The Thin Line

On the CFC-FFL Versus CFC-IC War

I always saw the Couples for Christ split as the natural lifecycle of an organization that's grown too big such that it finally gave way to entropic chaos (the historical Catholic Church is an even better example). But the Foundation Family for Life (FFL) versus International Council (IC) issue seems to be littered with the interests and egos of the elder leaders. Or so it seems from my limited point of view.

I'm going to take a more parochial view and relate the conflict to what SFC NY itself is experiencing right now.

In Singles for Christ New York, I often joke about not being concerned with the CFC division and picking sides because we're already in a three-way split anyway. I'm talking about the competition between units. This little crack never fails to elicit a few laughs.

Apart from the units, we're split more granularly into the groupings of friends. We call those groupings "barkadas". Sometimes we call them "cliques". Sometimes, we need to see them as both.

The competition or lack of cooperation among units is political, and it's similar to the high-level spat that the IC and FFL leaders are having. Although ours is more subtle.

Personally, I cannot even confirm the said "competition or lack of cooperation". The only reasons why I assume it to be true is because (1) when you make a remark about it in the presence of leaders, the leaders confirm it and (2) no matter how you try to ignore it, you feel it to be true.

The other kind of division, the "barkada" groupings may be attributed to cliquishness -- and that very well may be the true. But sometimes it's really just the way people are. There are people who naturally jive, while some combinations of personalities may seem a bit toxic. This is the only real challenge that has to be worked out -- working together and achieving our goals and ideals despite differences in personalities and backgrounds. The diversity, when worked through, actually contributes to the richness of the community that we serve.

The conflict between units -- the division that people talk about but no one will officially admit to -- is what I've always found bewildering.

I've been hearing about it for a while but have managed to ignore it for the past year or so because it didn't seem practical. There are specific strengths and talents that differ in concentration among the units. It makes little sense for one unit to do without the others. The "autonomy" among units made sense only on paper (and in people's vanities), but is not feasible in real situations. For one thing, such real autonomy was never achieved.

Division serves a systematic purpose in any organization. It's the science and economics of it: it's why units are divided into households, and households are only optimal up to a certain number. I've always thought this sense of order and organization was one of the strengths of the CFC ministries that facilitated  its rapid growth. The formal division is really for administration purposes.

But the division conjured by the egos and vanities of the people in SFC NY is obviously un-Christian. It defeats the purpose of the organization. It's petty and political. It really does not deserve all the attention it gets if only it did not pose a real potential problem. And that's essentially how I think anti-cooperation here closer to home relates to the larger FFL-IC war.

But I've always ignored the greater FFL-IC conflict. I chose to be unconcerned about it because I already have to deal with my own problems for one (charity begins at home). The issue is also outside my area of influence and it's a moot -- not to mention annoying -- discussion. The leaders should be concerned. They have to be, especially those closest to CFC leadership. For me and a lot of people, it's an absolute waste of time.

Further, I want to ignore the FFL-IC issue because it's so disappointing.

The disappointment dampens the fulfillment of accomplishing something good within the organization's context because we become aware that right behind us looms the conflicts of the leaders whose mandates we've been trying to fulfill all the while. Our leaders sure can talk the talk, but can't walk the talk. I haven't opened my covenant card in a while. But I sometimes wonder if the elders open theirs -- even the elders who formulated the covenant card in the first place.

Think of it this way... Imagine being a devout Catholic and finding out that the Catholic Church is run by people who undermine Christianity itself. It's like serving a false church.  It's serving a false organization. It's like finding truth and goodness in your plot in the context of the wrong story.

I'm inclined to say that maybe the CFC really needed to split and reexamine its leadership and guiding principles.

I thought the whole point of the CFC was to make a venue for knowing and practicing your faith and reaching out to the world -- "Renew the face of the earth" as the elder leaders had formulated years and years ago.

The CFC's center was supposed to be Jesus Christ and Christian teachings. Nowadays, it just focuses on itself.

Mary Harwell Sayler Talks Purgatory (Or Not)

Getting Purged In Purgatory: How Long, How Long?

http://www.catholicexchange.com/node/66216

"Once in purgatory, the most likely action will simply be to wait."

We already assumed as much. But do we wait in purgatory sitting down, chatting with the neighbors, doing web pages, being tortured with fire (or cold? or emptiness? or a montage of your most embarrassing moments constantly played before your eyes in high-definition?).

