Charwin Chua

INFILO S17

“Freedom Lectures”

The first topic on the lectures is entitled “Bodily integrity towards Foundational Sexual Ethics”.

The speaker first begins by defining the term bodily integrity. It is according to the speaker in

compliance to these tree criteria: no using, no harming and no touching; all of which are

bound by the assumption that the subject or person in question does not freely consent it.

Once consent is present, bodily integrity is not violated.

The importance of bodily integrity lies heavily on its focus: the body. The body is important

because we generally reject the idea of Rene Descartes's dualism. We assume that the body

and spirit are one and the same in contrast to Descartes idea. There is a sense of unity when

we discuss matters with the body. The scope of the body has transcended that of the

physical. In this postmodern era, the body not only reflects the physical manifestation of what

can be seen by the human eye but also covers the daily rituals, cultural influences and other

factors which indirectly contribute to the development of an individual’s persona.

Knowing this, a problem arises when we talk about the issue of torture. Torturing not only

breaks the body but also breaks the mind and soul. If so then what if there is a consensual

form of torture? Could this still be interpreted as love? What then is the boundary between

being invasive and showing affection?

The speaker then talks about the dilemma of talking about the issues on sex. Sex is by nature

manipulative and invasive. What comes usually with sex is the objectification of either one of

the partners. The distinction between the subject and the object lies in the presence of

freedom which results in responsibility. It cannot be avoided that one uses his/her partner via

sex. However does this mean that sex violates bodily integrity?
As in the case of BDSM, the sadist, who gets pleasure by inflicting pain, usually through

forms of torture, to their partners. There is always a dominant being in sex. That in itself could

translate to a defiance of the bodily integrity. However, that is not always the case. The

speaker argues that in order to determine whether or not the integrity of the body is

compromised in sex, we must delve into it's appropriate context. As in a BDSM relationship,

though there is one who inflicts pain, it also thrives with having a person, the masochist, who

freely allows the pain to be given to him/her and surprisingly finds pleasure in it. Going back

to the definition of bodily integrity, there is the presence of touching, harming and using

however all of it is negated via consent.

Hence to further understand sex and how integrity is maintained despite its nature, we must

first understand the meanings of sex and sexuality. The reductionistic biological explanation

states that sex is merely a reaction to the enzymes secreted by the glands telling the body

that there is the necessity for mating. Love is not a factor in this. However, this in essence

places sex as a primal and instinctive act. It is only a natural act and cannot be suppressed.

Sex can also be treated as a relief from sexual tension. This, approach is unnecessarily

reductionistic in the sense that it is incomplete. Relief is just a factor in sex and not every one

looks for it during intercourse. To say that sex is just a natural act is ignorant. There are

various psychological and social aspects towards sex which gives it a subjective meaning to

each individual.

Normative Ethics is important in establishing sexual ethics. It is built on the concept of

freedom and relationality. Both establish the sense of respect for each individual as well as

the self and oblige us to respect each other. Sexuality is not exempted from this. Sexuality

must not violate humanity. It must first and foremost uphold the sacredness and purity of the

individual, give the appropriate space for each individual to be themselves and to uphold both

freedom and responsibility in whatever he or she does.

The speaker suggests to us a framework for foundational sexual ethics. In this framework,

there are four aspects which should be followed. First, one must not harm a person unjustly. It

is therefore permissible to harm or be harmed given that it is within the realms of reason. One

must not murder nor violate a person in doing so. Secondly, there must always be free

consent. Acts such as rape, violence and abuse of power is never justified. Sexuality is not

just a physical activity. It is a manifestation of both partner's desires. There must always be

mutuality in sexuality. There must be the same desire, towards each other, and a mutual

participation in sexual activities. Lastly, there must be equality. Once equality amongst both

participants are present the rest of the factors in the suggested framework would be achieved.

The speaker concludes by saying “I feel therefore I am”. Sexuality is more than a carnal

primitive function but rather a transformative force. It is foundational because it grounds us to

who we are and gives us the deepest and purest experience of what we are. It transcends

that of the sensual. It is a nurturing and cultivating of our inner self and soul.

It was quite hard to make sense of what the speaker was trying to prove in this talk. There

were several arguments which seemed so totally far apart from each other that it really made

not much of a sense. However, upon reviewing my notes, I realized that it in fact makes

sense. If we look at the lecture having the idea that the sex is fundamental to the human

being and it does not violate humanity in contrast to former beliefs, then everything makes

sense. Take for instance to flow of the discussion. Defining what integrity meant pave the way

for questioning the validity of claims that sex isn't compliant to the normal ethics. From there

on several arguments which reinforced the topic in mind were presented. Finally, suggestions

and guidelines were given for us to discern what was sexually ethical. Although I would've

wished for the presentation to be somewhat more connected, I did gain a good amount of

insights from this talk.

