I just learned a vivid lesson, that I need to write down before I forget all about. I’m convinced that the obstacle getting in the way of every human and liberation is our own ego. That said, the ego is the most fundamental driving force within our fragile psyches, and it can very easily be manipulated to destroy or to elevate someone.

I just received a harsh criticism from someone in a position of authority over me, and before I could even assess the critique itself, the emotional response has taken over. It’s a shitty feeling to feel like someone has shut you down without actually considering/listening to your argument first. The critique might even be fair and reasonable, but how you deliver it makes all the difference. Eventually, I will have forgotten the slight to my ego, and will be able to resume my work on the project, just with a little less motivation to do so.

None of this matters a heck of a lot if the people you are dishing out critique to are minions, or people you don’t need to bother yourself with on a day to day basis. It does matter if you are trying to lead a team to follow your vision as a leader and be their best, to empower each of them to be individual artists. False praise will be useless too, but there has to be a way to show people that the reason for dissatisfaction is that you know they can do better, as opposed to a personal attack on someone’s capabilities or intelligence.

Anyone can attack, a leader can inspire.

This entry was written by owais, posted on March 18, 2012 at 4:39 pm, and there have been 0 comments.

Being lost in a maze,
When the hurricane hits.
Its like,
Burning your house down,
Trying to make cookies.
Its like,
Those movies that make u cry,
Because they end all wrong.
Its like,
Having to throw up,
Just to ease the pain.
Its like,
Getting fired from the job you love,
On your birthday.
Its like,
Helplessly watching,
As something dies.
Its like,
Bleeding to death,
From a million papercuts.
Its like,
Losing control of an airplane,
In a blizzard.
Its like,
Waking up screaming,
In the middle of the night.
Its like,
Saying goodbye,
When you can’t.

This entry was written by owais, posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:27 am, tagged poetry and there have been 0 comments.

I’ve been thinking about a few things to do with art, so I’m going to ramble them all out here.

The first is art and elitism, both intellectual and financial. First, there’s the intellectual elitism. I’ve been called an elitist more than once when I express my dislike of what I consider “meaningless” musicals, “empty” entertainment, “braindead” television… And in turn, I’ve called that rich $300-a-ticket-opera-watching audience elitist. Why? Because they pay that ridiculous amount of money not for an experience that is 100 times more “meaningful” than a $30 play. They do it because it is a form of “high art”, entertainment and “culture” that is befitting those of the upper class. Surely they wouldn’t be upper class if they liked the same art as you ordinary people. A common complaint of the middle class, or the “ordinary” man is that they don’t “get” high art. They don’t “get” what the big deal about the opera is, why the ballet is supposed to be interesting, why this painting is worth millions and supposed to change the world. Yes, that is what Rothko was trying to do when he painted it. Admittedly, it does make people cry. So, is great art the one that touches the most people? Or the one that only a small group of art collectors and “experts” can understand? Why does one need a degree in theatre history to understand a play at a Toronto theatre? Should Mr. Bean be considered the greatest performance ever? It is after all one of the world’s most widely recognized characters. It doesn’t matter what language you speak, what culture you’re from, what your social class/status is… for decades he moves us, makes us laugh, makes us feel… all under the guise of entertainment. Surely that is great art? Surely, Rowan Atkinson should be recorded in the history books as a genius of his times. Or is the greatest art that which only the most educated, “intellectual” elite can understand? That which the common person cannot fathom because they are not “elevated” enough in their understanding?

The other elitism is financial. As art is becoming commercialized, it has become a commodity. In the past, art was sponsored by patrons. That was a world where social mobility was limited, where the world was divided in the very few rich ruling class and mostly poor peasant/working class. Then, only the rich could afford art, or entertainment, and whatever they sponsored, that was what was created. Like Michelangelo painting cathedrals paid for by the Church (the most powerful, richest institutions in history). Who knows how much great art never came into being then because the rich ruling class essentially decided who would produce what and when. Then along came the middle class, and with it the mass market. Thanks to the television business model, art today is being sponsored by the mass market. It would seem, that whatever the population democratically decides to fund is produced and is financially viable. But it’s more the case that a few corporations decide what will have the largest profit margins, which will appeal to the lowest common denominators; and that is the “art” worth creating. Which means musicals, and “conservative” plays, and more television. But not enough thought provoking plays and art that that takes risks and pushes us forward. Because the mass market, the common man, the ordinary person; they want entertainment and narcissistic wish fulfilment. We do not like being questioned, we do not like being offended, we do not like having to think critically, or be asked to change, to to be challenged on our values/assumptions. We are getting fatter, but we do not want to acknowledge it, we want to to be a sold a mirror that makes us look thinner, not cold, hard advice on how to consume less.  That is what consumerism has trained us to do, to become selfish consumers, and when we treat art with the same expectations that we treat all the other commodities/objects

Yet, steve jobs created art and financial profitability. Did he really? Or did he create objects of consumerist desire.

