Umiiyak ka na naman, Langya talaga , wala ka bang ibang alam.

Umiiyak ka na naman, sa aking balikat. Medyo nababasa na nga ang balikat ko sa luha mong kanina pang tumutulo. Di ko ba alam kung bakit ka pa umiiyak. "Di ba matagal na kayong break?" tanong ko sa kanya. Sabi niya, "Oo nga matagal na kaming hiwalay pero hindi pa rin ako makamove-on, hindi pa rin ako makalimot."

Oo nga naman, first love mo kasi eh. Akala mo siya na ang una't huling mamahalin mo. Akala mo siya na ang prince charming mo. Pero naglaho ang lahat ng iyong nalaman na nangagaliwa pala siya. Noong una hindi ka naniniwala sa mga tsismis na may iba siyang kasama. Nahuli ko nga sila one time pero hindi ko sinabi sa iyo kasi natatakot ako na baka pagbintangan mo ako na traydor, naninira ng isang relasyon, na sinisiraan ko ang boypren mong enggot. Takot ako sa mga bagay na hindi ako tiyak sa kinalalabasan kaya nagpasya ako na manahimik na lang sa isyung iyan. Kasi baka di ka rin maniwala sa akin. Hahayaan na lang kitang makita mo ang katotohanan. At nakita mo nga ang katotohanan.

May kwento kang pandrama na naman. Parang pang TV na walang katapusan

Ilang beses mo bang inulit ulit sa akin yung kwento na iyon? Tatlong beses mong inulit yata. Ako naman, kahit di ko na kaya, tinitiis ko para lang sa iyo, para lang mawala ang mga hinanakit sa puso mo. Kahit inaantok na ako, kahit najejebs na ako, kahit nagugutom na ako, tinitiis ko ang lahat para lang sa iyo. At para na rin guminhawa ang iyong pakiramdam. Paano ulit yun? Kung paano mo nalaman? Ah, natatandaan ko na! Nakasakay ka sa IKOT galing sa klase mo sa AS. Habang dumadaan sa may EDUC, nakita mo siya may kalambingan na babae sa isang Beltran bench. MAli, hindi lang naglalambingan, naglalampungan pala. Parang isang kissing scene na kinuha sa isang malaswang pelikula ang iyong ginamit na paghahambing. NAghahalikan. Bigla kang bumaba kahit na tumatakbo pa ang jeep. Pinagalitan ka pa nga ng drayber. Kung gusto mo daw magpakamatay, wag daw sa jeep niya kasi cargo ka pa raw niya kung nadisgrasya ka. Pero di mo siya
pinansin kasi wala ka ng pakialam kung nasugatan ka man or nasaktan or nadisgrasya. ang nasa isip mo lang ay kung paano mo kokomprontahin ang boypren mong palikero. Sasampalin mo ba kaagad o sisipain sa bay*g sabay suntok sa mukha?


itutuloy.......

They say that the evening sky is a mistress, a very lonely mistress. Forever parted from his lover, the morning sky. In each passing day, they only meet twice, during sunrise and sunset. Their ill-fated love, marked by the transition of day and night, night and day, bounded by some laws of universe, is brief and full of grief. In those fleeting seconds where they meet, where each exchanges sweet nothings to each other hastily, and embracing as much as they could, they give assurance that they will see each other in the next transition. The sun, in his rise to his mighty throne, separates them brutally, forcefully at sunrise, leaving the mistress all alone in the darkness of her own misery. The regal moon separates them at sunset, with her pleadings that they must heed to the call of the cosmos, that they, the mistress and her lover, must serve their sentence faithfully, that their love must not and should not happen. And just like in sunrise, they part at sunset with bitterness painted in their faces. They understand well that their love was doomed, doomed to fail because it was forbidden. After eons and eons, this became their charade, their curse.

