Who do you love?

Or maybe, for some of us, it's more of: What do you love?

Maybe you're Carrie, in love with John. Maybe you're Giada, in love with chocolate. Maybe you're Barbra, in love with the color white. Maybe you're David, in love with a corpse. Maybe, even, you're The High Above, in love with everyone.

Usually, the question following is "Why do you love?" I prefer asking this question, instead: "Why shouldn't you love?" Now that's a brain-scratcher.

He doesn't love you. He continually forgets and abandons you. He gives you a moment's happiness, for a moment's heartbreak too. It isn't very good for the waistline, blood-sugar-count-whatever or in the long run, your complexion. It isn't a very good color on your skin-tone; everyone knows you're masquerading elegance; Oprah doesn't like you for it. She looks like a corpse. More often than not, they don't love you back.


It's easier to make a list on why you shouldn't love someone. That list is also bound to get longer than the "why's". It's easier to nit-pick on faults, to stress over a tiny speck of black, than to see the (possibly) glaring pristine canvas. And we shouldn't ever wish for the opposite to happen. It won't, anyway. It's ultimately better to love in spite; to love "although"; to love "beyond".

After all, at the end of it all, when you're asked Why you love someone, there's only one answer that can capture the poeticism, the wonder, the grandness, the simplicity, the mystery, the purity, the absolute-brain-messing-fever of it all. And no matter what you do, there is almost no way to otherwise capture light and trap it in a bottle.

Why do you love someone?

Because.

a different brand of the past

just a short one for today:

I received an e-mail today informing me of a friend's birthday. I figured that it must've come from Multiply, and, since i wanted to send him a message to greet him, I clicked on the link provided. Lo and behold, the mail wasn't from Multiply afterall. It was from Friendster.

And surprisingly, I still remember my password to access my account (note: I haven't accessed that since i joined multiply, which was, lesse 2005.

It was surprising to say the least.

Stupidity is only half of it.

Imagine driving down a road where there are no cars. Now imagine doing this with the aircon off, and with the windows open, and with a cool, steady breeze thanks to the 120kmph speed you're driving at. Then imagine the streaks of light as they pass by. Then imagine not wanting to look to the side not because it's dangerous, but because you already know who's there anyway.

Goddamn it. That's impossible with the weather we've been having lately. Friggin rain splattering all over the place.

So i leave y'all instead with this. a Brialliant poem/song as performed by Bjork.

(some people say this is from a poem by e.e. cummings, but I think they mistook this song for another one.)

Desired Constellation

It's tricky when

You feel someone

Has done something

On your behalf

It's slippery when

Your sense of justice

Murmurs underneath

And is asking you:

How am I going to make it right?

With a palm full of stars

I throw them like dice

Repeatedly

I shake them like dice

And throw them on the table

Repeatedly

Until the desired constellation appears

And I ask myself:

How am I going to make it right?

How am I going to make it right?

How am I going to make it right?

How am I going to make it right?

(ad infinitum, until the rain drowns everything else out)

the downfall and grace of man.

Viper.

Fingernail on the cliff.

Contrary to popular belief, it's the big things that go first.

First you end up not talking to each other for a long time

Then you end up not talking to other people about each other for a long time

Then you discard all big blaring things that remind you- pictures, letters, messages

Then it just starts to escape your mind- big chunks of memory become insignificant and obsolete and are deleted to make space for new ones.

You're free.

Then a small morsel of a detail suddenly surfaces. Just a tiny, tiny piece. Something small, just a pebble in your shoe or a splinter that bites your skin; a piece of shrapnel that races to your heart; a grain of sand in your eye; a shooting star.


destroy it before it destroys you.

the heart-pumping bloodshed

[before i continue the previous post.]

beware: this is a painfully teenaged entry. But seeing as to how I am a teenager, and that I do have penchant for being cheesy..

an old question asks if it is better to have loved and lost, or if to have not loved at all. Like most of those age-old questions, this one has no clear answer, and an attempt to stick to either side will expose not just a big, fat bias, but also a slew of holes and fallacies. Maybe that's why so many people (myself included) are stuck in a state of suspension between the two choices. Indeed, when two choices so evidently press themselves to you, and impose great, great consequences (or lack thereof), it becomes a little bit more of a tolerable compromise to sit on the fence- even if it means having the ol' picket up your ass.

Of course, by the verb "love" I don't just mean the impulsive feeling of attraction and devotion that selfishly presents itself at the most awkward of moments. What I mean is the submission, the pathetic act of surrender that makes us break down our fortified walls right when the outsiders arm and aim their ballistics. I have no idea what could drive anyone to do such an act, or what rewards must promise themselves to influence such a decision- in fact, I such a lack of idea that it baffles me why I contemplate the action myself.

Searching for some sort of metaphor, I can only barely catch the tale of the Trojans. I'm sure we are more than aware of the famous Trojan Horse (and their counterpart, the trojan virus). *insert story of the trojans/trojan horse here*

Honestly, who in their right mind would think that such a large, hollow, wooden horse could be a sign of victory and pride? Didn't the horse smell like big, burly, sweaty warriors; or make weird noises whenever the trip back to town was turbulent? That should've tipped them off. Or better yet, how about that whole prophecy and "warning from the gods" to not spite them? You'd think that with so many poets writing about almost everything, the Greeks would've had some historians to tell them how history repeats/would repeat itself. But unto the point of my paralellism.

