A Second-place Finish

This post is not about politics. It is about the state of our nation. 

This year's PH SONA was like a second placer's awarding ceremony. Yes, there were improvements, progress, wins, gains, victories since the past that we all can make a show of applauding loudly for. Yes, there were serious preparations done, more care to details given, more attention to intended effects and possible consequences practiced. But no one ever dreams of a second place finish in anything. The second place podium is never the goal. A close second is still a loss. It may seem harsh to say it, but we all know it is true: unless you win, you are a loser. Until the Philippines win, we are still collective losers. We still fall short of our highest aspirations.

Should it be enough to content oneself with small victories? Should it be enough to satisfy oneself with taking small steps? Should we always humble ourselves and not ask for something better? Should we always worry about pacifying hurt feelings or bruised egos in the name of saving face or social harmony? Widespread social harmony at the expense of a single martyred life will always be an unjust equation. And we martyr many lives each day because we have just not been good enough for so long. We have been so ised to losing, that second place begins to look like a championship.

If you say there are no winners or losers in life and that we are all part of one human family, then you are probably so used to a dysfunctional family that your senses to seek a better quality of life for all have dulled. Families do not need to live with injustice. Injustice can be eradicated. Eradicating injustice need not be slow. It does not need to come in baby steps. Taking one step towards the right direction does not need to come with two steps backwards.

The state of the Philippine nation at the moment can be likened to a one time prized fighter who got lazy and cocky and neglected his training and conditioning routine for a long time, and now wants to redeem himself in one final match so he puts in the effort again to get in shape to fight, but the years of neglect have taken their toll and the ghost of the past have caught up with present memories. Unless it is a win, it's a loss.

I'm tired of us losing and being told that it's just baby steps. We've been babies for too long. I'm tired of us losing and being told it's just birthing pains. It's already way past nine months and we are just lucky we are not dead yet. I'm tired of sugarcoated ego strokes. No one ever heals from a deep wound without feeling the sting of a disinfectant and we ever want to get rid of this cancer sore on our collective psyche we have got to get used to the bitterness of some of the most effective medicines. We have to take bigger steps. We have to let a few bruised egos and hurt feelings stand without feeling the need to soothe everybody's care at every turn. 

To lead a country you need to build consensus, yes. But whoever said consensus is only built through soothing and pacifying statements for all? Whoever said that nobody can get 100% of their way in a democracy? You should be able to get 100% of your way in a democracy if you can build a consensus behind the idea that some things get 0. Is it difficult to determine what gets 100 and what gets 0? Is it imposition of some dominant view to say that one thing will be fully supported and another thing will not be supported at all? No. It just takes conviction. 

How can you have conviction against enemies and not sacrifice social cohesion and harmony? Are Filipinos even allowed to have enemies or must we be friends of all? If you make yourself enemies of some, can you still be a good person? I think it is silly we even have to ask ourselves this. For a people who put in a lot of effort to get along well with others and who painstakingly try to avoid being called a bad person or being hated, we sure can be pretty mean-spirited and hateful in our everyday dealings. 

We are, at worst, spineless cowards who are afraid of openly judging people's mistakes because we fear to be judged by others on our countless errors and yet we secretly gossip and judge and laugh at every little mistake of others just to pass the time. Then, we have the arrogance to publicly claim decency and care and consideration and that we are all only for preserving social harmony, while inviting to the table the very people guilty of destroying our social fabric in the name of God knows what.

I never understood why we have to be "gracious" to those who have caused us so much harm and I never will. I refuse to understand it because I think attempting to do so is to engage in the worst form of brainwashing which is to brainwash yourself. I don't understand why we are so concerned about reforming sinners and redeeming offenders while we so carelessly martyr do-gooders and burden so easily the best among us.

The state of the nation at this time is that of a sad second-placer who has not yet learned that champions win because they have the drive to beat the others and not because we all get trophies in the end. Unless we win, we are losers. We can all win but we have to be willing to beat that loser in ourselves.

Phony, Hack, Fake

The worst kind of liar are those who lie to themselves and believe it.

An incurable affliction of the mind begins with falsehoods that a person lets sip in to their reasoning leading to a path toward irredemption. It bears repeating that "once does not make a habit, but choosing wrong again and again will make a person rabid."

Lying only leads to more lies, and an irredeemable liar will ruin others because they have already ruined themselves. It is hubris and debased flattery of one's ego to think that redemption is afforded to all. Redemption is a promise given only to the faithful, and fulfilled only by striving to cultivate virtues.

A covenant for peace is not unconditional. It is a pact to be uphold faithfully by those who enter into it. Those who fail to uphold their part have already invited ruin, and come judgment time, the unfaithful's protestations will only fall on deaf ears. Just as how they denied the truth, so too would a liar's final bargaining pleas be rejected.

Is Inequality Unavoidable?

