Author: stimsinstitute

• Post by Eric DUSHIMIRIMANA » 13 Dec 2023, 10:15
  Following is a volunteer review of “Spirituality In Practice” by Dr. Krishnamoorthy (Subbu) Subramanian
  https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BV4GC7LY

---

This book, by Dr. Krishnamoorthy (Subbu) Subramanian, can thrust humanity into a world of harmonious and prosperous existence. The author extensively draws on the ancient Vedic teachings; nevertheless, the teachings are beneficial for every seeker of truth embarking on the spiritual journey. The book teaches us how to live harmoniously with ourselves and our surroundings. (And it is hard to know how to live. Leonard da Vinci reportedly said, “What I thought I was learning how to live, I was learning how to die.”) The book explores vital matters: “Morality is Paper Thin,” Pressure vs. Stress vs. Relief,” “Ignorance vs. Denied Knowledge,” “Leadership through Spirituality in Practice,” “Aspects of Help,” The “Non-violence” concept, the “Selfishness” moral dilemma, “How Large is Your Family?,” “Burden of Relationship,” “Frameworks for Good Choices,” “Emotional and Objective Reasoning,” science, religion, and philosophy, “Is God With You?”, “Knowledge, Happiness, and Food Habits,” “Who Is a Spiritual Person?”, “Sources of Anger,” “Who Sets Standards for Your Life?”, “Many Facets of Silence,” “Anatomy of Experience,” “Who Am I?”, “Sources of Biases,” the education process, and the “Knowledge Economy” equation.

The book offers us invaluable practical wisdom and knowledge. In particular, the leadership model—”Knowledge and Power as Two Dimensions of Leadership”—is more practically sound. According to the book, “a leader without knowledge and power is timid and not respected…. A true leader combines power with knowledge, enabling others to act independently.” The book also sets a high-bar standard definition of non-violence. “Non-violence… [is] not merely avoiding injury to animals… Instead, non-violence [implies] non-violence of any kind in thought, actions, desires, and intents. The book can help us earn front-row seats in Nirvana.

However, like other books on spiritual matters, the book contains “holy” mysteries. The book suggests that science, religion, and philosophy are equally reliably valid sources of knowledge about nature. Philosophy and religion describe nature in qualitative terms. It would be hazardous to settle with qualitative knowledge in this universe (that does not love or hate us). The book also advocates a “Total Self-Control” mode of living. The Buddha recommends the middle way…. We are part of entangled Brahman-enabled microcosms under the influence of cosmic events at infinite points in spacetime, and things in our universe are connected. Our power to control ourselves is limited. A lover of humanity would not hand the next generations the “Total Self-Control” goal. A reader reading this book could ask: Why should one do meditation or yoga holding their body this way—and not that way? This book would have to accommodate ample scientific knowledge on the mind-body matter to satisfy the curiosity of such a reader. While the book may teach us how to go to Nirvana, it does not teach us how Nirvana goes or why it goes the way it does, as Galilei Galileo would say.

The book deserves four out of five stars. I deducted a star mainly because of the negatives mentioned above. Nevertheless, I highly recommend the book to every seeker of truth. The book can be a helpful moral compass.

Comment from the author (Dr. Krishnamoorthy (Subbu) Subramanian:
“science, religion, and philosophy are equally reliable and valid sources of knowledge about nature” does not imply that science, religion and philosophy are equal and interchangeable. Like the various tools of science – Physics, Chemistry, mathematics, etc. – three three avenues (Science, Religion and Philosophy) offer different pathways to explore nature. Just as all rivers find their way to flow into the ocean, all disciplines or pathways lead us to the common knowledge of one indivisible, omnipresent, eternal nature, collectively identified as Brahman in Vedic Philosophy!

