Recognize “cognitive challenge.”

Our best is not good enough!

If we can’t step up to the challenge, Juan de la Cruz is bound to suffer more.

Indeed, the worst is yet to come.

Because we can’t recognize our cognitive challenge – and it stems from our caste system.

The blog’s reason for being, after all these years, thirteen and counting, still stands.

We must reinvent ourselves!

We must learn to think “out of the box” – and we haven’t demonstrated the prospects.

Why?

We can’t think forward – and back.

It isn’t surprising. We’re into logical yet linear and incremental thinking. That’s how the world developed and pursued higher education. And that is why even in America, in the 1980s, they realized the failings of higher education.

Can we hold it right there?

Consider these two articles: (1) Public-private fusion for inclusive prosperity; (2) Five ways forward.

They are classic logical yet linear and incremental thinking.

What is it about thinking forward and back?

Have we ever met a “leader” that would be steps ahead of us?

That leader is beyond logical yet linear and incremental thinking.

It is also the distinction between “technocrats” and “leaders.”

Leaders can visualize beyond the logical and the obvious.

Let’s dig deeper into the assertion.

Why is public-private fusion not good enough in the case of the Philippines?

Consider that our GDP per person is less than half of Thailand’s and not even a third of Malaysia’s.

Moreover, they embraced the mantra articulated by Lee and Mahathir they shared with Deng: Beg for Western money and technology.

In other words, even if we double our budget for education and agriculture or whatever else, we will not match the scale – and the technology access – of these two neighbors.

Scale is another element that we can’t visualize.

We miss the view beyond the obvious and its magnitude.

And that explains why we’re the regional laggard.

And “five ways forward” won’t suffice. Why?

It does not visualize the “outcome” – which connotes the future. And why visionaries are few and far between. We want to be a developed, first-world nation.

In other words, the “playing field” of the future is beyond our grasp.

Those familiar with the blog may recall that when the wife and I first came to Eastern Europe, I had to spell out something fundamental: Freedom and the free market are not about rules but principles.

Put another way; rules are limiting; principles are mind-bending.

And so, despite their “outrage,” I did not spoon-feed them.

Consider their question: Do you think we can compete against the best in the West? They were the poorest nation in Europe, left behind under Soviet rule.

They had to see beyond the logical – that is, linear and incremental.

They had to learn to explore the brain chamber that houses forward, lateral, and creative thinking.

What about us Filipinos?

Our neighbors left us behind in “development,” which explains our “cognitive challenge.”

Sadly, our caste system gives us the mistaken belief that we can overcome the challenge.

Consider: Even America suffers from the failings of higher education. What makes us think that we don’t – when we lag our neighbors in education too?

Gising bayan!

In other words, the “playing field” of the future is beyond our grasp.

Consider this universe. How can we thrive in this demanding universe given our parochialism and insularity?

Or why are we closer to autocracy than democracy?

Consider our instincts: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.

In other words, we take the common good for granted – because our instincts nourish and perpetuate the crab mentality. And because the common good presupposes personal responsibility.

This universe is about dynamism and interdependence.

But why are we closer to autocracy than democracy?

Consider too that perfection is not of this world and why dynamism is imperative.

The invasion of Ukraine, for example, has again exposed the distinctions between democracy and autocracy.

Why is innovation more at home in a democracy than autocracy?

Why is the UK no longer a monarchy, for instance? Why did America overtake the UK in industrialization and innovation?

In other words, do we see how freedom-loving people and nations value dynamism and interdependence?

But because perfection is not of this world, the personal responsibility demanded by democracy is not a freebie. It is hard work and purposeful effort. And that’s why check-and-balance is imperative.

As my mother would say, birds of the same feather flock together, i.e., Trump, Putin, Duterte. And we can add the leaders of China, North Korea, and Syria, for example.

But why do we take for granted our instincts to veer closer to autocracy?

Unsurprisingly, Bongbong Marcos would be the next president.

To be sick and tired of freedom and democracy reveals how much we lack a principled outlook.

Freedom and the free market are not about rules but principles.

Our best is not good enough!

We must recognize our cognitive challenge.

If we can’t step up to the challenge, Juan de la Cruz is bound to suffer more.

Indeed, the worst is yet to come.

Gising bayan!