Category: Purpose

  • Why knots

    I was watching Priyadarshan speak at an award ceremony (on TV) about his new Malayalam movie starring Mohanlal and Mukesh. This ‘combination’ was hitting the silverscreen after a span of 10 years, and thanks to their history (early history I’d say) it was a special occasion. I had planned to catch the movie in the theatre but after reading (and listening to) the reviews, gave up the thought.

    On another channel, Mukesh was claiming that though Priyadarshan kept saying he would not do a comedy again during the shooting, its ‘acceptance by the masses’ would make him rethink. (Oh noes) But there was one interesting thing he said – that when one discovered one’s purpose in life (Priyan and film making) he/she feels constantly compelled to keep at it.

    D and I discussed whether Priyadarshan (and Mohanlal), who by now have their coterie, can be objective about their films. The box office collections, which is probably as objective as it gets, would be high anyway thanks to fan clubs across the state. There would be bouquets and brickbats anyway too. How can one be objective about those? In our own cases, how many of us can actually objectively take what’s usually called ‘constructive criticism’ for presentations/concepts/ideas? Or even praise for that matter? Now scale that to an effort that costs crores and months and imagine.

    But if one thinks of it in a simple questions framework, (for now, I’m ignoring when and where) once the purpose or objective (why) has been determined, the what and how is determined by asking who is it for. And if the answer to ‘who’ happens to be the self, then everything else is probably superfluous -dependencies, costs, and even feedback. It stops being the creator’s problem, and becomes the consumer’s. However, when there is no clarity on the purpose, the superfluous becomes the driver. And that’s the trap most of us are probably in.

    until next time, trappings 🙂

  • A life less lived..

    Quite a while back, I remember writing about people who, despite their circumstances, continue to plod on through life, not giving up on it. I ended it with a quote from ‘The Hurt Locker’ by James ‘Everyone’s a coward about something.‘ I added that sometimes it’s life, and sometimes it’s death.

    I was reminded of this when I read about the Goa couple‘s suicide and another one closer home – a person I knew, if only for a few months – one which came as a rude shock. In the first case, Anand Ranthidevan and his wife Deepa took a very deliberate and seemingly well thought through decision to end their lives, planned down to the last detail. The label I’ve heard several times in conversations – real and virtual – is disturbed. I don’t subscribe to that, it’s probably the reaction from a society which just cannot accept that people without any troubles could really make a conscious decision to end their lives. I can actually identify with it because in conversations with friends, I’ve toyed with the idea of driving off a cliff at say 55-60, when a life has been lived fully.

    But just like the question in the earlier post – why people continued to plod on, I am interested in the flip side too. Why do people choose to end it? In situations where the individual is troubled by something – physical/emotional/under the influence of a drug, there is probably a point where he/she feels the problem cannot be solved, and chooses to end the journey.

    The Goa incident is different because the individuals were in their prime, at least in terms of age. When sports personalities, actors etc retire at the ‘right’ time, they sometimes use the ‘Why retire now vs Why don’t you retire now’ line. Can one think of life that dispassionately? Probably, if one knew what lay after, or if one didn’t care, or thought it wasn’t worth the effort. Or when one felt that one’s existence didn’t matter to anyone but the self. Or maybe there when there was no problem worth solving. What do you think?

    until next, life </span>

  • Reference Groups for Heroes

    Scott Adams had a very interesting post ‘The Comparison Advantage‘, in which he writes about status related stress when “media is changing our reference group. We’re continuously bombarded with stories about people who are fabulously successful.” I’d add that social media is also a big culprit. According to him, the cure is  “to make sure you’re near the top of at least one reference group in your life.”

    With some difference, this is a thought that had crossed my mind long before I read this. But before we get to that, an interesting thing happened. A couple of posts (in Google Reader) after the above, I came across a post by Nilofer Merchant on HBR Blogs titled “Be Your Own Hero“. Completely contradictory? No. But related and yet different perspectives? Yes. This author asks us to junk the ‘Hero Narrative’ and pushes us to be our own hero by following our own passions and not trying to emulate anyone – a “clarity of purpose” for oneself. One of the proposed mantras is also “I shall not obsess over others’ success”, in addition to doing our bit to co-create the future.

    And now we can come back to my thought. I can relate to Nilofer’s views because that was what led me to leave a cubicle and explore the path of being employed by myself. One and a half years gave me an immense amount of learning, one of which was that even with a well thought out ‘personal purpose’ in hand, it was difficult for me to stop comparing. It really didn’t help that the gestation time for it was quite high, and a ‘need it now’ attitude, probably heightened by social media, also played its part.

