1. Meneses' section III, particularly her descriptive etymology of kapwa [ka/puwa(ng)] resonated with me. As a 2nd generation Pilipina in the diaspora (Hawaii), the hidden meaning (we call it kaona in Hawaiian) in "kapwa" made me simultaneously feel excited and sad. Sad because I can't speak my mother language (but I can speak olelo Hawaii- Hawaiian!), but excited because articles like this make me feel like I'm rediscovering my roots and slowly and surely. I really appreciate all this sharing!
2. Having been born and raised in Hawaii, the struggle between the IP and progress/greed in the Kaliwa Dam situation is similar to land & water struggles here. I fear for the loss of more biodiversity and the Other in the Philippines due to tourism. I pray that places in the PI do not turn into the concrete jungles of Waikiki.
3. Learning forums like this help to inform like-minded Others of our shared struggles. Gently reminding one another of our spiritual roots is essential.
It's beautiful to see similarities across cultures, so thank you very much for sharing your insights! It's also interesting how tourism can be a potential source of damage, especially if it doesn't promote sustainability and if it exploits rather than empowers Indigenous communities.
1. Firstly, I just want to say that I so very much appreciated the videos and the readings for this unit. Meneses' elaboration of both kapwa and pakikipagkapwa and how it captures deep inclusivity and respect for all beings, both human and non-human, is very inspiring. As a Filipinx-American, I am so proud that we, as culture, retain a both a knowledge and respect for our indigeneity as is reflected in our culture and in our languages. The authors argument for the importance of cultural diversity for biodiversity is compelling, especially in regards to indigenous knowledges.
Reading again about anitos and engkantos certainly affirmed what I already knew of Filipinx indigenous beliefs. Though we have many diverse creation myths, I am fond of creation myths in which human beings are birthed from nature, such as the myth of Malakas and Maganda born of bamboo. Also, one of Alan Watt's ideas, that we are all manifestations of nature/the universe observing and interacting with itself, are also ideas that I've come across.
2. I think one of the biggest environmental concerns that needs attention in the Philippines is greater protections for both indigenous groups and their land/natural resources - and greater protections for environmentalists and ecologists. It would help if government agencies recognized and prioritized the importance of protecting these groups and their land/natural resources, rather than prioritizing and protecting the interests of companies and landowners. At present, I don't know what efforts are being made to address this issue.
3. A greater recognition in Filipinx cultural values of kapwa and pakikipagkapwa and recognition and acknowledgement of indigenous knowledges throughout the Philippines and the diaspora would certainly help to make environmentalism and ecology more of a concern to all of us, if it isn't a concern already. I also really appreciated Meneses (and others) emphases on our connection with nature. We are not separate from nature/the natural world, though our post-modern way of life and late-stage capitalist systems would rather we not acknowledge our interdependence and interconnectedness.
I do have a question about the phrase "tabi tabi po." Because I do not yet know much Tagalog, I understand the phrase to mean something like "please excuse me" spoken in reverence of the nature spirits when passing through an area, like a forest, river, etc. When I look up the definition, "tabi" is defined as beside or aside and "tabi tabi" is also used as an adverb to mean "side by side." "Po" is used as a word for respect, like ma'am/sir, but is it not also the root for similar words like "apo" which can be used to mean either ancestor/elder or descendant? So could the phrase "tabi tabi po" also imply something like "pardon me ancestors/nature spirits, it's just me, your descendant passing through"?
Your last point here is interesting, and yes, that would be a good interpretation of the phrase. In older documentation of folk beliefs, such as in Demetrio's encyclopedia, it's actually "tabi apo." I'm not sure if "po" actually does come from "apo," though it's also interesting to note that "apo" also means grandchild. Maybe it evolved in the same way that parents would refer to each other as "mama" or "papa" so that the child learns to call them that.
1. After going through these resources, what struck you the most? It could be something that affected you emotionally, made you rethink your worldview, or affirmed something you already knew.
So much to unpack here. I was particularly struck by Sadhguru’s anecdote about how all life on Earth depends on the existence and health of worms and insects. The same is not true of humanity. He dismantles the human-centric narrative we get stuck in and shows that an ecological movement must give equal value to all life.
