Authority — Assert Autonomy

Bash Bigotry

Challenge Convention

Doubt Dogma

Examine Everything — Educate Everyone

Fight Fundamentalism — Forfeit Faith

Guide the Gullible

Help Humanity

Improve Intelligence — Investigate Inconsistencies

Justify Judgments

Keep Knowing

Love Learning

Mistrust Mysticism

Negate Norms

Outgrow Obedience

Prevent Persecution — Prosecute the Pope

Question Quackery

Resist Rationalization — Resort to Reason

Support Science — Secularize Society

Trash Theocracy

Understand the Universe

Verify Vigilantly — Venerate Veracity

Withstand Worship — Weed out Wishful Thinking

eXpunge eXtremism

Yield Youth

Zero Zealotry

I’ve been cleaning out my old notebooks, cutting out used pages, and sorting out which ones were good enough to still be used again. In the process, I came across my Christian Living Education notebook from grade school, in which I found the following failures of education written in my handwriting:

Q: Why can one who rarely talks have a longer life?
A: He/she doesn’t get into much trouble or problems because he/she does not comment/gossip too much.

There’s some truth in this, but we aren’t taught to value the quality of life. All we’re taught to seek is a long life, however devoid of integrity or meaning. This kind of education creates sheep who bleat, not people who speak.

…

Q: What lesson may be learned from this story?
A: That whatever pain we may experience in doing it, we must obey God.

Uhh.. just plain NO. To quote Penn Jillette:

“If god told you to kill your child and you said yes, then you are dangerous and stay away from me.”

…

Q: Why should we listen to the advice of our parents?
A: They have gone through many experiences so they know what I should do.

This too has some truth in it, and I’m lucky enough to have parents who are quite exceptional at raising children. But this should not apply to parents who have tendencies to neglect and/or abuse their children. Bantay Bata is there for a reason, and if children are discouraged from using it when the need arises, then we have a problem.

…

Q: What other values does wisdom beget?
A: Sincerity, obedience, acceptance, and responsibility.

I would say yes, no, kind of, and yes.

Wisdom begets autonomy, not obedience. Sadly, disobedience is generally frowned upon in our society, even when the reasons for it are legitimate. You don’t really need obedience if both your requests for cooperation and the people you are addressing are sensible. If you can’t motivate people, that’s your problem, not theirs. You have to learn how to make them motivated and making something illegal is hardly ever the best solution.

Acceptance is tricky. You first have to know what things are inside and outside of your control. As Epictetus once taught, suffering arises from trying to control what is uncontrollable, or from neglecting what is within our power.

…

Lesson 4: God loves me because…

1. he created me in his own image & likeness.
2. I love him.
3. I am one of his children.
4. I respect him.
5. he can trust me.
6. he loves all of his creations.
7. I am the crowning glory of his creation.
8. he is merciful.

This is just an epic fail on so many levels.

1) So God is a narcissist. What. A. Prick.
2) So God’s love is conditional (and, as I would see it, pretty shallow).
3) Uhh.. what isn’t?
4) Same as #2. Actually, this whole exercise just seems to emphasize this point, doesn’t it? XD
5) Once upon a time, perhaps. Now, I don’t think so. XD
6) If by “love” you mean allow to suffer needlessly despite one’s omnipotence, sure, why not?
7) I find this statement to be fairly accurate. Good job.
8.) If by “merciful” you mean genocidal, sure.

…

I am a Claretian

1. I am a lover of God’s Word (Biblical)
2. I am a lover of The Holy Eucharist
3. I am a lover of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Wow. If only I had known about No True Scotsman back then. I am a Claretian because I happened to pay for education at Claret. Period. I don’t think anything else follows from there. As for the three items:

1) Ahh, God’s word. Funny how it’s always people writing and talking, right?
2) Mmm.. cannibalism.
3) Joseph may have gotten sloppy seconds thanks to the Holy Spirit, but if every previous Claretian happens to be a lover of the Blessed Virgin Mary, then FUCK ME!

TL;DR – We need more secular education. Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church.

