Classical dualistic ontology (the objective-subjective divide)—tilted to the axiological primacy of the objective (objectivism) over the subjective—advances what it holds as a   truism   that objective reality is basically consistent within itself. If we find inconsistencies in it, these are not in reality but in the way we look at and describe reality in human terms (the subjective).

However, looking at reality is not a unilateral act; it is perspectival in a situation of innumerable perspectives. On this basis, a specific description of reality is actually that of a perspective of reality. In other words, what is out there (the objective) is epistemically well-placed and the things that constitute it cannot in anyway contradict themselves. It is what is in one’s mind (the subjective) that creates contradictions . . . stultifications. . . clashing notions . . . contrasting opinions . . . irreconcilable differences . . .

But what is reality in this sense? What is the meaningfulness of things “out there” which are said to be constitutive of the so-called “objective reality”?  How do we get to the point of tentatively determining   that   those   things   “out-there”   are   epistemically   “well-placed”?   What   ontological agency has determined once and for all the “consistency” of reality within itself?

Hence, “objective reality” qua objective is meaningless. Reality as a general notion becomes meaningful only via the operation of the subjective: the human mind whose   “reality” is characterized by an continuous stream of consciousness that interacts with what is “out there” and   in   the   process   makes   reality   a   world   of   experiences   in   all   their   varied   forms   and substances . . . at times consistent . . . at times contradictory . . . at times harmonious . . . at times clashing.

This is the true, genuine Reality that transcends and dissolves classical dualism—an epistemological realization of the dialectics of the subjective and the objective where a contradiction is elevated to the more philosophically distinguished level of a paradox.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa


The most recent terrorist attack in Belgium left more than 30 people dead and almost a hundred wounded after multiple explosions at the Brussels international airport and metro subway station. This tragic event happened some days after Belgium officially recognized the State of Palestine. In this connection, critical observers have unanimously opined that it was another  false flag after Daesh/ISIS/ISIL immediately claimed responsibility.  Relative to this event is a warning issued by Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu: If you recognize the State of Palestine, you will suffer serious consequences. Besides, we all know that Daesh/ISIS/ISIL is a western-imperialist creation supported by US, Israel, Turkey, Saudi and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). These are the “puppeteers” who supply Daesh/ISIS/ISIL  with munitions and manage their logistics and finances as well.

It was a false flag–no more, no less. Western European countries and their leaderships have been “tragically” and consistently subjected into  a dilemma which in reality is “self-negating” (for a lack of more appropriate term at this point in time). The Belgian government didn’t actually “operationalize” this false flag attack (as the French government didn’t likewise do some months ago). However, the government knew it very well beforehand because of so many warnings and circumstantial analyses on the impending risk of a massive “terrorist attack”. But in every instance of similar nature, the more powerful forces in control of all these systemic activities demand that the government ought to stand helplessly on the sidewalk and do nothing while destruction is heinously perpetrated on its people.

The most recent terrorist attack in Belgium and those that already happened in the most recent past as well as those that we expect to happen sooner or later in major cities of Western Europe are all parts and parcels of a grand global scheme to weaken the political substructure of Europe with the objective of perpetuating its subservience to US hegemony. With this in mind, it is subsumed that the US will continue to maintain its vantage point over Europe and hence impose its political will over the continent through the instrumentalities of the NATO. These terrorist activities have been perpetrated in preparation for the inauguration of the “Greater Israel Project” which will include Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Iraq.

It is also a well-known fact that Russia is operating in aid of the said disadvantaged Middle Eastern countries. Breaking and weakening the political will of European countries and in the process increasing the control of US hegemony over Europe through the NATO will dissipate all possibilities of getting Europe into closer ties with Russia. In the present European political scenario, the major modus operandi is the sustained demonization of Russia. The whole geopolitical state of affairs reveals the fact that the US is right now “between a rock and a hard place”: The task to “possibilize” the “Greater Israel Project” on the one hand and to put an impenetrable barrier between Europe and Russia on the other.

