Yesterday, I came across this short "management gyaan" slide. The Slide essentially intended to demonstrate, as to how, stretching your own limits may entail higher success and growth in one's own life.
While I don't really believe that such "fundaas" can apply to anyone and everyone, I don't find anything wrong in those either. What I felt odd was how different zones, of a person's comfort, were depicted in that slide. the first zone which was called as "zone of comfort" was depicted with a "Donkey" and the last zone, the "zone of success/high growth" (supposedly after stretching all your limits), was depicted by a "Unicorn".
On a deeper thought, I felt, we humans are tuned to color everything from our own lenses. What "I" see from my lens is right and what "I can't" see is wrong. Once I've made this decision of right and wrong, my next endeavor of convincing the others starts taking shape. We rarely think about the time and energy that we spend in convincing others about our ideas. In my view, while pursuing that endeavor, I clearly lose sight of the fact that all this time and energy that I spend, may take away peace from two individuals.
Would it have been wrong, if the slide simply suggested the idea, that by stretching your limits and moving out of your comfort zones you stand to gain more? The use of the donkey's image, in my opinion, is an unwarranted reinforcement of opinion. There may be someone who is content with what s/he has and happy about the fact that no "stretching of limits" is required to live that content life. There may also be someone, who may think, unicorns don't even exist and it's only a piece of fantasy and reality is actually a donkey. And, then there may be someone who wants to take those risks, challenge him/herself, and achieve higher in life.
This constant desire to color someone else's thoughts to your convenience needs to go. We need to work towards a world where the acceptability of varied thoughts exists. And, I am using the word "we", because I am no exception and I need to work on myself to accept the fact that someone may look at things differently and that's perfectly ok.
Someone, who has seen lawyers arguing in a court of law, must have noticed that lawyers argue vehemently before the judge. Once they are out of the court, they simply move on, have a tea together, without having any issue with the person against whom they were strenuously arguing just a while ago. For lack of a better term, it's called "Argument" and "bahas" in English and Urdu respectively. I think the terms have a slightly negative connotation. Even in Hindi it's called "Vaad-Vivaad". Again a word with a negative connotation, in my view. I would prefer to use "tark-vitark", which in my opinion is a beautiful term, where you just give rationale to justify your opinion but it's devoid of that desire to impress your thoughts on someone else.
What's your view?
#peacefulcoexistence #lawyers #arguments
Comments
Post a Comment