Delusion meets reality

Meet Thomas More and George Orwell.

California officially became “The Golden State” in 1968. Older state nicknames, such as “The Land of Milk and Honey” or “The El Dorado State,” have presumably been used to encourage travel, tourism, and settlement in the area. These nicknames reflect California’s reputation as a land of endless wealth and abundance.” [Google]

From 1968, let’s fast-forward to 2023. “Around 90% of Californians – some 34 million people in the most-populous US state – were under a flood watch, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“Don’t test fate. We expect to see the worst of it still ahead of us,” Governor Gavin Newsom said at a news conference. Tens of thousands remain without power, and mass evacuations are underway, with more cyclones to come.

“People living in the elite coastal enclave of Montecito are among those ordered to leave their homes. The neighborhood near Santa Barbara is home to several celebrities, including the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – Harry and Meghan – and Oprah Winfrey. It is unclear if Prince Harry, who is currently promoting his memoir Spare, or his wife and children are currently in Montecito.” [California storm: Five-year-old boy swept away as residents told to flee - BBC News; 10th Jan 2023]

“A utopia typically describes an imaginary community or society that possesses highly desirable or nearly perfect qualities for its members. It was coined by Sir Thomas More for his 1516 book Utopia, describing a fictional island society in the New World. In common parlance, the word is used synonymously with “impossible,” “far-fetched,” or “deluded.” However, it may also denote an intentional community.

“Hypothetical utopias focus on—amongst other things—equality, in such categories as economics, government, and justice, with the method and structure of proposed implementation varying based on ideology. Lyman Tower Sargent argues that the nature of a utopia is inherently contradictory because societies are not homogeneous and have desires that conflict and, therefore, cannot simultaneously be satisfied. To quote: There are socialist, capitalist, monarchical, democratic, anarchist, ecological, feminist, patriarchal, egalitarian, hierarchical, racist, left-wing, right-wing, reformist, free love, nuclear family, extended family, gay, lesbian, and many more utopias.

“Utopianism, some argue, is essential for improving the human condition. But if misused, it becomes dangerous. Utopia has an inherent contradictory nature here.” [Wikipedia]

“Nineteen Eighty-Four (also published as 1984) is a dystopian social science fiction novel and cautionary tale by English writer George Orwell. It came out on 8th Jun 1949 as Orwell’s ninth and final book completed in his lifetime. Its theme centers on the consequences of (a) totalitarianism, (b) mass surveillance, and (c) repressive regimentation of people and societal behaviors. Orwell, a democratic socialist, modeled the authoritarian state in the novel on Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. 

“More broadly, the novel examines the role of truth and facts within societies and how they suffer from manipulation.

“Nineteen Eighty-Four has become a classic literary example of political and dystopian fiction. It also popularized the term “Orwellian” as an adjective, with many terms used in the novel entering common usage, including “Big Brother,” “doublethink,” “Thought Police,” “thoughtcrime,” “Newspeak,” and “2 + 2 = 5.”

“Orwell described his book as a “satire” and a display of the “perversions to which a centralized economy is liable” while also stating he believed “that something resembling it could arrive.” Parallels have been drawn between the novel’s subject matter and real-life instances of totalitarianism, mass surveillance, and violations of freedom of expression, among other themes. Time included the novel on its list of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to 2005, and it was placed on the Modern Library’s 100 Best Novels list, reaching number 13 on the editors’ list and number 6 on the readers’ list. In 2003, it was number eight on The Big Read survey by the BBC.” [Wikipedia]

As I started this posting, I am looking out from the sixth-floor balcony of a resort. Says its website, “An Oceanfront Gem on the Island of Enchantment. Soak up all the beauty and charm of Puerto Rico, surrounded by warm tropical breezes, turquoise waters, and Caribbean elegance. Set just 25 miles from historic San Juan along a prime stretch of famed Dorado Beach, this secluded seaside resort invites you to experience paradise.”

Yet, I would shake my head because I don’t see the adjacent property anymore, the original hotel – with its character – that drew my family to make it our winter escape over twenty years ago.

“Built around a grapefruit plantation, Laurance Rockefeller [yes, from that renowned family] bought the Dorado Beach Hotel in 1953, who opened it in 1958 as a Rock Resort.

“Hyatt Dorado to close; owners say renovations [following hurricane Maria] not worth it. As the 13th May 2006 closing date nears for the Hyatt Dorado Beach Resort & Country Club, what will become of the resort?

