Pillars of the Pilipino
Dear Pillars of the Pilipino People,
ONE PEOPLE, ONE NATION
“A house divided against itself will fall.”
“The moon is always full - it is our view of it that is half full, or a quarter, or a crescent, or blue, or red; the light of the stars never dims, they are just covered by clouds or our dimming perspectives”; -- Anon.
The Nation grows as many Pillars as there are weak spots to be supported and sustained by their strength, stability, and unity of purpose and action; some Pillars build structures and systems, some Pillars find and allocate the money to fund them; some Pillars do the work designed for their highest and best use, for the highest number, reaching even far and remote places, so that no one is left behind and excluded; some Pillars are called to protect and preserve the built systems, and above all, when People, Communities, and ‘Ways of Life’ are threatened by calamities, disasters, disease or predators – they are called to expunge those threats judiciously, at the ‘speed of alacrity’. Predators are clever and devious and sometimes Pillars get contaminated and lose their way, but we can be sure the Community has the antibodies to defend itself, purge infected Pillars, and replace them with wiser, able ‘variants’.
The National Expenditure Program and other items in the legislative agenda like the MIF Bill are good or bad, adequate, or inadequate, only in so far as the way they serve the whole community, and all its parts, against all afflictions. Yet well-meaning people fight over the MIF with such destructive force, condemning it to be “beyond repair” instead of making or suggesting repairs on aspects that need them no matter how defective and how pervasive they are. Thank God that when some Pillars say, “it is beyond repair”, there are other Pillars like my barber, who can say “nothing is beyond repair”; like a UP alumnus who can say -- in complex systems such as the creation and management of wealth funds, “go for Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon’s concept of ‘Satisficing’ or the pursuit of practical satisfactory outcomes rather than unattainable perfection”.
Flagellation used to be a religious ritual practiced during Lent. Now, it is becoming a national reflex increasing in intensity, frequency, and visibility, like birth pangs; it’s all around us – on the streets, in mainstream and social media, and even in the Batasan Hills; people say it’s just a remnant of election fever, but there is never an excuse to self-destruct. The pseudo-pillars may call themselves highfalutin names like ‘makabayan’ but the Community can recognize a virus when they see one and will grow the antibodies to expunge them.
In conclusion, the Community needs to develop a deeper sense of ‘common interest’ over ‘special interests’, a spirit of the ‘Commons’ over the ‘Specials’. Some readings on the concept of ‘Commons’ can be useful:
URBAN COMMONS
“Urban commons present the opportunity for the citizens to gain power in the management of urban resources (Wealth Funds, for example?) and reframe city-life costs based on their use value and maintenance costs, rather than the market-driven value”.[20] Urban Commons situates citizens as key players rather than public authorities, private markets, and technologies.[21] David Harvey (2012) defines the distinction between public spaces and urban commons. Public spaces and goods in the city make a commons when part of the citizens take political action. Syntagma Square in Athens, Tahrir Square in Cairo, and the Plaza de Catalunya in Barcelona were public spaces that transformed into urban commons as people protested there to support their political statements. Streets are public spaces that have often become urban commons by social action and (peaceful) protests.[22] Urban commons are operating in the cities in a complementary way with the state and the market. Some examples are community gardening, urban farms on the rooftops, and cultural spaces.[23] More recently participatory studies of commons and infrastructures under the conditions of the financial crisis emerge”. (Even Sovereign Wealth Funds can be seen as ‘Commons’ if the Community or the People say so, after all are they not the ultimate sovereign? – Bob)
DIGITAL COMMONS
Mayo Fuster Morell proposed a definition of digital commons as "information and knowledge resources that are collectively created and owned or shared between or among a community and that tend to be non-exclusive, that is, be (generally freely) available to third parties. Thus, they are oriented to favor use and reuse, rather than to exchange as a commodity. Additionally, the community of people building them can intervene in the governing of their interaction processes and of their shared resources."[18][19] Examples of digital commons are Wikipedia, free software, and open-source hardware projects.
Bob Calida May 2022, updated June 2023