I took a lesson last night at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of Regency Square Syndic meeting. Perhaps, it was a well learned lesson in humility and a trim to my overlarge ego. It took me some time to get to sleep after I climbed on my bed, my mind kept running like an engine. I could not stop myself from reflecting on the 3hours and a half session with my fellow co- owners. I was drained and felt non resourceful after attending to two of the co-owners. I really had to make a very special effort to contain myself from busting my temper. I applied my turbo brakes. My self- esteem dropped. My feelings were hurt. I sensed the reptilian portion of my brain flashing lights to start off. How is it possible that I have landed so low? I had two cases to deal with.

CASE 1

To be accused of incompetence, I readily accept, as nobody is perfect. But to accuse the Conseil Syndical under my chairmanship of cooking the books with the Syndic in public, ( which of course is false and unfounded)and taking us to task on a transparency issue, just because he was refused the right to take a copy of the accounts was really too much. Especially after the steps taken last year to change the bye- laws to give the Conseil Syndical additional powers to control closely the Syndic, we felt that our good faith was targeted. This was beyond my understanding! I could not read the motivation that drove such actions, in spite of all the supposedly knowledge & competencies (NLP) I have acquired in human behavior. The night through, in my mind, I scanned back to the past scene many times to identify signs and markers that I could possibly attribute to this unexplained behavior. I could not find a sensible answer. What has made this grieved soul so sour to accuse us? Is it possible that we inadvertedly caused him some pain? What has triggered such a foray to my integrity as well as that of the Conseil members? From my previous dealings with this fellow owner, I could only term him as eccentric and full of ego. I had the intuition that the AGM would be a tough one. (Refer to my previous blog on co-propriete).Luckily, I took the precaution not to chair the AGM and to avail of the possibility of nominating a meeting chairman. In the end, the incomprehensive behavior got the other owners to rally against him to bully him: I felt sorry for him.Why would somebody otherwise so intelligent get himself in such a predicament?

CASE 2

The second ache was caused by another co-owner who, according to me, was easy to deal with. From my past interactions with him, I had read his recurrent motives and have remedies for his unwanted behaviors. He only needs to be in the limelight and for this; he would take the floor on any subjects. Any experienced chairperson knows how to deal with over bloated characters with a voracious need for recognition and how to give them a rope to hang themselves. In addition,my impatience grew to break point level last night because the appointed chairman did not act fast enough to contain him.He souped up the precious time of all and got every body bored with his trivia. In hindsight, I have to admit that I should have briefed the acting chairperson beforehand.

Writing this blog now and sharing my heart, I feel, is my therapy for soothing the sour taste of last night.

La semaine dernière, j’ai eu le grand plaisir d’assister à un séminaire sur l’évolution du contexte énergétique mondial par le conférencier Daniel  Ratard.

Qui est le professeur  Daniel Ratard et quel est son parcours ?

Docteur en Sciences (Chimie) РUniversit̩ de Paris VI
Ph.D (Houston -Texas)
Expériences en entreprise : 30 ans d’expérience dans le secteur de l’énergie
Directeur de Gaz de France (infrastructures de transport Région Est)
Vice Président d’une société américaine (PeTech.)
Expériences en situation de formateur ou conférencier :
Charg̩ de cours РFacult̩ des Sciences de Tours.

 

Il débuta une séance passionnante avec un premier postulat :

L’époque d’une énergie abondante, bon marché et n’intégrant pas les coûts externes est vraisemblablement terminée.

En bref, qu’avais je retenu des 7 heures d’écoute du brillant et savant conférencier ?

Après un exposé de divers quartiers, entre autres les organismes internationaux d’études  sur les réserves mondiales du Pétrole et les énergies fossiles, il conclut que pour les prochaines décennies:

PETROLE: Incontournable,  GAZ NATUREL: Fort accroissement,  CHARBON: Reste une composante importante de l’offre, NUCLEAIRE: Futur déterminé par les coûts et l’acceptabilité sociale, ENR: Développement subordonné à l’intervention des Pouvoirs Publics. La maîtrise de la demande d’énergie devient primordiale.

