Ang Pagkamatay ng Isang Bayani

Alas-tres na ng madaling araw, ngunit nakabukas pa rin ang aking mga matang nakatitig sa kisame. Hindi ako makatulog, at hindi ko rin gusto. Ang pagsara ng aking mga mata ay pagsulyap muli sa nasusunog naming bahay sa hatinggabi. Ang pagtulog ay ang madamang muli ang hangin habang ako’y tumatakbo mula sa mga putok ng baril. Ang pag-idlip ay pagbisitang muli sa tubuhan. Ang katihimikan mula sa pagkagising na lamang ang nagbibigay sa akin ng buhay.

            Binasag ng tumutunog na telepono ang kapayapaan ng gabi. Agad ko itong sinagot bago pa matapos ang unang kuliling. “Anong meron?”

“Homicide, Tsip” sabi ni George sa kabilang linya.

“Saan?”

“Sa  Maisan Street.”

“Sige, papunta na ako.” Bago ko ibaba ang telepono ay agad kong sinabi,  “Wag mong galawin ang  crime scene ngayon.”

Ito na ang panglimang kaso ng pagpatay ngayong linggo; pinakamataas para sa bayan ng Senteno. Kung ang apat na pagpatay ay magkakakonekta, walang nakakaalam. Para sa akin na nandito sa trabahong ito ng sampung taon, hindi na ito nakakapagtaka.  Ang panahon ng eleksyon ay panahon din kung kalian tumataas ang krimen. Ibig sabihin din nito’y isa nang regular na gawain ang pagligo bago pa man umakyat ang araw. Habang sinusuot ang aking uniporme, nakita ko ang bakas ng dugo sa kaliwang kwelyo. Ngayon ko lang naalalang dapat ay lalabhan ko ito kagabi. Tinitigan ko ang aking sarili sa salamin: dalawang itim na bilog ang pumapaligid sa aking mga mata.

            Mabilis ngunit malinaw na alaala ang lumantad sa aking isipan. Naalala ko ang aking kakambal at ang huling mga oras na siya’y aking nasilayan. Madilim nang gabing iyon dahil walang buwan o bituing nagbibigay liwanag sa langit. Ang tanging liwanag ay hatid ng nasusunog naming bahay sa aming likuran. Isang daluyong ng mga putok ng baril ang dumagsa sa tubuhan, at tumatakbo kami sa bilis ng aming makakaya. Nakaligtas ako nang mahulog ako sa bangin na aking hindi napansin. Hindi naging swerte and aking kapatid. Tinignan kong maigi ang aking mukha mula sa salamin at winari kung ganito rin ba ang kanyang itsura kung siya’y buhay pa. Bago ako umalis ng bahay ay nilagay ko sa holster ang aking rebolber.

***

Ang Maisan Street ay nasa kabilang dako ng siyudad, malayo mula sa aking bahay. Pinangalanan itong Maisan dahil sa dati itong plantasyon ng mais ng mga Dela Cruz; ang namumunong pamilya sa Senteno. Ngayon, ang mga sumasayaw na mais sa saliw ng malalakas na hangin ay napalitan ng mga matatayog na mga gusaling hindi mapayuko ng kahit na malakas na bagyo. Ito na ang tinatawag na Business District ng Senteno: mga opisina ng mga multinational companies na pagmamay-ari pa rin ng mga Dela Cruz.

Nang ako’y dumating sa pinangyarihan ng krimen, nakita ko si George na inaayos ang kanyang salamin upang makita nang mabuti ang kanyang mga tala sa mga kislap ng pula’t bughaw ng kanyang kotse. Ipinarada ko ang aking kotse sa kanyang tabi. Nang makita niya ako’y binigay kaagad niya sa akin ang kanyang malaking kwaderno.

“Sino daw ang nakakita ng bangkay?” una kong tanong habang binabasa ang kanyang mga sinulat.

“Tsip, isa pong tanod na nagpapatrolya sa barangay na ito,” tinuro niya ang isang litrato ng biktima. “Nadatnan namin siyang walang pitaka. Maaari po kayang isa lang itong kaso ng panghoholdap?”

“Nasaan ang bangkay?”

“Nandoon Tsip,” kanyang tinuro ang isang poste ng ilaw na may nakapalibot na dilaw na police tapes. “Mayroon nang limang miyembro ng SOCO na nag-inspeksyon ng katawan. At Tsip, di ko na po ginalaw ang crime scene ngayon.”

“Mabuti, ayaw nating maulit muli ang aksidente dati,” napangiti ako sa hiyang biglang bumalot sa kanyang mukha.

Si George ay isa sa mga bagong miyembro ng pulisya ng Senteno. Ayon sa kustom, siya ay magiging katuwang ko sa loob ng isang buwan upang malaman niya ang mga pangunahing responsibilidad sa pulisya. Sa unang kasong kanyang hinawakan, may nagtimbre sa kanyang mayroong natagpuang bangkay sa isang bakanteng lote. Agad siyang pumunta sa pinangyarihan ng krimen at nag-inspeksyon mag-isa. At dahil sa madilim nang panahong iyon, natalisod siya sa mismong bangkay, at nakontamina ang pinakaimportenteng ebidensya sa kaso: ang katawan ng biktima. Sa kabutihang palad, sumuko ang pangunahing suspek at umaming guilty.

Sinuot namin ang aming gwantes upang inspeksyunin ang katawan na nakahilata sa malamig na aspalto. Ang kanyang ulo ay halos hindi na makitaan ng mukha: wala na itong mata, ilong, o bibig. Para na lamang itong bulaklak ng dugo’t laman na namukadkad.

“Ang biktima ay may magarang suot, ngunit wala na siyang gamit na dala-dala. Tulad po ng sabi ko, sa tingin ko ay isa itong kaso ng holdap,” sabi ni George.

“Sa tingin ko hindi ito isang kaso ng pagnanakaw,” sabi ko sa kanya.

“Bakit po Tsip?”

“Dahil ang ginamit na baril sa kanya ay isang shotgun. Nakita mo ang erya ng sugat? Malaki. Kung ikaw ang holdaper, gagamit ka ba ng shotgun para mang-holdap?”

“Hindi po Tsip.”

“At bakit?”

“Dahil masyadong malaki ang shotgun pang-holdap.”

“Tama. Sa ganitong mga kaso, di sapat na magaling ka lang magsiyasat; dapat alam mo din kung paano mag-isip ang mga gumagawa ng krimen.”