Dear Dad,

It’s been a while since I last wrote a letter. I have been busy for the past five months. The good thing about it is that I have found a job that gave me the opportunity to learn and to earn a living. In the second half of 2009, I was without what you would call a regular job. It was a time when I had to gain more knowledge, to hone my skills, and to gain perspective. The job market was not in a good condition and I was feeling desperate, even depressed.

One fine Sunday morning, while I was attending church, it occurred to me, “Even in a bad economy, these churches still thrive. They offer hope to people who feel that there’s no hope in sight and that only God can help them.” I also recalled that when I was in the United States, I saw at least two churches in every town that I passed through during my road trips. “Hmm… What worked for fast food restaurants, coffee shops and supermarkets also worked for churches. Those churches must have had a lot of property and tax-free earnings.”, I thought. As I was churning a lot of ideas in my mind, I had an “Aha!” moment. “If I can’t find a job, I might as well establish a business… *cough, cough* No, a church. Then, I’ll journey to the West and propagate the bu.. *cough, cough* gospel and gain ca… *cough,cough* converts.” I then did some research on how some Christian churches and denominations were founded. After hours of research, I found out that it is possible to establish a church by forming a religious corporation.

I have come up with a how-to guide for establishing a religious corporation. The procedures may vary depending on the would-be entre… *cough, cough* executive minister.

1. Have some prior knowledge. In order to establish a church, you must first have a foundation, a body of knowledge to work with. You can gain this knowledge by joining other religions. Learn about their doctrines or dogmas. Read the Bible and other holy texts. You may have to doubt and jump ship from time to time in your quest for the true church.
2. Do an intensive study of the Bible. This is best done in isolation. Have a pen, a notebook or two, and at least two different versions of the Bible. The more versions, the better, for you might need to refer to more than one interpretation in the future. Read and understand the book/s from cover to cover, for that will give you an edge over your would-be rivals.
3. Look for Biblical prophecies that coincide with the events of the time (e.g. wars and rumors of wars, natural disasters, widespread poverty, advancement of knowledge). Reading Isaiah, the four Gospels, and the Book of Revelation would be a good start. This step will help your church appear to be based on the Bible.
4. Go out and preach. Over the course of a few days, you may have gained divine inspiration and you are certain that God has commissioned you to preach the gospel. Start preaching to a small audience, say, to your family, friends and community. Organize a small religious meeting. Make sure that what you preach has a strong Biblical foundation so that you can win converts. You may also train some of your converts to become ministers in your fledgling church.
5. Register the church as a corporation sole. In order to avoid problems in the future, have the church registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a corporation sole, with you as the chief bishop, pastor, executive minister, rabbi or any other designation as a presiding church elder. (NOTE: In the Title XIII, Chapter II of the Corporation Code of the Philippines, a religious corporation is classified as a special corporation.) The registration should coincide with a historic event, something that would change the world (e.g. The Great War). Once you are in the SEC, conduct yourself with firmness of purpose. The officer who is in charge of your case may ask you if you are certain about your course of action. Respond with a steely conviction, knowing that you are doing God’s work.
6. Strengthen and expand the church. Since you are doing God’s work here on Earth, you will have to edify the faith of your followers and fellow church workers. You will certainly encounter detractors, critics, skeptics, you name it. View the religious persecution as an opportunity to unite the flock. Tell your disciples that this is part of being in the church chosen by God, that they are sharing the same hardships that Jesus Christ had experienced. Keep on doing the work that God has assigned to you. You may have to travel to town after town, establishing congregation after congregation so that church membership will increase.
7. Expand further. Once you have established congregations and built houses of worship in towns and cities, you may have to tap your pioneer spirit and journey beyond your native land. Don’t be afraid to establish the church in other lands, for it is God’s will that the gospel may be heard by more people worldwide. Preaching to expatriates would be a good start.
8. Attract attention. Your church has grown and is still expanding. It’s about time that you become known. Don’t fight the critics and detractors, but rather use them for your purposes. The tree that bears a lot of fruit is a good target for stone throwers. Always occupy the moral high ground and lead a decent way of life. Let the people see your church members as different from the rest of society. Maintain unity in the church so that it would become a force to reckon with. Let everyone see the church as someone to be courted, especially when the elections are near.
9. Use all available media. The 21st century is a great time to propagate the church, thanks to developments in information and communications technology (ICT). Use print media, radio, television, and even the Internet to spread the gospel.
10. Do what other corporations do. There are corporations that not only do well in their core businesses but also go to other avenues of growth. You may establish schools, hospitals, media companies, and other ventures. Your flock is also a good source of human capital. Discourage church members from joining labor unions, for big name tycoons would prefer to hire them over union workers. Another thing that your religious corporation can do is to have corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs. Extend help to communities affected by calamities. Conduct medical and dental missions, community cleanups, and other worthy projects. Your church may also participate in environmental programs such as the Earth Hour. (Yes Dad, it’s good to be green these days.)