This entry was written by owais, posted on December 18, 2011 at 2:46 pm, tagged art and there have been 0 comments.

On a blog post written by a pakistani lesbian defending homosexuality against common myths, someone commented that she could be a Muslim because selective practice means you are not in the religion. Period. You either follow all the rules or none. Therefore, her sexual orientation made her a non-Muslim (not just a bad one). I can see where they’re coming from, to hold true only that which you like is not a blind faith. But as a liberal, I think I’d argue two things:

1) There is no such thing as the complete true religion. There is no one single Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism…all have branches that contradict each other, have conflicts, have opposing viewpoints (And yet they all share certain core values). So in a sense, every “religious” person is being selective, of the particular branch (shia/sunni/protestant/catholic) they were raised in/they agree with. By disregarding the rest of the “faith”, they are being selective. All faith is selective. We should find the values that make sense to us/ that are useful to us/ that we find most compelling/that give our lives meaning. To argue one person’s faith is less or more right is futile, it’s an argument that doesn’t get anywhere. Everyone should question everything and then reason what they get out of it. Yes, this will mean less religion, as most people now are religious by training and not by reason. But eventually we will have a new spirituality emerge, free from dogma and fear.

2) I agree that the whole “western individualism” is problematic, and people constantly pursuing their own selfish desires will just create an (even more) narcissistic, materialistic, capitalist society. But individuals should still have the freedom of pursuing their own values, with the restriction on those values/beliefs/opinions that result in physical harm to other people/animals/the environment. That’s why rape is different from homosexuality (as another commenter on the blog said was an example of why being gay was wrong, as it is indulging ‘selfish desires’). The first is someone pursuing “what they want and are free to do” but causes “harm” to someone else, and the second doesn’t. The only harm it does cause is one of offending you. Unfortunately, there are too many people in the world, and too many things to be offended about, so that is something we have to collectively get used to: that we don’t have the right to censor what offends us.

3) Homosexuality may not be a choice. People (and more than one commenter on the blog post) quote the results of the human genome mapping, which couldn’t find a “gay gene”. I think it is a matter of preference more than it is “genetic”. Some people like chocolate ice cream, some people like vanilla. Is that decided genetically? Or is there some development that leads to it? Just because the majority likes chocolate, doesn’t make vanilla a disease. Until recently, we thought of feminism as a “disease” that plagued “hysterical” women. Smart people like Freud came up with “hysteria”, not fanatical lunatics. We have to be more humble, and more willing to discuss opinions on these big question. We can’t tell people that their life is wrong based on our judgement of something we don’t understand/haven’t experienced ourselves. That’s not a real discussion, and it’s definitely not the solution.

I don’t know, just my thoughts.

This entry was written by owais, posted on at 2:26 pm, tagged philosophy and there have been 0 comments.

It doesn’t matter what position you take, what your opinion is, what your stance is, what your political alliance is… you will be wrong. Somewhere, a lot of someones will disargee with you vehemently. Many of them will feel so strongly that you are wrong, they will shout and yell, and throw temper tantrums. Some may just want you to shut up, some may want to hurt you, some may want you dead. You may not even have an opinion yet, or uttered a word for/against anything… you might have just been born a certain race, color, gender, orientation, weight; and already a whole lotta people already hate you. They haven’t met you, it doesn’t matter what kind of person you are/were/will be. They don’t think you deserve to live because they have decided against you already. If you listen to them, you may be able to change, you may be able to spend all your life correcting everything everyone else found wrong about you. And then what? you’ll still be wrong. But by someone else’s standards now. You’ll still be hated by some, some will wish you were dead.