And this is our story, isn’t it? How ironically appropriate. We are separated by the people around us, by unexplainable circumstances and by our fate. We know that we have it, that spark that gives fire in our hearts, that unexplainable something, that we enjoy our company as much as we enjoy the memories we leave behind. But our union (if they call it love then let them be), was not meant to be. Not probably in this lifetime because we live different lives, have different fates, have different paths of glory, and have different destinies to fulfill. Tragic isn’t it? We are held captive by our own fate. We are what our destiny is. We can not fight back and rage against our destiny because by doing so we are in a danger of losing our own humanity, our own sanity. I tried to fight back; I tried to break away from the shackles of my fate, to run away with you. But I could not, because I am already weak, tired, weary and hurting from the scars of my past. I'm reduced to an abominable specter, waiting for that time when we finally go with our separate ways. At least we have the memories to look back, memories to cherish for. We will utter our farewells with sobs; probably hug for the last time. But before we pursue with our different paths, I will make that last attempt to alter my fate and let it intertwine with yours - if not in this lifetime then maybe in the next - because I am chained to my promise that I will destroy my destiny just to be with you. Because I know that our souls are linked by an unseen rope, pulling me wherever you go. Yep, somewhere down the road, we will meet again in that junction, at the crossroads of our lives. If we fail in this lifetime, I hope and wish that we will be better off in the after-life.

As I stare at the stars, consoling the mistress of the sky and watching the moon sitting in its majestic throne, I began to weep not only because of you, not only because of this ruckus, not only because I am missing you so much but mainly because I fear so much that maybe, just maybe, we will end up like them: living a tragic and miserable life, forever prisoners of their fate.

“There are only two things that will happen to a Pisay graduate,” our high school chemistry teacher once told us, “either you sink or swim.”

Many of us reacted violently, knowing that such statement was totally revolting and downright blasphemous. We were shocked that our teacher, both a Pisay graduate and a UP alumna, was pessimistic and doubtful of our potential as future scientists, engineers and leaders of this country. She was directly attacking our capability to survive in UP and graduate on time. Being the idealist we were, we never believed her because she was aggressively undermining our future, discouraging us to dream further. And we stopped listening to her classes.

How on earth could a Pisay graduate “sink” or more appropriately “drown” in UP? It was like asking if Eric Buhain would drown in the middle of a race. Come to think of it, we are provided with the best secondary education the Philippine Government could offer. We have the best and brightest instructors and mentors. In fact, most of our teachers are masteral degree holders or are currently taking up their MA’s. That’s not all, two of our teachers were recipient of the prestigious Metrobank Outstanding Teachers Award. We are also provided with the best curriculum – training us extensively in the sciences to become the future intellectual heavyweights. We are the cream of the crop, the brightest, and the intellectually-gifted of our generation. And to top it all, our education is free plus some perks that are the envy of others – we have stipends and traveling allowances. With these amenities, perks and training, how could a Pisay graduate “drown” in the seemingly friendly waters of the University of the Philippines?

Equipped with raw idealism and innocent perspective about life, I became a man on a mission when I entered here in UP. I will prove my teacher wrong, I will prove that all Pisay graduates could swim effortlessly the shores of UP. I will make her eat her own words, until she blows out and die instantly. So I did my share of the bargain, I studied. I got decent grades, respectable enough that my parents were so elated when they saw it. And the semesters went on, and my grades were getting lower and lower much to the dismay of my parents who were expecting much from me. Until finally I got my first 5.

My hand was not shaking when I was holding my class card in Physics 72. I was even surprised that they never gave me a grade of 6. So this is the feeling when you get a five: you feel numb, you don’t know whether you are happy or sad. Your emotions are clashing, fighting for your attention, racing to be expressed. But you feel nothing and no emotions were leaking out. I was a perfect study of someone who was manhid. I was standing outside NIP, near a tree for ten whole minutes. I was standing there like a statue: firm, solid, immovable, and emotionless.

A haunting voice was haunting me over and over in my sleep that night, “either you sink or swim.”