“Dorado Beach Hotel Corp., which owns the resort, cited the expense of renovations and upkeep on the 48-year-old facility as crucial reasons for shuttering the property. The decision to close is a consequence of the shortcomings of a facility designed 50 years ago. The facilities no longer fulfill the expectations and requirements of our guests.

“Hyatt had managed the 262-room resort, its sole property in Puerto Rico, since 1985. The nearby Hyatt Hacienda Del Mar Vacation Club Resort – a modern structure built to withstand hurricanes – is a timeshare operation not affected by the resort’s closure."

Disclosure: The family considered several locations to spend our golden years. Our first choice was Baguio. We all know what Baguio is like today. We looked at Cebu, Iloilo, and Davao too. And Filipino friends who retired in Soto Grande in Spain invited us for a look-see. We kept looking in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico; Palm Springs in California, West Virginia, and, of course, Dorado, Puerto Rico.

And Carmel, California, was on the list too. See above; look at California today.

The bottom line: Utopia is all but an imaginary community or society that possesses highly desirable or nearly perfect qualities.

That brings us back to a constant theme of the blog: We are a subset of this universe in continuous motion and expansion. And the late George Gorospe’s (SJ) definition of reality influenced me, but only after decades when I struggled – and I still do – to internalize what it meant, “Reality is beyond any human experience or system.”

Unsurprisingly, quantum physics – including geniuses like Einstein – accepts the probability of a higher being.

And that explains the elements of cognitive development. Beyond binary thinking, there is multiplicity and relativism – the imperative of context.

Can Filipinos overcome our instincts, a reflection of the Philippine caste system? We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy; ours is a culture of impunity.

Do we recognize that the Philippine economy is standing on the shoulders of Juan de la Cruz, i.e., the over $50 billion they bring in from the OFW remittances and call centers? 

Can we step up to our challenge, i.e., it is beyond creating jobs to address poverty and “inclusion”?

Do we recognize that we are embracing utopia? Can we accept the character of this universe – that demonstrates 24/7 that we thrive because of its ecosystem, the photosynthesis phenomenon?

If quantum physics is beyond classical physics, leapfrogging industrialization is beyond our practice of classical economics.

Consider: Rapid economic development and nation-building pose an even more significant hurdle given the challenge of the 21st century, i.e., innovation and global competitiveness.

Yet, it is not rocket science because our neighbors did it, one after the other.

Wrote Elfren Cruz, “Unlike traditional economists, the pope has proposed a framework for a new economy. He says: “The dignity of each human person and the pursuit of the common good are concerns which should shape all economic policies.”

Recall that the blog never fails to speak to the elements of cognitive development. It is a caveat to our instincts and values of hierarchy and paternalism.

In other words, the “common good” is not a binary thought – and that is why the strings of initiatives we’ve pursued over the decades have moved us only from the basket case of Asia to the perennial regional laggard.

For example, the comprehensive agrarian reform, the 4Ps, and the pursuit of job creation – e.g., the OFW phenomenon and call centers – to address poverty and “inclusion” have all failed Juan de la Cruz.

Disclosure: In our upcoming trip to Manila, I will assist a Philippine contact or call center enterprise – owned by a friend – to guide them in redefining their GPS. They have embraced the noble purpose of creating jobs for Filipinos.

Their heart is in the right place. Yet, they can’t ignore the demands of the 21st century: The “common good” is expressed as the pursuit of innovation and global competitiveness.

We know that despite the revenues call centers bring in, the Indians have left us behind because they’ve moved up the value chain, focused on software development and beyond, for instance.

If the values of hierarchy and paternalism reflect utopia, out-of-the-box thinking represents innovation.

Let’s hold it right there.

Absent experience in development, it stands to reason that we can’t appreciate forward, lateral, and creative thinking, given that we’re stuck in logical yet linear and incremental thinking.

Unsurprisingly, Franciscan theology calls us out for misunderstanding our faith; and stresses that it is beyond binary thinking or dualism. And why it preaches against far-right extremism.

And I could only grin that two New York Times columnists, representing the right side of the aisle in American politics, piled on their Republican Party. “The Party’s Over for us. Where do we go now?” [David Brooks and Bret Stephens, 11th Jan 2023}

“David: I have a zillion thoughts about where the Republican Party went astray, but do you have a core theory?

“Bret: I have multiple theories, but let me start with one: The mid-1990s was when Newt Gingrich became speaker of the House, and Fox News arrived. Back then, those on the more intelligent end of the conservative spectrum thought a magazine such as The Weekly Standard would complement Fox and Gingrich. The Standard would provide innovative ideas for Republican leaders like Gingrich, and Fox would popularize those ideas for right-of-center voters. It didn’t work out as planned. Why? The supposed popularizers turned into angry populists. And the populists turned on the intellectuals.