There is no value in listening to the haters because you want to be liked. Because you want a utopia of world peace. We will not all get along. Ever. The only way to live in a world with no disagreements is to enforce one set of opinions through all mankind, and silencing any dissent. So think for yourself. Read both sides of the debate (and then read the 3rd side you didn’t know existed). Seek out with honesty the truth. Ask questions of everyone, including yourself. Never settle for a convenient lie over a difficult truth. And then listen to what you know in your heart, in your gut, in your subconscious, in your soul, whatever you want to call it. It will tell you where you are right, where you are wrong, and where you need to improve. Then question it. It will change, it wil grow, and it will be the only critic you will need to listen to know whether you are right. The moral compass cannot be in the democratic majority, or in the most charismatic leader, or in the word of whichever God’s Book you prefer. It must be inside yourself, and it must be strengthened through investigation and self critique and humility. That is the only way.

This entry was written by owais, posted on at 2:02 pm, and there have been 0 comments.

I remember once being asked to run along and do a task for someone. It was a long walk, and I did not like the request. He added a tiny sentence to the request, something along the lines of “I asked you to do it because you’re quick on your feet”.

I was so eager to oblige I ran to and back to fetch whatever it was I was sent for. What was a mundane chore became a personal mission, my own little quest that only I was fit to venture upon. I have a theory that making people feel that they are worth something, that their work matters, that only they can do what they do; is the recipe for extraordinary work out of ordinary (or so they think) people.

This entry was written by owais, posted on December 15, 2011 at 3:59 pm, and there have been 0 comments.

Patriarchal monarchs were the defacto ruling system for much of history. Even today, with democratic winds infecting the world, we can’t seem to shake off our romantic attachment to the idea of divine rulers/families/authority figures, even if purely symbolic. The Queen of England is not going anywhere for example. Or the fact that all the major world religions are still lead by strong, symbolic figureheads (mostly men); like the Pope, Ayotollah Khomeini, the Dalai Lama. My boss contends that having a constitutional monarchy (purely symbolical) is what makes the Canadian democracy successful. I find the idea appalling at first, my instinct is that democracy survives despite the remnants of monarchy. I can’t think of a system more racist, elitist, corrupt and oppressive. Yet, all the major world religions have it as part of their framework. The Pope, the Dalai Lama, the Ayatollah Khomeini… they all exercise a supreme authority over their followers that is considered essential to the faith.

It makes me wonder if the need for some form of authority figure, typically a patriarch, is human nature. That we need the benevolent, supremely powerful one “watching” over us to make us “behave”. What are we afraid of? The responsibility that comes with true freedom? Or of our own inability to self discipline, to exert self control?

This entry was written by owais, posted on December 11, 2011 at 3:52 pm, and there have been 0 comments.

Globally, we spend approximately (in US Dollars) :

$1.163 trillion on Alcohol

$336 billion on Cigarettes

$546 billion on Casual Entertainment Drugs (Weed, Cocaine and Ecstasy)

and $400 billion on Prositution

That’s about $2.445 trillion a year.

Consider that it would cost approximately $175 billion a year to end extreme poverty in about 20 years. That would involve taking 2 billion of the worlds poorest people (living off under a $1.25 a day) and putting them on a fast track out of their current conditions.

Consider then, that for 7% of what the human race spends on booze, cigarettes, drugs and prostitution; we could significantly improve the lives of all 2 billion of the world’s most economically disadvantaged (~30% of the world’s population), essentially eradicating poverty.

Consider that if that is too difficult, it would cost anywhere from $10 to $30 billion a year to achieve universal primary education access. Heck, for a whopping $60 billion, we could achieve all eight of the United Nation’s Millenium Development Goals in less than 15 years. That’s 2.5% of what’s spent every year on cigarettes, alcohol, drugs and prostitution.

Is that so difficult? Is it really self righteous to say that these are selfish pleasures; devices of escape, of addiction, of leisure? That we are literally smoking away the lives of billions of people because we “can”? I don’t expect the entire world to magically renounce all their hedonist pleasures and collectively donate $2.5 trillion to something meaningful. We are far too human to expect that. But would drinking/smoking/fornicating less by 2.5%, and spending it on the Global Development Fund instead, be so unreasonable? Is that too much to ask?

