Science or Art?

"Is the true value of civilization is reflected in its artistic creations rather than its scientific accomplishments?"

Science : the symbol of our intellectual muscle. Science : the magnificent, blatant, brutal display of human prowess. Our unmistakable stamp on the face of this planet can be summarized in this one word. Yet the statement claims that the true value of civilization is reflected in its artistic creations. What is so special about art?

If science is the strong skeleton of humanity, art is its beautiful body. Science is the criterion to judge a civilization's material prowess whilst art is the criterion to judge the spiritual prowess. A civilization with a strong technology is considered powerful and intelligent. One with strong artistic creations is considered creative and sensitive. Whilst science ensures survival, art makes that survival enjoyable. Both evoke respect and awe. So where should one look to find a civilization's true value?

One needs to carefully examine both of them to determine the truth. I think science has a definite advantage over arts. What use is any artistic endeavor if the belly is not full? Is any meaningful artistic pursuit possible without the comforts that the sciences bring?

A society with an excellent technology and poor artistic exploits is as poor with the one with vice versa, some claim. I beg to differ. A civilization devoid of strong scientific accomplishments is weak and impractical. Absence of artistic achievements indicates brutes, I may agree. But generally when science is strong, arts flourish. Rarely is it seen that a scientifically advanced civilization comes up which has no artistic achievements to its credit. Science makes life easier, gives you time to put into art. It has always influenced art though the other way round has not always been true. The medium has changed from clay tablets and stone to papyrus and skins, paper and canvas to computer screens. Science has enriched art over time.

To be fair, I may add this: although art does not always enrich science directly, it does enrich and “soothe” the human mind. This has long lasting effects on the ideas that control the forces of science. Yet it is science which will cure you when you are sick, defend you when you are attacked or make your work easier when it is tough. All in all, I don’t think arts reflect the “value” of a civilization. It was always science. And it will always be.

Getting Your Facts Right!

"Much of the information that people assume is "factual" actually turns out to be inaccurate. Thus, any piece referred to as a 'fact' should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future."

Hindu philosophy defines truth as something that was, is and will be. This is the definition that people associate in general with "facts" they collect from science journals, newspapers, television etc. The people who think they know it all are in for a rude shock the day they decide to open their eyes a little more. The truth is that there are no static and absolute facts.

People talk about religious superstitions. They are the well known ones. Another kind of superstition has taken root of late : scientific superstition. If you recite something said by a scientist, the chances are that the listener will accept it as it is. The truth of the statement will seldom, if ever, be questioned. Any keen science student can tell you that modern science is highly applicative and totally result oriented. Constant experimentation, documentation, visualization, study and accidents by some of the greatest minds has given science its present face. There is only one thing : we do not really know how it happens. We just know it does and we know how to do it. Theories are put forward to answer many questions that have teased the human mind for eons. Theories and hypotheses come and go. Facts of one era become good but incompetent theories for the next. Be it evolution from Bohr's model of the atom to Schrodinger Wave Equations or Newton's classical mechanics to Einstein's relativity, there is nothing called fact. There is only evolution.

Why only science? There is no branch of studies in which rules/ facts/ theories/ hypotheses have remained invariably same. The pattern has been the same. Since the natural tendency of human beings is to progress, it is but expected that a statement that is a fact today may well be proven false in the future. Assuming any statement to be a fact is an unscientific attitude. One should always take a statement as an argument, an intelligent one if it has weight. We may not have any answers against it and it may even feel correct. Nevertheless the truth remains that it may not be correct.

If this sounds like a perfect recipe to become a skeptic, it cannot be helped. This is how it is going to be for anyone who will not settle for anything but the truth.

Nobody said anything about definitely finding it!

Can Conformity Kill Creativity?

"Conformity almost always leads to deadening of individual creativity and energy"
How can conformity always lead to deadening of individual's creativity and energy?If you want to learn something you do not know, you have no choice but to be a conformist. It is so because we need a place to start, a standard to refer to. It is by using this standard that we can gauge our success or failure. Everyone has to begin somewhere as a conformist.