I woke up and realized that I have failed in my mission. I should have listened to my chemistry teacher after all and asked her why it was happening. But there is no point in regretting the lost opportunity because I could never go back and asked my teacher again. That night I understood why she said it, I understood the reasons for her telling it: to ready us for the shark-infested waters of UP, to warn us that swimming in UP is not an easy task, that it requires patience, perseverance, consistency and diligence.

I continued with my miserable academic life, collecting a bunch of 5's, 4's, 3's, inc's and a solitary 1 along the way. I continued drowning and gasping for air in the not-so-friendly, shark-infested and stormy waters of UP.


#########
first published in peyups.com
Tuesday, September 30, 2003 @ 09:00:01 AM

man's mind (not his ego), is the fountainhead of human progress

nobody could be ever be an absolute individualist..a person could never ever betray his own true nature, which is to belong to a group, to be with a group,to mingle with a group. for me, its impossible or near to impossible that an individual proposed by ayn rand exist. this is a bold and sweeping statement because all human beings are social beings.

i dont believe in ayn rands form of individualism because of the way she presented it: man should be selfish; man should work for his own; man should do things because it pleases him, because it brings atisfaction and fullfilment. man should do things for his own end and nothing else.

rand's individualism vs emersonian individualism
because of the selfishness aspect, i decided not to subscribe to her brand of individualism. rather, im more comfortable with emerson's individualism: living your life unselfishly; do things not only for yourself but for others; be yourself, trust yourself. be yourself and be an an inspiration to others. (read his essay "self-reliance" and youll see the very big difference)

para sa aken, we should find a balance between individualism and altruism. Ang main fault ni ayn rand was she was attacking head-on altruism like a rampaging tank, she was branding it very evil, (it was on the verge of being satanic..hehehee), while egotism is sugar, spice and everything nice....

her another fault was that she never recognized that altruism has two forms, for her all form of altruism is under the word collectivism. but i beg to disagree; for me altruism exists in two forms

1. living your life unselfishly for others for the common good. famous personalities under this: Jesus, Mother Theresa, buddha this form of altruism is very noble because we put premium on those people who helps other by their own free will, without any hesitations, without any complaints
2. living your life based on other's expectation, living up to their expectations. (Peter Keating)....you are living a borrowed life, you are devoid of your self because your self died at the instant you live to other's expectation. you dont have a way of expressing yourself, your personality; your only concern is to please others, and not yourself

ayn rand then must be barking at the wrong tree, firing her ferocious cannons at the wrong direction; on her haste to discredit all, she discredited herself; in her eagerness to prove herself she proved nothing; in her haste to justify her views she justified none. but i dont wholly disagree with her, its her sweeping generalizations and stereotyping that made my blood boil like water for chocolate.

but one thing is clear though (which i think is in congruence with her views)

we must believe in our selves and be our selves, never be swayed with the wishes of society, never pay attention to the pressures of society, never ever be somebody else because there is a reason why you are here and that is to exist as yourself not based on other's expectation but yours, not by anyone's measuring stick but your's, not through the wishes of others but
yours, yours and yours alone. there is a reason why we exist, there are several reasons why we keep on living, keep on surviving in this very harsh and cruel world, there is a reason, and the reason lies in your hands, have been shown to you through your actions, have been imrinted in you the moment you made your first decision. you exist because you have choices to make and needs to fulfill.

I'm the king of the castle
You're the dirty rascal
Crash into me
Oh see you crash into me baby,
'Cause I am swimming in your seas
And in your ocean
And I feel your waves come and crash into me
-- crash into me, dave matthews band --


Beforehand, i knew my unsolicited posturings on these subject matters, about
the Fountainhead and Ayn Rand's Objectivism, were standing on a shaky ground.
They are open and very vulnerable to attacks because they were opinions that i
wrote in the spur of the moment. The bricks were layered hastily to create a
semblance of a fortress. But now, as i see my fortress being attacked from all
sides i must fortify it, launch my defense or the fortress i built will
crumble to the ground....

i believe in Objectivism on some points, i even agree with her (Ayn RAnd) that
it is important that man should hold and seize the reins, direct his life in
any direction where he sees fit. I believe in the heroics of man, in the great
potentiality of man, of the individual. I believe that man must stand alone,
should seize the day.

