Chronicles of the Daily Grind

Here are some jokes i've compiled:

A DESCARTES JOKE (“I THINK, THEREFORE I AM”)

Rene Descartes walks into a resturant and sits down for dinner. The waiter comes over and asks if he'd like an appetizer
"No thank you" says Descartes, "I'd just like to order dinner"
"Would you like to hear our daily specials?" asks the waiter
"No" says Descartes, getting impatient
"Would you like a drink before dinner?" the waiter asks
Descartes is insulted, since he's a tee-totaler
"I think not!" he says indignantly, and POOF! he disappeared.

DEFINITIONS

What is Mind? No Matter.
What is Body? Never Mind.

PASSING ETHICS

I passed my ethics exam. Of course I've cheated.

A DIFFICULT PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION

Q: Is this a question?
A: If this is an answer?

LOGIC

Two freshman philosophy students see the following bulletin posted on the wall of their lecture hall:

Crash Course in Logical Assumptions Saturday, September 26, 1998, All Day

Neither of them knows what it means and they are both curious. The pair decide to find the professor and ask some questions. When they locate the professor's office, the bolder of the two enter the building while the other remains outside.

Student: "Uh...Sir..What does Crash Course in Logical Assumptions mean?"
Professor: "Well, it involves taking information that you have, forming assumptions using logic, and then creating new information. Let me try to answer your question by asking you a question. Do you own a car?"
Student: "Uh...Yes, I do."

Professor: "Well, then I can now logically assume that you drive."
Student: "Yes, I drive. "

Professor: "Then I can logically assume that you drive on weekends."
Student: "Yeah, I drive on weekends, I go out on dates."

Professor: "Then I can logically assume that you have date partners."
Student: "Well, yes, I have a girlfriend."

Professor: "Then I can logically assume that you are heterosexual."
Student: "Uh...hell yes! OK, I think I understand what this course is about now. Thanks a lot for your time."

Once back outside, his friend asks him: "So, what's it all about?"
"Its about using information and stuff...Let me answer your question by asking you a question. Do you own a car?"
"No."
"Uh...Then you're homosexual, dude!"

PROVING THAT THE CHAIR DOES NOT EXIST…

A philosophy professor walks in to give his class their final. Placing his chair on his desk the professor instructs the class, "Using every applicable thing you've learned in this course, prove to me that this chair DOES NOT EXIST."

So, pencils are writing and erasers are erasing, students are preparing to embark on novels proving that this chair doesn't exist, except for one student. He spends thirty seconds writing his answer, then turns his final in to the astonishment of his peers.

Time goes by, and the day comes when all the students get their final grades...and to the amazement of the class, the student who wrote for thirty seconds gets the highest grade in the class.

His answer to the question: "What chair?"

WHICH HOLE?

Three men, a philosopher, a mathematician and an idiot, were out riding in the car when it crashed into a tree. Before anyone knows it, the three men found themselves standing before the pearly gates of Heaven, where St. Peter and the Devil were standing nearby.

"Gentlemen," the Devil started, "Due to the fact that Heaven is now overcrowded, therefore St. Peter has agreed to limit the number of people entering Heaven. If anyone of you can ask me a question which I don't know or cannot answer, then you're worthy enough to go to Heaven; if not, then you'll come with me to Hell."

The philosopher then stepped up, "OK, give me the most comprehensive report on Socrates' teachings." With a snap of his finger, a stack of paper appeared next to the Devil. The philosopher read it and concluded it was correct. "Then, go to Hell!" With another snap of his finger, the philosopher disappeared.

The mathematician then asked, "Give me the most complicated formula you can ever think of!" With a snap of his finger, another stack of paper appeared next to the Devil. The mathematician read it and reluctantly agreed it was correct. "Then, go to Hell!" With another snap of his finger, the mathematician disappeared, too.

The idiot then stepped forward and said, "Bring me a chair!" The Devil brought forward a chair. "Drill 7 holes on the seat." The Devil did just that. The idiot then sat on the chair and let out a very loud fart. Standing up, he asked, "Which hole did my fart come out from?"

The Devil inspected the seat and said, "The third hole from the right."

"Wrong," said the idiot, "it's from my asshole." And the idiot went to Heaven.

PROFESSOR’S BRAIN

A college student was in a philosophy class which had a discussion about God's existence. The professor presented the following logic:

"Has anyone in this class heard God?" Nobody spoke.

"Has anyone in this class touched God?" Again, nobody spoke.

"Has anyone in this class seen God?" When nobody spoke for the third time, he simply stated, "Then there is no God."

