www.soriano-ph.com

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 3 August 2008 Issue

It is safe to assume that Filipinos, as a people, are among the ‘easily pleased’, as compared to the other nationalities of the world. This notwithstanding, they also get hurt very easily, very onion-skinned in a manner of speaking. Little things make Filipinos in general happy but even the slightest incident could also trigger their disappointments.

Thus, a typical Filipino would always have something to complain about. More likely, however, he will keep the matter to himself than openly express, confront or even directly settle his gripes.  A Filipino would rather open his heart to, and seek comfort from, people who are close and dear to him even if they do not have any stake in his concerns. Many times, complaints are settled, or even exacerbate, through the grape vine in the chain of gossips and rumors.

Nevertheless, Filipinos love to communicate and express themselves. The Philippines would not be the text capital of the world if it were otherwise. Filipinos are everywhere in the digital divide with their blogs. Internet social networks like ‘friendster’ in fact are dominated by Filipinos. Filipino passion for music as a form of human expression is simply amazing.

While Filipinos are generally expressive, it is wonder why they would rather endure for as long as they can perhaps up to boiling point, than break the status quo. Make no mistake about it but the average Filipino has the heart for change, and would always hope for it, but he will never stake his person on it, especially if it would put his immediate family in jeopardy. He would rather suffer and protest in silence in this case until the clamor for reform or change has put the bandwagon in locomotion, that is when the battle lines are drawn.

Filipinos would openly express their love for their country but judging from how they live their daily lives as citizens, it is a source of wonder whether in fact they do. What should have been good for the country more often than not has to take a back seat in favor of convenience and parochial personal satisfaction. Choosing between what is good for the country and what is good for his very own or even his family’s interests (a usual line to justify his actions), a typical Filipino would obviously take the latter.   

A typical Filipino would have big dreams, high ambitions and would love to idolize and look up at a role model in pursuing his direction. What is disturbing these days is the impatience of many Filipinos to embrace the dignity of labor and hard work to ensure their economic success. Many are easily lured to professions, false opportunities, and even criminal endeavors that offer a quick fix. No wonder that when times are hard, there are more Filipinos lining up lotto betting stations, the illegal number game of jueting continues to flourish, there are incidence of corruption both in the public and private sector, the news never get tired of reporting people being duped of investment and money scams, and many young people abandon their dreams in favor of the career fad of the times. Nowadays, the only perceived measure of true success is money, and more money. Of course, this country is not alone in today’s highly materialistic environment.

Filipinos are generally reactive than proactive. They do not anticipate, or maybe refuse to aniticpate, difficulties and problems before they arise.  And when things go wrong, finger pointing starts, there would always be somebody to blame, and seldom would someone actually take responsibility for the mess.

In good or bad times, what is striking about Filipinos is their ingrained nature of finding joy in simple things and putting humor even to the most catastrophic situation. A Filipino is usually affective and easily shed tears while at the same time laugh at the situation without being necessarily happy about it.

There is no mutual exclusivity in the psyche of the Filipino. Anything goes so to speak. Whether this is good or bad could be seen where this country is, right now.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) – 30 September 2007 Issue

“There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind”, wrote American novelist and playwright, Joseph Heller, in his historical fiction book entitled “Catch-22” published in 1961. 

The book relates the story of a US bomber crew characterized by Captain Joseph Yossarian stationed in the Mediterranean island of Pianosa during the late stages of World War II.

BBC News reported that the book, which already sold more than ten million copies, is one of the significant novels of the 20th century. 

In his book, Heller described that Yossarian sought to be excused from flying suicidal mission. To do so, he must submit an official diagnosis from the flight surgeon that he is unfit due to insanity. But according to army regulations, any sane person would naturally refuse to fly dangerous combat missions. Therefore, by seeking to be excused on grounds of insanity meant that the bomber crew is in fact sane and is fit to fly. But those who willingly accept the mission implicitly demonstrate unfitness because of insanity and should be excused from flying without the need for a medical diagnosis.

In another setting, Yossarian offered marriage to a woman who felt distraught because no man would ever marry a woman like her who is no longer a virgin.  The woman rejected the offer claiming he is crazy for wanting to marry a non-virgin.
 
Both scenes satirically show that sanity is a prerequisite to recognize one’s own insanity.

Catch-22 depicts a paradox in a law, regulation or practice in which one is a victim regardless of the option taken because of a circular dilemma or a self-defeating logic. It creates a situation in which an action has consequences which make it impossible to pursue that action because it puts the person in a double bind or in a ‘chicken and egg situation’.

