Ain't

In a city's bakeshop
a little filthy child came
stood at my side
touched me, raised an open hand.

I spoke to her in silence
an imploring gaze was her response
so I gave to her the bread I bought
yet she raised another hand.

Saying and Said

A master once asked:
What is said has its saying,
Which is beyond the limit of what is said.
Listen not merely to what is said
But also to the saying
A said if not uttered is nothing,
But a saying remains essential
Even without having said it,
Isn’t it?

No one answered.

Translation

fondling with your warmth
your hands slowly
exploring
caressing
immerse with
in our solitary making
with our eyes uttering
silence
no one
only our hearts can understand

To others
even to some
mostly to me
the raison de'etre
I remain a cold blooded
engraving our mode of being one.

I Bleed Fifth

_____________________________________

I find myself hanged
for days and nights
Pierced by arrows
I once my own
The culprit?
They are my words
loose meanings
And will untrimmed.

The 'OWLET'

_____________________________

There's a star

that i wish to come by 

All my days 

it's waking me 

around, within me. 

I hone my gizzards

more flap, deeper flap

trying to feel every muscle

feeling the air in each stroke 

and push

Ahead, adventure is threatened though 

A scupper 

A swillage 

Baggy wrinkles 

The way to learn 

sometimes in a monsoon

But I'm chasing that dream
Remembering with bravery
that my wings
After all
will take me up so high
And take me to the sky.

something about 'love'

                                                    What if 'love'

                                                       finds you?

                                                       but you let it go.

                                                    will there be another

                                                    the right one?

                                                    or will there be a 'second chance'

                                                    ...in the right time 

                                                  love 

                                                    it was you

                                                    i cried

                                                    i cursed

                                                    how can it be true

                                                    why am i still

                                                    standing...waiting

                                                    hoping

                                                    believing in you. 

On the Integration and the Soma

Summary

Chapter Five of THE ACTING PERSON

Karol Wojtyla

Pope John Paul II

 

The fact that “I am wholly engaged in my acting” cannot be

explained by transcendence alone but

requires for its interpretation

also the integration

of the person

in the action.

Karol Wojtyla

In his analysis in the dynamic structure of the human person, Karol Wojtyla perceived that the “man acts” is not only a self-determining subject but transcendent and integrated. By transcendence, we refer to its previously discussed two-fold aspects, namely the horizontal and the vertical. As a review, horizontal transcendence refers to volition while vertical transcendence refers to self-determination.[1] It is to this latter that Karol Wojtyla gave prominence as it is related to man’s immanence, and it is attributed to the person’s self-determination. Vertical transcendence happens when man, by determining himself, steps out and stands above himself by maintaining a dominant role through the exercise of his will and freedom. As an essential characteristic of the dynamism of the person, vertical transcendence reveals the possibility of self-determination, for it is by going beyond his structural boundaries can he only determine himself.

However, the notion of transcendence cannot fully disclose all the contents of the dynamic reality of the person.[2] Hence, Wojtyla added another significant structure of the human person, i.e. integration, a complementary to the notion of the transcendence of the person in the action. “Integration” is derived from the Latin adjective integer which means whole, complete, and unimpaired. The term integration, in this philosophical and psychological discussion, is then used to denote “the realization and the manifestation of a whole and a unity emerging on the basis of some complexity rather than assembling into a whole of what was previously disconnected.”[3] The dynamic and complex unity of structures of the person is revealed when his different aspects such as physical, intellectual, emotional, social, spiritual, among others, all come into unitive play. This explains that when a person acts, he does not only transcend from himself and maintain a dominant position, but he is wholly engaged in the act, his entire being is engaged in the act. Hence, Wojtyla remarked that “the fact that ‘I am wholly engaged in my acting’ cannot be explained by transcendence alone but requires for its interpretation also the integration of the person in the action.”[4]

It is probably noteworthy for our discussion to include the notion of disintegration to understand better the operation of the transcendence and integration, and their relation to self-determination. In its fundamental sense, disintegration “signifies what in the structure of self-governance and self-possession of the person appears as a defect or a failing.”[5] “A disintegrated person is incapable of governing, or of possessing, himself to the extent that this inability prevents him from subordinating himself and thus from remaining in possession of himself.”[6] Thus, there is in this sense the limit to self-determination for when a person, for instance, suffers from emotional disturbance and psychological problems, he cannot exercise self-control and in consequence cannot entirely manifest self-determination.[7] Hence, in relation to transcendence, “the defects and defaults of integration become, however, the defects and defaults of transcendence; a fact clearly apparent when we keep in mind that transcendence and integration are two complementary aspects of the same dynamic person-action reality.”[8]

What is now the correlation between the integration and the soma? Karol Wojtyla categorized the integration of the human person into two dynamisms—the psyche and the soma. In a brief description, the psyche refers to the affective or emotional dynamism of the person, while the soma pertains to the bodily dynamism. When man performs action, he shows his unity or integrity. This unity or integrity for Wojtyla is rooted in the unity of the soma and the psyche. Our concern here, however, is on the notion of soma, thus, the notion of psyche will be substantially expounded in the next chapter of discussion. The term “soma” does not solely mean the “body”, rather it refers more properly to the bodily functions as they enter into lived experience.[9] When Wojtyla used the term somatic, he referred to it to the body in the outer that which is visible in man, and to the inner aspects of the human bodily system; “thus, when we speak of the somatic dynamism we refer both to the outer reality of the body with its appropriate members and to its inner reality, that is, the organism: to the system and the joint functioning of all the bodily organs.”[10] Owing to this somatic dynamism, man’s corporeality and concreteness is manifested; hence, he is able to relate with others and come into contact with the world.

