Rahula: What do you have against the Fast 500 awards? Isn't it good to see what technology companies are growing fast and are catering to the growing technological needs of people around the world?
Rahuli: I don't have anything against rewards and satisfying the needs of the people.
Rahula: Then what are you angry about?
Rahuli: I think it's wrong to reward only companies that grow fast. I think one should reward companies that grow steadily and consistently. It's very easy to see speedy growth, it's hard to see consistency and steadiness, because it takes much longer time to observe and evaluate, and no one has the time to do that, during dotcom booms and recessions.
Rahula: There, you said it yourself! During times of booms and recessions, no one cares about long-term plans and evaluations, everyone wants immediate results and solutions. If one can't do that, why shouldn't Deloitte Fast 500 reward fast-growing companies?
Rahuli: I told you, I have nothing against speed, but I value consistency and steadiness much more than I value speedy growth. So, instead, I think Deloitte should reward companies that maintained their stead during booms and recessions.
Rahula: Well, now that the economy is in a recession, maybe Deloitte will find a way to reward stability, like it found a way to reward speed during the dotcom boom early this millenium.
Rahuli: I don't think it will be possible for Deloitte to do that.
Rahula: Really? Why not?
Rahuli: Because most people don't see the other side of the coin, especially those people who have already displayed their clear perception of one side of the coin. It would take extraordinary character and moral strength to also see the other side, and such people are rarely found in big companies that are well established.
Rahula: I don't understand a word you said.
Rahuli: I will give you an example to demonstrate this using free asssociation. Do you think Gandhi is bad and Hitler is good?
Rahula: That's outrageous! Gandhi is good and Hitler is bad. Everyone in the world who have heard about them knows that.
Rahuli: I would disagree, for the purpose of this discussion of rewarding stability instead of speed, and at the cost of my life, that Gandhi is good and Hitler is bad. I know both of them are long gone, but if one were to engage them both in a hypothetical philosophical debate about good and bad, he would demonstrate to the world that both Gandhi and Hitler were both great thinkers, but only that Gandhi was fearless, and Hitler was a coward.
Rahula: That's what I said - Gandhi is good and Hitler is bad.
Rahuli: No you didn't, and it's illogical to assume that goodness and badness are the same as fear and courage. Gandhi encouraged people to suffer and die for his cause, but Hitler forced people to suffer and die for his cause. Neither Gandhi or Hitler is good or bad, but both of them are paragons of courage and fear respectively.
Rahula: I am beginning to understand this, but how does this tie in to our discussion about speed versus stability?
Rahuli: Very good question, Rahula. People usually give up the discussion at this point. You have demonstrated a fine mental acumen and persistence of thought during our discussion. I commend you.
Rahula: Thank you, but you didn't answer my question about the relevance of one discussion in light of another.
Rahuli: OK. Do you think Hitler might ever have admitted his wrongdoings if he were forced to suffer persecution in one of his own concentration camps?
Rahula: Never in an aeon would he have done that. Didn't he actually kill himself when his empire was falling?
Rahuli: This proves that it takes an exceptional character to "see" the other side of one's own actions. Just like Hitler wouldn't see the wrongs of his actions, whoever devised Deloitte Fast 500 would probably never see the other side of the coin. It's good to reward fast-growing companies during economic booms, but it's better to reward steady and stable companies during recessions and depressions, because it would then highlight to and teach the world what it takes to live through suffering and death.
Rahula: I understand now. You are saying that even if someone does devise an award for steadiness and stability, it wouldn't be the same person who would reward speed and fast growth. Am I right?
Rahuli: Yes, you are. It's rare that two-person discussions and debates end in a mutual understanding of an impersonal concept, and in my opinion, I think you should be rewarded for your persistence of thought. How about I take you out for dinner tonight?
Rahula: Well, to further demonstrate the strength of my character, I would politely deny this reward, because I don't claim the rights to the fruits of my own actions.
Rahuli: That concludes our wonderful discussion. See you sometime later then. Bye.
Rahula: Bye.
