Someone once asked a soldier, “why are you a soldier?’
“So my son can be a farmer, and his son can be a poet.” He replied.
In the modern day parlance, one can ask the question to a factory worker, and he would probably say that he is working hard so that his son can be a doctor or an engineer, and, if he enlightened like the soldier above, continue and say, “…so his son (or daughter) can be a liberal arts major.”
This was one of the major themes of an Indian movie called “Three Idiots” that I saw last month. It chronicles the life three students of a prestigious engineering college, modeled after the Indian Institute of Technology. The enlightened one amongst them keeps telling his buddies that they should follow their passions. “If photography is what you like, become a photographer, stop trying to become an engineer,” he tells one of them. Indeed, photographer is what he becomes.
This is an appropriate message for a nation where parents are obsessed about their sons becoming doctors or engineers.
It is also good message. At some point in a family’s history there should come a time when passion can trump practicality in choosing one’s profession. This will help the future generation in achieving happiness of the kind that does not depend on material things. The society at large will also benefit, because it is through passion that a culture can move forward.
However, remember that the soldier did not say that his son could be a poet, he would rather have his grandson become one. He sensed that without the prosperity brought about by someone in the family lineage, the farmer, such a dream would be impractical. He realized that without a financial cushion provided by his son, the poet would have a tough time.
Also, the little story stops at the third generation. It is unclear what the poet’s son would be doing. Could it be that the poet would say to his son, “Don’t do what I am doing. Go get some practical education and make a good living. This passion thing wears out after a while and the reality of hard living sets in.”
So will the cycle go into reverse?
May be.
May be not.
March 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Siblings
As I observe relationships among siblings, I can not but think that this is one of the most complex ones among human experiences.
On the one hand, you share common genes, similar upbringings, and years spent together. What could be more powerful than this in creating strong bonds?
On the other hand, there are forces that tend to tear them apart.
First are the forces related to sibling rivalry. One is wealthier than the other, better looking, or more popular. For most people, the obvious reaction is jealousy and resentment.
Second, and more interesting, are the forces put in play, almost always inadvertently, by the parents. This happens in three ways.
First, the siblings get different support from parents while growing up. Although a lot has to do with a sibling’s ability and interest in pursuing different careers, a person can start making a case that the amount of help, primarily financial, she received in preparing for a successful career was smaller than the one received by her brother.
Second, during the later part of life, when the tables are turned, and the care of parents become an issue, the source of unhappiness could be the level of support that one sibling provides compared to the other one.
Third, and the biggest source of contention, is when parents die and what is left behind for each sibling. In many situations, the amount just can not be equally divided…how do you divide an estate that includes a lot of items like businesses and real estate into equal parts? Even if the amount left behind is equal, an argument can arise from not being adequately compensated for the inequality shown during the other two phases described above.
The root cause in all this is the expectation that the parents have to be equally fair to each sibling and exhibit such fairness throughout their lives. The parents would love to be fair, but the complication is that there is no easy way to judge what is fair, leave alone implement fairness in real life. Fairness—like beauty—is in the eyes of the beholder.
For example, how exactly does a person living far from a parent provide equal support as the one living nearby? Why shouldn’t a child who needs more financial assistance get more help than the one who is well off? What is fair? How should a parent exhibit fairness?
Most people realize this conundrum, especially when they become parents and confront the same dilemmas that their parents faced. That, hopefully, allows them to diffuse the negative feelings and focus on the positive ones. Having good communications with their siblings and parents also helps resolve any festering issues. For many, however, that does not happen and the siblings become their worst enemies.
That is a great tragedy. Isn’t it?
February 2010
On the one hand, you share common genes, similar upbringings, and years spent together. What could be more powerful than this in creating strong bonds?
On the other hand, there are forces that tend to tear them apart.
First are the forces related to sibling rivalry. One is wealthier than the other, better looking, or more popular. For most people, the obvious reaction is jealousy and resentment.
Second, and more interesting, are the forces put in play, almost always inadvertently, by the parents. This happens in three ways.
