|
|
Sunday, November 15th, 2009
|
|
|
The world of art is limitless. It's only ever about knowing and delving deep enough. Music - the journey starts in different ways, heaps of music dumped into your comp without you knowing too much about the music, for some, home cd collections for others, reading, gaining interest, and acquiring those subjects for others still.
But after a certain time has elapsed, you know your taste and your broad range. And then you discover more. You grow with the music, your tastes develop, you seek out more and you discover more. You learn continuously about your likes, your dislikes, and you and your music evolve together. If you are so inclined.
You could probably extend this to any form of art/entertainment. Movies, sport, books, all else. I saw a gem today, and I'm pleased. Pleased because I hadn't heard about it ever before, came across it completely on my own, through a bunch of random reading and linking, and because I chose well. I pretty much know at the beginning of a movie these days whether I'm going to enjoy it or not. As in, a few minutes. You identify with the style, the dialogue, everything. The movie I refer to is glengarry glen ross. A little gem, somewhat in the style of twelve angry men - extremely limited set of actors, extremely limited space, outstanding acting with outstanding dialogue. Beautiful. Yet another gem by pacino. Ten of his movies off the top of my head would be in my top 100, if there were to be one. Jack lemmon, outstanding, alec baldwin, in a cameo, outstanding.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
|
Recent conversations with a couple of colleague-friends (there should be a term for those - friendleagues?) have prompted thoughts about the topic of ethics at work/in life. These came about due to one discussion involving liar's poker and another involving capability and current utilization levels thereof.
I remember reading liar's poker and, at the time, not worrying too much about the ethical aspects which were, truth be told, raised a number of times by the author in the book, and concerning myself more with what a romping read it was turning out to be. Now that there's actual work and one can relate to such things, the questions rears up: At what cost, success? People in the know then give you the knowing ''what is success, and how do you define it, and such things cannot be measured, you cannot compare yourself to others'' set of quotes. Those are true, but hey we're all keen on measuring our growth, our earnings, our positions. Does success as measured in these terms come about due to sincere, truly performance led ethical work habits or unethical but practical practices, or a combination of the same since there is nothing to conclusive prove that both are mutually exclusive.
Getting ahead through not caring about morals if it leads you to do work more appreciated, or resorting to short cuts which border on breaking rules; These are age old questions there are no definitive answers to. The question more apt is which path must I choose. I see in my everyday habits I exhibit behaviour wildly confined to one side. I am principled to the point of absurdity. That is to say I seem to have principles which are extreme. I am also lazy and proud of it, so one can guess at the weird nature of these principles, but I rigidly stand by my set of rights when confronted with decisions to make. Should one continue rigidity in morals and ethics if there is a cost? At what point does one sacrifice one for the other? The old school of thought believes success arrives out of ethics and morals and all the assorted accompaniments, but I see more and more that one cannot be achieved without sacrificing the other. Being subservient to superiors, biting your tongue, networking, not criticizing, working hard and a number of other non character related material one couldnt possibly explain without context. Can't do any of it.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Saturday, November 7th, 2009
|
|
|
I generally don't link to articles because, well I'm not generally a person who links anything to anything really, but also on a slightly more serious note because there is an infinity of content out there. There are millions of blogs, tech sites, news sites, and more which offer a ton of news worthy content. News worthy content is one thing, and interesting news-worthy content is something else altogether. However the amount of material out there means that there will also be more than sufficient interesting material. A small portion of infinity is by definition also infinity.
So what next? One chooses a certain cross section of information that is deemed by him to be either relevant, or interesting, or informative, or entertaining, or any combination of these characteristics. This is not just with respect to readable content, this applies to everything: an unlimited amount of music, television programming, movies, books. How is this different from the world of twenty years back? The web and the digital age has made the cost of acquiring everything cheaper to the extent that cost is immaterial. Everything is acquirable, for lack of a better work, at low cost and high convenience. What is interesting is how this will play itself out - what content is chargable, what is the means of distribution, what is the attractiveness to people of such content, or is the business model better suited to gain revenues out of advertising at spaces where content is available? Anyway, that's a different subject. The world has changed in that where previously the world was strait jacketed due to lack of an information superhighway, there is no such restriction on information. This s the information age after all. it doesn't need me to prophetize that the world is changing, but what is changing is lifestyle, consumption habits, content availability and dissemination.
I began this post to say this: despite there being an infinity of content out there, some of it is eye poppingly interesting - due to a confluence of a number of fields of interest in a single piece so to speak.
This is fascinating stuff, and where does it lead? http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/29/nokia-vs-apple-the-in-depth-analysis/
The world as it is now easy lends itself to people knowing a little about everything. Or a lot about a few things and a little about everything else. The key might be to a know everything about one or two things, and a little about the rest.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009
|
|
|
"I'm 67 but I have never had one day off since I became an apprentice at 16. Someone once asked me what my greatest quality was, and I see it as working hard. Working hard all your life is one of the hardest things to do, but lying in bed does you no good, moping around does you no good. Work does you good, so you shouldn't be afraid of it. It is rewarding, self-satisfying and brings you self-esteem" - Sir Alex Ferguson reveals the secret of his success.
SAF - The anti me. In every which way, from manchester united to hard work. (I don't believe six alex is great. That's just reproduced above for the irony. If SAF can make it big, I rest my case. How much of it is SAF and how muck of it is luck?)