On the issue of a European country’s act of recognizing the State of Palestine, it is actually the majority of the people who want it and such is passed through their representations in the parliament. While such a demand is voiced out in the hall of the parliament, the executive leaders are however placed in a very uncomfortable situation. But majority pressure pushes them to such a demand and hence gets them into a “no-alternative point” wherein they have to issue an official recognition of the State of Palestine. This is where the dilemma becomes real as far as the executive leaders are concerned: On the one hand is the Zionist pressure while on the other is the citizens’ demand.

In the final analysis, we get to the point of identifying now the ultimate and absolute puppeteers in this whole state of affairs and they are not really the US imperialists but rather the Zionist Israelis operating in the US and Israel–the powers in control of the global banking system and big business enterprises in the Western world and in those countries where the Western powers exercise their omnipotent clout.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 24 March 2016

new historicism

To understand “anti-historicism” and “new historicism”, it is first and foremost a pre-requisite to understand fully well what “historicism” is whose most prominent theorists are Hegel and Marx.

Hegel’s historicism is fundamentally grounded on Reason. It affirms to us  the basic  element of reality called “The Real” which is the universal essence that guides the material process of world history to go through  a periodization that generally began from the physical phase to the biological phase until reaching the point of the human phase. At the human phase of development, social progress has gone through the evolutionary process that has passed from ancient tyranny toward freedom where Universal Reason ultimately becomes the dominant factor. The whole principle constitutes Hegel’s doctrine of Dialectical Idealism whose thesis is Reason which afterwards primes the anti-thesis of Material History and in the end creates the synthesis of the triumph of Universal Reason. In simple terms, Hegel’s historicism gives us the notion that human history is a guided one on a pre-determined trajectory. The Universal Reason is the guiding principle that brings humanity from one historical phase to the next until history ends with all social contradictions finally resolved in human history.

Marx’s historicism is the diametrical opposite of Hegel’s for it begins with the thesis of humanity’s material experience of the world which is basically grounded on economics or the production of material wealth. Such thesis brings forth the anti-thesis which constitutes the formulation of practicable theories and the perfection of reason-based principles. This dialectical trajectory leads to the synthesis where such theories and principles lead to the enhancement/enrichment of human experience in the material components that drive history towards a classless society. Marx’s historicism which is known as Dialectical Materialism is the dynamics that spark the mechanics of his Historical Materialism.

In New Historicism, there is no such thing as universal human essence (which is Universal Reason in Hegel and Economic Determinism in Marx) that guides the historical trajectory of human affairs in society. Neither is there a principle of absolute objectivity that gives us a general understanding of human states of affairs irrespective of socio-cultural context which in the process undermines both subjective and intersubjective realities.  In this sense, New Historicism is also known as Anti-Historicism.

New Historicism applied in literary criticism is based on the notion that the study and interpretation of literature are contextually dependent on the historical contexts of both the author and the critic. Foucault’s influence in New Historicism is seen in his acknowledgment of the fact that a literary work is not only influenced by the author’s cultural apparatus and personal circumstances within the context of her/his time but also the critic’s critique of such a literary work which is likewise influenced by her/his milieu, belief system and prejudices.

In New Historicism, a literary work is analyzed and evaluated in the writer’s cultural context. In this sense, an in-depth study of a literary work opens up a cultural landscape that reveals in the process power structures in social classes, both mainstream and marginalized. Digging deeper into the essence of the literary work under study–which Foucault symbolically described as an “archeological task”–brings us to its historical mooring that further enriches the text which in turn likewise enriches history.


“The Animal in Us”


“Many cultures, including the Native Americans, believe that if we put our ear to the ground, we can hear Mother Earth’s heartbeat. Land animal totems are keenly aware of this heartbeat – and in fact, are said to walk in time with the beat of the Earth’s heart. Consequently these land animal symbol meanings relate to intuitition, awareness, and cognizance. Additionally, this animal group represents being grounded, and stable both mentally and physically. ” –Avia Venifica

Animals are our brethren.” — Mahatma Gandhi

But we human beings, are we not animals? Isn’t it simply the pride of our humanity that always puts  a wedge between us–who call ourselves human–and the so-called animal world? Isn’t this pride just a sheer expression of what we think as the uniqueness of our humanity and thus the rest of the animal world are in this sense not at par with our ontological superiority? Or, are we not totally animal so that it is more realistically meaningful to say that there is only something animal in us?

