This is a Google Quote: 'Science is nothing but developed perception, interpreted intent, common sense rounded out and minutely articulated.' George Santayana. That's not science at all -- that's deified science. Science is logical, not common sense; science is discovery, not intent -- you intend to discover, but you don't intend to discover what you have discovered, because that would be faith. But yes, science is minutely articulated -- and that's the problem with it - It doesn't think big enough!

The Philippines is more than 80% Roman Catholic -- does that explain Jose Rizal's view of the Filipinos' 'profound lethargy?' I think so. You cannot easily excite the Filipino, but when he's excited, he will go to extreme ends. He is not essentially materialistic as the other peoples of Asia. The culture is essentially lethargic. The opposite is that of the Western: hyperactive, peripatetic. You need a charismatic leader like Jaime Cardinal Sin to undivide and conquer: People Power. What I'm saying is that there cannot be any coup in this country. The people will not support it.

Catholics: Stuck in Limbo
Or, did you know that Limbo is pro-life?

On 12/26/05, Jack the Jut (jackthejut@gmail.com) quotes me and writes:

“Belief in Limbo is one of the pillars of the Catholic Church – cut that down and the whole structure falls.”

Dear Frank,

Thanks for mentioning this because I didn't know that Pope Benedict said something about Limbo. I wouldn't know if there is a definitive technical definition of " 'PILLARS' of the Catholic Church" but I do know that"limbo" is NOT mentioned in the Nicene or Apostle's Creed.

So I googled for pope benedict xvi + limbo. Interesting informative sites like http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1897480,00.htmlgave useful info.

Maligayang Pasko,

jack

Jack,

Even my wife questioned my use of 'pillar' – I didn’t say anything. Now I will: I'm entitled to my metaphor, am I not? I wasn't writing as if I were a scholar or a minister of the Church. I was expressing a layman's opinion. Okay, it's a good example of a bad hyperbole; but it's at most a venial sin. Now, wait a minute.

Jack, remember, it all started when someone (irresponsibly, I am constrained to say) wrote that Pope Benedict has declared that there is no Limbo after all. I checked the Internet and it wasn’t true. Yet, note that I joked that no one can take Limbo away from me, a Catholic: I want to dance the dance. To me, Limbo rocks!

Now Jack, I read your http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1897480,00.html. Plainly I can see it's like 99 others written on the subject. What about the other 100? My Google Advanced Search for Limbo "Catholic Church" gave me 159,000 English pages found in 0.08 seconds. Which dramatizes the fact that, Jack, the Internet is the biggest library in the world, pro and con - mostly con, I think - so I always go to more than one source; so now I ask you to do it yourself:

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4387. I quote from it: Jacques Maritain says: "Limbo is scorned by so many of today's theologians who don't know what they are doing."

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html. And yes, this does support my metaphor that Limbo is an important part of the building called the Catholic Church.

And Jack, if the Apostle's Creed doesn't mention it, it's not Catholic or it's not acceptable? A rhetorical question.

Be practical, Jack. We're stuck in Limbo! Even if we wanted to, we Catholics cannot 'abolish' Limbo as it is for babies who die unbaptized: You must realize that Limbo is pro-life like a true Catholic should be. Imagine, if there were no Limbo, why abortion will be very welcome anytime indeed. The argument will go like this: Anyway, this baby will go to Heaven straight from Earth! This baby will be better off there. Heaven forbids!

And Jack, pity us Catholics. What will we do with one of the world's masterpieces, Dante's Divine Comedy, if there were no Limbo? You can't appreciate that book without Limbo, where Dante writes: "Great grief seized on my own heart when this I heard, / because some people of much worthiness I knew, / who in limbo were suspended." It will become a Divine Tragedy. What about the rest of us? Oh, the delight it will give us! On our way to Heaven, we will see many of our friends there. Not to mention enemies.

Frank

Misjudging Judge Jones & The Dover Defendants (US)
Or, Not Faith but Reason as the Arbiter of Truth

Ah, the logical fallacies of a science-minded judge! He misjudges science; he misjudges biology; he misjudges scientific theory; he misjudges education too. That is why I judge him Misjudging Judge John E Jones III of the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. And that also summarizes what he labels the ‘Dover Intelligent Design Case’ is all about. And, as we shall see, the Dover Defendants, that is, the members of the Dover Area School Board of 2004 who advocated the theory of intelligent design, have been misjudging the case themselves. And I blame them for Misjudging Judge Jones. They did not present their case well enough.