    After much thought, I jumped back into a cubicle, before which I rewrote the ‘personal purpose’, in which I attempted to factor in the statustics. Putting a full stop to comparison is a long journey, and I’m already on it. An insight (humour me 😉 ) I had while thinking about the ‘compare feature’ was that so far I had been dependent on one of my identities heavily. Mostly it was my work visiting card. So, when comparing, I wasn’t really acknowledging the other things that I was doing, and doing reasonably well. And that is where I mash Nilofer’s ‘personal purpose’ with Scott Adams’ ‘reference group’. I don’t need to top any of my reference groups, but I need them so that my ‘personal purpose’ is balanced between various activities and relationships. That way, I don’t have to kill myself for not blazing a new trail independently. The cubicle job allows me to work on the things I like to work on; the blogs, social platforms and columns allow me to explore other avenues of interest and gives me a sense of worth, and when I need a hug, there’s D and friends and family. I try to make conscious decisions on each of these, keeping the others in mind. Multiple identities, multiple reference groups, all part of the personal purpose. Early days, but the signs are good.

    until next time, try id out 🙂

  • The Uncertainty Principles

    Not the quantum theory kind. Sometime back I read this interesting post on HBR on uncertainty, which made me think about my relationship with the concept. I must admit that I have more than a little affection for certainty. That is exhibited in most of everything I do – from my routine to travel itineraries to life planning. It also manifests in relationships – not just with people, but even services like Twitter. 🙂 It is probably a bit about control, and a bit about not having to waste what I consider premium currency – time.

    In the post, Tony Schwartz states that

    It feels good to know things for sure. It makes us feel safer, at least in the short term. But certainty has its limitations. Very rarely, I’ve discovered, is certainty the outgrowth of careful consideration and deep understanding. Far more often, it’s a primitive instinct — a way we defend against uncertainty, which understandably feels unsettling and even dangerous.

    I really can’t disagree with that, though I think that sometimes it’s an individual’s conscious choice. The sad part is that the automaton inside us usually makes this choice for us. Further in the article, he also adds a neurological perspective on why we are pulled to certainty, and then “Above all, certainty kills curiosity, learning, and growth.” And that’s the part that I am ironically, unsure of. My take is that if I am certain about a set of things, I am able to focus on, and do better in another set of things.

    Devdutt Pattanaik’s ‘The Pregnant King’ was an excellent read, and though it was the story of Yuvanshva, the king gives birth to a son after drinking a magic potion meant for his wives, it is also about the nature of the world and the fluidity of dharma among other things. There are a few interesting statements in it, if I consider it from the uncertainty context.

    In an argument with Pisachas, Yuvanshva states that “every civilisation needs its delusion” and we don’t take kindly to things that “threaten the facade of order”. I think that would hold for individuals who prefer certainty too. In another conversation between Yuvanshva and the Angirasa, there is a meaning given to the existence of this world,

    When all is understood and accepted, the world will lose its purpose and cease to be. The world exists only to make us wise. Ignorance fuels pain and from pain comes our search for wisdom.

    But my favourite is in the form of two diametrically opposite approaches to the purpose of life that comes earlier in the book – Yaja and Upayaja, two Siddhas who never agreed on anything, yet ended up taking the same decisions.

    Yaja sat under a banyan tree and sought truth in stillness. Upayaja always sat before a waterfall and sought truth in movement. Yaja said, “By observing the flow of rasa, one can train the mind to accept destiny. This is the purpose of life. Upayaja argued, “By manipulating the flow of rasa, one can change the world and fructify all desires. That’s the true purpose of life.”

    Though Upayajya’s argument might seem in favour of certainty, I’d say that both are versions of the same story – embracing uncertainty. And thus, another lesson from the book springs to mind “The truth is not poison. It is our inability to handle it that makes it poisonous” The same goes for uncertainty too… I guess 🙂

    until next time,

  • Roleplay

    Jagathy Sreekumar, in my opinion, is one of the finest comedians actors to grace the screen. Probably THE finest. Since he’s acted only in Malayalam movies (over 1000 of them), he’s relatively lesser known to non Keralites. But you don’t have to go away, this is not about him or even Malayalam movies or even movies.

    Contrary to his usual on-screen characters, he’s a very serious person in his media interviews. He was once asked why he accepted all the roles that came to him, and why he wasn’t more choosy, especially since he could afford to. Pat came the reply “I’m a professional. Do you think a doctor should be allowed to choose which patients to accept?”The interviewer predictably moved on to easier pastures.

    This was sometime back, but I was reminded of it during the debate on Tendulkar ‘walking’.  (he walked away despite the umpire signaling ‘not out’) Both Jayawardene and Ponting were clear that they’d walk only after they were declared out. Though I have not always been a Tendulkar fan, I have been an ardent admirer for quite a while now, of the player on the field and the person off it.

    So it was quite a difficult question – the morality of a professional (?) ‘walking’ without considering his responsibilities to the team. (forget the expectations of a nation for now) Was he being selfish – keeping his ‘fair play’ image intact? (though Ganguly claimed Sachin hasn’t always ‘walked’)

    While the moral question lingers, I thought I got an insight into Sachin’s behaviour from this amazing article I read thanks to Roshni. It says that Sachin is a bridge, between two eras of cricket, and he realises the responsibility. As a sport, today’s cricket, both on and off the field, is vastly different from what it used to be, and yes, it is no longer just a sport. As the author quotes “The team’s rabid popularity, is a reflection of rising national ambition, of pride in national achievement.” Maybe Sachin realises a bit beyond this too, and is doing his bit to ensure that in the pursuit of success, a right set of ethos is also kept in mind. Playing the game to win, and playing it fair.

    Jagathy, legendary though he is, perhaps has it easier. There are bigger stars around him who are expected to be role models. He can get away with moral absolutism.  Tendulkar probably has the tougher job – as he charts new territories in terms of matches played, runs scored, centuries made, he also has to navigate new grounds in moral integrity, balancing his own stance with the expectations of a team, a nation and still ensuring that he’s a worthy icon in all respects.

    until next time, Godlike