Why did the Chicken cross the Road?

Why did the Chicken cross the Road?

This question has been asked numerously during psychological tests, behavioral profiling, board room meetings, team buildings and believe it or not even in regular alcohol sessions among people from all walks of life, primarily by supposedly “The” more intelligent person in the group. What’s funny about it is that whenever this question pops out there is an expected “Correct” answer. Everyone can try his or her luck in answering the question but the asker already has a predetermined answer, the only answer he or she is going to consider “Correct”.

From a logical perspective, the question “Why did the Chicken Cross the Road?” encompasses the inevitability of individual differences in man. The question itself is subject to unnumbered interpretations. But going back to the asker’s expectation, the only answer logical for him or her is “To get to the other Side”. This stereotyped answer is driven by the simplicity of its logical significance. The answer will repel any contra-argument because it’s as simple as one and one is two. To some, the answer “To get to the other Side” is as little bit too philosophizing, that it stops the conversation almost as soon as it gets blurted out.

I would argue however that we look into some of the usual answers before we go deeper into the political aspect of them.

1. “Maybe, the Chicken got bored and wanted to explore the other side”
2. “Food supply became scarce and so the chicken instinctively crossed the road because of hunger”
3. “The chicken didn’t like the old company so it crossed the road for a better community”
4. “The chicken is dead and it doesn’t have a choice, the butcher just carried it to the other side”
5. “The chicken got banished from the flock”

Now let’s dissect them one by one

1. Boredom is usually driven by repetitive activities. The chicken might have realized that there isn’t any hope of a more challenging and energetic environment on the old side. The chicken hit the brick wall and lost interest – It crossed the road.
2. This is very straight forward – the chicken was driven by instinct. Anyone is entitled to look for greener pastures whenever survival comes into play. The chicken did what anyone will do when faced with such situations – It crossed the road.
3. Now this is a bit more intentional rather than instinctive. The chicken simply didn’t like the company of its old folks. It might be that the chicken didn’t like the ways of the alpha rooster and it wanted to see if the leader on the other side has a better set of rules so – it crossed the road
4. Here the term “Dead” means “Unconscious” – the chicken didn’t have any cognition whatsoever that it didn’t have a choice. The butcher was the decision maker and all the chicken could do is to cross the road, and so – it crossed the road
5. To get banished, one must have done something big against the rules and regulation of any given flock. The chicken might have done acts contrary to the existing social control and got banished. Without any choice – It crossed the road.

No matter what the answer maybe, what’s important is we recognize the objectivity in the question’s subjective nature. We can be easily be confused by this statement, but a subjective nature can be objective if we speak of the scientific phenomenon that there is an absolute subjectivity in man. “To get to the other side” might be the ultimate answer to avoid anymore post-argument premises, but it’s a little bit too  metaphysical that it’s almost tantamount to the journey towards the uncaused cause. The chicken might have crossed the road because of the 5 reasons mentioned above, and if we think about it these are also the main drivers of movements in the corporate world. Some get bored, some look for greener pastures, some don’t like their bosses, some are unconscious and just remain adrift and some get fired.

Politics aside – My personal answer to the question “Why did the chicken cross the road” is “The chicken crossed the road, because the flock crossed the road” to the ones who opted to be left behind, and cross the road to and from another direction, it’s your decision to make. But to tell you the truth, I can only name a few chickens who decided not to join the flock and became successful. 

"Doubt" The Subversives' Defense

The Renaissance Subject “The Thinking I”

As maritime expedition fomented Europe’s literal horizons and the value of Renaissance canvasses emancipated man towards a newly discovered perspective of legitimation, humanist scholars assigned a heavier inclination towards the ‘here’ and the ‘now’ – the advent of existentialism. This marks the birth of a personal and individual ‘I’, sensible of a divinity withdrawing its transcendent existence from outside affairs. But inside the rational boundaries of logical economy in the development of individualism, the ecstasy nested on the expectation of gigantic possibilities was short-lived. Once the human subject has pledged into the task of personal judgment and perception, it successively doubted and questioned the principle of traditional authority, remanufacturing the loneliness heired from frustrated certainty. Yet again, finding the absurdity of relying on the outside world for self recognition, the renaissance subject directed the question towards its own perception thus, addressing doubts towards the evidences of the senses. However, paralleled with the manner that the medieval subject centered its perception confidently in God or a feudal overload, the renaissance subject clung to the autonomy of its own perceptions despite the possible intervention of illusions that might contaminate it. From a Lacanian perspective, this position of clinging to an autonomy of self-perspective in the presence of fading illusions cowarded an ‘unconscious’ aspect of being.

But however philosophic and religious skepticism set the human subject into a bounded journey; (bounded in the quest to question the church, the king and the divine right, nature, and its own memory or self perception) can it know anything? For sure?

An answer was given by a modern thinker by the name of René Descartes whom Lacan considers to be the father of modern sciences. It is via Descartes’ ‘cogito, ergo sum’ that Lacan places the relinquishment of ‘certainty’ forever

Resting certainty upon doubt, Descartes overwhelmingly introduced the subject to the outside world as indistinct from its own psychic functions. Thus, he has assigned the succeeding thinkers to the path of reifying the thinking subject, which in their final analysis, the only entity left for them to rely upon.

