When I was in first year high school, my Values Education teacher asked the class to read the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey. The book itself is actually integrated in our curriculum that our exams [...]]]>

When I was in first year high school, my Values Education teacher asked the class to read the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey. The book itself is actually integrated in our curriculum that our exams will include some questions based on the book. Being a devotee of the Iskol Bukol philosophy, I didn’t read the whole book and survived the subject by using the ever-reliable book summaries and outlines found on the internet. Almost 7 years later, a company I worked for as an intern conducted a 7 Habits seminar for us interns. Being the Nah I Already Know That Student, I listened as if it’s just a repetition of things I already know.  Now, almost a decade has passed after my first encounter with that book and I decided to read its entirety. I can now say this—I should have followed the instruction of my Values Education teacher.

After reading the whole book, I suddenly felt that there is a big untapped potential hidden beneath my boxers. Of course, that’s a me-ta-phor. You got it anyway. The book urged me to have a shift of paradigm in the various roles I play in my life. I recently made a promise to blog a reflection entry about all the [business] books that I read. Actually, I failed this promise since this book is the second book that I finished after I made that promise, haha–and the 7 Habits is currently haunting me for not fulfilling such. Anyway, here’s a nuthshell of the whole book.

The 7 Habits Framework from Change-Management-Coach.com

A. Private Victories: The Independence Habits. These are the different victories one should achieve in order to be effectively gain public victories although Covey contented that the Private Victory habits are not prerequisites for the Public Victory habits.

1. Be proactive. The habit of choosing a response to a specific stimulus.

The book has a different approach in defining “proactive.” Modern literature tells us that being proactive means doing something immediately before a bad situation could commence or become worse. In the book, Covey defined proactive as having the freewill to choose a response for specific stimulus. Proactive people do not blame the environment or anything external (the stimulus) for their current situation because they can do something that would alleviate the status quo (choosing the response).

Wow, I must say I’m really guilty of blaming anything external. But when Covey said that there’s a big space between stimulus and response and it’s a human ability to choose what response he can make, I realized that I am this powerful. Let’s stop blaming something (or someone) or transferring burdens and do something instead.

2. Begin with the end in mind. The habit of personal leadership.

The book says that everyone should have a clear mission statement and life plan with your real purpose in life stated therein. I have been planning my life plan just recently–what career course to take and how could I get to my destination but after reading the book, I realized that the planning that I have been doing is just the tip of the ice berg. I should reflect on my real mission and real purpose in life with all my staple values as a guide–no matter how cheesy it may get.

3. Put first things first. The habit of personal management.

Management means doing the first things first. Leadership, on the other hand, is knowing what those first things are. So, before we can be good at doing this habit, the second habit must be done accurately. Anyway, the book showed a Time Management Matrix:

Time Management Matrix

According to Covey, most of our time are devoted to Urgent and Important things (Quadrant 1)–which is quite logical. However, when we don’t devote some time to other important things (Quadrant 2), although not urgent, Quadrant 1 will go bigger and bigger until it can eat us alive. Covey suggested that we give some time to Q2 through getting some time alloted to not important things (Q3 and/or Q4). They are, after all, not important.

I admit that my daily tasks are a big carnivore and I always complain to Mr. Universe that I don’t have much time. After reflecting on this habit, I realized that every task, endeavor or even leisure activities can have their own time allotment if managed strategically. Covey even proposed a planner structure to accommodate this kind of strategy (visit my Grand Wish List page to see the planner).

B. Public Victories: The Interdependence Habits. These are the habits that we can have to attain social and/or emotional effectiveness. Covey said that we can practice these habits right away although the Private Victory Habits are a good starter to have effective Public Victory Habits.

4. Think Win/Win. The Habit of Striving to Win Together.

Covey offered different scenarios of social negotiations or transactions: Lose/Lose, Win/Lose, Lose/Win, Win, Win/Win and Win/No Deal. Of course, we’re all after the Win/Win scenario to be highly effective. There were several strategies offered by Covey in order to achieve this. However, I want to share the most striking lesson I learned here: Win/Win is different from Compromise. Back in college, I experience a lot of group works. I mean, a lot. The prevailing philosophy during that time is to meet halfway, to compromise. But the problem with that  is that no party is fully satisfied. Covey contented that there’s always a third alternative which is fully beneficial to all parties involved.

