who is Manny Pacquiao?

wikipedia says... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manny_Pacquiao

It is interesting how fast this wikipedia article was edited by the acolytes of Manny-Pacquiao-knowing. With all the hype that accompanies this ground-breaking historical transcendence of boxing that Manny Pacquiao has achieved...

I'm sorry wikipedia, I beg to defer...

Any question of who is itself a philosophical one and essentially impossible to tell from a human perspective.

To answer the ultimate question of "who' is like saying the word "now"; that in its very utterance, it betrays its meaning.

I am now watching the show "Show me the Manny" with which Manny Pacquiao is the main attraction. Apparently, he is not there. How ironic can it get? The show capitalizes and even bases its title in the appearance of Manny and now he's not there!? Instead, he is replaced by a veteran comedian and impersonator, Micheal V as he acts as Manny that was supposedly victimized by an accident that ultimately changes his appearance.

To illustrate the irony a little further, Manny is brown and has a small, but very compact build and Micheal has a semi-Chinese complexion and medium-heavy build. But within the plot, the people in Manny's community eventually had to believe that Micheal was Manny because he exhibited the same behavioral patterns as Manny.

Is behavioral pattern a sufficient answer to "who"?

I guess not because actors wouldn't have a living if it were a sufficient answer. If then it is, then anybody can be an actor and an actress if that is the case. If ever, I could be Manny Pacquiao right now and pretend to be who I really am because writing is also simply a behavioral pattern or Manny Pacquiao could simply be me acting like the "greatest boxer of the world." Simply saying, no human person is reducible to how s/he lives his life; s/he is always something more than s/he reveals...

But how do you know who is Manny Pacquiao?

In one level, language has no capacity to express "who" since all verbs correspond to a definitive representation. To actually express a "who" the closest thing I would use is "is-ing" emphasizing continuity and dynamism. "Being" does not work because the verb "to be" in its most basic form signifies a stable nature while "is" means a movement and when it is transmuted into "is-ing" then the movement moves.

Who is Manny Pacquiao?

Is he THE agent of athletic excellence?

Is he THE representation of the cultural politics of that which is Filipino?

Is he THE take of point of Filipinos to achieve similar if not higher heights?

Is he THE categorical imperative? *maybe this is too much, much like what Kant's philosophy is... HAHAHAHAHA!

He is and is not at the same time!

He's like no one and like everyone!

To answer the "who" is to betray the possibilities of his is-ing and to make Manny a "what."

Let's put a pin on it!



and wait for wikipedia to update us...