Doubt propelled human history – all great political figures doubted everything in their path. When the subject was empowered and placed in the center of the universe in the advent of the Copernican Revolution, the “Thinking I” became burdened with the responsibility to doubt.

Brutus’ Defense

In the course of human history, people who allegedly wronged their leaders like the people who blinded the wise man in the cave and the Senators, Consuls, Governors and Praetors who assassinated Julius Caesar merely doubted the existing reality that time. Albeit their actions were biblically unethical, they just signified the act of “Doubting” depending on the standards of the existing social controls. With these acts, they were called “Subversives”. Blamed for the derailed progress – but if you think about it, the “Subversives” were, and still are a necessary obstacle for the continuity of cyclical history. The power play on the 6^th floor is just history repeating itself. If we say that the rise and fall of an empire is propelled by its people – then the group who tried to doubt the existing policies on the 6^th floor was just doing its 900 year old responsibility.

The Myth of Sisyphus – A Political tool in Corporate Power Play

 "Sisyphean task"

As a punishment from the gods for his trickery, Sisyphus was made to roll a huge boulder up a steep hill, but before he could reach the top of the hill, the rock would always roll back down, forcing him to begin again. The maddening nature of the punishment was reserved for Sisyphus due to his hubristic belief that his cleverness surpassed that of Zeus. As a result when Sisyphus was condemned to his punishment, Zeus displayed his own cleverness by binding Sisyphus to an eternity of frustration with the boulder rolling away from Sisyphus when he neared the top of the hill.

Since Sisyphus was bound to an eternity of frustration – his myth stopped there – he would then be often referred to in other myths if the need to signify Zeus’ superiority over man and other gods arises.

In Michel Foucault’s writings on Power Relation and Structuralism – he subtly concluded a clearer ending to the Myth of Sisyphus – so subtle that the suggestions are almost impossible to incorporate to the myth. I will reword the explanation with my own personal interpretation. It was implied that during the Sisyphean Task, Sisyphus never complained, he never even tried to stop to rest or actualize the larger intention of defying Zeus; instead, he obligingly carried on the task scheduled for eternity. With this Zeus got bored with the lack of diversity and eventually released Sisyphus.

There is a simple logical representation of Foucault’s Power Relation – that “Power cannot exist in the absence of Resistance” in line with the ancient theory of opposite by Hiraclitus – the claim that a being’s existence is dependent entirely on its opposite.   

Albert Camus, in his 1942 essay The Myth of Sisyphus, saw Sisyphus as personifying the absurdity of human life, but Camus concludes "one must imagine Sisyphus happy" as "The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart."

The Signified Power

In a university football field there is a Military Drill every Sunday – to some it’s ROTC to some it’s a living hell. The Officer shouted “Ten… hut” out of the 300 soldiers – some wannabes, some dying to go home and sleep it out – 299 stood as straight as electronically leveled lamp posts, 1 slacked it off and gave the officer the finger. The slacker was then punished to stay for the afternoon drill and was left alone in the sun while his classmates were sent home. The officer said – “That is what you get for not recognizing my power”

Using the Sisyphean Task and Foucault’s explanation of power relation through the ancient philosophy of opposites, who do you think signified the Officer’s power. Was it the all willing battalion of soldiers? Or was it the slacker who got extra sunburn?

The Fly and the Buffalo (Si Langaw at si Kalabaw)

The Fly and the Buffalo (Si Langaw at si Kalabaw)

This is a very old Filipino political fable – or should I say, more of a Zoomorphism or Anthropomorphism. Its origin – unknown - but it is so popular that it is being used across all Philippine dialects.

Si Langaw at si Kalabaw - Tagalog

Ni Ngilaw ken ni Nuang – Ilocano

Si Langaw buda si Damulag – Bicolano

Si Langaw ug si Kalabaw – Cebuano

Ketang Lango ampong Damulag - Kamampangan

We always refer to a person who looks, pretends, acts, feels, presents his/her self and – sometimes - actually is - smarter, bigger, bolder and more capable than his/her superior as the “Fly on top of the Buffalo”

We say “Ganun talaga, ang langaw na nakatungtung sa kalabaw eh mas mataas pa kesa sa kalabaw” when we see a person that fits into the descriptions above. From a superficial ethical standpoint, we use this phrase to describe a person who leverages his/her superior’s name, achievements, position and reference to showcase his/her own. To some, this is an act of incredibility, a defiance of the corporate ethics, the dark side of politics. In our colloquial expression – “Plastic”

But if we look deeper into the scientific facts behind the “Fly on top of the Buffalo” we will be surprised with the degree of political significance the phrase implies.

1) The Fly is on top of the buffalo because it feeds on the latter’s dead skins and microbes that reside there – this relationship runs a fine line among a) Mutualism – since the buffalo can also benefit from the dead   skins taken off so cell renewal and maturity become faster with the help of the sun b) Commensalism – since the buffalo can neither lose nor gain anything form the fly’s adventures on its dermis and c) Parasitism – since the buffalo may suffer from health problems inflicted by the bacteria from the Fly’s feet and mouth it got from the fields manure.