5. Seek first to understand then to be understood. The Habit of Empathic Communicating.

As a debater back in college, I was trained to quickly prepare a (killing) response to a person (or to a debater) while he or she is speaking (or debating/delivering his or her speech). Until now, I admit, that it seems to be a personal instinct of mine to form reactions or rebuttals in my head while someone is speaking. Covey contented that a highly effective individual can listen to and empathize with someone speaking (seeking to understand). Moreover, the author suggested to refrain from using autobiographical responses when responding because it defeats the purpose of empathy. However, I felt that the to be understood part is not as exhausted as the to understand part. Probably, the latter needs to have more attention than the former. After all, our response is highly dependent on what we understood.

6. Synergize. The Habit of Creative Cooperation.

I recently said in my latest Triumvirate entry, that eating Reese’s Ice Cream is yummier than eating Reese’s and Chocolate Ice Cream individually. I know, I know, this is such a juvenile example. My point is, the combination of something is a lot different from its individual components. But cooperation or teamwork alone is not enough for synergy to take place. The culture, creativity, trust and cooperation levels are defining factors. There must be an environment conducive enough that all brilliant ideas can be juiced out from all the parties involved.

C. Renewal

7. Sharpen the saw: The Habit of Continuous Improvement

I completed a thesis about Total Quality Management. One of its major tenets is Continuous Improvement which is highly related to the Sharpen the Saw habit. Covey even said that the TQM movement can be related to the 7 Habits in general. Anyway, sharpen the saw basically means improving the following dimensions: Physical, Mental, Social/Emotional and Spiritual. Covey suggested to devote at least an hour a day to sharpen any of the said dimensions so that all dimensions are covered in a week.

The 7 Habits are hard to master but everything can be readily applied. I am quite glad that every time I decide on something or every time I am about to do something, these 7 Habits are haunting me. Haha. This summary-slash-reflection isn’t enough for you to imbibe the lessons found in the book. Trust me, I saw something like this back in High School and in my college internship (see Paragraph 1, k) and it never engaged me to do something to be an effective person. I also keep notes on my journal so that I can immediately reflect on its application to my daily life. There is also a Personal Workbook available that I want to buy–yes, I’m that willing to live the 7 Habits. However, like most other philosophies, I’m not willing to succumb myself to it to the extent that I’m not willing to learn other things or to listen to criticisms about it. I’ll practice these habits but I’ll never be a hardcore fan.

Business Books Update

Finished Reading:

1. Freakonomics by Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner (Further Reading for Sharpen the Saw; Mental Dimension)
2. Self Improvement 101 by John Maxwell (Further Reading for Sharpen the Saw; Spiritual Dimension)
3. 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey

Currently Reading:

1. Everyone Communicates; Few Connect by John Maxwell (Further Reading for Seek First to Understand then to be Understood)

The Oblation was made by Tolentino, then a professor of Fine Arts and posthumously declared a 

The Oblation was made by Tolentino, then a professor of Fine Arts and posthumously declared a National Artist of the Philippines, with the help of Anastacio T. Caedo, his student apprentice. According to a book tribute to Guillermo Tolentino, it was his friend, Ferdinand Glenn Gagarin, not director-actor Fernando Poe, Sr. (as popularly rumored), who served as the model for the sculpture. Caedo would later become a professor of Fine Arts in the University himself, succeeding the deceased Tolentino. Caedo’s other works include a monument of the Philippine national hero Jose Rizal for the German government that was installed in the Jose Rizal Park in Idelstien, Germany.

The idea for the Oblation was first conceived during the presidency of Rafael Palma, who was the one to commission Tolentino to make the sculpture. Palma requested that the statue would be based on the second verse of Rizal’s Mi Ultimo Adios;

The concrete sculpture painted to look like bronze, measures 3.5 meters in height, symbolizing the 350 years of Spanish rule in the Philippines. The sculpture is replete with references of selfless dedication and service to the nation, and as Tolentino himself describes it;

Originally, the statue was completely naked, but, as morality was prevaling at that time, it was modified by former U.P. President Jorge Bocobo with the addition of a fig leaf to cover the genitals. The sculpture was funded by the U.P. students of 1935-1936, and was presided by Potenciano Illusorio and Jose B. Laurel, Jr., presidents of the student council during the first and second semester respectively and was dedicated on March 1939 at the University’s Manila campus where it stayed until February 1949, when the main administrative offices of the university moved to the new Diliman campus in Quezon City. The transfer of the Oblation to its new home served as the highlight of the move from Manila, which is historically referred to as the Exodus. The sculpture in front of the Quezon Hall at Diliman was installed facing west, purportedly a tribute to the American roots of the university. Today, that sculpture is only a bronze replica (which was recast from the original in Italy in 1950, under the supervision of Tolentino himself) dedicated on U.P.’s Golden Jubilee on November 29, 1958. The original sculpture is being kept at the Main Library (Gonzalez Hall), the former site of the U.P. College of Fine Arts.

