What Whitney Houston's Songs tell us about being in pseudo-love and being in authentic love

What is pseudo-love?

Pseudo-love is ego-love.

It is you loving the self which the world sees,

it is you caring for the self which the world helped create,

it is appreciating the self from the standards of others, from the judgments and opinion of others,

it is you loving yourself through the eyes of others,

it is you finding your worth only by being deemed worthy by people/places/things/events outside you.

It is you looking at yourself from the eyes of others.



You know you're in pseudo-love when you're saving all your love for someone whom your friends believe is in love with someone else.

You know you do not love your self when you'd rather be home feeling blue when you have an option not to.

You know you're in pseudo-love when you feel the need to run to someone and feel safe in his or her arms, and if you don't, you literally feel like you're going to die.

You know you do not love your self when you feel unfulfilled, empty when there's no one caring for you, no one wiping away your tears or kissing away all your fears.

You're in pseudo-love when you expect someone to fill you up, to give you love - more love than you've ever seen.

You're in pseudo-love when you think he or she is all you've got in this world or that he or she is all the man or woman you'll ever need.

You do not love your self when you allow yourself to belong to someone.

You're in pseudo-love when you live to make him/her happy.



What is authentic love?

Authentic love is knowing your Self,

it is going inside your Self,

it is experiencing all the feelings your Self has gone through - not repressing them, not NOT acknowledging them, not dismissing them, not judging them. It is You just allowing your feelings to surface, you just allow them to be felt by you.

Ultimately, by doing so, you get to know You. The You that is safe, that is still. The You that knows that the You -

as you are - is more than enough.

The You that is left untouched by any pain, attachment, sadness, happiness, pride, etc.

The You that is just is.

The You that is still.

The You that is simply Love.


You're in authentic love when you know no one can take away your soul and dignity.

You're in authentic love when you know that the greatest love of all is inside you.

You're in authentic love when you know love will save the day,

You're in authentic love when you respect and honor your self,

when you feel like doing your hair for you,

when you call your friends and love being and enjoying their company,

when your heart decides to stop riding the emotional roller coaster

and when you feel strong enough to start moving mountains, swimming seas and climbing over walls.




You are secure in Love and in your Self when you realize you can only love someone authentically

when you learn to love your Self first - and you act on this fact.


"If you do not know your inner center, love will become an attachment.

If you know your inner center,

love will become devotion.

But you must first be there to love.

When you re rooted in your self, when you know who you are,

then you will not cling to anyone.

Only then can you love because sharing is possible and with no conditions, no expectations.

You simply share because you have an abundance. You have so much it is overflowing.

This overflowing of yourself is Love."

Osho

A Letter to KC, Rhian and all the girls who've pseudo-loved before

Dear (Place your Name here),


I pray you're feeling better now.

Though I know that me saying this to you is similar to me telling a pedestrian in Manila, "You'll be safe,"

you also know deep in your heart of hearts that being in the relationship you were in is akin to you crossing the street despite CLEAR WARNING SIGNS that doing so would cause death.



And now you feel intense regret, anger for doing so.

The feeling of despair, sadness, remorse, shame is so powerful you cannot shake it off your mind, your body, your self.

It is as if you're trapped in a fog and everywhere you look, everywhere you go you can only see and feel pain. You feel like a walking wound - not wounded. You feel like a wound.

You do not feel like a person.

You feel like you've been dumped on, used, abused, violated, your trust betrayed, lied to, manipulated.

You feel you are a victim.

You do not know what to do.

All you want to do right now is cry.

Then

Go cry.

Go sob.

Go gasp.

Cry and wail from your gut.

Let your tears flow, let your snot go.

Beat your pillows - or beat the hotel pillows. Go anywhere you can do all these freely and away from the eyes and ears of people who might worry that you're losing your mind.

You have lost your mind saying yes to that relationship, now you're just getting it back.

You're getting yourself back. You're also getting your spirit back. But you need to clear the grief and anger from your body first.


Feel free to be sad, be mad. Be all of the above.


All you want right now is to shout.

So go shout.

Go scream.

Let it all out.

Scream from the top of your lungs.


Then maybe, if you listen to yourself hard enough, you'll hear yourself say, "I had a hand in it."

If you look at yourself hard enough, you'll see how you walked yourself to the place where you are now.

And your regret dissolves.

You become kind to yourself.

You see the gift in the pain.

You see, feel, realize that you have received a priceless treasure.

You have been given YOU.


You've been shown the ways,

you have lived the ways of how to NOT love you.

You have been given the gift of your Self.


You now know what to do to LOVE YOU more - the AUTHENTIC YOU - not the You created in your mind, not the You others have created in their minds, not the You which you think You should be.

The YOU just as YOU are.

You now recognize the You who didnt know any better, the You who was working at the level you knew - the level you were used to or grew up into; the level you think you should be in; the level others before you were also in and so you thought you should also be into because you believed that is what you're supposed to do.

Your pain is now telling you to LOVE yourself more.


Go look at yourself in the mirror.

Stand in front of the mirror and look at yourself.

Look at yourself in the eyes and

Tell yourself, "I love you,"

and

"I'm sorry."

Mean it. You know you do.


How does it feel to now realize that the dude who said he loved you really didnt?

how does it feel to now know that he couldnt love you?

How could you choose someone to love you when you didnt even love your self?


Now that you know that you didnt love yourself, how could you love others too?

Do you now know that you were in pseudo-love with him as much as he was to you?