 Que devons nous faire ?

Nous devrons oeuvrer pour mettre en place une transition énergétique. Il n’y a pas de solution « miracle »: Le mix  énergétique devra regrouper un ensemble de solutions mais les technologies de substitution (non émissives en carbone), ainsi que le nucléaire, sont loin de pouvoir répondre à temps au défi climatique, La contribution des énergies renouvelables restera marginale.

Il conclut avec les mots suivants: Cette transition s’imposera et sera d’autant plus difficile que nous aurons tardé à l’anticiper. C’est maintenant progressivement ou plus tard très brutalement, mais il est illusoire de croire que nos choix futurs ne seront pas «inconfortables »

Ma conclusion : L’énergie coûtera de plus en plus cher. Economiser à tout prix !

 

 

 

 Profitant de la visite de la famille, mon épouse et moi, nous avons choisi de séjourner ce week-end à Trou aux biches. De ce fait, nous avons assisté  à la messe à Notre Dame de Fatima et nous avons eu le père Wheelan comme célébrant. Le début de son homélie m’a tout de suite aiguillé vers des pensées existentielles.

 Qui suis  je pour mériter le pardon de Dieu ? Pourquoi Dieu est si miséricordieux envers moi? Certainement, Dieu n’a pas besoin de moi, ni de mes relations, encore moins, de ce que je possède. Est-ce que Dieu a besoin de me récompenser pour mes actions? La réponse est encore une fois négative. Homme que je suis n’est qu’une créature libre que Dieu  créa pour me combler de Son amour malgré mes faiblesses et manquements. Père Wheelan insistât que l’Homme était aux yeux de notre créateur plus grand que ses avoirs, ses actions, ses relations ou appartenances, son histoire. Dieu n’a qu’un regard d’amour vis-à-vis de sa créature : ce qui explique son infini pardon. C’est à l’homme libre d’en prendre conscience et de l’accepter malgré ses infidélités et trahisons. Il me suffit  simplement de demander pardon et il me sera accordé. Or je sais combien des fois il m’est difficile d’admettre que j’ai fauté. Mon orgueil, mon ego m’en empêche. C’est  bien le péché qui habite en moi qui m’interdit de recevoir le pardon. Comme le fils prodigue : je dois faire le premier pas en acceptant et  en confessant ma faute. C’est aussi dans la mesure que je connais mon Dieu qu’Il me reconnaît.

Ma prière à partir du parabole du fils prodigue devrait être : Père, j’ai péché contre le ciel et contre toi. Je ne mérite plus d’être appelé ton fils.

So why is it that we can put a man on the moon but can’t fly him from Atlanta to Charlotte, N.C., without at least a two-hour delay? This is an extract of an article describing the pains of traveling by plane today. I guess the situation is getting worse with more people traveling, the threat of terrorism increasing and increased pollution. Air travel will become also more expensive with the increase of fuel in years to come. Travelers have now to pay for higher airport taxes, security taxes, fuel surcharges and may be soon a pollution tax. This week the US is not likely to sign the international agreement to cut down on CO2 pollution or the implementation of CO2 tax. The US may be the nation with the largest emission of CO2 and definitely the world biggest user of fossil fuel per capita.

The ecologists have been warning us of the threats of climatic changes and are telling us that we may be reaching the danger point when it will be impossible to balance back the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. The travel industry is surely a very great polluter. In the very near future, I would not be surprised to see a green tax on air travel. The pressure on ecology is increasing. Already corporations are trading their CO2 emissions quota through the emissions trading or similar organisation. I could well imagine that each citizen of the world would be given a quota of environment pollution which could be traded.

Another idea that crossed my mind: would there be ecology-terrorism or ecology-Kamikaze soon?