Several replicas of the Oblation were made for campuses of the University of the Philippines, some by National Artist Napoleon Abueva. 2005 National Artist nominee Glenn Bautista, likewise, did his celebrated version of the Oblation in pen and ink as part of his schoolplates at the UP College of Fine Art under Professor Rebillon. The sculpture was registered at the Intellectual Property Office in the year 2004. Being the main symbol of the university, the Oblation is the centerpiece of many UP-related logos, like those of the Philippine Collegian and other official student publications, the UP Cooperative, and the UP centennial emblem. -Wikipedia

Support the ideals of The Oblation through a Twitter Twibbon!

The moment my Organizational Communication 152 (Communication Trends and Styles) professor handed out our readings for this week, I thought I already encountered that book in the past. Unfortunately, it wasn’t the book I was expecting. Anyway, the readings [...]]]>

The moment my Organizational Communication 152 (Communication Trends and Styles) professor handed out our readings for this week, I thought I already encountered that book in the past. Unfortunately, it wasn’t the book I was expecting. Anyway, the readings that my professor tasked us to read are two chapters from the book Wikinomics by Tapscott and Williams. The book that I thought was the one to read is Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner. They sound almost the same so my mind equated them as one (blame my brain).

When I finished reading the two chapters from Wikinomics, my mind recalled a specific concept from the book Freakonomics. Fortunately, both of the books dwell about modern economics so associating concepts from the first book to the other is generally an easy intellectual task. Anyway, the concept I have recalled is Information Asymmetry. According to Freakonomics, Information Asymmetry is prevalent in commercial transactions. For example, between a broker and a house buyer, the broker has more knowledge about the pricing scheme of the houses he or she sells. Generally, the era of capitalism suggests that sellers or manufacturers are more knowledgeable than their counterpart–the buyers. The symmetry, to boost profit, must be asymmetrical as much as possible.

Information asymmetry was greatly wounded by, guess what, the internet. During these days, the consumers are empowered– more than empowered than what the consitutions wants. We are able to know the ABCs of a specific product or service. More importantly, we are able to know what others think about it through mass collaborationwhich the other book, Wikinomics, discussed about.

Correlating the Freaky to the Wiki, I could see that Wikinomics dwelled more on how mass collaboration makes the capitalist information asymmetry to be otherwise (to make information symmetrical that is). According to the authors, Wikinomics is based on four ideas: Openness, Peering, Sharing, and Acting Globally. Let’s take a closer look at each idea to see how mass collaboration makes information more symmetrical between two parties.

Continue Reading at The Vinculum

And today’s Rizal Day. I was planning to write a year-ender article but I think it’s more contextual to write an entry about Rizal–the blogosphere lacks some In-commemoration-of-Jose-Rizal entries so I am more pressured to write something about him. [...]]]>

Original image from www.uweb.ucsb.edu

And today’s Rizal Day. I was planning to write a year-ender article but I think it’s more contextual to write an entry about Rizal–the blogosphere lacks some In-commemoration-of-Jose-Rizal entries so I am more pressured to write something about him. But of course, I won’t make this as a fanboy’s entry. I will share an expounded version of my reaction paper to Renato Constantino’s Veneration Without Understanding. At first glance or quick-read, the article might sound Anti-Rizal or Anti-Rizal-as-the-national-hero write-up but there’s even more than its face value. As I finished reading the article, there were multiple questions that entered my mind:

1. Is there a presence of standards that would determine a national hero?
2. Is there a presence of a certain hierarchy that states that this heroic feature is more important than another heroic feature?
3. Is Rizal really over-glorified?
4. How much glorification would equate to over-glorification?
5. Was Rizal a wrong choice for being a National Hero?
6. Who could replace him if ever there will be a revamp?

For the national revolution is invariably the one period in a nation’s history when the people were most united, most involved, and most decisively active in the fight for freedom. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that almost always the leader of that revolution becomes the principal hero of his people.

This is the primary premise of Constantino to the logic that Rizal should not be hailed as a principal hero: The primary criterion for a principal hero is his or her involvement in a significant national revolution. But I ask the question, is this really the standard? Is the involvement in a national revolution the only criterion for being a national hero? I concede to the fact that a national revolution is really a big thing or even the only way when it comes to a group of people’s fight for liberty and independence. But we must also accept the presence of the multitude of other factors that would make you, if not a national hero, a hero.

In our case, our national hero was not the leader of our Revolution. In fact, he repudiated that Revolution.

