What do we have for loosers? Interesting question to dwell upon. How many winners have you ever seen in your life I am sure you can count them on your fingers. So the world is full of loosers, that means a handful of winners rule the rest of the loosers., hence Pareto’s analogy is perfectly valid.
It has been professed by many that winning is the name of the game, but then if we have so many loosers out here. Obviously there is an inherent fallacy in this argument, as only a handful can be winners and the rest are branded as loosers. So if we take a representative sample of the society then loosers outnumber winners. So not all people can be winners although everyone aspires to be (baring a few exceptions yours truly included). So winning is a dream and loosing is a reality, in other winning is a myth or a mirage.
Consider a hypothetical situation when we donot have success (read winners) then one can argue that life would become boring and mundane. This argument is again based on the “product-process” assumption of life and success would have more weightage for people who lay more emphasis on product. After all in this game there are winners who can be counted on fingers and even in their life success comes towards the end. The so-called (or shall we say self-proclaimed) winners also loose and interestingly they loose most of the time in their life, but attain the title of a ‘winner’ through their few successes.
Ramana Maharshi professes that “Success develops arrogance and the man’s spiritual progress is thus arrested. Failure on the other hand is beneficial, in as much as it opens the eyes of the man to his limitations”. Further he says Defeat is nothing but opportunity lost in disguise so it should be welcomed. I fully subscribe to his views. Although winning could be a driver however it would be detrimental to neglect losses.
The point being if we have so many loosers and very few winners who loose most of time then why cant be rename the game as “Loosing”. Lets change the paradigm to “Loosing is the name of the game”.
Aski “De Lusser” “De Casta”
Current Music : Jo Jeeta wahin sikandar aur jo hara woh hai bandar !!
Current Mood : Cranky
It has been professed by many that winning is the name of the game, but then if we have so many loosers out here. Obviously there is an inherent fallacy in this argument, as only a handful can be winners and the rest are branded as loosers. So if we take a representative sample of the society then loosers outnumber winners. So not all people can be winners although everyone aspires to be (baring a few exceptions yours truly included). So winning is a dream and loosing is a reality, in other winning is a myth or a mirage.
Consider a hypothetical situation when we donot have success (read winners) then one can argue that life would become boring and mundane. This argument is again based on the “product-process” assumption of life and success would have more weightage for people who lay more emphasis on product. After all in this game there are winners who can be counted on fingers and even in their life success comes towards the end. The so-called (or shall we say self-proclaimed) winners also loose and interestingly they loose most of the time in their life, but attain the title of a ‘winner’ through their few successes.
Ramana Maharshi professes that “Success develops arrogance and the man’s spiritual progress is thus arrested. Failure on the other hand is beneficial, in as much as it opens the eyes of the man to his limitations”. Further he says Defeat is nothing but opportunity lost in disguise so it should be welcomed. I fully subscribe to his views. Although winning could be a driver however it would be detrimental to neglect losses.
The point being if we have so many loosers and very few winners who loose most of time then why cant be rename the game as “Loosing”. Lets change the paradigm to “Loosing is the name of the game”.
Aski “De Lusser” “De Casta”
Current Music : Jo Jeeta wahin sikandar aur jo hara woh hai bandar !!
Current Mood : Cranky