“Salamat po Tsip. Pero tanong lang po, bakit kinuha ng pumatay ang kanyang gamit?”

“Hindi lahat,” inangat ko ang baba ng bangkay upang ilantad ang kanyang makintab na gintong kwintas na mayroong hugis-pusong palawit.

“Mukhang may nakasulat sa pendant” sabi ni George. Tinignan naming maigi ang palawit at nakita ang ‘LDC’ na nakaukit dito.

“Gustong ipamukha ng pumatay na isa lamang itong kaso ng holdap,” bigla akong napatawa. “Siyempre hindi naman tayo ganoon ka-bobo di ba?” Napangiti si George.

Tumingin ako sa paligid. Wala pang bakas ng araw.

“Ano pong tinitignan niyo, Tsip?”

“Baka may CCTV na nakakuha ng pangyayari.”

“Ayun po Tsip!” May isang kamera 20 metro mula sa crime scene.

“Dalawang oras pa bago magbukas ang Communications Office. Nag-almusal ka na ba?”

Pumunta kami sa isang café malapit sa Business Dsitrict na bukas 24 oras. Habang kami’y abala sa kape’t pandesal, nagsusulat pa rin si George sa kanyang kwaderno. Mabagal na gumagapang ang araw paakyat ng langit, at ang kanyang mga sinag ay tumatagos sa mga bintana ng mga gusali. Sa bintana ng café ay aking nabanaag ang muling pagkabuhay ng natutulog na syudad habang ito’y niyayapos ng araw. Ang city hall, na siyang pinakamatayog sa lahat ng gusali sa syudad ang unang nakaramdam ng halik ng bukangliwayway. Ito ay nakaistasyon sa gitna ng syudad, tila nakamasid maiigi sa bawat tao sa ibaba. Unti-unting binabasag ng mga busina ng kotse ang katahimikan ng mapayapang imahe. Naglabasan na ang mga tao mula sa kanilang lungga, ang iba ay nagmamadali sa kanilang mga trabaho. Ang aking nakikita ay isang maunlad na syudad na dahil sa isang pamilyang namuno ng 30 taon.

“Gusto mo pa ng kape?” ginulo ng weyter ang aking isip.

“Ah, sige. Black, walang asukal,” sabi ko. “Gusto mo pa ng kape, George?”

“Ay, di na po Tsip.”

Mabilis na nasulyapan ng weyter ang litrato ng biktima na nasa mesa. Umalis siya mula sa aming mesa na may mukha ng pandidiri.

“Bakit mo naisip maging pulis?” tanong ko kay George upang mawala ang katahimikan. Nakayuko pa din sa kanyang kwaderno, mabilis siyang tumugon na parang batang sasagot sa tanong ng isang guro: “Dahil gusto kong mawala ang krimen at maging mapayapa ang ating syudad.”

Nang marinig ko ito, naalala ko ang aking optimistikong pag-iisip noong nasa edad pa ako ni George. Lahat ata ng mga pulis ay ganito ang pangarap: maiwaksi ang krimen sa ating bayan.

“Kung iisipin, kaya nabuo ang sistemang panlipunan ay dahil sa krimen. Maraming mamamayan ang nangangamba na wala silang kapangyarihan upang iwaksi ang kasamaan. Kaya nila binuo ang gobyerno ay upang maging panatag ang lahat, dahil mayroong mas makapangyarihan na kayang labanan ang krimen para sa kanila. Matagal nang mayroong pamahalaan at kapulisan, ngunit kailanman ay hindi nawala ang krimen. Alam mo ba kung bakit?”

Sa sinabi kong ito, inilabas ni George ang kanyang mukha mula sa kanyang kwaderno. “Bakit po Tsip?”

Natawa ako ng konti sa kanyang tanong. “Hindi mo makakahon ang sagot sa isang pangungusap. Maraming dahilan ang tao upang gawin ang kanilang ginagawa. Maraming kaso ay dahil sa kahirapan. Ang iba ay dahil sa gusto nilang maghiganti o sa bugso ng damdamin. Alam mo ba na may isa akong kaso dati na pinatay niya ang isang tindera dahil sa walang load ang tindahan. Isipin mo yon? Dahil lang sa cellphone load.”

Sabay kaming tumawa. “Iyon pala ay dahil sa tinatawagan niya ang kanyang kinakasama na gustong makipaghiwalay sa kanya, at naubusan siya ng load. Eh natapat na walang load ang tindahan,” ako’y napabuntong hininga.

“Pero may iba rin na ang tanging dahilan ay gusto nilang gumawa ng masama. Mas nakakatakot ang mga ganitong tao, dahil hindi sila mabilis mahuli. Ang tanging laban natin sa ilang kriminal ay ang kanilang motibo. Nakita nating walang bag ang katawang itinapon, una nating naisip ay nahopdap ito. Ngunit paano kung gusto lamang pumatay ng taong ito at wala na siyang ibang dahilan?” Napatingin ako sa mukha ni George.

“May problema ba, Tsip?”

Sa isang iglap, ay nakita ko ang aking mukha.

“Tsip?”

“Wala ito. May naalala lang ako,” sabi ko.

Bumalik na ang weyter dala ang isang tasang kape. “Ito na po ser, Black, walang asukal.”

***

Ang city hall ay isang lakaran lamang mula sa Business District. Nasa loob ng gusali ang Communications Office, ang mata’t tenga ng aspaltong gubat. Kinokontrol nila ang lahat ng mga surveillance camera sa buong bayan. Ang opisinang ito ay tinayo ng isang Dela Cruz base sa kanyang pangunahing layunin na mabawasan ang krimen.

Nang kami’y napadpad sa Communications Office, isang taong abot tenga ang ngiti ang sumalubong sa amin. “Ano pong maitutulong ko sa inyo?” bati niya.

 “Gusto kong makakuha ng kopya ng teyp sa Maisan Street,” sabi ko habang pinapakita ang aking tsapa. “Para ito sa isang kaso.”

Nagtayp ang lalaki sa kanyang kompyuter. Ang kanyang artipisiyal na ngiti ay naging ekspresyon ng pangamba. “Hmmm...”

“May problema ba?” tanong ni George.

“Mukhang namatay lahat ng CCTV sa buong syudad kagabi.”

“ANO?!” di ko mapigilan ang sariling mapasigaw.

“Kailangan kong i-alerto si Mayor,” sabi ng receptionist habang umaalis upang tawagan ang alkalde.

“Tsip, sa tingin mo konektado ito sa kaso natin?” tanong ni George.