One student thought for a second, and then asked for permission to reply. Curious to hear this bold student's response, the professor granted it, and the student stood up and asked the following questions of his classmates:

"Has anyone in this class heard our professor's brain?" Silence.

"Has anyone in this class touched our professor's brain?" Again, silence.

"Has anyone in this class seen our professor's brain?"

When nobody in the class dared to speak, the student concluded, "Then, according to our professor's logic, it must be true that our professor has no brain!"

2 LAWS IN PHILOSOPHY

The First Law of Philosophy: For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.

The Second Law of Philosophy: They're both wrong

HOW TO CHANGE THE LIGHT BULB?

How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?

"Hmmm... well there's an interesting question isn't it?"
"Define 'light bulb'..."
"How can you be sure it needs changing?"
Three. One to change it and two to stand around arguing over whether or not the light bulb exists.

How many Hegelians does it take to change a light bulb?
Two, of course. One stands at one end of the room and argues that it isn't dark; the other stands at the other end and says that true light is impossible. This dialectic creates a synthesis which does the job.

How many Zen masters does it take to change a light bulb?
Two. One to change it, and one not to change it.
Three. One to change it, one not to change it, and one both to change it and not to change it.

How many existentialists does it take to change a light bulb?
Two. One to change the lightbulb and one to observe how the lightbulb symbolizes an incandescent beacon of subjectivity in a netherworld of Cosmic Nothingness.

How many Kuhnian constructionist philosophers of science does it take to change a light bulb?
You're still thinking in terms of 'incremental change'--what we really need is paradigm shift...we don't need a bulb with more attributes added on, we need ubiquitous luminescence.

How many Marxists does it take to change a light bulb?
None. Every light bulb contains the seeds of its own revolution.

PHILOSOPHY AIRPLANE JOKES

• As a flight to Elea is perparing to take off, a stewardness rushes up to Parmenides. "I'm sorry, Sir," she says. "I'm afraid you're in the wrong seat. Could you please move?" "Of course," he replies. And he disappears.
• As passengers were disembarking from the flight to Ephesus, Heraclitus discovers that his legs have gone to sleep. Noticing that he hasn't disembarked, the stewardess asks him, "What's wrong?" "I can't move," he replies. And he disappears.
• A stewards pushes the refreshment cart up to Thales seat, and asks him if he wants some water to drink. "No," answers the Melisian. "I'll have a Pepsi." And he disappears.
• A passenger on the flight to Elea leans over to Pyrrho and asks if he knows the time. "Yes, I do," answers the Sceptic. And he disappears.
• On the flight to Bermuda, a passenger asks Bishop Berkeley if he had a watch. The Empiricist searches his coat pockets for several moments and finally admits, "I appear not." And he disappears.
• Anaximander had enjoyed several cups of wine on his trip home to Miletus. When the stewardess asks if he would like one more, the Philosopher belchs and says, "Oh, no. I've reached my limit." And he disappears.
• Plato and the rest of the passengers on the flight to Athens had been waiting for takeoff for thirty minutes when finally the pilot comes on the speaker and says. "Sorry for the delay, folks, but we're having a little engine trouble. We'll be on our way in about an hour." "An hour!" the philosopher exclaims. "Now I'll miss my appointment! I wasn't informed!" And he disappears.
• Aristotle, on the same flight, shrugs complacently and says, "Oh, well. No matter!" And he disappears.

Supposing that Philosophical Jokes are said to be funny.
When something is funny, it means that something is illogical.
When something is illogical, it means that the mind does not conform to the reality.
When there is no adequation of mind and reality, there is no truth.
When there is no truth, there is no knowledge nor wisdom.
When there is no knowledge nor wisdom, philosophy can not exist.
When philosophy is non-existent, there is no such thing as philosophical jokes.
Therefore, if we suppose that Philosophical Jokes are said to be funny, we are mistaken.
Yet why call these philosophical jokes?
I don't know.
I just find them amusing. (I didn't say they're funny.)

If people find these jokes funny, only these four things:
(1) they are philosophers and they know why these jokes are funny;
(2) they are not philosophers yet their threshold of laughter is so shallow that they can just laugh about anything.
(3) they are not philosphers yet pretend they are and convince themselves that these jokes are indeed funny.
(4) they are not philosophers and they don't pretend they are. They just want to please the joker.

If people find these jokes not funny, only these four things:
(1) they are philosophers and they're absolutely serious and humorless in life.
(2) they are philosophers but do not really find these jokes funny. There are far humorous things than these.
(3) they are not philosophers and are ignorant about philosophy. How could they get the joke?
(4) they are not philosophers and they do not know how to read.

Which among these are you?