Rahula and Rahuli both signed out of chat.
Rahuli: I don't have anything against rewards and satisfying the needs of the people.
Rahula: Then what are you angry about?
Rahuli: I think it's wrong to reward only companies that grow fast. I think one should reward companies that grow steadily and consistently. It's very easy to see speedy growth, it's hard to see consistency and steadiness, because it takes much longer time to observe and evaluate, and no one has the time to do that, during dotcom booms and recessions.
Rahula: There, you said it yourself! During times of booms and recessions, no one cares about long-term plans and evaluations, everyone wants immediate results and solutions. If one can't do that, why shouldn't Deloitte Fast 500 reward fast-growing companies?
Rahuli: I told you, I have nothing against speed, but I value consistency and steadiness much more than I value speedy growth. So, instead, I think Deloitte should reward companies that maintained their stead during booms and recessions.
Rahula: Well, now that the economy is in a recession, maybe Deloitte will find a way to reward stability, like it found a way to reward speed during the dotcom boom early this millenium.
Rahuli: I don't think it will be possible for Deloitte to do that.
Rahula: Really? Why not?
Rahuli: Because most people don't see the other side of the coin, especially those people who have already displayed their clear perception of one side of the coin. It would take extraordinary character and moral strength to also see the other side, and such people are rarely found in big companies that are well established.
Rahula: I don't understand a word you said.
Rahuli: I will give you an example to demonstrate this using free asssociation. Do you think Gandhi is bad and Hitler is good?
Rahula: That's outrageous! Gandhi is good and Hitler is bad. Everyone in the world who have heard about them knows that.
Rahuli: I would disagree, for the purpose of this discussion of rewarding stability instead of speed, and at the cost of my life, that Gandhi is good and Hitler is bad. I know both of them are long gone, but if one were to engage them both in a hypothetical philosophical debate about good and bad, he would demonstrate to the world that both Gandhi and Hitler were both great thinkers, but only that Gandhi was fearless, and Hitler was a coward.
Rahula: That's what I said - Gandhi is good and Hitler is bad.
Rahuli: No you didn't, and it's illogical to assume that goodness and badness are the same as fear and courage. Gandhi encouraged people to suffer and die for his cause, but Hitler forced people to suffer and die for his cause. Neither Gandhi or Hitler is good or bad, but both of them are paragons of courage and fear respectively.
Rahula: I am beginning to understand this, but how does this tie in to our discussion about speed versus stability?
Rahuli: Very good question, Rahula. People usually give up the discussion at this point. You have demonstrated a fine mental acumen and persistence of thought during our discussion. I commend you.
Rahula: Thank you, but you didn't answer my question about the relevance of one discussion in light of another.
Rahuli: OK. Do you think Hitler might ever have admitted his wrongdoings if he were forced to suffer persecution in one of his own concentration camps?
Rahula: Never in an aeon would he have done that. Didn't he actually kill himself when his empire was falling?
Rahuli: This proves that it takes an exceptional character to "see" the other side of one's own actions. Just like Hitler wouldn't see the wrongs of his actions, whoever devised Deloitte Fast 500 would probably never see the other side of the coin. It's good to reward fast-growing companies during economic booms, but it's better to reward steady and stable companies during recessions and depressions, because it would then highlight to and teach the world what it takes to live through suffering and death.
Rahula: I understand now. You are saying that even if someone does devise an award for steadiness and stability, it wouldn't be the same person who would reward speed and fast growth. Am I right?
Rahuli: Yes, you are. It's rare that two-person discussions and debates end in a mutual understanding of an impersonal concept, and in my opinion, I think you should be rewarded for your persistence of thought. How about I take you out for dinner tonight?
Rahula: Well, to further demonstrate the strength of my character, I would politely deny this reward, because I don't claim the rights to the fruits of my own actions.
Rahuli: That concludes our wonderful discussion. See you sometime later then. Bye.
Rahula: Bye.
Rahula and Rahuli both signed out of chat.
No comments:
Post a Comment