“Maaari, pero maaga pa para sabihin iyan. Bumalik na tayo sa aking opisina. Wala tayong mapapala dito.”

Ang headquarters ay ang pangalawang pinakamatarik na gusali na nasa kanan ng city hall. Sa malayo, ang dalawang istruktura ay mukhang dalawang di magkasinglaking tore. Sa loob ng gusali, ang mga pulis ay sumalubong sa akin ng mainit nilang mga bati. Sa labas ng aking opisina na nasa pangalawang palapag, ibinaba ni Celia ang kanyang hawak na telepono upang bumati sa akin ng “Welcome back sa inyong bahay, Tsip.” Napangiti kami ni George, at binati siya ng magandang umaga. Bago ako pumunta sa loob ng opisina, inutusan ko si Celia na tawagin ang opisina ng Mayor tungkol sa hacking na naganap sa Communications Office.

Sa loob, hinayaan kong lamunin ako ng silya sa labis na pagod. Ang autopsy report ng bagong kaso ay nasa  aking mesa. Binuksan ko ito at binasa ang ilan nitong parte.

“Anong sabi?” tanong ni George habang nagtitimpla ng kape.

“Madaming nakitang asukal sa lalamunan ng biktima.”

“Mukhang mayroon tayong serial killer. Wala pa bang nagtatanong kung merong nawawalang tao?”

“Sige itatanong ko kay Celia,” tinawagan ko siya. “Celia, may nagreport na ba ng missing?”

Ngunit iba ang naging sagot niya.

“Tsip, si Mayor. Nasa labas siya ng opisina mo. Gusto ka raw makausap.”

Sumabog ang pintuan at mula dito’y lumabas ang isang matabang lalaking nakasuot ng tuxedo na kung saan ang butones ay nagpupumiglas na makawala. Ang kanyang postura ngayon ay ibang-iba sa imaheng action star noong 20 taon mula sa kasalukuyan. Mayroon siyang tungkod upang mapanatili ang kanyang tindig. Puno ng linya ang kanyang mukha; karamihan ay nasa malapit sa kanyang labi dulot ng pagngiti nang matagal. Ito ang mukha ng respeto at yaman: ang mukha ni John Dela Cruz.

“Mr. Mayor, ano pong problema?” tanong ko.

“Tungkol ito sa aking anak na si Lucia,” malamlam ang kanyang boses at nangingig, “Di pa siya umuuwi simula kagabi.”

“LDC,” bulong ni George.

Nagtagpo ang aming mga mata. Sinong tanga ang papatay sa unico hija ng mayor?

Nangasim ang mukha ng mayor nang sinabi ko ang tungkol sa katawang nakita namin sa Business District.

“Sinasabi mo bang patay na ang anak ko? Na pinatay siya sa aking siyudad?”

“Di na mamukhaan ang biktima pero isa itong posibilidad. Mayroon siyang suot na kwintas na may nakasulat na ‘LDC’ sa pendant.” Pinakita ko ang litrato ng gintong kwintas. “Sa kanya ba ito?”

Nang makita ng mayor ang litrato, labis na pighati ang lumantad mula sa kanyang mukha. Hindi siya makapaniwala.

“Ito ang buong autopsy report, pero inaabisuhan kitang wag tignan kung hindi ka handa. Masyadong brutal—” dinakma niya ang polder mula sa aking mga kamay.

Unti-unting nawawala ang kulay sa mukha ng mayor kada palit ng pahina. Sa dami ng kanyang nakita, di na kinaya ng mayor at tuluyan nang napaluha. Ito ang unang pagkakatong makita ko ang isang taong mataas ang estado sa buhay na magpaulan ng luha. Isa itong imahe ng taong mahina, ibang-iba sa imahe ng matatag na mayor ng matatag na Senteno na alam ng publiko. Umiyak siya nang umiyak na parang batang naagawan ng kendi.

***

Mabilis na kumalat ang balita sa bayan na parang sunog sa isang gubat. Nang tanghali na, maraming mga reporter sa TV at dyaryo ang nagkumpulan sa tapat ng city hall upang malaman kung paano nito maapektuhan ang darating na eleksyon. May mga sabi-sabing si Adam Dela Peña, ang katunggali ni John sa pagka-mayor, ay kasabwat sa pagkamatay ni Lucia. Ang mga Dela Peña ay ang pangalawang pinakamayamang pamilya sa Senteno, nagmamay-ari ng kalahati ng plantasyon ng kape sa bansa. Tahimik lang ang mga Dela Cruz buong araw sa isyung ito. Si Adam, na nais na depensahan ang kanyang pangalan mula sa krimen, ay pinagpipilitang hindi niya ito kasalan, bagkus isang kagagawan ni John upang makaligtas sa mga kaso ng korapsyong pinupukol sa mga Dela Cruz.

“Wag nating kalimutan na ang mga Dela Cruz din ang bumwenas sa isyung ito.” Sabi ni Adam sa isang interbyu. Maririnig ang singap nga mga taong nanonood ng TV sa lobby ng headquarters.

“Sa tingin mo ito ay isa lamang plano ng mayor upang makatakas siya sa mga kaso ng plunder?” tanong ng interbyuwer.

“Malamang.” Lumakas ang reaksyon ng mga tao. “Pinatay niya ang sarili niyang kapatid para mapunta sa pwesto niya ngayon. Ano sa tingin mo ang pipigil sa kanya upang patayin ang sarili niyang anak?”

Dito na naghiyawan ang mga hindi kumbinsido sa opinyon ni Adam. Naungusan ng mga sigaw ang pagsisikap ni Adam na ipagtanggol ang kanyang sarili.

“Tsk tsk tsk. Grabe talaga itong si Adam” sabi ni George habang pinapanood ang interbyu. “Sa tingin niya papatayin ng isang ama ang kanyang sariling anak para sa lamang isang pwesto.”

“Alam mo bang ang pagkamatay ng kanyang kapatid ang unang kasong hinahawakan ko?”

“Hindi ko alam yun, Tsip.”

“Siya lang ang nag-iisang suspek sa krimen. Maraming mga ebidensyang nakaturo sa kanya, kasama na ang isang hintuturong nakita sa ilalim ng kanyang kama.”

Nakita ko sa mga mata ni George na hindi siya makapaniwala sa kinekwento ko

“Anong nangyari pagkatapos?” Tanong niya.

“Sa tingin mo magiging mayor pa rin siya ngayon kung nakulong siya?”

