Module 1: Human MOTIVATION: 1. As human, how do we recognize own limitations and possibilities? 2. What does it mean to be human? 3. What is being human and human being? PRE-READING: Interview In a small group, find out the difference between the opinion of young and old people about the question “What makes man truly human?” Ask them the elements or things that make up for one to belong in the specie called man. What is the essence of man? And how do you act as human? BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE: The being of man is the being that continuously search for truth and meaning in life. One can find truth but did not achieve its full meaning while some able to find the meaning but does not end with truth. A sick man might be able to find the truth behind his illness but not able to discover why that truth exist. A lost child may realize why he was lost but still not able to find the right direction. A teacher may find the meaning of his profession but lacks the awareness of the right method to teach a child. This continuous searching of man for truth and meaning allows him to discover many potentialities that are inherent in him. These potentialities are not only embedded in his soul. He is born with it and made for it. In seeking he makes himself ‘free’ as he opens himself to many possibilities. The possibility of failure, success, truth, lie, pain, joy, betrayal, trust, love and rejection. All these experiences are essential in the making man to be truly human because when one finds the truth and meaning of his ‘being’ he is now more closer to living a life fulfilled. (Rico D. Blando, https://www.academia.edu/4285804/what_makes_man_truly_human) WHAT MAKES MAN TRULY HUMAN? Michael D. Moga, S.J. [From What Makes Man Truly Hunan? A Philosophy of Man and Society, Makati City: St. Paul’s Press, 1995, pp. 3-10.] Human beings are not necessarily human. Such a statement may sound very puzzling but it is true for two reasons. First of all, it takes much time and effort for a human being to grow to the point where his own nature has reached full realization. When born he acts like a little animal, not yet being fully human. It will take many years of training and education by his family and society, many years of effort and struggle on his own part before the fullness of humanity can be achieved. Until that state of full humanness is attained we cannot say that he is fully human. Secondly, it is very possible that an individual human being will not reach full development at all. We recognize that there are human beings which fail to possess those basic qualities which are required for full humanness. Sometimes we use the word “inhuman” to describe such persons. They may be cruel, insensitive to others, irrational, or robot-like in their lives and dealings with others. At other times we use the word “animal” to describe persons who follow their lower instincts and ignore their consciences, their human dignity and the higher values of human life. We judge such inhuman people, such “animals,” to be less than fully human. That a human being can possibly not be human strikes us as a puzzling paradox, revealing that man is quite different from all other living species. Every other living organism very quickly grows to a state of full development. Very rarely do we encounter a plant or an animal that is such a “monster” that it does not truly represent its species. Every acacia tree is necessarily an acacia tree and every dog is necessarily a dog. Every tree grows to full size in a few years and is completely a tree, taking nourishment from the soil and the air, developing new branches and leaves, producing seeds. Most dogs grow to full size and maturity within a year. From the very beginning ever dog is clearly a dog, breathing, barking and smelling like a dog. How strange it is that human life is so different from the lives of trees and dogs! The fullness of humanity not only takes a great deal of time to reach but often in a significant way it is not reached at all. We are surrounded on this planet earth with many human beings who sadly lack very important human traits. Such a truth challenges each one of us. Am I as an individual going to realize the full humanness that is possible for me? Will I play a role in helping other human beings to grow into the humanness that they are capable of? For the task that confronts me in my life is not only one of coping with the problems of survival but also one of achieving a level of life that is truly human. I am challenged in life not only to survive and to be prosperous but also to be human. But a question arises. What is this fullness of human life which we human beings can attain? What are those characteristics that we should strive to develop? What makes man truly human? This question is not a new one. In a hidden, implicit way it has confronted every human being that has ever existed in the history of man. In the course of human history philosophers have given many different answers to this question, many different ideals of being human. We call such ideals “humanisms.” As we study the history of human cultures we discover many different humanisms which have inspired and guided those cultures. It is worthwhile to reflect on these various ideals since they open up to us many rich possibilities of human life. The Greek Ideal of Full Development One very distinctive humanism that arose in the past was that of the ancient Greeks. The Greeks understood man as a being composed of many natural potentialities, many possibilities for growth. They sensed that nature actively guided man to develop