This how-to guide is a product of months of research and observation. It was conceived during a time when I did not have a regular job. Now that I am back on track in my career, I may not be able to use this guide. Maybe in the future, someone will find this guide useful.

On a final note, I am not of the religious kind, for my spirituality is personal, meditative and nondenominational. If I would be a member of a religious corporation, I don’t want to be an executive minister or a Sunday school president. I would rather become the Chairman of the Bored.

(J) The Freethinking Geek

the birth of Another, the apathy of Otherness —

this altercation of the unconscious Self,

born of the irrational Yet:

the vague paradigm of Nothingness

as it unfolds, this phenomenon of alterity

embodied subjectivity of the ephemereal Doom

utterances coalesce with infinity;

impending Dread : anxious metanoia of Becoming

the All revolves, in this orbit of anamnesis

poignant reverie of what Was, and yet to Be

this-being-I, caught in the transitional flux ; between act and potency

the dynamic interpolation of mind and will; pervading Absence

— ,God; ? (It not is if what not is Be if what not is become of yet! )

I elude this context of  preconceptual knowing;

this frailty that succumbs to the Appearance

the unified multiplicity of understanding the Cogent:

derivatives of a preexistent Nous: language

and, as horizons, concrescence of reaching the Beyond

dissolution in the complexity of the Cogent, the face of its pull

all understanding converges in the evolution of mind

ideas converge in the Becoming;

but, not shall it Be for Yet it not is, what is yet not to Be

is not Shall, in the Be of the end and all of what is Yet —

to cry in the miscontextual co-promise; this Belonging

a failure of the messianic, redemptive fulfilment of what is bound to Become,

but is not Yet, 

— as faith dies, only to be reborn in the ashes of reason.

God refers to a supreme being or a divine being.
Whether supreme beings or divine beings exist does not matter to me.
I live according to my own sense of right or wrong,
learning from experiences of past successes and past mistakes,
and any reward or punishment I may gain
are the results of the consequences of my acts,
and not because I prayed for a blessing or angered some god.

If a miracle were to happen in my life,
I would take it as a significant coincidence
rather than a sign of God’s existence.
For I know that miracles happen everyday,
to people of different faiths and values,
regardless of whether they pray.

If a great disaster were to mess me up
and make me believe in utter hell,
I would not blame God for it
or assume that his wrath is upon me.
I would not ask for his help and guidance,
nor would I believe that he would give it.
Instead, I will believe in myself,
in my strength to overcome this darkness,
and understand the weaknesses in me
that allowed it to happen in the first place.
I will aim to learn from this experience,
and strive to forgive myself
and the others who may have helped caused it.
And if I do not have the strength to forgive them,
I will keep in mind that bitterness
is a heavy thing to carry.

God, if he exists,
will not be bothered by what I do,
will not be collecting on my prayers,
will not be offended by my blasphemies.
But somehow, I cannot help but feel
that if he exists, he will
be somewhat proud of me.

If I were forced to work with a bully or a slacker as a peer/coworker, how could I make them do their share of the work? First of all, it is quite obvious I cannot just tell these people to do their job; I would have to make them. Realistically, the world doesn’t work on good intentions alone; self interest is a part of it. In order to make the bully or the slacker do his/her job, I need some form of leverage over them. This leverage can be in the form of authority, telling my boss the problem in order to rescue myself from being taken advantage of and in order to prevent a precedent for future abuse. Another form of leverage is manipulating them by playing on their character weaknesses, something left to more canny individuals. Another still is by stamping my handiwork with my indelible signature to create evidence of their omission.