Here is another argument. Rizal was not part of the revolution. Worse, he repudiated it. Repudiating the importance of a revolution and the revolution itself is almost a double crime for a supposedly universally-valid national hero. And that made Rizal even more invalid. But I ask this question, is the national revolution so important and so vital that repudiating it would make you an invalid hero or a national hero? There are many ways of becoming a hero. I am no Rizal fan but I take logic into consideration. I can see Rizal’s perspective in this. I believe that he believes that it is indeed important that we have to consider different factors before we do something. Rizal believed that a revolution might not work and we need to go into the grassroots level first by, for example, educating our children.

Rizal and The Revolution

Because Rizal took no part in that Revolution and in fact he repudiated it, the general regard for our revolution is not as high as it otherwise would be.

I agree with Constantino on this one. I had different history subjects from my grade school and high school years up to my tertiary education years. On all of those years, the role of the revolution e.g. The Katipunan was exemplified. But if I look back on those years, I really didn’t much appreciate the bloody revolution. I felt that there was an outward emphasis on the notion of The-Pen-is-mightier-than-the-sword. True, using our writing skills could be a form of revolution. But the real, tangible revolution can be felt and even actualized in a revolution with armed revolutionists.

We have magnified Rizal’s role to such extent that we have lost our sense of proportion and relegated to a subordinate position our great mean and the historic events in which they took part.

I totally agree with Constantino. As I have mentioned, throughout my years as a student, Rizal was really the emphasized one. Well, it might be because he is the recognized national hero, but we should not forget our other heroes as well. I can clearly remember my history textbooks back in grade school wherein there are some biographies of different Filipino heroes. All are brief ones, except for one–Rizal’s. The problem is, in our early curriculum and how teachers teach history, they just bypass other heroes. The lesson becomes trivial and translates to not appreciating that specific figure. Compare it to Rizal, which even our parents idolize him and make us idolize him too. I remember my mom telling me that I should be a Rizal.

Rizal never advocated independence, nor did he advocate armed resistance to the government. He urged reform from within by publicity, by public education and appeal to public conscience. They favored a hero who would not run against the grain of American colonial policy.

I really agree with this since it is strongly grounded by some written accounts. But I want also to consider a perspective wherein the glass-is-half-full. The Americans’ motive by doing so falls into two perspectives. The first one is the negative one: They made Rizal as the national hero to make us passive revolutionists, therefore, making their stay a peaceful one. The second one is the positive one: They made Rizal as the national hero because they believe that we need to follow one of his ideals—to educate ourselves first before liberty. Now the question is this, what was the Americans’ real motive?

It must be remembered that the Filipino members of the Philippine Commission were conservative illustrados. The Americans regarded Rizal as belonging to this class. This was, therefore, one more point in his favor. Rizal belonged to the right social class—the class that they were cultivating and building up for leadership.

The uncritical attitude of his cultists has been greatly responsible for transforming biographers into hagiographers. His weaknesses and errors have been subtly underplayed and his virtues grossly exaggerated.

I have read a quotation by Abraham Lincoln. It reads: If you look for the bad in people, you will surely find it. What’s the point of finding and studying Rizal’s faults? If we think about it, all of our nation’s heroes have their own faults. We study their respective legacies because we could draw inspiration from them. I also believe that a part of studying history is to find problems and investigate their causes. But for now, we should not cry over spilled milk.

The Role of Heroes

If there had been no Rizal, another type of talent who have appeared who might have given a different style to the historic struggle.

I think that this is the most illogical statement by Constantino. His logic is like this: If there were no Rizal, there would be another heroic figure that would appear. And not to mention, he might give a different style. I don’t know if this is a prophecy by Constantino but I believe that the absence of Rizal may really change the course of Philippine History. And his absence may give another possible situation but not necessarily a new, alternative Rizal.

Rizal may have given form and articulation and color to the aspiration of people. But even without him, the nationalist struggle would have ensued.

I disagree with Constantino. I believe that everything affects everything else. The absence of Rizal would change everything, any possible situation may happen. We should not discount other possibilities other than the ensuing of the struggle. The presence or absence of Rizal may or may not trigger the revolution.

Relevance or Irrelevance Today

Economic prosperity spawned discontent when the native beneficiaries saw a new world of affluence opening for themselves and their class. They attained a new consciousness and hence, a new goal – that of equality with the peninsulares – not in the abstract, but in practical economic and political terms.

I believe that a similar situation exists today. Let’s see the Modern Manila. It is every probinsiyano’s and pronbinsiyana’s dream to go the metro. Manila is portrayed as a model of economic prosperity (at least in the Philippines) where dreams and aspirations are fulfilled. The metropolitans could be the modern peninsulares. And our rural people wanted to equal them by stepping into the wild waters of the urban jungle.