My fundamental philosophy is one of living hedonistically and cruising through life - Many greats in many fields, some all-time greats - seem to preach one single principle. "The best ones are the ones work the hardest". So there are those who have a natural talent or skill level that puts them above the others in that particular league or field. But the great ones or the best ones amongst these are the ones that utilize their talent to the fullest by working the hardest. And that's something that I've not perhaps quite fully internalized. Leaving aside quality or talent levels. That however assumes a certain internal desire and drive. That drive and desire needs to be inborn. Or does it? I've felt the desire and the drive at times, but never consistently. I need to get the drive and desire consistently. After 26 years of living, life teaches you that there is a certain correct way of living. That would mean that all of my natural beliefs and principles would need to be turned on their collective heads. It means all my life has been spent in living a lie. Living a lie. How do you reverse your entire belief system (flawed though it may be)? Life seems to reward hard workers, initiators and doers. Those are wrong and I can't explain it. It has to be the other way around. Has to be. You can't speak about your good deeds or work you've done. You can't. You shouldn't initiate. Initiating is lowly. Working and living for oneself as and how one pleases, without dependencies on externalities, thats greatness. Independence. Life and work reward interdependence, involvement, initiating. It cannot be about initiating. It must arrive without push, without effort, not outcomes derived out of push and effort. Where's the differentiator? What is greatness? Questions, questions, questions.
* "I think there is an awful lot of expenditure and you say to yourself, 'Where is it going to end?' This is exactly what was happening in the business world two years ago. There were warning signs and everyone knew there were, yet they carried on because it was so easy to access loans. In the football world you say to yourself the warning signs are there, but nobody seems to be bothering about it. You wonder where it's going to go and what is going to happen if one major club were to go, to collapse" - Sir Alex Ferguson, manager of a club with debts of approximately £700m.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Thursday, October 15th, 2009
|
|
|
Even if some things have been pounding at your head, you sometimes need events to clarify and firm up opinions into facts. Especially if these are opinions about oneself. I have long held the view that i am individualistic. I am, if not a loner, one who leans towards self entertainment . This is not to say I abhor groups or find myself a fish out of water, more the opposite. But those occasions would be the exception more than the norm if I had my way. I enjoy scenery and nature not at all in a group, but found myself immersed in it and some other small ticket items alone.
With writers one enjoys, or directors whose movies one generally enjoys, it is fair to say that one comes to have a certain expectation, a certain belief, a certain liking, and while there will be works produced not to one's liking there will also be works that are superlative. That is to say the average quality of the work as enjoyed by you would be high. I think the same also applies to people and relationships. I guess the world terms these people friends. Er. Realization dawns. Anyway, lets continue this semi philosophical incursion into life and some meaning of it. There is more natural harmony derived out of continuous good over continuous non good right. Qualities such as strong charactered, strong willed, good company etc are better than their opposites, right? Are these not the first principles of life, analogous to axioms out of which rational pursuits such as mathematics are derived? Inglorious Basterds was seen in Basle. Say what you will about tarantino, but boy if you enjoy his style are you in for a treat. Kill Bill, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Grindhouse. The one that I might have not enjoyed entirely was jackie brown. IB was a rollicking ride, though. Does this make me a tarantino fanboy? I would vehemently argue not, but who cares. Sometimes we double guess ourselves and we act more out of our of principles than out of instinctive gut feel. One may argue that both are not entirely mutually exclusive but that would just be boring. The debate. IB is worth the time and the money.
As we go through life, and we do more, we become more proficient at the things we do. Now the question that comes to me often is: so what? So what if we become more proficient? Why does there need to be more skill, more talent, growth? Becoming better at everything is one of the natural goals most sane people seem to strive for. Is there an unwritten principle that says that striving to become better leads to a life of greater richness, satisfaction? For example if we examine our first principles, does it state that this is the way life ought to be lived. Books such as the vedas or all else.
Perhaps as we do more we gain a better understanding. Experience allows us to become more efficient, with the usage of limited resources perhaps. A trip like this teaches me how and what to do when visiting expensive countries. For example carry books and headphones and adaptors. A great deal was learnt out of travelling alone, actually backpacking. Routes places on your own. Some pleasure was derived, not the usual hedonistic books movies music pleasure, but pleasure perhaps of a more wholesome more natural kind. One would think this is good. Maugham and hemingway were spotted and pocketed at a car boot sale in geneva. Geneva! Switzerland is 7 times as expensive as India. I like the concept of PPP. Ah if we'd all had followed our hearts. Is there a job for a sports entertainment food technology music movies junkie? Anyway, maugham and hemingway were enjoyed with long, uninterrupted rides. For whom the bell tolls now signifies more than just an great song, it also immediately goes into my imagined enjoyed book classification. And with maugham, the affair continues.
Some thoughts on words spoken by people, words written by certain others, which have struck a resonant chord. Vlade Divac, about not winning the championship.
In a subsequent conversation, Divac adds: "It doesn't bother me at all. I think we did something special [in Sacramento]. … People around the world, not just in Sacramento, liked to watch [that team]. So that was, right there, [a] big accomplishment for our team. … In my heart, I believe we were the champions. We didn't win, but we played the way champions should play."
Thats the part I like. Winners are the people who get the plaudits, but winning like a lot of other stuff is about luck. Sometimes its luck that determines winning or succeeding, and sometimes its talent, and sometimes its a combination of both. It takes a great deal of knowledge to recognize which plays a bigger role and usually the outcome or the output is the only determinant of where the plaudits go. When one has no control over outputs, where is there merit in rewarding due to outputs?
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
rhapsodust's journal