Leverage is neither evil nor good. People might get the bad idea that leverage is evil, since it is power to compel someone against their will. However, it is merely a tool. Like any other tool – hammer, knife, accounting software, the Internet, money, etc. – it is the ethical consequences of the action that clears up this ambiguity.

There are three groups that provide leverage to the people:

Competition and Market Forces – Free-market forces give the people, who are consumers, leverage by choosing one supplier or service over the other. Without the power of choice, how are people able to punish inefficiency, or framed in another way, reward innovation and hard work?

Courts of Law, Law Enforcers, and Legal Experts – If someone violates a serious binding agreement, the ability to take them to court is a form of leverage. The law is a tool, a way to keep people from breaking promises others depend on for their welfare, stability and happiness.  Without such leverage, there is very little to prevent abuse and the public from being taken advantage of.

Free Speech, Free and Impartial Media, and… Free Thought – Public expression is a way to communicate to others serious or vital concerns with regards to their conduct. Free speech allows people to attack and defend their credibility, and gives the truth opportunity to prevail. Part of free speech is the ability of individuals to apply the more impartial tools of logic and reason to come to their own conclusions, which we know as Freethought.

I might address that these forms of leverage may not be perfect tools, but without them we certainly diminish our power to affect change and improve our situation.

Looking at the three groups: Free trade, Law and Order, and Free speech, how much leverage does the Filipino have? Among them, what is the easiest to achieve given our own individual abilities, and that can be achieved by our collective groups? Which group precedes the others or by what degree?

Understanding leverage helps me determine what is the most cost-efficient application of effort towards change. I hope this helps you too.

I’ve recently learned about the plagiarism in a recent post and think that some sanctions are necessary. Therefore, together with our stakeholders and board of directors, we, the official leaders of FF, have decided to suspend Karlo from his post as official FF writer indefinitely until he edits his post and publicly apologizes and says ten Hail Marys.

But seriously.

First of all, the FF is an informal group. Although we’ve been trying to get organized, herding cats is close to impossible. Nor would freethinkers want to be herded anyway. I’d thought that we — the original members of FF — made this clear from the beginning, but apparently we haven’t, and for the benefit of nonmembers and new members here it is again:

The Filipino Freethinkers is not a formal group with an official, homogeneous stand on anything.

We do not have an official stance on gods — although many are atheists, we have agnostics, deists, pantheists, panentheists, apatheists, etc. We even have several theists — Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Spirituals, and yes, even a Satanist.

We do not have an official stance on politics — although most prefer democracy and capitalism, we have all sorts of socialists, anarchists, and even one fascist (that I know of).

We do not have an official stance on anything. I thought this was unnecessary, but maybe each post on our blog should be introduced by a disclaimer: The views on this post are my own, and do not reflect those of any other member of FF.

What we do have is a common language that we do try to speak: freethinking. You are freethinking when you try to use reason and evidence to figure something out for yourself. At least that’s my definition. Others may have their own definitions, which is why our members are so varied. And that’s a good thing.

What we — the original members — tried to achieve with FF when we started it was not a WE (a group of people with the same thoughts on everything) but a WHERE. You could compare FF to a room where anybody could come in and talk to each other about whatever. The only thing is, the people in the room speak in the language of reason and Science, and your enjoyment in that room would depend on your fluency at freethinking (our lingua franca).

Obviously, people define Reason and Science in different ways, from the absolutist definitions of Objectivism to the relativist definitions of Postmodernism. But even with the wide range of interpretations, I believe we can all agree on some things:

One, that freedom to talk about things is a good thing, and that no idea is too sacred to justify its permanent status as Truth. In short, nothing is sacred, so there’s no such thing as blasphemy. Even Science does not grant such status to any theory. (Indeed, if it did, it would cease to be Science.)