And then again, how long? The title made me think that I would be given a table of the time period I will spend in purgatory based on my sins computed as a function relative to time compensated with the laws of relativity based on my distance from the earth's core. Or at least an approximate time in human terms. This is assuming I even make it to purgatory, of course.

What would be more interesting to know is what type of cuisine they serve in purgatory while you wait.

"...the phrase "imperfectly purified" implies that, at the moment of death, some people, such as Mary, the Apostles, and other Saints, may already be perfectly purified with no unconfessed sins to confess and no anchors (such as grudges or other areas of unforgiveness) to weigh them down spiritually or separate them from the joy of heaven."

The state "imperfectly purified" does not imply that "perfectly purified" exists -- even if it's true about Mary, the apostles and the saints.

I added the bold formatting for emphasis. So I'm not so sure about any of this, either. I'm as unsure and tentative as Sayler is in this article. Sorta. Kinda. You know.

"Faith floats. A pure heart stays buoyant."

A sudden switch to breezy figures of speech doesn't work when you start out arguing in cerebral terms.

 

"So, yes, after death you might have to wait for a cleansing spiritual lift to see Christ face to face, but then again, maybe you won't."

Again, the tentativeness.

I will now walk away knowing that I may or may not need a "cleansing spiritual lift" to see Christ face to face.

So if it happens one day in a subway tunnel that one of the Christian preaching crazies asked me if I'll need purging to see Christ, I can always shrug and reply "Maybe. Maybe not."

GK Heroes Run!

On November 18, 2007, at the Philadelphia Marathon, runners from Singles for Christ New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia ran the Gawad Kalinga Heroes Run 2007.

I ran with SFC New York team which includes Henry Tong, Jim Gabriel, Dave Lucido, Ramon Llenado, Israel Perez and Mia Ramos (the only rose among the thorns). With the exception of Israel and Ramon, we all trained with the RUN NYC Nike running club. We also managed to recruit a non-SFC member, Jerome Tanhueco, whom we met at Nike.

Four of us, including myself, were beginner runners. We registered for the shorter race (the Rothman 8k). Henry, Jim, and Ramon -- who ran the 8k at last year's GK Run -- along with Jerome, ran the half-marathon this year. Jerome clocked the fastest time at 1:30.

The Physical Challenge

For the more seasoned runners running the longer race, the challenge was to run faster times. They each had a lot of miles logged (on their Nike+ or Polar foot pods). For us beginners, our modest task was to simply finish the race.

I found myself trying to slowly raise my goal. First, I wanted to eliminate walk breaks. And then I wanted to race for time. Later, I even (foolishly) considered running the half-marathon, but my schedule curtailed any serious attempts at more consistent training.

We all thought we did well with our individual races. To me personally, the experience and excitement of the race was enough reward. I never thought running would be so much fun.

Raising Funds for GK Houses

The bigger challenge... Henry Tong, who put up our group's Active.com web page, set our fund raising goal to $10k.

It seemed like physical training was just half the battle. Scheduling to train was time-consuming enough, but add the time we needed to really follow-up with the people we beg -- uhm ask -- donations for.

We didn't quite reach the goal, but we were in for a surprise...

The Anonymous $3k Donation

One morning, I checked our team's page and saw a $3k donation. Some of us suspected fellow runner Henry Tong himself ponied up the cash -- though he denies the deed. We'd like to thank our Good Samaritan, whoever he is.

Race Day and the People in Red

The SFC NY team left the hotel early in freezing weather and we all feared the worse. Thankfully, apart from a minor drizzle, it was a pleasant race (those thermals get hot after the first two miles or so...).

During the run itself, we met familiar faces from SFC New Jersey and some unfamiliar faces -- presumably locals -- donning the red GK jersey. Both the 8k and half-marathon groups had their supporters in the sidelines of course.

My favorite moments during the race were seeing and greeting my smiling teammates and the other GK runners in red as well as hearing the cheers of my SFC NY friends somewhere before Mile 2 (and back).

And the soup at the food tent was great.

 

A Million Thanks

It was in the end, a fulfilling experience. We raised $7,045 -- almost enough money for five GK houses!

I'm really thankful for my fellow runners and GK advocates for the motivation. And we are all thankful for everyone who gave us support by donating or cheering us on.

Onwards to GK Heroes Run 2008!