In so many basal ways ranging from the simply rude to the most obscene, we know the animal about the human being in expressions like, “You bitch!” . . . “You sonovabitch!” . . . “You’re all wolves in sheep’s clothing!” . . . “You’re a snake who’s never learned to value good deeds done in your behalf!” . . . “These politicians are all crocodiles in coats and ties!” . . . “These dirty rats are all scot-free to scavenge garbage bins on sidestreets!” . . . “These stalking dogs have gotten used to follow their idols’ performances even to the end of the earth!” . . . “That one heck of an ape keeps repeating what I’m doing!” . . . “You’re surely get a lashing from that scorpion-tongued idiot if you get critical of his views!”

Yet, in another context, exemplary animal aspects are likewise reckoned about our humanity: “He just gave me a warm, encouraging bear hug.” . . . “Their enterprise is as busy and organized as an anthill.” . . . “The eagle-eyed fighter pilot delivered the shot right smack on the target!” . . . “His bull-like strength pinned the opponent down on the canvas in less than a minute.” . . . “She walked with the elegance of a gazelle and it drew some significant rave from her admiring fans.” . . . “She was a dove of peace who arrived just in time to settle the dispute.”

These are all superficial attributions brought about by some instant emotional surge. At the end of the day, the established affirmation remains: We are human and never animal. Human pride perennially rivets in our consciousness the belief that humans are human and animals are animal and never the twain shall meet. In the judaeo-christian thought-system which has dominated through generations the cultural apparatus of the western mind, the divide is irreconcilable as divine power deemed it at the beginning of time the uniqueness of humanity having been especially endowed with a “spirit”  never bestowed to animals. That is what the creation story tells us. But that’s a myth which through time and in the dramatic march of science in its methodological observations and investigations has been proven inaccurate and unreliable even impossible. Something which solely relies on and is hence a matter of faith is a dead-end and will never lead us to a meaningful and worthwhile discussion of an issue which is of prime importance to better understand our circumstances in the here-and-now.

Starting off with the state of being where we ought to reasonably begin, the concreteness of our physical reality is a given. We cannot commence the journey elsewhere; consciousness points us to what is perceived in physical reality. And our very own physicality is indubitably animal. We can see it, we can feel it, we can even smell it and listen to it. The issue at this point is not simply consciousness but, as the phenomenologist contends, it is consciousness of something and that something at the onset is consciousness of our physicality. We are basically animal and perhaps the only factor that takes us beyond the basicality of our animality is the fact that we are able to be conscious of our consciousness. We are self-conscious entities. Could this be the location of the animal-human frontier? Are we now  at this point identifying the ultimate dividing line that separates the human from the animal? Is this realization a justifying break-away point to make it clear once and for all that we are totally human and hence fully shed off the vestiges of our animality?

The truth of the matter is we cannot escape from the reality of our physicality. We are here and now in flesh and bone and blood. It is only the arrogance of our well-achieved evolution that has given us the illusion and the delusion that there is nothing animal in us anymore. In recognition of this incontrovertible fact and to turn the table around, it might be rather more meaningful to say that there is something human in our animality. What makes sense at this point is not the animal in us but rather the human in us who are actually animal.

But to give the topic, “the animal in us,” a run for its money, so to speak, let’s consider certain significant factors that cannot break the animal spell in our being such as: the instinctive drive to survive; the spontaneity to desire what our senses have perceived as desirable; to feel the pleasure of being in a delightful experience and the sorrow of being in a sad state; the natural impulse to provide for one’s own need and the offspring’s need as well; the innate sensitivity to protect one’s well-being as well as that of her/his loved ones. Among others which I failed to mention here, these are the circumstances of “the animal in us”–in fact, the indisputable reality that we are animal.

Conclusively, we could now soberly say with deep sensibility that our self-consciousness/self-awareness (which in most recent investigations done by present-day biologists using the most modern/most sophisticated methods have dramatically proven that even chimps and dolphins as well as other mammals show some significant signs of self-consciousness), creativity (in arts and technology) and moral sensibility do not extricate us from the animal kingdom but simply give us the knowledge that within the kingdom, the evolutionary process has gone this far.