Two, that assertions made without supporting arguments can be dismissed without any argument. That an argument is only as good as the reason (critical thought free from fallacies) and evidence (repeated and repeatable, peer-reviewed and scientifically valid) backing it up.

Three, although freely thinking (and talking) about something (One) in a way that is rational and evidence-based (Two) is the best way to arrive at conclusions, those conclusions may be different, especially with complex and complicated topics. And even when a group of people — however rational and scientific — somehow reaches the same conclusion, that conclusion does not gain the status of Absolute Truth (One).

Again, I hate to have to say this, but this is MY point of view and it may be different from those of the other FF members.

Now let me share some of my thoughts about this conflict with Objectivists, particularly VB and some of his friends. First of all, we have at least three members (that I know of) who are now Objectivists. Geri was once an Objectivist. I read enough Ayn Rand to understand her philosophy, and although I do not agree with all of her conclusions, I do think she deserves to be called a Philosopher (some FF members think otherwise) and as a writer I particularly value her thoughts on the writing process (I have both her books on the topic).

So I have nothing against Objectivism. In fact, several times I’ve invited Josh Lipana, and through him, VB, to attend our meetups and even to write about Objectivism on our blog. (Both invitations are still open, by the way.)

This was before all the free farter talk on VB’s blog. Personally I do not appreciate personal attacks used in rational discourse. And besides, it only weakens your argument — when you have to resort to it, it usually means you’ve run out of reason.

But things have been said and the discourse has devolved into name calling, unfortunately on both sides. And where there is some semblance of reason it has been quite irrational — again on both sides. Because of the support of some members (myself included) for the RH bill, all of our members have been called irrational, unscientific, and even a fellowship of death. As if the only proper way to be rational and scientific is to agree with Objectivism. And some FF members have called Objectivism a cult of Randroids, lumping together all Objectivists, even though there are those who do value the ideas without any reverence for Ayn Rand.

This has led to the ugly situation we have now. I’d rather we all move on and talk about something more relevant, say HIV/AIDS and the Vatican scandal, but that’s just me. If some members still want to wage an all out war with VB, that’s fine. But please, when you argue with someone, be it VB or anyone else, make it clear that you are arguing for yourself and as yourself — not as a representative of FF.

Sadly, any argument between VB and an FF member has been framed as a battle between Objectivism and FF. Please guys. Keep it between yourselves. The way you have been arguing you might as well have a Yo Mama contest.

Which brings us to the latest attack against Karlo for the plagiarism in his first article. This attack on Karlo is an attack manufactured by those who want to discredit the FF and can be compared to anti-semitism, the Holocaust, and the recent attacks on the Catholic Church.

But seriously. In case your bullshit detector wasn’t on in my first paragraph, we do not have stakeholders and directors and official leaders. We do not even have full-time editors, let alone fact-checkers. I say full-time because sometimes our volunteers fix mechanical errors — spelling, grammar, etc. — and even peer-review articles before posting. But these editorial fixes will remain a rarity until we get volunteers who can dedicate a lot of their time to the necessary work. Or until we get a lot of money (any takers?).

This bears repeating: We are a group of volunteers. We are not paid for what we do.

But still, I agree with the comments so far that Karlo should take responsibility for his actions. He has already replied and said that he will fix the plagiarism in his post. Do I think Karlo should be punished for what he did? Personally, not so much. But again, that’s just my opinion. If you think plagiarism, particularly what Karlo did, is a grave matter deserving of excommunication, do say so. Write a post about it if you like. You will not be censored. But please, try to stick to the issues and avoid the insults.

I’ve already passed the TL;DR point a couple of paragraphs ago, so let me end this rambling (sorry for any errors in spelling, grammar, or plagiarism) with this:

If FF is to be about something, it is not about shared conclusions but shared conversations. Once conclusions are reached conclusively the conversation is over, and a fellowship without conversation is a fellowship concluded. Peace!

I, Freethinker or I, Troll?

Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. – Rosa Luxembourg

I’m often asked why I decided to get involved with the Filipino Freethinkers. Often in FF discussions, some people would find it weird that someone attacks Enlightenment assumptions in a fierce manner and not coming from the realm of faith. For some who worship Reason like a god, that would be anathema. For some, it can be just dismissed that I am a perpetual deviant.