And no, love is not giving until it hurts.

Giving is giving. It is not loving.

Helping is helping. It is not loving.

Love is simply loving.

There is no requirement to love. It just is. It does not expect.

Love is not a business transaction. Love is not giving X because you were provided Y.

Love is not doing Z because you were made to feel X.


Love is not giving yourself crumbs and offering the entire cake to others.

"Magtira ka para sayo." is not a loving thing to say or do to yourself.

If you leave crumbs for yourself, you can only give crumbs to others.


Love yourself enough to enjoy the cake. You can only share to others what you yourself have.



You also now know that a decent / mature person - no matter how much codependent / generous / willing you are to give too much of yourself / to allow yourself to get hurt / how poor your self-boundaries are - does not take advantage of your vulnerability/ does not get abusive / disrespectful / cruel.


You also now know that however painful, gut-wrenching, wounding everything is,

your soul is safe.

You have crossed the street

and You are alive.

Be thankful too that you now know there's always an overpass you can walk on to help you get there safe, relatively risk-free and sound.

Celebrate that too.






Love,


Cheezmiss

Philippine institutions are narcissistic and Filipinos are codependent (not shallow)

I repeat, one more time, again -- Filipinos are not shallow, most of us are codependent.

The shallowness referred to by Sir F Sionil Jose in his September 12, 2011 article is institutionalized narcissism and this is helping our codependency operate.

Narcissism, in its real-world/practical/non-textbook definition, does not allow an individual to see others. In the mind of a narcissist, "other people are seen only as how they relate to the narcissist."

It's like, "I care for you because when I do, I look good."

"I like to show you (and others) how I care for you. But I don't really care for you. I care only because other people are looking / watching me act good. And when people think of me as "good," I feel full. I feel full because I look good in the minds and eyes of others. I want to look good. Always. That is my identity. When people think I could be trusted, they will flock to me. They will always want to be with me. They will also care for me, always. And when they do, I have tons and endless supply of attention / love / care / compassion, etc. to mine."

Narcissism is concerned with having an identity and how to urgently and vigorously protect this identity.


Notice that the blatant examples F Sionil Jose presents as shallow are institutions or individuals operating within its system.


In choosing candidates for government, we value form more than content

Why should we complain about the highest positions in government being occupied by individuals who are more popular than they are capable when we voted for them in the first place?


















Why did we elect Lito Lapid / Bong Revilla Jr / Manny Pacquiao?

Because we `know' them more than we know other candidates. We could easily attach a face and a personality to their names compared to - for example - attaching a face or a personality to the names: Danilo Lim, Jovito Palparan Jr or Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel.

In fairness, why would we vote for someone we don't know?

Because we can easily relate with most celebrity candidates, by them being in position, we feel their success is ours too.

It is like they are the better part of ourselves who managed to beat the system by being part of it. And so we not just vote for them, we root for them. And if FPJ is still alive, we'd root for him too if ever he delivered the State of the Nation address. We like him, we love him, he loves us - us as the "little people." He would defend us if necessary - or at least that's the impression they give. And that is more than enough for us.

And we've seen their movies, We know how they fight (the bad guys).

In our heads, they look exactly like we imagine we would look if we also fought the bad guys in our lives. We imagine that they are like us, `lamang lang sila ng isa - dalawang paligo.' We identify with them.


Why did we elect Noynoy Aquino?

Because we know his mother. His mother reminds us of a friend's mother or our grandmother. And we know his sister, we know his family. We identify with his family more than Dick Gordon's family. Who is Dick Gordon anyway? Does he even have a sister? Who cares about Noynoy's legislative performance? We have never known a political family as intimately as we have the Aquino's. His father was assasinated, his mother died of cancer, his sister had STD and he is a smoker like some of us. And we have seen his girlfriends. They're all pretty. We wonder why he isn't married yet?

See, we know so much about him that it seems we can talk about him as if he is our next door neighbor. We know more about Noynoy than we do other presidential candidates. The fact that we call him by his first name elicits for us a faint sense of closeness and casualness without us actually being close to him.

Why would we vote for someone we don't even know?"

Our "tendency" to choose and elect popular politicians this way was made possible by "a specific decision taken by Congress in the 1950's, which (eliminated) bloc voting...The elimination of bloc voting..(gave) the electorate greater, full freedom of choice. It also meant that `electability' became even more crucial; it meant that unless you...(had)...decades of political experience and national exposure, it would be just as easy for a celebrity to vault to the Senate as it would be for a politician climbing up the old fashioned way....

Immediately after bloc voting was abolished...matinee idol Rogelio dela Rosa was elected senator." (The Long View: The origins of celebrity politics by Manuel L Quezon III).

Notice that those who won a seat in the 2010 senate election still followed this pattern.


Philippine local mainstream movies value what (they think) we think

Philippine mainstream entertainment media - TV and film - is arrogant because it assumes that it knows what majority of Filipinos want to watch when the Philippine mainstream entertainment media itself does not know what it wants.

Where is the arrogance coming from? It's coming from the fear of not knowing deep inside what it wants so it looks outside of itself for something to fill what it thinks it wants. And the system carries over that fear to the people it makes movies for,

For the system, a mainstream Filipino movie is not a movie if it is not LIKE a Hollywood movie.

