Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Healthcare Debate among Christians

My thoughts these days are on the healthcare reform. The PPACA (Obamacare) rollout has provided cannon fodder to those opposed to it in principle. Anyone who has worked in our industry can see clearly that the CGI engagement in building the healthcare.gov exchange has been deeply flawed in design. I can't blame CGI squarely for this either. Many critics allege that they had 3 years to fix it, but the reality is that serious work on this began only after the June 28 2012 Supreme Court ruling that Obamacare was constitutionally compliant. CGI needed to size the infrastructure, go through the hardware installation, design, application development and testing for a system that will handle the enrol-to-claim process, providing analytics, external party integration and reporting for 50 million people! And all this in slightly more than 1 year- in my experience, that is more than aggressive, and was destined for failure from the beginning. A lot of it has to do with the Obama administration, which is CGI's sole source of inputs on the business requirements, volume of traffic, compliance and all other related functionality.

The Act has also come under fire for the fact that many hundreds of thousands of 'sub-standard' health policies are getting canceled as they do not meet the standards set by the administration. When the policyholders switch to Obamacare, they end up paying higher premiums. Many who do not quality for vouchers to pay these premiums are being financially hurt. This was contrary to Obama's promise that 'those who like their current health insurance policies can keep them.'

Paul Krugman, who rarely pens articles that I find to be the 'whole truth', has written a great column in the New York Times titled 'The Big Kludge', talking about how the current complications are a result of bypassing a 'Medicare for All' law and settling for Obamacare.

My thoughts on this topic stem from my experience trying to sign up my mom for the PPACA. She is a green card holder, well above 65 years of age, but cannot get Obamacare or Medicare. These programs exclude senior immigrants who have not lived in the US for at least 5 years continuously.

There are some strident American voices out there who oppose including them in either program. Here is an excerpt from a blog post on an AARP forum:

Frankly I resent senior immagrants being eligible for any SS or Medicare.  They didn't pay into and for them to come to a foreign country and expect to take advantage a program they never paid into is appalling.  I respect your wanting to take care of your parents but you should be doing it on your dime and not on the backs of the citizens of your adopted country.  If you are so concerned about your parents maybe you should consider moving back to Argentina.  This may sound cold and unfeeling but SS and Medicare has been a political volley ball and is abused by  political parties, refuges and immagrants to this country.  Those that paid into and collect SS themselves have been cheated out of cost-of-living raises and have to deal with diminishing and inadequate health care.  There are countless senior citizens in this country that worked hard throughout their lives, paid into SS and retirement programs and still can't afford to live the comfortable life they had planned.  Social Security despite what you hear is NOT an enttilement program like welfare or programs you may get through a State.  This is a program that people pay into for their entire working life, it comes out of their checks and was meant to be used to take care of those retired/retiring, disabled workers or families where the bread winner has passed on.  The SSA has abused it by making it an entitlement program through SSI.  What does your native country do to provide for it's retired citizens and what exactly is it that you expect this country to pay for?

Observe the language "I Resent"... How could anyone resent a senior getting healthcare? If a new immigrant can be denied healthcare, why not go the whole hog and deny them access to water, emergency services, et al? After all, these are all taxpayer-funded. In these days when cities go bankrupt, perhaps we should throw off our veneer of compassion and demand that no services be provided to these needy and helpless people. Maybe they should be looking to their home country to supply these.

But this is a fairly typical sentiment- that those who do contribute should not receive anything. While the government should use its taxpayers' money effectively, this is, of course, completely contrary to Christian teaching- and when Christian caregivers or payers refuse to provide for such people, they refuse Christ himself:

"And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you? And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me." (Matthew 25: 39-40 NRSV)

Matthew 25 does not talk about people who paid into the system. Christians MUST care for such people- through setting up proper health insurance for them, period. Those trying to influence public policy on gay marriage should remember that influencing public policy on healthcare on behalf of the helpless is virtuous.

The difference in perspectives comes from how we view people. Abe Lincoln's parents were very poor. If they lived today, it is unlikely they could have afforded decent health insurance. However Lincoln became president, and today we sing the praises of Nancy Lincoln. But if she were alive today and Lincoln were president, we would refuse her health insurance because she did not pay into the system. Or did she? Did she have anything to do with Lincoln's achievements? Of course, she did. We are not of our own making. We all have to thank millions of people for everything we are and everything we have. But our idolatrous culture defines contributions as monetary in nature. We consider mammon to be the most important reality in our lives. Nothing else matters.

