Orientel and Western culture – a generalization?

Oriental culture , Western culture are commonly accepted phrases and is usually used in discussions as if they really mean two different unified cultures.

But is it true? Or is it a sweeping generalization?

This has been put to some good examination in the book – “Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples” by Hajime Nakamura and english translation edited by Philip P. Wiener

The great surviving cultural traditions are the Chinese, the Indian, and the Western roughly. I am sure many would find this statement itself a gross generalization.

Bertrand Russell had pointed out that man is engaged with three distinct conflicts – (1) against Nature, (2) against other men, and (3) against himself. Nakamura says, it is sometimes easy to view that each of these culture engaged dominantly with one of the aspect among the above three. West was focused on the natural problem, China the social, and India the psychological.

Nakamura also dismisses some gross generalizations that has become acceptable.

#1. East man’s individual existence is not fully realized and is subordinated to the universal and the western man is aware of his freedom. This viewpoint is limited as examples of subordination of individual to universal can be found in western history.

#2. East are intuitive and accordingly not systematic or orderly in grasping things. In contrast the Westerners are said to be “postulational” or logical, and that they try to grasp things systematically While the ways of thinking of the Chinese or the Japanese may be characterized as “intuitive.” But in the case of the Indians, this label is hard to apply.

#3. Ways of thinking of the Eastern peoples are synthetic, and that of the Westerners analytic. We cannot say that only Westerners have a tendency to be analytical. It is generally recognized by scholars that the Indians showed a great skill in the analysis of linguistic or psychological phenomena. Indian grammar was quite advanced in the analysis of words and phrases, but very weak in its consideration of the synthetic construction of sentences.

#4. Western civilization is “materialistic,” while the East Asian civilization is “spiritual,” is erroneous.

#5. Westerners are rationalistic, but that East Asians are irrationalistic.
Although Indians did not achieve as remarkable a development in the field of natural science as the West, they conducted far more elaborate speculations than the Westerners of antiquity and the Middle Ages with respect to the theory of numbers, the analysis of psychological phenomena, and the study of linguistic structures.

Many religions of the West do have irrational and illogical elements and this is acknowledged by the Westerners themselves. Consequently, we cannot prudently adopt the classification that the East is irrationalistic and the West rationalistic.

There is evidence that passivity has been a conspicuous feature of the way of thinking of the Chinese and the Indians. When various thoughts are found opposed to one another, they are likely to recognize their rational force, and to compromise and synthesize, rather than to adopt one of them alternatively to the exclusion of others.

The Indians are prone to tolerate the co-existence of philosophical thoughts of various types from the metaphysical viewpoint; the Chinese are inclined to try to reconcile and harmonize them from a political and practical viewpoint

As Nakamura says, we must acknowledge the fact that there exists no single “Eastern” feature but rather that there exist diverse ways of thinking in East Asia, characteristic of certain peoples but not of the whole of East Asia.

Another fact that we must understand is that all these analysis, talks of the of people in past. Modern world is far more connected, diverse and moving beyond such stereotypes.

Don’t do things that hold you back

Don’t be aggressive and not be conducive to letting things go.
Don’t keep a low profile, not speak up or don’t volunteer for work.
Don’t take credit for everything. Make sure you give credit to others too.
Don’t make being unattractive as an excuse. You can do away with it. We all have something good and we can build on that.
Don’t make lack of experience an excuse, volunteer for work that can enhance your experience.
Don’t think you are too smart for a job or a work. You can just do it some times. Be an apprentice for a work for some time.
Don’t think it is too late to learn new skills or try something new. Be willing to network and explore a new world.
Don’t think you are too old. It is really an old excuse!
Don’t feel alienated. You are not alone, you are in a team but keep your burning desire to succeed.

Don’t write as I have written it. Don’t use “Don’t”.

Don’t let things hold you back.

Brilliant summary of what really motivates people

The most important advice: provide a sense of purpose and get out of people’s way so that they can do the right thing. Micromanagement, incentives, annual performance reviews and the like aren’t as useful as providing the sense of purpose, the opportunity for mastery and the freedom of self-direction.