But also man should be conscious of his surrounding, of where he stands, of
the society where he is placed, of the contemporaries he has to mingle with,
of the milieu where he is situated. Man should be one with the society, just
as man should act as an individual. Man should be both an altruist and an
individualist.

I admit i committed a mistake, but a mistake i do not regret neither i would
be sorry for. My mistake probably was that i never had an open mind while
reading the text, the book. I was reading it with vile contempt and revulsion;
just imagine my grimace, my anguish, my pain while reading it. It was like
stabbing yourself not only once, not only twice but countless times: after
reading it, i barely survived the ordeal. Probably because i am very settled
with my own beliefs and with my own philosophy, it came to an extent that i
revile anything that is contrary to my beliefs. But now, ive learned how to
restrain myself, how to hold back my scathing comments, how to control my
emotions, how to contain myself. Probably it comes with age, and wisdom (ehem!)

Nobody could be a complete and absolute individualist (ayn rand's ideal man),
because all men have altruistic tendencies (probably due to the different
social constructions found within the society, and the massive influences of
several institutions: the family, religion, state, the school (educational
system). But there are a few absolute altruists: Buddha, Jesus Christ, MOther
Theresa, Martin Luther, Karl Marx and others). They are considered great and
famous for their greatness because of their unselfish salf-sacrifice to their
fellow humans. Because they lived for others, for the common good. The rest
are a hybrid, a compromise between individualism and collectivism.

I am on an unprecedented personal pilgrimage – pilgrimage towards the truth. My journey, perilous and dangerous, has been on a rocky and bumpy road ever since because few dared to walk this road, much more pave the way with concrete for others to follow. This personal undertaking met several obstacles and hazards; I was even called a lunatic and a fool at times. But such petty (yet degrading) obstacles would never deter my determination to advance this seemingly impossible adventure because as long as there are conspiracy theories, as long as there are controversies and lies, there would always be fuel to my rampaging drive towards the truth. And Jim Marrs’ Rule by Secrecy started it all.

I am all praises and forever grateful for Jim Marrs’ Rule by Secrecy because of his fearless unmasking of the truth and for “sending me off to space” to challenged established truth. Believe me, there is no book that packs a punch like this book. If the book were a boxer, it would have sent Lennox Lewis kissing the canvass. The book is a tour de force filled with carefully laid-out knockout punches and chockfull of surprises.

What is so special with Rule by Secrecy? It deals with conspiracies but not just plain and simple ones, rather, the book tackles the mother of all conspiracies: the hidden history that connects the shadowy Trilateral Commission, the Council of Foreign Affairs, the Freemasons and the Roman Catholic Church. The book attempts to answer polemical questions that have long been evaded due to its controversial nature. Every revelation presented here concerning the true nature and activities of these secret societies and institutions are equally breathtaking and outrageous.

Yes, the book answers your nagging question, “Are there really conspiracies?” with a modest claim that conspiracies happens every minute. There is a conspiracy, as claimed by the author, by the wealthy elite to maintain power and control by keeping the public ignorant of the things happening around and of their exploited state. Which leads me to thinking that life is a conspiracy -- that we are just puppets of a play directed by these secret societies. Ignorance, definitely, is a curse.

I don’t want to play the spoiler so I will not divulge much of what is written in the book. But there are two things I wish to disclose to prove my point that it is serious in its attempt to unravel the truth behind these secret societies. One of Marrs’ serious allegations is that America is controlled by a wealthy few and not by the Federal Government. They assembled such power that all major conflicts from World War I to the Gulf War bear their fingerprints of conspiracy. Another appalling shocker is the information that the Federal Government of America does not have a direct control over the Federal Reserve (Central Bank to us) but rather controlled by banks owned by the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, and Morgans.