those potentialities, a development that was meant to reach a state of fullness or excellence. In such an understanding of life the fully human person is one who lives a life of a completely developed human being. First of all, human beings have physical potentialities and it is possible for them to develop their bodies and their bodily skills. Some of these skills are connected with sports and leisure as they learn to run, to swim and to dance. Other skills are practical: the ability to type, the ability to drive a car or to fly a plane, the ability to master crafts such as carpentry or masonry. Secondly, human beings have many mental abilities that can be developed. They can expand their capacities to imagine and to dream of new possibilities. They can develop their human sensitivity, becoming more aware of themselves, of other people and of nature. They can learn to think more logically and to bring rationality more completely into their lives. They can become expert in one of the many human sciences. They can become more aware of the presence of beauty in nature and in the human arts. They can become more open to the realm of the mysterious and the sacred. In many different ways the human mind can be developed. Thirdly, human beings can develop communication skills, learning how to read and to write and to talk. It may take years to develop these skills but, once they are mastered, individuals are better able to function as full human beings. They can express their ideas clearly and forcefully. They can bring understanding, joy and beauty to those who read what they write or who listen to what they say. Fourthly, human beings can develop their social skills in many different ways. They can become loyal friends, good mothers and fathers, active members of society. They can become generals in armies, religious leaders, effective leaders of political communities. As individuals learn to play their roles in society and make significant contributions to society, they fulfil some of their social potentialities. The Greeks conceived of nature to be the guide and inspiration for the development of all of these human possibilities. This development was pointed toward an ideal, the fullness of human life, a life of excellence. Although these examples give us an understanding of human fulfilment in terms of an individual human being, this Greek ideal was also meant to be realized on a social level. A human community can achieve full development. This fullness of social development would include many elements such as peace, economic prosperity, the rule of law, active community interaction as well as the full development of education and the arts. Thus, from the Greeks we have a clear ideal for human life, the development of all human potentialities to the level of excellence. It is a humanism which has inspired and guided many peoples over the ages. The Oriental View A distinctively different understanding of human life is found in the classical writings of oriental religions, in Hinduism, Confucianism and Taoism. In these traditions human existence is understood not to be a matter of living a full life as a separate individual but to be a matter of living as part of something greater. In these traditions living wisely as a human being means that an individual finds his true place in that greater reality and conforms himself to it. In a true sense the wise man seeks to “lose” himself in that greater reality. From this “oriental” viewpoint any understanding of human life is primarily an understanding of a greater reality of which the individual man is a part. This sense of human life is expressed in different ways in each of the various oriental traditions. Hinduism conceives the greater reality to be divine and calls it Brahman or Atman. This divine Brahman is the only thing which is truly real and everything else is only real to the extent that it is part of Brahman. Brahman is like a great sea and all the other beings in the world are just drops of water in that sea. Such drops do not have their own distinct individual existence but exist as drops of water in a great sea; they are elements of something greater. Man’s life is thus conceived by Hinduism to be rooted in a divine totality, drawing its ultimate truth and reality from this root. Of course, man can ignore this truth and live superficially, absorbed by the happenings and ever-changing experiences of his individual existence. But such a way of living is foolish. A wise man lives in terms of the basic divine reality of which he is a part. He draws meaning from Brahman and seeks to lose himself in it. In a similar way the Chinese tradition of Confucianism understands the life of man in terms of something greater. In this case the greater reality is human society. What is really important in human life is society as it is concretized in family and friendship and the state. Man’s major concern should be to act in such a way that these social units are preserved in a traditional and correct form. In this philosophy of Confucianism the individual human being is understood precisely as a part of family, friendship or state. The purpose of his life is found in his fulfilling of his assigned role in these various social units. From family and state he has certain clear obligations which he must endeavor to fulfill. He lives wisely and his life is truly human to the extent that he fulfills these obligations, and his family and state prosper. A third prominent tradition in oriental thought is that of Taoism, a way of thinking that arose in ancient China. In this tradition the emphasis is on Tao, a