A fair balance of giving and receiving

I don't buy the claim that giving is better than receiving. To me, this sentiment is deeply rooted in the attempt of many religious and political leaders back in the ancient past to play on and take advantage of the gullibility and generosity of their flocks or constituents.

To me, the key is balance. It should be always a fair case of giving and receiving or a give-and-take relationship.

After all, if everyone will simply give and give, then who would end up receiving--the wicked, greedy, and cunning ones? It's so illogical.

It's All Such a Blur!' Nah, Not to Me

(On Remembering the Past with Potent Lucidity)

Many people, when asked about their youthful past, would tend to quip, "It's now all a blur to me!" Why? Maybe because they had more bad than good experiences so they didn't want to remember as much about it; or, worse, they were always pharmaceutically or alcoholically high during the heyday of their youthful days so remembering becomes a mental challenge for them, a sort of a mental disability.

Not to me. The 1990s to me is only like yesterday. I remember so many things, activities, places and faces, music and events. In fact, I still remember so many events in my childhood in the 1970s, what more in the 1990s. Why? Most likely because I'm a very introspective and retrospective person. I love remembering and documenting things. I love music, which could be an effective bookmark for such memories. I love writing, which caused me to document many highlights in my life. And ultimately, I never dabbled in any mind-altering substances; never even engaged in alcohol drinking; and this has made my mind as naturally potent and functional as it could be.

Much Ado about After-a-Period Spacing

A Matter of Choice, Really (Just Be Consistent)

The use of single space versus double space in typing documents has long been a matter of debate for many writers. Many individuals from either camp insist that their spacing style is the correct one, and they never run out of reasons to back their respective claims up.

However, to me—as a writer and as a big proponent of freedom of expression—I consider both styles acceptable and correct, so long as the writer is consistent about it.

Looking Back to the Typewriter Age

Since the commercial accessibility of the computer (the writing / document-processing software Microsoft Word, in particular), circa early '90s, I have been using a single space after a period. But, I remember back in my elementary and highschool days (and even in early university), in the 1980s, when the available tool for writing term papers was the typewriter, I used to put two spaces after a period. I learned this from school and from my mother who worked as a secretary in her younger days. That was the standard for many writers and publications during that era. Some said that it had something to do with the printing process; some said it was for aesthetic reason; some said they didn't know but they just followed what they've been used to doing. Personally, I simply followed what I learned at school as a standard.

Being a Single Spacer

Now, why do I use one space instead of two? Initially, it's just for brevity and to save space. In the context of a 30-page essay or a 300-page novel, using one space after every period instead of two will have given me extra few pages at the most—depending on the length of my sentences. But thinking about it, having saved an extra page or two is not a really big deal. That's when I realized that the spacing after a period, after all, boils down to personal preference or depends on the requirement or preference of the publisher one is writing for. Meaning, there should really be no question of which is right and which is wrong between the use of single space and the use of double space. The only key that I take into consideration is the consistency of use: One, at the least, has to maintain the same spacing after a period (whether single or double) all throughout a single document or project. After all, if the reason is aesthetics, then this is subjective; if to save space, then extra few pages (in the context of a lengthy novel) or just a few lines (in the case of a 10-page article) that amounted from all the extra single spaces saved are not really a big waste. 

If the writer prefers single space (like me), then s/he should be free to apply it--so long as the use of a single space is consistent all throughout a particular work. If s/he prefers double spacing, which is practically just being consistent with the typewriter age, then s/he should be—in the same freedom of expression—free to do so. Then again, as long as the use of double spacing is maintained in one single document or body of work.

The Last Leaf

What I am not in support of is some people's penchant to instill that unnecessary sense of guilt for almost anything that other individuals choose to take especially when such a choice is different from theirs even if the action does not gravely harm anyone anyway. 

So, single space or double space? Take your pick. Just be consistent!

[written for my column "Sa Bawat Pahina ng Literatura" in the Winnipeg-based community newspaper Filipino Journal, issue #1 for April 2015]

Single Space or Double Space?

A Matter of Choice (Just Be Consistent)
 

Since the advent of the computer (the writing / document-processing software Microsoft Word, in particular), I have been using a single space after a period. I remember back in my elementary and highschool days (and even in early university), in the 1980s, when the available tool for writing term papers was the typewriter, I put two spaces after a period. I learned this from school and from my mother who worked as a secretary in her younger days.

Now, why do I use one space instead of two? Primarily it's just for brevity and to save space. In the context of a 30-page essay or a 300-page novel, using one space after every period instead of two will have given me extra few pages at the most--depending on the length of my sentences.

However, concerning the question of which is right and which is wrong--the use of single space or the use of double space--I think that none is really incorrect. It's just a matter of choice and consistency. After all, in the perspective of a writer, having saved a couple of pages is not really a big deal.

If the writer prefers single space (like me), then s/he should be free to apply it--so long as the use of a single space is consistent all throughout a particular work. If s/he prefers double spacing, which is practically just being consistent with the typewriter age, then s/he should be--in the same freedom of expression--free to do so--yet again, as long as the use of double spacing is maintained in one single document or body of work.

What I am not in support of is some people's penchant to instil that unnecessary sense of guilt for almost anything that other individuals choose to take especially when such a choice is different from theirs. 

Many people, when asked what the color of something

.

Many people, when asked what the color of something is, tend to cite or even see only whatever color/s are dominant. Their minds are usually in dominant default. Meaning, they see only whatever color or part are dominant. They fail to recognize the recessive or subordinate parts, unless prompted about it.

Applied in our day-to-day living, people who hear every little sound and who see every single color are people who have a keen sense of detail. They are also usually those who give recognition not only to what is popular or the majority but also to that which is trivial or minority.

I've attended many music festivals

.

I've attended many music festivals here in Canada, and I've encountered fellow revelers who danced ecstatically when some bands or artists were performing. Many of them were NOT on drugs or something; they just liked the music or were simply enjoying the event.

Not really different from Metal enthusiasts who headbang at a Metallica concert or Hip-hop / Rn'B lovers who gyrate at a Beyonce gig or New Wave enthusiasts who wave their hands in the air at a Cure show or Classical music fans who close their eyes and smile widely as the orchestra gets to the adagio part of the symphony.

Another example of ignorance and poor judgment on the part of those who ridicule ecstatic dancers at parties, concerts, or festivals.

I'd rather live in a technologically advanced world than

.

I'd rather live in a technologically advanced world than in a primitive era. All I need is the intelligence and a sense of responsibility in using everything that has become available to me in the present time.

I simply don't share the sentiment of many people who always point out and imply that their respective younger days were better. Other than nostalgia and the great memories about one's childhood or youth as well as the idea of being able to not work and just rely on one's parents when one was still a child or a teenager, there's really nothing great in the past for me.

I'm the type who has the ability to see the beauty in the technological advancement and the societal awareness that the current world has given humankind.

After all, in the great picture of existence, this generation is just a part of the never-ending evolution of the world at large.

I could never claim that my generation was a so much better world because, in doing so, I would be claiming also that the other past generations and generations yet to come suck. That would be unfair, selfish, and narrowminded. 

I just happened to live in this generation so I make the most out of whatever is available.

Many people in the past also did the same--maximized whatever was available to them. In the same manner that people in the future will just also maximize whatever will be available to them.

People who think that their generation was the best are exhibiting what is known as chronocentrism. And I am not one of them.