There is another perspective, however- this one views human beings as those made in God's image, and intrinsically worth saving. That is the ONLY perspective a Christian should have.

Earlier this year in April, a Christian hospital illegally deported (via a process called 'medical repatriation') an 'illegal immigrant' despite his life-threatening injuries. Fully knowing that this man desperately needed timely care, he was sent to Mexico to die. The strident voices who responded to this column, presumably Christian, claimed that the man had essentially killed himself because he 'chose' that when he decided to enter the US illegally.

One sane voice had this to say:

First, the article is about ontological arguments on religion and sickness and NOT of the burden of state. You can't call yourself a good christian without following his teachings, and as far as we know Jesus would not have thought twice about going bankrupt if it meant helping everyone. 
Could the hospital contacted an in country hospital with the facilities necessary? Yes.
could agencies better oversee illegal workers working in dangerous environments cutting corners to save the boss more money in safety and wages? Yes.
I'm a medical dr. And i see often people without insurance for free because once upon a time when i was young, and illegal, and hospitals turned me down for treatment (good "christian" hospitals) a doctor stepped in and paid, and helped me ever since to pay for school. Now i am returning the favor.
Isn't this wonderful? Doesn't it put to rest all the nonsense about the 'moochers'? My own parents had a big part of who I am today- and I have contributed more than my "share" into the well-being of this country. But the idolaters of our country would deny them healthcare and justify it with arguments that will one day be heard at the judgment seat of Christ. We already know the verdict from Matthew 25. Here it is (NIV):

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Emma Lazarus' poem 'The New Colossus' contrasts the brazen giant, Collosus of Rhodes with the new, gentle Colossus, the Statue of Liberty.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Would Emma Lazarus stand by these words today? Or have become the brazen giant ourselves?

Friday, September 27, 2013

Conference Call Etiquette for the Technology and Operations Industry

  • Do not begin a response to any question with “So…” You may think it makes you sound intelligent; it actually makes you sound uncertain of what you are saying.
  • Be very uncomfortable with interrupting a speaker with “I would like to add on to that” or “I would like to chime in”- if it absolutely does not need to be said, Do Not Say It.
  • Consciously work to minimize “uh’s and ah’s:. If you are looking for a word, try to remain silent where you would otherwise use such fillers.
  • Some clichés have stood the test of time despite being very annoying. Some of the usual: “big ticket item”, “phenomenal amount of…”, “ad hoc response”, “value add”, and several others.
I don’t get why we do not have a preparatory course in this and other verbal communication skills in an industry that thrives on this kind of communication. Executive coach Dr.Paul Charlton who used to work at Wipro provides this and other skills now as an independent trainer, but it seems to me that this is something a company should make a mandatory course.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Misunderstandings


My home country India is a country that is hurting from wounds to its psyche, especially the religious side of its identity. When many Hindus relate to Christians and Christianity, it is through a prism of competition- that of an upstart religion trying to upend centuries of thought in an ancient country, and focusing on such narrow categories as conversion, a prophet who started it all, a holy book, and an attitude of condescension towards Hinduism. Much of this attitude can be attributed to Christians who have not actually engaged in "life" conversations, but simply insult the Hindu way of life and posture an easy bite-sized "commit and be saved" form of salvation. There is so much misunderstanding in the following account (likely fake) of a conversation between an American girl and an Indian man on a flight.

More than anything else, it shines light on the hurt in the Hindu mind arising from perceived slights from Christians- notice how the writer describes the American girl looking at the Hindu as if at a "caged animal". If anything else, it is important for Christians to reflect Christ's provision of freedom from sin and self to an unbeliever. It is equally important for us to view Hinduism as a Hindu sees it- not as if it were a religion that divides people into castes or one that teaches that nature is to be worshiped (though it has engendered all of these), but as being a worldview that seeks to unite mankind. When a Christian engages a Hindu in conversation, it needs to focus on such ideas first. Jesus breaks down the divisions between us both temporally and eternally.

Here is the post:

A Hindu was flying from JFK New York Airport to SFO San Francisco Airport CA to attend a meeting at Monterey, CA.

An American girl was sitting on the right side, near window seat. It indeed was a long journey - it would take nearly seven hours.

He was surprised to see the young girl reading a Bible unusual of young Americans. After some time she smiled and we had few acquaintances talk.He told her that I am from India

Then suddenly the girl asked: 'What's your faith?' 'What?' He didn't understand the question.