To briefly introduce myself (a giveaway), apatheism by choice would be the best way to describe my irreligious convictions (I believe this should have been placed in forum introductions but I did it here nonetheless). I’m an apatheist because I don’t see any relevance whatsoever of belief or non-belief in deity/ies in general. I am more interested in discussing other issues that are of more relevance, like politics, economics, and others. “By choice” is because even if I don’t see its relevance, I can match anyone in FF in discussing philosophy of religion or participate actively in those endless “reason versus faith” or “existence of god” discussions (which are so very prominent in FF). I just don’t have the time and the passion for it.

Having said that, people would again ask, “what are you still doing here?”

The Problem of Evil, or Post-Evil, or Post-Problem

The spectacle presents itself as a vast inaccessible reality that can never be questioned. Its sole message is: “What appears is good; what is good appears.” The passive acceptance it demands is already effectively imposed by its monopoly of appearances, its manner of appearing without allowing any reply. – Guy Debord

The answer is simple, but first I will state these undeniable facts about Philippine society:

1. The Roman Catholic Church (RCC), represented by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), as well as its allies is one if not THE most dangerous and dominant power center in Philippine society because the social agenda it promotes prevents the people from achieving the level of thinking for themselves, and acquiring the ability to understand freedom and autonomy;

2. The Philippine State, with pragmatic opportunist politicians and bureaucrats running it (with notable few exceptions of course), maintains its power through a “scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” relationship with the main organized religions. The Philippine State is operating as a theocracy, albeit an unofficial and less violent one; and

3. Religion, specifically Christianity has been so deeply ingrained in Philippine culture that it has become reality that can never be questioned. Its monopoly of images has obliterated other ideas, either in the form of marginalizing them as heretic and untrue, or assimilating them, thereby appropriating its symbols for its own.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand this, though in this case I don’t think rocket scientists would understand this (no offense to the rocket scientists). For the answer to the million dollar question, my apatheism as well as its peaceful coexistence with other faiths and un-faiths can only come forth in a secular society; and with the emergence of freethinkers as a recognized demographic in Philippine society, we would be able to do away (or start the path to that) with the three facts I have outlined above.

However, secularism won’t come as a gift or magically sprout overnight. It is like any human achievement – we MUST work to get it.

A Force to Reckon With

“Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea…and ideas are bulletproof.” – Alan Moore, V for Vendetta

The idea that humans can think freely without the influence of tradition or dogma is very dangerous for those in power. And that is what the Filipino Freethinkers are doing – sowing the seeds of skepticism and inquiry. FF members are not anarchists (well, not all of them), but they surely are a threat to the status quo, which is built on the hegemony of a dominant religion.

I work with FF on the basis of the promotion of secularism. I believe that FF is the current hatchery of our new breed of secular activists. From the newbie Mutalisks, I would see secular Guardians and freethinking Devourers in the future.

However, I also think that ideas are not enough.

Direct Action Gets the Goods

“Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul.” – Edward Abbey
Or for those without souls:
“Sentiment without action is a fake orgasm” – Ram Fernando

I often hear freethinkers say that the underlying problem is the stupidity and ignorance of the masses. It is true to a certain point. The masses are ignorant and stupid because they were made so (disclaimer: not created from clay, but two large bamboo trees cracked). To paraphrase Chomsky’s idea, the consent that they give to a dominant line of thinking is manufactured. Using this idea, the hegemony of religious thought is not inherent. The institutions that promote and maintain this hegemony are under their control. My question for you as a freethinker and secularist is what are you going to do about it?

A dangerous display of elitism actually manifests among some of us. Responses like “they won’t understand” or “it’s better to talk to like-minded people” or “harump” aren’t so uncommon.

In this light, I would invoke Chomsky’s concept of the “responsibility of intellectuals”. He argues that intellectuals should make themselves responsible for searching for the truth and exposition of lies. This isn’t hard to grasp. This is what you desire actually. What would you freethinkers jerk-off more than the exposition of the lies of organized religions and its divine imperative to dominate civil society?