I learned the definition of the word "peg" and how this word should be used when I was attending brainstorming meetings for a mainstream local film production company. For instance, when "pitching" a story

- as in throwing an idea or "concept" (hoping it would stick in the minds of people who have the power to either turn it into a full-fledged movie or spend eternity collecting dustmites in filing cabinets) -

it is important to mention a peg for it.

Their quintessential question is: "Ano peg mo?"

And you respond with:

e.g.

"The character is like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman but she is the female version of Robert Pattinson in Twilight."

or the basic formula goes:

popular mainstream Hollywood movie + popular genre of a mainstream Hollywood movie + popular Hollywood movie character = local Filipino mainstream movie

At that time, I could not understand why there should be a peg. How could anyone create something "original" when the basic template of how a story and its characters are to be laid out must be something we have all seen/watched before?

But no one could argue against the system because it claims to know what "Aling Bebang" wants. Plus, it has has the box office receipts to prove it.

Notice that the system is looking outside for content instead of in. It is referring to foreign models, ideas, sensibilities, actors, apple-pie-eating movie characters to fill a 90-minute movie meant for south east asians who eat "bibingka."

Thankfully, their paradigm is now shifting thanks to the success of this quirky film originally disapproved for production by the mainstream powers-that-be.




And mainstream TV also works this way - with the exception of a very rare few.

Have you noticed anything familiar with the current local programs?

Some are franchise shows purchased from foreign production companies.











Because we do not trust ourselves enough to make something our locals would want to watch and so depend on something that is ready-made and has worked in other countries with the hope (coupled with strong PR & marketing efforts) that these too would work and be watched in our country and be appreciated within our cultural context.

Us who do watch these shows believe that by doing so, we put ourselves at par with other countries we look up to as "developed" and by our virtual association with them, feel that we are like them too - or at least we believe we are thinking the same way they do.


In seeming contrast, shows and productions made locally are popular in their own respect because they play off our wants/needs by exploiting these to the hilt.





In his ABS-CBN show, Willie Revillame exclaims at 0:53: "Ako bahala sa inyo."

When he transferred to TV5, he puts up a similar show and names it Willing Willie. He announces at 1:39 that their show will give everyone hope - the hope "YOU have long been waiting for."

"Willing-willie ang lahat sa aming pagbibigay
Ng saya at pag-asa na inyong hinihintay"



And in his current show, notice the lyrics of his program's theme song:

At 3:49, he again dangles the promise that their show is dependable, that it will never fail you. Your life will change thanks to their show. At 3:26 he sings:

"Maraming buhay ang magbabago"

And those of us who believe we cannot do these on our own, when we feel helpless, when we think there is nothing else to do but watch and depend on his show - we do.


F Sionil Jose says Education is shallow

I have no statistics or data about the quality of Philippine education save for the experience I had studying in a public school and a private Catholic elementary and high school.

I do know that - out of all the teachers I had - there was one who taught us Araling Panlipunan without talking down on us - Ms Manguerra.

But most teachers I had mainly based grades on how students are able to memorize the what's, when's how's of Home Economics, History, etc.

No one needs to know the why's.

Is it a mystery then why the same kind of what/when/where facts are valued now and not the why's of why we should care - or not care - about these facts at all?





Religion values what (they think) we (should) feel, act, do

In a homily delivered by Msgr. Lope C. Robredillo on September11, 2011 for the Twenty-Fouth Sunday of Year A (Matt 18:21-35),

he tells a story of a wife (Joanna) who was beaten up by her husband (Rosendo) because she failed to wash his pants. The wife - as dictated by her good sense and her natural instinct for self-preservation - went to the police for protection and to report the event. And the homily immediately "surmised" that by her doing so, "their marriage is on the rocks."

The homily did not "surmise" that the marriage was on the rocks when he beat her up just because she did not do laundry.

The marriage was on the rocks and "is (a) far cry from the ideal..community (full) of life and love" because "their case (is now written) on the police blotter."

In short, `nadungisan na.'

It is now blemished.

It is not anymore picture-perfect, not anymore "ideal."

"When Joanna reported the maltreatment by Rosendo to the police, the husband and the wife were...(now)...involved in the SCANDAL."

The issue is not the abuse, it is not the violence, it is the scandal of exposing a damaged "marriage."

The church does not care about the relationship. It only cares about the disfigurement of the marriage and how this reflects on them as the one who created and blessed this "ideal" institution.

And because the husband and wife are Christians and are therefore part of a Christian community, their scandal is now the community's scandal.

They consider people not as individuals but as extensions of themselves; of the church; of their identity.

"..the Christian community experiences cracks in its unity and the whole body suffers.."

And they "surmise" that this scandal is equal to exposing their children to public ridicule - not abuse or violence but that the kids will be vulnerable to humiliation.

It matters little that the children has been traumatized by witnessing the abuse inflicted by their father to their mother. The children's main concern, in the mind of the church, is how they will be perceived by the Christian community who now knows the embarrassing scandal about their family. (And if you're a narcissist yourself, you find nothing wrong with this.)

It does not matter that the children will have to deal with post traumatic stress disorder or the fear that their mother might be hurt again or if it will be the kids who'll be hurt by their abusive father, it is the RIDICULE of exposing the scandal that the children will suffer from.



Can you see all the false identities trying to rear its ugly albeit benevolent head in Philippine mainstream institutions?

False Identity = (Fill in the Blank) Identity

In an electoral campaign for a governmental position, there is candidate for President X, Senator Y or Congressman Z who is the sole main character. There may be other characters working in the periphery, but what matters is the identity being brandished by a certain BIDA X (feel free to fill in a person or name you feel appropriate).