First, the siblings get different support from parents while growing up. Although a lot has to do with a sibling’s ability and interest in pursuing different careers, a person can start making a case that the amount of help, primarily financial, she received in preparing for a successful career was smaller than the one received by her brother.
Second, during the later part of life, when the tables are turned, and the care of parents become an issue, the source of unhappiness could be the level of support that one sibling provides compared to the other one.
Third, and the biggest source of contention, is when parents die and what is left behind for each sibling. In many situations, the amount just can not be equally divided…how do you divide an estate that includes a lot of items like businesses and real estate into equal parts? Even if the amount left behind is equal, an argument can arise from not being adequately compensated for the inequality shown during the other two phases described above.
The root cause in all this is the expectation that the parents have to be equally fair to each sibling and exhibit such fairness throughout their lives. The parents would love to be fair, but the complication is that there is no easy way to judge what is fair, leave alone implement fairness in real life. Fairness—like beauty—is in the eyes of the beholder.
For example, how exactly does a person living far from a parent provide equal support as the one living nearby? Why shouldn’t a child who needs more financial assistance get more help than the one who is well off? What is fair? How should a parent exhibit fairness?
Most people realize this conundrum, especially when they become parents and confront the same dilemmas that their parents faced. That, hopefully, allows them to diffuse the negative feelings and focus on the positive ones. Having good communications with their siblings and parents also helps resolve any festering issues. For many, however, that does not happen and the siblings become their worst enemies.
That is a great tragedy. Isn’t it?
February 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
A New Beginning?
So, a new decade has begun.
Perhaps it is time to be an optimist again and wish for a grand new beginning. My sincere hope is that we will find a way toward solving some of the most difficult and intractable issues that we have faced over the past many years.
Here is my short list of three such issues and what could happen, if you take a positive view.
Religious Extremism: What would it take for Muslim terrorists to stop threatening US and Israel with complete annihilation? When will the Jewish extremists stop building settlements in land that “was given to them by God?” Who will stop the Christian mullahs from proclaiming that everyone who does not believe in Christ will go to hell? How will Hindus accept the fact that Muslims have an equal right to live in India and destroying mosques to build temples is not the solution? Could it be that the next decade will bring some sanity?
May be the moderates in each religion will finally rise to the occasion. They will see the futility of what a small fraction of their fellow citizens are doing to harm not only the “others” but themselves. They will find a way to involve the extremists in their dialog, address their needs, and tone down their actions.
Climate change: How can the developed countries tell those who are developing to make drastic cuts when they themselves are profligate in their use of energy? Sure, the citizens of India and China have every right to blame the western countries for being the major contributors to this global crisis, and aspiring to become as materialistically comfortable as them. However, in doing so, they would bring the world to its knees. This “tragedy of the commons” will play out, accelerating the climate change process and lead to a potential disaster.
However, may be, just may be, sanity will eventually prevail. The solution will involve the industrialized nations accepting deep cuts and the developing countries abandoning their vision to be like the Americans.
Nuclear proliferation: The world is watching helplessly as one by one every country in the world acquires this capability. How can one stop it? How can you tell a dictator, who has seen that the world bestows a special status on those who are nuclear armed, not to follow that path? How can you convince someone not to do something that you yourself have done in the past? We are probably going to have a future in which most countries that chose to do so will have nuclear weapons. What would happen then?
May be the fear of “mutually assured destruction (MAD)”will prevent the usage of these weapons on a world-wide basis. Also, as mentioned above, the extremists will feel that their needs can be met without causing widespread destruction. Thus, removing the threat from those that are not deterred by MAD.
So what will the next decade bring? The same old issues, only worse?
Or, a move toward long term stability, peace, and sanity?
Wish you all a happy decade.
Perhaps it is time to be an optimist again and wish for a grand new beginning. My sincere hope is that we will find a way toward solving some of the most difficult and intractable issues that we have faced over the past many years.
Here is my short list of three such issues and what could happen, if you take a positive view.