Couples for Christ Disunity

The Couples for Christ leadership is currently divided in the Philippines -- its home base.

Now here is the scary-looking CFC United site that CFC members put up to put an end to the disunity.

I suppose the picture of a suffering Christ is there for emotional appeal. Still, to non-Christian/Catholics or to more mainstream believers, it borders on the horrible. It reminds me of the movie "Passion of the Christ" where Mel Gibson had Jesus Christ scourged to sadistic proportions.

I think some Catholics are just too accustomed to see a Christ in agony -- let alone any person in agony. In any case, when I first landed on the page a few days ago. I was repulsed by the image and quickly went back through my browser history. It's only today that I browsed through some of its contents. I think it's a mistake in design and communication.

Anyway,I think it's neither a surprise nor is it a really big deal that CFC is in disunity right now. Don't forget that it weathered desertions because of its focus on Gawad Kalinga.

The CFC has become too big, and history will tell you that there'll tend to be some differences in philosophy in such an organization, and eventually, polarization will set in. This sort of insight may seem trite, but I simply think it's the natural cycle of birth and death (and possible rebirth) of such an organization.

This makes me marvel at the continuity of Christendom even more.

I don't really care if the CFC splits up or becomes one again. If it simply dies, it has served its purpose. If it dies and rises from the dead, it will serve its purpose as a different entity. If it runs its course by splitting into two or more entities, well it's not like that never happened before. That's how CFC was born in the first place.

When Teaching Night Flies All Over the Place

One teaching night in Singles for Christ New York not so long ago, Steve Zosa had a question about making life-altering decisions  (I remember hearing something about career and deciding whether to stay in the US for good.). "I know you're going to tell me to pray [and so on]," he continued. "But is there a way to expedite..." (At the word "expedite" a lot of people started giggling. "Ano yon? Fedex?" I heard someone say.)

I thought it was funny because the question brought out the generic quality of spirituality in the community. Someone would ask a question and sometimes the people who answer -- even the leaders -- get formulaic to the point of laziness. You get canned advice. Pray. "Discern" (and I'm glad I didn't hear that word that night). A thought creeps in: "Well I've done all that, but..."

[Someone also asked: "Should we ask for a sign?" I actually like the answer to this one: a very flat "No".]

 

Also, I thought the question expressed the wish for some sort of a shortcut or magic pill for making life decisions. Throughout the ensuing discussion, I did not get a sense that there was such a thing -- probably because there really isn't.

 

But unfortunately, so far in my two years in the community, it's not SFC NY if people do not bastardize a sensible question and relate it to tired old dating questions, like knowing who's "the one". The speaker himself went this route at around the 5-minute mark of the question-and-answer segment. And why wouldn't he, especially since it seems to be second-nature to this particular Christian singles community to dwell on dating issues? Dating issues and general gossip (and often in combination) are things we in SFC NY are quite attune to, though this probably shouldn't be the case.

So then, Steve clarified that he was referring to every sort of life-altering decision, not just dating problems. But unless my mind was wandering, I heard no clear enlightenment from the speaker... or the crowd of titillated talking heads who were giggling (me amongst them). Because perhaps nobody had any real answers. Or maybe because it actually required us to think a little deeper to come up with ideas and we couldn't take the mental strain.

I had my own questions relating to the talk. I never bothered asking them because I thought it would actually rain on everyone's mood -- which of course by then took a whimsical turn. I regret not asking it now, because I was really curious about the speaker's answer.

We also discussed Couples for Christ internal politics, by the way. At least when the question was posed, it was clearly stated that it was in no relation to the talk. Still, I thought it distracted everyone a bit from the talk itself.

The talk was ok, though it did little for me. It sort of started well and then went around in rather vague directions. The open discussion started out sensibly. Jonah De Lumen began with a question about coping with spiritual dryness, for instance. But somehow, we simply went off-tangent from there and never really got back on track. Jonah, by the way, is Unilever's Dove brand manager -- and maybe her moisturizers could have done a better job curing my own spiritual dryness at around the second hour of the teaching.

 

Spiritual drought? Life decisions? If you weren't there, you may want to ask what the main point of the talk was. It's faith in God. Being able to trust in a faithful God. Who would have guessed, right?

Too bad the main point simply got lost towards the end. Again to be fair, I thought the discussion was somewhat interesting and at times helpful. But long after the talk was over, I can't help thinking that it could have been more helpful if we all took it a little more seriously and put all other things in its proper place.