A true historical review would prove that great men are those who read the time and have a deeper understanding of reality. It is their insights that make them conversant with their periods and which enable them to articulate the needs of the people. To a large extent, Rizal, the ilustrado, fulfilled this function, for in voicing the goals of his class he had to include the aspirations of the entire people.

Our politicians today (which, most of them, belong to the elite society) see to it that they need to include the voice of the masses. I don’t know if this is just a politicking tactic but I believe that since there is a class gap, the needs of the masses don’t equate with the needs of the elite. Rizal’s burden was to voice out the needs of the masses. In the status quo our leaders have the burden to see the needs of the masses and voice them out.

The Negation of Rizal

The true hero is one with the masses; he does not exist above them.

Well the concept of a true hero is really subjective in nature. But taking into consideration today’s society, I could see that our small heroes are really found within the masses. Those heroes are their leaders who speak in behalf of them and encourage them to protest, to launch a revolution. I haven’t felt any of our elite politicians launch a revolution.

The inarticulate are now making history while the articulate may be headed for historical anonymity, if not ignominy.

Well this is not true all the time. But nowadays, we could really see the inarticulate or those who have, relatively, poor education are making history. Take into consideration the case of the Sumilao Farmers who, in a sense, launched a revolution. And they made history, not to mention, they became popular.

Rizal has become part of our great history. Regardless of his being a national hero or his being not-fit-to-be-a-national-hero, Rizal gave us a good lecture of Heroism 101. An inspirational Rizal Day to everyone :).

A Scholarly Scandal by Alfred Miguel M. Aguado is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Philippines License. Based on a work at www.alpsaguado.com.

Christmas break–a time to relax, a time to get some sleep and a time to get time. The past few days were really baboy days for me–Getting up at almost 5 pm and would stay in front of my [...]]]>

Original image from http://www.kibaka.org/

Christmas break–a time to relax, a time to get some sleep and a time to get time. The past few days were really baboy days for me–Getting up at almost 5 pm and would stay in front of my laptop while eating something for the rest of the day. I just had my academic things-to-do listed in my planner but I believe that I haven’t done the bulk of it or I haven’t done anything yet. I was thinking of something to write about during this inactivity of mine so I got some books from my book bank and started browsing. Surprisingly, just like fate wants to tease me, I have seen an article by Alfred Yuson: Let’s face it, we’re a nation of Juan Tamads. “Haha”, I laughed. But I read it, and I felt guilty. Not just for myself but for the whole Filipino nation. With this, I have remembered a paper I wrote when I was still taking a Rizal Course (PI 100, as we call it in UP). So I thought of an idea to fuse my reactions about Yuson’s article and Rizal’s The Indolence of The Filipos (Ang Katamaran ng mga Pilipino–sounds heavier when said in Filipino). This entry might be a little long but I will try my best to be concise. :D

Let’s start by being direct, are Filipinos really indolent? Tamad nga ba tayong mga Pilipino? We don’t ask this question often just because we already know the answer to this.

Let’s face it, we’re a country of idlers which is not the same as saying that we can’t get things done. We just do them, generally, at a slower pace that what might be deemed ideal for the 20th century. The way we process papers, fix up potholes, fall into bed, say our farewells–There’s a languorous quality to our manner of dealing with people and projects.

And I feel the same way Yuson has felt. I witness it, I even do it myself. When I’m in school, it’s a common thing hearing my classmates saying Wala pa nga akong nagagawa eh! NagMovie-marathon kasi ako! Tsaka nakakatamad naman talaga! Last minute na natin gawin! And, you guessed it right, I hear myself say that too. I think I can attribute what Yuson have said the the infamous Filipino Time. We have the Filipino Time because we are indolent. Nakakatamad gumising ng maaga for a meeting; nakakatamad magCommute, galing pa akong Muntinlupa; wala namang mangyayari sa meeting eh, ‘di na lang ako pupunta.

So what could be the causes our indolence? Let’s take a look at some arguments presented by Rizal and Yuson. First, they told us about the climate:

A hot climate requires of the individual quiet and rest, just as cold incites to labor and inaction (Rizal).

Blame it to the sun, our placement in the tropics, the enervating humidity if not the lulling seabreeze… absence of four seasons (Yuson).

I was really fascinated by how Rizal gave the tropical climate as a cause to the indolence of the Filipinos. I really agree with Rizal when it comes to making the environment as a factor. But I do not strongly agree. Although we have this kind of climate as a factor for anything that we do under the sun, we need to understand that this would be a part of our daily life, whether we like it or not. Hence, we need to train ourselves to consider the climate as a non-hindering-factor for working. We may concede that the climate is almost an inevitable factor but we need to get used to it, just what Yuson wants to argue:

It is the present that hangs heavily over the archipelago, so that individual consciousness if left alone to geographical influence would not readily ascribe to the eight-hour workday or the five-year economic plan. For these, we have to open up to, adopt and master the lateral, sequential thinking that has been turned into a way of life by other-than-tropical pragmatists.

