The Things We Thought and Did Say

The last time that I posted an article here last week, everything was peaceful and quiet, and not a soul was stirring. One week later, a lot of things have happened. New articles have been posted, and comments and counter-comments have been traded. While I think any activity is better than no-activity, I think on some instances, some of these comments may have reached beyond the scope of “architectural discussion”, and have created some sort of uneasy tension has been created around this blogspace.

So before I write another article, I decided to write WHY I am writing an article. I think that at this stage, with all this activity building up in this forum, it is important to lay down MY premises for writing here, lest I be misunderstood with my comments. Call it being defensive. Call it madaldal. Call it excuses. Me? I prefer to simply call it “levelling of expectations” and “setting the record straight”. And take note again, that these are just MY premises, and not the entire “arkiboks”.

The first premise of me writing these articles is that the ideas that are expressed in them are the results of my understanding of the industry. As such as I am young, unexposed, inexperienced and “may gatas pa sa labi”, my perspectives may be shallow, dull, limited and inconsistent with what’s really happening out there. That’s why I’m writing them out. So my thoughts or theories would either be confirmed or be disproved. And after so doing, then at least my knowledge or understanding of the “truth” would be more accurate and comprehensive.

Second, this article or comments of mine are purely for the purposes of scholarly, academic, and professional debate or discussion, if you prefer a more subtle term. They are not meant to be attacks on other people’s character, personality, intellect or writing skills. As another blogger has put it, nag-uusapan lang tayo, and nothing more. Which brings to another premise.

These articles have the end objective of creating some sort of awareness and action in the architecture industry. We have complained too much about our plight as professional architects, yet we do not really do anything about it, let alone talk about it. The only we can ever improve our condition is when we collectively do some positive actions. The only way we can ever do some positive actions is we have sufficient and accurate data to back it up. It’s one thing to raise an opinion. It is another to present factual data. And one way to gather data is through discussions.

The results of such a discussion hopefully would help us become more aware and better informed, and subsequently could help us make better decisions not only for our career, but in general, life. Additionally, if done right, such discussions could help us bond as architects, as professionals, or just simple people of this world with common and even not-so-common beliefs. Because in the end, it is this common bond which can help unite us and then take positive actions together. We do not have to have the same beliefs or preferences in design. It is okay to disagree. But it is important that in the midst of disagreements, we still maintain some sort of respect and objectivity.

It doesn’t mean that when we disagree, we have to have hate or dislike the person who said an opposing point of view. Disagreement, in itself, is a form of communication. And communication, is better than non-communication. Especially, since we’re trying to find some common ground for action in the future to improve our plight as architects or designers.

It’s just like what Rod Tidwell, the football star played by Cuba Gooding Jr., says to Jerry Maguire when they were having this argument in the showers in the movie “Jerry Maguire”, “You think we’re fighting, but I think we’re finally talking.”

Now that that premises have been set, hopefully, we can proceed further to discuss and exchange commentaries. In the future, I hope that all readers and members of this blogspace keep a level-headed mindset and do not take these comments of mine or of others personally. If one disagrees with some of the ideologies, theories or comments of others, then by all means, react, but do so by sticking to the issues, and not engaging in name-calling or personal attacks. True, some of the comments may have been provoked. I myself am guilty of being so, and I’d like to apologize to those that may have been offended. Again, as I’ve said, intention was not to put down people or make others feel that I’m superior.

Rephrasing what like Ka Noel has said in the message corner, if in this small venue of ideas-exchange, with us coming from a common age group, we cannot even establish some sort of objectivity, respect and level-headedness, what more out there in the real world? With this attitude, how can then we expect to really “unite the clans”? We had already become a divided architects of the Philippines even before we could initiate some actions.

As a parting word, I’d like to propose or give some comments on how future articles or comments should be handled to avoid unnecessary conflicts:
1. Be more articulate in your comments, especially if you’re trying to raise a point. Giving one-liner comments exposes oneself to the risk of being labelled as inarticulate or a nuisance. Especially if those phrases are cryptic or have double or even triple meanings. (As in the case of “What’s new?”, with all due apologies to ‘anonymous’) Since you are already logged on to the internet, it wouldn’t hurt to type a few more words to properly express what you feel.

2. In giving comments or counter-comments, stick to the point or issue that was raised and do no not go labelling others of being this or that. First of all, it is rather unethical to call people names in front of a very public audience. Second of all, we do not know the person sufficiently to call him this and that. All of we have are a few words which they have expressed over the internet. Is that enough justification to label him? This then brings me to another suggestion.

3. Put your name or alias. As others have already said, it is their inherent right to remain anonymous. But the mere fact that one is incognito exposes them to the risk of anonymity. One would not have any idea that this “kangaroo jack” is in fact my batchmate or a friend of mine, who I know to kid around a lot. The same set of words can mean a hundred things depending on who said it, when it was said and how was it said. Simple phrases like “Eat my shorts” may seem “antagonistic” if the person who said it is your enemy, or may be just a simple joking comment if the person who said it is your barkada. So eat my shorts and put your alias. Please. Otherwise, you expose yourself again to the risk of batu-batu-sa-langit-ang-matamaan-huwag-maggalit syndrome.


And with that, I’m looking forward to our future conversations (ala Ken Watanabe accent from “The Last Samurai”).