Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Christmas Blues and Christmas Songs: An Application of the Arcadian’s “Guiltification” Theory

Disclaimer: I have nothing against tradition nor freedom of religion.

I used to wonder why, although there are always new Christmas songs every year, the older Christmas songs doesn’t seem to get outdated. Hindi nalalaos.

Here are some of those songs that I've been thinking about:

Jingle Bells

Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas

Silent Night

Give Love on Christmas Day

Last Christmas

Pasko Na

I reasoned to myself: it’s because the Christmas season is just short. Hindi pa napagsasawaan, tapos na ang pasko. A simple answer to a simple question.

I was sitting on my desk studying and listening to mushy Christmas songs on the radio when I formulated a new theory why these songs never seem to get outdated.

Christmas blues are experienced because nostalgic feelings are triggered by Christmas songs, parties, gifts, decors, traditions, homecomings, the weather, the media hype, and the fact that it signifies the end of the year. Everyone around is or at least seems happy. It is a season when people are supposed to be happy, altogether, at the same time. And all these triggers have happened simultaneously every year since we were kids, and we know these will all happen again and again, every year, until we grow old. And because present Christmas season remind us of past (happier or just different) Christmases, we reminisce about lost people and things and even situations. I realize now that I was being too simplistic about it before. I guess it takes a dose of the Christmas blues to know why Christmas songs don’t go old just like that (Yes I got the Christmas blues, even if I’m not Christian, because all these triggers have been around me since I was a kid). Christmas songs, without explicitly singing about the past like Noel Cabangon’s Kanlungan, do remind us of the past.

I also realized that Christmas songs are designed not to get outdated, in order to cause Christmas blues (Am I schizo now or what?). Playing old Christmas songs is a mechanism, just like the imaginary Santa Clause, to get people to do things. It’s a means of haunting us with the ghost of past Christmases, so that we feel obliged to reach out to loved ones, family or friends we have been out of touch with, think and do good things for other people. It’s not just so people can reminisce good ol’ times. It’s not simply tradition. It’s motivated by the same institution that forced upon us Valentines, Halloween, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Grandparent’s Day, etc.. That institution (yes, it’s the Capitalist institution), in order to milk our pockets dry, get us to spend on gifts, cards, parties and restaurants, by tapping into GUILT. They make us feel guilty about taking for granted our loved ones (or what was designed to be moral or good), and we indulge, because hey, it’s not a bad cause and it’s only once a year right? But all these seasons and days cover practically every month of the year, and we do spend so much on all these, even if we are receive a 13^th month bonus come Christmas season. Playing Christmas songs is no different from the SM jingle being played on and on in all SM Deparment Stores. They both translate to: SHOP!! SHOP!! SHOP!! You’re running out of time!! (Am I cold now or what? Again, for those who might be offended by my entry, please, refer to my disclaimer above!! :) )

Now if only seasons could be celebrated in its true spirit, then maybe… Maybe it would make us all feel better.

Posted by xam :: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 :: 1 Comments:

Post a Comment

---------------------------------------

Thursday, December 06, 2007

To err is human, so how can we stay good?

The Morality Quiz from TIME MAGAZINE

The deepest foundation on which morality is built is the phenomenon of empathy, the understanding that what hurts me would feel the same way to you. And human ego notwithstanding, it's a quality other species share. While it's impossible to directly measure empathy in animals, in humans it's another matter. Here are some of the dilemmas used to study human morality.

Scenario 1: The Crying Baby

It's war time, and you're hiding in a basement with a group of other people. Enemy soldiers are approaching outside and will be drawn to any sound. If you're found, you'll all be killed immediately. A baby hiding with you starts to cry loudly and cannot be stopped. Smothering it to death is the only way to silence it, saving the lives of everyone in the room. Assume that the parents of the baby are unknown and not present and there will be no penalty for killing the child. Could you be the one who smothered it if no one else would?

Scenario 2: The Life Boat

You're in a lifeboat with several other people. The boat is overloaded and will capsize soon killing everyone aboard unless you lighten the load by one person. One of the passengers is grievously injured and is certain to die soon, but is fully alert and aware of everything that is going on. Could you throw that person overboard, knowing that that would save everyone else and that the person would know what you were doing while you were doing it?

Scenario 3a: The Trolley

An out of control trolley is heading down a track toward five unsuspecting people and will surely kill them all. You could throw a switch diverting it to a siding, but an equally unsuspecting man is standing there and the train will kill him instead. Could you throw the switch, killing one to save five?

Scenario 3b: The Trolley

In another version of the trolley dilemma, you and the man are on a bridge and you would have to push him onto the track to save the other five.

Scenario 3c: The Trolley

In a third version of the trolley dilemma, you could throw a switch catapulting him onto the track, thereby not having to touch him as you kill him. Could you do either of these other scenarios?

Posted by xam :: Thursday, December 06, 2007 :: 1 Comments:

Post a Comment

--------------------------------------- i felt like posting my latest friendster "about me" before i change it again :)

i have a strange sense of morality.

i won't save the lives of ten strangers who are about to be hit by a train (by pulling a switch to divert the train) and hit one stranger, even if that one stranger were a criminal, because i strike a difference between the positive act of killing one person and the mere failure to save a life. but i can kill a person to save myself, provided that he is dying or gonna die anyway. i can sacrifice my happiness, even my life or my fate, for someone i love. i can wreak damage to someone else for my own happiness or for the happiness of the ones i love. it is all a matter of balancing of interests.

i am fiercely protective and territorial. i'm ruthless, smart, cunning, pompous, fiery and feisty. i love and hate fiercely and in equal measures. sometimes i see the world in psychedelic colors. sometimes i see it in black and white, no grays. i always think before i act, sometimes i think fast, sometimes i’m calculating. nearly all the time i'm right, but admittedly, sometimes i'm wrong. i am stubborn when i know i'm right, but i'm willing to give in when i'm wrong. but first you must convince me that i'm wrong.

i do not believe in the inherent goodness of people. i believe in the power of the human emotion and in ulterior motive. even if some people claim they act within a worldview or based on reason, i am still convinced it is all about human emotion. i don’t know if I can be considered an empathic person, but i always try to read human emotions and act based on that to achieve my desired end. in pursuit of my happiness, i believe that i should act on my emotions, tempered only by reason and a sense of justice and morality.

because of all these, make sure you already know me really well before you enter my world, because i am not one to be trusted to handle you with care if you get on my bad side. but then again, if you get on my good side, you’re up for a nice ride. :)

Posted by xam :: Thursday, December 06, 2007 :: 0 Comments:

Post a Comment

---------------------------------------