It means that if we consider indolence as a result of mere climate influence i.e. indolence as something natural, something unavoidable then we would be indolent forever. We need to cope with this kind of natural phenomena by discounting the negative factor (which is environment) and be goal-oriented and be proactive about the problem.

Second, I have learned from Yuson that the poor education system here in the Philippines or the presence of many uneducated Filipinos could be a cause:

The istambay in the kanto could pore over the classified ads on any given day and discovers worlds of opportunity out there, if only he were qualified. Alas, he is not.

Original image from http://www.kibaka.org/

These idlers could have easily applied for a job if he is qualified, but because they are not educated enough, they are not. So what do they do? Go to Manang’s sari-sari store, mangutang ng 10 bote ng gin at maging sunog-baga hanggang madaling araw. A typical sunog-baga may say: I haven’t finished elementary so I can’t find a job. I’m too old to study again. So I’ll just hang around, laugh and drink with my friends until I die. But of course, making the Philippine educational system better would not make the situation better. This kind of example is just tangential to the real cause: a culture of indolence. Even those who can afford schooling and even those who are greatly educated are still prone to become indolent because it’s a culture, a shared culture that is. On a positive note, Rizal noted:

Indolence in the Philippines is a chronic malady, but not a hereditary one.

This line suggests that indolence doesn’t run in our blood stream, it’s a culture that can be change, hence, we could do something to combat it. But we need to understand that culture can’t be changed overnight, one must begin, one must make being-non-indolent a lifestyle, one must make it a personal culture and one must share this culture to all the people he or she knows. The same process should be done by those who received the shared culture. Some say that the government has a role to combat this negative trait:

We have already truly said that when a house becomes disturbed and disordered, we should not accuse the youngest child or the servants, but the head of it, especially if his authority is unlimited. The Filipino people, not being master of its liberty, are not responsible for either its misfortunes or its woes.

I agree with Rizal but I do not strongly agree. I have realized that everything that we are now could be attributed to the people on the top–to the government. What the authorities are doing would eventually be felt by those who are in the bottom of the hierarchy, if I could call it that way. Everything affects everything else. Same is true with the societal setting—whatever our authorities are doing would result to the condition of the state. But I believe that it takes two to tango, the society needs to have a contributive role. I am happy that Rizal considered this on the last part:

Peoples and governments are correlated and complementary: a fatuous government would be an anomaly among righteous people, just as corrupt people cannot exist under rulers and wise laws.

The Culture, The Business

I could say that bulk of the assertions made by Rizal in his articles is still relevant up today. One of the most applicable to our society today is this: RED TAPE–which is also a cause of indolence among us. All the Filipinos, as well as those who have tried to engage in business in the Philippines know how many documents, how many stamped papers, how much patience is needed to secure from the government a permit for an enterprise. I could say that our government exudes too much bureaucracy that could be a cause of indolence. Many of us wanted the easy way—tagging along a fixer. These fixers know that people are lazy to fall-in-line and wait them to be called, these fixers know that Filipinos are so tamad so they know they would be succesful in the fixing business. These fixers, are also indolent themselves, indolent to find a proper, decent job. Because of this kind of system, because of this kind of “group think” wherein one benefits the other, because of this kind of shared culture–tamad ka? tamad din ako, the situation get worse every single day.

Now who’s starting to change this culture of indolence?

Hmm, so where’s my planner again? I have to get started crossing-out some items in my Things-to-do list.

A Culture of Indolence by Alfred Miguel M. Aguado is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Philippines License. Based on a work at www.alpsaguado.com.

Alfred Miguel Aguado’s Matrix of Action :P

So, where do you fall?

…

….

..Another weirdness of mine generated during dormancy. :P ∞

I have read an article in Wikipedia entitled Minced Oath.

A minced oath, also known as a pseudo-profanity, is an expression based on a profanity which has been altered to reduce or remove the disagreeable or objectionable [...]]]>

I have read an article in Wikipedia entitled Minced Oath.

A minced oath, also known as a pseudo-profanity, is an expression based on a profanity which has been altered to reduce or remove the disagreeable or objectionable characteristics of the original expression; for example, “gosh” used instead of “God”, “darn” or “dang” instead of “damn”, “heck” instead of “hell”, and “blimey” instead of “May God blind me!” Nearly all profanities have minced variants; the words that are most taboo give rise to the most (Hughes, 1991).

