TO BE OR NOT TO BE TRANSCENDENT?

“Nothing has meaning except the meaning you give it”. 1/

In this material realm, in Manila, Philippines, on or before August 24, 2012, it is indubitable that President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III, by constitutional authority duly evidenced by proofs beyond reasonable doubt, signed the appointment papers of new Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Punzalan Aranal-Sereno. 

So who really appointed the new Chief Justice? And what’s the point of asking this question?

It is asked in reference to a few articles, columns and reports given prominent positioning in some of our newspapers and the blogosphere that in effect poke fun at, are dismissive of, or otherwise denigrate CJ Sereno’s sharing of her view (belief) that God had something to do with her appointment as Chief Justice. It’s point is to express an opinion that is not a put down.  

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” 2/ 

It looks like both the CJ’s expressed view and the articulated criticisms against it are manifestations of two dominant world views and thought systems, which are the belief or assumption clusters of: (a) those who believe there is a transcendent power in this universe or God, and (b) those who do not believe so.   

These differing views appear to have presuppositions behind their respective beliefs:

(a)   that God created man and this world, and can shape, alter or arrange events here, even as He allows and respects the workings of human free will and natural physical laws; that man is, in essence, spirit and made in the image of God; that objective moral standards exist and ought to be followed; that, ultimately, God rules; and

(b)   that man, just like the rest of this world, is but a mere accidental combination of atoms not made by any god or transcendent being but resulting only from chance and unplanned collisions of cosmic dust, now evolved with a capacity to reason through eons of selection by survival of the fittest; that, man has no spirit but has reasoning power residing in the purely material composition of his/her body; that moral standards are relative and you can do “whatever floats your boat”; that, no matter what, reason and logic should rule.

There is reason to believe that the main principle from which the critical reactions seem to come from and/or zero in on, is the “value” that nothing spiritual should be used to describe an event or to make any decision; only reason and reason alone can and should be invoked. Because, for every effect, there is a cause; except the First and Uncaused Cause which can neither be proven nor disproven with incontrovertible evidence. 

And it might not be far-fetched to say that it seems this “value” is another way of expressing the intent of those who wish to drive one principal thrust of the dictatorship of political correctness, that is, to do away with everything that has to do with spirit and religion, specifically the Judeo-Christian type.

Reason, then, can be viewed as a wonderful gift from God or a highly valued evolutionary outcome of one’s accidental atomic blend. However we may view them, reason and logic are fundamental for judicial rulings. These are needed for discerning and apprehending what the true facts are from the opposing and necessarily biased claims of the contending parties and for winnowing which law and jurisprudence ought to be applied to the findings of facts. Constitutionally, it is mandated that “No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.” “No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.” 3/ Of course, reason and logic are recognized in virtually all jurisdictions as indispensables to resolving appellate cases. 4/ 

  

Still, there are those who would invoke the saying, in regard to human interactions and to faith and reason, that “the heart has its reasons that reason cannot know”. The original French of this Blaise Pascal quote, says: “Le cœur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point. On le sent en mille choses. C'est le cœur qui sent Dieu, et non la raison. Voilà ce que c'est que la foi parfaite, Dieu sensible au cœur.” It is translated to English by the Project Gutenberg, as: "The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. We feel it in a thousand things. It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then, is faith: God felt by the heart, not by the reason." 5/ So then, it turns out that God is a matter of the heart, not really of reason.

The heart is the seat of love as well as enlightened action and compassion, or of ruthless ego, concupiscence and covetousness, depending on our preferences. Thus, we are advised, “With all vigilance guard your heart, for in it are the sources of life.” 6/ And it could also be a source of abomination and defilement, as “…the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile. For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy. These are what defile a person…” 7/

Surely, one is as equally entitled to express one’s heart as one’s reason. Freedom of thought and of expression go together.

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” (Underlining supplied) 8/

Freedom of thought allows us to entertain opposing ideas like the contrast between ‘moral action is subject to objective moral standards’ and ‘morality is very relative’. Also, one can hold that ‘corruption is bad, regardless,’ or that ‘corruption is relatively good or bad depending on circumstances’.

But there are views holding that, “Moral relativism will only lead to problems and conflict in one’s life and in society.”  9/ and that, “Relativism will certainly damn our souls and end our species.” 10/

The range of views, notwithstanding, it can be gleaned that the attempts at publicity from all sides are designed to influence us, the sovereign Filipino citizens. These are done in the hope that we would buy into the surface ideas as well as the underlying presuppositions of the originators.

Given that our understanding of an event, word or action depends on the meaning we give it, we want to be conscious in our considerations and perceptions, avoid knee-jerk reactions in terms of aping what seems to be fashionable at the moment, and reject anybody who tries to bamboozle us, particularly through the shaming technique, on what meaning we should accept (whoever may do it, whether clerics or leftists or rightists or activists or media people or public officials or bloggers or whoever-s/he-claims-to-be).

Let us use our free will, freely. Beyond ratiocinations of reason, let us strive for wisdom and justice in our society. Perhaps, instead of just being circumscribed by ‘either-or’ issues from time to time, as in “to be or not to be transcendent”, we can choose to be both, equally embracing the material and the transcendent, and powered by both heart and mind in oneness of spirit.

We can also choose to show the world how we are as good citizens, which in the words of Dr. Jose Rizal, might be indicated – among others - by some capabilities, such as: “Los problemas de ciencias exactas, de la patria la historia estudiamos, tres y cuatro lenguajes hablamos, acordando la fe y la razón.” “We study the problems of exact sciences, and the history of our country; we talk in three and four languages, and make both faith and reason agree.” (Underlining supplied). 11/

           

Our societal choices of which thoughts to dwell on, do matter, now and hereafter. For, “What you attract into your life is in harmony with your dominant thoughts.” 12/

_____________

1/   T. Harve Eker, The Millionaire Mind

2/   Art. 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

3/   Section 14, Art. VIII, 1987 Philippine Constitution

4/   Cf: http://www.alwd.org/LC&R/Archives/2006/
       Ross_1.html and http://www.alwd.org/LC&R/
       Archives/2006/Ross_2.html

5/   http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Blaise_Pascal

6/   Proverbs 4:23, NABRE

7/    Matthew 15:18-20, NABRE

8/   Art. 18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

9/   Johnson, Do Objective Moral Standards 
        Exist In the World Today? http://www.
        quodlibet.net/articles/johnson-
        morality.shtml) 

10/ C.S. Lewis quoted in Horner, D.A., 
       Some Problems with Moral Relativism, 
       Introduction to Philosophy

11/ 5^th Stanza, Hymn to Talisay  

12/ Brian Tracy