Temples and changing culture

During my work travels across South East Asia about two decades back, I used to be surprised by relics of Hindu icons languishing behind majestic Buddha statues (in alcoves at Angkor Wat) or lying dejected (at Jakarta Museum).  Coupled with extensive commonalities with Indian languages in countries like Indonesia (Bahasa) and Cambodia (Khmer spoken alphabet seemed almost identical to Bangla, though the words and script are not), this may give the impression of Hindu culture being 'subsumed' by an expanding Buddhism in SE Asia (later to be overriden in some regions when Islam came in).

But recent research (as quoted in 'Coromandel' by Charles Allen e.g. Ch. 4) appears to indicate that similar subsuming of Buddhist and Jain culture, or the temples at least, may've happened right here in India. So it was never a one way street!

Empathy vs. Compassion

I've been quite a bit intrigued at times when certain persons are perceived as insensitive or even apathetic, even when they seem to be doing reasonably well helping the people or causes they're accused of being apathetic to.

Listening to the book 'Humankind' (an excellent ode to positivity, which takes apart all the negative 'tenets' we go by) by Rutger Bregman, the portion in the Epilogue dealing with compassion, clarified the issue a lot. 

The author says that, to really be able to help others, people need to be more compassionate, not necessarily (or not just) more empathetic.  This is supported with evidence from a scientific study of people's brains being scanned while they were told to consciously experience empathy and then compassion about a certain situation - it was reported that different areas of the brain 'lit up' in the two cases.

The author gives the example of a child who's afraid of the dark - to help the child, the parent or caregiver does not cower in a corner thinking about the causes of the fear (empathy), but instead feels for the child and soothes him/her with comforting behaviour (compassion).

It seems to me that people displaying compassionate behaviour have to retain a level of reasoning in their mind, to be able to formulate responses and actions to help out, and that may be why they're perceived as 'dispassionate' and thus 'devoid of feeling', not being able to balance 'thinking' and 'feeling' to the degree possible for the more voluble (who may be perceived as more empathetic but may or may not be more compassionate).

Added to this is the factor that compassionate behaviour may be more 'action-oriented', while empathetic behaviour can be more expressive (verbally or otherwise).  And we all know that the old adage of 'Actions speak louder than words' has been turned on its head in the current age of 'in your face' behaviour and microsecond attention spans where, for instance, love has to be expressed in words rather than just conveyed through gestures and actions.

Which is probably why people with genuine compassion, who may actually act on their feelings of empathy by helping through their actions, may be unfairly characterised as unsympathetic.

Fungibility in Nature

Had an epiphany of sorts, during my daily morning readings today.  (Nothing groundbreaking, and may look too simplistic to some.)

Being a finance person, I've been aware of the concept of fungibility since a few years now.  Basically, as I understand it, fungibility means that any random unit of a certain thing is exactly equal in value to any other random unit.  Money is the most common thing described as fungible, since a note or coin of, say, ten rupees is exactly equal in value to any other of ten rupees.  (This doesn't consider the practices of collectors, who fondly collect notes or, more typically, coins of a certain vintage, which actually gain in value over time, regardless of their underlying value which the Governor of Reserve Bank of India "Promise(s) to pay the bearer...' as printed on the note!)

The concept of fungibility has further come into prominence in recent years in the digital realm, specifically in the context of digital 'currencies' (recognised vor not) and 'tokens'.  Technically, all digital 'currencies' like Bitcoin and Ethereum are what is known as 'tokens', and one unit of, say, Bitcoin floating around anywhere in cyberspace is supposed to be equal in value to any other unit of Bitcoin stored or traded anywhere else, the value itself being arrived at through a complicated process, not relevant for our discussion here.  On the other side are NFTs, or Non Fungible Tokens.  These are supposed to be unique, typically representing something in real world, for instance a shoe or a song or a photo, usually with some unique identifier.  As such, these are 'non fungible', that is, no two units of the specific token is an exact substitute of any other.

Coming back to our core discussion after this lengthy detour, wouldn't it be helpful if we could consider our relationships with others also as 'fungible'?  Say, someone could have slighted us or even harmed us in some way in the past.  Typically, we carry around that hurt for years, sometimes our while life, even as we may realise that this actually harms us only and possibly restrains our development, without the object of our hate being even aware of it.  In such a scenario, couldn't we instead think back to the behaviour of another person who would've done us some good (and, if we think sincerely, most of us can surely find a person or persons to whom we should be grateful to).  

So, if we follow the concept of fungibility, can't we treat the behaviour of our do-gooder as an exact substitute for that of our supposed 'enemy'? (This may also be in line with the traditional Indian ethos of वसुधैव कुटुंबकम् or 'the world is our family'.) Once we're able to do that, we should be on our way to release the negative energy trapped in our feelings of hurt, letting our psyche fly higher to the realm of wholesomeness.

This could possibly also be applied to our own behaviour towards others.  But perhaps that's another discussion.

Something to think about...

Concepts of Freedom and Property in Mediaeval Europe

David Wengrow and the late David Graeber, 'spiritual father' of the Occupy Wall Street movement, co-wrote a wonderful critique of European-dominated narrative of world history, 'The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity'.  Their attempt is to stand on its head the self-important 'history written by victors', parts of which are anyway being debunked all around as formerly subjugated countries pull off the yoke of European economic colonialism, decades after political colonialism went out of fashion.