When BIDA X promises to deliver services / goods to you and promises to make you as the priority and makes you think that you are the boss - this is merely smoke and mirrors.

The real fire is BIDA X. This is about him, not you. You are an expendable extra to the movie in his mind. You may be a real person, but to BIDA X you are existing only to make him look good. What matters is BIDA X and what you think of him. So he expends all efforts possible for you to prop up his identity as a future President, Senator, etc. with the help of your vote. You are a prop to a show starring him and only him.





Your identity - even if you have one - does not matter. Only his identity does. Every action is all about him, your thoughts should be about him. If anything happens to you, he might SHOW concern for you but all he is really concerned with is how his display of concern impacts the identity he wants everyone to see. You exist, you matter because he says you do. You are an accessory to BIDA X's goal. It does not matter if he is really brilliant or not, what matters is you think he is and that you don't double check his claims.

The same process works in media specially TV and film. When networks, when TV shows, when TV personalities, celebrities claim that they made the movie better "para sa inyo";

when they made the show more entertaining "para sa inyo";

when they exclaim, "Maraming salamat po, ginagawa po namin lahat ng ito para sa inyo"; "Kayo ang bida dito;"

it is NOT you they are doing this for. They are doing this to prop up their identity as a top-rated program/most-watched network/most-loved network/most popular celebrity. They only care about you in relation to how much you pay attention to them - be it good or bad - and how your attention is affecting them. You are needed to supplement their marketing/PR-manufactured identity.

Religion is the ultimate playground of narcissism and its narcissist angels. It does not matter that a husband beat up his wife. What matters is that their exposure brought cracks to the image of the church and defiled the institution it promoted as infallible. The church cannot see the abuse or violence or the hurt felt or experienced by the people involved, they can only see an event as how it affects them - in this case, it is a scandal. The identity of the church - the community - was hurt.

They don't see a community of people, they see a picture of an "ideal community."

They can not see people as people but extensions of the church's identity. When its members fail to act as according to the script of the movie the church wants people to see, it is a humiliation. The church feels no guilt, only shame. This is why they coddled and kept and hid priests accused of abuse. The accused priests are extensions of the church's "ideal" identity. Exposing them will destroy and humiliate the church's identity as an "ideal" community of life and love.

It is all about identity. It is all about putting up a good, ideal, picture-perfect show.

Narcissism and codependency are made for each other, they feed off of each other.

One has a lack that the other fills and vice versa.

Narcissism always makes sure it gathers enough people around him to build up his flimsy ideal while codependency makes sure its own feelings of emptiness are filled by being identified with the false identity built by narcissism.

As long as people believe they are not enough as themselves,

as long as they need someone stronger than they are (e.g. a powerful govt connection),

as long as they don't see the power they have and so depend on someone else to give this to them (e.g. a rich, generous celebrity),

as long as they are always waiting for someone or something to tell them who they are, what they are, what they should do, what they need to be - (e.g. a benevolent man of god),

they will always succumb to the enticing call of shallowness and narcissism.

Is calling people "shallow" enough of a solution?

I feel awareness of our feelings of needy-ness would be a good start.

One more time again: And this is why Willie Revillame is still alive and kicking

We are all culturally conditioned to see self-pity - and its partner: guilt - as a virtue.



How could we get away from it when not even Jesus Christ could?




Or the other saints we grew up seeing and looking up at at our grandmother's house or those larger-than-life Caucasian statues at old Philippine churches.

Remember the facial expressions on these man-made marbles? They either had an expression of pain, was on the verge of ecstatic tears or wore a `pity me my lord,' `have mercy on me lord' face.



As if they are saying and wanted us to think that what they are doing is a gloriously wonderful thing and that we should do it too - if them fair-skinned and holy human-like statues could, we can too.

Even Jesus was used and words were figuratively put in his mouth when His statue was displayed in all its wounded glory at the church's center stage for us to see:

"How I sacrificed for ALL of you ungrateful people. See me and weep. See me and feel guilty because nothing you could do would make me feel better."



and we grew up believing, we grew up hearing, we grew up being told and preached that:

"We could never be good enough my lord, we are sorry my lord, forgive us. have mercy on us. We are mere mortals. We don't know any better. Punish us o lord for our insensitivity. O y O y are we such sinners!?"

And now self-righteous US is wondering why a lot of THEM people are fawning over Willie Revillame

when he is the most popular 21st century mainstream media version of our feelings of self-pity.

We pity ourselves and he plays the role of the savior who will validate our less-than beliefs and grant us a reward for feeling such. Enter Pavlov's dogs everytime we do feel pangs of pity-pain as we expect someone outside of us to make us feel better, albeit temporarily.





But we know that is unreal. Deep deep in the recesses of our hearts, we know we are also using pity and milking it to how far it could take us.



We are not stupid.

We know what we are doing.

We are using pity to our advantage to make others feel guilty. We control them the way they think they control us.

And maybe, Us and Willie or Manny P. or PCSO and the PH govt are made for each other after all?


"The unreal personality..is always for sacrificing things, for sacrificing yourself for others. It looks beautiful because you have been brought up in it. Sacrifice yourself for others - this is altruism...

Unless you are really contented with yourself, you cannot...help others toward their contentment...A person who sacrifices always becomes a sadist.

If your mother goes on talking to you and says, "I have sacrificed myself for you," she will torture you. If the husband says to the wife, "I am sacrificing," he will be a sadistic torturer. He will torture because sacrifice is just a trick to torture the other.