'I mean, what's your religion? Are you a Christian? Or a Muslim?'

'No!' He replied, 'He am neither Christian nor Muslim'.

Apparently she appeared shocked to listen to that. 'Then who are you?' “I am a Hindu”, He said.

She looked at him as if she was seeing a caged animal. She could not understand what He was talking about.

A common man in Europe or US knows about Christianity and Islam, as they are the leading religions of the world today.

But a Hindu, what?

He explained to her - I am born to a Hindu father and Hindu mother. Therefore, I am a Hindu by birth.

'Who is your prophet?' she asked.

'We don't have a prophet,' He replied.

'What's your Holy Book?'

'We don't have a single Holy Book, but we have hundreds and thousands of philosophical and sacred scriptures,'
He replied.

'Oh, come on at least tell me who is your God?'

'What do you mean by that?'

'Like we have Jesus and Muslims have Allah - don't you have a God?'

He thought for a moment. Muslims and Christians believe one God (Male God) who created the world and takes an interest in the humans who inhabit it. Her mind is conditioned with that kind of belief.

According to her (or anybody who doesn't know about Hinduism), a religion needs to have one Prophet, one Holy book and one God. The mind is so conditioned and rigidly narrowed down to such a notion that anything else is not acceptable. He understood her perception and concept about faith. You can't compare Hinduism with any of the present leading religions where you have to believe in one concept of God.

He tried to explain to her: 'You can believe in one God and he can be a Hindu. You may believe in multiple deities and still you can be a Hindu. What's more - you may not believe in God at all, still you can be a Hindu. An Atheist can also be a Hindu.'

This sounded very crazy to her. She couldn't imagine a religion so unorganized, still surviving for thousands of years, even after onslaught from foreign forces.

'I don't understand but it seems very interesting. Are you religious?'

What can He tell to this American girl?

He said: 'I do not go to Temple regularly. I do not make any regular rituals. I have learned some of the rituals in my younger days. I still enjoy doing it sometimes'.

'Enjoy? Are you not afraid of God?'

'God is a friend. No- I am not afraid of God. Nobody has made any compulsions on me to perform these rituals regularly.'

She thought for a while and then asked: 'Have you ever thought of converting to any other religion?'

'Why should I? Even if I challenge some of the rituals and faith in Hinduism, nobody can convert me from Hinduism. Because, being a Hindu allows me to think independently and objectively, without conditioning. I remain as a Hindu never by force, but choice.' He told her that Hinduism is not a religion, but a set of beliefs and practices. It is not a religion like Christianity or Islam because it is not founded by any one person or does not have an organized controlling body like the Church or the Order, I added. There is no institution or authority..

'So, you don't believe in God?' she wanted everything in black and white.

'I didn't say that. I do not discard the divine reality. Our scripture, or Sruthis or Smrithis - Vedas and Upanishads or the Gita - say God might be there or he might not be there. But we pray to that supreme abstract authority (Para Brahma) that is the creator of this universe.'

'Why can't you believe in one personal God?'

'We have a concept - abstract - not a personal god. The concept or notion of a personal God, hiding behind the clouds of secrecy, telling us irrational stories through few men whom he sends as messengers, demanding us to worship him or punish us, does not make sense. I don't think that God is as silly as an autocratic emperor who wants others to respect him or fear him.' He told her that such notions are just fancies of less educated human imagination and fallacies, adding that generally ethnic religious practitioners in Hinduism believe in personal Gods. The entry level Hinduism has over-whelming superstitions too. The philosophical side of Hinduism negates all superstitions.

'Good that you agree God might exist. You told that you pray. What is your prayer then?'

'Loka Samastha Sukino Bhavantu. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti,'
लोका समस्ता सुखिनो भवन्तु !!! ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः !!!

'Funny,' she laughed, 'What does it mean?'

'May all the beings in all the worlds be happy. Let there be Peace, Peace,and Peace every where.'

'Hmm ..very interesting. I want to learn more about this religion. It is so democratic, broad-minded and free' she exclaimed.

'The fact is Hinduism is a religion of the individual, for the individual and by the individual with its roots in the Vedas and the Bhagavad-Gita. It is all about an individual approaching a personal God in an individual way according to his temperament and inner evolution - it is as simple as that.'

'How does anybody convert to Hinduism?'

