Nomnomnomnorm

I never knew I'm a non-conformist until people started pointing it out to me.

Which led me into thinking that, if I am a non-conformist, why is it that I still support strong values on certain principles and issues like murder, drugs, etc? If I, as a non-conformist, refuse, albeit subconsciously, to adhere to certain norms, why is it that I can't do so absolutely to all other existing norms?

And after sufficient reflection, I have come to the conclusion that, there are different kind of norms i.e. cultural, societal, moral. And of such norms, it is the societal kind that I find less worthy to be followed. I opt for moral norms because morality, though not ultimately constant, is at least, less fluid than societal norms. Apart from that, societal norms are mostly established from a popular vote or that which is approved by the majority; regardless if the banking principle is morally right or wrong.

Some may argue that moral norms are heavily dictated by society but this does not hold truth all the time. In fact, it is the society which bends the said norms.

Moral norms are usually universal truths. And when referring to society, we do not refer to one entity; but rather to the thousand existing groups present in the world. To address society as a single homogeneous concept is counter-intuitive and, essentially, unjust.

Moral norms exist but it gets bended when it is applied to different societies. For example, genital mutilation. The moral norm, and universally accepted rule, is supposedly, no human being should be subject to practices that elicit torture or something that resembles the idea of such, in as much respect is given to the idea of the human life. However, said moral norm gets redefined when applied to societies especially when the concept of culture is added. Cultural norms are a completely different story and I refuse to elaborate more on this primarily because I'm getting hungry and I want to go home now.

Anyway, my realization can be sum up to this: it is necessary that there is a clear line that is able to distinguish such concepts. My feeble contribution is that societal norms can be distinguished to moral norms, in a way that the former is fluid and is susceptible to changes.

I think that such realization isn't much of a help in creating a better world that is principally organized when it comes to concepts and notions. Thus, I strongly suggest that that there should be a clear distinction of what is moral to what is societal. The line that separates these two gets blurred along the way and in my opinion, that is very inconvenient.

Premonition

First posted HERE last August 2009.
Reposted in lieu of what's happening all over the world at the moment. For Japan.

-----------------------

it's summer, the dark clouds continue to fall
your phone's ringing, will you still ignore the call?
no more trees to feed, displaced by dryers and lights on streets
the futile sun finally surrenders and retreats.

summer ends, a flower longs for a mid-year raindrop
unfortunately, all the clouds have been dried up.
now a neighbor mourns for a withered money tree
looks like money and tree aren't meant to be.

summer has been moved to june
will there be winter in tropical places soon?
as the sun swallows our world that's becoming smaller
we will see our future underwater.

~Rizza Jane Villanueva, Trade Off

If Sartre is alive...

Passing by the EDSA monument as we (Carla and I) go back and forth Makati Shang brought me momentary reflection about the idea of political ideologies. On how they necessarily affect political decisions on states no matter how theoretical these paradigms may be. And it is especially accentuated by the domino effect that has hit MENA countries on its stand on democracy.

It started in Tunisia; spreading unto Egypt. And now into Libya. People are marching on streets. Lives are lost. Entire nation, basically, in chaos. All for the name of democracy and freedom.

But is it really what people perceive it to be?

It appears to me as if the entire world is heavily romanticizing the concept of democracy. If you are born in a 'democratic' country and has lived in the post-Cold War era for basically the rest of your life, chances are, you have heard of the common rhetorical cliche that is "this is a free country, I can do what I want" or something of that sort.

It never occurred to me how fallacious that statement can get until that MRT ride last February 26.

You see, "free countries" do not exist. Even in economics. An absolutely free economy is unheard of. By absolute freedom we mean the absence of government intervention. The only place in the world where the government doesn't interfere with its economy is Somalia (and that's primarily because their government is still on the rocks from all the tribal wars).

To take a chance on a more politically correct term, one should change "free country" to "democratic country". However, this can also be fallacious when attached with the notion of freedom.

Lexically defined, democracy, by principle is not about freedom. It is about the rule of the majority.

Democracy
(Merriam-Webster)

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

In democracy, freedom is a mere tool to open avenues for the people relate their concerns about how things should go. Freedom is part of the deal but it isn't the be-all-and-end-all notion pegging the entire ideology.

So, the problem with people of today is that they equate democracy to freedom. And this is how it gets bad. With this misconception, that democracy is tantamount to freedom, people abuse the said principle. You hear them shouting on streets everyday, complaining about the price of gas, expecting the government to do everything for them, blah blah blah yadda yadda.

The worst thing is, they take any other political ideology that isn't democracy to be ultimately negative.

Like Communism.
If we would look into it, Communism is actually the ideal idealism. Not Democracy.

Up until today, no country has ever reached the ideal Communist status. Said "communist" countries are basically Socialist. Communism is forever ideal because it will never be. The fulfillment of communism demands deconstruction of basic human behavior.

Communism = selflessness.
And an entire nation being selfless is really impossible. SERIOUSLY.

As a contrast, democracy is easier to attain. However, it is also the easiest ideology to get deconstructed. Democracy, when it gets out of hand (because it CAN get out of hand) will lead to anarchy. Anarchy, essentially defined, as rule of no one and lawlessness.

When everybody claims freedom and the right to it, nobody will pay attention to authority and the spirit of real democracy, which puts weight to the opinion of majority, will cease.

My point? All political ideologies are ideal. But they shouldn't be the entire basis of what a state's political map should be. Ideologies are there to guide us. There are no perfect political ideologies.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to people working hand in hand with the government for a better society.