mysterious, all-encompassing reality. Tao is the source of everything. It is an ultimate power that actively guides everything that exists in the heavens, in the earth and in human life. Tao is thus a “way” that directs all of these various levels of nature. As an ultimate reality this Tao is conceived not only to be all-powerful (guiding the existence of all beings) but also to be wise (guiding those beings to move in the best possible way). Because of this the individual human being is wise if he trusts Tao, is sensitive to its guidance and follows it in his life. He lets go of his own plans and his own efforts to control his own life and lives with natural spontaneity. By doing so the wise man’s life becomes the expression of his own individual desires but of Tao. Each of these three ways of life (Hinduism, Confucianism and Taoism) presents a picture of human life as part of something greater. In each of them a human being is truly human when he loses himself in that greater reality. To ignore that greater reality is to go astray and to live a life which is foolish. Such understandings of life present deep wisdom that has guided the lives of many millions of people for many centuries. The Hebrew Understanding A third quite distinctive understanding of human life is found in the Hebrew tradition. In this tradition human life is conceived to consist of a situation where man constantly faces challenges and expectations and is called upon to respond. In this situation man lives in a truly human way to the extent that he is sensitive to these challenges and responds to them in a noble and worthy way. This Hebrew sense of human life is concretized in the story of the “father” of all the Jews, Abraham. Abraham was called by Yahweh and told to take his family and possessions and to go into a far country where Yahweh would bless him. Abraham was challenged to believe in this call from God and to carry it out. He responded to Yahweh by trusting in His word and by fulfilling faithfully what was asked of him. He achieved greatness in his life by the way that he was faithful, responding to Yahweh’s call. All believers in the Hebrew tradition understand their lives in terms of this model of Abraham. They see themselves challenged and “called” by God in all of the happenings of their lives. This Hebrew model for understanding human life is not limited to a situation of religious faith but can be understood in a broader context. Every human being can see his life as a matter of challenges where the meaning of that life arises from the way that he responds. It is evident in life that every individual is constantly confronted by challenges arising from nature, his family, his friends, his community and his God. He experiences his life as something more than simply “being alive,” occupying a place in a quiet situation. Man’s situation is rather one of being constantly challenged, of facing expectations at every moment. In life he is never left alone. The Hebrew tradition thus presents us with an ideal of human life which is quite distinctive. The ideal human being in this tradition is one who is first sensitive to the challenges of his situation and who then responds to those challenges with courage, generosity and fidelity. Through this sensitivity and this responsiveness a person becomes truly human. Other Humanisms Besides the three humanisms presented above there are many other ideals of human life which have guided and inspired men and women through the ages. Let us briefly consider a few of them. There can be a type of moral humanism. Here the ideal human life is a full living of morality. This can be found in a life of correctness where an individual follows exactly all the moral laws of his religion and society. A slightly different version of this ideal is found in a life where moral virtues are lived in a full way, virtues such as love, courage, prudence, patient endurance and loyalty. In such a moral humanism the fully human person is one who is “good.” There can be a humanism which emphasizes creativity. The ideal here is a person who is creative on all levels of his life, in his artistic productions, in his expression, in his relationships, in his religion, in his personal growth. Such a fully human person is always open to new life as he constantly moves into new ways of living. His life is growing, full of surprises. For such a humanism of creativity the idea is embodied in an artist. There can be a religious humanism. Such a humanism would be based on the understanding that a human being is basically the image of God. According to this understanding the ideal human life is achieved when one becomes a full child of God, living fully one’s relationship to God. This life would include many different things, including the fulfilling of God’s will in one’s life, setting God as one’s primary goal, and emphasizing prayer and worship in one’s life. According to this view a person is fully human when he lives fully as the image of God. In such a religious humanism the ideal is the holy person, the saint. There can be a humanism of love. Human existence is understood here as basically a matter of relating to other people. The ideal human life is achieved when a person establishes deep human relationships with others and lives those relationships fully. One strives, for example, to be loving friend or a loving mother or father. Included in this ideal life is a high level of compassion and sensitivity. The ideal human being must be one who understands what others are experiencing and who is deeply sensitive to the needs and feelings of others. GUIDE QUESTIONS: 1. Does being born as a human necessarily make someone human? 