Arrogance is the single “badass” that such an evolution has carried through the space-time continuum and has given us the utterly wrong notion that we are no longer animals as eons ago, we successfully broke away from the dispicable limitations of the animal kingdom. In retrospect and through the aid of the very instrumentality of self-awareness, the more reasonable human animals in us have realized once and for all that many lower animals have more appreciably and thus more commendably productive and moral characteristics than what the majority of us human animals have. It is interesting to note at this point that there has never been a record of a lower-animal mass murderer that parallels  the caliber of a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Netanyahu, a Bush or a Blair, among others. However, there have been cases of mass murder in lower animals and these are perpetrated by none other than the human animals. No lower animals invented religions which later developed to become hatred machineries sowing misery, violence and terror on planet Earth. No lower animals got into politics to deceive and manipulate and exploit fellow animals and thereafter enrich themselves with the loots they plundered from the latter.

In the final analysis, it is not “the animal in us” that has created all the mess we find in the world; it is rather the human in us animals.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 6 January 2016

The Here-and-Now


here and now

“Every moment is utterly unique and will not be continued in eternity. This fact gives life its poignancy and should concentrate your attention on what you are experiencing now.”
― Joseph Campbell, A Joseph Campbell Companion: Reflections on the Art of Living

“She was thinking how all those paths and the lawn, thick and knotted with the lives they had lived there, were gone: were rubbed out; were past; were unreal, and now this was real; the boat and the sail with its patch; Macalister with his earrings; the noise of the waves–all this was real.”
― Virginia Woolf, To the Lighthouse  

“You must live in the present, launch yourself on every wave, find your eternity in each moment. Fools stand on their island of opportunities and look toward another land. There is no other land; there is no other life but this.”
― Henry David Thoreau

The here-and-now is the “possibilization” (with apologies to Sartre) of being. If there is no here-and-now there is no possibility of being, much less of becoming. The here-and-now doesn’t exist but it makes existence possible. Perhaps, we could say it is existence itself. As an epistemic category, it is a “knowing-of-being” to establish the essence of “being here and now” as a matter of awareness over and beyond the superficial consciousness of mere location. We are not simply located in space-time (the scientific equivalent of the philosophical here-and-now); we signify our being in it. And in such condition, we ask the questions: (1) Why am I here? (2) What must I do? and (3) What can I hope for?

The here-and-now is the scaffolding of experience. There is no experience outside of the here-and-now. There is no here-and-now prior to experience; it is in the thematization of the occurrence of experience that the here-and-now reveals itself to us. It is only in this very condition of thematization that the epistemological cause-effect description may be applied to the here-and-now where experience is the cause of how we get aware of it. However, the ontological reality is a different landscape where such cause-effect sequence is not an issue since the here-and-now is in simultaneity with experience. Neither one of them causes the other.

My here-and-now is the present state of affairs where I am now. In a sense, I am here now because I have chosen to be here now. In many instances, it is so. But there are also many instances where I am in right here and now but such is not of my own choosing; certain events in the course of my life have brought me here now. Of course, it is not always the case that I like and enjoy the here-and-now where I am in but difficulties due to limitations make it almost impossible for me to get myself out of it. With a sense of acceptance and resignation, I may just settle down and give up with the final thought that this is my lot in life–my destiny, if you will. In this sense, I could reasonably say that my own personal limitiations set the very limits of my here-and-now.

Nevertheless, not all limitations within my circumstances are personal. I am part and parcel of a larger reality whose immensity imposes limitations not only on me but on every living soul, so to speak, within the frontiers of such a reality. Reckoned as it is, I am just a tiny speck of being within the hegemonic confines of this extensive here-and-now. It is also my here-and-now but not of my creation. In a lot of ways, this enormous here-and-now affects my thoughts and non-thoughts, my actions and inactions. This is the here-and-now before which I am paralyzed to go against and hence of which I am disempowered to act in defiance.

The here-and-now within the range of human experience is therefore not wholly personal in the existential sense; it is also politico-economic in the global and thus objective sense. In the context of this understanding, the here-and-now is a matter of power in the hands of manipulators and exploiters. It is actually the Zeitgeist–the Spirit of the Time–that is in control of our lives in the present era. We are all ensconced in this global here-and-now where the more privileged enjoy the comfort of affluence and wealth while the rest are wallowing in all levels and degrees of impoverishment brought about by the greed, covetousness and over-indulgence of certain ravenous powers-that-be who have exhausted their global influence and might to destabilize, ravage and finally ruin resource-rich societies through proxy wars.