Minced oaths are used so that we may seem less profane is verbalizing profanity. Aside from saying “What the fuck”, we could instead say “What the eff”. But are we really less evil using minced oaths instead of the profane expressions themselves?

In my past two entries, Forget and Forgot, and Understand and Understood, I have discussed how the mind works (without scientific technicalities :P) in the light of verbalizing our thoughts. In a simpler view, the process is like this:

(1) Thought

(2) Verbalization

For example we want to greet our friend Good Morning:

(Sees friend)

(1) Good Morning

(2) “Good Morning friend!”

So everything starts in the mind. So let’s consider an example when we want to say a profane expression:

(1) What the fuck!

(2) What the fuck!

But if we already know a minced-oath version of the said expression, our mind would filter it. Let’s call the second level “filtration process”. :P

(1) What the fuck!

(2) What the eff!

(3) “What the eff!”

So we could see that even though that we have said a less-profane version of the profane expression, we originally meant and thought of the original, profane version. So, minced-oaths are for better-sounding-expressions, not for being-a-better-person. But during these days, better-sounding-expressions in casual, between-close-friends conversations are not that imposed, so to some extent, masking profane expressions is useless. ∞

SOURCES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minced_oath

During my elementary and high school years, my teachers would ask us this question every after lesson or every after sentence they speak:

And the class says yes even though not all of the pupils really did [...]]]>

During my elementary and high school years, my teachers would ask us this question every after lesson or every after sentence they speak:

Understand?!

Understood?!

And the class says yes even though not all of the pupils really did understand. Haha. Anyway, I am asking myself which expression is really more appropriate to use? I have been inspired by my latest post, Forget and Forgot, to have a similar analysis of which idiom is more proper to use.

First, let us define what “understand” means. According to my good fellow WordWeb, “understand” is a verb with five definitions:

1. Know and comprehend the nature or meaning of. “She did not understand her husband”; “I understand what she means”
2. Perceive (an idea or situation) mentally. “I don’t understand the idea”
3. Make sense of a language. “She understands French”
4. Believe to be the case. “I understand you have no previous experience?”
5. Be understanding of. “You don’t need to explain–I understand!”

This is actually a little harder to analyze since the verb has five different definitions. But we would be limiting ourselves to the context used by teachers and professors to ask their students every now and then. So which definition of the verb has the context of our subject? I believe it is either the first one or the second one. But wait, what the heck could be the difference between the two first definitions? As far as I can understand (Oh my, did I just use the right tense? :P) the two definitions, the first one is understanding something tangible or understanding something which came from something tangible.

She did not understand her husband.

Let’s call this first definition, type A. This is understanding something tangible. In this case, the something tangible is husband.

I understand what she means.

Let’s call this first definition, type B. This is understanding something tangible which came from something tangible. In this case, the something tangible is she and the something which came from the something tangible (she) is what she means. Take note that the something could be tangible or intangible.

The second definition, on the other hand, deals with understanding intangible.

I don’t understand the idea.

This is understanding something intangible. In this case, the something intangible is the idea.

So there, we have the definitions. So what definition does a teacher uses when she asks “Understand?” or “Understood?” I believe that “Understand” or “Understood” is a shortened version of these longer varieties:

(Do you) understand (the lesson I just taught)?

(Did you) understand (the lesson I just taught)?

So the teacher’s definition is closer to our first definition, type B: Understanding something from something tangible. The something is the lesson and the something tangible is the teacher. So based on the definition, which is more appropriate to use, the past tense form or the present tense form? Let us use a similar framework we have used in my entry Forget and Forgot.

1. Lesson Thought (Teacher)
2. Lesson Verbalized (Teacher)
3. Lesson Heard (Student)
4. Lesson Processed (Student)
5. Lesson Retained (Student)

This framework could have these example contents:

1. A dog is a mammal. (Lesson in the mind of the teacher)
2. “A dog is a mammal” (Lesson verbalized by the teacher)
3. “A dog is a mammal” (Lesson heard by student)
4. A dog.. is.. a.. mammal.. (Lesson processed by student’s brain)
5. A dog is a mammal. (Lesson retained in the student’s brain)

So we could see that a student would understand something between levels 4 and 5 or in level 5. The question the teacher would ask whether the student understands the lesson or not is supposed to be asked after Level 5. But of course, the teacher would not know if a student is already in Level 5 or if all of his or her pupils are already in Level 5. Taking this into consideration, the best question the teacher could ask is:

Have you understand the lesson yet?