There’s always a ‘catch’ in day-to-day life. And that’s a practical reality that is difficult to escape from. A person cannot get a job without work experience but cannot get work experience without a job. An author cannot publish his work without an agent but cannot get an agent until his work is published. Schools portray a vital role in students’ reformation and learning and yet would shun students away when they obtain failing grades or commit some delinquencies.

But when Catch-22 widely afflicts public governance, society stinks.

It is axiomatic that corruption is one of the major causes of poverty, yet poverty is also an important element to keep corruption alive. As Manila Times senior reporter Annie Ruth C. Sabangan said in her January 6, 2004 special report: “Corruption became even more ingrained. Every administration’s effort to cure the disease appeared to be just a part of a vicious circle. Worse, the public perception lingers that the ones offering solutions are in fact part of the corruption problem.”

What is paradoxical, tragic or perhaps satirical in the Philippine setting is to see the same chameleons simply switching roles and standing either as accusers or the accused, the oppressor or the victim, depending on the prevailing political scene or social climate.

In one interview, Heller summed up his intentions in writing the novel in this wise: “everyone in my book accuses everyone else of being crazy. Frankly, I think the whole society is nuts – and the question is: What does a sane man do in an insane society?”

In the final chapters of Heller’s book, he said: “anything can be done to you that you can not prevent,” and so the only solution is to entirely break out of the system. Thus, Heller’s hero deserted and fled to Sweden.

No wonder millions of Filipino have opted to leave the country out of dismay.  Unfortunately, the Filipino who would lead the country out of Catch-22 is yet to be heard.

PUBLISHED: ‘Note Verbale’, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Times) – 23 September 2007 Issue

A devastatingly handsome young man from New York married his cousin. They say that this man has an unusually vigorous sexual appetite that made his wife consider sex as an ordeal. He had a serious illicit relationship with his wife’s beautiful social secretary, with a young princess from Norway, and carried on a 20 year secret affair with his father’s private secretary.

This man was a chain smoker and known to drink eight to ten shots of martinis a day. They say that he was used to having his own way and never had any doubt that he could always get what he wanted without regard to its moral righteousness. And he did, even after suffering from polio.

The man is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, considered as one greatest presidents of the United States and the only one who occupied that position for more than two terms. He was responsible for the New Deal, a series of economic programs that provided relief to the American economy during the Great Depression in the nineteen thirties.

Born from an aristocratic family in United Kingdom, this man was known for his independent and rebellious nature as a child and performed poorly in school for which he was punished.  In 1915, he took much of the blame for the shameless fiasco in the Battle of Gallipoli during World War I, being one of its political and military engineers. Because of the shame from such incident, he was demoted from his cabinet position until he finally resigned from his position.

The man’s fondness for alcohol was well-documented. They say that he consumed alcoholic drinks almost daily for long periods in his life. His favorite was the Johnnie Walker Red whisky. They also say that he often sleeps until noon and used opium while in college.

The man is Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, a politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He was a noted statesman, orator, strategist and a key world leader during World War II. His life has been considered to a unique extent as part of modern British and world history. He even won a Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953 for his own historical writings.

On the other hand, a man born in Austria led one of the greatest expansions in industrial production and civil improvement that Germany had ever seen. He also led the largest infrastructure works in Germany with the constructions of dozens of dams, autobahns, railroads and similar facilities. His policies stressed on the importance of family life with men as breadwinners and women dedicated to rearing up their children.

The man was a decorated war hero and was a known vegetarian. He did not smoke and even promoted aggressive anti-smoking campaigns throughout Germany. And the man, of course, is no other than Adolf Hitler.

The rough profile of these three men figured in circulated emails asking readers which candidates to choose for a political office judging from their background. And without knowing the personality behind their profile, the choice would obviously go to Adolf Hitler.

The foregoing highlights the fact that it is always unfortunate when people recklessly pass judgment on other people for the mistakes they supposedly commit in the course of their lives. Who does not err in the first place?  Even saints, heroes, and popes did, once upon their lives.  But it is non sequitur that people with distorted values or commit their own share of misdemeanors once upon a time would never have their rightful place in society and history. 

What really distinguishes a life of infamy and a life of distinction is the ability of the person to rise above the defining moments of his or her life, especially at a time when his or her sense of innate goodness is being called upon to act and react.

In life, there is no such a thing as an indelible blot if only the person knows how to seek relief from the inherent goodness of his or her own conscience and heart.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) – 12 August 2007 Issue

Two suspects were arrested for a crime. Because the police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, the suspects were detained in separate rooms at the police station and were offered individually the same terms of deal. If one implicates the other, he may go free while the other could receive a life imprisonment.  If both stay silent or do not implicate the other, it is likely that both of them receive moderate sentences for a minor offense.  If both implicate or betray each other, each receives a severe penalty but less than life.