I appreciate Alan Watts’ explication of the three theories of nature. I feel the Western theory of a creator mechanistically setting the universe in motion relies on a linear view of time. This theory creates an intellectual disconnect that makes us feel separate from nature. It tricks us into believing the myth of progress--that everything is moving towards a better and more perfect order. But nature does not work purely by accretion. Things die and are lost along the way. On the other end of the continuum, the Chinese organic theory of nature relies on cyclical time. We, and all we create, are nature. Nature works of itself, and we can either flow with it or foolishly attempt to control it.
I feel that the scientific method was born of the mechanical theory but stubbornly refuses to work outside of nature. Each scientific breakthrough brings a paradigm shift that decenters humanity. The tools we create to other and control nature inevitably give us a deeper look into nature. Again and again, we are shown that we are inextricably connected to everything in the artificial and natural worlds. And, again and again, we resist what the universe has been telling us all along.
Some of this can be ascribed to the differences between belief and faith. I feel that belief is a closed system based on knowing, and faith is an open system based on not knowing. We get caught by our beliefs when we interpret the world based solely on how we were brought up and what we’ve already experienced. Everything is explained, and there is no room for mystery. Our beliefs hold power over us. When we faithfully open to not knowing, we can experience the wonder of pakikipagkapwa. Our faith opens a path to clarity and attuned action.
2. What environmental concern in the Philippines do you think needs the most attention? Or, what environmental issue in the Philippines is not currently being recognized as a potential problem? What are the efforts that are being done (or that are being proposed) to address the issue?
Living in America, I don’t feel I know enough about the specific infrastructures and power differentials regarding environmental issues facing the Philippines to answer this question.
3. How can we apply Filipino cultural values (e.g. kapwa) and spirituality (e.g. belief in anito) inform our approach to caring for the environment?
Caring for the environment is not about critiquing systems or tweaking them. To care for our environment, we must organize systems differently. We must fundamentally change relationships that matter. Kapwa can be the basis for such organization because it is a value that includes the other.
Efforts such as this study group are essential to strip away our conditioned separateness and bridge the illusory gaps between self and nature. When we restore and embody kapwa and pakikipagkapwa, we open ourselves. I feel that the more we open ourselves, the more we hear the necessary calls to action that affect us all. But, relationships are not universal. Specific times and places call for specific actions.
Hi Alexis, these are beautiful insights. I really enjoyed reading them.
In particular, I love what you said here: "The scientific method was born of the mechanical theory but stubbornly refuses to work outside of nature. Each scientific breakthrough brings a paradigm shift that decenters humanity. The tools we create to other and control nature inevitably give us a deeper look into nature. Again and again, we are shown that we are inextricably connected to everything in the artificial and natural worlds. And, again and again, we resist what the universe has been telling us all along." I absolutely agree.
If you've also been following the recent trends in both the material sciences and consciousness studies, they've been confirming things we've known for centuries through eastern philosophies and certain esoteric systems (particularly Hermeticism). The first Hermetic principle, "All is Mind," has been confirmed in quantum physics (the recent Nobel prize winners) and affirmed through postmaterialist psychology (and, previously, in transpersonal psychology).
It's also interesting how you differentiate "belief" and "faith," even when "belief" itself requires a particular faith. If you believe in something then you don't actually know for sure whether or not it's true--you just believe that it is. Do we really know anything beyond the recognition of vague, repeating patterns?
Lastly, I like that you mentioned how relationships require context. We'll look into Filipino social dynamics soon.
Yes, I have been following the recent trends in the sciences and consciousness studies. We are living at an exciting time!
I am not sure where I picked up the differentiation between between belief and faith. Maybe in the Taoist wu-forms or in my Buddhist studies. I agree that belief requires faith. I think that a lot of the tension between science and religion comes from framing science as an openness to new information and new evidence (faith) and framing religion as relying on fixed doctrines (belief). I feel both science and religion require faith, and that both can be lead astray by unmoving belief. In my mind it's not about "know[ing] for sure whether or not it's true," but the willingness to doubt our own explanations.