This could be the safest question because the teacher would not consider whether or not the student have already reached Level 5. The teacher would just wait until they already understood the lesson. But that’s too long a question. Haha.

Considering practicality, I would suggest that the question to be asked is:

Understood?

Understanding, like forgetting, takes part in the brain. Unlike some verbs which is acted real time. For example, you are eating, you can say “I am eating” or “I eat”. But when you understand, understanding took place in the brain. After it is finished, you can already verbalize it, already in the past form of the verb. “Understood?” and “I understood” could be the ideal version, but I believe that “Understand?” and “I Understand” could still be considered since the time gap between understanding and verbalizing is so small that it is already considerable. ∞

Two professors from the Department of Arts and Communication told us that the right expression is

instead of

and they had this explanation:

You just forget what have you forgotten in that specific instance, [...]]]>

Two professors from the Department of Arts and Communication told us that the right expression is

I forget!

instead of

I forgot!

and they had this explanation:

You just forget what have you forgotten in that specific instance, in other words, the verb should be in the present form:

I forget his name!

So if that’s the logic, the expression

I forgot his name!

would be valid if we have forgotten something that we have already forgotten in the past. These, then, would be extended versions:

I forget his name this time!

I forgot his name since yesterday!

But let’s use Filipino instead:

Nakalimutan ko!

which is the equivalent of “I forgot” in English. What could be the present form of the verb “limot” (to forget)?

Nakakalimutan ko!

could be the nearest translation of “I forget”. The problem is, the literal translation of this is “I am forgetting”. In other words, the speaker who would say this is still in the process of forgetting, which is not equal to sense of already forgotten.

But here is my stand, the correct expression is still

I forgot!

Even though that you only forgotten something during the moment you have said it.

The mind works like this between speakers A and B:

1. Question thought (A)
2. Question Verbalized (A)
3. Question Heard (B)
4. Question Processed (B)
5. Answer thought (B)
6. Answer Verbalized (B)
7. Answer heard (A)
8. Answer processed (A)

This framework would have these example contents:

1. What is the boy’s name? (Thought in A’s mind)
2. “What is the boy’s name?” (Verbalized by A)
3. “What is the boy’s name?” (Question heard by B)
4. He is asking the name of the boy (Question processed by B)
5. The boy’s name is Miguel (Though in B’s mind)
6. “The boy’s name is Miguel” (Answer verbalized by B)
7. “The boy’s name is Miguel” (Answer heard by A)
8. The boy’s name is Miguel (Answer processed by A)

What if B have forgotten the boy’s name:

1. What is the boy’s name? (Thought in A’s mind)
2. “What is the boy’s name?” (Verbalized by A)
3. “What is the boy’s name?” (Question heard by B)
4. He is asking the name of the boy (Question processed by B)
5. The boy’s name is.. I forget!.. (Though in B’s mind)
6. “I forgot his name!” (Answer verbalized by B)
7. “I forgot his name!” (Answer heard by A)
8. B forgot the boy’s name. (Answer processed by A)

Taking this model, we could see that B have already forgotten the boy’s name in Level 5. B was only able to verbalize it during Level 6. And there would be a time-gap between Level 5 and Level 6. Therefore, it is justified that you already forgot. Forgetting takes place in the mind. After it took place, you could already verbalize it, already in the past tense of the verb.

But, the expression

I forget!

would be valid if you mean that you are in the course of forgetting or you have the ability to forget (Just like “I run”, this means you have the ability to run). ∞

**Oh my, how geek can I get?

Majority of my time this vacation is spent on squeezing my creative juices on Friendster Profile customization. Oh men, I hope my computer chair can zip all the fats I have collected this holiday season. I need to workout [...]]]>

Majority of my time this vacation is spent on squeezing my creative juices on Friendster Profile customization. Oh men, I hope my computer chair can zip all the fats I have collected this holiday season. I need to workout tomorrow! Ugh.

Moss Green over Silver the Hedgehog (This is mine :D)

Yellow-Black and some Miami Heat Red over Dwyane Wade

Silver and White over a sortaf Snow Fairy and Silver and Purple Snow Flakes

I want to make more! I admit, I am not that good. I just use simple editing tools such as Paint and my good old Photoshop. Conceptualization starts from a conversation with the client (Nope, I do not charge for the service, although I only make for friends :D), then I’ll search for some artworks over the internet. Gawsh, I maybe plagiarizing. But hey, this is already a form of paraphrase isn’t it? :D Haha. Rationalization much? Anyway, I haven’t thought of titles for these. Maybe next time. Haha.

Full sizes available at my Unfiled Album in my Multiply Account. http://alps05.multiply.com/photos/album/16/Unfiled