I find myself at first a hesitant believer of these conspiracy theories probably because it runs contrary to my established notions of what the truth is but I do find myself in congruence with the author on two issues. First, the book validates my views that there are certain “powers” more powerful than national governments that create conflict upon conflict to gain profits, prestige and power. Second, I definitely agree that the Roman Catholic Church is concealing (or worse destroyed) something, probably a doctrine or some manuscripts that are potentially damaging to the existing Catholic dogmas because existence of such would lead to the destruction of the Catholic faith. Imagine the consequences if it will be proven that Jesus did have a wife and has descendants living today or Virgin Mary was never virgin at all. Eventualities of such incident would be horrific and incomprehensible. Thus, silence on such contentious matters is golden and beneficial for both the Church and its believers.

A word of caution before you read the book, never attempt to read it if you are secured with your own beliefs, with your own perspectives, with what you believe to be the truth. Do not read out of curiosity either. For this wicked book (wicked might still be an understatement) may turn your world upside down because Rule by Secrecy is loaded with information and facts(?) potentially dangerous for the unprepared. Before reading the book, I temporarily threw my preconceptions, beliefs and perspectives out of the window to create new paradigms to accommodate grave allegations concerning several conspiracies. Guess what, the book not only turned my world upside down but also sent my world nose-diving into an endless black pit. After reading it, I was never the same again. I became more skeptical and critical to world events. I even felt helpless and naked against these “powers.”

There is no doubt some information found in the book are by convention true. And there is no question that Rule by Secrecy may be filled with half-truths, lies and even blasphemous allegations concerning the Catholic Church, Freemasons CFR and Trilateral Commission. Jim Marrs could be an outright liar or true-tongued journalist/researcher in his book. Nobody knows for sure if his assertions are credible and veracious, even Marrs confessed in his book that there is “no guarantee that [the] information presented here is absolute truth.” On the contrary, nobody knows if his declarations are false, erroneous and illusory either. Thus, Rule by Secrecy hangs in a balance between this fine thread separating lies and the truth. What terrifies me the most is the big probability that these “lies,” “half-truths,” and “blasphemy” might be the truth after all. These thoughts haunted me and caused me sleepless nights. What we know to be true today might be fabricated truth – created and modified by secret societies that want to obscure, to mislead, and to cause confusion among people. We, caught in a terrible and deadly dilemma, must realize our important duty then – from here on we should be critical/skeptical and even more investigative in pursuit of the truth. We should untangle the web of conspiracy, layer by layer, until what is left is the naked truth. And this should be our goal, our only obligation: to clear what were intentionally obscured.

The only consolation left to us is the fact that the truth is out there (ala X-Files) – isolated, hidden and untold. And it is probably our manifest destiny to uncover the conspiracies proliferating in our society, in our history books, and in our very souls. Now let us haste for the time is ripe for our quest. And then maybe, just maybe, one day: we will end this adventure a thing or two wiser and more enlightened for making the journey.


############
first published in peyups.com
Tuesday, December 16, 2003 @ 12:55:15 AM

spoiler alert: kung di mo pa nabasa ang fountainhead dont read further,
promise, youll regret reading this......

here are my points of view regarding the novel and Objectivism.

i believe in objectivism on two points: 1. that we are guided by reason, and
2. the prime importance of the individual, the heroics of a genius.

First, we are rational men, guided by our own rational mind, guided by our own
rational thinking. This was proven long ago by the greek philosophers, plato,
Aristotle, and socrates. we dont act like savages because we have brains that
processes mental thought, because of our rationality, we act as civilized
men. Because of Reason we are capable of discerning what is right or wrong,
because of reason, we have a conscience, and because of Reason we have an ego.

