Ugaling Naintindihan

Author's Notes/Comments: 

Reedited on 07.16.2019 (misspelled 1.  "imagintation" v. "imagination" & 2. "of much greater interest to me" v. "of a much greater interest to me" in this Author's Notes/Comments); 07.02.2019 (inclusion of the additional term "Political Philosophy" among the list of cognate subjects, for clarification of both its grammatical & semantical errors, which can be both a technical &/or a philosophical issue):

This poem is a Filipino/Tagalog poem, composed in a particular way (or form).   A far different poetical form, &/or composition—which is of a Japanese haiku (with seventeen syllables), but using a native language (my native language of Filipino/Tagalog—["taga-ilog"]), I was merely examining the subconscious aspects of meaning (with a seeming specialism on meaning-making and sense-making).  That exercise is subjective & should also be empirically related (through experience/experiential) as it emerges from those agencies of my own subjective imagination/observation (otherwise stated numerous times in my past author's notes/comments section).  Specifically making such a uniquely described poem was, again, a form of my practice/exercise, in the hopes of understanding haikus/tankas deeply (more significantly, in relation to my own studies of these manifold poetics).  Poems are generally considered art forms, so I thought that it could also be assumed (or presumed) to be synonymous with the maxim that is..the "highest form of expression" (from an "a priori" impression/knowledge which I have about it—a supposed quality of any type of an art).  That could still be debated due to art theories and art criticism.  Is it a philosophical/moral argument which still involves value judgements/moral judgements/critique?  In my own terms, and in most of my current adaptations of language, I wanted to get cues from suchlike works of mine to emphatically connote cultural influences that were (for myself) seeming to be inevitably applied (such as in many of these examples).  I believe those matters to be highly important in determining social phenomena which is why we have sociolinguistical considerations in Linguistics as an area/field of study (e.g, Logicism, Russell, & Oxford Philosophy).  The reason why I may have seemed to be constantly consumed by my own informal philosophical studies (casual self-directed ones, which also span the cognate subjects of Philosophy of Language, its so-called theories of language/perception/meaning, Linguistics & its subfields, including Political Philosophy) are the sheer evidential implications that I have gotten from Culture Theory (for my overarching Moral Philosophy studies, as part of another newer study, which was said to be emerging from the 1990s, & which is of a much greater interest to me—Intercultural Studies).  Those other underlying concepts relating to that, other than those denoted already, were cultural relativism/moral relativism/moral knowledge as interconnected with my religious studies whereby virtually every culture are purported to have their own (including cultural rights & literary developments).  The synonymy of intermingling social factors in our everyday lives (& perceived realities) and social realities (social facts that I have since been delving into, in a sociological point of view) can be making a huge part of my theme (i.e., just in order to rediscover the cultural impact of language, or its notions, and to prove how Media Culture have played a big role in anyone's worldview, e.g., depersonalization, disenchantment, disenfranchisement, defamiliarization, decentralization, dehumanization somehow).  Finally (not fatalistically), just to emphasize its presumed direct/indirect sociocultural/sociolinguistic connection to 'social identities' or one's very own political views/standpoints (without discounting the psychological facets whereof, which is also a presupposed given).  Therefore, while in that process of self-discovery (reinstated all-too-well), it is hoped to emphasize those said/implied objectives (and to avoid redundancy in the future explananda or explicantia of my poetics ).  Thank you for reading on & for your consideration.

Sociology of Modern Soil

Author's Notes/Comments: 

Reedited (06.08.2019)/major grammatical errors/semantical errors:

This is a "haiku" that I've been inspired to write (to type, actually) in addition to some that were already exampled here (as practice haikus, if you will).  I seem to have had several disjointed little musings at certain periods in time (especially during the past week or so); an end result would seem to be the catharses at the outset (as the culmination of these).  I was just suddenly/momentarily finding myself in the mood to write/type something up (in this instance/in the spur).  It could really be pertaining to life in general; or something work-related as it relates to my critique of media culture & its direct influences to human behavior or just anybody's psychological makeup.  Rather, they could be reflections in where every aspect of it were deemed to be specifically subsumed under such interconnected/interrelated subjects: The Humanities, Politics, Economics & those complex theories of value (the ones established within our current corporate world or to its so-called "social relations", e.g., in Marxism/Capitalism/Advanced Capitalism/Technological Nationalism/Techno-populism/et al).  Please kindly bear with my philosophical note/comment at the moment, though quite a long one, because I tend to explain the idea behind the haiku (e.g., an underlying reason). The impetus could still be compelled by my sociological observations (e.g., a "sociological imagination", C. Wright Mills, 1959) or it could be merely a critique, as well.  It could be even much deeper, depending on one's sensibilities on the symbolisms applied altogether.  Yet again, on the surface, these 'language texts' are merely insightful/introspective notes.  I sincerely appreciate those who may have an affinity to haiku poems.  I thank you, for reading on, anyway!  At the end of the day, what one might deem that goes on within these texts were thought to simply have been based on the sheer empirical data that were also implied (i.e., not necessarily an original transcript).  The substance whereof are coming from my initial "thoughts"/"thought forms" on its possible factual contents or basis/subjects/topics/et al (as mental concreta/abstracta themselves).  In connection with these, it's not that I naturally have been able to collate those translatable elements of my experiences, but the recognition of differences in linguistic patterns in every theory of language  (or any other turn for that matter, e.g., Derrida's Differance or perhaps Wittgenstein's, Russell's, etc.) whose social explanation may not even be really intelligible/recognizable in any other type of a particular ordinary language (to connote Philosophical Linguistics/Linguistic Philosophy/Philosophy of Linguistics/Language/etc.) due to what's currently in use.  A language created may not at all correspond to those subjective thoughts (cultural perspective/-ism/cultural values/Culture Theory).  I have had taken some of these things into careful consideration due to its relative meaningfulness or meaninglessness (which are all valuable with respect to comparative analyses).  Those justifications were also due to the sentence structures that I used which were collectively based on certain paradigms that, at first I thought, as if I were alienated/defamiliarized/depersonalized to begin with (as I was uncomfortable at a time when using it, e.g., because of the said perspectivism that's applied to a rather general linguistic theory).  As if it were inhering to myself at a time, by being affected subtly, first of all, in an English-speaking world, & where its usage is subject to grammar rules; yet also (by any chance) a subconscious assimilation of certain external influences which constrainedly affects its supposed free creation.  But, at this point, as any sentence structure may still involve thematic relations, or themes, what could have necessitated my eventual critique (i.e., my criticism vs. my acceptance of the turn of the century—which could really be my possible main theme), in itself, is a cultural value, also emphasized earlier.  Something that which one may factor by, e.g., either socially manifesting as postmodernism, consumer behavior, or comprising social theories/theories of value, & other multifarious social factors within the purview of Critical Consciousness (e.g., Friere, P.).  Moral Philosophy may, at best, be a relevant/significant part of it.  Therefore, that being said, the decision point may either be a good thing or a bad thing (if I may begin moralizing, by the extension of many moralizing agents/factors).  Also, while one may have decided on these (i.e., writing/typing something up about Postmodern Thought or Critical Thought), he/she may either have started to become more culturally sensitive or culturally aware (as a learner of intercultural studies).  Just maybe.—If that is, indeed, or, is in fact, a politically correct statement (or if that was the case).  


Paraphrasing that:  Could one be certain that he/she is, in fact, anti-establishment so far, i.e., for deciding on writing/typing about Postmodern Thought & Critical Thought?  Or, just maybe, could he be just becoming more culturally sensitive or culturally aware (as a learner of intercultural studies)? 



In the same vein, as one might get prejudged (e.g., ..because of prejudgements, snap judgements, cultural biases, assumptions, apperception, misidentification, misrecognition, misconception, misunderstanding, preconceived notions, presuppositions,  et al), can he/she also be easily called (or, can he even call himself/herself) a nonconformist (for his/her possible or assumed/presumed nonconformity)?