Each suspect therefore must make the choice whether to implicate the other or to remain silent. Neither suspect however knows for sure what option the other suspect will take.  The dilemma is – how should the individual suspects act?

This situation in game theory is known as the ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ (also referred to as PD), a type of non-zero-sum game in which two players may each ‘betray’ or ‘cooperate’ with the other player. In this game, the only concern of each player (prisoner) is maximizing his own payoff without any concern for the other player’s payoff.

Ordinarily, it is crucial to predict what the other person will do to arrive at a strategic decision.  But this is not the case obtaining in the situation. If the suspect knew that his co-suspect would stay silent, his best move is to betray and walk freely out of jail. If the suspect knew that the other would betray, the best move is still to betray in order to receive a penalty less than life because to remain silent would mean getting a capital punishment. Betrayal in this game becomes the dominant strategy because no matter what the other player does, the other player will always gain a greater payoff by opting to betray.

The unique equilibrium of the game is the so-called ‘Pareto Optimality’, named after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto who used the concept in his studies of economic efficiency and income distribution. The outcome of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is Pareto Optimal if there is no other option that would make every player at least as well off and at least one player strictly better off because the outcome cannot be improved without hurting at least one player.

Another solution concept of the game is the ‘Nash Equilibrium’ named after American mathematician and 1994 Nobel Prize awardee for Economics for his game theory, John Forbes Nash Jr. His life inspired the 2001 drama film, A Beautiful Mind. Under his concept, players are in equilibrium if a change in strategies by any one of them would lead that player to gain less than if he remained with his current strategy.

Technically, PD demonstrates that in a non-zero sum game a Nash Equilibrium need not be a Pareto Optimal.

The ‘game theory’ is a branch of applied mathematics and economics that deals with strategic interactions between agents. It is a theory of competition stated in terms of gains and losses among opposing players. The essential feature is to provide a formal modeling approach to social situations where decision makers interact with other agents.  This interdisciplinary research field came into being with the publication of a 1944 book entitled “Theory of Games and Economics” written by American mathematician John von Neumann and Austrian economist Oskar Morgenstern.

The game theory was widely used by RAND Corporation, a US based non-profit global policy think tank, particularly in defining nuclear strategies. The Prisoner’s Dilemma as a game theory was patterned after the model of cooperation and conflict framed by mathematicians Merrill M. Flood and Melvin Dresher while working at RAND in 1950.  Mathematician Albert W. Tucker subsequently gave the name and interpretation.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is all about strategic thinking, a mental process which many Filipino leaders seriously and obviously lack these days.

PUBLISHED: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 3 June 2007 Issue

Individual success or failure is often measured in terms of the state of prosperity or fame that a person attained.  This is a poor and myopic standard though.

Success is relative and thus would vary from person to person depending on his or her personal goals in life. These goals may not even fall within the ambit of the ‘prosperity or fame’ frame.  Everyone, and not only celebrities, the rich or the powerful, has the right to claim his or her own success. Everyone has the equal opportunity to succeed.

The road to success should always begin with the first step of finding out personal goals. One may have several goals that would lead to one big goal. But the most important thing is to clearly define what that goal is. Not having a goal is like jumping off from the starting line of a race without any clear direction in mind where to go or where the finish line is.  In this situation, there is no way to gauge success for sure. And the ultimate effect is failure.

Failure is a fact of life.  No matter how much or how well one prepares, there would always be some events, conditions or extraneous circumstances that would stand as a barrier towards personal success. The one good thing about having smaller and short-term goals is that sporadic failures in meeting them do not necessarily prevent a person from succeeding. Sporadic failures in fact could be vital factors in the attainment of the ultimate goal. They could make success sweeter and fuller in a sense.

Some goals are set too low and some to high. It really does not matter. Goals are driven by individual motives and capacity anyway. The only difference is that the higher the dream, bigger and greater efforts are required.  Life coach and motivational speaker and author of “If Success Is a Game, These Are the Rules”, Cherie Carter-Scott, aptly said: “Ordinary people believe only in the possible. Extraordinary people visualize not what is possible or probable, but rather what is impossible. And by visualizing the impossible, they begin to see it as possible.”

Once that goal is set and clearly defined, a person needs at the minimum – focus, determination and motivation – to move closer to the realization of his or her dream.