Secondly, before Ayn Rand emphasized the importance of the self, of the
individual, before he "thought" of Objectivism, there was Ralph Waldo Emerson
and his idea of self reliance: that man must believe on his own soul, believe
that what is true for one's soul is true for all men, believe on his own
thoughts. HE glorified the individual, valued the iportance of just being
yourself. He said that the independent self-reliant man must go up right and
vital, must chide malice, reprove vanity, reprimand affection, be rough and
graceless to bigotry. Integrity to self obliges one to be overweening, if need
be, to establish boundaries, to put one's claim for integrity before family,
and friends and society, to teach the docrtrine of hatred if love be whining
and pulling. "let us affront and reprimand the smooth mediocrity and squalid
contentment," he writes and not be "decorous sooth sayers."

There is a flaw in ayn rand's objectivism: she insist that if you are not an
egotist/ individualist then you must be a collectivist/ altruist. it makes
sense because if you are not A then probably you are B, it makes sense
mathematically and logically. but what she committed was a fallacy of
omission. she overlooked the possibility that one does not apply to both, in
layman's term: man is presented with three, not just two, choices - a. an
individualist, b. an altruist, c. not applicable. now I see you shout and
scream that all things follow the law of dichotomy, that all things can be
separated and classified in two things only: yin or yang, good or evil, either
you are or you aren't, either you are one of us or you're a terrorist (as GMA
threatened those who opposes her in the war against terrorism)...but here is a
classic example, what if you dont apply, that you are neither for yourself nor
for others? another possibility (i call it a paradox) that is embedded in her
teachings is that you could also be both: an individualist and an altruist (a
hybrid of some sort). but before that, let me state the importance of
altruism, we were savages then..living for himself, living for ones self, but
one realized that in order to survive one must cooperate because one could not
exist with the other. so you help in hunting mammoths, because there is
strength in numbers, and when agriculture was developed, you help plant plants
with your fellow humans. when civilization flourished, who help created the
city, because one is needed in every aspect of city building: providing food
to the workers, providing luxurious items to the kings, making shelters to
thousands of people living in the city, laying the bricks that will become the
foundation of the cities. individuals introduced innovations but it was the
collective who pushed forward, who advanced the civilization...and dont
forget, society was created for altruist reasons (imagine living separately,
without a common heritage, without a common tradition that will bind us, just
imagine how hard it will be. will we be succesful as today? No! because of our
own selfish motives we are divided and never united) and so is language, it
was created by a collective of men in order to understand each other, in order
to transmit information, feelings, ideas. Society and language were never
created by an individual but rather by a group conscious of the common good,
who have deep appreciation and love for humanity. and so are many things were
created because of altruist reasons. If we are into individualism, then
probably we dont have language, we are still savages, just as before, because
of our own selfish nature, because we dont cooperate, we dont collaborate, we
dont work in a collective. Even scientific breakthroughs are considered to be
altruistic in nature because they were discovered for the common good and not
by selfish motives.

for example: if i were a doctor, why would i search for a cure for
aids if i dont care for others who are suffering from the disease. why would i
devote my whole life searching for that cure? because i want to? because it is
my passion and i have no regards for what purposes it will serve in the
future? no! that is hypocrisy in its purest form. The mere fact that you
conducted the research is an admission of the altruistic nature of the
endeavor.

now, the paradox: that we are both individualist and an altruist. I
believe modern society requires everyone of us to be altruistic, whether we
like it or not: we must conform to the norms, follow and believe the popular
philosophy, sidestep mores and taboos, we must because we are social animals,
first and foremost, being a political animal is a close second. we must
protect, we must serve the society because through unity we find strentgh,
through numbers we acquire power. we must work as a collective because through
consultation there would be harmony and peace. And since we are part of the
society that we are still creating and recreating and at the same time
unmaking, we must live to serve others.

But, in this haze of being a collective we must not lose our individuality. we
must stamp it in every work we do, that this was done by ME, I MADE THIS
(CRAP). NOt of vanity, or to announce that you made this and that, but to
acquire space and acquire respect for yourself. you dont stamp your
individuality just to boast but to remind them that you are an individual, has
the power to create and destroy. yes, we should also live for ourseleves for
the satisfaction of our own soul, of our own different states of hunger. we
should live for the moment and not worry too much of the future. the
importance of the self is thoroughly explained in the book, so need to discuss
this. what im trying to state is and point out is that no man is an island,
one needs to cooperate to survive.

im deeply irritated because she downplayed and put collectivism in the bad
light. i could write a book that would reverse the order but i would not
attempt because it may be a literary flop. im not defending collectivism
because im a marxist but rather im defending it because i believe in altruism
as much as i believe in individualism, because i am both.

