If You've Never Failed You've Never Lived
Singhbj ji and Sinister ji -- One of the quotable quotes of US President Lyndon Baines Johnson was, "If you never do anything, then you will never make any mistakes." Thought that quote fit with this thread.
Taking risks is something we do everyday whether we realize it or not. When we knowingly take a risk in order to make a change, of course it could be a mistake. It could also turn out the change lives (your own and others) for the better. Think of Guru Nanak.
He was daring. It worked.
Taking risks is something we do everyday whether we realize it or not. When we knowingly take a risk in order to make a change, of course it could be a mistake. It could also turn out the change lives (your own and others) for the better. Think of Guru Nanak.
He was daring. It worked.
Singhbj ji and Sinister ji -- One of the quotable quotes of US President Lyndon Baines Johnson was, "If you never do anything, then you will never make any mistakes." Thought that quote fit with this thread.
Taking risks is something we do everyday whether we realize it or not. When we knowingly take a risk in order to make a change, of course it could be a mistake. It could also turn out the change lives (your own and others) for the better. Think of Guru Nanak.
Hello aad ji,
yes yes and yes. Failures are a part of life...everyone is prone to make a boo-boo every now and then. The Randian quote come to mind "every man can choose but not escape the necessity of choice"..some choices will be better than others and some failures.
I was wondering about the quote "failure is not an option"
never quite undestood it...or...never experienced it.
failure is always an option even if it is not the desirable option and it is rather daunting to walk around thinking that failure is the end.
c h e e r s
Vikram singh
SPNer
- Feb 24, 2005
- 454
- 412
Nice, Singhbj,and Sinister
Sinister ji
I don't think failure is an option, but it is a possible consequence. When people say failure is not an option, what they may mean (sloppy use of language the root cause) is that they must make a choice and not permit themselves to let thoughts of possible failure get in the way of making those choices or making decisions. So they are saying -- We can't think about failure; we can't let failure stop us from acting or making a decision.
Think of strategic planning for company or in planning a military programme. Sometimes one must act because the risks of not acting are more serious than the risks of making conservative decisions. Eisenhower's invasion of Normandy would be an example. The risk of inaction was certain disaster for the free world.
stuff like that
I don't think failure is an option, but it is a possible consequence. When people say failure is not an option, what they may mean (sloppy use of language the root cause) is that they must make a choice and not permit themselves to let thoughts of possible failure get in the way of making those choices or making decisions. So they are saying -- We can't think about failure; we can't let failure stop us from acting or making a decision.
Think of strategic planning for company or in planning a military programme. Sometimes one must act because the risks of not acting are more serious than the risks of making conservative decisions. Eisenhower's invasion of Normandy would be an example. The risk of inaction was certain disaster for the free world.
stuff like that
Sinister ji
In the same way, Sri Guru Gobind Singh understood this in the final chapters of his time on earth. The decision to wage war against the Mughals was preceded by thoughtful and deliberate consideration. Guru Gobind Singh weighed the consequences of war. He weighed the moral consequences and invoked his theory of just war. His reasonable pleas were ignored. He then waged war. One could look at the devastation of khalsa forces -- it would appear that the consequences equaled military failure. But the risk of inaction was certain. It would have amounted to the obliteration of Sikh identity. Had he not waged war, in the end, when the next Mughal king assumed a more tolerant view, there would no longer have been any khalsa, no longer would there have been a Sikh identity. All would have been martyred or would have converted to Islam. So failure was not an option for Sri Guru Gobind Singh. His decisions could only be colored by his understanding of what inaction would lead to. Inaction would have led to certain failure.
In the same way, Sri Guru Gobind Singh understood this in the final chapters of his time on earth. The decision to wage war against the Mughals was preceded by thoughtful and deliberate consideration. Guru Gobind Singh weighed the consequences of war. He weighed the moral consequences and invoked his theory of just war. His reasonable pleas were ignored. He then waged war. One could look at the devastation of khalsa forces -- it would appear that the consequences equaled military failure. But the risk of inaction was certain. It would have amounted to the obliteration of Sikh identity. Had he not waged war, in the end, when the next Mughal king assumed a more tolerant view, there would no longer have been any khalsa, no longer would there have been a Sikh identity. All would have been martyred or would have converted to Islam. So failure was not an option for Sri Guru Gobind Singh. His decisions could only be colored by his understanding of what inaction would lead to. Inaction would have led to certain failure.