Religious Extremism: What would it take for Muslim terrorists to stop threatening US and Israel with complete annihilation? When will the Jewish extremists stop building settlements in land that “was given to them by God?” Who will stop the Christian mullahs from proclaiming that everyone who does not believe in Christ will go to hell? How will Hindus accept the fact that Muslims have an equal right to live in India and destroying mosques to build temples is not the solution? Could it be that the next decade will bring some sanity?
May be the moderates in each religion will finally rise to the occasion. They will see the futility of what a small fraction of their fellow citizens are doing to harm not only the “others” but themselves. They will find a way to involve the extremists in their dialog, address their needs, and tone down their actions.
Climate change: How can the developed countries tell those who are developing to make drastic cuts when they themselves are profligate in their use of energy? Sure, the citizens of India and China have every right to blame the western countries for being the major contributors to this global crisis, and aspiring to become as materialistically comfortable as them. However, in doing so, they would bring the world to its knees. This “tragedy of the commons” will play out, accelerating the climate change process and lead to a potential disaster.
However, may be, just may be, sanity will eventually prevail. The solution will involve the industrialized nations accepting deep cuts and the developing countries abandoning their vision to be like the Americans.
Nuclear proliferation: The world is watching helplessly as one by one every country in the world acquires this capability. How can one stop it? How can you tell a dictator, who has seen that the world bestows a special status on those who are nuclear armed, not to follow that path? How can you convince someone not to do something that you yourself have done in the past? We are probably going to have a future in which most countries that chose to do so will have nuclear weapons. What would happen then?
May be the fear of “mutually assured destruction (MAD)”will prevent the usage of these weapons on a world-wide basis. Also, as mentioned above, the extremists will feel that their needs can be met without causing widespread destruction. Thus, removing the threat from those that are not deterred by MAD.
So what will the next decade bring? The same old issues, only worse?
Or, a move toward long term stability, peace, and sanity?
Wish you all a happy decade.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Authentic Part 2
The last posting generated interesting discussion, and so I thought it to be worthwhile to explore the topic further. To do so, let me throw out three examples of situations in which choice needs to be made on whether to buy/experience something “authentic” or an imitation.
Think about a name brand purse…you know Gucci, Prada, or whatever (I am not an expert on the topic). The objective in purchasing is very clear; to tell the world that you are well-off and can afford such an insanely priced luxury. If an imitation is as good as the real thing---capturing all its characteristics---a rational person (a rational show-off) will prefer it above the real thing. Only a die-hard purist (an ultra show-off?) will insist on owning the authentic thing and perhaps figure out a way to indicate it is the real thing (“oh, you know, my husband is so silly, he bought me this…”) because most people will not appreciate that fact otherwise.
Now let us turn to a diamond necklace. The objective is probably two-folds…look good wearing it and show off your wealth. The current fake stuff achieves both these pretty well. Once, one of our relatives tried to figure out if my wife was wearing real or fake diamonds by coming uncomfortably close to examine them….if she could not tell, nor can mere mortals like you or me. So, why would a rational person purchase the real thing?
The third example is that of travel. People travel for multiple objectives---to see, hear, smell, meet, experience, and so on. You can’t achieve all these objectives by visiting a fake place or through virtual reality. But suppose, suppose, in the future one is able to do all that without going to the real place, will most people take the plunge? My hypothesis is yes. If I am able to achieve all my objectives for travel without traveling, I will not travel. As one of our friends (another travel addict) said---why would I suffer through air travel, and such if I don’t have to?
So, if you can achieve your objectives, even if it includes showing off, by purchasing a non-authentic thing, a rational person would do so. The implication…. authenticity will be come a thing of the past!
Think about a name brand purse…you know Gucci, Prada, or whatever (I am not an expert on the topic). The objective in purchasing is very clear; to tell the world that you are well-off and can afford such an insanely priced luxury. If an imitation is as good as the real thing---capturing all its characteristics---a rational person (a rational show-off) will prefer it above the real thing. Only a die-hard purist (an ultra show-off?) will insist on owning the authentic thing and perhaps figure out a way to indicate it is the real thing (“oh, you know, my husband is so silly, he bought me this…”) because most people will not appreciate that fact otherwise.
