Tale As Old As Time: The Back Story

Lord, I can't even begin to express my gratitude for making "Tale As Old As Time" possible. 

Through the preparations for this routine, You taught me so much of what it means to have faith and to always persevere. And that Your plan is PERFECT.

I don't think that it's coincidence that all of my students just happen to physically resemble their characters. I don't think it's coincidence that when Kevin and I came up with the idea of doing Beauty and the Beast in September, the Broadway musical of Beauty and the Beast came to Vancouver in February. I don't think it's coincidence that Kevin was able to condense such a beautiful story/soundtrack into a mix of 7 minutes and 39 seconds and still make the story flow. I don't think it's coincidence that when looking for costumes on Google, I happened to stumble across a school only a 20 min drive away from my house that had just finished their production of Beauty and the Beast the weekend before I e-mailed. I don't think it's coincidence that the price for ALL of these costumes/props was about a quarter of the price of the other costumes that I found. I don't think it's coincidence that all of the costumes fit my students PERFECTLY without any alterations. I don't think it's coincidence that the day before their first competition and I didn't have a Belle gown, I suddenly remembered that my friend Erin Tangco (who is in LOVE with Beauty and the Beast) had a yellow debut gown which she graciously let us borrow; I also don't think it's coincidence that Ia's (Belle) mom came up with the idea to use safety pins to make Erin's gown look almost exactly like Belle's gown!!  All of the details were too perfect and too precise for them to be just "coincidence". 

 I just wanted to say thank You for every single one of my students, for Kevin Locsin- my AMAZING counterpart for this class, for my parents for being sooo incredibly supportive, for Tita Beth for giving me the opportunity to teach Select, for Amber Inglis from D.W. Poppy for letting us rent the costumes, for Erin Tangco and her debut gown, for Mickee Reyes, Missy Reyes, and Alo Galedo for helping with choreography, for Arielle Tuliao for helping us clean the routine, for the courage and patience to take on the ambitious task of making this routine happen, for all the wonderful feedback and support from everyone in PT and those watching, and seriously just EVERYTHING. God, You're so amazing!!! 

A story about a love that transforms, a timeless love, and a love that transcends anything physical....God, this story is truly Yours. Thank You for choosing Sr. Select 2011-2012 to be the ones to proclaim this story of Your immeasurable love through our dancing. 

Shoutout to Ervinn for sick choreography and letting me be a part of this video! Good times :)


Choreographer: Ervinn Tangco (PS: World, remember his name!!)

Blessings

I am thankful for everything in my life, but if there’s anything I’m especially grateful for, it’s the amazing people God chooses to walk with me. You guys not only make the hard days bearable, but remind me why every day is spectacular.

Sometimes there are things you get for free.

Those things for which you never ask, for which require no particular task,

Things that solicit nothing more of your soul than but to breathe,

But to live;

To simply be.

And with each gasp of air, you receive. Abundantly.

Sometimes there are things you can’t explain.

The way your heart eased, absolved from all pain,

Fragile and hurt, yet you only felt gain. The peace in the clamour,

Amidst the glitz and the glamour, a voice,

Saying nothing,

And is just there. And the presence is deafening.

Sometimes there are things that make you smile all the time.

Loss of words, loss of rhyme, the moments when for once you’re not in a hurry,

When you finally comprehend that every single one of your worries,

Has led you here. To learn, to share, to grow,

To yearn, with passion, for the whole world to know,

That you are happy. Just really happy.

Sometimes there are things of which you have to let go.

Like that thing called pride that takes you farthest from home,

So to wait at the crossroad for a yes or a no, patience thin as a glass,

Transparent, exposed. To be truth, to be light, to be wisdom, to be hope,

Abandoning all that you reserve on the premise not promised

That someday they’ll be thankful, faithful, stronger.

Not because of you, but because of our Father.

Sometimes there are things called limits.

Time, distance, this place, that place,

That space without contact, without exchange

Of thoughts, sentiments, ideas, something strange,

Because sometimes we get busy, sometimes things get in the way.

But there’s a thing called friendship,

And I think I got it for free,

And words fail and fall short as a tale

And as a sufficient portrayal of how much it has brought me and taught me to be.

Ridden from selfishness, pride, impatience, fear,

So to nurture others in cherishing their own souls as dear.

