I guess it was right to put a certain distance between myself and social networks. True, they do increase and reinforce communication channels, but... the implications are sometimes just too much to handle. For someone of my ilk, who is drawn to abstract thoughts and always in search of meaning, I tend to read into people's words more than necessary.
At FB, intuition helps me detect posts that every fiber of my being says are reactions to my recent activities. I've tried to feign ignorance since that fateful incident two years ago, where I thoughtlessly reacted to a friend's emotional outburst about "true friends." Ah, well. It's quite a long story. Bearing your soul whole through social networks is a little too unsophisticated - for the lack of a better word. It's fine for other people who have run out of emotional outlets but I'd rather write a novel, if not waste my time blogging.
And yes, ironically, this blog entry is somewhat a reaction to one of the posts I just read at FB. You see, I just reconnected with a College friend I haven't seen in ages. She tagged me in a few pictures and, kind and sentimental as I am (especially when it comes to long lost friends), I decided to log in earlier than usual and splash a few comments and likes. I genuinely am happy that she's got herself a teaching job. Even if I may not join the academe, I have always had great respect for teachers (my mom, a few relatives and some grandparents were teachers). As a person, April is lively and highly idealistic. Although compared to me, she's more pragmatic and extreme in expressing those ideals. Haha. When I made a comment and liked her pictures, I really enjoyed looking at them and was happy that she embarked on a very noble profession.
Then I met a post that baffled me. The tenor was a little... discriminating. I think that's the apt adjective for it. I cannot repost verbatim because I don't want to disclose the poster's identity (who is a beloved person, by the way). I could be wrong but the understanding generated from those broadcasted words implied the following: 1) the teaching profession can discuss lofty theories but is unable to implement, and 2) those who are not part of cause and action-oriented institutions are not making a genuine existence.
Implication #1 is ultimately linked to the gist of implication #2, which revolves around "a meaningful existence." I'm a little taken aback. Who are we to say who is or isn't making a meaningful existence? I saw one of those emo pic memes and it bore this message: You only know my name... but you do not know my story. A lot of people are trying to make a meaningful existence, you know. Not everyone, however, is involved in activities as grandiose as policy-making, nation-building, peace-building, constitutional framing, gender and development or something to that effect. We simply do not know their story - what they do, why they're doing what they do or what adds meaning to their lives.
People are different. We come from different backgrounds, live different lifestyles and have different upbringings. We absorb and interpret meaning differently. We have different contextual frameworks, thereby making each one of us psychologically, emotionally and spiritually unique. Again, cliche as this may sound, no two people are alike. It follows, therefore, that what may be meaningful to one person may not always be so for another. Meaning is not something you can control from a higher pedestal the way the Philippine government unilaterally decides on important matters without understanding or appealing to the diverse interests of a diverse Filipino population (*coughs* RA 6734? RA 9054? RA 10175?).
Meaning is, by and large, decentralized and ambivalent. Decentralization of meaning is postmodernism reincarnate. I have my meaning; you have your meaning; they have theirs too. To each his or her own. And this sure as hell isn't North Korea or Burma, where you're forced to believe every little thing those blokes in uniform have to say and where defying unreasonable mandates would cost you nearly a lifetime in jail like Aung San Suu Kyi.
No one has the monopoly of meaning. None of us is in the position to impose meaning on others, much less condemn them for seeing things differently. This needs a good deal of unlearning or getting rid of one's biases or fundamentals. The best alternative is still to respect those whose views and approach in life are different from yours. Respect may cover the following things: 1) agreeing or disagreeing in silence, and 2) synthesizing your ideas with other people's by meeting them half-way and finding a common ground on a concern where your views did not coincide. I highly recommend the latter. Yep, there are many things more complicated than the relationship status we often publish at that 1 billion-strong social network. Inter-brain dialogues, anyone?
Weird, but as this rant comes to a close, I'm beginning to feel that the meaning I placed on that post has changed somehow. Talk about ambivalence. Maybe it was purely a criticism on government and its latest blunder? Whatever the poster really meant by it, I'm inclined to believe that a teacher is just as good as this country's ruler. A factory worker or a grocery store owner is just as good as Lucio Tan. All of them are important pieces of this one big machine called Earth. When everyone plays exactly the same role, existing would be meaningless.
P.S.
Don't worry. This isn't fatalism. I'm just optimistic that there are still a lot of idealist-humanist-pragmatists out there who hope to change this world for the better through methods they are most comfortable with. There is at least one in every family.