2) The fly is on top of the buffalo to feed on the latter’s blood excreting from wounds inflicted by mosquitoes (Some species of fly don’t have the ability to bite off skin as tough as that of a buffalo’s – this can either

    be a) Mutualism since the buffalo can also use some blood loss to renew dirty blood or b) Parasitism – only the fly benefits from the relationship which is harmful to the buffalo

3) The Fly is on top of the buffalo to lay its eggs in the buffalo’s wounds so the larvae mature more rapidly feeding on the nutrients under  the buffalo’s skin

    this can either be a) Mutualism since the larvae can help boost the buffalo’s immune system by acting as anti-bodies battling harmful bacteria b) Parasitism – only the fly

    benefits from the relationship which is harmful to the buffalo

Give it to the Fly

If you read carefully, there is an equal weight given from a possibility perspective to Mutualism and Parasitism – meaning the buffalo can either lose or gain from the relationship. One can almost automatically conclude that the Fly gets all the benefits. It feeds on dead skins, it sucks blood, it propagates under the skin and ultimately – in line with the saying – It looks taller than the buffalo.

But come to think of it – there is great risk in staying on top of a buffalo – you can look taller than the buffalo and get all the benefits -  but a swallow can always spot you from afar and swoosh and swipe to eat you. Your death can benefit another animal to continue the circle of life and the buffalo will never be shaken – when you’re gone, another fly will take your place – Feeding on dead skin, sucking blood, and propagating to ensure the survival of your species.

Needless to say – this fable is far from fiction in the corporate world.

The second road to perdition

On the Ides of March 44BC - Gaius Julius Caesar was assassinated. He was stabbed 23 times, wounds that at least 60 people including Marcus Junius Brutus inflicted. A defenseless dictator, blinded by blood, fell for the last time – this time it was not because of an epileptic episode – but because of loss of blood and rapid organ deterioration. Rome’s journey to Imperialism – derailed – its leader – dead. His last words – to Brutus, "καὶ σύ, τέκνον;"  (transliterated as "Kai su, teknon?": "You too, child?" in English).

The assassination was “an attempt” of the subversives to forestall – directly – Caesar’s absolute power, and indirectly - the eminent peak of the Roman Empire. The unwise rebels didn’t realize the latter and claimed to Rome as implicated by Brutus’ Defense that it’s out of Love for Her.

They said it was for everyone’s sake – claiming that their actions were intended to emancipate the polis from the dark and vile cloak of dictatorship. With these flowery orations, the people rejoiced not knowing what lied ahead.

Caesar’s demise marked the end of “The Republic”. Social classes became social clashes. Albeit Rome’s path to glory was actualized by Caesar’s successor Octavian - Caesar Augustus – the first Roman Emperor – Rome’s journey to the summit became bewildering. Civil wars broke out – one after the other – their history, although valuable, is mute and unnecessary to tell.

The rise and fall of an empire will never be dependent upon its leader. It will always be propelled by its people.

Again – to the subversives – “Never follow a blind guide. If you do, make sure you leave at least one eye open”

A Bagatelle of The Road to Perdition

"The Allegory of the Cave" has been wrongly interpreted on the 6th floor - I would argue that the interpretation is wrong until the paradoxes of - a) the allegory itself  b) the actions of the man who saw the ideal world surface and present themselves too good to ignore

Here is the story - First, of the "Allegory of the Cave" to refresh everyone

Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. Socrates suggests that the prisoners would take the shadows to be real things and the echoes to be real sounds, not just reflections of reality, since they are all they had ever seen or heard. They would praise as clever whoever could best guess which shadow would come next, as someone who understood the nature of the world, and the whole of their society would depend on the shadows on the wall.
Then a supposed "wise man" at least the wisest of the prisoners performed the biggest leap of mankind, turned around and saw that the shadows and echoes represented other entities - truer, more empirical and more tangible. He realized that there was light outside the cave and saw that the things of which the shadows represented  were colorful and more pleasant to the eye.
He then turned back and told the rest of the prisoners what a beautiful and real world they were missing. No one believed the wise man - instead, due to his radical act -  they blinded him, never to see the world again.


The allegory has since been open to interpretations - on the 6th floor it has been interpreted as follows:

A guy  - "the supposed wise man" once dreamed of delivering the rest of the floor from the bondage of labor - or extra "Unpaid" labor if you will. He was willing to shake the foundation of the organization by seeking help from the government. He recruited people to join him in his cause. Contrary to the prisoners in Socrates' dialogues, subversive groups supported his journey to a "better" working environment. They have established a strong group that never succumbed to the rules and regulations of the organization - as if inspired by George Orwell's "Animal Farm" or Marx himself.

Now - to the people who know what is happening and what is about to happen - think about this - The Allegory of the Cave was written thousands of years ago - it has not been defied by meek attempts to follow the genius of Marx and Engels - and it should never be wrongly interpreted - EVER.

To the subversive folks out there - "Never follow a blind guide - if you do, make sure you leave one eye open"