The world places limits,

But love never ends.

So thank you guys for your love,

And for being my best friends.

BLOG REVISION: Le Guin Blog Topic #2

Topic: If you were a citizen of Omelas, would you stay or would you walk? Please explain and justify your decision.

When I answered the poll on the blog asking if I would walk away or not, I answered "yes" without virtually any hesitation. But looking back in hindsight, I'm honestly not so sure. Of course I’d want to walk away, but I think there’s a difference between wanting to walk and actually walking. It’s like saying that I really want to lose weight without making the effort to create a healthy meal plan and stick to it. What’s the point of wanting change to occur if we’re not going to take action for it? But given the choice, I would walk away from Omelas.

To be honest, being so firm about my decision to walk away from Omelas makes me feel a little on edge. It makes me wonder whether I seriously believe that walking away would be the right thing to do even it came at the expense of my happiness, so to speak. I’m actually the kind of person who doesn’t hesitate to give money when I see someone asking for it. I’d also like to think that I’m generous in the sense that I always smile at people in the hopes of showing others that they are worth being smiled at. But at the same time, I feel as if I often only make the effort to go out of my way to solve an issue if it’s guaranteed that my efforts will make a difference.

For example, I am aware that most of the clothes and shoes I wear are made through child labour. But I can honestly say that knowing that isn’t the first thing I take into account when I consider buying a pair of Nikes. And I can admit to not making the extra effort to gain more awareness about child labour outside the context of school either. It doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t want to know more, because I really would. Yet sometimes I do feel helpless towards issues such as child labour and I can’t deny that I would find it extremely difficult to abandon my current First World country lifestyle. It’s one of those uncomfortable truths that I hate admitting to myself, but that I’ve accepted. And I think that the citizens of Omelas face this same problem—knowing there is a problem to be fixed, yet feeling as if there’s nothing one can really do to fix it. Maybe it’s because we’re selfish and ignorant to some degree; maybe we don’t even realize that we are. But I think that mostly, we just feel powerless. And it’s our level of confidence in our own capacity to actually make a change that makes the difference between staying and walking away.

I would want to walk away from Omelas because I don't believe that deliberately ignoring guilt is equivalent to true happiness. I also don't believe that settling for anything less than true happiness is worth it. With that said, I am currently living with the reality that most of my material comfort is a product of the discomfort of others in countries that are much less wealthy than my own. So much for “walking away”.

I really, really would WANT to walk away from Omelas. Like, GENUINELY. But I honestly don’t know if I actually would. Maybe I just haven’t mustered up the courage to walk very far yet. And I'm still trying to discover what walking away actually entails.

 

BLOG REVISION: "What is Masculinity?"

The definition of masculinity can be subjective from person to person. But basically, I would consider masculinity to be the essence of a man. Thus, ‘masculinities’ would probably be all the traits and characteristics that encompass this “essence”, or what a man ought to be.  

The look of a masculine man differs depending on the viewer and has undergone significant change over time. Knights in shining armour were definitely more heavily clothed than most of today’s print ad models. However, I do think that there are masculine ideals that remain unchanged, and I find the most prominent of these to be that of a leader.

The idea of masculinity being equated with leadership seems to be so rooted that we can even see it in little boys who pretend to be superheroes, police men, cowboys, firefighters, race car drivers, soldiers or any role involving some level of valor or strength. Men also generally seem to prefer action movies (or at least compared to the majority of females). Being a leader is almost paralleled with being a hero. This is evident in the case of marriages where men are usually depicted as being the ones to lead the family by having a good, stable job to provide for his wife and kids. It’s like the father figure is basically Superman saving Lois Lane (his wife) from the danger of finances and stress. The leader/hero figure is also evident in the workforce, where men appear to value big leadership positions (eg. Being a C.E.O.) or jobs where they can feel the extent of their ‘contributions to humanity’ (eg. Being an architect or an engineer). Most print ads also try to physically embody a stereotypical or cultural hero—which is generally some buff guy with smoldering eyes, and either minimal clothing or a sharp business outfit. These print ad models are not by any means the face of masculinity. They’re probably just an exaggeration of a man’s underlying desire for strength. And I don’t think most guys would disagree with me if I said that they’d want to prove that they "have what it takes" to succeed, whether to themselves, or the rest of the world (Eldredge).

