Nishkaam Karma

The nearer the goal, or the more visible it is, the more are we motivated to slog for it... If that's true (is it?), then how practical is the philosophy of nishkaam karma to follow in real Life?

Posted via m.livejournal.com.

happy diwali

An advance Happy Diwali to all my readers. It's been a lazy week so far. Just waiting for the holidays. Am leaving on 29th Oct for Tirupati. Will be there till 1st Nov; and 2nd to 7th Nov - I'll be in Bilaspur. Hope to have a great break. Will keep posting!

Posted via m.livejournal.com.

First Mobile Post

Hi all. Posting after a long time. This is my first post from my mobile. I've become a huge fan of mobile internet and mobile apps. I've almost stopped using my laptop, sticking only to what's doable from a mobile phone (except when I'm in office, of course, where I've no option but to break my head with my beautiful desktop). Anything that's not feasible on my mobile, fails to push me beyond my laziness threshold. Besides, computers - laptop or desktop - seem like turnoffs now.
Addicted to Opera Mini and Nimbuzz these days. I strongly recommend these two apps. They rock!

Posted via m.livejournal.com.

Art

One very interesting thing about works of art is that you never know while creating whether people will like it or not, but being your creation, you love it very deeply. I guess it's human to crave for acceptability but then you also crave for a chance and means to express yourself, in ways you find most convenient and feel most comfortable with. But artists are not often good marketers, although they realize the sad reality that they need to stand with their art in the market and sell themselves to be allowed more opportunities from life to create, which to them is the only thing that makes sense in their lives.

Tu Hi Meri Shab Hai...

@ the inter-hostel singing competition at IIML :-)

2nd runner up!

Play at full volume ;-)

Creative Talent

To tap creative talent is one of the toughest challenges for Managers, who, for one, are themselves expected to be creative. The present systems are incapable of identifying creative people for jobs that need them. Consequently, even the present Managers are poor in the right creativity, since they too have been recruited from the same system. This calls for a huge flush & cleanse exercise in our organizations. (I believe it's needed for most systems in this world anyway).

Creative people

• May not have good communication skills. Very few do. It's natural, and true for all skills which are not our core competences.
• May not want to compete, even for what they are good at.
• May not be aggressive and assertive.
• May not have the so-called Leadership skills.
• May not have the same creative potential in every damn thing.
• May not get motivated with what the management sciences prove are best for satisfaction and productivity.
• May not think long term. May not want rewards. May not think profits. May not listen.
• May not have any desire to succeed or to rise in the organization.
• May not want greater responsibility.
• May have no interest in leading a team. May even hate people and team work.

 

...and so on... The point is, that it's foolish to expect people with creative potential to think and feel like others. And so the management principles, which appeal (questionably though) to normal minds, would definitely not work in case of most creative people. Coz on the one hand they are different, and on the other, they are different from each other, and with significant differences!

Creativity often seems to be one of the most misunderstood concepts. We often tend to associate it with artists without any strong basis. Perhaps, we tend to assume that all artists are like painters, the ones who imagine, interpret and depict stuff in new and beautiful ways. Someone who is adept at making your portrait if you sit in front may just be skillful, but not creative. Another example is photography. Nothing artistic and creative about it if it's just about clicking pictures, some of which turn out to have elements of creative difference by chance. A singer may not be creative. A composer is. One must judge creative potential of people from what they do, not from what they are.

One of the favorite questions asked in MICA Entrance interviews is 'What's the craziest thing you have ever done?' Another wrong notion - that creative people do crazy things, or rather things which ordinary mortals consider crazy. While this is really not true, such assumptions (many others besides this) kill the prospects of many deserving people entering MICA. The problem here, as I feel, is that of what we are conditioned to expect from people of a certain kind. For example, we would like to see creative people do crazy things. And we end up promoting crazy people, rather than creative people. Imagine, how big a disaster that is.

An analogy here is the way children are looked at by grown-ups. They are expected to be funny, cute and crazy - all that within bounds - besides being smart, intelligent and innocent, rather than what they actually are. Rather than giving importance to the fact that kids are real individuals with real personalities, thoughts, emotions and capabilities, parents burden them with expectations based on pleasant stereotypes.

Have any creative solutions to the creativity problem?

Random...

Randomness springs from a relatively structured root, whose parent ought to be even less random. I reached this conclusion after analyzing my own thought process. Behind all the random thoughts that I (or anybody) seem to have all the time, none of which lasts long or I can carry much ahead, I feel there must be a more structured framework of opinions, thoughts, ideas and instincts. Perhaps I skipped a few layers of randomness in between. But the point is that thoughts, like the universe, decrease in randomness as we move upwards towards their origin - the law of entropy as applied to thoughts. The external structure that we assign to what we speak or write is not really the structure of our thoughts. Nor do our thoughts emerge at such a slow rate. The spoken structure is a conscious alignment of desired thoughts which are retrieved in appropriate intervals and arranged in the right sequence so as to make sense as a whole, and with a specific direction.

The concept of energy was taught to me in the middle-school. It was introduced as capacity to do work, and the definition stayed at that even later. I always viewed the concepts of work and energy with skepticism (and I still do). I first expressed it when I was in the 11th standard, to some of my friends, but they didn't seem to bother. Just this morning, as I was jogging, I realized that defining energy as capacity to do work reflects how science and its perspectives emerge from our very human nature. (Are you wondering how?) It seems natural, of course, because we are human beings, and we have to think like humans. (What does it mean to not think like a human? Are there other ways of thinking? Are there limits to how or what we can think? If yes, is it possible to breach such limits by conscious effort?) And science, above all, is expected to solve human problems, explain phenomena in ways useful to us, create stuff to make human life easy. (Discover the truth, How & What God Thinketh... but think why we want to know that.) If there are bounds to who or what we work for, then are we not selfish? (Self here is an enhanced image of oneself, seen in association with all the entitites one relates himself/herself with, and to the extent he/she chooses to.) If yes, and I think the answer is yes, what does it mean to be not selfish?

Being selfish is not really considered bad by most people. Yet poeple are confused between the conflicting axioms of life taught to them, and the ones which drive their instincts. For example, the whole world thinks capitalism, each working for his/her own self-interest, would serve the interests of society the best. But then we are also taught tenets of team-work, cooperation etc., which, probably, are necessary to get things done in the first place - strong means for a great end, which has its importance and motivating ability only if one is selfish enough, which the concept of capitalism on top ensures. And the society sees progress, since both the means and ends achieve the best form within this framework. But such frameworks are for people devoid of feelings, emotions and desires. In real world, people are capable of, need to, want to and crave for love. But our institutions are designed for machines. Our formulas can't incorporate human power struggles - the strong, the weak and the shades of gray, the limits placed by cultural differences and natural (hate to use resources) endowments working together.

Furthermore, is society bigger than a human being? Is a country bigger than a human being? Is a culture more important than human life? Why should one be patriotic? why should there be inner (coz one is selfish beyond) bounds to selfishness? Love is certainly not the opposite of selfishness. But can someone truly Love and be Selfish at the same time?