Now let us turn to a diamond necklace. The objective is probably two-folds…look good wearing it and show off your wealth. The current fake stuff achieves both these pretty well. Once, one of our relatives tried to figure out if my wife was wearing real or fake diamonds by coming uncomfortably close to examine them….if she could not tell, nor can mere mortals like you or me. So, why would a rational person purchase the real thing?
The third example is that of travel. People travel for multiple objectives---to see, hear, smell, meet, experience, and so on. You can’t achieve all these objectives by visiting a fake place or through virtual reality. But suppose, suppose, in the future one is able to do all that without going to the real place, will most people take the plunge? My hypothesis is yes. If I am able to achieve all my objectives for travel without traveling, I will not travel. As one of our friends (another travel addict) said---why would I suffer through air travel, and such if I don’t have to?
So, if you can achieve your objectives, even if it includes showing off, by purchasing a non-authentic thing, a rational person would do so. The implication…. authenticity will be come a thing of the past!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Authentic
Why do we value authenticity and what really is “authentic”? I really don’t have answers to these questions and the purpose of this posting is to see what others have to say about these interesting questions.
First---the value we put on authenticity. Let me cite an example.
The other day, I was looking at the images of a fake Piazza of San Marco (the central part of Venice) created in Macau. It was in a TV program, on one of the travel channels. It looked quite real, with buildings that resemble those in the real thing.
Now, most of us would much rather go to the real Piazza in Venice than the fake one in Macau—or for that matter the one in Las Vegas, even though they all look somewhat similar.
Why would we insist on going to the real thing, when it is much more expensive and time consuming, not to mention inconvenient, as compared to an imitation? Now if your answer is---because these imitations look fake and the experience is not all that realistic. OK, then would our behavior be the same when technology is able to provide completely realistic experience of such a visit without leaving our chair? Would we still prefer to go do the real thing?
Is our snobbery at work here or is there something else?
That brings me to the next question…that of what is authentic or real?
Is today’s Venice (the real one) really real? I don’t think today’s Venice, with its hoards of tourists and streets filled with expensive shops---no different than those found in most other large cities---resembles “real” Venice of our imagination. In that case, wouldn’t a virtual reality tour of real Venice be more real than visiting actual Venice?
First---the value we put on authenticity. Let me cite an example.
The other day, I was looking at the images of a fake Piazza of San Marco (the central part of Venice) created in Macau. It was in a TV program, on one of the travel channels. It looked quite real, with buildings that resemble those in the real thing.
Now, most of us would much rather go to the real Piazza in Venice than the fake one in Macau—or for that matter the one in Las Vegas, even though they all look somewhat similar.
Why would we insist on going to the real thing, when it is much more expensive and time consuming, not to mention inconvenient, as compared to an imitation? Now if your answer is---because these imitations look fake and the experience is not all that realistic. OK, then would our behavior be the same when technology is able to provide completely realistic experience of such a visit without leaving our chair? Would we still prefer to go do the real thing?
Is our snobbery at work here or is there something else?
That brings me to the next question…that of what is authentic or real?
Is today’s Venice (the real one) really real? I don’t think today’s Venice, with its hoards of tourists and streets filled with expensive shops---no different than those found in most other large cities---resembles “real” Venice of our imagination. In that case, wouldn’t a virtual reality tour of real Venice be more real than visiting actual Venice?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Different Types of Conversations
A ping pong match
You, “I spent the weekend suffering through allergies.” (ping)
The Opponent, “I suffered through much worse allergy.” (pong)
“I took Sudafed, and it really helped.” (ping)
“Nothing helped me.” (pong)
“I generally don’t fall sick.” (ping)
“I am always sick.” (smash!)
Next game
You, “Before falling sick, we spent a nice week in Berkshires.” (ping)
The Opponent, “We spent a great weekend in Paris” (pong)
….
….