So those who are always sacrificing are very dangerous - potentially dangerous. Be aware of them..Enjoy yourself; be bliss-filled..when you are overflowing with your own bliss, that bliss will reach to others. But that is not a sacrifice. No one is obliged to you. No one needs to thank you. rather, you will feel grateful to others because they have been participating in your bliss..Be happy; only then can you help others to be happy."

from Osho The Book of Secrets.

This is not you. This is you looking at you through someone else's eyes

This is not you.

You know your value does not lie on what someone else sees.




But you think it is.

You have learned to love seeing yourself like this.

You have learned to love the seeming feeling and sensation of being appreciated.




It fills and almost completes you.

But not fully.

Somehow, there is that something that leaves you still wanting for more.

So you go for more.

Ask for more.

Look for more.

Attach to more.

Until you fail to see

the fact that YOU are looking at YOU through someone else's eyes.






You are touching YOU not with your hand but with the image of someone touching you.




You are feeling you with the image of someone feeling you.




Your sensations and feelings are filtered from the eyes of someone other than you.



You are seeing the idealized version of you -

the version most want to see / prefer to see because it is easy.



Their image of you is culled from their imagination, not yours.

They think of you as what they think you ought to look and be.

It is an uneducated guess

but with already drawn-out conclusions that does not include your input.

They don't need your input.




They only want to see what they want to see.

What they think they should see.

They do not care what you think.

They only care that you think like them, see like them, feel like them - these make it easier for them to

make you think you want the same thing they do.



Do you?




Nothing will happen to you if you say No.

If you keep on believing what they tell you, nothing might happen to your life too.


But you can tell yourself that it is possible to bring your SELF back to you.

Minus the push and pull of your emotional clutter, you know it can be done.


You can bring yourself back to pleasing YOU.


Do find out

from whose eyes are you looking yourself at?


You do not need to think to be able to respond.

Just feel.

Touch.

See.

Hear.

Not through how you think someone else does.

But How YOU feel when YOU see YOU.

When YOU touch YOU.

When YOU see YOU.

When YOU hear YOU.


Then tell yourself, whisper to yourself what YOU have seen, felt, heard.

And maybe, in a glimmer of understanding, you will also understand why Megan Fox was fired from Transformers:

she expressed sincerely the tediousness of seeing herself from the eyes of 16-year old teens conditioned by Michael Bay - with the blessing of Steven Spielberg - to be narcissistic voyeurs.



She is no longer connected in any way, manner or form with the Transformers franchise because she stated the obvious.

Good for her.

Moral Lessons na Tinuro sa`tin ng Mara Clara tungkol sa buhay, pag-ibig at panonood ng TV

Moral Lesson #1:

True Love means not having to say:

Kelangan kita.
I want to always be with you;
I can't live without you;
I want to have you;
Sakin ka lang.


Ang love-love-an nagdo-domina.

Si Gary, sinasabing mahal niya si Alvira pero ang intensyon niya talaga i-exploit, abusuhin, gamitin, dominahin siya.

Para kay Gary ganun ang pagkakaintindi niya sa love, wala ng iba. Ang love sa kanya laging may kapalit. Sa tingin nya, tama sya. Yung iba, mali. Yung sumasalungat sa sa kanya nagiging kalaban at kaaway na kelangang iligpit.

Bibigay niya kay Alvira ang lahat: pera, bahay, magandang buhay, pero feeling niya:
"Sakin ka lang kasi wala akong pakielam kung masaya ka, ang importante, ako ang masaya."

Ganun din sya kay Clara, ang pinain naman niya sa anak nya: pera at pagkakaroon ng buong pamilya na kasama si Alvira.

Pero just the same, di niya talaga mahal anak niya. Di niya kayang mag-mahal ng kahit sino.

Ang tingin niya sa lahat ng tao ay mga bagay lang na pwedeng i-manipula para magawa at gawin ang gusto niya. Kaya siya sadista.

At ang mga tao - para sa kanya - mapagkukunan lang ng supply - salapi man eto, atensyon, pag-ibig, pag-hanga, sex, awa, etc.

Pag hindi ito nabigay sa kanya o kung hindi man nya nakuha mula sa taong tina-target niya, paparusahan niya eto, pahihirapan at kung ano-ano pa.

High-level narcissist siya mga ate, kuya. Kung titingnan niyo mga ginawa at sinabi ni Many Gary, swak yun sa psychological criteria ng taong may NPD.

O diba, PSYCH101 lesson pa ang Mara Clara, bongga!

Kaya ganun ang pakiramdam ni Clara nung sinabi niya: "Sinasabi ni tatay mahal nya ko, pero bat pakiramdam ko mag-isa pa rin ako." kasi eto ang klasik at textbook na nararamdaman ng kahit sinong gumagalaw at nasa ilalim ng galamay ng isang may NPD.



Moral Lesson #2:

Ang true Love hindi attached o obsessed.

Believe it or not, diluted version ni Mang Gary si Christian, Clara at Alvira.

Maski gaano ka-cute, adorable, nice-looking ang tao, nawa'y matandaan nating lahat na ipasa-walang bahala ang kanyang sinasabi, ang kanyang itsura, ang kanyang damit at pansinin lang ang kanyang ginagawa.

Si Christian, sadly, para ring si Mang Gary.

Kasi, look and see, abusive din siya kay Mara.



