Martin Luther King's Quote On Cowardice, Vanity, Expediency And Conscience

A friend sent me this quote. http://www.thekingcenter.org/blog/mlk-quote-week-conscience-asks-question. 

What is the basis of our actions? Cowardice, vanity, expediency or Conscience? If we talk about right or wrong (conscience), are your standards same as mine? 

When we claim to do things based primarily on our conscience, I don't think it's a very accurate statement. 

First, do we have a largely uniform set of standards? I guess we don't. What you think is right and what I think is right, may not be the same. We may not use the same yardstick. The yardstick for your conscience and mine may be different.

Our action is based on which question gives us most jitters. Am I doing a wrong thing, is what I am doing unsafe? Not popular or expedient enough? 

Conscience (an attribute of Saturn) and courage (an attribute of Mars) may not go together. These are two independent attributes. A person may have one or both or none of the two. A person with conscience and courage like MLK (Dr King) may stand up for what is right. A person with conscience and without courage may just silently suffer or lend a small hand.

Yes courage often leads to creativity. And creativity is not always a great thing. Hitler had tremendous creativity and courage. And so did Osama Bin Laden. 

People who prefer safety (weak Mars) as the primary guiding principle aren't bad. They lack courage or they may be contented with their lot. The risk of taking an initiative which could fail badly may be too much for them.

What is the difference between vanity and expediency? Vanity tries to ensure that one's actions are noticed by others. Expediency is about ensuring that one's goals are met and the action may not be tom tommed unlike in the case of vanity. 

Expedient people also have a lot of courage and initiative and creativity. What is the difference between working on the basis of your conscience and being expedient? In one case Right/Wrong (as one understands it) guides one's actions. In the case of expediency, it's the ambition (what's good for me, how to maximize what I get with the least risk, effort) that drives it. 

On the face of it, MLK's quote seemed to identify 4 simple choices that a man has!

Abstracting this, two people whose conscience, courage and ambition levels are very different will obviously have a difficult time getting along with each other.

Ellsworth Toohey

I have been trying to understand the character of ET in Fountainhead. This was one of the links that I read. 

Unfortunately most reviewers seem to write about ET somewhat along the same lines - that though very similar to Stalin in being communist / collectivist and power hungry, unlike him ET doesn't use physical power to achieve his ends. 

I am still waiting to read something that touches a cord. I am reminded of one incident that Ayn Rand writes about ET. That when Ellsworth, as a boy, won a debating contest other students felt that ET was given the easier side of the topic. So ET then talked for the other side and still won the contest. Now, what do you make of that?

And how does this relate to my dislike of any of the Tamil (frankly I don't think the dislike has anything to do with the language being Tamil) debates that is often shown on TV.

Additional reading:
http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2012/07/organ-malaise-head-vs-heart.html

Thriruvalluvar And Ann Landers

I came across this quote apparently by Ann Landers "The naked truth is always better than the best dressed lie". And that is in such contrast with the "kurals", especially the first two, in http://www.valaitamil.com/veracity-172.html.

Thiruvalluvar was a person who believed that truth is secondary to being nice. A well-intentioned lie was always preferred to a harsh truth. 

Now, why do Ann Landers and Thiruvalluvar say such opposite things? Landers must have had a strong Saturn and Thiruvalluvar, a strong Venus. Saturn is thoughtful, while Venus cares about maintaining image. Saturn lives in the abstract world of thought, while Venus is about the here and now sensual world. Saturn is about renunciation and seeking truth while Venus is about seeking material comforts and being diplomatic. 

Harischandra might have been another strong Saturn since he refused to lie no matter what it cost him and his family. 

I have always wondered what might have been the discussion been like if Harischandra and Thiruvalluvar ever happened to have a discussion.

Of course, there is no right or wrong. Each person leans towards one end of the truth - diplomacy continuum depending on what he is comfortable with.

J (as in MBTI) people are usually very touchy and not very pleasant while P's are the opposite. The latter are very ambitious. J is caused by Saturn while P is caused by Venus.

A friend sent me this link on Ti and Te (as in MBTI): http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2013/04/why-te-is-inductive-and-ti-is-deductive/. I guess I am Te.

Additional reading
https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2012/11/bad-venus.html

Controlling Behavior

Controlling behavior is usually indicative of a strong Mars in one's horoscope. I have come across such people. 

Recently some example from movies and books came to my mind of people who were so controlling that they moved from mere reporting of events (as in media) to creating the very spectacular events that planned to report.

The first is from the novel Godfather by Mario Puzo. While explaining the character of the Godfather, the author says that the former would solve problems for others which he (the godfather) had created in the first place. 

The next example I remember is the book "The almighty" by Irving Wallace. A media baron wants to beat his competitors by rushing in news before they do - only he starts creating the very news that he wants to report. A similar theme was in the James Bond movie Tomorrow Never Dies where Mr Carver plays a similar role as in "The Almighty". When the desire / ambition (caused by Venus) is strong and the energy levels are high (strong Mars), one usually ends up being extremely controlling and the next step being (as Mr. Hyde) to intentionally cause problems which the person solves or reports while playing the Jekyll role.

A person with this nature usually is great at gauging (1) exactly how much to push, how much pressure to apply for maximum results and when to withdraw - incidentally one has to only read about Hitler who managed to annex a few countries in Europe without firing a single shot - all by sheer force of speech and applying the right amount of pressure, blackmail (2) which mode of persuasion to use - the soft emotional approach, the brute force, the logical appeal - basically "sama dana beda dhandam". The ability to gauge people and choosing the right amount and kind of pressure is a feminine or Venusian trait. When Mars also is strong, it usually creates a character of immense force.

Such people are "emperors" and they treat other people as their subjects. They have an unusual ability to notice things around them. Every thing or person or event or word uttered is viewed by them with the sole objective of meeting their personal goal. And being emperors, they hate to see any emigration of their "subjects".

What they say may not often be the absolute truth. Truth, by itself, being of no relevance to them and is never a goal. Truth is useful only insofar as it is a parameter to be analyzed, manipulated and presented appropriately. Statement of unadulterated truth by such people is an option exercised only if it is seen as the best option. They are excellent propaganda machines, marketing and spamming comes as naturally to them as breathing air.

The words uttered by them are meant to sway the audience. They are usually eloquent and use 150 words which 5 might have sufficed. 

They believe that the packaging of message is as important as the content of the message. And while delivering a message they would think through multiple options of packaging before deciding the optimum one based on the nature audience, which they would have gauged fairly accurately. They would make excellent lawyers, but horrible judges.

Their enthusiasm, optimism, single minded focus towards their goal is amazing. One gets charged while being with them.