A Spanish Inquisition
The Inquisitor, “Where did you go this summer?”
You, “Oh, we went to Europe.”
“Why did you go to Europe?”
“Well, the dollar was high, and besides….”
“How much did you have to pay per Euro?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Why don’t you remember?”
“OK, may be it was $1.45 per Euro.”
“Don’t you think it was too much?”
“Well it is hard for me to judge…”
Next inquisition
The Inquisitor, “OK moving on, how is your work going?
…..
…..
A communist debate
(So named by me in honor of the communist response in the United Nations Security Council to any proposal from the west during the cold war…their answer was always “Nyet!” I am sure the same could be said about the Western answers when seen from the other side.)
You, “So I think that the Indians could be as materialistic as the Western people.”
The Communist, “Nyet, there is a long tradition of leaving simply.”
“Yes but I am making an observation about the current state of affairs.”
“Nyet, you are accusing people of Indian origin.”
“I am not doing so, but don’t you agree that the large mansion that Ambani is building is naked exhibition of materialism?”
“Nyet, yes”
Next debate
You, “OK, moving on, isn’t it a nice day?”
The Communist, “Nyet, it is going to rain.”
….
…..
Productive Conversation
You, “So these are three of many types of conversations we have.”
The conversationalist, “A very interesting observation. I can immediately think of a fourth type.”
“What type is that?”
“It is called productive conversation. It involves listening to what the other person is saying, thinking about what was said, and then responding. The point here is to not to think of the other party as an opponent and the reason for conversation as an opportunity to score a victory.”
“Sounds like a good type of conversation…why is it called productive conversation?”
“You build upon each others thoughts; you give and take, and learn from each other.”
“The conversation then becomes a much more enjoyable activity.”
“Precisely.”
“Can you tell me an example?”
“What do you think we were doing just now?”
October 2009
You, “I spent the weekend suffering through allergies.” (ping)
The Opponent, “I suffered through much worse allergy.” (pong)
“I took Sudafed, and it really helped.” (ping)
“Nothing helped me.” (pong)
“I generally don’t fall sick.” (ping)
“I am always sick.” (smash!)
Next game
You, “Before falling sick, we spent a nice week in Berkshires.” (ping)
The Opponent, “We spent a great weekend in Paris” (pong)
….
….
A Spanish Inquisition
The Inquisitor, “Where did you go this summer?”
You, “Oh, we went to Europe.”
“Why did you go to Europe?”
“Well, the dollar was high, and besides….”
“How much did you have to pay per Euro?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Why don’t you remember?”
“OK, may be it was $1.45 per Euro.”
“Don’t you think it was too much?”
“Well it is hard for me to judge…”
Next inquisition
The Inquisitor, “OK moving on, how is your work going?
…..
…..
A communist debate
(So named by me in honor of the communist response in the United Nations Security Council to any proposal from the west during the cold war…their answer was always “Nyet!” I am sure the same could be said about the Western answers when seen from the other side.)
You, “So I think that the Indians could be as materialistic as the Western people.”
The Communist, “Nyet, there is a long tradition of leaving simply.”
“Yes but I am making an observation about the current state of affairs.”
“Nyet, you are accusing people of Indian origin.”
“I am not doing so, but don’t you agree that the large mansion that Ambani is building is naked exhibition of materialism?”
“Nyet, yes”
Next debate
You, “OK, moving on, isn’t it a nice day?”
The Communist, “Nyet, it is going to rain.”
….
…..
Productive Conversation
You, “So these are three of many types of conversations we have.”
The conversationalist, “A very interesting observation. I can immediately think of a fourth type.”
“What type is that?”
“It is called productive conversation. It involves listening to what the other person is saying, thinking about what was said, and then responding. The point here is to not to think of the other party as an opponent and the reason for conversation as an opportunity to score a victory.”
“Sounds like a good type of conversation…why is it called productive conversation?”
“You build upon each others thoughts; you give and take, and learn from each other.”
“The conversation then becomes a much more enjoyable activity.”
“Precisely.”
“Can you tell me an example?”