Intelligent design: For or against?

We are talking here of public schools in the US. On 18 October 2004, the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania approved with a vote of 6-3 the following resolution:

Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught.

A month later, on 19 November 2004, the Board issued a press release that starting January 2005, teachers would be required to read to biology class students at Dover High School this statement:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

Another month later, on 14 December 2004, Tammy Kitzmiller led 11 parents in filing a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Board’s policy on intelligent design (the ID policy) as contained in its resolution of 18 October and the press release of 19 November. The suit contended that the ID policy ‘constitutes an establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.’

The trial lasted 6 weeks, from 26 September to 4 November 2004. Judge Jones’ judgment came down a year later, on 20 December 2005. Having downloaded the 139-page report (in pdf format) and having read quite a few news reports, now let me judge Judge Jones.

1^st, Judge Jones misjudges science

Judge Jones says the theory of intelligent design presented by the Dover Defendants is nothing but the theory of creationism in disguise since it posits a creator. Intelligent design necessitates a search for a supernatural designer while science necessitates only the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. Science requires empirical evidence, which the theory of intelligent design can never provide.

Now, Judge Jones is correct in all the above arguments. If you argue against the judge in these things, you are a loser. I suspect the defenders of the faith of intelligent design were arguing against the mind of the judge which was already made up against anything other than the theory of evolution. The Dover Defendants did not foresee that Judge Jones’ arguments would be all beside the point. The judge would hit them where they were weakest, using the straw man fallacy, thrusting the knife on the Achilles heel of the theory of intelligent design.

It doesn’t matter, because all that is irrelevant to the essence of science, which is the real issue, which both Judge Jones and the Dover Defendants missed. And I say this:

The essence of science is that is it is a tool in the search for truth, beauty and goodness. That essence can be appreciated in what is known as the scientific method. The steps in the method can be stated as follows:

(1) Observe some phenomenon – an event or happening in nature as yet inexplicable.
(2) Invent a tentative explanation for the phenomenon; this is called a hypothesis.
(3) Test hypothesis by experiments or further observation.
(4) Modify the hypothesis in the light of the results of your study or observation.
(5) Publish.

Repeat steps (1) to (4) until there are no significant discrepancies between hypothesis and results of experiments or observations. That is when hypothesis becomes theory. Where there are zero or nil discrepancies, theory becomes principle or law, like the law of supply and demand.

Considering all that, is the theory of evolution a valid scientific theory? It is not. It cannot be observed to be happening; it is merely imagined. What about the theory of intelligent design? It can be observed to be happening. You can see the ID of the universe, can’t you? The theory of evolution cannot be tested by experiment or observation, only speculation; the same with the theory of intelligent design. But one thing stands out: The theory of intelligent design is more scientific than the theory of evolution!

I’m not finished. Both theories are in fact tools in the search for truth, beauty and goodness. And neither can claim to be exclusive, to be the only way to discover what is out there. The conceit of science, which is not the conceit of faith, is that it is the correct and the only reasonable way to knowledge of what is true, what is good, what is beautiful. Science is the embodiment of Reason. That is illogical. Judge Jones and his friends the scientists forget that science cannot get out of itself and say with credibility (with Reason) that it is the right path, because that is a logical fallacy: That is affirming something and saying that the assertion is itself the proof that what is affirmed is true. The science friends assert that science is above faith, and that’s that. Because science claims it, it is so. That’s funny, because science can never prove the assertion that Science or Reason is the final arbiter of truth.

2^nd, Judge Jones misjudges biology

Judge Jones says the theory of intelligent design is not biology. Of course not. The theory of evolution is not biology either.

Perhaps what he sees is that the theory of ID does not involve life as we know it, not even matter. That is where he is wrong. If the theory of evolution attempts to explain the origin of the species, so does the theory of intelligent design – so both are dealing with biology, the study of life. The two theories just differ on the method of study. One is by experimentation, the other is by revelation. Science cannot deny revelation just because it cannot be proven. Neither can evolution be proven, and yet faith is not denying it.

Perhaps what he sees is that intelligent design has nothing to do with the teaching of biology. But Your Honor, it has everything to do with the honorable teaching of biology. The theory of ID provides an alternative explanation to the origin of life. I am a high school teacher myself, by profession, and I know that for too long the way the theory of evolution has been taught is that it is as if it were true, correct, proven, and incontestable. We are not teaching the children how to think for themselves, only to think the way we do. We are very good teachers of scientific biases, prejudices.