The second speaker talks about freedom and responsibility in her lecture entitled “How to get
out of the bottle”. This lecture gives us several insights on Zen Buddhism as well as

illustrations from regarding it's views on both freedom and responsibility.

As quoted from Jean Paul Sarte, “Man is condemned to be free”. We are thrust into this world

having the freedom to do whatever we want to do. However, we also have the freedom to

deny the freedom given to us. But freedom alone is not enough. We may have all the freedom

in this world yet that is not the end of things. With freedom comes responsibility. Each man is

given the choice to be free. Henceforth one must always choose wisely. To the Zen man, the

more he or she loves freedom, the more he or she must accept the responsibility it entails.

Responsibility, though they may seem similar at first glance, is entirely different from duty.

Duty is likened to a chore or an act that a person reluctantly does due to certain conditions. A

man of duty enslaves others before enslaving himself. Responsibility is likewise. There is no

hesitation, no preformulated action for each scenario, nothing which others can affect. To be

responsible is to live in the moment, acting based on your own awareness and principles. It

does not follow that if you fully embrace your duty, your responsibilities are also embraced.

They are two separate things.

Responsibility is comprised of two root words: response and ability. A person can act in two

different ways. He or she could react or respond. Reactions are actions based on past

conditioning of the mind. It is systematic, mechanical and old. Reactions always follow the

experiences and words of others and never your own self. In contrast, to respond is have a

sense of awareness to the situation. Each idea and action that you come up with is fresh and

new. There are no guidelines or rules that must be followed. None of it is based on memory.

To respond is to live in the moment.

One is not free if he or she behaves in accordance to the past. To be chained by the past can

never make a man free. However, freedom can never be achieved without embracing the

past. One must not dwell in regret, shaping his life based on the previous mistakes. One must
own his or her past. They should take up the responsibility for their actions and do not put

blame on others.

To be entirely free, a man must be innocent and pure. A man can be conditioned in two ways.

He can behave based on authority or his authenticity. The common man lives according to

the authority. But the Zen man lives in accordance to his authenticity. He or she lives in the

moment. There are no closed doors to him or her. Everything is possible. All doors are open

for him. He never has a ready made decision. He acts unpredictably, but highly upholds his

integrity. His sense of responsibility transcends morality. It is by his sense of responsibility

which drives him to be a good man and not just the morals imposed by the society.

One can never be free as well if he is chained to his anxieties on the future. What evokes our

fear of the future is the fact that we can never control it. According to Zen Master Osho, “To

be in control is not to live at all”. Order and control are merely guidelines. To zen master

Osho, living is not just being alive. Living is having the awareness of what you're surroundings

are. Awareness brings forth freedom. We should not just merely react to the events occurring

to us. We must act in accordance to what our awareness enlightens us to do. It is only when

we are conscious can we achieve true freedom.

There is no opposite to freedom. The two ends of the spectrum are control and license.

Control can be defined a having restrictions and on ordered and systematic way of executing

things. License on the other hand is having the right to do anything. Freedom, belongs to

neither one of them. Freedom is in the middle. There is neither control nor license and yet it

never enforces you. A Zen teaching says that a man who is a tree can live without control.

What it means is that the natural man does not need control to exist. It is because of the

overwhelming licenses why laws are heavily enforced upon people. Having too much control

is like a water reservoir filled to the brim. It is merely waiting to explode. And once a controlled

person explodes, he becomes out of his character. Being out of character does not express
weakness but is an expression of authenticity. When you let go of that which holds you as

inauthentic, that is when true freedom is gained along side wisdom. “One must never try to be

anything”. Being someone whom you are not will make you a hypocrite. To suppress you of

your own desires and nature breed hypocrisy.

Freedom is not the capacity to choose. In fact, there is no need for us to choose or not to

choose. We are all free by default. We only lock ourselves into an nonexistent cage. The

speaker ends with this question: How do we get out of the bottle if the bottle is you.

That question made me think for a while. While it is true that if we are the bottle then there is

really not much of a point to escape it. All we need to do is to realize and accept that the

bottle and us are one and the same. If we awaken to that realization then we arrive at the

exact point to which we have all started from. Free.

The last speaker talks about freedom in the Filipino perspective. He argues that we are not as

free as we think we are and that despite calling ourselves as free, we are merely reflecting

everything that the conquerors have shown us. Our political system, our culture, our

traditions, in everything, the conquerors are embedded into it even if we did not intend it to be

so. What the last speaker suggests is that instead of celebrating freedom like what we are

doing right now, we should be evaluating our current state and look back and see how free

we are from back then.

My reaction towards the talk was that it was a good idea to put the concepts of freedom into a

contemporary setting. However, majority of the talk was dealt into proving that we are not free

when I believe it would've been better if the focus was placed more on how we can slowly

make the country free as we claimed it to be.

Overall, I enjoyed the talk and gained quite a lot of insights from it.