I am no economist nor in any way savvy with trends involving money, but I am a citizen striving to live each day with dignity. 

I also have a strong belief about human nature.

I believe that each person is meant to fulfill their greatest potential. Each person is meant to go as far as their talents and character will take them. I also believe that the law of nature favors equilibrium, meaning everything must end up fair after all is said and done. Just as every person is given the freedom to strive and reach their full potential, every person is also accountable for their own in/decisions and in/actions. Every person is also afforded the freedom to opt out of fulfilling their potential. Because a human person is a free being, a human person can choose their own salvation or ruin.

But going back to inequality in the economic sense, here's what I think (I can explain better in the vernacular): Mayroong tatsulok ngunit hindi kailangan baliktarin ito. Kailangan patabain ang gitna. Ang magiging hugis ay maliit na tusok sa magkabilang dulo at malawak at pahabang espasyo sa gitna.

Ang mga inihayag kong paniniwala sa simula tungkol sa kalikasan ng tao ay maaaring maging argumento rin para sa importansiya ng pagsulong ng matatag at malawak na middle class. Kung ang bawat tao ay mayroon mang kalayaang umangat o bumagsak ayon sa kanyang karapatang mamili at mag-desisyon para sa sarili, sa kanyang paggamit o hindi paggamit ng sariling potensyal, at sa kanyang karakter o pagkatao, ang kalayaang ito ay maaaring magsimula lamang sa isang matatag na pundasyon sa gitna. Hanggat hindi pa lubos na nabibigay ang kalayaang ito sa lahat, hindi pa natatapos ang gawain para sa tunay na pagkapantay-pantay.

Is inequality inevitable? It is not if we are willing to strive for its eradication.

The Things Dreams Are Made Of

Freedom is not light nor is it heavy. Freedom gives you the power to move unimpeded however you may please and all the weight that comes with this. Thus, something that has been set free has both power and responsibility that can never be acquired any way else by those still in shackles. A free being knows to pay the rightful tribute to the past, to be still in the presence of the now, and to build a future worthy of both those that yet to come and of the binds that gave rise to itself.

The Morality of Evolution

Studying Darwin's work on evolution is an important part of the discipline of Psychology's scholarly spirit. After all, if we want to explore the human condition, a study of the origin of our species is an indispensable cog in the wheel. Human nature is build up of many facets and one of those is undeniably our collective ancestry - our biological, physical, social, and psychological past.

Throughout the years, the study our evolutionary psychology and the corresponding consensus regarding its true nature have shifted perspectives depending on new uncovered information, more evidence for past findings or solidifying old assumptions, and the zeitgeist. To my mind, these perspectives can be broadly summed up into two main categorical ideas to date: evolution (and therefore people are) is immoral and favors the strong gene dominating or killing the weaker gene, or evolution (and therefore people are) is amoral and actions happen without any value judgment or principles behind.

But what about the idea that evolution is moral? Is it possible that nature favors the survival of genes that strive to reach a better and more ideal state, while protecting the vulnerable and nurturing the weaker genes in its surrounding because, as evolved and conscious species, we know innately that we are only as strong as the weakest link among us? I believe this is possible.

The discipline of psychology as it explores human nature can give evidence to an, as of now, understated part of a person's natural urges -- the instict to serve, to do good, and to pursue progress and the ideal not only for oneself but for all in the gene pool of humanity. 

If evolutionary psychology is moral, how can we explain the brutality among our existence? If nature and people are innately good, why do bad things happen? Personally, I think bad things should not happen. When they do, that means an error has occurred. It makes sense that because we are still evolving, imperfect creatures, mistakes will still happen. Some mistakes will be grave and difficult to come back from. But, our history as a species is long. We should learn and adapt. As a matter of fact, the only way to survive is to learn and adapt. And if it is true that evolution is moral, that the genes that survive are those that are closer to our better nature, then it would mean that the best type of adaptation is to learn from past mistakes that had pulled us down to moral squalor and to then rise up to our more conscious selves. 

If the unconscious, according to Freud, is made up of our repressed trauma and base sexual and agression drives which leads a person to be psychologically infantile when they are unable to rise above these, then to strive to be conscious should mean to heal from our personal and collective trauma, to control baser urges, and to fully realize the flourishing of our better and more moral nature.

Ang Pakikisama ay Hindi Pakikipag-Kapwa

Sa kulturang Pilipino, ang pakikisama ay karaniwang nangangahulugan ng pakikisabay sa ginagawa ng iba. Halimbawa, sumama sa iba sa inuman, makisabay sa usapan ng grupo, o makisalo sa handaan sa opisina, eskwela, o kahit sa bahay. Nangangahulugan rin ito kadalasan ng pakikisabay o pagsama sa kagawian ng isang dominanteng grupo. Minsan, kahit mali ang mga gawi ng karamihan, may nakikisabay pa rin dito dahil sanay makisama.