One of the themes tackled by the authors is that of European 'Renaissance' of the 17-18th century, heavily 'publicised' as a home grown effort.  With copious references to books of French Jesuit priests who arrived in North America with the invaders, putting forth detailed accounts of their interactions with indigenous American thinkers (including the legendary Wendat leader Kandiaronk, whose thoughts were popularised in books written by an itinerant French writer, in the style of dialogues with a 'noble savage', a construct which was catching on at that time), the authors comprehensively prove that much of the ideas underlying the Renaissance were actually absorbed from such interactions, and did not in fact sprout spontaneously in European minds.

On the subject of individual freedom and liberty in the specific context of property rights, the authors extensively quote the 18th century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  He is shown to be heavily influenced by the then prevailing 'dialogues' floating about in European societies in various forms, including in the form of dramas, based on the same indigenous American thoughts.

In this context, a particular thought of Rousseau which is quoted throws light on how the concept of individual freedoms evolved in European cultures, as opposed to the completely different, much more egalitarian and compassionate path and bedrock of indigenous American philosophy.  Some excerpts may help:

On a slightly different note, not connected to the authors' arguments, the above perhaps puts in a bit of context a slightly puzzling feeling many people of cultures other than European have carried for years and years: namely, as to why people (or at least politicians) of European-descended cultures talk so much about liberty, equality, freedom and compassion (thoughts which may come naturally to people of some other cultures) while doing their level best to deny and snatch away those very things from others, earlier openly in the colonial era, and of late camouflaged behind veneers of free trade (read: economic dominance) and enforcement of 'rule based order' (read: war and other forms of aggression, driven by arms industry lobbies).

The reason for this dichotomy and holy talk may lie in the fact that in European societies in middle ages, from which most current Western politico-economic and social structures have developed over centuries, such lofty concepts were simply not the 'order of things' (unlike, say, in the Wendat society, or in the Lichchhavi and Shakya Janapadas of north India in the first millennium BCE).  Social and political status in European societies of that time was based purely on property and economic affluence, and individual freedoms and even liberty flowed out of that only, with no place for compassion of any sort on that count.  (As an aside, this may also be the reason for the violent opposition in such societies to even a whiff of the concept of Communism, a la McCarthy years in US, and its characterization as pure evil.) 

So could all that talk of compassion actually be arising out of a subconscious guilt at the human depredations inflicted upon other peoples by adherents of this core philosophy of European-seeded thought?

{We've to be very careful to distinguish here between indigenous American thoughts of that time and later/current American philosophies: the two have absolutely no parallels and are in fact diametrically opposite in many ways, not the least because most indigenous American tribes like the Wendat were wiped out by the marauding Europeans, something which continued at least till the 19th century if not later, and the current American philosophies are probably rooted on the bedrock of the same European thoughts, especially about property, dominance and freedoms, Renaissance-influenced or not.}

Surviving and Thriving in 'The Passion Economy'

All around, the poor seem to be getting poorer and the rich richer, on the back of their favoured vehicles of enterprises, virtual and real, ballooning up in size and scale, often courtesy the new-fangled technological tools of automation, AI, robotics and the like (with startups quickly becoming Unicorns and even Decacorns, even with minuscule success rates).  In this scenario, most may be excused for thinking that there's hardly a chance in hell for small and midsize businesses to survive, as the behemoths in their industry rampage around gobbling up all available spaces and monopolising supply chains.

Adam Davidson begs to differ.  With a plethora of real world examples, Adam illustrates how some smaller enterprises have not only survived but managed to carve out their own niches, fiercely protecting their turf, transforming what they do and how they do it, and actually growing their businesses sometimes beyond their own wildest imaginations.  And all this they do by consciously beating complacency and diligently working at identifying, being close to, and constantly delighting their core customer base with innovative products and services.

Adam delves deep into the whats and hows of the new age entrepreneurs, sometimes fourth or fifth generation descendants of the founders, to reveal what clicks.  He culls out 8 'Rules of the Passion Economy', and analyses each in depth for their potential to add scale and value to the chosen businesses.  The rules are centered around identifying the core business, pursuing 'intimacy at scale' with a sharp focus on customer passions (and how to communicate the passion 'story'), fostering entry barriers in terms of unique offerings rather than commoditization, and the nuances of selling price and what it conveys in terms of value.  All through, the focus is on relentlessly working to know the needs of core customers (something of a matter of faith with old world entrepreneurs but sometimes sadly neglected during the pursuit of scale and latest fads) and servicing such needs in unique ways.  Along the way, some entrepreneurs also explain why they chose to avoid growing beyond a point, to be closer to the customer and also to 'avoid unwanted attention' which'd detract them from their core mission.

The legwork put in my Adam epitomizes his approach to the Passion Economy itself.  The chapters come across not as cut and dried business narratives, but as intimate stories.  And the approach is thorough and deep.  For instance, in the chapter on Ocho Candy, Adam delves into the life and ethos of Jesuit priests, the nuances of mass production and distribution, the economics of consumer packaged goods or CPG, and a bit about private equity and venture capital, besides of course the science of candy bars.  That's some landscape to cover!  In a similar vein, Adam covers enterprises in such varied domains as business consulting, accounting services, winemaking, Amish manufacturers, stationery, and ice cream (besides or course candy bars).  In almost every case, Adam appears to have personally met the storied entrepreneurs, in an effort to glean out the essence of their approach, to synthesize a set of principles which can be adopted by almost any entrepreneur to plug into the 'passion economy'.

A great work, which can be read either as a set of fascinating stories of common people surviving and thriving against overwhelming odds, or as erudite lessons on interesting aspects of the modern world and economy.