Avons-nous la même vision de la scène ou d’un festin quand nous sommes placés au dernier rang ou à la première place? A la première place, certainement, je suis livré au regard de tous; tout au contraire, dans les derniers rangs je suis spectateur et participant comme la plupart de mes frères. ‘De la prépondérance à l’humilité’ serait la leçon que je prends de la première partie du texte. Mieux encore que ‘la prépondérance’ citée,  le contexte d’un repas chez les pharisiens,  évoquerait  la réputation pharisienne proverbiale de l’arrogance et de l’hypocrisie. Or Jésus dans sa venue sur terre, s’est fait le dernier des derniers. Il est né dans une étable et s’est retrouvé, à la fin de sa vie, en croix et tué comme un dernier des derniers avec des bandits notoires. La contemplation de Sa vie comme le dernier des derniers nécessairement m’invite à plus de compassion pour nos frères démunis. C’est bien l’humilité qui devrait être le maître mot.

 Pour enchaîner la leçon, dans le texte de ce dimanche, et plus encore, Jésus m’encourage d’être humble tout en ayant un regard de compassion dans un amour inconditionnel pour les démunis.

« Seigneur, purifie mon cÅ“ur du levain des pharisiens: l’hypocrisie et l’orgueil. Conduis-moi sur le chemin de la vérité, c’est-à-dire de l’humilité, en dehors duquel je ne peux te plaire. Accorde-moi la grâce de considérer les autres supérieurs à moi, et de trouver ma joie dans leur service. Ne permets pas que du haut de ma suffisance, je repousse avec mépris l’humble Pain eucharistique; mais donne-moi de pouvoir y discerner ta présence, toi le Dieu tout-puissant qui te fais le Serviteur des serviteurs, pour nous ouvrir le chemin de l’amour et de la vie. »

I received and read the article Optimum Strategies for Creativity and Longevity by Sing Lin, Ph.D.

He is a Member of National Council of Chinese Institute of Engineers – USA/Greater New York Chapter, and Member of Board of Director of the National Taiwan University Alumni Association – Greater New York.

 

The conclusion of his article reads as follows:

 

4. Conclusion and Recommendations. The most precious, creative and innovative period in your life is the 10-year period around the age of 32. Plan your career path to use this precious 10-year period wisely and effectively to produce your greatest achievements in your life. The pace of innovations and technology advances is getting faster and faster and is forcing everybody to compete fiercely at the Internet speed on the information super-highways. The highly productive and highly efficient workplace in USA is a pressure-cooker and a high-speed battleground for highly creative and dynamic young people to compete and to flourish. However, when you get older, you should plan your career path and financial matter so that you can retire comfortably at the age of 55 or earlier to enjoy your long, happy and leisure retirement life into your golden age of 80s and beyond. In retirement, you can still enjoy some fun work of great interest to you and of great values to the society and the community, but at a part-time leisure pace on your own term. On the other hand, if you are not able to get out of the pressure-cooker or the high-speed battleground at the age of 55 and “have” to keep on working very hard until the age of 65 or older before your retirement, then you probably will die within 18 months of retirement. By working very hard in the pressure cooker for 10 more years beyond the age of 55, you give up at least 20 years of your life span on average.

 

His study, based on statistics, was worked out in US corporations such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, AT&T, Lucent Technologies and their respective pension funds.

We could interpret his findings in many ways. Whilst we assume that the statistics are correct, they are not translated in each individual case. Looking back in my own life, I reckon my most creative and innovative period in my life where I achieved my greatest achievements, were around the age of 40- 50. At that time, opportunity knocked, all the factors were present for me to catch the opened window. I seized it. Was I a late developer?

On the other hand, what about the longevity of workers beyond the retirement age of 60 or 65, who are coolly collecting their salary whilst not under the pressure of the cooker? I am lucky to have passed my 18 months of retirement. Do I conclude that I was not pressured enough before my retirement?