Noong hindi nagustuhan ni Christian ang reaksyon ni Mara nung nasa school pa sila at niligawan niya ito - kasi sabi ni Mara friends lang daw muna sila - di ba dinedma niya si Mara? Ni hindi niya nga kunyari maalala pangalan niya.

At maski alam niyang naiinis na si Mara sa ginagawa niya, tuloy pa rin siya.

Isa pa, nung kelangang umalis ni Mara sa Maynila at lumipat sa Isla Verde, hindi tumigil si Christian hanggang di niya eto nakikita maski alam niyang pwedeng mapahamak si Mara dahil sa pagpunta niya sa Isla. At ganun nga ang nangyari kasi sinundan siya ni Clara tapos sinundan naman ni Mang Gary si Clara. Pero maski magkakagulo na, di pa rin siya umalis at bumalik sa Maynila.

Wag nyong sabihin na love na love niya si Mara kaya niya nagawa yun kasi hindi yun love. Attachment yun at possessiveness pa.

Kung totoong love ni Christian si Mara, hindi siya matatakot mawala eto sa kanya o makahanap ng iba. Kasi alam niya na hindi naman niya pag-aari si Mara. At nabubuhay si Mara para sa ikabubuti ng buhay niya, hindi para sa kanya. At kung totoong love ni Christian si Mara, hahayaan niya si Mara at magtitiwala siya dito - hinde niya gugustuhing alamin lagi kung nasaan si Mara at di niya pipilitin na isipin siya lagi nito.

Kapag attached ang isang tao sa isang tao, ibig sabihin ginagamit niya lang eto para sa sa sarili niya, wala siyang pakielam sa kapakanan nung isa.

Ang true love may committment hinde attachment. Pag may committment, ang kapakanan ng ibang tao ang pinahahalagahan.


Si Clara - syempre - may shades din ni Mang Gary.

Mahal ni Clara si Alvira kasi mayaman siya. Pag nakadikit siya kay Alvira, kadikit na rin niya ang pera at imahe ng kasosyalan nito.

Attached si Clara kay Alvira tulad ng attached siya sa limpak limpak na pera na nakatago sa ilalim ng kama niya. Sa impluwensya ni Gary, supply din ang tingin niya kay Alvira at umaasa din siya na magkaroon ng buong pamilya (pero etong huli ginagawa niya for display purposes only).

Di rin nakatulong na ini-spoil at sinanay ni Alvira si Clara sa sosyal na lifestyle. Kasi si Alvira, attached din kay Clara. So in fairness, bagay nga silang mag-ina.

Nung huli, nang di makuha ni Clara yung dating "supply" (attention, etc.) na nakukuha niya kay Alvira, kinuha niya ito kay Mang Gary. May bonus pa kasi si Gary meron na ngayong "money."

Si Mang Gary, nung nakita nyang nahihirapan siyang kunan ng "supply" at atensyon si Alvira, kinuha niya ito kay Clara. Kaya di ba nung huling linggo na ng serye aalis dapat sila ni Mang Gary? You and Me Against the World ang kanilang story.

Yung may mga NPD kung magpalit ng tao, parang nagpapalit lang ng maruming damit. Kasi hinde nga tao tingin nila sa tao, gamit lang.




Moral Lesson #3:


Hindi ibig sabihin ng pag-ibig ay bigay ng bigay.

Pa`no ka magbibigay ng pag-ibig sa iba kung di mo alam kung paano bigyan sarili mo?

Ang totoong pag-ibig alam kung paano mahalin ang sarili bago magmahal ng iba.
Pag alam na niya mahalin ang sarili niya, alam na niya kung paano dapat tratuhin ang iba.

Si Susan, si Aling Lupe, si Mara - lalo na nung umpisa - bigay ng bigay sa kung anuman ang gustuhin ni Mang Gary - para tumahimik na lang ba?

Pero tuwing ginagawa nila ito, binibigay nila kay Gary ang power para kontrolin sila, abusuhin sila, gamitin sila.

Yan tuloy, ginawa nga ni Gary yung di nila gusto.

Kasi ugali naman nina Susan at Mara swak sa characteristics ng classic codependent.

O yung mga nag-Psychiatric Nursing jan, what can you say? Isn't Mara Clara, so bongga ka dey?!

Buti si Mara nagbago nung huli. Lumaban na siya. Sadly, dala pa rin niya yung pagiging codependent ba?

Halimbawa, pinakulong niya nga si Gary pero nagpabugbog naman siya, may matching magmakaawa at paluhod-luhod pa.




Moral Lesson #4:


Ang life parang buhay at batang pasaway.

Uulit siya ng uulit hanggang di natin sya nage-gets.

Papakita niya sa iyo ang dapat mong makita maski ayaw mong tingnan o aminin na nandyan. Pag hinarap mo na ang dapat mong harapin, doon lang siya mag be-behave, doon ka lang niya papakawalan at doon mo lang siya mabibitawan.

Yan ang sagot nung tinanong ni Mara kay Susan: "Baket laging ang daming problema nangyayari satin nay?"

Ano nga ba ang gustong sabihin ng buhay kina Mara at Susan?

Sabi ng life: Mahalin nyo selves nyo girls! I-appreciate nyo selves nyo girls! Walang gagawa nun, hinde si Mayor o kahit sinong Poncho Pilato.

Yan ang regalo sa kanila ng pagkakaroon ng Gary sa life nila. Tinuturuan silang mahalin sarili nila di ayon sa standards ng iba kundi sa standards nila.