And if that’s not enough to break your heart, consider this: the world collectively spends $1.6 trillion annually on military expenditures. The US spends $700 billion themselves. Sure, the militaries employ thousands of soldiers and contractors, but what if we paid these same men and women to build homes, dig wells, run schools, work on farms, protect the vulnerable, create communities…. instead of killing each other so you and I can have cheaper oil?

Sources:

http://www.morssglobalfinance.com/the-economics-of-the-global-entertainment-industry/

http://www.heartsandminds.org/poverty/plan.htm

http://www.visionofearth.org/economics/ending-poverty/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-extreme-poverty-in-the-world/

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldbank.org%2Fhtml%2Fextdr%2Fmdgassessment.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

This entry was written by owais, posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:28 pm, tagged rant and there have been 0 comments.

I have a theory about why a lot of new immigrants (particularly brown people) seem to love the sitcom “Everybody loves Raymond”. It seems a rather strange fit since, on the surface, there’s nothing more relatable about this white family comedy than the characters of any other sitcom.

But, a with a little closer analysis, I’m thinking:

- The Italians in Raymonds family are very similar to most South Asian families.

- Deborah (Ray’s wife) is a stay at home mom. As such, she is shown to be someone very emotional, hysterical, who yells a lot, has a problem with her husband’s lack of support and laziness, is seen as the authority figure in the house and feared by kids and husband alike.

- Ray is the dad who goes of to work and generally clueless about household chores and parenting. We never see Ray at work, it is a mythical abstract concept, but we know that it is a big justification that supposedly compensates for his other character flaws.

- They have three children, which is a bit higher than the national average. Large families are very much still commonplace in South Asian cultures.

- Ray’s parents live across the street. This is probably the most relevant thing. One of the centrepieces of south asian culture is the idea of the sons living at home with the parents and daughters being married off into a different family. In Everybody loves Ray, the parents live so close, that the joke is basically that they might as well be living together. As far as I can think of, the only other sitcom with an in-law living so close to the married child is in Reba when her daughter and her husband Van move in.

- Deborah (Ray’s wife) and Marie (Ray’s mom) are understood to be enemies, there is a power struggle that is never resolved. Very common theme in South Asian film, tv, and stories.

- Ray’s brother Robert is seen a lot. Much more than brothers are seen in more modern Western families. This is also part of the extended family idea that’s still seen in many traditional Asian families.

- there’s no swearing, profanity, casual sex; it’s all very catholic and family friendly. ideal television to watch with your kids.

- the ending of all conflicts is happy reconciliations and the family coming together. Family is shown to be the most important thing to happiness in life, despite the fact that it is where most of the problems arise in the first place.

That’s my theory.

This entry was written by owais, posted on October 18, 2011 at 2:17 pm, tagged hmm and there have been 0 comments.

(UPDATE: A week after I wrote this post, I picked up and wolfed down Jobs’ excellent biography. It explores him in quite extensive and brutally honest detail, and I recommend it anyone, fan or not. There is also a section in the book which addresses the particular topic of my post, and it seems Jobs’ was a bit of living contradiction in more than one way. The exact same point I made in this post was one debated by his own partner at one point. There is no satisfying answer provided, for this or the other  inconsistencies in his philosophy. What I am pretty certain after reading it though, is Jobs suffered (or I guess in his case, enjoyed, this and maybe even this. It’s something I had doubts about but am fairly certain after reading the book. It’s slightly unnerving how crazy he truly was, but there’s also something fascinating, dare I say, magical about it.)

In case you were living under a rock, the Co-founder of Apple, Steve Jobs died on October 5th.

Like many people, Jobs was a bit of an idol of mine, an inspiration who was living proof that you could follow your dreams, create something beautiful and world changing, and get rich in the process. He was a visionary unlike any other of his time, and forever changed the way we interact with technology.

But this isn’t a post about how awesome he was. We know that he was, and there has been many eloquent eulogies already written. He was the best at what he did, no doubt about it, and he will be missed for that.

What’s really been bugging me, and this is something I’ve been thinking about for a while; is if Apple is actually not the beacon of technological perfection, but rather the King of Consumerist Desire.

Long before anyone knew who Steve Jobs was, and arguably before he knew himself, Jobs went off to India in search of truth in his life. He found Buddhism, and learned its ways for a year or so before returning to the US with his head shaved and his life changed.

(more…)

This entry was written by owais, posted on October 17, 2011 at 1:05 pm, tagged philosophy and there have been 0 comments.