“Ngayon ko lang narinig ang kwentong yan.”

“Dahil wala namang nagsasalita tungkol dito.”

Ibinaling niyang muli ang kanyang mata sa telebisyon. “Tsip, ito na ang inyong press conference.”

Nakita ko ang aking sarili sa TV habang inuulan ng mga tanong. Mga tanong tungkol sa suspek. Mga tanong tungkol sa pagkasangkot ng mga Dela Peña sa pagkamatay. Kung paanong namatay ang lahat ng CCTV na kinokontrol ng Communcations Office nang nangyari ang krimen. Nakita ko ang aking sariling pinagpapawisan at hinihimas ang bigote upang maitago ang aking kaba.

Isa lang ang sagot na aking nabigay sa lahat ng tanong: “Wala pa kaming sapat na ebidensya upang makapagbigay ng impormasyon tungkol  sa suspek. Patawad.” Doon natapos ang balita ukol sa pagkamatay ni Lucia. Biglang nag-cut ang TV sa isang political ad ng isang kumakandidato bilang senador.

Nakaramdam ako ng pagkalabit sa aking balikat. Nang tumingin ako sa likod ay nakita ko ang isang matandang babaeng umiiyak.

“Ano pong ginagawa niyo dito ma’am?” tanong ni George. “Kung may gusto kayong i-report pumunta lang kayo doon sa lalaking nasa counter.”

“Hayaan mo siyang magsalita,” sabi ko.

“Tungkol ito sa a—aking apo...” hindi na niya matapos ang kanyang sasabihin at tuluyan nang napahagulgol.

“Bakit di natin ito pag-usapan sa aking opisina. George, maaari mo ba siyang tulungan?”

Ginabayan namin ang matanda papunta sa aking opisina. Sinabihan ko si Celia na kumuwa ng kape para sa matanda. Hinayaan muna namin siyang makapagpahinga at binigay ang kapeng tinimpla ni Celia. Nang matigil na ang kanyang pag-iyak, itinuloy na niya ang kanyang kwento.

“Kagabi sumasakit ang aking tuhod dahil sa aking rayuma. Pinagpipilitan niyang pumunta sa botika para bumili ng mefenamic acid upang mawala ang sakit, pero pinipigilan ko siya. Sabi ko ay dalaga pa naman din siya at gabing-gabi na. Hindi na siya nakauwi. Nag-aalala talaga ako at baka kung anong—” umiyak siyang muli. Binigay niya ng litrato ng kanyang apo.

Niyakap ko siya. “Wag po kayong mag-alala ma’am. Gagawin namin ang lahat ng aming makakaya upang mahanap natin siya.” Nakita ko ang pag-iling ni George.

Nagtama ang aming mga mata ng matanda; siya’y napangiti at ito ang unang pagkakataong nakakita ako ng pag-asa sa kanyang mukha.

Matapos kong tanungin ang kanyang pangalan at contact number, umalis siya ng headquarters. Pinapanood ko siya bintanang nasa aking opisina habang siya ay papalayo mula sa gusali. Nilamon siya ng mga taong naghihintay ng balita sa harap ng city hall. Pababa na ang araw. Nahulog ang buong syudad sa kadiliman.

“Alam mong hindi natin siya matutulungan,” sabi ni George habang nagtatayp sa kanyang computer.

“Ano bang problema mo?!” sigaw ko kay George. Masyadong napalakas ang aking boses. Tumigil ang kanyang pagtayp at biglang yumuko.

“Sinabi mong ang dahilan kung bakit gusto mong maging pulis ay upang mabawasan ang krimen, at maging mapayapa ang ating syudad. Tungkulin natin ito sa lahat ng mamamayan ng Senteno: mayaman man o mahirap!”

Umalingawngaw ang aking mga sinabi sa opisina. Wala nang nagsalita. Pagkatapos ng isang minuto’y tinuloy niya muli ang kanyang pagtayp. Sa aking mesa ay nakalagay ang apat na autopsy reports ng mga kasong noong nakaraang linggo pa nandito at nilangaw na. Umupo ako’t binuksan ang isa.

Tama si George. Hindi namin kayang tulungan ang matandang babae. Wala akong magagawa sa apat na kasong ito. Walang kapangyarihan ang pulis na magbigay ng katarungan sa mga ordinaryong tao. Nahihiya ako para sa aking sarili, ngunit ganoon na ang sistema. Kailangan naming magpokus sa pagkamatay ng anak ng mayor. Sinara ko ang autopsy report ng lumang kaso at binuksan ang report kay Lucia Dela Cruz.

Narinig ko ang tunog ng telepono. Kinuha ko ito bago matapos ang unang kuliling.

“Tsip,” sabi ni Celia. “Tinatanong ng mayor kung ilang pulis ang ide-deploy sa plaza para sa burol ni Lucia bukas.”

“Sa plaza? Di ata magandang ideyang gawing publiko ang burol.”

“Ano pong sasabihin ko sa kanya?”

“Sige sabihin mong magde-deploy ako ng 25 pulis bukas.”

“Sige Tsip, sasabihin ko na ngayon din.”

Dinikit ko sa corkboard katabi ng aking mesa ang litratong binigay ng matanda. Muli kong binasa ang autopsy report ni Lucia.

***

Mayroong libo-libong tao sa burol sa plaza. May sabi-sabing dito iaanunsyo ng mayor ang kanyang magiging plano sa susunod na eleksyon. Nakakalat ang mga pulis sa paligid at karamihan ay nasa entrance ng plaza. Nasa balkonahe ako ng simabahang nakatapat sa stage kung saan makikita mo ang lahat. May mga TV reporters at camera malapit sa stage. Sa gitna ng stage ay ang banga ng abo ni Lucia na napapalibutan ng maraming bulaklak mula sa sumusuporta sa pamilya.

Tahimik ang iba na nagdadasal habang ang iba ay umiiyak sa isang taong hindi nila kilala nang personal. Nabasag ang katahimikan nang mangyari ang hinihintay ng lahat: ang pagdating ng mga Dela Cruz. Isang Lamborghini ang humati sa gitna ng madla. Naghiyawan at nagpalakpakan ang lahat sa tuwa. May mga taong nagpupumiglas na humaplos sa kotse ng mayor na parang mapapagaling sila nito. Pumarada ang kotse malapit sa stage at lumabas ang mayor mula dito. Lalong lumakas ang hiyawan. Umakyat ang mayor sa stage na kumakaway at ngumingiti sa mga tao, ibang-iba sa mayor na nasaksihan kong umiyak na parang bata kahapon. Hawak-hawak ang isang mikropono, umubo siya upang linisin ang kanyang lalamunan na siyang nagpatigil sa hiyawan ng lahat.