In this busy, complicated and crazy world, there is a lot of stuff that really generates, attracts and entices special interest and challenges to make a person deviate from the things that need to be done to achieve a purpose. And a conscious effort to stay focused, could spell the difference in knowing how soon a person could accomplish a goal, or whether or not the person could attain it after all.

Determination is also critical factor in achieving one’s goals. The lack of determination would always put the sense of focus in great jeopardy. Without determination, small and sporadic failures become a major hindrance and a source of discouragement. “It is the ‘follow through’ that makes the great difference between ultimate success and failure, because it is so easy to stop”, said American scientist, social philosopher and a 1933 cover of the Time Magazine, Charles Franklin Kettering.

Of the essential ingredients to succeed, motivation is perhaps that most crucial.  Without motivation, it is extremely difficult to stay focused and determined. Motivation is always the source of inspiration and incentive to do something mirthfully or oftentimes with least effort even if it is very difficult or when everything seems to fail.  

But what if the person still failed in accomplishing his or her preset goals? 

That is still success because all the small and big efforts devoted toward it are never wasted. Remember that a person who failed in his or her goals may still become the trailblazer, the pioneer, the innovator, the groundbreaker, or simply a model, an inspiration or example for others to emulate.

Certainly, a purpose-driven life would never lead to failure regardless of its outcome.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 29 April 2007 Issue

Sometime in 350 B.C., Greek philosopher Aristotle said in his work ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ that happiness “is a first principle; for it is for the sake of this that we all do all that we do.”

The pursuit of happiness is a constant aspiration since the beginning of mankind and has been the subject of continuing discussion all through out world history. People seek success, fame, wealth, health, gratification, acceptance, love and affection because of the state of happiness that they thought these human desires would bring them.

Daniel H. Pink, author of the book “A Whole New Mind”, observed that since the time of Scottish philosopher and political economist, Adam Smith, the wealth of nations is used as a proxy to determine the well-being of the nation. Whether life is better is measured in terms of gross domestic product (GDP), inflation, and similar economic tools. He noted that every American is three times richer today judging from the per capita GDP of the US, which is represented by the total value of goods and services that the country produced, divided by its population. But Americans do not feel one jot happier. He argued that there is ample evidence to prove that material wealth and broader happiness are no longer in sync in post-industrial societies.

Almost a year ago, BBC News Home editor Mark Easton reported that the science of happiness poses huge questions to politicians. Governments have succeeded in delivering greater wealth that has not translated into extra happiness. He cited the 1999 statements of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair that money is not everything but in the past governments have seemed to forget this because success has been measured only in terms of economic growth, or GDP alone.

They say that the idea that politics should be about ‘creating the greatest happiness of the greatest number’ dates back to the 18th century when British philosopher Jeremy Bentham advocated his principles of utilitarianism.

In 1972, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck of Bhutan coined the term Gross National Happiness (GNH) in an attempt to define the quality of life of his people in a more holistic and psychological terms as distinguished from GDP.  The King wanted to build an economy that would serve his country’s unique culture based on Buddhist spiritual value.  When he abdicated his throne on December 14, 2006, Bhutan’s economy grew by 14 percent and its standard of living is one of the best performing in South Asia.

They say that conventional development models stress economic growth as the ultimate objective. GNH, on the other hand, is based on the idea that true development of human society would take place only when both material and moral development is achieved by complementing and reinforcing each other. They further say that there are four pillars of GNH, namely: promotion of equitable and sustainable socio-economic development; preservation and promotion of cultural values; conservation of the natural environment; and establishment of good governance.

In 2006, British think-tank, New Economics Foundation, released its Happy Planet Index (HPI) based on the rationale that the ultimate aim of most people is not to be rich, but to be happy and healthy. In that index, Vanuatu, Columbia and Costa Rica were ranked as the first three countries with the highest HPI. The Philippines placed 17th while Bhutan ranked 13th. UK and the US were on the 108th and 150th spot, respectively. Zimbabwe was at the tail end.

The index seems to show that being rich is not the end all to attain happiness. People are happy for as long as circumstances of stability, peace, love and fairness exist in their midst. 

British Conservative Leader David Cameron is probably right when he said: “We should be thinking not just what is good for putting money in people’s pockets but what is good for putting joy in people’s hearts.”

In the end, government’s determination towards progress and development would lose all its sense when people are not happy after all.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) – 18 February 2007 Issue

Apathy is defined as the psychological term for a state of indifference. It is a condition where a person lacks emotion or enthusiasm and becomes unresponsive to situations involving his physical, emotional or social life.