What kind of biology are we teaching the children when it is based on a theory taught as truth?

In biology, the cell theory is just a theory – what about the organismal theory? One says the basic unit of life is the cell; the other says the basic unit of life is the organism. One is disrespectful of life; one is respectful of life as we know it – guess which one? And guess which one is not being taught.

Since when was a scientific theory held sacred except the theory of evolution? The Malthusian theory of population has been debunked. The big bang theory remains high speculation and cannot be experimented on just like the theory of evolution. The germ theory of disease remains just that – if not, why are respectable institutions like Harvard University conducting scientific studies on the power of prayer to heal? Why is there so much interest in herbal folklore? Biology is not as simple as the biologists would have us believe! Life is not as simple as biology.

3^rd, Judge Jones misjudges scientific theory

Judge Jones rejects the theory of ID because, he says, it is ‘an untestable hypothesis.’ On the same logic, he ought to reject the theory of evolution because it is an untestable hypothesis! You cannot simulate evolution – eminent scientists claim, without proof, that evolution slowly occurs in millions of years. That is just plain and simple assertion. Another logical fallacy: Arguing by authority. You cannot conduct an experiment to prove it. Just because you cannot conduct an experiment to disprove it does not mean it is true.

A scientific theory is just that, a hypothesis that is acceptable to many people – evolution by millions of professionals and intelligent design by millions and millions more of people. If you go by the number of those who accept the theory, then intelligent design wins hands up.

Contrary to the claim of Judge Jones, the theory of ID is not unscientific at all. Just like the theory of evolution, the theory of ID is a hypothesis based on observable phenomena. And with either theory, one can formulate predictions that can be tested. For instance, even Harvard University is now conducting scientific research on the power of prayer to heal people physically and psychologically and to prolong life.

A scientific theory does not depend on any authority for its acceptability. And that is true with the theory of evolution and the theory of ID. It depends on proof, or reasonability.

Judge Jones says the theory of ID ‘violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation.’ Of course the theory of evolution denies the supernatural. But the theory of evolution is not the whole of science! It’s just a miniscule part of it. It is also science to come up with another possible explanation to the existence of life on earth, even if it be supernatural. The theory of evolution can neither be proved nor disproved; so is the theory of intelligent design – so what’s the difference? Actually, both are acceptable on faith.

Is Judge Jones saying there can be no other explanation for life on earth except the theory of evolution? That is the either/or logical fallacy: Only A is true; either it is A, or it is false.

4th, Judge Jones misjudges education

This Judge misjudges education too. The reason the Dover Defendants came up with their ID Policy is that they wanted to improve the teaching of biology at Dover High School by providing an alternative theory to that of evolution. In fact, that policy encourages the students to keep an open mind to any theory. That is the essence of education – to learn to keep an open mind to any phenomenon (to invoke the creative person in us) and react to it in a reasonable manner (invoke the critical person in us). In the mind of Judge Jones, there is no room for creativity. Judge, you have to have faith! Reason is not the only arbiter of beauty, not to mention truth and goodness.

Judge Jones states: ‘Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.’ So it is unconstitutional to open the mind of learners to other possibilities, other explanations, other theories. I wouldn’t want to send any of my children to a school founded on such a premise.

In 1987, the US Supreme Court ruled that none of the States in the union can require public schools to balance lessons on the theory of evolution with the theory of creationism. Judge Jones equates intelligence design with creationism. So Judge Jones believes with the Supreme Court that education is best served by teaching only one way of thinking? This is not simply a biology curriculum controversy, as the judge repeatedly calls it (9 times) in his 139-page report.

So then, Minnesota is more intelligent than Pennsylvania, for having new science standards, to be fully implemented in the 2007-2008 school year, which say in part that a student ‘will be able to explain how scientific and technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of or entire accepted theories and models, including but not limited to cell theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, plate tectonic theory, germ theory of disease and the big bang theory.’ Does Judge Jones have any objection to such language? That is how an intelligent mind works, and how to think like that is what we should be teaching our children, not one-track-mindedness.

