Stories, Estorya, Counter-History John Nery Newsstand hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy in adults icd 10 code

Ramon castillo reyes was one of the greats. I was fortunate, as a philosophy major in the 1980s, to take his courses in the history of philosophy as well as in ethics. I must admit that, like fr reilly’s class in epistemology or fr green’s on language, dr reyes’ classes provoked me into poetry, not philosophy. I remember writing a poem prompted by dr. Reyes’ impressions of an old folks’ home in belgium; father reilly caused a poem I wrote in his class to be published in america magazine. So when I received the unexpected invitation to celebrate the memory of dr. Reyes in the company of the peerless doc leo garcia and the brilliant ron mendoza, a spasm, perhaps it was a metaphysical unease, seized me.

Of the stories he shared in the classroom, I remember one best. I believe the incident took place immediately after one oral examination in louvain, at the time doc was doing his graduate studies in the late 1950s and early 1960s. I think he was getting up from his chair, or was on his way out of the room, when he was startled by an earnest question, in english, from one of his professors. “what kind of man are you?” thinking it was another test, a continuation of the examination, doc began to answer with a few words on man as embodied spirit. His professor quickly interrupted him. “no, no, what kind of man anoxic event medical are you? Chinese, vietnamese?”

Dr. Reyes had a beautiful gift for teaching the history of philosophy. He presented and discussed each philosopher—descartes, hume, kant, to name the three stars in his constellation of “modern” philosophy—in their own light or, rather, in their own time. There was no anachronistic analysis from the present, no time-traveling know-it-all anxiety attack vs panic attack reddit loaded with today’s spoilers. Instead, doc began with the philosophical problem the philosopher sought to resolve, and proceeded to follow the philosopher as he thought the problem through. New possibilities emerged, leading to a new philosophical problem which another philosopher then sought to understand in his turn—and the cycle resumed.

It was only much later that I realized that his approach was not only rigorous, charitable, and elegant all at the same time; it was also highly moral. In his classic textbook, ground and norm of morality, he describes the dynamism of the historical situation which, it becomes clear to me now, must have also guided his explorations of the history of philosophy. “now, there are moments in human history when established human possibilities of the historical situation come into question in view of new human possibilities dawning on the horizon. In other words, these are moments when new possibilities appear and set into motion historical developments that eventually give rise to a new historical situation.”

THE THEME OF THE 2019 RAMON REYES MEMORIAL LECTURES is “remembering in a time of forgetting.” I would like to discuss a particular kind of forgetting—the deliberate, calculated, kind. I will focus on three examples, three moments of deliberate forgetting that define our own time. These are continuing events, current phenomena, with radical consequences—not only for our understanding of memory, information, or democracy, but for the changing nature of privacy, the future of the media, and the fate of the democratic project in the philippines.

These moments of deliberate forgetting have reached or are reaching a crisis point, understood in the usual sense that doc reyes used the term: crisis as a decisive time, a pivotal event of consequence. As he defined it in “philosophy in a crisis situation,” his keynote address to the philosophical association of the philippines in 1984, in the roiling aftermath of the aquino assassination, “krisis” in greek means “the act of decision and judgment, the act of bringing an issue to its denouement and resolution.”

There is the turning point in the life of the moral individual: “it comes as a disturbing moment. It disturbs habits we have acquired—habits of derivation from the moral principles, habits of judgment, habits of decision, habits of action. Yet for that given moment, this singular judgment-event in all its strangeness and suddenness peremptorily presents the good that must be done.”

And there is the turning point in the life of a historical community, that is, a community actively if not always consciously shaping its history. “this is what is meant by moments of historical crisis. They are moments which are turning points, when the future begins to show on the horizon but whose coming what is severe anoxic brain injury still hangs in the balance and depends upon the response of man.”

Cruz continues: “then stories took over this world. I was stunned. Still am. I’ve never used it. I don’t understand why one should post something only for it to disappear. My 17-year-old daughter says she uses it when she wants to share something that is too insignificant to post permanently. Uhuh. Like her mother’s day greeting this year, which I only received because she took screenshots of her story for the day and sent them to me on messenger. What’s the point?”

Like cruz, my first response to the snapchat syndrome of deliberate forgetting was cluelessness. What does it mean when we put an expiry date on our digital memories? Snapchat CEO evan spiegel suggests that is the wrong way to think about the new feature. “internet everywhere means that our old conception of the world separated into an online and an offline space is no longer relevant. Traditional social media required that we live experiences in the offline world, record those experiences anxiety meaning in kannada, and then post them online to recreate the experience and talk about it.” in other words, it isn’t about remembering highlights of our day; rather, it means living our day as digitally as possible. Remembering is a second-order act; experience comes first, and only then can we remember, or do we choose to remember, that experience. Using snaps or instagram stories is, to borrow spiegel’s paradox, “talking through content not around it.” we, or rather those who use snaps or stories, communicate through the ephemeral content they post AS they are living it.

Is that how users of snaps or stories see it, though? I conducted a scientific survey among constant users, namely my three children, and aside from the aspect of living-in-the-moment, they also pointed out the rawness of the content posted. On instagram, especially, the main accounts are heavily curated: only the best pictures, only the most attractive scenes, are posted. What instagram stories allow, away from the main accounts, is less posed photos, rawer content, more life in-the-moment.