Moral Lesson #5:


Ang magandang palabas sa local TV – na sure na susubaybayan – hindi gumagawa ng caricatures kundi character archetypes **"archetypes are embodiments of behavioural stances that humans have developed over millennia, or are established patterns in nature."

Si Susan at Mara as the Martyr

Clara as the Wounded Child

Gary as the Destroyer

Aling Lupe as the Mother




Moral Lesson #6:

Good entertainment allows characters to evolve & change.

Parang totoong buhay, nagbabago ang tao depende sa nararamdaman at nangyayari sa kanila sa bawat okasyon. Kudos sa Mara Clara dahil hindi one-dimensional ang mga tauhan. Di tulad ng ibang Heneral dyan.



Di ba si Aling Lupe noong umpisa hate si Mara & Susan pero nung huli naging love na nya silang dalawa?

Si Mara dati passive tapos naging fighter-fighter-an.

Si Clara naman tinubuan ng konsensya - nag-nervous breakdown lang sa huli dahil sa trauma - temporary shock mula sa pagkaka-dis-attach niya kay Mang Gary, saka i-witness ba naman niya itsugi ang kanyang daddy, e di mejo sya na lurky.



Moral Lesson #7:

Good local entertainment is culturally correct..

..hinde yung mga konsepto na kinuha, hiniram sa mga palabas ng ibang bansa na ginupit gupit lang at dinikit AT pinilit ikasya sa local Philippine TV.

Ang kwento ng Mara Clara kuha mula sa mga kwento ng kapitbahay natin, pamilya natin, kamag-anak, barangay, komunidad at balita sa radyo, dyaryo at TV.

Of course Mara Clara is not perfect but it is sensibly entertaining & true to the Filipino's perfectly flawed & evolving culture.

Kaya na-nominate sya sa Banff World Media Awards sa kategoryang Best Soap Operas and Telenovelas.

Wha did i tell ya?! Di lang pang-local, pang-International pa! Confeermed, Mara Clara is so Bongga talaga.

Filipinos are not shallow. Filipinos are codependent. F Sionil Jose is lazy and wrong.

One of my idols, F Sionil Jose - author of the novels Mass, Tree & my favorite The Pretenders - said:

“The Pinoy is shallow, mababaw ang kaligayahan. Their idols (Willie Revillame / Kris Aquino) reflect this shallowness.”

I do not personally know F Sionil Jose - though I have been to his Solidaridad Bookstore in Padre Faura to have my copies of Ermita and The Pretenders signed by his literary excellency - so my comments and opinions about him are only based on what I have read him say.

I could only guess that he probably decided to take the obvious route or maybe his years of experience dictated on him the facts of his Filipinos-are-shallow thesis. But I factually feel that it is lazy - and therefore easier - to call people `shallow' or stupid than to find out why they are the way they are.

I feel Filipinos are NOT shallow for still loving, watching and salivating for the antics of alleged mass murderer Willie Revillame.

My gut says the Filipino is NOT shallow for wanting to buy anything and everything with Kris Aquino's face on it.

Most Filipinos are actually codependent. And it is not our fault. We are all conditioned to be one.



**

"Codependency is

* a tendency to behave in overly passive or excessively caretaking ways..

and

* involves putting one's needs at a lower priority than others while being
excessively preoccupied with the needs of others.

* Codependency may also be characterized by denial, low self-esteem, excessive
compliance, and/or control patterns."


Codependence - the concept - had its roots allegedly from the group Alcoholics Anonymous when drunks realized that they are a problem as much as the people around them who let them drink and/or who probably - knowingly/unknowingly - may have caused or encouraged them to drink in the first place (the former is truer than the latter though).

Codependents are intense enablers. Or, "I give you ME, but you must give me ME."

Marge Simpson in the Simpsons episode Regarding Margie forgot she was an enabler/codependent when she had amnesia (she fell & hit her head after inhaling tons of fumes from cleaning detergents).

When she lost her memory, Marge regained her self-esteem and refused to believe Homer is her husband. Her sisters then set her up on a date with a man who unfortunately did not like the idea of a woman having three kids so he dumped her. Homer runs to Marge's defense and explains to the man Marge's classic codependent behaviors and why she is therefore a good catch:



Homer to Man: "You idiot! Do you know what you just gave up?..You just walked away from the sweetest most beautiful woman a guy could want. In ten years, she never had the last slice of pizza and she's never complained. Every election she wishes she could vote for both guys because they both seem nice. And there's a light inside her that makes everyone else look better. And you blew her off."

Man: "Dude, she's got three kids."

Homer: "I...really? Well, she's still great."


Marge eventually got her memory back when she was reminded of Homer's alcoholism.



Homer: "What do you say we stop for a drink on the way home?"

Marge: "You drink?"

Homer: "Uh, yeah, I started while you were in the hospital. You see, I recently tried this thing called beer..."

Marge: (gasps) "I remember everything now. You get drunk all the time!"

Homer: "Oh...but do you also remember that you're an enabler?"

Marge: "Of course! That's why we're such a great team" (she kiss Homer on the cheek).

(Homer begins swerving uncontrollably)

Marge: "Homer, have you been drinking today?"

Homer: "I sure have, partner!"