“Naaalala ko pa noong bata pa ako at ang syudad na ito ay napakahirap. Maraming krimen kaya hindi umuunlad, pugad ng mga mahihirap at walang trabaho. Ngunit ngayon, maunlad na ang Senteno. Inilagay ng tatay ko ang syudad na ito sa pedestal mula sa kawalan. Tinuloy ko ang mga programang sinumulan ng tatay ko, at natuloy din ang pag-unlad ng syudad. Ipapasa ko sana sa mga kamay ng anak kong si Lucia ang Senteno—” tumalikod siya at itinuro ang banga. “—ngunit mayroong kumitil sa kanyang buhay. Mayroong mga taong gusto kaming alisin sa syudad at tanggalin ang pag-unlad sa Senteno. Pero kahit na ganoon man, hindi kami matitinag na serbisyuhan kayo. Narito ang aking anak na lalaki, si Henry—” tinawag niya ang kanyang anak na humarap sa  publiko “—upang ituloy ang serbisyong Dela Cruz. Kakandidato siya bilang mayor sa darating na eleksyon.”

Magkahalong tuwa at pangamba ang reaksyon ng mga manonood.

“Wag kayong mag-alala mga kababayan. Magpapatuloy pa rin ang pagserbisyo ko sa mga tao. Kakandidato ako sa susunod na eleksyon sa senado. Ipagpapatuloy ko ang serbisyong Dela Cruz sa buong bansa! Mabuhay ang Senteno!”

Naging maligalig muli ang mga tao: nagtatatalon, nagpapalakpakan, at naghihiyawan.

Sa kalagitnaan ng pagsasaya ng mga tao, isang malakas na BANG ang umulanig sa hangin. Nahulog mula sa stage ang mayor. Nalunod sa dugo ang mga bulaklak sa likod niya. Napalitan ang sigaw ng kasiyahan ng hiyaw ng takot at pagkagulat. Nagtakbuhan ang lahat ng tao mula sa plaza. Bumaba ako mula sa simbahan at tumakbo papuntang stage; sumuong sa daluyong ng taong nais makalabas.

Habang nagkakagulo, nakita ko ang isang taong nakaputing maskara na may hawak na shotgun: ang bunganga nito’y umuusok pa. Tumakbo ako papunta sa kanya. Nagtama ang aming paningin, ngunit hindi siya gumalaw. Sinuntok ko ang kanyang mukha at nahulog ang kanyang maskara...

At nakita ko ang aking mukha.

What if the Infinity Stones are actually the Silmarils?

Hahahaha yeah. It sounds really ridiculous. This post is not about that though.

I just read that previous post on how Pulp Fiction is actually an extension of The Silmarillion. For all its worth, most of the explanations of the author of the post fits well with what's inside of Tolkien's tome: the briefcase containing one of the Silmarils and Jules's famous bible quote capturing one of the passages in The Silmarillion. Of course there are lots of explanation that are a bit of a stretch: like Mia being a Maiar simply because of the similarities of the name, compounded to that is the fact that she survived being overdose, an evidence that she is immortal (for some reason). However, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, the post tells us that Pulp Fiction contains some likeness with The Silmarillion, and I think this is because of what we call "intertextuality" in fiction. Intertextuality is the shaping of meaning of texts (or images, since it can now apply to film) by using them to specifically symbolize the same thing. Because of intertextuality, all forms of fiction are said to be interconnected. Any form of fiction will contain symbolic texts/images that hold the same meaning from another symbolic texts/images from any other book. With this, aw now tend to associate something glowing and gem-like to mean something that holds extreme power, in which The Silmarils, the mysterious thing inside the 666 briefcase, and heck, even the infinity stones, all holds the same essentiality.




TLDR: All forms of fiction are, in a way, connected, because of intertextuality.

"The Knife of Never Letting Go" book review

I am not that fond of the young-adult genre even though I am inside that age bracket. These books typically have good premise that will make you buy them for their good synopsis stated at the back of the book, but the execution and how the story unfolds are told in a really bad way. This has been the face of YA novels for me, until I read Patrick Ness's first book of the Chaos Walking series: The Knife of Never Letting Go. I found out about this book because I'm a fan of Charlie Kaufman's films (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Adaptation, Being John Malkovich), and I read in his IMDB page that he is writing a film that is based upon this book. So I read it, and since the book is "unputdownable," I finished it in a few sittings. This is a perfect example of what YA novels should be. The premise is good and most importantly original: it is about a boy named Todd living in a world where there is a disease that kills women and make the thoughts of men publicly available for people to hear. He's nearing his fourteenth birthday, which is the time you are considered to be a grown man, when he suddenly found something (I don't want to spoil it). The story is told pretty well and merits the good premise. It's suspenseful and exhilirating to read because the book circles around a cat-and-mouse chase, but also leaves the readers moments to breathe and to know more about the characters. The protagonists are not one dimensional for they did a balance of good and nasty stuff. I heard some criticism about this book that it's too brutal. I think Ness intentionally made the book graphic for the main theme of the novel is to show how nasty violence is. It doesn't fetishize the act of killing, rather it shows how violence scars people's minds, especially the young ones. If you have read this book, you should know well what I'm talking about, because this book plays on the ethical dilemma of killing a person.

I will read the second book of this series once I got a copy already. I hope I get it soon, for the first book ended in a massive cliffhanger.

Why Akira is a triumph in manga

Akira is a manga created by Katsuhiro Otomo. The six-volume series is set is a post-apocalyptic Neo-Tokyo in the year 2019, built amidst the ashes of an unknown explosion that happened in 1982. Clues about the past catastrophe tend to resurface, and a youth gang lead by Kaneda managed to uncover government secrets. 

The manga explores human desires on power and corruption. Although Akira is a science fiction, the manga triumphs in the incorporation of realism in each of its pages. From depictions of three-dimensional characters to vivid painting of a dystopian future, Akira rose above of its kind due to breakage of common manga conventions.