Sa kabilang banda, ang pakikipagkapwa ay nangangahulugan ng mas malalim na bagay para sa kulturang Pilipino. Kapag sinabing "kapwa", hindi ito ibig sabihin na ibang tao lamang. Kahit rin minsan ginagamit ito upang tukuyin ang ibang tao kasama ang sarili, iba rin ito ng kahulugan sa "tayo". Kapag sinabing "kapwa", nagbibitiw ng paninindigan na ang sinumang iba ay kapantay ng sarili. Hindi ito simpleng salita na nangangahulugan ng "tayo" o "ako at ikaw" o "kagrupo ko". Ang paninindigang kakabit nito ay mayroong moral na implikasyon. 

Sa ganitong pananaw, iba ang kahulugan ng pakikisama sa pakikipagkapwa dahil bagama't maaari tayong magkamali at makisama sa mali, walang sinuman ang maaaring makipagkapwa para sa mali. Sinasabi nito na hindi kailangan mabura ang sariling prinsipyo para lang mabuhay kasama ang iba, na kadalasan ay binubura kapag nabanggit ang "pakikisama". Ang pakikipagkapwa ay nangangahulugan ng paninindigan para sa tama, sa moral, at sa respeto sa pagkapantay-pantay ng bawat tao kahit magkakaiba ang estado at kinalalagyan sa buhay. 

Instinct

There is a well-known experiment by a psychologist named Martin Seligman, where he administered controlled electric shock to a cage with a dog inside. At first, he would only let the electric current run on portions of the cage. He would see the dog move to safety to the unelectrified sections of the cage. But on one test, he electrified the entirety of the cage and there was no safe surface. 

At first the dog tried to find a safe spot, but when it realized there was none, it just slowly lay down in one spot of the cage and accepted the shock. Even in subsequent experiments where there was a safe spot on the other side of the cage that could be reached by jumping over a low barrier, the dog did not try to escape. This experiment brought about a famous concept in psychology called "learned helplessness". In a nutshell, it is about how both animals and humans can learn to be helpless in situations where they perceive harm as inescapable.

Seligman would later become known for his work in the field of Positive Psychology. The focus of this field is directly opposite to that of inducing learned helplessness. It is about looking at strengths rather than weaknesses, and developing healthy coping when faced with problems.

But, personally, I think Positive Psychology these days have gone on to spawn ideas that seem to circle back to Seligman's learned helplessness, namely those ideas that has been termed collectively as "toxic positivity". Many people are already familiar with this term casually. It is typically used to indicate something that seemingly glorifies only the positive aspects of a situation to the point of appearing to dismiss its legitimate negative sides, just to avoid experiencing negative feelings. "Walang nega, good vibes lang" is a colloquial phrase that easily comes to mind.

I think both animals and humans have an innate drive to reject helplessness. Faced with adversity, an instinct kicks in to fight back. Some may call this survival instinct. But, I think, if it is to be a healthy and sustainable quality, it has to do with something more than just survival. Mere survival is not enough of a reason to sustain perseverance amid difficulties. To supplement survival, some have added pleasure-seeking into their life's goals. At best, it means to chase your happiness, whatever that may be for you. At worst, it gets people caught up in chasing false leads to get to more money, more power, and just more of everything, until greed takes over and no amount of reason can get them out of the endless chase. Just as in learned helplessness, a wrong assumption had already been formed, and they are now helplessly at the mercy of getting more money and power, stuck in a rat race, like a drug addicted person chasing the next fix. Some say, we should temper baser instincts with faith or religion. But we know that comes with its own poison - unreasonable dogmatic extremists who impose their belief system on others while they live a hypocritical lifestyle unmoored from their own beliefs. In all cases, it brings to mind the image of people who are surviving, but who are nonetheless helpless and broken.

So how can we truly go through difficulties without letting our spirits break? How can we live above mere survival and not settle for toxic positivity, broken pleasure-seeking, or fatalistic beliefs? I truly believe no one can answer that for another person. Every person has to find that answer for themselves. But no one can answer something without asking it first. Sadly, for too many people, even the act of asking themselves this simple and, to my mind, an all important question, goes neglected. It is buried as a priority way below daily distractions and activities, unscheduled leisure and scheduled work -- never to surface again until perhaps at a final, regret-filled hour. 

I have asked myself this question many times, but my answer won't matter here, because again, it might not be your answer. But, I will say this, I believe that compromise do not mix with values and principles, and that change for the better is not meant to be slow. And, I think that if psychology can prove to us that helplessness can be learned, or reveal that positivity can be toxic, then perhaps it can also give evidence to another side of the human condition. One that can reflect the idea that to be driven to realize progress founded on unwavering values and principles is as much a part of the human spirit as any other instinct we might have.