In the final analysis, we could come to the conclusion that one’s here-and-now is not exclusively hers/his. Having this thought in mind, we could even say that the personal here-and-now is actually something that each of us share with another’s here-and-now.  At the end of the day, we get to the realization that the here-and-now we have been thinking about is a collective one–a sharing of the same horizon in the hope of achieving common goals from day to day.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 29 December 2015

being happy

The real things haven’t changed. It is still best to be honest and truthful; to make the most of what we have; to be happy with simple pleasures; and have courage when things go wrong.”

― Laura Ingalls Wilder

“So he tasted the deep pain that is reserved only for the strong, just as he had tasted for a little while the deep happiness.”

― F. Scott Fitzgerald, All the Sad Young Men

Can “being happy” really be defined? We are not dealing here with the general concept of happiness. “Being happy” carries in it a fundamentally existential sense and defining it as a concept is tantamount to robbing the experience of being happy of its essence. Besides, defining it in linguistic terms leads us to a standstill. Nobody will bite a conceptual definition of “being happy” for such will always be wanting from the viewpoint of every individual person whose experience of being happy depends on her/his personal circumstances in life. With a million people each of them having experienced being happy, a million definitions are in the offing. In other words, nobody is capable of coming up with a single universal definition of being happy. Moreover, defining a “living” experience in words is immediately putting boundaries around it. “Capturing” the spontaneity of experience as it happens is missing the next segments of its flow. Let’s appreciate a “living” flower undetached from its stem and hence from the totality of the plant where it is found. Let’s not pluck it from the stem through which life flows. Defining in words a spontaneous experience is like plucking a flower from its stem.

However, being happy may be observed. I know when someone–especially those who are closely related to me–is happy. There are some obvious physical manifestations to know when a person is happy. However, there are also instances when such manifestations are absent and it is only the one who experiences being happy who knows that s/he is happy. Being happy is a matter of subjective feeling so that we can only utter, “I am happy,” for other people to know and think that we are really happy. But there’s no possibility in whatever way of allowing an individual to enter into the state of another individual’s being at the very moment the latter is experiencing it. What is strictly considered at this point of the discussion is the fact that only the one who experiences being happy has the basic knowledge not of being happy in general but of her/his own experience of being happy.

The experience of being happy may be shared by two or more individuals. Nevertheless,  something may make one happy while the same thing could trigger sadness in another. The final results of a championship match between Real Madrid and Barcelona will surely make the supporters of one happy and those of the other sad. But in most instances, being happy on the one hand or being sad on the other is only a flitting thing. As a matter of feeling in the context of our earthly experience, both being happy and being sad are never perennial. In this sense, it is somewhat difficult to draw the demarcation line that distinguishes being happy from being pleased. Or perhaps, there is really no distinction between them. Perhaps, it is just our propensity to get dramatic and different that we diversify terms in our language and one instance is in the way we make being happy distinct in meaning from being pleased. As far as my two cents is concerned, I don’t see the difference between the two at all.

Besides, in a world  full of problems, troubles, headaches and sufferings, being happy is only in pockets and snatches, so to speak. Being happy is therefore  a short span of rosy moments as they are a rarity. We live life as it comes and we should meet it with a high sense of realism. In so doing, we find ourselves on a more stable platform that makes us realize how important soberness is. When the floodlights of pleasure hit us, we are not overwhelmed with seemingly endless exhilaration. When the dark shadows of tragedy strike us, we don’t resign at the corner of defeat and utter devastation.

Being happy and being sad are the two sides of the coin of life. Balance is the name of the game and such is shown when we have already mastered the art of standing on the edge.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 5 November 2015


“Life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes. Don’t resist them–that only creates sorrow. Let reality be reality. Let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they like.”
— Lao Tzu

The term “natural” may be understood in different ways respective of the context.  Yet, in every context, it is much easier to handle if viewed in contrast with its antonym. At one point, “natural” contrasts “artificial” while at another, its opposite is “cultural” and further still, it is antithetical to “supernatural”. In the first sense, what is “natural” is original and its copy or simulation is the artificial. The simplest example I can think of right at the moment is orange juice which of course is natural if derived by squeezing real oranges while artificial if what makes it look like an orange juice is the artificial coloring and the simulated taste is produced by a concoction of certain chemicals called artificial flavors.