The problem is not in beginning as a conformist but in remaining one! One has to remember that once you understand the rules, you need not get stuck in them. You can bend and break them as you please in order to get a good result. This is what is creativity all about. Creativity is the intutive ability to see and manipulate the rules of a trade or art to give results different from the ordinary. The problem begins when one looses sight of the goal and gets stuck in the means. The map becomes the prison and creativity meets a sad end. In this case conformity indeed leads to deadening of individual creativity and energy. Else conformity is just one of the many steps towards creativity. Even if you want to break the rules, you need to know them first. Conforming is a positive step in the growth of an individual. It becomes an act that enhances or updates the knowledge of an individual. If one is pursuing a branch of knowledge, it is sure that some people may have pursued it earlier. Benefitting from their experience is a wise thing to do. Getting stuck in it is not. Swami Vivekananda said that it is good to be born in a temple but bad to die in it. This means that religious ceremonies are just means to attach the mind to the supernatural. It is good to have them when the mind needs something concrete to hold on to the idea of God. All the same if you get stuck in the rituals and forget the real aim, it is bad for you. The message for us : start as a conformist to learn but do not get stuck!

Here comes up the role of a teacher. A good teacher can make the student aware if his conformity is helping him grow or is deadening his creativity and energy. Other deterrents are self-awareness, clear aims and intense desire to grow.

Concluding, conformity is not the enemy. Our approach towards it can be. Conformity without any aim or ambition is a sure road to kill creativity. Else it is just a step towards creativity. So, be a conformist. Just do not remain one forever.

Is Loyalty Good or Bad?

"Most people are taught that loyalty is a virtue. But loyalty--whether to one's friends to one's school or place of employment, or to any institution--is a destructive rather than positive force"

Loyalty is one of those qualities that we really look for in fellow human beings around us. In a highly competetive world it is comforting to know that you have someone reliable around you, someone who will not stab you in the back. Saying that loyalty is a destructive force may seem absurd. Is it like condemning an act of goodness?

If we assume that loyalty is indeed a destructive force, this implies that one should not be loyal. In the absence of the concept of loyalty, the person is free to follow a course which pleases him the most or suits his interests. He is also free to ignore, even harm, the interest of organization or people to whom he was supposedly loyal. This can be his workplace, school, college, friends, girlfriend, spouse, children or teacher. What would you call such a person? Opportunistic, egoistic, egocentric, unreliable : you have your choice of words to take and add. Would you like to be such a person? Would you like to have such a person around you?

In this era of globalization and fierce competition, many free lancers and professionals sell their brains to the highest bidder. Even for them commitment is a commitment. One takes the money one wants and delivers the result expected with no strings attached. It is said that even the world of crime has ethos. Without loyalty and the trust generated by such loyalty no project on the face of this earth can move forward.

So why do I say loyalty can be a destructive force? Loyalty can be a destructive force if it is selfishly bent and twisted to take some ugly forms like bigotry or chauvinism. Loyalty cannot be used as an excuse to harm or look down upon others. The feeling of mutual loyalty binds a family. The same feeling may be said to bind a terrorist organization! When we insist on being loyal and steadfast, sometimes we tend to overlook the mistakes of the people we are loyal to. One has to remember that being loyal means being dependable and trustworthy. It does not mean condoning or assisting in wrong doing. If your friend is digging his way down to hell, as a loyal buddy it is your duty to stop him and not to help him. Nevertheless some people do interpret loyalty as closing their eyes and ears.

Loyalty also does not mean that even if people use you, abuse you, walk over you with hob-nail boots; you still stick to them! Sticking to a company that pays you less and uses you more, staying in an abusive relationship, siding with your friend even when you know what he/she is doing is downright evil, indiscriminately promoting useless people because they belong to your region/religion/caste/country are some examples of how loyalty can be a destructive force.

Concluding, in the final analysis loyalty in itself is a neutral quality. Obsession with it can be destructive and so can be its total absence. It is definitely indispensable for successful group work. Whether it shows up as a positive or a destructive force depends on the kind of work the group does and the discretion/intelligence of the individuals. Unfortunately in today's world it is more of a destructive rather than a constructive force...