Understanding Indian economic policies

You may not have heard of post like “Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT)”.
Neither did I till I happened to read the following news on Mint. It recently issued a directive to ban further export of cotton until further notice.

In order to understand the implication of this directive, you have to list some of the key players involved in this decision and impact of the decision for each of them.

The first in the chain are cotton producers.
Textile mills and external export market buyers as primary consumers.
Textile mill products are consumed internally by Indian buyers and external buyers through export.
They constitute secondary consumers.

Cotton producers have incentive to get the highest price for their cotton. Textile mills have an incentive to get the cheapest cotton available in the market. They also have incentive to reduce cost of production. Increasing efficiency will help reduce cost, boost margin and increase competitiveness for the textile mills. How ever, the cost is always transmitted down the chain.

From the action of DGFT, it can be inferred that cotton producers have a preference to export over selling it to Indian textile mills. It is possibly due to better price or export policies that helps reduce other cost like taxes. Motive is hard to infer. In a healthy open market, cotton producers would receive best price for their effort.

But a directive like this pits cotton producers interest against the interest of Indian textile mills, which would have been forced to buy cotton at higher price in an open market. This would not impact textile mill’s production but will drive up the cost of end product.

In an open market, there would be a push to increase efficiency of production and absorb the increase in cost of raw material or risk reduced competitiveness  by pushing the cost to their consumers.
This open play benefits all players in the chain.

How ever, the directive aims to protect the interest of only one group, Indian textile mills.
It is no wonder that different lobby groups emerges to protect their interest in such policy making environment.

There is one group that suffers in silence while the game goes on. The consumers, almost never benefits from the policy interplay.

Voices and Actions

Say what you will but it is actions that tells much more.

I have always been astonished by how much is said to convince a person, group of folks or citizens of the country when little is required. Platforms are graced, meetings are held and interviews are conducted to convince people of various agenda.

The most perceptive among the audience will not require the rhetoric to understand the actions that are subsequently undertaken. They will derive the agenda through understanding of those very actions.

When an organization espouses that it believes in such and such values and expects every one to hold them in high esteem. Such messages are received only by the most in-attentive among the audience who will lap up what ever is offered to him. The attentive folks derive their conclusion from what is rewarded by the company, what is not rewarded and what is appreciated.

The rhetoric is almost always aimed to win the least perceptive among the audience and it is the hope of the speaker that they are in majority. For without that, their effort would not derive maximum mileage that it attends to achieve.

The opinion that I offer here is extreme.

I feel that most rhetoric are driven by this agenda in varying degrees. At most, such voices can be called intentions. In a age, where there are covert intentions and various kind of ulterior motives, the intention as expressed, do not mean much. They are packaged for consumption.

How are we to discern among the noise, the real intention, motive and agenda?

Alas, it is difficult to tell. For if an action does not achieve it’s goal, there are two reasons.

• It either achieved it’s ulterior agenda and intention or
• it was a failure of knowledge.

Only cynical will resort to belief that every failure is due to presence of an ulterior motive which is masqueraded with the messages that are so profusely offered in it’s defense.

How are we to get out from such dilemma?

Hero or Enemy ..

There was a legend,
in the mongol land.
Their’s was a hero,
unlike any other.

There is a account,
in the roman land.
There was a savage,
unlike any other,

Different tales,
yet goes by common name,
Genghis Khan.

Some aphorisms

What you learn can usually be described in a few sentences, else it is either not a wisdom worth learning or you haven’t learnt at all.

There are some that I have stumbled through day dreaming or have cooked up for this blog post. Either ways it does not matter, since wisdom does not lie in what is wisely conceived but in what is wisely perceived. Only intention that I have is that they should at least be entertaining.

Here are a few of them .

• Simplicity is the touchstone. If I take two hours to describe a fan, then there is something wrong with the fan or my description of it. In most cases, this distinction does not matter.

• All that comes, will go.  Some defend that is going. Only honest reason is that they are invested in it. We are all deeply invested in some things that will go.