Intricate Characters

A major problem in most of manga is the proliferation of one-dimensional characters. This is a trope wherein the only thing that describes a character is his/her motivations. All characters are designed to have motivations that force them to do some actions, which in turn drive the story forward. In reality, human beings tend to shape and be shaped of certain events. A one-dimensional character is a product of a writer who focused solely on the plot without giving one’s characters room to evolve. Otomo managed to give every character enough background for the readers to know them more. He managed to depict Tetsuo’s frustration as a weakling in the face of Kaneda. Kei, a character who was always overshadowed by her own gender, struggles to have importance in a testosterone-fueled society. The Colonel, the head of Neo-Tokyo’s Akira project, is powerless to protect Neo-Tokyo from chaos. These different aspects of human experiences are present in Akira which makes the characters more relatable to the readers.

Not in-your-face

Another common problem in a lot of manga series is the writer’s need to spoon-feed everything that is happening in the story. One manifestation of this is the frequent use of thinking bubble to portray what a character is thinking even though it is obvious to the reader what they feel. Current American comics doesn’t use this technique anymore and everything is portrayed using dialogue bubbles or narrations. It is very brave of Otomo to include such subtleties to be present in Akira, even though concepts like creation of a universe in one’s mind are complicated to discuss. It is up to readers to know and find out what is happening in the story on their own. This not-in-your-face method of telling a story in the graphic medium induces a two-way active connection with the reader. It requires more from the reader and the reward of finding out the truth in the story is more satisfying.

System on a Background of Chaos

Akira is a very chaotic manga. There are lots of action, graphic violence, and explosions. Even though this is the case, the chaos is laid down in every page in a systematic way that the reader still understands what is happening. One manifestation of the system is the use of non-overlapping grids in every panel which does not confuse readers on where panels start or end. The use of overlapping grids is prominent in a lot of manga especially on scenes where lots of action if happening. This is a bad practice since it multiplies confusion for the readers. Another manifestation is prior to the confrontation: the motivations of every character are known which makes readers understand layers of reasons and results of any battles.

Why does truthfulness matter?

Before looking at the importance of truthfulness, it is necessary to clarify first what truthfulness is. We have a lot of notion of the word “truthfulness.” The main source of the term’s ambiguity is the many ways we use the term, whether to denote truthfulness of a belief or truthfulness of a person. Truthfulness of a belief is how close your belief to the actual “truth.” I will not discuss the nature of truth and its existence in this essay, but we will assume one view of the truth throughout this paper: that there exists an actual “truth," although it's still debatable whether human beings can achieve it or not. Since the conventional definition of knowledge is "a justified true belief," truthfulness of a belief connects the concept of truth and knowledge.

Truthfulness of a person, on the other hand, is defined as one's character to always tell something with a certain confidence that it is close to the truth. Truthfulness of a person is different from being honest. Although both are related, truthfulness of a person involves conscientiousness of a being towards his/her beliefs, while honesty only involves telling what one thinks is true and doesn’t involve the responsibility to be conscientious about it. It is clear that truthfulness of a person also involves truthfulness of one’s belief. In this paper, we will talk mostly about truthfulness of a person, yet we can still connect it to the concept of knowledge because it still involves truthfulness of a belief. For the rest of the paper, truthfulness will denote truthfulness of a person for simplicity and convention of the reader.

When we talk about truthfulness, it always revolves around an interaction between two or more people. To state the importance of truthfulness, we will look at a certain situation where person A said something to person B that is truthful. We will call person A as the sender and person B as the receiver. Note that A and B can also be a group of persons who assume the character of senders or receivers in an interaction. We will look deeply at the benefits of truthfulness of person A in the interaction both to the receiver and the sender. After that, we will enlarge the scope of the situation to discuss about the importance of truthfulness in a society.

From the given situation, if person B doesn't know what person A had stated to him/her, the benefit of truthfulness has a direct effect to the receiver. It is direct since the benefits will come directly from the statement relayed by person A to person B. The true statement is important to the receiver because it will give additional knowledge for person B. Living in a world where a lot of things, good and bad, happen all the time, knowledge is important because we use them in practical purposes especially in decision making. You can come up with the best decision in any situation that you encounter if you know something about it.

The main source of knowledge is our experiences. But then, we all know that we can't experience everything that could be experienced by human beings, simply because we have limited time in this world and we can't do everything all at once. Our interaction with other people alleviates this specific problem; it gives way to another source of knowledge aside from our experiences which is the experiences of other people. For example, we need to decide what to wear based on the weather for today.  We don't need to study the whole science of meteorology in order to predict the weather for making the decision on what to wear. We just have to get weather updates from meteorologists. Our inexperience to predict the weather was alleviated by them and they become our new source of knowledge that we can use for decision making on situations that involves the weather.

If person B does know what person A had stated or knows something that is conflicted with person A's statement, it still gives benefit for the receiver. It gives him/her the chance to verify what s/he believes. Another problem imposed by acquiring knowledge from our own experiences are the differences of perceptions created by our own faculties from person to person. Most of the time in order to check the information we got from one of our faculties, we use other faculties. This is not a great gauge for the checking of the truthfulness of our beliefs, since we already stated that these faculties are not always accurate in acquiring knowledge. Interaction with other people gives us another "checking machine" of what we perceived. Person B in our situation broadened his/her perspective to that of person A. Not only does it give person B supplements for decision making for practical purposes, but it also gives him/her a chance to make sure that his/her belief is somehow close to the truth, which in turn gives relief to the receiver that s/he is not living in a deception, either created by oneself or created by others. This relief allows person B to live comfortably. The truthfulness of the receiver's belief is more important if s/he has a high level of epistemic demand about it. If our family are important to us, we tend to value the truthfulness of the identity of our family. If we are made to believe all this time that we are related by blood to our parents, and then there's a sudden revelation to us that they are not really our parents, we have a tendency to live uncomfortably. This aspect of knowledge is important even though we don't use them in practical purposes because it affects our well-being.

Truthfulness has indirect and direct effect to the sender of information. Using the previous situation where person A is sending an information to person B, if person A is truthful to person B, that truthfulness will induce trust from B to A. This trust will improve the connection between the two persons. This is an indirect effect because it affects person A that is not related from the statement person A gave to person B.

Trust is the attitude towards another person expecting something good will come out of him/her. This trust affects the way we interact with other people. The higher your level of trust to another person, the more probable you will interact with him/her in a comfortable way. Trust from a person to another person is affected by the experiences between them and the truthfulness of them to each other when they are interacting. The importance of trust is that it holds the relationship between two persons, and if that is lost, then also the breakage of the relationship.

Another indirect effect of truthfulness to the sender is the ability to influence other people, which just feels good for what it is. Aside from the trust that you earn from other people, it will also earn you self-trust since it shows you your own power to change other people's thinking and influence them to create decisions for the betterment of many.