Freedom or Restriction?

"Most prefer restrictions and regulations to absolute freedom of choice, even though they might deny such a preference"

Who has ever heard of a "restricted" fun or party? Democracy works on the basic principle of freedom. People have fought and died for their freedom. The basic nature of any living soul is to be free. Even in a war it is a bad strategy to not give enemy any room for maneuver. Every cell in our body screams that we are free.

Yet we cannot deny that without rules and restrictions our life would come to a standstill. Yes, most people do prefer restrictions and regulations in many things. Law and order, schedule, time-table, organization : these are some of the words that have become embedded in our daily lives. These are the words which are enough to remind us how much we prefer restrictions and regulations. Without rules lives would go haywire. There would be utter chaos and total destruction.

So, what is wrong? What do people really prefer, after all!

The truth is that people in general prefer stability, fun, freedom and growth. The people are supposed to be free. However this freedom needs to be defined clearly and enforced equally to hold any meaning. Failing this it will not be freedom, it will be anarchy. Absolute freedom may work perfectly for a hypothetical perfect society. In real life it amounts to anarchy. As ironical as it may seem, the aim of regulations and restrictions is to make freedom flourish! It also has an additional task of preventing chaos and misuse of freedom. A man is free to move, eat, talk, vote, love, work, spend and worship. He is not free to steal, kill, loot, threaten and fight! A schedule has to be maintained so as you can do your work more efficiently. A organization needs regulations to ensure smooth working. Nevertheless it cannot dictate its employee's personal lives, discriminate between them on racial grounds or refuse to pay them. There are rules that prevent them from encroaching on an employee's freedom and vice versa.

Concluding, freedom and regulations co-exist in a delicate balance.Saying that most people prefer absolute freedom is as absurd as claiming that they prefer restrictions and regulations! Preferences of the people in particular and masses in general differ from place to place, situation to situation. Generalizing such preferences is simply not possible. The boundaries of freedom and regulations have always clashed trying to strike the right balance. But that is another story...

Modernization in All Things is Ill-considered Advice

Modernization in all things is ill-considered advice. Rather one should say Modernization in most things since many areas of human concern require least profit from intense focus

Any virtue illogically carried to an extreme becomes a vice. Honesty without understanding can become hostility. Truth without compassion can be brutal. Similarly, carrying out modernization in all things blindly can turn explosive. So is modernization in all things an ill considered advice? No. Intelligent application of modernization in all things is a blessing. What can anybody say about extreme use? The same sword that defends also kills. So is the sword "bad" or is it "good"? It is both. It just depends on the hands in which it is. So it is with the concept of modernization in all things.

Before we try to understand this, we need to be clear about our definition of modernization. We call something modern if we can identify with it as of our time or related with something that has been developed recently. The word is also used for things that seem to be ahead of time. So modernization means making something or somebody appear modern in appearance or behavior. Modernization in all things in the society means updating or improving upon material assets, acquiring and implementing new technology and making people's view liberal, unbiased, intelligent, informed and sophisticated.

Carrying out modernization in all things is the only road to a comprehensive development. Getting biased and taking it to "most things" may lead to a lop-sided, incongruous growth. Cancerous is the word. Can we hope to get a good society if we take into account modernization of only, say, material assets and technology? It may, at best, lead to a materially prosperous society barbaric in thought! On the other hand if one concentrates only on human resources, the society may grow intellectually but will suffer materially. Who is to decide how much is most? Where does its boundary begin and where does it end?

We definitely need modernization in all things. The question of intense focus does not arise if the growth has to be comprehensive. However, we do need intelligent planning and even better execution to see it through. This is true for any project. Each area can be taken one at a time or the responsibility may be divided. Priorities may be attached to a job according to the need of time. That is all right. However, after all has been said and done, all the areas must be covered.

There are no guarantees in life. Even the best laid plans falter. All you can do is give your best shot. Most means you are leaving something. All means one hundred percent effort. In any given scenario any logical person can tell you which one is better!