Somatic dynamism is identified with “what happens in man.” However, although not govern by the will, it is in fact integrated into self-determination for reason that it can take an active role in man’s acting. For instance, the sense of sight, although may merely be at the level of the somatic and physical dynamism, for man just sees with his eyes even without the control of the will, yet still seeing is somehow integrated into his acting. With this structure of integration, this dynamism is understood as aspects of the person and therefore has a personal meaning and value. Somatic dynamism contributes to the unity of the person in action. An act will definitely be impossible without the movement of the body and an act is performed with the corresponding physical character, which contributes to the concrete and final form of the act.[11] This dynamism contributes to the person as he expresses himself in action. The person is not to be identified solely with the bodily functions, yet through these, the other structures of the dynamism of the person find their expressions and consequently cooperate for the fulfillment of the person.

---

[1] Aguas, Jove Jim, Person, Action and Love: The Philosophical Thoughts of Karol Wojtyla, (Manila: UST Publishing House, 2014), 93.  

[2] Wojtyla K, The Acting Person, translated from the Polish by Andrzej Potocki. (London: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1979), 189.  

[3] Ibid, 191.

[4] Ibid, 192.

[5] Ibid, 193.

[6] Ibid, 194.

[7] Aguas, 126.

[8] Wojtyla K, The Acting Person, 194.

[9] Aguas, Jove Jim, Person, Action and Love: The Philosophical Thoughts of Karol Wojtyla, 128. See also Simpson, 34.  

[10] Wojtyla, 201.

[11] Aguas, 131.  

“To Ransom a slave, You gave away Your Son.”

“To Ransom a slave, You gave away Your Son.”

Brief Exegesis on Romans 14:7-9

Paul here deals with the fundamental truth of our faith as Christian believers i.e. the sovereignty and lordship of Christ. In life and in death, we exists to Kyrio, i.e. to praise, honor, and serve God, the creator and maker of all.[1] We have come into life in order to live for God; and even in death, the supreme ending of that life, we die as a way of honoring and thanking God.[2] Hence, to God we are responsible whether we live or die.[3] In other words, we are servants of God. The reason for this relation as servants to their master is that by His death and resurrection Christ has established His Divine Lordship over all alike, both dead and living. Responsibility to Him therefore no one can ever escape.[4]

Thus we are in the service of God in all things. We belong to and must acknowledge our relation to God as Kyrios.[5] But how then do we describe our status as servants of God? And what kind of a master or a “boss” is He?  

For Judaism in the time of Jesus, as for the Greek world, a slave or servant was on a lower level of humanity. By law a (Canaanite) slave was classed with immobile goods,[6] had no right at law and could not own property.[7] Even his family did not belong to him; it was a property of his master, who might give him a favorite in marriage.[8]  Moreover, slaves were ethically inferior,[9] being subject to the law only to a limited degree. They naturally had no genealogies, and therefore there was no possibility of controlling their origin.[10]

Treatment of slaves corresponds to this estimation. Since a slave was a chattel, his master could do with him as desired; there was none to hinder him. Thus we sometimes read or heard of an angry master throwing a full of cup at a slave waiting on him at table,[11] or of a slave having his ears boxed because even with the best intentions he did not fulfill a command in the precise sense intended by his master.[12]

However, the lordship of Christ is entirely different. It is not entirely on a functional level but on the rule of love, which is rooted in the fact that all members of the community stand in the same relationship to Christ and are thus united on the same level in Him. God elevated our status and put us in an intimate relationship with Him. We are servants, but servants so loved and cared. This is proven in the liberating act of Christ in His passion, death and resurrection.[13]

This drama is best illustrated in the Easter Proclamation (Exsultet): Father, how wonderful your care for us! How boundless your merciful love! To ransom a slave, you gave away your Son.

---

[1] Joseph Fitmayer S.J., The Anchor Bible: A New Translation and Commentary, vol. 33. (New York: Doubly Dell Publishing Group, Inc.) 691.

[2] Ibid., 691

[3] The International Critical Commentary: Romans’ Sanday and Headlam, ed. S.R. Driver D.D., A. Plummer D.D., and G.A. Briggs D.D. (Edinburgh: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1964) 388.

[4] Ibid. 388.  

[5] see 1 Cor. 6: 20b; 7:23-24; 8:6a

[6] Str.~B., IV, 719. Cf. on this pt. and on what follows S Krauss, Talmudische Archaologie, II (1911), 91 ff.

[7] Str.~B., IV, 720 f., 722.

[8] Str.~B., IV., I 803; IV, 721.

[9] Cf. Krauss, 92 ff.

[10] Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel. Vol. III., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965.) 271.

[11] Sukka, 2,9; bSukka, 29a.

[12] Str.~B., IV, 734.

[13] Here we see St. Paul’s theology of the Lordship of Christ as always connected with His passion, death and resurrection. (The Anchor Bible; the International Critical Commentary: Romans’ Sanday and Headlam, ed. S.R. Driver D.D., A. Plummer D.D., and G.A. Briggs D.D. (Edinburgh: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1964) 388.)