Another way to put it... We all express our own point of view of things. There is an old Zen saying that the eye does not see itself. Or, each point of view carries with it a blind spot. Wherever you are, as you read this, look straight ahead and notice what you are able to see while keeping in mind all that you cannot see. That blind spot is a field of ignorance that is much larger than whatever you can see in your field of vision. Belief is the certainty that your field of vision is enough, while faith maintains an awareness of ignorance--knowing that what you see is just one of many possible views. If you believe in ghosts and you see something strange that calls to mind a ghost, your belief is explanation enough of your experience. Faith is an awareness that it may be a ghost or a trick of the light or something else. The faithful experience does not invest in the truth of any explanation. It is complete trust in the experience itself, regardless of explanation.
This is not to say that belief is bad or escapable. We all believe things. It's like Alan Watts' explanation of judges following the letter of the law. A religious doctrine is a container for knowledge to be passed on. To have faith is to be aware of both the importance of the knowledge and that the doctrine is just a container for the knowledge. To have faith is to know that both the doctrines and knowledge contained are methods of directing attention or pointing to certain experiences. To believe in the doctrine is to take the doctrine as instruction instead of a description of an experience.
I agree with you when you say that "both science and religion require faith, and that both can be led astray by unmoving belief." Faith motivates the search for knowledge, and science guides the ship towards its divine destination. As St. Anselm of Canterbury said: "Fides Quaerens Intellectum (Faith Seeking Understanding)."
Pointing out what you said: "If you believe in ghosts and you see something strange that calls to mind a ghost, your belief is explanation enough of your experience. Faith is an awareness that it may be a ghost or a trick of the light or something else. The faithful experience does not invest in the truth of any explanation. It is complete trust in the experience itself, regardless of explanation." Absolutely agree. This is also the same perspective of psychologist William James ("Father of American Psychology"), in his 1917 book, "The Varieties of Religious Experience." To quote from him:
"All our attitudes, moral, practical, or emotional, as well as religious, are due to the 'objects' of our consciousness, the things which we believe to exist, whether really or ideally, along with ourselves. Such objects may be present to our senses, or they may be present only to our thought. In either case they elicit from us a reaction; and the reaction due to things of thought is notoriously in many cases as strong as that due to sensible presences. It may be even stronger."
I greatly enjoy your insights, Alexis. Thank you for sharing.
1. Meneses' section III, particularly her descriptive etymology of kapwa [ka/puwa(ng)] resonated with me. As a 2nd generation Pilipina in the diaspora (Hawaii), the hidden meaning (we call it kaona in Hawaiian) in "kapwa" made me simultaneously feel excited and sad. Sad because I can't speak my mother language (but I can speak olelo Hawaii- Hawaiian!), but excited because articles like this make me feel like I'm rediscovering my roots and slowly and surely. I really appreciate all this sharing!
2. Having been born and raised in Hawaii, the struggle between the IP and progress/greed in the Kaliwa Dam situation is similar to land & water struggles here. I fear for the loss of more biodiversity and the Other in the Philippines due to tourism. I pray that places in the PI do not turn into the concrete jungles of Waikiki.
3. Learning forums like this help to inform like-minded Others of our shared struggles. Gently reminding one another of our spiritual roots is essential.
It's beautiful to see similarities across cultures, so thank you very much for sharing your insights! It's also interesting how tourism can be a potential source of damage, especially if it doesn't promote sustainability and if it exploits rather than empowers Indigenous communities.
1. Firstly, I just want to say that I so very much appreciated the videos and the readings for this unit. Meneses' elaboration of both kapwa and pakikipagkapwa and how it captures deep inclusivity and respect for all beings, both human and non-human, is very inspiring. As a Filipinx-American, I am so proud that we, as culture, retain a both a knowledge and respect for our indigeneity as is reflected in our culture and in our languages. The authors argument for the importance of cultural diversity for biodiversity is compelling, especially in regards to indigenous knowledges.
Reading again about anitos and engkantos certainly affirmed what I already knew of Filipinx indigenous beliefs. Though we have many diverse creation myths, I am fond of creation myths in which human beings are birthed from nature, such as the myth of Malakas and Maganda born of bamboo. Also, one of Alan Watt's ideas, that we are all manifestations of nature/the universe observing and interacting with itself, are also ideas that I've come across.