“What do you think we were doing just now?”
October 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
Racial Profiling
The recent incidence in Cambridge, MA, involving professor Gates, who is black, and Cambridge Police brought to the forefront the issue of racial profiling. The hotly debated point was whether Gates was treated differently than a white person would have been under the circumstances. After all, that is what racial profiling means.
In many situations, it is difficult to figure out if racial profiling did take place. This being one of them, unless you have proof that policeman had treated a white person differently under similar circumstances. Hence the uproar and differing views on whether professor Gates had a valid point.
There are other situations where it is clear that racial profiling did not take place and it is all in the mind of the person claiming that it did.
I am reminded of an incidence in Heathrow Airport, where a person of South Asian origin was screaming at the woman at a security check. The reason? He wanted to get into a short line reserved for Business Class passengers, and he was flying coach. At one point he got so angry that he told his kid that, “don’t go near them….they will fry you because of your skin color.” The security guard maintained her composure but I felt like kicking him for his imagined sense of profiling, not to mention his shameful behavior.
Finally, there are situations where there is little doubt that racial profiling did take place and I can say that from personal experience.
Once we were driving from San Diego to Los Angeles and we had to drive through Camp Pendleton. A guard was standing in the middle of the road allowing cars to go by. Among the stream of cars allowed to go by, he spotted us and pulled us aside for further investigation. We all felt humiliated and angry for being so overtly profiled.
The other incidence (or a set of incidences) was recently while on train crossing various borders in Europe. At each crossing, our passports were carefully examined, sometimes with a magnifying glass. Our data were entered on laptop and also verbally transmitted to some headquarters. Again, we felt that we were being clearly profiled.
However, there was a reason in both cases for the guards treating us differently.
The purpose for Camp Pendleton check point was to catch illegal immigrants from Mexico, and I looked like a Mexican. In the second situation, the reason for profiling was perhaps our son who, with his beard and piercing eyes, would be completely at home in a Taliban majlis.
If these guards are asked to find a needle in the haystack, would they examine objects that look like needle or those that resemble hay?
So, my fellow persons of color, think about what happened and why did it happen before you jump to a conclusion that you were wronged by a white person.
September 2009
In many situations, it is difficult to figure out if racial profiling did take place. This being one of them, unless you have proof that policeman had treated a white person differently under similar circumstances. Hence the uproar and differing views on whether professor Gates had a valid point.
There are other situations where it is clear that racial profiling did not take place and it is all in the mind of the person claiming that it did.
I am reminded of an incidence in Heathrow Airport, where a person of South Asian origin was screaming at the woman at a security check. The reason? He wanted to get into a short line reserved for Business Class passengers, and he was flying coach. At one point he got so angry that he told his kid that, “don’t go near them….they will fry you because of your skin color.” The security guard maintained her composure but I felt like kicking him for his imagined sense of profiling, not to mention his shameful behavior.
Finally, there are situations where there is little doubt that racial profiling did take place and I can say that from personal experience.
Once we were driving from San Diego to Los Angeles and we had to drive through Camp Pendleton. A guard was standing in the middle of the road allowing cars to go by. Among the stream of cars allowed to go by, he spotted us and pulled us aside for further investigation. We all felt humiliated and angry for being so overtly profiled.
The other incidence (or a set of incidences) was recently while on train crossing various borders in Europe. At each crossing, our passports were carefully examined, sometimes with a magnifying glass. Our data were entered on laptop and also verbally transmitted to some headquarters. Again, we felt that we were being clearly profiled.
However, there was a reason in both cases for the guards treating us differently.
The purpose for Camp Pendleton check point was to catch illegal immigrants from Mexico, and I looked like a Mexican. In the second situation, the reason for profiling was perhaps our son who, with his beard and piercing eyes, would be completely at home in a Taliban majlis.
If these guards are asked to find a needle in the haystack, would they examine objects that look like needle or those that resemble hay?
So, my fellow persons of color, think about what happened and why did it happen before you jump to a conclusion that you were wronged by a white person.
September 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
