Los Angeles-based Production House
Nancy worked on this little short with Kelly Ladd and Andrew Sweeney. They all met through Sessions Atlanta and decided to do a little short for Pi Day.
Take a look and see what you think…and Thank God it’s Pi Day!
PS. From Nancy: It’s on Vimeo too 🙂
Thank God It’s Pi-day! from Nancy Thanki on Vimeo.
Nancy worked on this little short with Kelly Ladd and Andrew Sweeney. They all met through Sessions Atlanta and decided to do a little short for Pi Day.
Take a look and see what you think…and Thank God it’s Pi Day!
PS. From Nancy: It’s on Vimeo too 🙂
Thank God It’s Pi-day! from Nancy Thanki on Vimeo.
After a failed attempt to assassinate Margaret Thatcher, the Irish Republican Army claimed responsibility for the attack. They announced in their statement: “Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once – you will have to be lucky always.”
This notion – “we have to be lucky once, you have to be lucky every single time” – has come up several times since the IRA originally stated it, both in terms of defending against terrorism and catching up with high profile terrorists like Osama Bin Laden.
While it’s applicability to terrorism certainly needs no more explaining, this notion of only needing to be lucky or right once may apply elsewhere…
Take your career.
Does it matter if you make a million mistakes if once, just once, you are very, very right?
Or what about your personal life?
Does it matter if you make a million mistakes with who you trust, befriend, or enter into a relationship with in your life if one time you are very right or very lucky?
Does being right once about something big enough, important enough justify a lot of mistakes in order to get there?
Consider Alan Greenspan. Greenspan claimed to be right 70% of the time about his tenure in government, (logic that, if it were applied to the captain of the Titanic, would sound disastrous and insane). What if those cards were turned though. What if he was right about far less often than he was but about every question that would have determined the course of the economy… that seems like it would obviously be better, but how often would he have had to have been right to get there and how many mistakes could he afford to make it order to do it?
What do you think? Does being right about the big stuff negate being wrong, a lot, about smaller things? And what are the big things that you really have to be right about? Or lucky? How many mistakes can you make in order to make that happen?
Also, do you do a good job focusing your time on being right when it matters, or are you stuck trying to avoid mistakes of all kinds? If so, why is that? If not, how do you keep yourself focused on what matters most?
What if money were no object?
What if you did what you loved doing, regardless of whether or not it paid you money?
Alan Watts asked this question of his students when they asked him what they ought to be doing with their lives.
Because if you say that getting the money is the most important thing, you will spend your life completely wasting your time. You will be doing things you don’t like doing in order to go on living, that is, to go on doing things you don’t like doing… which is stupid! — Alan Watts, What if Money Were No Object?
Sometimes when you bring this up with people, they respond that not everyone has the option to do what they love.
Not everyone can afford to treat money as no object.
“Ask the poor what they think of this advice” is often the retort you hear from people.
And truthfully this idea may be unrealistic for many.
It wouldn’t be surprising.
It also wouldn’t necessarily negate the advice because so much of Buddhist thought (like that of Watts) is tempered with the principle, Do what works for you.
If this advice is bad for you, leave it.
If it’s good, take it. Or figure out why you haven’t taken it yet and work on that.
So the misfit idea of the day…
What if you did focus on doing what you love? What would that be and how would your life be different than it is now? Would it be better? Worse? Better in some ways, worse in others? Something else entirely?
Is this good advice for you? Have you followed it, if so?
Not, “Is this bit of advice useful and applicable to everyone?”
But, “Is it applicable to me? Is it good advice for me? If so, am I taking it or ignoring it? Why?”
Give it some thought and feel free to share anything you life here. We won’t judge, and we’d love to hear your ideas.
Until next time…
The idea of working for someone else is based on a premise: they shield you from the big, bad, scary “outside world.” In exchange, you give them your life.
When we talk about a good job, it’s always on the same terms.
Good pay.
Good benefits.
Good work/life balance (so you don’t have to trade as large a portion of your life to the people who in exchange share a fraction of what you are earning for them).
Job security.
And the thing is, it’s not really clear to me that this exchange is true anymore.
Maybe it never was to begin with.
Maybe those executives and managers could never promise you anything at all, most of all not job security.
And as a consequence most of us spend most of our lives earning a living for someone else, never actually learning how to make a living for ourselves.
So the question, the misfit idea of the day, is:
Would the world be better off with vastly more entrepreneurs, or would it not?
Suppose 50 percent of the workforce was self employed.
Or 90 percent.
Would that work? How would it work? Would it be better or worse? In what ways?
Feel free to share your own ideas if you have them. Until next time…
photo credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com via photopin cc