Judge Jones claims that the Board’s decision to include the theory of intelligent design is in fact to promote religion in the public school classroom. The judge does not understand that it is in fact to promote intelligent thinking among the students, even just to let them know that science does not have all the answers to life’s questions. (It doesn’t even have all the questions!) And if an untested, untestable theory is unacceptable, why the theory of evolution should be the first one to go out the window of the public school classroom! It has overstayed its welcome.

It is not good education to teach logical fallacies and claim them to be proper. Judge Jones says the teaching of the theory of ID is against the Establishment Clause, meaning it is against that part of the First Amendment to the US Constitution that says, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.’ Judge Jones is saying the theory of intelligent design establishes religion in the classroom. That is arguing by stretching the point, or reducing it to an absurdity.

Judge Jones is also not a good model for an adult in authority educating the young by his example because, among other logical fallacies, he uses the unpardonable argumentum ad hominem (arguing by attacking the person). He should be the last person on earth to do that. In his report, he says among other things that: (a) The Board’s ID Policy consisted of ‘breathtaking inanity.’ Uncalled for. (b) ‘The citizens of the Dover Area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy.’ Irrelevant. (c) ‘This case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy.’ Immaterial. He is proving the unconstitutionality of the ID Policy of the Dover Defendants by affirming its unconstitutionality.

Professors and students and judges should all be unlearning logical fallacies and uncouth language.

‘The network is the computer’

‘The network is the computer’ is a paradigm, according to Patrick Rossiter (Talkback to ZDNet News, posted 2005 September 9), that was first put in exactly those words by Digital Equipment before Sun Microsystems copyrighted that statement in 1982. No matter. Sun has made that paradigm its trademark. And now, with its strategic partnership with Google, the company that has become synonymous with the power of the Internet, the network will fast become the computer really.

Years ago, I caught the unreason. Now I’m catching the idea, after decades of ignoring it. What ‘the network is the computer’ means is that we will be relying less and less on intelligent and proprietary (expensive) software in our PCs and relying more and more on intelligent and (almost) free software available on call via our Internet connections. It’s happening now and, like the alphabet, it’s all free, free! Google search, Google Print, Google Earth, OpenOffice, Java etc, with Linux on the horizon. Open source they call it. It’s very liberating, very creative. Reason for me to embrace the paradigm.

Microsoft’s paradigm is this: ‘The personal computer is the computer.’ The reason is that it wants a PC in every home, and a Microsoft software in every touch of the computer keyboard. Right now I’m stuck with Microsoft Office, but it shouldn’t take me long to get what I need from OpenOffice. I’m a very patient man teaching a very impatient man: me.

Katrina & my faith in the United States

This week, I can connect with much feeling with New York but not with New Orleans, after the 2-week familiar visit of my daughter and family from NY (Queens Borough) and after Hurricane Katrina’s frightful 2-day visit to NO (State of Louisiana), among other places. Now NO is No-Man’s Land, essentially, suffering an estimated $100 billion in damage, not including loss of lives and limbs, loss of opportunities, loss of almost everything. I sympathize, but not deeply. I don’t know why. Distance lends disenchantment to the view? Notwithstanding, I’m suddenly thinking ... Katrina was not simply an all-powerful storm, Category 5: it was an all-powerful signal, Status Urgent, an SOS: Save Our Ship of State. Right now it is as if I can read the handwriting on the wall, it is as if I can hear the wailing in the wind. And this is the message I get: Peace. Almighty United States, it’s time for you to stop sending and spending billions of dollars for war in other countries; it’s time for you to stop sending and spending billions of dollars for space shuttles and your silly science into space – it’s time for you to start spending all those billions and billions for all those millions of poor Americans – if not also for us other billions of poor peoples of the world. Be a beacon to the world, even if the world happens to be only as large as the United States. Be a Lead & Model to the universe and not its Lord & Master. Then for all ages you will truly be invincible, indestructible. War, like Katrina, is destructive; unlike the unholy war in Iraq, which now calls for the reconstruction of that country, Katrina is a clarion call for the reconstruction of the US, not simply New Orleans or even Louisiana. A paradigm shift is necessary for the US; now it must reconstruct not simply the economy of New Orleans but the way of loving and living and leisuring in the whole United States of America, transforming her senses of nationhood: thoughts, feelings, tastes, and her ways of touching and seeing. Peace, America. Make love, not war! Forget about women’s rights and gay rights and children’s rights – instead, remember family rights. Remember and rectify. Recognize the AIDS epidemic for what it is: a loose morals epidemic. Recognize abortion for what it is: a failure of reason, a failure of faith. I have respected you, I have admired you. But beginning today, until you learn the lesson of peace, America, to me you are a great country no more: you are only a grit country now. True grit you have, true greatness you have none. Yesterday, September 3, I read that the US Senate had already approved a US $10.5 billion federal first aid for New Orleans. In my country, at an exchange rate of $1 to P55, that translates to P577,500,000,000. With a regular annual budget, if the Philippine government spent it all, that money will last for 10 years. A dollar goes a long, long way if you know how to spend it. America, go back to reason! Reason will tell you you are not preacher Pat Robertson and Katrina is not like a President in another country whom you hate and whom you can recommend to be assassinated. The aftermath of Katrina shows that, America, you are not even ready for natural disasters in your own country – so, please stop making more man-made disasters elsewhere! America, go back to faith! Faith will tell you to love your neighbor as you love yourself – learn to love yourself first before you export your kind of love! In that, America, I still have faith in you.