With this, I would ask that you go beyond your comfort zones and start doing something. Go to the people that you wouldn’t normally talk to if needed. Build alliances with not so like-minded individuals and interest groups who you feel have common goals. Start your revolution at home by coming out and being proud about it. Know more by reading and continuously engaging anyone possible about what you have learned. Be an activist.

This will not solve our problems overnight, but it’s a start. A secularist’s work is never done.

How can you make people enjoy learning when Intellectual Elitists like to point out what others don’t know and rub their noses in it?

I define intellectual elitism by judging people by what they know instead, particularly against the standards of personal biases. I find it deeply rooted in an overwhelming desire for validation and praise, even at the expense of others. I see it as a problem because, such a predisposition leads to dismissing ideas as they are being formed and communicated. That snap judgment, based on incomplete information and with such absolute certainty, is inconsistent with aspects balanced and impartial intellectual pursuit. A key symptom and clue of an intellectual elitist is that, they have early on stopped listening and they never criticize their own understanding.

Spotting such people is not that difficult, face to face I find them when it is difficult for me to express my ideas and how they interrupt me in the middle of explanation with an oversimplified assumption of what I was leading to. This is not to be confused with people who try to help others with the best words to contain their ideas. In a conversation, the other speaker chooses not to relate ideas in a middle ground by listening and empathizing in order to use the optimal verbal method for the other person. Not all key names and individuals count as name dropping, it becomes clearly so when they rattle off a long list of names for the sake of supporting their ideas instead of expressing the underlying logic of their argument in a moderate length.

Although I disdain them, I should empathize with them. It takes one to know one, and I am guilty of Intellectual Elitism at times. Such desire to dictate and lecture is a vanity developed when I worked hard to acquire knowledge and I am accustomed to the positive reinforcement of authority and the praise of others. This desire becomes stronger especially when it is not to my strengths and the effort was a challenge.

How I can change to be less of a hog for attention, is about looking at myself with an outside perspective and using the same critical manner I would use to tear down an opponent’s argument at my own pettiness. It’s kind of hard to do, and having good friends who tear you a “new one” and teach you not to take yourself too seriously helps immensely. Self deprecation or Humility has a practical use in learning, it allows me to criticize myself and remember I still have so much more to learn. Such a virtue should be carried over to how I treat others and their views… I try and do it often enough but I’m human after all.

Of course, having such empathy and disgust to Intellectual Elitists in myself does carry over when I see it in others. If I’m disgusted enough at something, sometimes I can’t help but draw attention to it and make an example. Unfortunately this is not the best way, criticism without trust or credibility is just outright verbal attacks. I may not know some people, but I pretty sure they don’t know me either. When broad judgments are made by them regarding what I know, instead of what was said, especially when I barely had anything to say, the proper response is verbal retaliation. Same thing goes with how I should address others, I should avoid making sweeping statements when I really don’t know the person if I don’t want it to be interpreted as an attack.

The old rule parents would teach, “when you have nothing worth saying, don’t say anything” applies more specifically when dealing with such people. Sure they ate up my time, but there is no point in trying to win the value of that sunk cost. Leaving for greener pastures is the best possible course of action, although there is no rule of thumb on how rudely or politely I’ll leave. After all, I wouldn’t know much benefit of the doubt I would have wasted dealing with such people and how I will ever feel at the point of being fed up.

The proper atmosphere, to my point of view, is one that makes everyone feel okay to ask questions that they would otherwise feel stupid to ask. Such nice people to talk and exchange ideas with tend to present themselves with some humor and would at default assume the best of people. They also pay attention and ask good questions about the ideas discussed, stopping to test each other’s understanding, like someone who makes sure he is walking at the same comfortable pace and the other person. They often ask what you mean by your terms, they are not quick to let their own assumptions about the other’s use of language.

In such an atmosphere and around such people, learning becomes easier. Such a circumstance allows me to see the different strengths and potential of others, and thus learn to value and respect them more.

Come on guys, let’s show our love for science and poetry. Let’s keep the creative juices flowing. Here’s my start on this mess. I’m sure you can think of other creative limericks, whether they be about science, math, or anything under the freethinking sun, no?