Recently I attended a coffee social organized by the MIT Alumni Club in the Bay Area. This is an informal monthly event where MIT Alum in the local area meet for an hour or two over a cup of coffee for chatting and getting to know each other. On this occasion, it was a small group of six or eight of us. Each introduced themselves with their name, department, year of graduation, etc. Then, one among us said sheepishly “I am not from MIT. I am different. I am from Yale!”. I jumped in quickly and said “Don’t feel shy or bashful. Being different is good. In fact being “different” is exactly what we need to survive and succeed today. Go ahead and celebrate your being different. Put it to good use and for your success in whatever you choose to do!”. Almost everyone seemed surprised, some even shocked! Below is the conversation that followed:

“You have to align with the mainstream, if you want to get selected for any job interview. The AI programs and algorithms are trained to look for certain keywords. If your resume does not reflect that, you are out of luck. Most hiring managers want to fill their slots who can plug and play. They are not looking for someone “different” or “unique”. Even V.C.s have algorithms to screen their opportunities to fund. They are looking for the tailor made requirements from entrepreneurs like a cookie cutter. They are not looking for some higher risk “different” opportunities”. Responses like that came in fast and furious!

“OK,  I hear all that. But, is it always true?” I probed. “Not really!” came the answer. Most of the time the jobs to meet the routine needs of the company are filled by hiring managers with graduates from many colleges. They don’t really look for graduates from MIT or other Ivy league schools. In order to get attention one needs to show some unique learning and understanding of the needs of the hiring manager. “Ask the question: What aspect of the project or program that keeps the hiring manager away from sleeping at night? How can you bring a new or unique solution to resolve that? That is your unique opening at the job interview as well as in your job after getting hired.” The discussion continued. At one point someone said, “everyone is an individual, hence different. One makes a choice – consciously or otherwise – to be “different” all the time! When you sign up for education at the expensive ivy league schools, you have decided to be “different”!”. Do these schools spend enough time to train their students to think “different” and “how”? It was also mentioned that narrow, specialized and highly tailored education from these schools may be good to stand out in the beginning, but it creates an impediment as the skill set needed changes rapidly. One needs to train oneself to be different all the time!

“I have experienced this problem recently”,  one person said.  Everyone in the hiring team seemed happy with my broad background. But one person in the recruiting team said “you do not seem to have enough depth or specialized knowledge”. How is it possible to have both the depth needed for this one person and the breadth required by the rest of the recruiting team? This is the new paradigm, being different, having both the breadth as well as the depth. You sell your breadth or depth depending on the situation. In reality one deploys the “depth” or the “breadth” in skills as the situation warrants to resolve the problem or foster a new solution. It can be described as “T”, where the vertical line reflects the technical depth in a subject area, while the horizontal line reflects the hands-on experience as well as the ability to get results working with others.

Source: Figure 6.1, Page 120, “Thriving in the 21st Century Economy – Transformational Skills for Technical Professionals”, Author: Dr. Krishnamoorthy (Subbu) Subramanian, ASME Press. (2013).

In their new book, “Power and Progress,” Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson ask whether the benefits of AI will be shared widely or feed inequality.https://news.mit.edu/2023/power-and-progress-book-ai-inequality-0517  

Following are a few brief excerpts from this book review and our comments:

“We’re suggesting we can get back onto that path of shared prosperity, harness technology for everybody, and get productivity gains,” Johnson says. “We had all that in the postwar period. We can get it back, but not with the current form of our machine intelligence obsession. That, we think, is undermining prosperity in the U.S. and around the world.”