Lonserenio’s request

I am a member of the Rizal_RP Yahoogroup; I joined January this year, 2005. In the first few months, I was very enthusiastic in reacting to the messages and in posting my own messages. Then I decided to concentrate on the postings of one other member, he among those who responded to my posting on the thoughts of Rizal. But I grew tired of the exchange within the month when I realized that he was saying things just so he can say things. He was not trying to be logical at all – he was just trying to show that he knew more and better about Rizal than I did, or that he could get himself out of a tight situation (bad logic) he put himself in: I kept pointing out the error of his words. So I decided to end the exchange and told him in my post (which I knew every member of the group could read): ‘You are impossible.’ I should have said but I didn’t: ‘Sorry.’

It has been about 2 or 3 months since. I had been thinking it was better if I surrendered my membership, but I didn’t do it. I kept on fast-reading the postings by their first lines, and nothing interested me enough to respond until this month, after mid-August, when the topic of the valedictory poem of the national hero came up. You see, I have myself translated that poem, studied 32 other English translations of it, and reached several conclusions about the scholarship of the translators, Filipino and foreigners alike. In fact, I have written and am now final-editing a book based on that poem and the English translations I can get my hands on – Jose Rizal: Goodbye & Hello. (If you want my translation, post a request in your comment on this blog and it will reach me.)

And now comes another example of how some Filipinos think of millions of Filipinos, whoever they are wherever they are. On August 17, ‘Lonserenio’ writes: ‘Can I ask materials about Rizal’s ‘My Last Farewell?’ I’m going to facilitate a discussion about the poem in class. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.’ On August 18, CDV posts ‘My Last Farewell’ by Charles Derbyshire, his translation of ‘Mi Ultimo Adios.’

In his post, CDV says: ‘This request gives us an indication of how the computer/Internet technology is not adequately available to the Filipino population in the Philippines. That is sad. What is possibly sadder is how the technology is used by the few Filipinos who do have access to the technology … but that is another issue.’

No, CDV, it is not another issue. And the request of Lonserenio is not an indication of how the Internet is unavailable to the Filipinos in these islands; it is an indication of how the Internet has not been accessed by Lonserenio. That poem and that translation have long been available at Rizal_RP, in ‘Rizal’s Life and Writings’ – all Lonserenio had to do was click his way to it. It is an indication that Lonserenio’s Internet access stopped short of Rizal.

No, Lonserenio’s request does not indicate that the Internet is not available to many Filipinos; in fact, it is now available to millions of Filipinos, accessible even in sleepy towns like my hometown Asingan in Pangasinan. I said ‘accessible,’ not ‘accessed.’ And how do the millions of kids use the Internet? For games. And why is that? Hundreds of thousands of adults encourage them, the ones who own the Internet cafés or their consultants, as they are only after making so much money, not after helping the youth learn more or better. I suspect that that is the same case in the United States and elsewhere in the world. The Filipinos? We are not alone!

And no, Lonserenio’s request about that poem is not an indication of how ‘the few Filipinos’ who have access use the Internet; it just indicates how Lonserenio is using it – he is not like he should be. Or he doesn’t know how to look for what he needs. No, we don’t teach students to think for themselves. It happens in the Philippines; it happens in the Americas. Millions access the Internet, that’s all. Pity.