Last edited by a moderator:
shearwater
SPNer
- Apr 3, 2008
- 67
- 18
This reminds me of a common American saying, "Practice makes perfect." At face value it seems good. But in reality only perfect practice makes perfect. Practice in itself is an admission, that mistakes need correcting and they happen regardless until many excercises redirect our habit patterns toward perfection. One of the problems of seeking perfection whilst we know that on this earth we will fail to achieve it. In any case, God's grace is revealed to those who continue to seek.
Sinister ji
I don't think failure is an option, but it is a possible consequence. When people say failure is not an option, what they may mean (sloppy use of language the root cause) is that they must make a choice and not permit themselves to let thoughts of possible failure get in the way of making those choices or making decisions. So they are saying -- We can't think about failure; we can't let failure stop us from acting or making a decision.
Think of strategic planning for company or in planning a military programme. Sometimes one must act because the risks of not acting are more serious than the risks of making conservative decisions. Eisenhower's invasion of Normandy would be an example. The risk of inaction was certain disaster for the free world.
stuff like that
im still a little perplexed.
Failure cannot be an option? Opting for failure is letting go isn’t it? or is 'letting go' (abandonment) a consequence of a realization?
Whenever I think of failure the word “revolutionize” always pops up in my head. Admitting failure is just one of the first steps to try again with a new technique and under a new environment, with a new awareness.
Opting for failure (or letting go) is something we also witness (or at least i think we witness) and sometimes it can be viewed as cowardice and in some scenario’s it can be viewed as a triumph of a mental exercise of foresight or humbleness…but when this occurs, failure loses its meaning altogether. From the examples posted by aad ji, this seems like our reality today.
But then again, opting for failure can be as trivial as laying down a bad poker hand.
hmmm...:hmm:
cheers
“Practice makes perfect”…practice and repetition also leads to atrophy…so we have to be careful.
sinister ji
Who said opting for failure? Failure is a consequence of a decision. A person can knowingly or unknowingly make a decision that may have failure as a consequence. A person can make a decision and seeing that the risk of failure is high. A person can make a choice that has serious risks associated with it, but also understands that to not make that choice is even riskier.
That was my point about strategic planning, and Guru Gobind Singh ji.
Who said opting for failure? Failure is a consequence of a decision. A person can knowingly or unknowingly make a decision that may have failure as a consequence. A person can make a decision and seeing that the risk of failure is high. A person can make a choice that has serious risks associated with it, but also understands that to not make that choice is even riskier.
That was my point about strategic planning, and Guru Gobind Singh ji.
i think we are saying the same thing but you are saying it alot better than I am. but i was little confused when you said
confusion subsided
i think i understand the words "failure is not an option" a little better now
cheers.
That quote only scratches the superficial state of man, like you mentioned a "political sense".
All mankind is born equal upon further observation.
Ancient philosophy is called "ancient" for a reason. Past knowledge and traditions do no justice to the present. All knowledge, ritual, tradition is an accretive product of the past, it has its place but it becomes unholy when used to judge the present or when it is used in a relationship between humans (knowlegde/traditions become a wedge and infect the relationship of men like a disease, as it leads to the construction of an observer that believes himself separate from the observed). An inherent psychological flaw.
To realize that a man, IS mankind, is the act of the holy. We must recognize the daily toils of each other as one/singular/common, different only on a superficial basis. The Emotions we feel, the sorrow, the happiness, the misery, the love, the anger, the hate are all proof of this. Even human thought is remarkably similiar. Similiar experiences and emotions show our unity and similiarity. With these proofs we must dissolve the petty differences that have been constructed by not only individual thought but also by institutions who cling to groupthink for there miserable existence. Once the differences are dissolved only then will we live a life free of conflict (not only conflict amongst each other but also with ourselves).
Then we will love rather than fight. Sympathy and compassion will be natural, if childish divisions are put to rest...the I, him, her, you, me, communist, capitalist, christian, hindu, affluent, poor, black, white are replaced with the thought “I am the we” and “the we is the I".
true Compassion is only compatible with this state and it brings with it a natural state of equality and a sense of freedom from failure.
Question on my mind; was Abraham Lincoln motivated to act on the basis of emotion (compassion) or was his motivation the result of a thought?
Based on this we can ascertain wether what he did was a failure or a triumph for humanity.
c h e e r s
Sinister ji
Amazing post! Plumbs the depths of religious feeling in the core meaning of religious. From the Latin re + ligare or re again and ligare to tie. In other words to re-connect.
