Deconstruction is one of the philosophies that shook the world of the philosophers. For Derrida who constructed the deconstruction, we cannot define what deconstruction is but what deconstruction is not. Language has its own world it has its own life that if we utter, say, or speak we free the language or the words. We cannot own them anymore that they are out of our control it has its own truths. There are three worlds in the language; the world of the speaker, the world of language and the world of the audience or the receiver of the spoken words. It is the speaker who is the one who utters; the one who is responsible for the words he will speak. The speaker is the giver of ideas to the receiver. Language having another world is responsible on its own after the speaker uttered the words. The words may or may not be the truth, depends on the speaker if he/she will say the reality or not but the words will take its course to uncover its reality after being given of its freedom. We all cannot say that our interpretation of words or the text are correct or exact to the real meaning of it. Thus we can only approximate the nearest or the closest meaning of the text we cannot also separate ourselves and our biases in every time we speak or in interpreting, understanding words being heard or read. Deconstruction is different from destruction. It is not a critique, not a an analysis, not an abandonment of all meanings, it is somehow the seeing of the meaning of the text not as of the first glance, but understanding the meaning of the text by seeking its essential message going to the deeper and real message of the text. If and if there will be anything destroyed in deconstructive reading it is not the text, but he claim to an equivocal denomination of one mode of signifying over another.

 Anthem 47 was composed by Fr. Boy Celis. The title means: Anthem as song of praise, sacred song, religious, or the songs related to spiritual music. The son was titled in English but the text or the lyrics are in Hiligaynon. The lyrics would like to thank God for the generosity he has.

Nakabati kami sang maayo mo nga buhat kag amon nga nakita sa ciudad sang Ginoo. Sia magapadayon sa pagdampig sa amon sa pagbantay sang aton banwa sa iya nga gahum.

 In the first verse the song projects the goodness of God and his being a defender it may refer that trough the good woks of God he will defend his people and their city from adversaries, but he need not to use his power for He is good, for in doing good power is not needed, it may propose a war. There’s no need to use power. 

Amon ginakilala ang imo paghigugma samtang yari kami sa pagdayaw kag pagsimba. Ang bug-os mo nga banwa nagtipon sa pag-amba sang imong kadayawan kag imong pagdumala.

In the second depicts the faith of the people to wards God. It is in here that somehow people gave their faith in God in times that they are only as if under in the intoxication of God.

Sa sining kapiestahan amon ginabantala ang imo katarungan nga tanda sang gahum mo. Sa imo kaalwan kag sa imo nga kayo nagpakita ikaw sang Diosnon mo nga kaalam.

Here in the third verse the greatness and the omnipotent qualities of God were given emphasis.

Koro: Sa sulod sang imo nga templo nagapamalandong kami sang imong paghigugma kag imong pagdumala.

The chorus would like to show the summary of all the things tackled on the verses thus in prayer there is God.

There are some contradictions in the text but we are here not to critique but to understand what it should be, as a song of praise it is very important to us to approximate the real meaning of the song. Thus it is free and it can manage to set the reality of its meaning to others as not as literally but as having a world of its own. My purpose in not to destroy but to deconstruct how it was made and from where it was for. Thus it is all my opinions and my understanding of the text as I approximate there may be other approximations but to understand such texts are very hard and needs unbiased judgments.




Leave a Reply.