Similar thought may be applied to human beings wherein a person whom we know very well is acting very strangely–i.e., very artificially–in a particular situation. We could make a spontaneous judgment on the matter because we know the person so well and under normal circumstances, we just couldn’t imagine s/he would act in the way s/he’s acting right now. In other words, it is a circumstance wherein the contrast between what is natural and what is artificial is so pronounced. At the end of the day, we get to the point of saying, the person wasn’t her/himself. However, the same evaluation or judgment may not be applied if the other person is a total stranger. We know nothing about her/him, i.e., we are ignorant of who s/he really is. Having this condition, there is no way for us to know what is natural and what is artificial in that person.

In many instances, many normal people tend to act artificially in public because of general social expectations–even pressures–embedded in the ways and means where we have gotten used to. We always tend to think of how the public will react if we start doing something unconventional. So the best thing to do is to toe the social line. We go the way of the majority and act artificially to maintain the convention without rocking the boat. However, we act in a very natural way in the presence of intimate family members and friends who, we are quite certain, will never expect from us anything beyond what they know of and about us since time immemorial, so to speak. And in such a condition, we don’t get ashamed. We don’t care at all even if some lapses–even craziness and stupidities–are committed because we know family and friends will always understand. Criticisms from them are always well taken with less strain and no embarrassment at all.

Being natural in the second sense, i.e., natural vs cultural, is a different state of affairs. In this context, there’s nothing negative both ways. The whole situation is basically characterized by a continuum that starts off with the natural and moves forward on a trajectory that leads to the formation of the cultural. In this particular sphere of discussion, the human factor is of the essence being a culture creator. There is no culture much less civilization minus humanity. In a more theoretical configuration, we find the human being right smack at the interspace between nature and culture. Hence, prior to human existence, we say that all was a natural domain, i.e., everything was natural.

Yet, the dynamics of what we call nature–or the natural, if you will–are distinguished by the process of evolution and the emergence of humanity is part and parcel of its orbit. In other words, the human being who is the prime author of all aspects of the global cultural landscape regardless of how diverse it is finds her/his most meaningful niche within the ambit of the natural. In this sense, it doesn’t matter at all how diametrically disparate nature and culture may be; the reality that matters once and for all is the fact that nature and culture constitute an unbroken spectrum. A further elaboration of this issue leads us to a realization that even if culture is by and large thought out in the most sophisticated operation of the human mind and substantially manifested in space-time, the most basic raw materials of physical culture amidst us are drawn and extracted from nature.

Nevertheless, even if we contend of how unbroken the spectrum that connects nature and culture may be, some infringements are however committed along the way not in the area of nature but rather in the area of culture. These infringements are not matters of lapses but of abusive acts of wanton destruction perpetrated by self-aggrandizing people to materially enrich themselves to the detriment of Earth’s natural resources. Having considered this leads us to the two sides of the human phenomenon: the creative culture-builder on the one hand and the destructive nature-abuser on the other.

Lastly, being natural in the third sense, i.e., natural vs supernatural, is simply being realistic. What is natural in this sense is that which we actually experience here and now. On the basis of this, we are all authorities of our respective experiences which in a lot of instances find a common convergence point. We understand each other and agree on many things of natural importance because many times we find ourselves in similar situations. It is realistic to say that we encounter a lot of problems in this world but in the same vein, most solutions to such problems are likewise located in this same world.

This world we live in is real and this is the main issue why we are deemed to make the best of this world. The most sensitive, sensible, responsible and committed among us are the most able and determined protectors of the Earth which is our home. There is no other nebulous world elsewhere which many religions have idealized. The supernatural is a figment of one’s imagination that gives false hope to the naïve and the brainwashed. We defend the natural because we are replete with the rational grounding to sustain its reality while upholding the “reality” of the supernatural takes a lot of imagination and presuppositions based on made-up stories elevated to the level of myths and legends.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 29 October 2015


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 214 other followers