***

"In families, Codependent behaviors are a set of coping behaviors that are passed from generation to generation...in order to survive...family members across the next three or four generations learn a set of behaviors which help them deal with the emotional pain inherited from the original dysfunctional family unit. These behaviors, although designed to relieve pain, create pain! They constitute a deeply embedded "cognitive set" upon which codependency or dependency disorders are founded. Whether or not addiction existed in our nuclear family, codependency is a deeply rooted compulsive behavior that is born out of a dysfunctional family system."

In Filipino families, an example of a codependent is a Filipina OFW mother I saw in a GMA-7 documentary years ago who was working her butt off in Hongkong to send money to her unemployed husband, unemployed adult children and their unemployed children's wives/husbands and kids.

In my family, codependency is where an aunt does/spends/gives anything and everything for family members. She doesnt ask for anyone's help and she cannot say no when she needs to for fear of being judged or thought little of. She is giving in order to get - be it attention/perceived love or feigned respect.

It is a sick cycle and a sad mindset.

Think of the The Giving Tree and replace it with a friend, relative or person you know who displays self-sacrifice to a fault. Or could it be you?




****

Schools and churches helped us to be codependents too. Didn't they teach us to give and give until the givee's cup runneth over? That we are supposed to sacrifice our selves the way - the nuns in our Catholic school and the priests in any and every church said - Christ did? Aren't we all supposed to deny pleasure and beat ourselves if we fail to act like a good moral super being? So says too mainstream TV.


Again, it is not our fault if we are codependent because everybody is and every good Filipino is supposed to be one.





Which brings us back to F Sionil Jose's i-heart-to-hate-attitude for Willy Revillame and his female counterpart Kris Aquino.

Today is the age when big TV networks create and build up someone to be (have) a (big) personality. By the power of the network's (and its minion's) grey skull, they could now pull out from thin air the words "family," "love" and spin it to mean as if it is - and make it all / and that they're doing it all - for and about us. But actually, all of it is for and about the networks. It was never really all about us and it never will.



And everybody needs to be codependent or else, no one will pay any attention to the church's, school's, TV's & any mainstream institution's machinations, manipulations and mind fuck.

They need to get something from us.

In television, ratings embody this. Specifically, attention is the currency we give them. They want our attention badly they are willing to bribe us for it.

They bribe us with hope. They keep us addicted to hope. Hope is the drug and it comes in many forms: the chance to win tons of money, a house and lot, a kabuhayan showcase.

I remember TV didn't used to be like this, or at least not this desperately needy. It used to be all for fun. Now, networks are taking the taking of our attention seriously as if our life depended on it.

The promise of a good life is being dangled under our noses. And if we feel empty, if we always feel lacking, we will feel desperate enough to bite. Desperation and neediness attract desperate and needy people.






They need us to feel insecure all day everyday so we can look forward to the coming of a grandiose savior which will give us anything and everything we want because we are too little, too weak, too small to provide for ourselves and to be our own Source.

And these are what Willie Revillame, Kris Aquino and the coddlers, enablers, creators of these popularly beautiful monsters live off of - our emptiness is theirs to fill in the same way they would most likely be dead unless we give them our attention.

Regardless of whether they receive good attention or bad is not the point. They'd take anything and everything. This is why Willie and his defunct show was still alive even after the Ultra stampede killed a number of his loyal & faithful audience.

If they ended the show at such a low point, it would be a crass admission of guilt. Plus, Willie is an extension of the big TV network's ego so cutting him off is similar to them severing an arm. It would hurt, it would bleed and it would not look good. (Iimage is everything specially for those who always want to look their best on the reflections off their TV screens.)

But when Willie started rebelling against them, the network saw him no longer as the Golden Child but a monster they will never admit they helped create. The least they could do is devalue him. Meanwhile, all Willie could do is to prop himself up further in a different network whilst still taking full advantage of the same neediness and desperation he helped promote.

And since we are codependently conditioned, we continually provide what Willie wants - and even crave more of it. We allowed Willie to return and we watch him still. We have bought a ticket to play in his game. We buy in, he wins.

He takes the entire pie, we are more than happy with the crumbs.

All these work / operate and have successfully been made possible because of the belief planted in us by big worldly self-professed saviors that something is better and bigger than us.

That there is a powerful stalker who always knows what we are up to and what is best for us. That we should depend anything and everything upon a powerful stalker because us alone, by ourselves, are powerless. We believe we do not hold the key to our lives. Someone else does. And we should surrender our lives to it or him.

Essentially, our dysfunctional psyche and stagnant-platitudes-disguised-as-truths also helps keep all these functioning.

Go ahead, ask yourself and review all the things you have heard, have read or others have said you do, must do, need to do or else "you'll go to hell," "you'll go crazy," "you'll die," "you'll be punished," etc. and see - whether you believe the platitude or not - how you actually unconsciously live it.

e.g.

The fear of dog is the beginning of wisdom

Turn the other cheek so you can have it slapped too

Humble yourself and be proud of it

Love your enemies but secretly hate them

Lack of money is the root of all evil

Suffering now is GOOD because Heaven's reward for it is BETTER. Plus, because your persecutors will be shat on by God anyway: EXCELLENT.

This heart-felt fully beautiful song sums up the mindset of codependence which we have been taught to believe we must aspire to since it is noble and good to do so.




All these are ingrained deep in our selves it would probably take tons of digging through heaps of denial to get to our own core truth. So dig we must.

The Filipino therefore is not shallow. We are actually working through deep ingrained patterns of cultural and personal issues of self-worth.

Dog help us all. But for starters, feel free to first help your self.