The Twists and Turns of Brilliant Minds

(based on an excerpt from my journal entry dated June 15, 2013, a Saturday)

I’ve been meaning to write something about Rizal for some time now. May mga nagsasabi kasi na obsolete na raw si Rizal sa buhay ng mga Pinoy. Ang dahilan nila? If I remember their arguments right, panahon pa raw kasi ng Spanish occupation ang kontexto ng mga sinulat ni Rizal at hindi na naman daw tayo sakop ng mga Kastila, etc.

Medyo na-disturb ako nang nalaman ko ‘yun. I mean, napaka-kaunti na nga lang ng mga Filipino personages sa lipunan at kasaysayan natin ang talagang deserving na maging role model, tapos gusto pa nilang bawasan. Bakit naman kaya? At ano naman kaya ang mapapala nila kung sakali?

Hmm…obsolete na nga ba si Rizal? I-rephrase natin: Relevant pa ba si Rizal sa buhay nating mga Pinoy ngayon? Sagot ko: Oo naman. Bakit? Hindi ko pa alam e. I mean, maaari akong makapagbigay ng sangkatutak na dahilan, pero those reasons would be inasmuch as I’m concern only. As in, “Yep, he’s still relevant as far as I’m concern; I don’t know about you.”

Now, if that is the context of my answer, then why is my answer an outright “yes”?

Because it’s IMPERATIVE. Kailangan kasi e. Malabo ba?

Case in point: Relevant pa ba si Shakespeare sa buhay ng mga Briton ngayon?  O ‘di kaya si Mark Twain sa kasalukuyang US of A? Huwag nyo naman sabihing mas relevant pa si Shakespeare sa mga Pinoy kesa kay Rizal. Or better yet, huwag nyo naman sabihing mas relevant pa si J.K. Rowling sa buhay ng mga Pinoy kesa kay Rizal.

“E kasi, si Rizal dead na. Si J.K. Rowling buhay pa….”

“Wow, nahiya naman ako sa ‘yo…o sige, eto na lang: Si Shakespeare super dead na, and yet the Brits (including J.K. Rowling, I assume) still find Shakespeare relevant in their lives. Ano ka ngayon?”

I mean, if there are Pinoys who give time and effort to make J.K. Rowling relevant in their lives, why can’t they do the same for Rizal? Yep, I know, “boring” ang Noli at El Fili, samantalang si Harry Potter exciting. But still, this does not justify dismissing Rizal as obsolete in our lives, does it? Ultimately, it all boils down to whether OUR APPROACH to Rizal is really up-to-date.

I mean, Rizal is already dead. He couldn’t care any less if we find him relevant or not. Pero tayong mga Pinoy na buhay pa—tayo ang mawawalan kapag patuloy nating ipinagkalat etong kahunghangan na ito.

Yes, “kahunghangan.” Uso kasi ngayon ang pagiging cynical (kuno) e. Pero sa nakikita ko, ‘yung dismissive attitude ng mga cynic, defense mechanism lang nila ‘yun. Para itago ang kakulangan nila ng perspektibo. Kaya ayun, ikinulong na nila ang sarili nila sa de-kahong utak. Ang nakakainis pa, ang iingay pa nila. Ipinagkakalat pa nila ang cynicism nila.

Sa totoo lang, wala pa akong nakikilalang “cynic” na itinaas ang kapakanan ng bansa sa pagiging cynical nila. Kung may itinaas man sila, iyon ay ang sarili nilang bangko—nagpapaka-cynic sila para lang masabing “enlightened” sila o matalino daw sila. Ewan.

But then this argument is ad hominem, which is not acceptable. So I’m pursuing the matter further. Just what was (or is) it about Rizal that we should not dismiss him as no longer relevant in our lives? I-paraphrase natin ang tanong sa konteksto ng mga Briton: Just what is it about Shakespeare that the Brits should find him still relevant in their lives?

Let’s see: Shakespeare represents high literature. You can appreciate Rowling and Dickens, but in the English language, Shakespeare is “the man.” His plays are infused with universal truths and timeless psychological insights; his words are poetry. Today, he is no longer just Britain’s national treasure, he belongs to all humanity, representing one of the greatest achievements that the human race can attain. If you’re a Brit and you want to dismiss that, somehow you dismiss your “soul.” Parte ‘yun ng kultura mo e, bakit mo ide-deny?

I guess I can use the same argument about Rizal. His novels may be about his time, but then there are insights in them—along with his poems, essays, etc.—that still speak to us as a people. His insights on love of country, freedom, education, dignity, etc. remain relevant to our situation as a nation. Why turn a blind eye to these things?

Now, there’s this Rizal essay (“The Philippines: A Century Hence”) that I believe deserves our attention. Kasi daw sa essay na ‘yun, nakinita daw niya ang pagsakop ng mga Amerikano sa Pilipinas. I read it just a few weeks ago and besides that, I was taken by Rizal’s lucid insight into the psyche of the oppressed and downtrodden. [I later found out that the essay was infused with ideas by a German intellectual (Jagor?) who was in the Philippines earlier, and whom Rizal became friends with in Germany.] I find the work fascinating because I am intrigued by the twists and turns of their (Rizal’s and Jagor’s) brilliant minds, enabling them to come up with their “prophetic” conclusion. Just how did they do that?

I am reminded of Nobel laureate John Nash (film bio: “A Beautiful Mind”), whose game theory serves humanity today as the better alternative to Adam Smith’s dictum. Nash’s Equilibrium theory basically points to how “players” (or parties) in a “game” (or negotiation) can ALL come out as “winners”—no “losers.” Using John Nash's theory, maaaring magkakalaban tayo sa isang laro, pero sa huli, wala ni isa sa atin ang magiging “loser.” Lahat tayo “winners.” Gets?

Posible ba ‘yun? Oo naman. John Nash was able to put the needed mathematical equations to support his theory, and na-demonstrate naman na effective ang theory niya. Kaya nga siya nanalo ng Nobel Prize for Economics e.

Now, about 2000 years ago, Jesus demonstrated just that. A woman caught committing adultery was brought before him by the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law. These “powers-that-be” wanted to trap Jesus, and so they said to him: “We caught this woman committing adultery. According to our law, she should be stoned to death. What say you?”

What Jesus did next is what I find most intriguing. According to the Gospel, Jesus did not answer immediately. Instead, he bent down and started writing on the ground with his finger. Now, JUST WHAT WAS IT THAT HE WAS WRITING ON THE GROUND? Some syllogistic diagram? A mathematical equation? And then he answered them: “Whoever among you who has not sinned may cast the first stone at her.”

Wow! What an answer! I mean, with that answer, both parties emerged “winners”: the powers-that-be won the argument (“Yes, you may stone her to death….”), yet the accused woman also won because her life was spared—since the powers-that-be could not bear the hypocrisy of their judgment. How brilliant was that? It’s like John Nash’s game theory put to work to settle a moral argument.

Rizal, Shakespeare, John Nash, Jesus—all brilliant minds. I shudder to think that one day, it would be so easy for us to dismiss them as “no longer relevant” or even “obsolete” simply because we lack the perspective to connect with them and their brilliance.

GOVERNING DYNAMICS

“If we all go for the blonde, we block each other. Not a single one of us is gonna get her. So then we go for her friends. But they will all give us the cold shoulder because nobody likes to be second choice. But what if no one goes for the blonde? We don’t get in each other’s way, and we don’t insult the other girls. That’s the only way to win. That’s the only way we all get laid.”