The authors are to be commended for calling attention to a critical problem (i.e.) Shared Prosperity Vs. gains for a few from AI. This notion of shared prosperity has been abrogated ever since the introduction of “Digital Technology (DT)” which began in the late 70s. DT and its many versions of Information Technology (IT) has been the driving force enabling automation of all human work for Information processing. Its impact can be seen through outsourcing and offshoring, using low cost labor thanks to “Supply Chain” solutions. This IT driven “Globalization” lifted many boats for the poor in low labor cost countries, while depleting the waters – financial resources – on which the boats of most of the middle class were floating, in the developed nations including USA and W. Europe. This phenomena  and unabated glamor for DT applications to gain productivity and cost benefits regardless of the economic consequences for the large majority of workers is articulated in our book published in 2000. https://stimsinstitute.com/2023/05/03/three-good-books/  The suggested pathway for a limited few who can survive and succeed in this economic tsunami of “Globalization” is also suggested in this book. It is in the self-interest of professional workers to think and behave as “System integrators” and  “Solution workers” and not as “Task workers” confined to their limited knowledge or specialty area. This requires an integrated use of Science, Engineering and Management as three creative tools and NOT as three independent and isolated silos.

To alter this trajectory, Acemoglu and Johnson advocate for an extensive menu of policy responses, including data ownership for internet users (an idea of technologist Jaron Lanier); tax reform that rewards employment more than automation; government support for a diversity of high-tech research directions; repealing Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from regulation or legal action based on the content they host; and a digital advertising tax (aimed to limit the profitability of algorithm-driven misinformation).

“Tax reform” to generate more revenue from the “Technology” driven productivity gains and quick riches they generate is a different and parallel path from “increase in employment” to enhance the job opportunities and the education and skill development required for that. They are like good nutrition and physical fitness for a human Vs. actions required to improve the heart condition and brain functions. The heart and brain specialists are different from the nutrition and physical fitness specialists. Tax reform for new revenue sources and skill development for new labor skills depend on each other. Tax reform is needed to generate revenue needed for implementation of new labor skill development programs. Tax reform to gain more revenue from Technology driven new income requires a public will to tax the rich, the beneficiaries of unbridled use of ”Tech. Sector advancements”. Creating new labor skills requires investments in education as well as a requirement to use locally available labor pool as much as possible, much similar to “Make in America, buy in America” policy being pushed by the Biden administration. Also, no amount of Government policies and programs can address the skill needs of the worker pool unless people themselves are willing to learn and change their skills. We address this need as System Thinking and Transformational Skills and their details in the book published in 2013. https://stimsinstitute.com/2023/05/03/three-good-books/ 

“Debates on new technology ought to center not just on the brilliance of new products and algorithms but on whether they are working for the people or against the people,” they write.

Above is a laudable observation, but an utopian wish unless the policy makers and public at large are truly reflective and address the larger needs of the people. This is the essence of Emotional Intelligence (i.e.) thinking on behalf of others as the starting point (which in the end would also benefit the self).

Today “Technology driven new products and algorithms” are conceived and implemented in a way that meets the immediate needs – low hanging fruits – to gain productivity and the lower cost to replace human labor irrespective of the impact on employment or how it affects people at large. The spread of fake news, disinformation, isolation and mental health issues caused by social media are all seen as problems for “somebody else to solve” and not the probl;em of the tech, companies that generate the products, implement and distribute them. Any chemical Co. or car manufactuer can not get away with such wide spread harm to the public as much as that are caused by tech, sector companies! This requires higher levels of emotional intelligence driven by Spirituality in Practice as a second nature to all. Teaching such basics in Philosophy from the middle school onwards may be overdue? This is the core of our third book published this year (2023). https://stimsinstitute.com/2023/05/03/three-good-books/ 

“We need these discussions,” Johnson says. “There’s nothing inherent in technology. It’s within our control. Even if you think we can’t say no to new technology, you can channel it, and get better outcomes from it, if you talk about it.” This is a good beginning. I am glad the authors talk about it. Let us hope enough would listen and follow. Yes, there are tangible solutions, but it will require a holistic and integrated approach. I wonder how many from the Computer Science Dept. would read the above or discuss with the faculty in the humanities and traditional engineering Departments to arrive at and articulate collaborative solutions? All such collaboration would need System Thinking, Transformational Skills and enhanced Emotional Intelligence. These are needs to be met across the board and such discussion may need to start from our institutions of higher learning?