Whether this leader-hero-man is in the form of little boy dressed up as Captain America or a grown man trying to work his way up the corporate hierarchy, a “masculine” man seems to always be striving for that sense of heroism, control or leadership. I’m not trying to objectify men by saying that all men SHOULD be in control. I’m just speaking from the observation that most men appear as if they want to be.

In 1984, George Orwell portrays Winston Smith as a seriously repressed dude. He has a job he detests and he can’t have sex. I am NOT saying that I think that chastity and an unfulfilling job equal emasculation; not at all. Rather, the role of Big Brother and the Party as having complete control over all of Oceania, and their severe scrutiny of their citizens (Orwell 5), completely deprives Winston of feeling entitled to his own happiness. If Winston doesn’t have ownership of his wants and thoughts, how is he supposed to find any assertion in his masculinity? Winston’s raging desire to destroy Big Brother and the Party (Orwell 19) begins to consume him so much that it even intertwines with his feelings for Julia. Consequently, having sex with her is not so much out of love as it is a form of revolt against Big Brother (Orwell 133). If anything, it is an example of Winston's desperate attempt to regain control over his life. Winston exemplifies that too much repression can result in violence. Likewise, he demonstrates the struggle to establish a sense of identity when one is repressed; in this case, his masculinity. (This is where I would like to subtly congratulate Sigmund Freud for his work in this topic, even though Civilization and Its Discontents was painstaking to get through).

1984 is a perfect example of what happens when masculinity, perhaps even human nature in general for that matter, becomes so repressed that it results in explosion. (Again, thanks Sigmund Freud). It is a story of a man trying to re-establish his masculinity, and the extent that people would go to in order to find themselves when their identities are jeopardized.

Works cited:
Eldredge, John. Wild At Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. 2001. Print.
Orwell, George. 1984. Ontario: Penguin Books, 2008. Print.

BLOG REVISION: Martyrdom

Question: Do you think Socrates is a man who is willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs, or do you consider him to be 'playing' the martyr figure in the extreme sense? The former has connotations of personal conviction whereas the martyr-figure, in this instance, to quote a nearby dictionary (Apple's), is "a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration." Can we separate the two?

Upon reading this question, I found myself intrigued by Apple's dictionary of a martyr. As far as I was concerned, and according to the Webster's New Dictionary which was conveniently situated beside my computer, a martyr is "one who chooses to suffer or die for one's faith or principles". I believe that there is a fine line between being giving for the sake of giving and giving to receive. Taking my belief and both of these definitions into account, I strongly find Socrates to be a man who is willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs.

Socrates was the kind of guy who believed that an “unexamined life is not worth living” (Plato 45). He committed his whole life to interrogating people as so to teach people to be wise, reasonable and just. But it wasn’t like Socrates was given any kind of golden star for his quest for justice, nor any compensation for the rough road ahead. Trying to prove this to the poets, artisans, and politicians of Athens led him to be tried in court. He was considered to be a "corruptor of youth". He had even lived in poverty and was denied from preaching in public. But this never stopped Socrates from trying to speak the truth anyways. It makes me think: If the idea of martyrdom is so revered, why are the lives of martyrs so inglorious? And under what circumstance does someone receive the title of a “martyr”? I think that it all comes down to perception.

According to Socrates himself, "There is no man who will preserve his life for long, either in Athens or elsewhere, if he firmly opposes the multitude, and tries to prevent the commission of much injustice and illegality in the state"(Plato 38). Suddenly, I’m reminded of the whole Occupy Vancouver/Wall Street dilemma and the kind of controversy that it sparked. Looking at all the tents set up in Downtown Vancouver in the middle of November with all these signs everywhere almost deliberately instigates a reaction to think about how silly it all seems, and how intense these people are. But in a way I admire them because like Socrates, these people are just trying to prove their truth. And evidently, they don’t care what anyone else thinks either at the expense of their reputation. In Socrates’ case, it just happened to be at the expense of his own life.