A direct effect of truthfulness of person A is the same as that of its direct effect to the receiver; it verifies the truthfulness one’s knowledge. We can classify knowledge based on the persons involved in giving and acquiring it: intrasubjective knowledge and intersubjective knowledge. Intrasubjective knowledge is knowledge acquired by a person by oneself that will be understood more if one thinks about it deeply. Intersubjective knowledge is the kind of knowledge that you need to state to other person in order to have a deeper understanding of it by verifying it with other perspectives. Verifying something that you believe to someone else gives it a higher probability of being closer to the truth than if you just let it to yourself.

We will now take away the previous situation between two persons and look at the general point of view of a society. We don't solely just become a sender or a receiver of information. Most of the time we both do these things during interactions. We tell a person an information, and that other person tells another thing back to us. Looking at the bigger picture, we are an interconnected web of senders and receivers. Since this is the case, everyone benefits directly and indirectly from the truthfulness of everyone.

In society's perspective, truthfulness is a key thing to the creation of the agreed sense of reality. We already stated that different perceptions of human beings to a single thing is one of the problems in acquiring knowledge based on our experiences. Because of this, each one of us has different sense of reality. At a larger point of view, truthfulness gives a solution to this problem by creating a conventional reality. For example, if person A said to all of the people that s/he thinks that grass has a specific color, which is green, and everyone agrees to him/her, then it will be established that the grass has this specific color. Every one of us could look at the grass and see it in different shades of green, but the society can agree that the grass is green. It’s like a Venn diagram involving billions of circles wherein some parts of every circle don’t fit with other circles, yet all of them converges to a single point. Although there are parts of our faculties that isn't exactly the same as that of other persons’ and we perceive grass in different shades of green, there is still something in the grass that is common for us all: the grass is green. These conventional truths about the color of grass and other plant information that were agreed by everyone to be true allows for the inner workings of the society that depends on plants such as agriculture. A society comprised of people with conflicting beliefs who can't agree about anything will not succeed to their common goals.

A society is always founded on the interactions of human beings; if there’s no human interactions, then there’s no society in the first place. And interaction based on truthfulness is higher in form than mere interaction. We can tell lies to each other and we can still call it an interaction. The thing that distinguishes interaction with truthfulness is the inclusion of trust. We already stated that trust is the glue that holds the relationship between two persons. Looking at the point of view of a society, trust solidifies connection of every people in it. Since the society depends in the unification of its constituents, a society with interactions not based on truthfulness will not hold for itself and at a point of time will no longer be considered a society. Additionally, interaction with truthfulness ensures that the interactions will always exist. These truthful interactions will then multiply the benefits we already stated for every one of us that is both a receiver and sender of information.

If you are lying or just telling bullshit to other people, even though it benefits you a lot, it certainly will give the receiver of your statement harm. A special case, wherein it feels like lying is the best path to resort to since s/he might not be able to accept the truth very well, is still a bad thing since you are deceiving him/her. The moment the lie was uncovered, the “bad effect” is multiplied since s/he lost his/her trust to you, the decision s/he made would not be the best one for any situation that involves something about the truth that you didn’t say, and the receiver still found out about the truth anyways. It is a lot safer to not take this risk and still be truthful all the time. There’s nothing wrong about finding the truth, and we should accept it, because it is what it is and we can’t do anything about it. What we need to do is change our attitude about the truth because it will not mold itself for our convenience. The bottom-line is this: truthfulness is always important since it will benefit all of us as individual persons and as a part of a society all the time.

Andres

He stands ever circumspect
On a top a cold cement block.
Never blinks upon the huge wreck,
Never moves his eyes of rock.

He seems to scream loudly,
Yet no sound could be heard.
Silence that struck deeply
The land that was ignored.

Edifices towered over him,
Keeping him shaded from the sun.
Interlaced roads run by its rim,
Yet looked upon by no one.

His bolo shoots upward,
Piercing nothing but the air,
Reaching to poke through a billboard,
Waiting for someone to stare.

A cloth on a mast, he elevated;
A bloody glow it emanates.
Behold the nation he liberated,
Land of traitors and apostates.

The Fourth Dimension in "From Hell"

"From Hell" Chapter 9, Page 54.

William Gull, the book's infamous Jack the Ripper, realized that he killed the wrong woman. He was assigned by the Freemasons to kill the women who know something about a Royal Family member's infidelity. Each night they pick a woman that is part of the conspiracy to be killed and mutilate their body with. William grew fond of the killings that he reaches euphoria which transcends him through space-time every time he does it. After knowing that the woman he killed that was supposed to be the last in his list was the wrong one, he now confessed to his partner in crime, Netley, that he feels like he was in Hell. Williams became so seduced by death that in his last moment, he became a god: someone who felt the ultimate joy from of his own death.

Destiny

Warm river flows through

The rocky and winding route

Always ends in sea.

Sunflowers bloom from

The east going to the west

Shall bow by sunset.

Orange leaves flutter

Levitated by the wind

Be one with the earth.

The chill of the night

Creeping slowly from the soil

An eternal sleep.

To Love's An Act That Would Not Last

To love's an act that would not last; it ends
Akin to light of candle in the night
As time declines, to void itself descends
Within the darkness, lair of no delight.
All things expire to nothing: high and low,
Eternal bliss and sorrow soon shall rest.
The sky and all its glory will forego,
And ground shall fall, a fate it will detest.
When one knows way of love, it will be great,
Enjoyed by men who suffers life and death
For in decay can we appreciate
The feel of flesh, the sweetness warmth of breath
Like every poem, love is quick from birth,
'Cause only then can we behold its worth.

Is Knowledge Possible?

     When I was a child, I’ve always been curious about the world and in order to explore it and have a full grasp it, I read a lot of books.  I accepted all facts presented on every page as true. From elementary to high school, I grew up being bookish, because page by page I feel like I am getting closer to getting a full grasp of world I’m living in. I always believe that books sustained my epistemic demand on learning. After encountering the question “Is knowledge possible?” it made me question the all the things I’ve learned from the books I love. This question provoked me a lot since knowledge is very central to my life and it is my passion to learn new things about the ever transforming world. This conundrum is not easy to answer even though it’s a simple yes-or-no question. After figuring out the answer to the question, it demands an explanation which is a lot harder because it requires us to define what knowledge is.

