(The following is my response to Gibby Gorres, who seems to think our school silences dissent. I give my nuanced agreement.)
Gibby, "discursive comatose"? I like the sound of that phrase!
I think that talking about UNITAS is a little like talking about the weather without a thermometer. What "thermometers" are we using? Camaraderie? Family? Granted; but how do you measure them? Beso beso absence of conflict no dissent? That's fine--for fairyland. But on earth, what? To me, UNITAS is not about the absence of conflict. Much less their prevention: I think the more competent people are in an institution the more conflict--or more precisely, disagreement--there SHOULD be. What good institutions have is a process of turning conflicts into productive activities. In institutions of inferior quality, where there are no such processes, silenced conflict gives rise to backbiting and dissent of the bad kind; loss of unity and corruption set in.
I equate the saving process with debate and conversation.
Debate and conversation are the public and private versions, respectively, of the act of "sifting opinion". Sifting opinion is not the same as "exchange of facts", "lectures", or "Q&A". People talking animatedly in the promenades or exchanging comments on blogs are not necessarily conversing (your blog is unique because it TRIES to promote conversation, although many comments sent to you show that few people catch on). Sifting happens when the parties put all their doctrines, tastes, and prejudices on the table for everyone to dissect, the purpose being for the parties to go away transformed.
We should enjoy the transformation; but what keeps us from benefiting are our lack of knowledge, poor language skills and mismanaged emotions.
You may ask, with 26 units a semester of liberal arts why don't people have facts at their fingertips? Some try to mask their poverty with pedantry. From my experience as a teacher, I think one of the roots of the problem is that many don't know how to read--or generally, many don't know how to LEARN. I think my diagnosis is reasonable because there is a correct way of reading that alone ensures that facts become part of oneself, not just part of one's memories. You and I know that the correct way is to read a minimum of 3 times: 1) to grasp the essential point; 2) to understand the logic; and 3) to critique the work as a source of knowledge. Most people read once and underline. No wonder.
How about language skills? Many people have a message, but we don't see it. Why such lack of articulate self-expression? Because we don't make the effort to speak straight. Our problem as Filipinos, the writer Paul Dumol once said, is not that we don't speak English well; it's because we don't speak Filipino well, either. In this university, if you speak straight English or Filipino you are considered elitist. No matter. In my classes, grammatical and punctuation errors--not to mention errors of logic and vocabulary--can mean a failing mark for the course. But I understand the problem, so I give students the chance to revise. However, I can not correct their papers in other subjects, their text messages, and their blogs. (There are exceptions of course: some students actually teach me things; they're the ones I respect the most.) We try to hide our lack of language by hiding behind "art" and "creativity". I've heard it said that our students are creative; to me it's not a good sign.
How about emotions? We know friends who get into an argument once and then refuse to talk to each other for the rest of their lives. No wonder we fear debate. You and I once got into a "shouting match" and enjoyed it. Why? Because we both followed rules that ensured courtesy and respect.
We use rules such as the Asian Parliamentary format to manage knowledge, language, and emotion. Conversation, too, has rules. I think that people today are simply not familiar with them. Thus, they come to fear what would otherwise be enjoyable and productive conflicts had these rules been known. You must consider that this "discursive comatose" is, in part, a problem of skill. I would not ascribe it to policy.
You understand these rules, that is why you can write so passionately about these things. Understand, however, that the Danube wasn't cleaned in a day. But at least you have a thermometer to propose to the people: the KNOWLEDGE OF THE RULES. This is UNITAS. This is where you must begin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The reason why the University cannot get past its party school reputation is simply put, the creativity of its students. The Humanities people in particular have the benefit of instruction on the rules that you have stated- rules which are crucial in reading and in the end, learning as a whole. However, Humanities students have been very passionate about their respective artistic endeavors that sometimes, they overlook the essential, the fundamental, and the raison d'être of their education.