'Nobody can convert you to Hinduism, because it is not a religion, but it is a Culture, a way of leaving life, a set of beliefs and practices. Everything is acceptable in Hinduism because there is no single Authority or Organization either to accept you or to reject you or to oppose you on behalf of Hinduism.'

He told her - if you look for meaning in life, don't look for it in religions; don't go from one cult to another or from one Guru to the next.

For a real seeker, He told her, the Bible itself gives guidelines when it says ' Kingdom of God is within you.' I reminded her of Christ's teaching about the love that we have for each other. That is where you can find the meaning of life.

Loving each and every creation of the God is absolute and real. 'Isavasyam idam sarvam' Isam (the God) is present (inhabits) here everywhere - nothing exists separate from the God, because God is present everywhere. Respect every living being and non-living things as God. That's what Hinduism teaches you.

Hinduism is referred to as Sanathana Dharma, the eternal faith. It is based on the practice of Dharma, the code of life. The most important aspect of Hinduism is being truthful to oneself. Hinduism has no monopoly on ideas. It is open to all. Hindus believe in one God (not a personal one) expressed in different forms. For them, God is timeless and formless entity.

Ancestors of today's Hindus believe in eternal truths and cosmic laws and these truths are opened to anyone who seeks them. But there is a section of Hindus who are either superstitious or turned fanatic to make this an organized religion like others. The British coin the word 'Hindu' and considered it as a religion.

He said: 'Religions have become an MLM (multi-level- marketing) industry that has been trying to expand the market share by conversion. The biggest business in today's world is Spirituality. Hinduism is no exception'

He said "I am a Hindu primarily because it professes Non-violence - 'Ahimsa Paramo Dharma' means - Non violence is the highest duty. I am a Hindu because it doesn't condition my mind with any faith system.

A man/woman who changes his/her birth religion to another religion is a fake and does not value his/her morals, culture and values in life.

Hinduism is the original rather a natural yet a logical and satisfying spiritual, personal and a scientific way of leaving a life..

Monday, August 19, 2013

Unmistakable Signs of Genocide- I- Marking Homes

There is a news report making the rounds that Christian businesses were marked out prior to being attacked or burned. History repeats itself. Watch out for another unmistakable sign- denial after the fact. This is true in all these cases below:


Christian businesses and homes in the town are facing similar dire circumstances. One Christian resident told an AP reporter that Islamists “painted a red X on Muslim stores and a black X on Christian stores [and] you can be sure that the ones with a red X are intact” compared to the destroyed facilities marked with black paint.

"I had eighteen people killed at my house," says a man named Etienne Niyonzima. "Everything was totally destroyed -- a place of fifty-five meters by fifty meters. In my neighborhood they killed six hundred and forty-seven people. They tortured them, too. You had to see how they killed them. They had the number of everyone's house, and they went through with red paint and marked the homes of all the Tutsis and of the Hutu moderates. My wife was at a friend's, shot with two bullets. She is still alive, only ... she has no arms."

In most places, Hindu houses amongst Muslim bastis had been marked out before the attacks using saffron flags, or pictures of Ram and Hanuman, or with crosses. Evidence before the Tribunal shows that in some places this marking was done a few days before the Godhra tragedy on February 27 and which was the ostensible justification for the 'retaliation'. These markings were to avoid inadvertent attacks on Hindu homes and businesses in areas that were targeted later.


The announcements broadcast on the radio also obliged non-Serbs to hang a white cloth outside their homes as a demonstration of their loyalty to the Serbian authorities. Charles McLeod, who was with the ECMM and visited Prijedor municipality in the last days of August 1992, testified that while visiting a mixed Serb/Bosnian Muslim village he saw that the Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) houses were identified by a white flag on the roof. This is corroborated by the testimony of Barnabas Mayhew (ECMM), who testified that the Bosnian Muslim houses were marked with white flags in order to distinguish them from the Serb houses.

Friday, July 12, 2013

Shame Theory in our Business World

Snake Oil Inc. is a tough place to work in. Like Mckinsey and other large consulting companies, Snake Oil believes in firing 10 percent of its workforce each year based on some performance metrics. There are several employees, highly paid, but unsure of their longevity in the company. Our protagonist is Trusty Rusty. We will pick a representative from the rest of the employees who behave the same way- Honest Sam. Each employee considers his or her employment in the company as a zero sum game- meaning, their being or not being in the bottom 10 percent each year depends not only on themselves but on how others perform. It is in Trusty Rusty’s interest to ensure that Honest Sam does not get a performance rating ahead of him.