For some people, apathy is a given medical or pathological condition. But for others, it is a mental reaction towards helplessness or even to a lack of interest on matters that one does not consider really important even if they really are.

It is an alarming situation when people no longer show some concern to others or about the society and the environment in which they live.

In his speech The Perils of Indifference during the 1999 Millennium Lecture series at the White House, American-Jewish Eliezer ‘Elie’ Wiesel, a holocaust survivor, political activist, novelist and a recipient of the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize, made a point on the evils of apathy when he delivered these lines:

“Is it necessary at times to practice it (indifference) simply to keep one’s sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals?

Of course, indifference can be tempting — more than that, seductive. It is so much easier to look away from victims. It is so much easier to avoid such rude interruptions to our work, our dreams, our hopes. It is, after all, awkward, troublesome, to be involved in another person’s pain and despair. Yet, for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbors are of no consequence. And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the other to an abstraction.”

“In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be creative. One writes a great poem, a great symphony, one does something special for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it. Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response.

Indifference is not a beginning, it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor — never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees — not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity we betray our own.

Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment.”

There is a creeping culture of apathy in Philippine society. Many Filipinos no longer wish to take an open stand between good and evil, to get actively involved in good governance or in looking after the welfare of others, or to do or pursue what is right even if it hurts or is inconvenient.

Who would have the audacity to stand as a witness to a heinous crime? How many would have the kind heart to share to others the little that he has? In seeing a victim or an injured along the road, would there be more people truly rendering assistance or would there be more curious onlookers? How common is it for people to take a moral stand or challenge the status quo even if it meant punishment or losing a privilege?

There is certainly a way to break this vicious pattern of indifference. The question is – who has the resolve?

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) – 11 February 2007 Issue

Romantic love is the usual focus of public attention on Valentine’s Day. The occasion is one big commercial event that provides lovers the social amenities, if not the ambiance, to exchange tokens of affection one way or the other in the observance of the occasion.

Theoretically, romantic love is distinguished from other forms of love in the sense that it is driven by both emotional and sexual desires. They say that romantic love is typically the result of a random encounter, oftentimes irrepressible, not purely predicated but always end up on sexual desires, and, if requited, could be the basis of long-term or life-long commitment, like marriage, in the same manner that it could result in illicit intimacies.

Both emotional and sexual reciprocation are key ingredients in every romance. Take away the emotional aspect and love is transformed to mere eroticism. Take away the sexual motivation and love would take another form, perhaps platonic or familial.

Since reciprocation is almost always expected in romantic love, what happens if the love is unrequited?

Many people who had unrequited love can attest that the experience could be tortuous, if not traumatic on both sides especially if the love-struck person develops obsessive behaviors, resort to stalking and even aggression. Others would just ignore the emotional distress by simply enjoying that loving feeling, which eventually will end up also in frustrations and a deep feeling of resentment, if the love is ultimately rejected or remained unrequited for a long time.

BBC News in a February 6, 2005 interactive report declared: “Unrequited love can be a ‘killer’. The news item cited the findings of expert psychologists that many people are “destabilized by falling in love or suffer on account of their love being unrequited”, which could lead to certain manic conditions, depression, elevated mood, inflated self-esteem, and in extreme cases, suicide attempts. People could die from a broken heart or get into a state of despair and hopelessness.  Some would suffer from an extreme state of physical exhaustion, tearfulness and insomnia.

Of course, there are also situations of unrequited love that conclude in happy endings but it is almost a fairy tale. 

In fact, the usual tragedy and pain attributed to unrequited love has made it a popular idea or themes of music and literary works for centuries. Roxanne of Cyrano de Bergerac in the play of noted French poet and dramatist, Edmond Eugène Alexis Rostand, or the Dulcinea of Don Quixote in the novel written by Spanish novelist, poet and playwright, Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, are classical works that depict unrequited love.

But is it possible for a person whose love is unrequited to just show altruism or simply love another person selflessly without any anticipation or expectation of a reciprocal emotional fervor?

If love is familial (or based on blood ties or common ancestry) or platonic (or based on a deep friendship minus the sexual element), it is a non-issue whether or not love is requited because the more profound a person expresses his affection without expecting any thing in return is nobler.

The same situation may not obtain though in a desired romantic love because of the difficulty to attain sexual submission if there is no emotional response from the person simply met in a random encounter.

There is certainly nothing like having that loving feeling. But if romantic love is initially unrequited or maybe remains unrequited, it is obviously prudent to make logic or reason prevail over the heart to avoid possible state of desperation, or worse self-destruction.

This day of the hearts, remember that it is always better to ‘grow’ in love than to ‘fall’ in love.