2. Is it possible for someone to attain the full development of being human? 3. How does the Greek understood man? And what is their ideal human? 4. What is the oriental view towards human? 5. How does the concept of Hinduism, Confucianism and Taoism differ in their conception of man as being part of a greater reality? 6. How does the Hebrew conceive the understanding of the human life? 7. What is moral humanism? 8. What is the concept of the humanism that emphasizes creativity? 9. Is there such thing as religious humanism? 10. What is the humanism of love? AFTER READING: The Question This question (What is the ideal way to live human life?) is not a mere theoretical problem. In our lives in today’s world we make major decisions based on our preference for one or other of these humanisms, one of these ideals of human life. An example of this might be found in the ideas behind “women’s liberation.” Many modern women feel that their lives are somewhat empty when their existence consists merely of being wives and mothers. They want more in their lives than just the living out of such roles. They seek fulfillment in their lives, a fulfillment which they find in a career. In such a choice they are being guided by the Greek ideal for human life. A student may set aside her career in order to work and to gain money for the education of her brothers and sisters. The welfare of her family is more important for her than her own development. In acting this way she lives in terms of a humanism which gives priority to commitments and to a larger reality (a social group) and makes individual development secondary. (There is a similarity to the Hebrew and Oriental humanisms here.) Another example of conflict between models is found in the contemporary emphasis on “involvement.” This emphasis urges young people to go beyond their concern for their studies and success in their careers and to commit themselves to some form of social action. Those who stress such “involvement” are guided by an ideal of human life which looks beyond human development and fulfillment. This ideal conceives human life to be fully found in a life of response to the needs of one’s community. (There is an echo of the Hebrew humanism here.) Modern environmentalists urge us to cut back on our efforts for economic growth and to live in tune with nature, limiting our usage of natural resources. Such people are guided by a Taoist ideal of human life where life is understood in terms of conformity with nature and economic growth is secondary. Some people today choose to step aside from the world and to give their lives to God in religious or contemplative life. These people conceive God to be all important and they choose to live in terms of Him alone. Personal development and human relationships are conceived to be subordinated to this greater reality. (There is something similar to Oriental humanism here.) These examples show us that our ideal of human life has great influence over the choices that we make in life. We began this chapter with a simple question: What makes man truly human? It is clear now that the answer we give to that question will have a great effect on our lives. EVALUATION: From the respondents in your interview, pick one person and analyse how he/she sees humanism through his/her words and profession. The rubric for this should be as follows 40% Content 30% Organization 20% Insights 10% Language ENRICHMENT: Make a PowerPoint presentation of the group's interview and share it to the class. Include in the presentation the humanism of the person you analysed for the evaluation activity. MODULE 2: Embodied Spirit MOTIVATION: 1. Why is it that the dualistic definition of man as rational animal is inadequate? 2. What is “kalooban” have to do with the definition of man? 3. How can we evaluate our own limitations and the possibilities for transcendence? PRE-READING Look for the songs Tao by and Tao lang by Loonie featuring Quest. Make five comparisons on how they look at man through their lyrics. Tao Tao lang Loonie ft. Quest 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4 5. 5 BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE The article is a part of the introduction to the book Philosophy of Man: Selected Readings by Manuel Dy. Here he discussed the inadequacy of understanding man in a dual thinking through his two significant faculty. This kind of approach in philosophy is called Phenomenology. Man as Embodied Subjectivity (Excerpt from the Introduction of Philosophy of Man) by Manuel Dy Phenomelogists reject as inadequate the definition of man as “rational animal” or as a “composite of body and soul”. The trouble with the definition is that they are dualistic; they view man as made up of two parts: corporeal and spiritual, animality and rationality even if we lay stress on “composite” or “unity”, we would still face the dilemma of how two different realities, matter and spirit, can interact with each other. When pressed further on which reality is more important, no doubt we would say that rationality stands out as the unique characteristic of man. And yet our basis for understanding human nature is his animality, and 'rational' is only a qualifier, an added dimension to man's animality, thus making man “isang pinakamagandang hayop sa balat ng lupa – pero hayop pa rin.” This dualistic notion of man with its emphasis on rationality has led to the so-called two-lives theory and in moral education, the norms of good conduct in terms of ends and means. Man lives in two separate worlds, the temporal