I have always been skeptical in what people can make out of statistical studies? All told, it is always  helpful and wise to take into consideration the statistical findings in one’s decision making process.

I read on the last edition of the Mauritius Times the action of the ‘Forum Citoyen’ led by Dick Ng Sui Wa. The first affirmation was:  “Effecting civil disobedience in the Gandhian manner cannot be illegal”. Without being legalistic, as I have no pretensions to be nor have I the  legal competence to do so, I am of humble opinion that civil disobedience can only be illegal else it will not be a civil disobedience.  

Have we reached in this case the limits of democracy? How do we get over the apparent tyrannical act of the lawful authority? Is there some legal or otherwise mechanism that would save us from this situation?

This situation has given me the opportunity to rethink of Civil Disobedience with its legal and morale aspects. In the world of today, at least in the western world, the education inculcated to our youth makes them more and more individualist freethinkers. This accrued importance of individual conscience could well be confronted to the majority rule causing more cases of civil disobedience. I wonder whether the relationship of individuals to authority is evolving in new forms that would require new understanding of society.  Is not the best authority being the authority one does not need to avail of? Is not the abusive use of authority  itself an act of violence? How can we be a ‘civil disobedient’ without causing violence to the other parties and ourselves?

An essay comparing Thoreau and Gandhi on the theme has retained my attention.

Civil Disobedience in Thoreau and Gandhi

Ashu Daftari*, Davis, USA

Henry David Thoreau’s classic essay, “Resistance to Civil Government” developed ideas that eventually became influential to thinkers and reformers of the twentieth century.  Thoreau’s tract not only serves as a social commentary on the governments’ support Of slavery and its participation in the Mexican War, but also as a treatise on the individuals’ relationship to government.  Much of Thoreau’s ideas are similar to the moral and political writings of Mohandas K. Gandhi.  Both writers advocated the superiority of the individual conscience and stressed the need for individuality.  Both writers not only conunented on the duty of the individual to lead a life of principle, but also argued for the right to resist an unjust authority.  However, it was Gandhi who adopted Thoreau’s ideas into a system that stressed political rebellion through individual self-suffering and bir non-violent means.

Throughout much of Thoreau’s essay, the idea of individual conscience accumulates into the centrepiece and foundation from which most of his ideas are built upon.  Thoreau often displays a distrust in the actions of a government based on majority rule.  Thoreau maintained that the majority have access to the most power “not because they are more likely to be in the right… but because they are physically the strongest”.  He further explains that government “in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice…… Essentially, the author’s inability to trust the actions of the majority rule further leads him to believe in conscientious superiority.  In the beginning of his treatise, he asks : “Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right or wrong, but conscience?”.  Thoreau, without leaving the question unanswered later remarks that ‘we should be men first, and subjects afterwards.  It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.  The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right”.  From this point of view, Thoreau maintains that the individual conscience inherits a morally superior characteristic than the government of the majoritv.  Thus, Thoreau establishes his entire political philosophy on the idea that the conscience is ultimately the most trustworthy criterion of what is politically accurate.

The ultimate consequence of Thoreau’s belief of the superiority of the individual conscience is its assertion for radical individualism.  Thoreau maintains that the individual relying on his selfconscience, rather than the majority, will attain a better understanding of moral truths.  Thus, “any man more right than his neighbours, constitute a majority of one already.” Thoreau also proclaims that the individual living by conscience will not only understand moral truths, but will also attain the ability to lead a “life by principle.” For Thoreau, this form of existence is the most ideal state of living.  Furthermore, it becomes an important step in rebellion against the State.  He states that action from principle creates a strong impact in political rebellion because it “not only divides states and churches, it divides families; aye, it divides the individual, separating the diabolical in him from the divine.” In this passage, Thoreau implies that an individual must be free thinking in order to develop his own ideas and understand clearly the unjust practices of the State.  Action from principle, as Thoreau maintains allows the individual to understand that to ‘ commit actions, supposedly against the State, based on fundamental principles would have a stronger impact on the values of society than any other form of resistance.  He maintains that action from principle would force society, as well as the individual, to re-examine its values and compare them to the moral truths.  Thus, action from principle becomes a powerful force in the process of civil disobedience.