Consider the scenarios before Trusty Rusty:      

  • There are 2 possibilities for him: Getting rated above or below par.
  • There are 2 consequences: Getting retained or getting fired.
  • If he gets rated above par it is likely he will not get fired, but it depends on Honest Sam’s rating as well.
  • If he gets rated below par, it is likely he will get fired, but then again it depends on how Honest Sam does.


Trusty Rusty is highly qualified, and will have no problem finding a job, but this job is highly desirable, and his goal is stay as long as possible. The longer he stays the lesser his chances of being fired in the subsequent years. However, he figures Honest Sam is also thinking the same thing. There his best chance for being retained is to keep fighting the good fight and aim for a better rating than Honest Sam.

The above are not things he has complete control over. He could smear Honest Sam’s reputation by bringing to light his errors. Honest Sam could do exactly the same thing. What could the consequences be? If Trust Rusty exposes that Honest Sam has been upbraided by a client privately, he is sure to be rated below par. This increases Trusty Rusty’s chances of being retained. On the other hand, if Honest Sam does this to him (Trusty too has not been a client’s favorite), Trusty’s own rating would be below par. If they do it to each other, both will be rated below par.

Let’s give a score to each possible consequence from Trusty Rusty’s perspective alone:

  • Trusty Rusty gets fired: 0
  • Trusty Rusty is in a limbo- it is down to just him and Honest Sam and both have the same rating: 5 (it is now up to a coin toss, so beyond this point Trusty Rusty has not control)
  • Trusty Rusty is retained: 10


Consider what could trigger these consequences:

  • Accidental Cooperation: Trusty Rusty and Honest Sam separately decide not to rat each other out. In this scenario, both of them have equal chances of being retained or fired. According to our score chart, this carries a score of 5
  • Ratting Out Scenario 1: Trusty Rusty rats out Honest Sam, without any reciprocation from Honest Sam, ensuring his retention. Score: 10
  • Ratting Out Scenario 2: Honest Sam rats out Trusty Rusty, without any reciprocation from Trusty Rusty, and Trusty Rusty gets fired. Score: 0
  • Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD): Trusty Rusty and Honest Sam rat out each other, and both have equal chances of being fired: Score: 5


What should Trusty Rusty do?
  • Do not rat Honest Sam out: As we computed above, the potential score for this would be the sum total of the scenarios “Accidental Cooperation” and “Ratting Out Scenario 2”; i.e. 5 + 0 = 5
  • Rat Honest Sam out: The potential score for this scenario would be the sum total of the scenarios “Ratting Out Scenario 1” and “Mutually Assured Destruction”, i.e. 10 + 5 = 15.


This is clearly a case for Trusty Rusty to throw caution to the winds and rat out Honest Sam ASAP, and more importantly, hopefully a case for why our so-called performance appraisals are fostering an atmosphere of untrustworthy, uncooperative people in business. If business do not allow room for employees to grow and mature, they are bound to be filled with people like our protagonist, who I think we can all agree we should have less of.

Friday, June 28, 2013

Blue Like Jazz- Blue and Despondent

I watched the move Blue Like Jazz yesterday. I'd heard about it, of course, and the book as well, as several friends love both- but somehow I never found the time or inclination to watch the movie, but finally I did yesterday. I tend to read movie reviews after I watch the movies, and so I did after watching this one. There is quite a bit written about it, and often somewhat vague reviews- like the movie and the title, they are usually without a satisfying resolution. So instead of a review I just thought I 'd share my feeling after watching this.

I'm a very feeling person- a movie, a book or a work of art is a visceral thing for me. Given that I'm a Christian, and well acquainted with the struggles of identity and conscience that many other believers have gone through (not to mention my own such struggles), this movie reminded me of that pain vividly.

My background being Indian Catholic, the Gospel of Jesus was virtually unknown to me until I attended Madras Christian College. In my final year at MCC, I came to faith. What was once a grey world without meaning, and resembled closely the highly liberal world of Reed in the movie, I found a shining, exciting, new thing. People who came to faith with me shared something special with me. Together we experienced incredible worship, joy, witness, healing and, for many, maturation that has been so Christlike.