I propose the following: I think the very act of "lowering our defenses" and willingly letting something of the outside invade us is nothing but the biggest act of self-preserving egoism. Really, by lowering our defenses and being vulnerable, we offer the world two choices: either they second guess their own bravado (after all, this guy is willing to fight me with no defenses at all- who knows what power he has); or they continue on with the fight, thinking that they had just struck the most idiotic keeper. And in response, either we reap the benefits of the former, or we get burned by the latter (ay, there's the rub). But still, we're willing to risk the latter for the faint chance of the former. We don't always expect that horse to be full of burly, sweaty warriors, ready to decimate our very beings from the inside out. We just, you know, expect the outsiders to fall and cower in fear, be proud of our sensitive side and air our their own emotions while leaning on our big, broad, manly shoulders (oops, i think i lost the parallelism there).

Either that, or we can keep our walls (or make them higher, even) and impress the world with how bitchy, witty, smart, and independent we can be. To hell will those warriors- they can have hot oil poured on their heads as they try to scale my defenses. Nothing's touching this heart. Nope, let this heart stand tall, and proud, and secure. Let this heart stay hidden and immaculate. Let this heart be dug out from the sands of time hundreds of years later- untouched and unkown.


On a side note: imagine if the ancient greeks were more cautious and bloodlusty (is that a word?) and decided to urinate and burn the horse instead. Not nearly as glamorous, no?

An Objectivity that Does Nobody Any Good

god what a long blog entry title.

anyway.

More talk regarding my Alma Mater.

Recently I've been hearing things about why some of my friends chose the University of the Philippines over Ateneo, or vise versa. First off, I am sure that both these universities are great choices for further education and will be able to provide the skills and knowledge my generation seeks and needs for the future. Secondly, I am also sure that both these universities have their own lists of pros and cons, and that each student who is given the luxury of choice between these two universities must analyze said pros and cons and decide for themselves. Thirdly, given that these choices are made by individual students, I can see how any factor, no matter how trivial it may play itself out to be, is a valid point of consideration.

But honestly, "real"ness?

Fine, i will accept that the UP lifestyle (if you can call it that) is probably more brusque and more individual-growth oriented. People may, and do see its appeal as a university that condones a greater form of independence. Perhaps its student population does enjoy a wider demographic (thanks to a veriety of factors, and, i firmly believe, not just due to lower tuitions). These are all very real, and very enticing (to some) factors for students who choose to go to UP; and these are all truly more heightened and visible in UP than in Ateneo. However, I refuse to take these as arrows against my own alma mater.

The Ateneo, given that it is a Jesuit University (as opposed to being a State University), will inevitably have its own character-formation written into its pedagogy. This however, is NOT mutually exclusive with independence and individual growth. Now, i don't want to end up discussing my take on catholicism and christianity and all that shiz, so allow that statement to stick. I just don't think that independence = no "enforced religion". I have seen a lot of devout catholics in the UP student body and its alumni, and so i don't think that religion is a pivotal concern in our context of independence. I'm just a little irked because some people have argued that the Ateneo emphasis on religion is very suffocating and limiting- as if we were some kind of very conservative community or fundamentalist fellowship (not that i have anything against such groups, mind you, i just don't think we are.)

I admit that UP does promote a more independent environment, but i don't think that Ateneo concretely LACKS a spirit of independence. Just look at the myriad organizations here.

to be continued...

An Idiot's Idiom

A saying goes:
"There is a reason why God gave you two ears and one mouth"


Of course, for time immemorial parents have touted this rather bland (and vague) sentence at children to teach them to listen more and talk less (gah.) Allow me, however, my own take on this:

First, an anecdote. Even before graduating from high school, the pressure and excitement of college already takes root and nearly strangled me. The tests were "easy" enough, i just had to do my best and pray that I would pass- which, of course, was the schools' decisions entirely. However, come January and the news that I had been (thankfully) accepted in both schools I applied to, a myriad troubles suddenly popped up from the ground along with the daisies.

What university should I attend? Beyond that, what Major should I take? Being a responsible student with friends from the upper batches, i interviewed and talked to and received pep talks from friends of both colleges, in almost every imaginable major. Both universities obviously had something to boast about, and those from university A would swear that it was better than university B; and vice versa. One of the schools offered freedom and independence (a definite plus point), and the other offered formation and guidance (a definite plus point all the same). One of the schools boasted its elite graduates; as did the other. I'm sure you can see the point, and i need not elaborate further. But eventually, the time came, and I decided to choose University A (or B, depending on how you look at it).

But now that I had decided to go to University A, I had to choose what Major to take in said school. Again, a lengthy interview process ensued, and convincing arguments (and threats) from both sides arose. And, true to form, I eventually chose one over the other.


Do you get my point?


This is what I mean to say. There is a reason that God has given us 2 ears and 1 mouth beyond that of aesthetic value (god, imagine how horrid the opposite would look). It's not just as simple as listening twice as much as talking. Rather, i believe, that it is to tell us that there will always be arguments and reasons to both sides of the coin, but ultimately, we must make our own decisions.

And perhaps, this is why I find this saying to be the most divine or truthful of all others. Because while the Pen may be mightier than the Sword, Actions speak louder than Words. And although we must soar high towards our dreams, we should also keep our feet rooted on the ground. But no matter what you do, you must choose whether to write or act, or to soar or take root.

2 ears and 1 mouth. This leads to another favorite saying of mine: "your cause will always have its reason". Indeed. Maybe, in some twisted way, this is what explains the "troubles" in the world. Some people hear the right and left statements and choose the right one (ha ha), while others choose the left. Maybe, just maybe, in their heads and hearts and souls, what they are doing is indeed the correct thing- backed by an eons old saying, to boot.

And ultimately, we can only say one thing, despite what two arguments we may hear. And this one thing we say will be heard, along with the other arguments, by the other people who will also have to make their own decisions. And if we backtrack just a little bit, maybe we would realize how our beliefs are our choise between two (or more) others, and that in some ways, the others may be right too. And then maybe we'd understand each other more before we speak to loudly.

If only the world listened twice as much as it spoke.