(july 01, 2003)


**note: this is the conclusion of my paper in socio 101 entitled:
"Conflict Analysis on Culture and Culture Transmission
in Philippine Science High School - Eastern Visayas Campus"


Struggle and conflict characterize our society. Our society is held together by the struggle and antagonism between two contradicting groups. And it is through this we could really understand the dynamics within the society.

We can never deny there is conflict in our society. Conflict between lovers, between rich and the poor, the powerful and the helpless, the capitalist and the masses, father and son, teacher and apprentice, and administrators and students. These antagonisms result into the rule of the dominant class and the oppression of the less dominating class. Conflict extends to every institution in the society. And with every conflict there is oppression and repression of the helpless and powerless. And through oppression, the greatest evil is done to a man: he is stripped off of his humanness – which is the ability to do things at his own way, at his own time, at his own place and at his own pace.

Oppression is rampant in the society. It is institutionalized in every sector of the society in order to protect the interests of the capitalists. Widespread confusion results from this oppression, as man becomes alienated from himself and from his surroundings. And through this alienation, man becomes an agent of oppression where he is able to multiply the oppression within the society.

Oppression starts from the school where the capatilistic ideologies are first imparted and inculcated to the eager young minds. After which, the students become blind of their oppression and become members of the workforce, where he works like a machine – he becomes such because he is stripped off from his humanness and wants.

Louise Althusser, French philosopher, argues that the educational system is ultimately shaped by the infrastructure and will therefore reflect the relations of production and serve the interest of the capitalist ruling class. And for the ruling class to survive, the “reproduction of labor is essential.” So, the role of education is to reproduce a workforce that has the necessary skills to become an efficient worker and to reproduce the ruling class ideology and the socialization of workers in terms of the ideologies. These processes would produce a technically efficient, submissive and obedient workforce.

Extending the Althusser view, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (both American economists) argue that the ruling class maintains an educational system that contributes to the reproduction of workers with the kinds of personalities, attitudes and outlooks which will fit them for their exploited status. From this, schools foster types of personal development compatible with the relationships of dominance and subordinancy in the economic sphere. They argue that, “The only significant penalized trait are precisely those which are incompatible with conformity to the hierarchical division of labor.” So, massive exploitation occurs in the society due to the low wages given to those who do not have the right attitude and outlook among the workforce.

PSHS-EVC, being a creation of the capitalism, is a major breeding ground of future workers of the ever-expanding workforce. The school, being a “house of oppression” manufactures students that are technically equipped, obedient and submissive. And the students being helpless against these forces, are unable to fight back because they are already alienated from his’ self. He no longer knows what he is and more importantly his wants.

PSHS-EVC, after an extensive analysis, has the following features: a very oppressive culture, a very forceful way of cultural transmission, and is comprised of students who don’t know of their exploited state.

What are the recommendations for the oppression to stop in the institution? One radical solution would be the deschooling of the students (as suggested by Ivan Illich). We should unmake what is done on the minds of the “young eager minds.” The answer lies on the abolition of the PSHS-EVC in particular and the present educational system, in general. In place of the schools, would be through learning webs and through “true apprenticeship of the skills.” Another solution, which is obvious, would be the abolition of the present economic system and the installation of a socialist economic system (as suggested by Karl Marx) where the people communally own everything and where everyone is involved in the education of the students. The third solution would be to do nothing about it because oppression of the people is inevitable and because there is nothing we could do about it.