2. I think one of the biggest environmental concerns that needs attention in the Philippines is greater protections for both indigenous groups and their land/natural resources - and greater protections for environmentalists and ecologists. It would help if government agencies recognized and prioritized the importance of protecting these groups and their land/natural resources, rather than prioritizing and protecting the interests of companies and landowners. At present, I don't know what efforts are being made to address this issue.
3. A greater recognition in Filipinx cultural values of kapwa and pakikipagkapwa and recognition and acknowledgement of indigenous knowledges throughout the Philippines and the diaspora would certainly help to make environmentalism and ecology more of a concern to all of us, if it isn't a concern already. I also really appreciated Meneses (and others) emphases on our connection with nature. We are not separate from nature/the natural world, though our post-modern way of life and late-stage capitalist systems would rather we not acknowledge our interdependence and interconnectedness.
I do have a question about the phrase "tabi tabi po." Because I do not yet know much Tagalog, I understand the phrase to mean something like "please excuse me" spoken in reverence of the nature spirits when passing through an area, like a forest, river, etc. When I look up the definition, "tabi" is defined as beside or aside and "tabi tabi" is also used as an adverb to mean "side by side." "Po" is used as a word for respect, like ma'am/sir, but is it not also the root for similar words like "apo" which can be used to mean either ancestor/elder or descendant? So could the phrase "tabi tabi po" also imply something like "pardon me ancestors/nature spirits, it's just me, your descendant passing through"?
Your last point here is interesting, and yes, that would be a good interpretation of the phrase. In older documentation of folk beliefs, such as in Demetrio's encyclopedia, it's actually "tabi apo." I'm not sure if "po" actually does come from "apo," though it's also interesting to note that "apo" also means grandchild. Maybe it evolved in the same way that parents would refer to each other as "mama" or "papa" so that the child learns to call them that.
I love your interpretation of "tabi tabi po."
1. After going through these resources, what struck you the most? It could be something that affected you emotionally, made you rethink your worldview, or affirmed something you already knew.
So much to unpack here. I was particularly struck by Sadhguru’s anecdote about how all life on Earth depends on the existence and health of worms and insects. The same is not true of humanity. He dismantles the human-centric narrative we get stuck in and shows that an ecological movement must give equal value to all life.
I appreciate Alan Watts’ explication of the three theories of nature. I feel the Western theory of a creator mechanistically setting the universe in motion relies on a linear view of time. This theory creates an intellectual disconnect that makes us feel separate from nature. It tricks us into believing the myth of progress--that everything is moving towards a better and more perfect order. But nature does not work purely by accretion. Things die and are lost along the way. On the other end of the continuum, the Chinese organic theory of nature relies on cyclical time. We, and all we create, are nature. Nature works of itself, and we can either flow with it or foolishly attempt to control it.
I feel that the scientific method was born of the mechanical theory but stubbornly refuses to work outside of nature. Each scientific breakthrough brings a paradigm shift that decenters humanity. The tools we create to other and control nature inevitably give us a deeper look into nature. Again and again, we are shown that we are inextricably connected to everything in the artificial and natural worlds. And, again and again, we resist what the universe has been telling us all along.
Some of this can be ascribed to the differences between belief and faith. I feel that belief is a closed system based on knowing, and faith is an open system based on not knowing. We get caught by our beliefs when we interpret the world based solely on how we were brought up and what we’ve already experienced. Everything is explained, and there is no room for mystery. Our beliefs hold power over us. When we faithfully open to not knowing, we can experience the wonder of pakikipagkapwa. Our faith opens a path to clarity and attuned action.
2. What environmental concern in the Philippines do you think needs the most attention? Or, what environmental issue in the Philippines is not currently being recognized as a potential problem? What are the efforts that are being done (or that are being proposed) to address the issue?
Living in America, I don’t feel I know enough about the specific infrastructures and power differentials regarding environmental issues facing the Philippines to answer this question.
3. How can we apply Filipino cultural values (e.g. kapwa) and spirituality (e.g. belief in anito) inform our approach to caring for the environment?
Caring for the environment is not about critiquing systems or tweaking them. To care for our environment, we must organize systems differently. We must fundamentally change relationships that matter. Kapwa can be the basis for such organization because it is a value that includes the other.