"if childish divisions are put to rest...the I, him, her, you, me, communist, capitalist, christian, hindu, affluent, poor, black, white are replaced with the thought “I am the we” and “the we is the I".
Buddhism describes the problem of anger as that of creating a division between oneself and another. In creating that division we harm in the most literal sense the connection or the bond that ties us to one another and to the one pervading soul. That is why compassion is considered in Buddhism a fundamental virtue.
As for Abraham Lincoln-- probably both feeling and thought. The events immediately leading to the Civil War had a now or never quality to them. Slavery in the US would have spread westward and would have become an entrenched economic structure throughout the entire nation. Since the abolitionists were adamant against slavery, it was clear that civil disruption was on the horizon. As sentiment against slavery heightened in the free states, the slave states pressed in the direction of leaving the union. And leave it they did. That was the cinder that lit the straw. Lincoln knew in the intellectual sense that he had to save the Union. To do that he understood armed force would eventually be his only option.
But why did he have to save the Union? Why was that so important? It may be in this question that his emotional nature can be found. Reading through his speeches before during and after the Civil War one gets a sense of his passion for the rule of law.
Amazing post! Plumbs the depths of religious feeling in the core meaning of religious. From the Latin re + ligare or re again and ligare to tie. In other words to re-connect.
"if childish divisions are put to rest...the I, him, her, you, me, communist, capitalist, christian, hindu, affluent, poor, black, white are replaced with the thought “I am the we” and “the we is the I".
Buddhism describes the problem of anger as that of creating a division between oneself and another. In creating that division we harm in the most literal sense the connection or the bond that ties us to one another and to the one pervading soul. That is why compassion is considered in Buddhism a fundamental virtue.
As for Abraham Lincoln-- probably both feeling and thought. The events immediately leading to the Civil War had a now or never quality to them. Slavery in the US would have spread westward and would have become an entrenched economic structure throughout the entire nation. Since the abolitionists were adamant against slavery, it was clear that civil disruption was on the horizon. As sentiment against slavery heightened in the free states, the slave states pressed in the direction of leaving the union. And leave it they did. That was the cinder that lit the straw. Lincoln knew in the intellectual sense that he had to save the Union. To do that he understood armed force would eventually be his only option.
But why did he have to save the Union? Why was that so important? It may be in this question that his emotional nature can be found. Reading through his speeches before during and after the Civil War one gets a sense of his passion for the rule of law.
This is the Gettysburg Address given by Abraham Lincoln when the Civil War was raging. Just to set the stage for forum members who may not be from the US, 160,000 soldiers fought in this single battle, the Battle of Gettysburg, over 3 days from July 1-3 in 1863. Seven thousand five hundred soldiers died, along with several thousand horses. The battle field was extensive, and was strewn with the dead and the wounded for days. In November of 1863 President Lincoln dedicated the battlefield as a cemetery.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Apparently, President Lincoln did not agree with Aristotle.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Apparently, President Lincoln did not agree with Aristotle.
Freedom is actually a bigger game than power. Power is about what you can control. Freedom is about what you can unleash - Harriet Rubin
The new source of power is not money in the hands of a few, but information in the hands of many - John Naisbitt
Anyone can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person at the right time, and for the right purpose and in the right way - that is not within everyone's power and that is not easy - Aristotle
The new source of power is not money in the hands of a few, but information in the hands of many - John Naisbitt
Anyone can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person at the right time, and for the right purpose and in the right way - that is not within everyone's power and that is not easy - Aristotle
oddly, I dont view this as an acomplishment for Lincoln...but im happy he didn't/wouldn't agree.
Aristotle has his place but he was wrong on many things, and from what little i know he was one of the great burdens on science and scientific thought/objectivity (partly because when it came to his philosophy it overlaped politics with science, and once the church incorporated what he said into their own pseudo-scientific theophilosophy...everything went haywire)...his words, "thought experiments" held back science for centuries..his ideas on spontaneous generation, geocentric models of our solar system were not only erroneous for today (obviously) but also were rather 'odd?' during there own time as well (accepted mostly on the basis of the reputation of the person saying, Aristotle the great student of Plato).
if you want to look at a failure...Aristotle's failures were many(despite his success and the respect he had earned during his lifetime). History is not very kind. And he's partly to blame "why some people still watch flintstones as if it were a documentary" (lewis black)
which is odd because....you may be successful/popular now, but history can and in all likelihood will judge you as a failure. (something we shouldn't forget...this thought is remarkably humbling
) c h e e r s
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