And no, Lonserenio’s request is not simply for a copy of that poem but ‘materials about’ that poem. That includes the poem itself (just to be sure) and – the more important thing – discussion points. Obviously, Lonserenio feels he is lost when it comes to that poem, so you have to help him facilitate a class discussion. Now then, let me give some sample discussion points that I think he wants:

2nd stanza: Is this Rizal’s imprimatur on the Katipunan revolution, that bloody revolution? Or is this his way of saying, ‘Let the others choose their own way of expressing love of country, but I choose martyrdom’? Explain your answer.

3rd stanza: Is Charles Derbyshire’s famous translation of the first line, ‘I die as I see the dawn break’ a faithful translation of the original? (‘Yo muero cuando veo que el cielo se colora’). I say it is not. Discuss. (Literal translation: ‘I die as I see the sky takes color.’)

4th stanza: I can summarize the message of this stanza into 4 words: ‘To make men worthy.’ Agree or disagree? Debate.

5th stanza: What is the poet’s living desire for his country: (a) freedom? (b) development? (c) dignity? (d) honor? (e) all of the above? Discuss.

7th stanza: This is a song of peace – why do I say that?

8th stanza: Whom does the poet refer to when he says ‘And in serene evenings a prayer for me state’ (my translation of the 4th line, ‘Y en las serenas tardes cuando por mi alguien ore’): Catholic or Protestant? Defend your answer.

9th stanza: Discuss what the poet means by ‘Y ora por ti que veas tu redencion final’ (‘And pray for your redemption final’ – my translation). Does redemption here mean revolution?

August 18, Ka Edong del Rosario, ‘sleepless OF in Japan’ he calls himself, posts: ‘Thank you for your posting of ‘Mi Ultimo Adios.’ It gave me a chance to once more read it, savor it and meditate upon it. I swear, it never loses its beauty and its message. It’s always a refreshing and an almost religious experience every time I read it. Gat Jose Rizal’s love for his country was boundless. If I can claim just a fraction of it, I can die happy and fulfilled.’

And I can swear that ‘Mi Ultimo Adios’ is an inconsequential title of that poem, given by Rizal’s friend Mariano Ponce, as the poet himself did not give a title to it. The best title is found in the first line of the poem; it is also a literary tradition to give the first line as the title to a headless poem. And so the title of that poem should be: ‘Adios, patria adorada, region del sol querida’ (‘Farewell, beloved country, loved region of the sun’ – a literal translation, but you get the point). That first line gives you an excellent idea of what the poem is all about.

August 18, CDV again (everything in italics below):

Lonserenio, the poem is beautiful all by itself. I would suggest facilitating a discussion on it without prejudicing your reaction to the poem by others’ commentaries on it.

On the contrary, you have to study the others’ commentaries on it – the more the better. If you want to learn, you can’t help but expose your own prejudices (or lack of knowledge) by studying what others are saying about it. That is why it is important that you learn to think for yourself first. (If you didn't learn that at home, you should learn that in school. A good substitute: Surf the Internet and read contrary opinions, then decide for yourself.)

Read the poem for what it is … a Filipino very articulately pouring out to us his love of country, a love few of us, if any, can match.

Articulate, yes. Love of country, yes. Matching that love – that depends on how you look at martyrdom. (a) To give up one’s life for one’s country – that only a few have dared and done: Jose Rizal, Jose Abad Santos, Andres Bonifacio, Gregorio del Pilar, Macario Sacay. (b) To offer one’s life for one’s country – that millions are doing. If you are doing your menial work right, you are doing right by your country. If you are teaching right, you are serving your country right. If you are learning right, I know you love your country. We can match Rizal’s love for his country without dying for it.

Do not be afraid that your ‘feelings’ about Rizal’s words in the poem are ‘wrong.’ Feelings cannot be wrong, and poetry is all about feelings.

No, I don’t think so. Yes, feelings can be wrong. If I hate a poem and you love it, one of us must be wrong – we can’t be both right if we have the same assumptions. If we are coming from different directions, then love and hate for the same poem can be right.

Is poetry all about feelings? I don’t think so. It’s more thoughts than feelings.

Many Filipino teachers (not all) are poorly equipped to encourage students to have the courage to read any literature and judge it for themselves based on their own thinking. Many Filipino teachers would rather find opportunities to show the poor intimidated Filipino student how little s/he knows compared to the teacher.