Posted by brodiz at 3:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

i can't move, yet the worst thing is that i can't figure why.
i know i have accomplished a lot.
i know i have a lot to accomplish still.
i know there are still a lot of things to do,
yet my body refuses to move...
and my mind refuses to think.
i just need a break...
just a little time to recollect the scattered pieces of myself.
Oh God, how have i toiled for you?
Allow me, Lord, to distinguish Your work and my work for You.

Posted by brodiz at 6:30 PM | Permalink | Comments

It is so strange how Jesus called Peter `Satan` after the latter`s bold confession that He is the Messiah among others who considered Jesus as John the Baptist, Elijah or one of the prophets. (Mark 8:27-33) Jesus did not refer to Peter at all. He so bluntly referred to Satan himself who continually seeks opportunity to tempt Jesus after his failure in the wilderness.

Unlike us, Jesus is so keen to this. The devil is so slick that you would not know he is at work. The devil is in the details. He could even disguise himself as the angel of light. Such is the case in the film we watched last night, The Devil Wears Prada.

In this story a young woman named Audrey Hepburn who never knew about fashion nor the demanding fashion editor Miranda Priestly applied as her second assistant as a stepping stone for a journalism position. She experienced her boss` mood swings and slave driving demands, thus with some disappointment schemed on forcing her to quit the job. Audrey with the fear of losing her job and an eventual pleasing of her boss found herself slowly transforming with the help of one fashion director. She gets a complete makeover and never realizing that it was a makeover of her life. However, with her new appearance and the demands placed on her, she starts to lose her friends, family and her boy friend. She is whisked away to Paris with Miranda and faces all of the glamour that could be hers. Each step higher corresponds a step farther from her life-reality. In the end, the choice on what she really wants in life is hers to take.

No matter where we are, even in the world of fashion, the devil is at work. And the devil works as slither as a snake. You will be surprised finding yourself at the edge of the cliff. The devil feeds on our firm grip of our securities. We soon realize the irony that the securities we had been clutching on for so long are the very reasons of our demise and insecurities in life. Even in our personal relationships, the devil is at work if we are not that conscious about it.

The devil could present herself as an angel of light.
Translated in modern times, The Devil wears Prada.

Posted by brodiz at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Comments

It took me three days to finish this.

First day, learning HTML.
Second day, browsing skins.
Third day, editing and finalizing.

I like the outcome. It stirs me to update more. Boy, I'm getting addicted to this. It's so nice learning something new.

I considered revising my blog title... but what the heck!
I still find it relevant, though.

Thanks to blogskins and kingzdesign. I'm sorry I have to manipulate some little details.

Posted by brodiz at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Comments

At the reception after the thanksgiving mass of Bishop Broderick Pabillo, one lay person we met asked this question:

"There are two kinds of Salesians: one Salesian with chin up floats in the air majestically, detaches from the earth and looks down on everybody. The other Salesian has his feet on ground and soiling his feet. Which of the two are you?"

I am not very comfortable with people placing them into categories, but this question is worth reflecting. We are consecrated in the world and not above it. We are set apart not because we are superior, but because we are called to serve. But the reality speaks itself. Her observations are valid. Her question is a pose for reflection. And this question keeps resounding in my ear, even now. I`d hate to see myself placed under the first category. I hope this disturbance remain that it may remind me of the very reason of my consecration.

But then again.. it is so wrong categorizing people.

Posted by brodiz at 1:07 PM | Permalink | Comments

"It has been said that something as small as the flutter of a butterfly's wing can ultimately cause a typhoon halfway around the world."
- Chaos Theory

I got this from the film we watched last night, Butterfly Effect. It is an interesting film which presents that everything and everyone are interconnected. The protagonist, Evan, played by Ashton Kutcher, blocks from his memory harmful and traumatic events in his life. As he tries to remember these``blocks`` from the black hole of forgetfulness he realizes he keeps under his bed his journals, the vehicle that could help him reclaim his memories, help him go back literally to the past and supernaturally alter his life. Evan purposely travels back in time, his present-day mind occupying his childhood body, in an attempt to re-write history and spare his friends and loved ones these traumatic experiences. By altering the events of the past, Evan hopes to transform the present. But every time Evan changes something in the past, he returns to the present to find his actions have unexpected and disastrous consequences.

One of my companions after watching retorted, ``what possibly he could change in the past?`` I had been reflecting that question even before I have watched the film. There are a lot of things worth altering in my life. There are a lot of moments of frustrations and desperation. I have come from a very dysfunctional family and went through a lot of traumatic experiences in life – experiences I would want to put into oblivion. All these affect me even now. When I came to a point recalling all these strongly and vividly I would ask myself, ``What if these had not happened at all? What if I had chosen another course of action? What if I have done this instead of that?``

As I was one by one recalling and reflecting the ``mistakes`` of my past life and imagining the possibility of altering them, I got to generate the possible outcomes on how I would be living my life at present. Neither of these projected outcomes could satisfy. For every one alteration in the past, it could mean a foregoing of some of the “good things” which I am reaping in the present.

