Absence of a worldly ambition doesn't mean an absence of ambition. Ambitions are different. Some people want
to be rock-stars and some, choose to stay happy and peaceful. Too bad personal
happiness and peace is misinterpreted as ‘no fire in the belly’ or being ambition-less This materialistic world loves ‘go-getters’. And that’s the
problem with this world; there’s too much of going and ‘getting’ things for
yourself. Till the time one doesn't ‘get’ things, one is not an ‘achiever’.
To this world I ask, “Why do you
label ‘go-givers’ ambition-less, weak, under-achievers or failures?” Is it
because they don’t fit a bill accepted by the majority? Or is it the fear that
this minority of an aberration will shatter your illusive world?
It hurts that go-givers are never
noticed. It hurts that go-givers are considered ambition-less It hurts that
go-givers are sidelined.
Very few times the go-givers are
forced to show their truth to the world. But I say, it is worthless do so. Because the
world has blindly, voluntarily and without offering any thought, castrated
itself to incapability to understand their stance.
When the focus is on getting,
giving becomes an unviable option.
A deviation exists to question
the majority of its conscience and thought. There is no way it can be silenced.
Anomalies are wonderful. If you can’t celebrate anomalies, at least don’t
squash it.
And to the world, I dare say, the
go-getters are remembered when they pass away, but it’s the go-givers who are
missed.
- Aamir Ayubi
I shall allow myself to respond to this elaborately. First of all, I am very pleased to see this post from you.
ReplyDeleteI understand the distinction that you are trying to make here between the 'go-getters' and the 'go-givers' (interesting new term). However, I do not agree with it. The go-getters as you mention, are the ones who aspire to be noticed and recognised for their work or for their personality by the people. As I understand it, the locus of their satisfaction is external, whereas the go-givers as you have mentioned, I believe that the locus of their satisfaction is internal.
However, in both the cases, the final goal of satisfaction exists. Both of them have ambitions, although at the opposite extremes. To seek personal happiness and peace is not restricted to one personality type. It is a constant pursuit.
I think that the go-givers are labelled as ambition-less because their traits resemble very closely to ones that are actually ambition-less and do not even know what they seek. There are people who do not even have an understanding of their own self to seek personal happiness and peace. These people are ambition-less and without the 'fire in the belly'. To achieve personal happiness and peace is not an easy task either and requires ambition and great discipline. As you recently saw the documentary 'Jiro Dream of Sushi', his ambition was only to create better and better variations of Sushi and to perfect his skill. Success followed. He attained personal happiness and peace, so to say, but his 'tapascharya' (can't find the word in English) could not save him from becoming a 'rock start' of the Sushi-loving world. If you seek personal happiness and peace, you will strive towards achieving it and you will have the 'fire in the belly', whatever your means to achieve it.
I will admit that there is more importance given to 'material happiness' in this world and I am not sure if that is good or bad. Ultimately, it is the individual who shall decide how and from where he derives his happiness. The people who are not tempted towards material happiness are, unforunately looked down upon because they do not have anything to charm the visual senses of the onlooker inspite of being content. And, to add to this, as I have mentioned before, the traits of these 'go-givers' resemble those of lazy people who really have no ambitions or the quintessential 'fire in the belly'.
Thanks Mihir.
DeleteYou have done my job. I could not have written it but my comment on Go-givers remains the same.
Go-geters are not always ugly guys - 'Jiro Dream of Sushi' explains about attractive go-getters.
Mihir,
DeleteThanks for the elaborate response. To drive my point, you have helped with the statement in your response:
"I think that the go-givers are labelled as ambition-less because their traits resemble very closely to ones that are actually ambition-less and do not even know what they seek."
Understand something, resemblance doesn't mean the trait is same. Twins resemble each other, but they are different.
Go-givers are like the seven sister states of the east (India). People think they know about them and have strong opinions, but actually they don't.
And as I said, even understanding the stance is challenging because it is something unheard of, hence unacceptable (by society at large). There would always be comparisons with acceptable norms, but that's like comparing apple with oranges.
:)