There are martyrs everywhere in our day to day. There are people who are willing to sacrifice their pride to forgive someone; there are/were soldiers who risk(ed) their lives on the battlefield in the name of their country or religion; there are people who run the risk of being judged if they demonstrate complete conviction in their beliefs (eg. Being openly homosexual). Yet we don’t generally consider these kinds of people to be martyrs because their suffering isn’t always so evident. But I feel like that’s what makes a true martyr—humility. To me, being humble means being accepting; even it means being willing to suffer proudly, and valuing hope over an outcome. And I think that Socrates was the kind of man who did that.

Again, I really feel as if the definition of a martyr all comes down to perception. And my definition of humility could very well be different from someone else’s. But I don’t think that cockiness leads someone to die for what they believe in. It takes someone humble to have the courage to trust that there’s something more to their life than just trying to survive. 

BLOG REVISION: So what do we REALLY want?

Question: For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, is it possible to be happy? Why?

I have always been a firm believer that happiness is a choice. I have also strongly believe that although we don't always have control over our circumstances, we have control over our attitude towards them and ultimately, control over our own happiness and unhappiness. Watching Adam Curtis' depiction of humans as "happiness machines" and reading Freud's strong sentiments regarding civilization and our many discontents posed a number of questions for me: Is it possible to be truly happy? And if so, why do we always seem to want MORE? I personally don’t think that neither Freud nor Curtis find happiness to be impossible. Perhaps they are just very observant of how easily susceptible we are to dissatisfaction.

For Freud or Curtis to say that happiness is impossible would be like saying that it’s impossible to do well on a test when you have your cellphone beside you and Facebook as a chief distraction. Honestly, I think it’s INCREDIBLY difficult to study when there are so many distractions, and it is hard to set your mind on the long-term desire of getting good grades versus the short-term desire of being on top of your Facebook notifications. But it’s not impossible. To some degree, I feel as if this is how Curtis and Freud view the concept of happiness—attainable, but indefinite; a constant discernment process between short and long-term wants. 

Both Curtis and Freud emphasized that humans are driven by the "pleasure principle". We want to do things that'll make us happy. And we want to avoid situations that'll make us unhappy. I can’t really disagree. But the interesting part about life is that we can never guarantee that we’ll get exactly what we want all the time. And in a way, that conflicts with Freud’s idea of the “id” and its notion of unconscious desire. If it’s not guaranteed that we’ll get exactly what we want, how much harder is it to attain it if we don’t even really know what we want anyways? The fact that sentence is such a mouthful already feels like a reason to be discontent—that feeling of uncertainty is so awkward and unsettling.

I think that it’s human nature to crave a sense of certainty. For example, we might want to go to school so we have a higher chance of getting a good job, so we have a higher chance of having a high salary, so we have sufficient funds to pay for what we need and even enough for additional luxuries (like an extra car). That might not apply to everyone. But I’m sure that everyone can relate to the struggle to remain successful, and the frustrations that come with trying your best to ensure success with the constraints of time and money. (Not to mention everyone’s varying definitions of success). Maybe it’s easier to be upset about not having something as opposed to being content about working through hardship to get what you want.  In that sense, I could see Freud and Curtis’ point is that in spite of how much happiness we "attain", there will always be some reason why we will find ourselves unhappy.

Freud says that the main reason why we find ourselves "discontent" is because we are constantly repressed. I could agree with that to some extent. If I wanted to go out with my friends and my parents told me I couldn’t go, I would be somewhat disappointed. Yet no matter how much resentment or anger I might feel, I would be discouraged to act upon those feelings because it is wrong. Does that make it right? Does that mean I would be truly unhappy because I couldn't act upon these instinctual feelings? In this hypothetical scenario, I could consider myself to be unhappy, but not so dissatisfied that I would refuse to love my parents anymore. Maybe what Freud and Curtis mean is that we're not always going to be ecstatic, peppy human beings because we won't always get what we want when we want it. But is happiness really about HAVING?

The question may not even be whether it is possible to be happy, but whether or not we really know what we want. I don't even know if Freud and Curtis have the answer to that. And with all of this “unconscious desire” business, we might not even know exactly what some of those desires are. At the same time, I don't think we as people will ever know exactly what we want, other than to be happy—whatever that means for people.

I obviously can’t speak for Freud or Curtis in saying whether or not they think it’s completely possible or impossible to happy. But I think that they do believe happiness is achievable; they just might find it much easier to entertain discontentment.