and the spiritual, but he must not make a mistake of making the temporal his ultimate end. The earthly city is only a preparation for the eternal. Reason equips him the judgement of distinguishing ends and means. The phenomenologist, on the other hand, sees man as embodied subjectivity. This is not just a matter of language, for the language does matter. Language does not just picture reality; it helps create reality's meaning. Man is foremost a subjectivity, a unique core or center, source, depth, well-spring of initiative and meaning. Our term “kalooban” (“kabubut-on” in Visayan, “nakim” in Ilocano, “hsin” in Chinese) fits the description. Note that the subjectivity is not limited to rationality but includes the affective, the emotional as well. Man, however, is not a pure subjectivity but a subjectivity incarnating itself, “in flesh” so to say. Man's body is not an object-body, a chunk of matter that is the lodging place of the spirit. The human body is a subject body, already a meaning-giving existence. In other words, human interiority always seeks to embody itself in a body structure or gesture. Embodiment is simply to make incarnate a meaning which comes from the inner core of man. How does this holistic view of man then affect our philosophy of education? The subject of education is man. Education is the process of developing man, man the embodied subject. Development now must be total development. Education cannot be and should not be simply a conglomeration of discipline each minding its own task of cultivating a specific part of man. Neither must education look down upon material development as merely stepping stone to the rational or the spiritual. We can recall here the mystical insight of the Jesuit philosopher-scientist,Teilhard de Chadin: Consciouness manifests itself indubitably in man and therefore, glimpsed in this one flash of light, it reveals itselfas having a cosmis extension and consequently as being aureoled by limitless prolongations in space and time. A corollary insight to embodiments the notion of language as embodied thought or thinking, not as a replica or clothing of ideas. Language is the way of thinking of the people itself speaking that language. If our education is to be relevant, it must be communicated in the language of the people to whom it is to be relevant. Man as Being-in-the-world As embodied subject, man is a being-in-the-world. The human body is the link of man with a world. The phenomenologist speaks of the world or worlds for man, rather than environment. Environment refers to animals, but the things around man are not simply objects lying; they from a network of meanings, in and on and around which man organizes his life. Thus, we speak of the world of a student, of a teacher, of a farmer, a politician. Man is “in” the world not in the same sense as the carabao is “in” the field. Both may be in the field but it is man who gives meaning to the field, the carabao, the sky, the plough. The world connotes then a dialectic of meaning and structures. The things around man are structures that articulate a meaning proceeding from the subjectivity of man. Some given structures reinforce a meaning, others run counter to it. In any case, to speak of man is to speak of his world, and vice versa. The phenomenologists calls this the intentionality of consciousness: consciousness is consciousness of something other than consciousness. In Visayan, it means “walay kalibutan (world) kung walay kalibutan (consciousness)”. Rather than define man as “rational animal” – to which one of my students quipped, “so what?” – let us emphasize man’s situatedness. This point is important when we speak of social change. No genuine social change is effected without an internal change in meaning, and no internal meaning can last without an external structure to reinforce it. The Scholastics like to dwell on cumutative justice or injustice, but contemporary man is more aware, in a complex world he lives, of social justice or injustice, of unjust structures. This is what we educators should address ourselves to with our students – an awareness of unjust structures, of internal change that need to be situated, of the need to humanize the world we live in by our work. GUIDE QUESTIONS: 1. What is the definition for man that the phenomenologists consider as inadequate? 2. What are the two elements that make the notion of man as dual? 3. What are the two separate worlds where man is in? 4. How does the phenomenologists look at the notion of man? What is the Filipino term for it? What other faculties does it include to see the totality of man? 5. What does “in flesh” means? 6. What does the embodiment make of man? 7. Can this holistic view of man affect the philosophy of education? How? AFTER READING: Look for Ze Frank: Are you human? in YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccIt- qRQBoI) As a class, participate by answering the questions in the video. EVALUATION: In a small group, make a song about being man. How is it to be a man? What makes man different from any other species? What makes you special to be a man? The rubric for the song shall be as follows: 40% Content 30% Musicality 20% Arrangement 10% Delivery ENRICHMENT: Record the song you made and have it uploaded to Facebook. Invite your friends and relatives to watch and comment on your song. Take note of the comments and suggestions. MODULE 3: Man as Transcendental MOTIVATION: 1. What does transcendental means? How can man be transcendental? 2. What are the limitations and possibilities of their transcendence? 