There was a guy named Schroedinger

who was quite an exceptional thinker

He posited that

there’d either be a dead or live cat

Even before you laid down a finger

And I don’t want to leave another favorite subject of mine (among others) without its own limerick.

Newton discovered calculus

So did Leibniz, plus its use

There was some dispute

on who’d bring the discoverer’s loot

But Isaac won over a ruse.

I got into Role-playing Games when I was around 11. We were middle class but on the stingy side. Our parents were starting up their business and we had to cut a lot of corners when it came to toys. So we played imaginary games. My brothers and I learned about DnD from the cartoon, comic book ads, and fantasy fiction in movies and anime in the 80s. We bought a very discounted but original DnD computer game at around 1990, but it was so old it was broken. My brothers and I only had the manuals and we liked the ideas so much we used it as the baseline for our imaginary games.

We studied in Alabang while living in San Juan. Our parents, struggling with their business, made us stay with them in the office. After class it was about another 3-4 hours before we got home. That was when we would play RPGs a lot. We didn’t have dice and we didn’t know what it was called. It was a year later that I found out that it was called RPGs and what DnD was all about from my classmates who spent summers in the US.

Role-playing was cheap, forced us to read a lot, and all other tools was left to our creativity and imagination. It was a game I played with my brothers and brought us very close.

It eventually became the focus of my career choice, taking up Multi-Media Arts specializing in Game Design and writing a 19C Philippine Historical Role-playing Game for my thesis.

Fast-forward to today. Role-playing has become a powerful business critical thinking technique. As game theory unraveled the complex interactions among individuals and organizations with mathematics, it highlighted the ability of empathy to intuitively make sense of these complex interactions. It has become a structured exercise for developing one’s empathy, honing it to better take in the character of another person and to generate ideas with the shift in perspective.

Sample Role-plays from Harvard Business School Press

Teaching business, management and strategy through role-playing a Scientific Journal

Teaching Empathy through Role-playing Exercise from the American Humanist Association.

TED Games Saving the World

Using Role-playing to Teach Empathy

Okay guys, this is, among other things, a work/list in progress, so please feel free to suggest others I might have missed/forgotten. I’ve very limited time but I managed to draw these out of the top of my head. In no particular order, here they are:

“John Connor gave me a picture of you once. I didn’t know why at the time. It was very old – torn, faded. You were young like you are now. You seemed just a little sad. I used to always wonder what you were thinking at that moment. I memorized every line, every curve. I came across time for you Sarah. I love you; I always have”

-Kyle Reese, father of John Connor, talking to Sarah Connor in the movie Terminator (1984) while hiding form the terminator. Aaww. That is so romantic,  moving across time (and space) to be with the one you love. 

Mulder’s email to Scully:

I’ve resisted contacting you for reasons I know you continue to appreciate. But, to be honest, some unexpected dimensions of my new life are eating away at any resolve I have left. I’m lonely, Dana, uncertain of my ability to live like this. I want to come home. To you, and to William.

Scully’s reply to Mulder’s email afterwards:

I hold no hope you can respond to this. Or that it reaches you. I only hope that you are alive.

I cannot help believing that you jumped off that train because you knew what I now know – that these “super-soldiers,” if that’s what they are, can in fact be destroyed. That the key to their destruction lies in the iron compound at that quarry.

I am scared for you, Mulder. And for William. The forces against us are unrelenting. But so is my determination. To see you again. To regain the comfort and safety we shared for so brief a time.

Until then, I remain forever yours… Dana

- In ‘The X-Files’ season 9 episode, ‘Trust No 1″. Mulder is separated for a time from Scully and their son, because if he hadn’t, he would be putting Scully and their son in danger. Aaww. Sniff sniff. 

Just remember…no matter what happens…I’ll always love you. ALWAYS.

- Superman to Lois Lane, before finally dying at the hands of the monster Doomsday, in Superman #75  (1993). The line really isn’t something new, but the situation and the overall atmosphere made it really special in my opinion.

So there you go sci-fi buffs, geeks, and nerds. Happy Valentine’s day.