In the end, despite all the tragic moments of my life and all the stupid mistakes, I am confident in saying that there are no regrets in my life. If I would have the chance to go back to the past, I would retrace back the steps I have taken. The important thing is that I take the most of this life and live it fully. Despite the tragedies I see around me, there are indeed countless blessings worth my attention.

Posted by brodiz at 8:46 AM | Permalink | Comments

I had the camera, when I got to be fortunate finding ``Mocha`` and ``Bea`` in their acts or mode of ``endearment.`` Check out these photos:

Posted by brodiz at 5:13 PM | Permalink | Comments

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin made an attempt to reconcile these two seemingly opposite polarities. He is a Jesuit priest and at the same time a geo-paleontologist. He talked about the evolutionary process of creation, that everything came from the ``Big Bang,`` thus eventually delineating from the traditional doctrine of the six-days creation. In those days, the Church were not pleased with this synthesis and so he was ``silenced,`` prohibited from publishing doctrines or essays unrelated to his scientific works. It is short of saying ``shut up`` to his idea.

It is difficult for something we believed in and have held on for so long to be shaken by a new contrary idea. We are taught that God created the world in six days, and that He is transcendent, and that the world underwent these three major Christian mysteries of creation, incarnation and redemption.

Theilhard presented a different view that the world is still in the process of evolutive creation. Everything all else is a process, an act of evolution. He agrees with Darwin`s natural selection, and that, can you imagine, we came from the descent of apes. Several Christian doctrines will be put into question such as the validity of the original sin and the human soul. If everything is still a process then these three major mysteries are not yet fully realized.

He also taught about the presence of God in all things as part of the unfolding and the evolutive process. He even mentioned particularly the presence of the ``Cosmic Christ`` in all things. Can you imagine, that everything, literally, on this earth would have the touch of the divine. Many accused his teachings as pantheistic (all things are God). But nay, it is panentheistic (God is in all things).

It is worth quite reflecting on the problem that if the Cosmic Christ has already been present since in the beginning of time, how do we explain the actual historical Christ vis-a-vis the Cosmic Christ? How do we account for the intertwining of the Cosmic Christ and the historical Christ in time?

Questions on human freedom had arisen that this evolutive process seem to connote scientific determinism and theological predeterminism thus putting into question the validity of free will. Teilhard asserts that inevitably the end of this evolutive process is the omega point. All else is set towards that predetermined state. How do we account then heaven and hell at the end of time.

Also if everything is a process, then the presence of mistakes and evil are part of the unfolding. Evil as such becomes permissible as part of the process. How do we view now of morality?

Indeed, with all these questions and objections especially contradicting firmly set theological beliefs and doctrines, how could one pursue such doctrine? It will necessitate a new theological exposition in order to be consistent with this.

That is precisely what happened to the conference we had just attended on Teilhard. We were made to understand of his doctrine. In fact all these questions were reasonably addressed. One has to maintain an open disposition to understand all these, then we realize that such openness could bring about science and religion in harmony. They are not dimensions but realities of the human person, for the human person is an integrative being and not of a duality. In our contemplation of the reality, science, the material things, we cannot but be led to the contemplation of God.

I personally believe in his doctrine of evolutive process. God is with us in the process. I could not imagine a God which is originally conceived as somebody up there, detached and just watching us go on with our lives. I believe in the God who journeys with us, who is with us, who is in us, who experiences what we experience, who shares our joys and pains. This is the heart of it all. His work of creation, incarnation and redemption is still a process, a journey. He is our co-pilgrim. He is with us. He is in us. Unless we are open to this, we fail to realize the spark of the divine in us. Isn`t it amazing that you are not alone after all? All these because God loves us. The lover is always present with the beloved. And the core of all these evolutive process is love. And in love, we go beyond reason and explanations. We just love - a love that binds all things material and spiritual. That is why one of the concern of Teilhard is the ecology and the care for environment, respect for all beings, love for creation.

Yet, I still don`t think the Church accepts his doctrine for it really is conflicting the theological foundations of our faith. But the Church is more tolerant of it. There are several priests, religious and lay people who in their personal way believe and promote his doctrine.

However, the bottom line in all these is that we as conscious, free and animating human beings are invited to spread the love, to help in facilitating the evolutive process of creation, incarnation and redemption, in reaching the omega point. Love.

Posted by brodiz at 4:27 PM | Permalink | Comments