3. How can man recognize that the human body imposes limits and possibilities for transcendence? PRE-READING: Look for the Video entitled Philosophy – Montaigne (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLAtXWaz76o&list=PLwxNMb28XmpfEr2zNKQfU97eyEs70k rSb&index=8). Take note of the positive and negative views of Michel De Montaigne on human. Positive Negative BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE: My Body An Essay by Eduardo Jose Calasanz, Philosophy of Man, Selected Readings Any philosophy of man is a systematic and holistic attempt to answer the question of “who am I?” IN our day-to-day life, we may be so engrossed in our activities that we do not bother anymore to question what seems clear and obvious to us. The question of “Who am I?” is such a case. It is surprising to ask this ourselves. At first glance, isn’t this question so simple? What could be clearer and obvious to us than the reality of our “I”? But this is only at first glance, from superficial and uncritical natural attitude. Certain events in our life (like sickness, failures, death) can awaken us and bring us to the limits of our ordinary experience. And then, the once-so-simple question deepens, begins to complicate, and beckons on us: Who am I? An important aspect in answering this question is the experience of my body. If I were asked about myself, my answers inescapably have reference to my body. What are you? Man, because I have a form, activities, and a body of man. Who are you? I am Juan Santos, tall, mestizo-looking long-haired, with small ears and a big belly due to beer drinking (isa pa nga!). where am I? Here, where my body is; look at my body. In these ways, I seem to say I am my body. But there are times too that I know I am not just my body. I am a man also because I have an understanding and mind of man. When I say to my parents, “I love you,” this one loving them is not just this tall-mestizo-looking-long-haired-with-small-ears-fat-belly-etc.” body of mine but my whole spirit and will. And it can happen that while my body is in room B-109, listening to a boring lecture on the theories of Lobachevski of the poems of Chairil Anwar, I am taking a walk at the beach, along with my sweetheart, watching the sunset. On one hand, I recognize an intimate relation of myself with my body, and thus truly say: I am my body. Yet, on the other hand, I also know that I cannot reduce my whole humanity to my body. I am also spirit and will: my body is only something I have: I have my body. What is the meaning of this paradox? READING: The Life of Embodied Spirit Eduardo Jose Calasanz, Philosophy of Man, Selected Readings We begin our reflection on the experience of my body by recognizing its paradoxical character. On one hand, I cannot detach my body from myself; they are not two things that happen by chance together. Rather, my self is absolute embodied. Likewise, on the other hand, I cannot reduce my self to my body: I also experience my self as an I–spirit and will that can never be imprisoned in my flesh and bones. That is why we can say there are two faces shown in the experiences of my body: “I have my body” and “I am my body”. It is very tempting for any erudite person, philosopher or scientist, to forget this paradox and fix his attention to only one side of the experience. This precisely is the danger of the primary reflection: our inquiry becomes clear and distinct but we get farther away from real experience. The paradox is the experience itself, and this should be the one described by philosophy by means of secondary relfection. The body as intermediary. I experience myself as being-in-the-world through my body. My body acts as the intermediary between the self or subject and the world. When we use the term intermediary, we refer to one of two conflicting meaning and Z,” I may mean that because X, Y and Z encounter or become closer to each other or come to an agreement. Let us take this example from the story if Macario Pineda titled, “Kung Baga sa Pamumulaklak.” A young famer named Desto wants to win the hand of the illustrious young lady named Tesang. However, he cannot just present himself directly to the lady of his affection to tell her of his feelings. He first approaches his uncle Mang Tibo who is kumpare of Tesang’s parents so he can act as an intermediary between him and Tesang’s parents. Only then do Tesang’s parents allow Desto to court her. In this situation the intermediary serves as the “bridge” for the union of the young man and the lady. On the other hand, I can also mean the opposite. I can say that because X, Y and Z are separated. Still with the example of courting, the parents if the girl stand between our affection and prevent our being sweethearts. In the old films of Virgo Productions, often Lolita Rodriguez plays the role of the “other woman” who stands between the beautiful relationship of the couple Eddie Rodriquez and Marlene Dauden. Here, the intermediary is not a bridge but an obstacle. Now when I say my body is the intermediary between my self and the world, I refer to the two meaning of intermediary. On one hand, because of my body, an encounter and agreement occurs between my self and the world. In reality, the encounter of the experience of my self and the experience if the world can only take place in the experience of my body, I experience the world as my world and we are familiar to each other. Because of my body, the chair I am sitting on is hard, the sunset is as red as a rose, the effect of the lambanog on my empty stomach is strong, the smell of the Pacwood factory in San Pedro, Laguna, is like hell. Because of my body, I have an experience of “near” and “far,” and “below” and “up” and “below” and many other relations in space. The world of man is different from the “world” of the fly because their bodies have different frameworks. My body is by nature intentional (directed to the world), and it creates and discovers meaning that I am conscious of in my existence. Thus, because of my body, the whole universe has and reveals a meaning for-me-and-for man. Through my body, my subjectivity is openness to the world and the world is opened to me; the world fills me and I fill the world. On the other hand, also because of my body, I experience the world as separate from me. I am “not-world”, and the world in “not-I”. In the giving-of-meaning-to-the-world of my body, I also experience the self as “outside” the world, I am the one who sees, and who gives-name to this or that. My body shows that I am not simply a thing among other things in nature. The oneness and wholeness of my body is different from the oneness and wholeness of the world. If I did not have this kind of distance from the world, I would become only a thing without an interiority; and clearly this view is not true to our experience of life. My body participates in the world but cannot be reduced to it. The body in intersubjectivity. My body is not only an intermediary between me and the world but also between me and others. I show myself to the other and the other also shows himself to me through my body. Because of my body, we interrelate with each other in many ways–in our vision, actions, attitude, in our rituals, signs and speech. We face each other in anger, tenderness, sadness etc., because we have a body to present. If the other shows wrinkles in his forehead, he is indicating dissatisfaction, confusion or disapproval of what I am saying. The wry and red appearance of my face is my anger; my fixed-to-the- ground look at my sigh are my loneliness. The child does not have to disobey parent, a look from the parent is enough to prevent him. Every part and action of my body says something of myself and my world. As what the poet says of an alluring young woman: There’s language in her eye, her cheek, her lip, Nay, her foot speaks; her wanton spirits look out At every joint and motive of her body. The language of my body has its own grammar and rhetoric in expressing my interiority. If I love Maria, I show this through my kisses, embrace, holding tenderly her hand, etc., and through exchanges of rings, daily telephone conversations, weekly visits. I respect my parents in kissing their hands; I accept a new acquaintances in shaking his hand. Embodiment is not just an additional or external appearance; it is the gesture and appearance of what I truly feel inside. I cannot say I love my brothers and sisters if I do not show this love to them. I cannot say I respect my parents if my speech to them is not respectful. My faith is meaningless if I do not realize it in my daily actions in life. In social life too, the great aspirations of the citizenry need to be embodied in political, economic, cultural (etc.) framework for these to have an enduring realization. As the apostle James says, “Whoever listens to this word but does not put it into practice is like a man who looks in a mirror and sees himself as he is. He takes a good look at himself and the goes away and at once forgets what he looks like.” (James 1, 22-23). The spirit id fulfilled in the actions and deeds of the body. However, as we have seen there are two facts to the body as intermediary. I cannot separate my intersubjectivity from its embodiment, but I cannot also reduce it to its embodiment. The spirit needs to be expressed and realized in the body but my body cannot fully state all of my subjectivity. I may truly love my family even if my body is far away from them. The fullness of my love for the beloved cannot be said in exchange of rings or daily telephone conversations. My subjectivity transcends in expanse and depth its embodiment. Indeed my body shows myself, but it can also be a mask that hides what I truly think or feel. I can smile in the company of my friends while suffer inside of frustration (as they say, “laughing in the outside but crying in the inside”). The paradox of “I have my body” and “I am my body” but also applies to my inter-relationship with others. The value of the body. As the appearance and expression of my subjectivity, my body has a unique value and dignity. It directs me not only to the world and to others but also to God. St. Paul says in the first letter to the Corinthians: “You know that your bodies are parts of the body of Christ. Don’t you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who live in you and who has given to you by God? You do not belong to yourselves but to you God, he bought you for a price. So use your bodies for God’s glory.” (1 Corinthians 6, 15-18) GUIDE QUESTIONS 1. What are the paradoxical character of the embodied character? 2. What does the body as intermediary mean? 3. How does the body become intersubjective? 4. Is there a language of the body? Give an example. 5. What is the value of the body? EVALUATION: Look for the video Who am I? in YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oocunV4JX4w) . In your journal, write an entry entitled Me and My Body. In your essay, answer the following questions: What are the strengths and weaknesses of being you? What are the improvements you want to make in you? If you will have a chance to be another who would you be and why? How do you love your body? The rubrics for the essay would be as follows: 30% Insights 30% Realization 20% Coherence 20% Presentation