Two Old Lessons from Moral Theology

Not too strangely, what made me remember this was hanging out with Christian Chua back in the Bay Area, who mentioned the Machiavellian statement "The ends justify the means" (not to agree with the statement of course).

 

1. The Ends Do Not Justify the Means

I remember an old classmate who loved talking (We were in a few other classes before apart from moral theology). One day, he's rambling and it was business as usual... But then he blurts out something like:

"Because the ends justify the means, then..."

Fr. Dacanay, SJ, did not let this one pass. He made a business of emphasizing over and over that the ends do NOT justify the means. Unless your name was Machiavelli. To my classmate's consternation (and to our general amusement) Fr. Dacanay kept repeating the same spiel throughout the rest of the semester. He made a lesson out of it.

I think that we often forget about those occasions when between the beginning and the end of a story, a blatant violation of ethics transpired. We focus on the happy ending and forget the unjust events that occurred prior to it.

For instance, a man usurps another person's land and later uses the land to benefit the poor in the community. It's a charming story, but people forget about the man whose land was stolen from him in the first place.

(Also, sometimes, the good that comes out of a bad situation is sometimes mostly due to the work of good men (and a good God) trying to derive something good from something otherwise tragic. Probably the best example would be the Christian tale of redemption. The Fall of Man led to the greatest manifestation of God's love -- God becoming man, suffering, and dying to redeem mankind.)

 

2. Ethics Can Sometimes Be Just Common Sense

God and basic human moral law does not ask for the unreasonable.

It was Kant who said that one proof that God existed is moral law imprinted in the hearts of men at birth (the other proof is the "stars in the heavens", or God's creation). When deciding what's wrong and right, we usually do not need to look further than ourselves to know the right thing to do. We just do what makes sense.

So I was sitting at the last class session of the semester mumbling to my friend Ralph Lumo, who was seated beside me, that Fr. Dacanay did not draw my index card even once during the semester. This means I was never called for an impromptu recitation.

[Ralph just smiles his boyish smile and bats his girly eyelashes.]

But my luck ran out at the last minute when Dacanay says, "Now before we end this semester, I would like to hear from Marvin."

A lot of heads turned towards the back where I sat. Given I was so quiet all semester, I was surprised they even knew who Marvin was.

The question went this way: One of my classmates, Hans Siriban, is drowning. I can't swim. Should I try to get in the water and save Hans?

Now I happened to know Hans Siriban. While Fr. Dacanay was elaborating his question, I remember turning to Ralph again and remarking that as far as I could remember, Hans can swim (I was trying to miss the point as usual). And that if he can't swim, the question really was if I WANTED to save Hans at all.

[Ralph again smiles his boyish smile and bats his girly eyelashes.]

So how did I do? I breezed through this one. It seems like a trick question, but it still required explicit reasoning.

"Father, no."

"Why not?"

"Father, it's common sense," I said. I remember pausing and checking if I sounded condescending. I didn't think I did. "It's either he dies or we both die. It's a case of choosing the lesser evil."

Simple, huh?

I could maybe throw Hans a coconut or something (we were on an island). But I might hit him on the head by accident and that would make things worse.

So farewell, Hans, farewell.

Figure 1. Hans "Pretty Boy B" Siriban looking smug. "With his looks and QPI, life doesn't seem fair." What self-respecting guy would want to save him?

[At the time of this blog post, Hans is a diplomat, or working in the capacity of one, and is bent on serving the country. He has not had any incidents involving water as far as we know.]

Good Friday and Easter Memories

It's almost Easter Sunday and the culmination of the Lenten Season is at hand.

What I miss right now is being at home in the Philippines in the hot, searing summer hearing the "Pabasa" from the chapel, which is only a short walk from the house.

When I was a little kid, during Easter Sunday morning, I'd go to the chapel area. There was this hill that we referred to as "bundok" (mountain). There'd be an Easter egg hunt.

But when I was a little kid, I was too nice and passive that even when I found an egg, a bigger kid would go past me and take the Easter egg, sometimes even when I was already digging it out. I didn't complain. Actually the whole matter confused me. I didn't yet have a moral sense that I was being treated unfairly.

My parents observed this once. What they did was, that same morning, they boiled a lot of eggs, decorated them with markers and hid them around the front yard (it was of course not as intimidating and expansive as the "bundok"). Then they invited the other kids -- my friends around the neighborhood -- and staged another Easter egg hunt. And of course this time, I found a few eggs.