Efforts such as this study group are essential to strip away our conditioned separateness and bridge the illusory gaps between self and nature. When we restore and embody kapwa and pakikipagkapwa, we open ourselves. I feel that the more we open ourselves, the more we hear the necessary calls to action that affect us all. But, relationships are not universal. Specific times and places call for specific actions.
Hi Alexis, these are beautiful insights. I really enjoyed reading them.
In particular, I love what you said here: "The scientific method was born of the mechanical theory but stubbornly refuses to work outside of nature. Each scientific breakthrough brings a paradigm shift that decenters humanity. The tools we create to other and control nature inevitably give us a deeper look into nature. Again and again, we are shown that we are inextricably connected to everything in the artificial and natural worlds. And, again and again, we resist what the universe has been telling us all along." I absolutely agree.
If you've also been following the recent trends in both the material sciences and consciousness studies, they've been confirming things we've known for centuries through eastern philosophies and certain esoteric systems (particularly Hermeticism). The first Hermetic principle, "All is Mind," has been confirmed in quantum physics (the recent Nobel prize winners) and affirmed through postmaterialist psychology (and, previously, in transpersonal psychology).
It's also interesting how you differentiate "belief" and "faith," even when "belief" itself requires a particular faith. If you believe in something then you don't actually know for sure whether or not it's true--you just believe that it is. Do we really know anything beyond the recognition of vague, repeating patterns?
Lastly, I like that you mentioned how relationships require context. We'll look into Filipino social dynamics soon.
Yes, I have been following the recent trends in the sciences and consciousness studies. We are living at an exciting time!
I am not sure where I picked up the differentiation between between belief and faith. Maybe in the Taoist wu-forms or in my Buddhist studies. I agree that belief requires faith. I think that a lot of the tension between science and religion comes from framing science as an openness to new information and new evidence (faith) and framing religion as relying on fixed doctrines (belief). I feel both science and religion require faith, and that both can be lead astray by unmoving belief. In my mind it's not about "know[ing] for sure whether or not it's true," but the willingness to doubt our own explanations.
Another way to put it... We all express our own point of view of things. There is an old Zen saying that the eye does not see itself. Or, each point of view carries with it a blind spot. Wherever you are, as you read this, look straight ahead and notice what you are able to see while keeping in mind all that you cannot see. That blind spot is a field of ignorance that is much larger than whatever you can see in your field of vision. Belief is the certainty that your field of vision is enough, while faith maintains an awareness of ignorance--knowing that what you see is just one of many possible views. If you believe in ghosts and you see something strange that calls to mind a ghost, your belief is explanation enough of your experience. Faith is an awareness that it may be a ghost or a trick of the light or something else. The faithful experience does not invest in the truth of any explanation. It is complete trust in the experience itself, regardless of explanation.
This is not to say that belief is bad or escapable. We all believe things. It's like Alan Watts' explanation of judges following the letter of the law. A religious doctrine is a container for knowledge to be passed on. To have faith is to be aware of both the importance of the knowledge and that the doctrine is just a container for the knowledge. To have faith is to know that both the doctrines and knowledge contained are methods of directing attention or pointing to certain experiences. To believe in the doctrine is to take the doctrine as instruction instead of a description of an experience.
I agree with you when you say that "both science and religion require faith, and that both can be led astray by unmoving belief." Faith motivates the search for knowledge, and science guides the ship towards its divine destination. As St. Anselm of Canterbury said: "Fides Quaerens Intellectum (Faith Seeking Understanding)."
Pointing out what you said: "If you believe in ghosts and you see something strange that calls to mind a ghost, your belief is explanation enough of your experience. Faith is an awareness that it may be a ghost or a trick of the light or something else. The faithful experience does not invest in the truth of any explanation. It is complete trust in the experience itself, regardless of explanation." Absolutely agree. This is also the same perspective of psychologist William James ("Father of American Psychology"), in his 1917 book, "The Varieties of Religious Experience." To quote from him:
"All our attitudes, moral, practical, or emotional, as well as religious, are due to the 'objects' of our consciousness, the things which we believe to exist, whether really or ideally, along with ourselves. Such objects may be present to our senses, or they may be present only to our thought. In either case they elicit from us a reaction; and the reaction due to things of thought is notoriously in many cases as strong as that due to sensible presences. It may be even stronger."
I greatly enjoy your insights, Alexis. Thank you for sharing.