There is no perfect solution to an imperfect problem. We should still examine closely the interaction between the two forces in order to have a much greater knowledge about their conflict and antagonism. My cause is not to cause rebellion nor mutiny among the students. Nor would I bring the masses into greater oppression. No I don’t have such grand dreams. All I want when I was making this study is to be able to add to the limited knowledge pool in conflict perspective here in the Philippines. Also, my aims in making this study are to make the people, especially the students, aware of their exploited state and to provide an alternative way of seeing things, on how things are and how things should be.

My love poems and love songs, written on a piece of paper blotted by tears falling like rain, are ready. Ready to be recited and sung. The flowers are also ready – neatly arranged by a florist/friend, and so are the candles, the handkerchief and the letter. I readied them all yesterday. Then, I asked myself, “Am I ready to face you again? Am I ready to go to the cemetery?”

Am I ready after many years of neglect and disregard? Am I ready to admit that it was also my fault? Am I ready to admit above your grave that I miss you so much? Am I ready to say my last goodbye? These are the questions bugging my convoluted mind at this very moment, questions that I shied away for the past years simply because I was afraid to answer them. I am scared because I do not know what answers I must give, because I do not know whether there are answers to these nagging questions. In fact I am too scared to admit that you are gone, too scared that I never visited your grave for three years, too scared to ask for forgiveness, too scared because I never said goodbye.

After three years, I am still in a state of shock and denial. How I wish that I was also there beside you on that night of your accident. But just like any tragic movies, the man would always be left behind, weeping and feeling sorry for himself, half-wishing that he may be taken by the lord at that very moment.

After three long years, I could not still accept that you are gone. I still believe that you also exist in this plane of existence. You may not have a body but your essence is still floating and soaring like air moving freely here, there and everywhere. I know you are always at my side, comforting me when I am depressed, lifting me up when I am down, and guiding me in every step I take. To me, you are not gone but simply everywhere. But alas, as I try to catch you and hug you, you slip away just like the air.

I admit a part of me died when you departed. A part of me went with you on your grave. I could not even recognize the face I see across the mirror, barely recognizing it as my own. A face in anguish and in disbelief, tormented by a love lost. A face void of expression, scarred by the abrupt loss. At that very moment, I ceased to live because your love was the only thing that sustains me. I became a hobo of sorts; just waiting for the time, waiting it to pass by as the world is running amok Time became my enemy as well, as I frantically counted the days passing by. Minutes became hours, hours became days, days became months and months became years. Each passing day became an ordeal, the pain becoming intolerable by the second. Now I understand Atlas’ situation, carrying the world above his shoulders.

I promised you that I will love you for the rest of my life. I’ve kept that promise for three years because I love you so much, so much that I was willing to love you even if you are gone. And I did my end of the bargain. At first it gave me strength but later on it became a curse hanging around my neck. For three long years, I became a broken man: weeping in my bed, hoping that someday I will be free from the curse that was my undoing; that someday I will be at peace with myself again. But you never gave me the peace I wanted dearly. You would always let me remember that dreary night. God knows how I wished that I was also there, trying to save you from three killer/ rapists, slicing their guts as I try to defend you from these soulless jackals. But fate would not let me. Fate would just not let me. Probably this is my destiny: to live my life full of pain and suffering.

My promise is the reason of this madness. My promise is the reason why I became a monster, a horror, a despicable creature waiting for time to pass by, a person who barely recognize himself, a soul shattered into pieces. Lest I become a walking zombie, I must free myself from the shackles of that promise. And if I fail to do so, my heart would always be a barren and desolate desert/wasteland: crying for rain, pleading for mercy, gasping for freedom.

But for God’s sake let me live again, let me breathe! Let me live my life again without the bondage of guilt! Allow me to break the promise for I am too suffering greatly. Because I do not want anymore to see my self rotting away into oblivion, wasting my life like some gold thrown at the middle of the ocean.

Now as I ready myself to visit you at your grave this all soul’s day, my only wish is that you accept my answers and peace offerings. And I hope you would also accept and understand that I will break the promise that I made before. Even if it is contrary to your wishes, I will leave the cemetery a broken man with a broken promise.