See, when I look back at this, I just remember that incident as really good parenthood of two loving parents. I'm sure none of us had a perfect childhood. I know I didn't. But memory has a way of keeping the best ones and painting over the bad ones. This was one of the best memories I have, though I wouldn't realize it till much later in life.

. . .

These days, I think of God as that really good parent. He virtually throws His grace in your face sometimes. Yet sometimes, we fail to grab it. Then He gives us more chances.

The only thing that required me to find Easter eggs was to look around for them. They were in pretty obvious places and of course I knew my own front year quite well. There were a couple of them just placed neatly on some hanging orchids. There were a couple under the swing. There was another in a pot of roses. There were others positioned outside by the street.

Unfortunately, we're required to at least TRY and find God. Fortunately, once you seek, then you'll find.

My childhood Easter story was a story of love between parents and child. The bigger Easter story is that of love between God and man. God literally throws Himself in. There it is on the cross for everyone to behold: the salvation offered to Man. (We take it for granted enough that we need to be reminded yearly about it.)

For me, there is no stranger and more charming story than the life, passion and death of Christ. There is no greater romance, no greater love.

Loving God and Loving Your Neighbor

Back in California around 2001, I asked one of my officemates who was a Baptist Christian.

“What’s your opinion on the following question: ‘Is it easier to love God or to love your fellowmen?’”

I remember he just kept looking at his computer. “Wha--?”

“Is it easier to love God or people?” I said, and then I started relating a brief summary of the New Testament version of the commandments condensed into the love of God and the love of neighbor.

“Is this another one of your mind games, Marvin?”

“Well no. It’s a valid question, I think.”

 

It actually started during my first job back in Manila in1997 -- and just maybe that time I really should have been doing something else in the office (you know, like work) instead of going around asking people, again, the question:

“Is it easier to love God or to love your fellowmen?”

And so I began obsessing for a few days, and the people who answered fell into the following camps:

1. It’s easier to love people because people are something you can touch and feel and interact with. A person is a concrete reality while God was an abstract concept. And how do you love an abstract concept exactly?
2. It is easier to love God because He is perfect. People are flawed and capable of hurting. With God (in the context of the implicit Catholic Christian assumptions that are second nature to me and to my friends, of course), you have no choice but to love Him.

And I thought and reflected about both conclusions -- if only because it seemed more interesting to me than working on a website or presentation. But I came up with my own conclusion: it is easier to love people. I’m not implying that it’s easy to love people in general (in fact, this is often difficult), but logically, it simply implies one assumption to love your fellowmen: you really just have to love.

With God, it is really not that simple. Well first, you have to acknowledge that God existed. Secondly, even if the first were an assumed fact, loving implied knowing and knowing God is an unending process that requires faith. (I mean seriously, knowing and understanding people is hard enough...) Third and most importantly, loving God actually implied loving your fellowmen -- as well as yourself and the rest of creation. You can never love God completely if you love Him in a vacuum. You love God in the context of His creation. And what is Man if not the apex of creation -- human egotism notwithstanding?

Yes, admittedly, the logic I used is still in the context of Christian ethos. But this will have to be the case.

I still believe it’s a valid question, but now, I think my own answer is only half-satisfying.

 

The new question in my mind is: “Why did I ask the question in the first place?” Because I thought later (and now) that the question was in fact flawed...

...Because the question implies that love of God and love of neighbor are mutually exclusive. They are not. We begin as individuals with no sense of others let alone ourselves. We become self-aware and we learn to love ourselves. We extend ourselves to others in an need to further our self-actualization. And for us believers in a Supreme Being and Creator, what is all this ultimately if not a natural drive to perfection -- or at the end of it all, God?

So again, is it easier to love God or love your fellowmen?

The answer is "neither". It’s the same thing. Since the question assumes the existence and belief in God, then everything that follows ends up with God.

But feel free to disagree.

A 'Pabaon' For the Graduates

[From a forwarded email received yesterday. It's been 10 years since college grad for me and the people who sent it.]

A 'pabaon' for the graduates

I can think of no better message for you on Graduation Week than to recall the text of this Pabaon closing reflection and prayer. As you relish the
words, you might recall the images, the music, and the feelings of that Pabaon Saturday and feel with a full heart that, yes, Goodbye is a prayer,
"God be with ye," today and all the days of your life.