“To borrow Warren Buffett’s take on investing, the conservative movement went from innovation to imitation to idiocy. It’s how the movement embraced Donald Trump as a standard-bearer and role model. All the rest, as they say, is Commentary.

“David: I think I’d tell a similar story, but maybe less flattering to my circle. The people who led the Republican Party, either as president (Ronald Reagan through the Bushes), members of Congress (Jack Kemp, John McCain, Paul Ryan), or as administration officials and intellectuals (Richard Darman, Condi Rice) believed in promoting change through the institutions of established power. They generally wanted to shrink and reform the government. Still, they venerated the Senate, the institution of the presidency, and they worked comfortably with people from the think tanks, the press, and the universities. They were liberal internationalists and cosmopolitan believers in the value of immigration.

“Bret: I’d add that they also believed in the core values of old-fashioned liberalism: faith in the goodness of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, free speech, political compromise, and the political process itself. They believed in building things up, not just tearing them down. I would count myself among them.

“David: Then the establishment got discredited (Iraq War, financial crisis, the ossifying of the meritocracy, the widening values gap between metro elites and everybody else), and suddenly all the people I regarded as fringe and wackadoodle (Pat Buchanan, Donald Trump, anybody who ran CPAC) rose on the wave of populist fury.”

Brooks and Stephens were once brain trusts of the conservative movement. Yet it is unsurprising that they would reflect the bedrock of freedom and democracy, which is about principles, not rules.

Recall that Pope Francis excommunicated a priest for his far-right extremism, echoing the Trump anti-abortion rhetoric. Yet, not unlike polarized America, the Vatican has its challenge. There is the Benedict camp versus the Francis camp.

But then recall (a) the “Good thief” and (b) the parable of the talents. On the one hand, forgiveness and mercy are inherent in the God of Love; on the other, “personal responsibility” or stewardship – of the gifts of creation – is central to the “common good.”

Creation is good, says the Creator. Unsurprisingly, humankind thrives. Thanks to the dynamism of this universe in constant motion and expansion.

“No idea is final,” screams the thick book that caught my eye in the Institute of Contemporary Art museum in the Miami Design District. “The title, “No Idea Is Final,” is from a quotation by the Academy Award-winning director and screenwriter Taika Waititi. To us, it speaks not only to our ongoing creative process but also to the ability of every one of us to continually redefine our beliefs and decisions on the journey to becoming who we would like to be.

“When we started our digital magazine “The Talks” in 2011, the idea of inspiration was at the core of what we wanted to deliver to our audience. We wanted to hear from our subjects about (a) what drives them, (b) what they care about, (c) how they became “who they are now,” and (d) how they chose to get there.

“We wanted to create timeless conversations. Our concept was simple: one interview with an exceptional personality each week, somebody who uniquely influences our culture. We chose people “accomplished” at what they do so that they will remain relevant for years to come.

“Now, a decade and over five hundred interviews later, we still follow the same concept. For this book, we revisited those conversations, selected more than six hundred best quotes, and sorted them by theme to present a compact yet elaborate collection, bringing the digital to print.

“These interviews have helped us to understand different concepts of life. Therefore, we wish our readers a similar multilayered experience, some amusement, and the belief that everything in life is possible if you don’t stop dreaming. As Bruce Dern reminds us, “If you stop dreaming, it’s over.” [Sven Schumann and Johannes Bonke, founders of “The Talks.”]

Recall a constant theme of the blog: We are a subset of this universe in continuous motion and expansion. And the late George Gorospe’s definition of reality: “It is beyond any human experience or system.”

Delusion will meet reality, especially if we Filipinos don’t overcome our instincts that reflect the Philippine caste system: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy; ours is a culture of impunity.

Recall that the blog never fails to speak to the elements of cognitive development. It is a caveat to our instincts and values of hierarchy and paternalism.

In other words, the “common good” is not a binary thought – and that is why the strings of initiatives we’ve pursued over the decades have moved us only from the basket case of Asia to the perennial regional laggard.

For example, the comprehensive agrarian reform, the 4Ps, and the pursuit of job creation – e.g., the OFW phenomenon and call centers – to address poverty and “inclusion” have all failed Juan de la Cruz.

Utopia is all but an imaginary community or society that possesses highly desirable or nearly perfect qualities.

Gising bayan!