     The possibility of the existence of knowledge will depend on how we define “knowledge” in the first place. We always use this term and its meaning differs from time to time and from person to person. Since there are a lot of definition of knowledge out there, the possibility of its existence vary. This is one of the main reasons why the question is very hard to answer. In defining a term, you can specify its connotation, which is a set of things that can be associated with the term, or a term’s denotation, which is a set of characteristics similar to every element of its connotation. A term that labels physical objects like “tree” is easy to define since you can give “mango tree, narra, mangrove tree etc.” as the connotation of it and the denotation will then easily follow. Defining “knowledge” is a difficult task to do, for it’s an abstract concept that we always encounter like “life” and “love,” but we always take them for granted. This results for them to be oftentimes used erroneously in statements.  “Knowledge” certainly is hard to define since it’s a term wherein the connotation and denotation depend with each other i.e., you can’t dictate examples of knowledge without stating knowledge’s characteristics and vice versa. We have to rely mainly on how “knowledge” is used in any of our statements in order for us to come up in a definition.

     In both definitions I will present, they will entail assumptions about knowledge. We will assume that knowledge involves beliefs, that is, our set of knowledge is inside our set of beliefs. We will also assume that knowing is a higher form of believing since these beliefs should be justified. We also assumed that knowledge is used to bridge the gap between our mind and the world; to make sense of our reality and have a full grasp of it. Knowledge that are propositional are the central subject of this essay.

     The most popular definition of knowledge today is knowledge being a “justified true belief.” Although there are other modifications of this definition, the central idea of knowledge being a true belief with justification still holds. If one believes that this is the right definition of knowledge, then the possibility of knowledge would then be nullified. The problem mainly arose from the inclusion of “truth” in the definition. With this definition, our main question, “Is knowledge possible?” will be reduced to “Is truth possible?” The answer to this question will differ from different kinds of truth. To illustrate, we can divide the concept of truth into two categories: truth grounded from concepts created by human minds and truth grounded from reality.

     Truth from concepts created by human minds is certainly possible because these concepts are systematic and the rules concerning about truthfulness of a statement are made by human beings. For example, in Pure Mathematics, “2 + 2” would always be equal to four, making “2 + 2 = 4” true. The statement “2 + 2 = any other number other than 4” is false. Since truth is possible in concepts conceived by humans, then it follows that knowledge is also possible in this area of truth. These human concepts are in a way created in the first place because of the need to make sense of our reality, so the essence of these knowledge being used to have a full grasp of our reality still holds.

Truth grounded from reality is something that is not possible. This is mainly because of the separation between our mind and the world. Our faculties, which we use to make sense of our reality, are oftentimes incorrect. We always verify these incorrect experiences by using other faculties, which we already deemed to be not reliable all the time. This makes everything in our reality uncertain. Some people even raises their skepticism up to the level that they doubt everything in the world. Rene Descartes is one of the most famous of these skeptics. He proposed the existence of an evil genius who basically wants to deceive us every time. These levels of skepticism cannot be proved or disproved, which makes truth grounded from reality impossible. This implies that knowledge grounded from reality is impossible to be achieved by the human mind if we will use this definition.

I created another definition of “knowledge” by weakening the “truth” part of the “justified true belief.” We will have knowledge being “a justified belief that is as close as possible to the truth.” In this definition, knowledge is clearly possible to exist even those grounded in reality since the criteria is less restrictive than the first one. This definition makes knowledge vary from person to person since all human beings have different sense of reality and different takes on what for them is close to the truth. This makes sense since knowledge is a form of belief, and we know that human beings may have different beliefs. In the first definition presented, a single proposition can only have one knowledge since only one thing is the absolute truth about that proposition.

How do we keep our beliefs to be as close as possible to the truth? We can do it simply by being conscientious all the time to our beliefs or find evidences that supports our belief. If a new belief is presented to us that has more strong evidences than our new belief, then we must let go of our previous belief and make the new belief our new “knowledge.” A criterion on the strength of evidence for our knowledge will be its ability to be used in real-life situations. For example, you are conflicted with two beliefs from the same propositions, A and B, A being the previous belief and B being the new belief presented to you. If B managed to be more usable to the reality you’re in than A in terms of decision making, you should make B your new knowledge, because B gives you a better grasp of the reality you’re in. In this case, the skepticisms on the nature of our reality would not be a problem to the concept of knowledge since we are only concerned with the reality in our own perspective.

The first definition is a lot stricter than the second one in a sense that it limits almost every usage of the word “knowledge” in any statements. This also blocks “knowledge” from the act of “knowing.” If we define knowledge this way, “knowledge” will then be on a much higher level than the term “to know,” basing on how we use this verb in statements. In a way, defining knowledge as “a justified true belief” weakens the whole purpose of it to become a label to the concept we now think is “knowledge.” Another main problem is this: the “truth” part of the definition diverts the whole purpose of the term “knowledge” from being an epistemological issue to a metaphysical one.

     Now, we see that the possibility of knowledge depends on the definition we choose. If I am to choose what definition that is more appropriate for knowledge, I will choose the second definition I presented. The second definition of knowledge, although less restrictive than the first one, makes “knowledge” more usable as a term we can use every day. It also solves the issue of having a gap between the act of “knowing” and “knowledge” that we encountered in the first definition. This is because we don’t need for our beliefs to be true in order to be knowledge; we only need them to be as close as possible to the truth or for them to be reliable in application. This definition introduces us to the concept of a “false knowledge.” False knowledge applies when what a person knows is far from being true. The example for this are situations when what we know will be revealed to us after some time as false. This makes knowledge ever changing based on the ever changing world. You can avoid having false knowledge by being conscientious to our beliefs. In this definition, “knowledge” will not be diluted fully into being synonymous to “belief,” since a belief that isn't knowledge certainly can have no evidence or justification for it. A belief that isn't knowledge is a belief that you believe for what it is without any justifications.

     I therefore conclude that knowledge is possible to be achieved if we change the current conventional definition of it. If we let knowledge be a "justified true belief," it would then make knowledge weaker in substance and the whole concept of it would be swallowed by the metaphysical issues of truth. We want knowledge to be possible since we always use them for many situations that require decision making. If we already have in our mind a thought that knowledge is not possible, it could lessen the level of caring for the things that we care, therefore making us unconscientious about our beliefs. This will result to a human civilization living in a reality they can't live in normally. Believing that knowledge is possible since knowledge doesn’t entail absolute truth lets us continue in pursuing on finding new knowledge, and it opens the door to limitless discoveries for the betterment of society.