Come back often and renew memories and friendships at the Ateneo, truly your second home.

Bienvenido F. Nebres, S.J.
President

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graduation, they say, is not "Goodbye" - only "See you later."

And so we promise to get together with our college friends as often as we can. But "as often as we can" slows down to "every now and then" and even
"not at all" as the months pass and as we get wrapped up in work and occupied with other concerns.

It will get harder and harder to find common free time for the old barkada to meet and catch up and just hang out. A special visit to the Ateneo to
touch base and reconnect with something familiar will only make us feel strange. Then we will realize that Ateneo has changed because we have
changed. We are not students anymore. There is no going back to the "good old days."

In a very real sense, graduation is "Goodbye." And that’s sad, and scary, and so many other things all at the same time. What if we forget our
friends? What if our friends forget us? What if we forget what we learned? What if we forget the kind of persons we always wanted to be? "Goodbye" is one of the hardest things we ever have to say...

How does one say goodbye? Not just by dropping everything and simply moving on. One says goodbye by taking memories, squeezing them until the last
drop, and trying to find God in all of them.

That’s what we’ll try to do today: help you say goodbye by giving you a chance to savor the last four years in thanksgiving, in contrition, and in
hope. We will look back so that we may be able to look forward. And we will do this by making use of the Consciousness Examen, a traditional way of
praying that comes from Ignatian spirituality.

We hope that you will be able to use the Consciousness Examen not only when you say goodbye to the significant chapters of your lives, but even as you say goodbye to each day to make the most of everything that you experienced and see how God has been moving in your lives.

And we begin...

We look back at the past four years, and we know we have been blessed with so much more than we deserve. The God of Surprises keeps on outdoing
Himself and overflowing with graces. And we thank God.

We thank Him for all the people He has sent into our lives: from mere acquaintances, those we met everyday but never really got to know, to
classmates we sat with, staff members who helped make things a bit easier, to those special people who really touched our lives.

We now single out three friends without whom our stay in the Ateneo would not have been as happy. We thank God for our teachers and our professors,
too -- they who challenged us and encouraged us and made us grow.

We now single out two teachers without whom our stay in the Ateneo would not be as fruitful. God speaks to us through people. And God speaks to us
through events: fleeting moments, long ordeals, activities inside the classroom and around the campus, projects that brought us out into the
streets and even up mountains, experiences that define who we are today.

We now single out one experience without which our stay in the Ateneo would not be complete. And once again we thank God for all that He has given us.

Sadly, we have not always responded to God with the same generosity He has shown us. And we are sorry. We say sorry for taking many of His gifts for
granted, for the many times we failed to make the most of His blessings, for being mediocre, care-less, and indifferent. We say sorry for thinking
only of what we want and not what is needed from us. We take a moment now to call to mind one regret that we have, and we ask for God’s forgiveness.

But God does not give up on us. He continues to take a chance on us and never stops risking His love. That is why we can continue to pray. That is
why we can hope.

We now single out one grace we would like to ask Him for ourselves, one hope we have for us that will help us be what He wants us to be.

And now we ask for the desire to be better, and the grace to actualize that desire. We ask for the grace to be able to give of ourselves in the same
way He gives Himself to us and to our brothers and sisters.

We now think of our loved ones and single out one hope we have for them, one prayer we would like to offer for them.

And we think about our country and what our people need. We now take time out to dream for the Philippines, and we whisper to God this one dream.

And again we thank God for we know that He has heard us, and that He will grant us what we need to be the best we can be.

Goodbye is a prayer. Goodbye means "God be with ye." And we pray that God will be with us as we try to make our hopes and dreams for ourselves, for
our loved ones, and for our country come true.

Software Piracy and Arguing the Existence of God

Software Piracy and Arguing the Existence of God

And the question was, “Is it possible to eradicate software piracy?”

I gave a simple “No”.

I don’t know what my friend was thinking when she told me she wanted to answer “Yes.” It was for a subject she was taking for her grad studies: Computer Ethics.

The difficult part was that she merely wanted to answer “Yes” because everyone in her class so far had answered “No”.

Well first of all, I told her, everyone so far had answered no. So did I. The most important reason is that it simply made sense to say “no”. Human nature dictates that whatever measures to stop piracy will be circumvented.

She had a proposition --make everything freeware. If everything were free, then the concept of stealing wouldn’t exist.