On the matter of "discursive comatose", I think that the solution there are the Humanities students themselves. The University produces Liberal Arts graduates each year, yet they take the core of their University education for granted. The Humanities students must be trained to love what they're learning and to appreciate it for what it's worth, while still observing the rules of learning and comprehension. Art and creativity, no matter how remarkable, cannot substitute these rules, and it will haunt these students for the rest of their lives if they will just neglect them.
Your blog is a stepping stone in solving this "discursive comatose".
So when's the next debate?
Hi Part Time Idealist,
Thanks; the comment is posted.
I suggest you borrow House of Intellect by Jacques Barzun, available at the UA&P Ejercito library (I presume you are UA&P?). I think you will like it. There you will find a rather interesting thesis. Barzun belives that the enemies of intellect are three: science, art, and philanthropy. Science because of its exaggerrated epistemological and value claims; art because of its pedantry; and philanthropy for its unqualified belief that equal dignity implies equal ability.
As to the schedule of debates in my classes, you may check out jayclasses.blogspot.com.
Cheers
hello! i used to be from UA&P. might check that book out. the thesis sounds very intersting indeed.
but what if regulated passion becomes the norm?
I think "regulated passion" would be the normal thing, if by that we meant "passion under the control of reason". A human being, after all, has the head on top, the heart just below, the stomach even lower, and other things lower than the stomach. To continue the metaphor, unregulated passion would mess up that arrangement.
what is your take on the tendency for anger to be one's regulated passion/motivation to fulfill his personhood?
Anger is a rational, normal, and sometimes obligatory response to injustice. No matter how strong it is felt, it is an emotion that is neither right nor wrong in itself. It is right if it spurs us to do difficult things which we won't have the energy to carry out otherwise; it is wrong if it leads to hatred.
I'm not sure what you mean by "fulfill". My guess is that "commitment", that act of loving and being loved, is what fulfills personhood; anger could arise out of such love--if you're never angry when your loved ones do wrong, probably you don't care about them.
"Getting angry" and "going mad" are different. The difference is reason. An angry person can be moved by that emotion to correct another, even strongly, but always with respect and with proportion; it is mad to beat him up and call him names. It is mad not to forgive when apologies and just reparation are offered.
About showing it: my personal practice is never to do it except when it is part of a planned and measured response; you might say, a show. Within a few minutes, when I'm sure the message has sunk, I tell a joke or something. In that way I make it clear I choose to be angry; I try never to be induced.
Finally, since emotions are reactions to external stimuli, I think that a person who believes his/her personhood is fulfilled by an emotion is a person whose self worth is essentially dependent on his/her surroundings. He or she may depend on applause, pity, abuse, or attention; his or her self-worth depend on whether good or bad things happen to him/her, or whether people speak ill or well of him/her. Such a person has a weak personality and generally has low self esteem. On the other hand, a person whose self worth grows from the inside can choose to react in any way he/she likes; he/she is in control and needs no confirmation from the outside as regards his/her worth as a person. Reading between the lines of this blog you may realize that people with low self esteem are the ones least able to manage their emotions. They do not want to debate, they don't want to converse, they don't want to enter into relationships for fear of rejection (does your self worth depend on whether your crush says 'yes' to you?). They don't want to forgive.
before anything else, thank you for being replying to my comments. i really appreciate that. most bloggers would just reply with an "okay", or a mere "thanks". but your replies are bloggable in themselves. thank you.
what angers or frustrates you?
People who commit then quit, in something important.
And you? Was there ever a time when you got angry that makes feel you'll regret it your whole life?
On a more positive side, was there a time you showed violent (or near violent) anger that still makes you think it was one of the best decisions you ever made in your life, both for yourself and for the other person?
I did get angry at some point in my life...that kind of anger. The kind that lingers because there's regret. The kind of anger that makes me feel responsible for the person. The kind that even if I wasn't the one at fault, there is a lot of guilt because I didn't give. However, I would still consider it one of the best decisions I've made. So far.
Post a Comment