What model of education is these Filipino teachers following? American (US). If the teachers are poorly equipped, their teachers had been poorly equipped. You are also describing teachers who are terror professors – there are quite a few of them, but they are not the common kind. The common kind is the one that parrots what the books say. They themselves had not been taught to think for themselves. Are you sure the American teachers are better in this regard? I don’t think so. The Americans would not even want God mentioned in the classroom – they are using Reason, and that is only one way of thinking, only one way of arriving at the truth. Faith is the other way. That’s why the Americans separate Church and State. State is always right; faith is always beside the point, not right. The Americans do not seem to realize that that’s limited thinking. That’s what our teachers learned from the Americans. If the student has not learned, the teacher has not taught.

If you read the Ultimo Adios and get nothing out of it, that is not a wrong reaction or feeling (though a teacher may try to convince you that it is). You should be able, however, to explain why you get nothing out of it. An answer like ‘ay basta!’ is not a good answer.

‘Ay basta!’ means literally and evasively, ‘Enough of this.’ If you read Rizal’s valedictory poem and you get nothing out of it, there is something wrong with you! It is the most beautiful poem of the Filipino ever in a foreign language; it is a most beautiful poem in the original Spanish itself, and it is a poem about love of country.

Rizal wanted Filipino students to learn to think for themselves, not merely to parrot what the teacher wants them to say. Many of the teachers themselves merely parrot what is in the ‘teacher’s guide’ that they get. They cannot think for themselves either, because that was how they were raised and trained. We Filipinos are not as dumb as we have been made to think we are.

Yes, Rizal wanted the youth to learn to think for themselves; unfortunately, he did not specify how that would be done – and that is a necessary part of the advice. How do we learn to think for ourselves? Rizal’s two novels the Noli and the Fili do not provide the answers either.

Study Rizal and you will see that he was not afraid to point out to a teacher when he thought the teacher was wrong. That would upset any insecure teacher with a low self-esteem, but that is the teacher’s problem, not the student’s. If the teacher is wrong, s/he is wrong whether or not s/he has high or low self-esteem.

When a student points out to the teacher that he (the teacher) is wrong, it means that the student has learned more about the subject matter than the teacher. Still, education is not about pointing out to the teacher when he is wrong; it is about learning to think, and part of that is learning to accept that others are thinking that may be contrary to yours.

Unfortunately, because of the backwardness of education in the Philippines, you may not get a good grade for being what Rizal wants you to be, i.e. a student who can THINK for himself. So a good transition would probably be to be able to give two answers: What you think the teacher wants to hear and the real answer which would be what you, as a disciple of Rizal’s advice, really THINK is the answer.

‘Because of the backwardness of education in the Philippines’ – That’s a sweeping statement, a deep indictment of Philippine education. Backward? In a direct sense yes, because they are not teaching creative thinking in most schools and in most classes. And the same thing can be said of education in the United States of America: Backward. Because they themselves are not teaching creative thinking in most schools and in most classes. The Philippine educational system, along with that of the US, is backward. And lCDV, why do you think that the real answer is always what the student thinks it is? You make the teacher look stupid, the student real smart. I’m a teacher, at least I studied to be a teacher.

But remember, you must be able to use REASON to back up your THINKING. That is Rizal’s teaching for us.

It is correct to say you must use reason to support your thinking. But using reason is only half of thinking. Reason is logic. Creativity is the other half of thinking, the more important half. Science = reason. With science alone, we are left to the devices of men, to the genius of the men of science. What if they are wrong? The atomic bomb represents the genius of science – it was used to bomb Japan with reason. But that’s the point – you can reason your way out of violence, but as for me, I prefer peace. And I cannot use reason on my way to peace. Only creativity can lead you to peace as the way out of violence, out of war. You cannot use violence on your way to peace – it would be contradicting yourself.

That is correct – reason was Rizal’s teaching for us. And that is where Rizal was wrong. He debated with Father Sanchez about ‘the rites of the Catholic cult’ (Leon Ma Guerrero, The First Filipino: A Biography of Jose Rizal 1991: 374). Calling the Catholic Church a cult is name-calling, an unreasonable way to debate. He was using reason all the time. He forgot that you cannot use reason against faith, in the same way that you cannot use faith to deny reason – reason and faith are two different avenues to the truth, and it is the conceit of the man of reason (science) to claim that reason alone is the way to the truth.

That is my faith.