Ok, so now we’re going philosophical (not to mention simply “pilosopo” in Filipino). I tried to address this point that it is impossible for this to happen. I heard for one that Microsoft, Intel and some of the other most influential tech companies in the US have been working on open standards for documents, so I pushed that example with a big “BUT…” Well up to the point of document standardization, sure, it’s conceivable to have open standards. But the software that handled those documents? In a utopian universe maybe. In a capitalist one, probably not.

So now back to the original question -- and this is where we head into a whole other discussion...

For this specific case, if you’re going to answer a definite “Yes”, you better darn know what you’re talking about. If you’re going to put in so many conditional hypothetical conditions to support the answer, then you’re really arguing against yourself.

The point is, if you want to be so clever as to give an unthinkable or unpopular answer, you better be more than clever. You have to be brilliant.

The classic story in the Ateneo de Manila involves the philosophy teacher Eduardo Calasanz and Fr. Roque Ferriols, S.J. Calasanz was a student of Fr. Ferriols at the time and there was this one immortal story about answering a “Why” (“Bakit?”) question in a written exam by jotting down two words: “Why not?” (“Bakit hindi?”).

Probably because Fr. Ferriols was curious about his most brilliant student’s answer (or maybe because nobody likes a smart ass), Fr. Ferriols called on Calsanz to explain his answer. Calsanz explained, and he got an “A” for the exam. He later got an A+ for the subject (the only Atenean to get a grade higher than A) because Fr. Ferriols threatened to resign if his request to give an A+ wasn’t granted.

Then I smiled at my friend and said something to the tune of “Well you’re not Calasanz.”

I told my friend about this book that traced a virtual debate between C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud (the title eludes me at the moment). Obviously it’s not a real debate since the two are not even of the same era.

The debate was about the existence of God. The problem was that people were finding that the author seemed to take C.S. Lewis’s side. Freud seemed dry and bitter, while Lewis was brimming with enthusiasm and inspiration.

There is a similarity between arguing the possibility of completely eradicating software piracy and the existence of God. Both are simply difficult to prove. But I think the similarities end there.

First of all, do I want to eradicate software piracy from the Philippines? When I was a student and when I began working as a web guy, I handled copies of software from dubious sources. Back in college, there was probably just one license of Windows being used for hundreds of PC clones. As a fledgling web guy, I got a copy of Photoshop and other graphics and development tools from a friend of mine (and who knows where he got his)?

It’s simple. Aside from the fact that it’s nice to have something for free, most software from US shores was simply too expensive back then – especially for  the typical student. That hasn’t changed. But having access to pirated software affords you to be competitive against your first-world brethren. What gives?

[We call the phenomenon the Digital Divide. And there’s no clear solution to bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots in the digital world.]

Now, I can afford to buy the software I need, and I can abide by the ethical requirements of anti-software piracy advocates (typically the software companies themselves of course). What do you think is on my computer right now? I would say "I bought everything installed on my computer", but how can you tell? I mean, if I can get it for free, why not stick it up to The Man?

So ask me another question -- do I even want to eradicate software piracy? Back in my home country at least? This is not about sticking it up to The Man. This is about making opportunity available to the average hard-working third world student/corporate slave.

This is why saying “yes, it’s possible to eradicate software piracy” is a conundrum. There are too many parameters to consider. There are too many parameters that you’ll WANT to consider.

NOW, arguing the existence of God, well there you have some possibility.

With piracy -- whether software, music, movies, or whatever -- there is some clear ambivalence. But believing whether or not God existed, you just choose a side.

It gets better either way. In the case of Freud and Lewis, the former breaks down the concept of God as something the human mind conceived (reductionism, I guess) while the latter preaches Christian philosophy. If you don’t believe in the existence of a Divine Source, it’s probably easy to maintain that belief. The arguments would be short. If you’re more on Lewis’s side, it’s easy to believe in eternal life and all things bright and beautiful, right?

Well I'm not C.S. Lewis, but I can probably come up with a convincing enough argument to explain why I believe in God. By its very nature, faith is an open-ended question. You can argue against it all you want but you're not likely to win.

BUT, neither -- I think -- can a believer argue against an aetheist who truly does not want to believe. And why would you do so expecting to convert a non-believer? Religion [or the lack of it] is a personal quest and a personal choice.

You really just pick a side and be happy with it.

 

[to be continued]