And yet new possibilities are indubitably dawning on the horizon. Hundreds of millions of people are posting through the content of their lives, not around it, every day—not so much to remember, although remembering is at stake; not so much to record, although even the impermanent can anxiety attack symptoms list be documented; but only to show fleeting glimpses of their lives lived online: all of this must set in motion a new development, or at least create a disturbing moment for humans on an individual level.

One such possible consequence: our laws on libel and slander in the philippines rely, for the most part, on a late 19th-century conception of privacy. Justice brandeis’ famous “right to be let alone” is the foundation stone. What would the much narrower * conception of privacy in the era of snaps and stories mean for our laws? Will the deliberate forgetting these social media platforms allow extend the reach of the already long arm of the law, or limit it?

“there is one aspect to his presidency that bodes ill for our democratic project,” I wrote in october 2017. “it is his confabulations—thinking that the philippines is in danger of being ejected from the united nations, rejecting aid from the united kingdom that wasn’t even offered, asserting that the marawi conflict started from a drug bust, and so on. This is ominous, not only because he lashes out at perceived enemies based on mistaken information, but also because our democratic project is a republic and (borrowing from montesquieu) based on virtue …. ’pataka’ is bisaya for baseless talk.”

But a rhetoric of lies is the primary tool in another kind of deliberate forgetting: the blurring of facts, the erasure of truth. Since 2016, “fake news” and other forms of disinformation have been an “established possibility” in our current historical situation. In january 2017, the catholic bishops conference of the philippines issued a trailblazing set of “pastoral guidelines on the use of social media,” and supplemented it with a list of known fake-news websites. The guidelines offered an overview of the massive, metastasizing problem:

In the original spanish, the pope uses the phrase “logica de la serpiente”—the logic of the snake. I find it superior, as a metaphor, to snake-tactics, because as I wrote elsewhere, the logic of the snake is better at suggesting the deliberateness, the rationality, the sheer evil, at the center of “fake news” and other forms of disinformation. Also, the logic of the snake runs parallel to the phrase pope francis uses in the original spanish to describe the problem at the root of it all: “esta lógica de la desinformación”—this logic of disinformation.

Under a president who is an estoryador, a teller of tall tales, the logic of the snake has rattled many of the institutions of society. Orchestrated campaigns of organized disinformation have caused many of us to ignore the facts, enabling senator leila de lima’s calculated harassment and unjust detention, or avoid the truth, prolonging unrehabilitated marawi’s agony.

I note that the exhortation the country’s catholic bishops issued just this monday, encouraging anoxic anoxia filipino voters to “seek the common good,” speaks of this very possibility of unlimited political power. “in our country today the checks and balances in the government are being undermined. So far the senate is the institution in the government that is holding out as our country is inching towards total control.” that last phrase may slip between the cracks of the unceasing news cycles, but consider its implications: “our country is inching towards total control.”

As an ideology of negation, dutertismo demands total control; together, the 7 no’s set in motion a new historical development, a counter-history of the filipino. Not a false history, but an alternative one. The distinction is important, because president duterte is only right when—to give one example—he insists that the whitewashing of american atrocities in the philippines in the early 20th century should be undone. But his alternative history is highly selective; to give only the most egregious instance, he completely glosses over the abuses and atrocities perpetrated under the marcos regime, because the marcos children are his political allies.

The effects of his counter-history is a deliberate forgetting of what it means to be filipino. It is the negation of many of the values that define us—our generosity of spirit; our faith in redemption and our tradition of second chances; our commitment to democracy, forged by our long, formative struggle for civil liberties; our desire to take our rightful place in the community of nations. This counter-history threatens to turn a nation of martyrs into a country of killers.

The snapchat syndrome of constant ephemerality is one significant aspect of the DIGITALIZATION that continues to reshape the media landscape. The logic of DISINFORMATION has created hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy in adults a hostile environment for the reporting of facts and the pursuit of what journalist carl bernstein, of watergate fame, calls “the best obtainable version of the truth.” and the counter-history proposed by the ideology of negation that is DUTERTISMO distorts reality and presents a real and serious threat anoxic brain injury mayo clinic to journalists today.

“the moral thinker thus comes to consider himself to be the educator of the community, whose role is to lead his fellow-men to the threshold of reason and morality. He assumes a role within the community, for now he has understood that his community is not one of pure violence or unreason, but one of violence becoming more and more reasonable, more and more moral. The moral thinker has come to understand that he is not transcendent to his community except perhaps in the sense of being the community’s own moral consciousness and conscience, not so much imposing any rule from without, but aiding the community to find its own true valid law.”

This is a necessary understanding of the role of the moral thinker, but also insufficient. We need to advance dr. Reyes’ idea of a vanguard of the “reflexive consciousness of reason,” to a community of consciences. The aim, and the need, is to form rizal’s ideal of a moral community. It is not enough for the moral thinker to consider himself, or herself, the educator of the community, its own moral consciousness and conscience. Rather, the fullness of the role of the moral thinker is in helping create a community of moral thinkers. In our context, that means a community that rejects the ideology of negation and its counter-history, that respects facts and resists disinformation, that reflects on and reconsiders new habits formed by greater digitalization, and whose coming still lies in the balance.