Recently I read the following excerpt in a NYT column titled “The Thrill of the Office Crush” by Roxane Gay  https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/16/business/roxane-gay-work-advice-office-crush.html 
I was honored to speak at an event in a professional capacity. …………. but I completely bombed. I spoke way too fast and stumbled over words. I kept seeing weird looks on the audience’s faces, which made it worse…………
I redeemed myself on the panel — I spoke clearly and the audience responded well to my commentary.
I am mortified and am not sure if I should say something to my peers or the woman who invited me, who I fear is in trouble with the head of her organization who was in attendance. Should I apologize? Say something to my fellow panelists when I see them again? And I know this is not a therapy column but any advice on getting over a professional embarrassment? I feel like a complete failure.
You can read the advice from Roxane in her column. Here we will explore this “experience” from the perspective of “Connector-Science” elaborated in our book: Spirituality In Practice https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BV49NPNQ 

If the panelist were to distance from the event and experience – as I am able to as an unattached reader –  the above message can be decomposed into several components, each having their own context and the connectors:

Activity		Dominant Connector
Recollecting what happened: Participation as a panelist which started badly (“bombed”) got better with time (spoke clearly and the audience responded well to my commentary)		KNOWLEDGE – – Comprehensive self reflection of both the good and bad with equal consideration?
Dwelling on the past (I am mortified)		BIAS – – Emotional attachment to the possible outcome.Is this a self-imposed constraint?To reflect and engage in corrective action is objective and “Professional”. But, feeling “mortified” occurs when our knowledge of the professional opportunity given and the ability to course correct in the middle of a panel session are overlooked thanks to our desire (needs and wants) to look good all the time.
Dwelling on the future (I feel like a complete failure).Professional embarrassment!		Ignorance – – Conclusion and emotional burden, lacking objectivity or professionalism.Is this also a self-imposed constraint? There will always be success and failure, like the crest and depth of a wave. But, they are part of life. To judge the bottom of the wave as the “permanent” – total failure – would be ignorance on one’s part?
While all of the above are coexisting,  the prevailing “mood” or “experience” is a reflection of the dominant connector in each case.
Present activity: Should I say something? The panelist (or the reader) could fill the table below through some Self-reflection.
		Connectors
Context		Knowledge	Bias	Ignorance
Person (s) involved	Self, Peers, the inviter, her boss, future audience, …..?
Means / ToolsHow?	“Explanation”? “Thank you”? “Apology”? Expression of genuine self-reflection”?
Circumstances	Under what situations?
Laws of Nature	Communication Skills

This process – Science of Connectors – is the same irrespective of activity in any aspect of life!

But, there is a second and more important phase to the SiP. In the above we have attempted to analyze the various parts of the experience of this professional. Now, for a moment think about it: This professional is concerned about “I” and all that related to him/her! On the other hand, this professional is not thinking of all that enabled him to be in the panel, participate and contribute such as “Why was the panel session organized, what was the impact of the overall event for the audience? what were the take-aways for the organizers? benefits for the fellow panelists? …………” If this professional can look at the event in such a larger context, his/her “Objectivity” is further enhanced. Such thinking and reflection on the “Stake holder benefits”, may also lead to opportunities to engage with the inviter, her boss, fellow panelists, …. Through such engagement this panelist may learn even more details of his/her own participation and any follow up needed. In other words such open minded engagement and follow up may also ends up with some benefits to the self. This is generally identified as “Emotional Intelligence”, one of the transformational skills needed for the 21st Century professionals. https://stimsinstitute.com/2022/08/17/were-in-this-era-of-measurement-but-we-dont-know-what-we-should-be-measuring/ 

Third and final observation:
One can see underlying the entire spectrum – the panel discussion, panelist’s role as a speaker, follow up action as needed, ……- is the common need for being open minded and communication skills.
Both of these are aspects of nature. The more any professional reflects on these abstract enablers, the better they will be able to handle the emotional questions as well as genuine follow up with all stakeholders!.