Alongside this, something else happened- especially to those of us who had been raised in Christian families. They began criticizing their churches and other Christians. Eventually that evolved into calling themselves anything but Christian, evangelical, Baptist, Born-Again or other such terms. As the years passed I can see a little of why this happened. The secular, progressive world outside, especially in the US, hasn't helped either. While in Blue Like Jazz the antagonism is direct ('Do you have any idea what your hateful, bullying tribe has been up to?'), the real life opposition in my life has been more implicit. The suggestions are more inclined towards diminishing and questioning the sheen of my journey to faith, than a direct statement which would imply prejudice on the part of the questioner.

This movie, while somewhat realistic, mirrors the society's attitude towards Christians. But more importantly it mirror's our own faith. Hardened political Christians who use childish, pithy statements to explain the Gospel, and living hypocritical lives, worldly progressives Christians distancing themselves from their conservative brethren, and seeming in no way different from the world, ideas that are loose and vague, inclusive but not with compassion toward struggling Christians.

I found this to be a true picture of contemporary life. But is is depressing. I find in it and here in the US a world where Christians have lost their moral compass on the right and the left- political grandstanding, either sexual promiscuity or judgmentalism, salesmanship. Is there no hope for this country? Will God rescue us? Or should we bury ourselves and let the world take over?

Donald Miller, the author, has become a revered figure in the emerging movement. I find this movement depressing as well. I simply do not find meaning in the moral infallibility of Gen X and Y seeking to thumb their noses at the others through their acts of charity and generosity. First these acts are not in any way unique to such groups, except that they trumpet them much more, second, they seem to consider doctrinal clarity- even at a minimum- as a bad thing. Reading through the New Testament, there seems to have been no such lack of clarity in the apostles' preaching- or for that matter, in Jesus'. There was of course, love and compassion. Are these opposing forces? Why is it that the Western world with its comforts seem to hold itself up as the authority to speak for Christ, either in the conservative or in the 'liberal' movement?

I feel sorry for American Christians. In my darkest moments, I think of some friends in India who face threats to their lives daily, but who minister to those who are poor and sick- both physically and spiritually. Those to whom they minister consider them as not fundamentalists, but as angels. When I think of them I think of Jesus. Who can Americans think of? The protagonists in Blue Like Jazz? The chasm in my mind is deep and vast.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Fleeting Moment of Creation

The character of Professor Wilson (Richard Gere) from the movie Hachi- A Dog’s Tale is seen playing a piano before his sudden unexpected death. After playing a piece he talks about pianist Anton Rubinstein who refused to have any of his recitals recorded by Thomas Edison on his newly invented phonograph. Edison went ahead and recorded it anyhow. Wilson continues:

"I'm a lot older than you but I tend to think that there's an element of music that cannot be captured. Life cannot be captured. Human heart cannot be captured. The moment of creation itself is fleeting."

I wonder how much of recorded, amplified, electrified music we have come to accept as normal, even as being actual ‘creation’ of music. While these endeavors are incredibly creative, I cannot help but think that we are removing a part of the creative process from the body of work when we do these. My basement sound mixer accepts 7 inputs from different sources, including my guitars, microphones, computer and iPhone, carries with it effects, a little amplification and feeds the signals into a home theater which amplifies it even more. The home theater adds even more effects if necessary. When we add a completely electric instrument such as an electronic keyboard or electronic drums, where there is no analog sound at the moment of ‘creation’, the signals are converted into analog only at the speaker.

With the advances in science, perhaps we can look forward to a day when our ‘creation’ of music happens simply in our brains from where it is accepted as is, into a receiver as electric signals, modified on the fly with effects and fed into another person’s brain through wireless receptacles that eliminate the need for an analog sound. Anyone who can compose music in the brain can reproduce the sound of any instrument in her mind and present it to the world with no need for what we have so long known as ‘real’ music.

Professor Wilson’s understanding of the fleeting moment of creation is turned on its head under this scenario. When music is available to each of us in this way, there are great benefits. What was once privileged luxury has now been made accessible to almost everyone. But is this reflective of creation in the real sense? Doesn’t creation involve physicality? Helen Keller, though deaf, enjoyed music by it very vibration. But this points to an even greater truth. Our process of creating any music, analog or digital, is not ever creation ex-nihilo, though we claim it as such. We are tinkering with the tools we have been given. The digitalization of sound is an interpretation of the vibration. But what gives music richness and joy is a gift by the Creator.


Our oft-repeated claim of being able to ‘play God’ by arranging or modifying genes to correct ‘defects’ has often understandably led to serious discussions on bio-ethics. Let us not pretend that we can ever play God. We are tinkerers at best, and how we use our tools are all that is left to us.