In the various writings of Mohandas K. Gandhi, the idea of the importance of the individual conscience and its influence on a life stemming from principle is often similar to the viewpoint of Thoreau.  Gandhi, also had a distrust for the majority rule and believed in moral growth through the dependency of the individual conscience.  Like Thoreau, he also felt that this form of growth would lead to individualistic tendencies that would be morally beneficial for the individual and for society.  His distrust for the majority stemmed from the belief that the majority rules without conscience and without regard for the minorities.  By doing this, he believed that numerical strength savors of violence when it acts in total disregard of any strongly felt opinion of a minority” (quoted in Iyer, 142).  Thus, Gandhils vision of the State of majority rule is one that not only remains unsympathetic to the minority, but builds a foundation built on violence.  Because of Gandhi’s belief in the non-violent State as the ideal, he ultimately rejects the notion of the majority rule.

Like Thoreau, Gandhi also believed that conscience living would eventually lead to a life of action from of principle he also stressed the importance of individualism in order for the process of spiritual and moral growth to occur.  However, Gandhi distrusted the more radical form of individualism that separated the person completely from society.  In 1939, he stated “Unrestricted individualism is the law of the beast of the jungle.  We have leamt to strike the mean between individual freedom and social restraint.  Willing submission to social restraint for the sake of well-being for the whole society, enriches both the individual and the society of which he is a member” (quoted in Iyer, 115).  For Gandhi, individualism meant the ability to place the conscience in a higher priority than the State and still remain an active member of society.  By combining “individual freedom” and “social restraint” the individual would attain the ability to influence the ethics of society within the confines of law and order.  Gandhi’s vision of individualism slightly differed from Thoreau who argued, in Walden, that “If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.  Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.’ Thus, Tboreau’s idea of individualism sought an existence that could potentially disregard society completely, while Gandhi sought ‘ an individualism that simultaneously remained a morally responsible member of society.

From his essay, Thoreau implies that action from principle germinates into the beginning seeds of civil disobedience and later expands his argument in order to show its deeper significance in society.  He attempts to display how ideology should eventually transform into practical application.  As stated earlier, Thoreau believed in the superiority of the individual conscience over the rule of the majority.  He further states that if the individual’s morally conscience beliefs conflict with the beliefs and practices of the State, then that person must consider it a duty to disengage from the injustices committed by society.  He states the individual bears no responsibility in eradicating all the injustices of the State, but must “wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.” He further states that not only must the individual refuse his allegiance to the State, but must also “withdraw their support, both in person and property.” For Thoreau, the individual existing by conscience would attain the inability to conform to a inhumane society.  By the very act of living from principle, it would not allow a person to harmonise a conscientious life while being a member of an unjust State.  Thus, the individual must live according to his nature even if it means a complete removal of oneself from the State.  This idea becomes the central point in resisting the civil goverrunent.  In one particular passage, Thoreau states: “I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred … if ten honest men only-aye, if one honest man, in the State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this copartnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefore, it should be the abolition of slavery in America.” Through this proclamation, Thoreau implies that the mass of individuals who practiced the right to disengage from society would not only resist the immorality of the State, but would coerce the reevaluating its ethical procedures and forcing them to reform.

In this matter of refusing allegiance to the State, Gandhi hardly differs from Thoreau’s convictions.  In his philosophical worldview, Gandhi also embodied a distrust for the State.  He viewed the State as a inhumane infrastructure of individuals that 11 represent violence in a concentrated and organised form.  The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence” (quoted in Iyer, 254).  Gandhi, like Thoreau, implies that a State that exists as a “soulless machine” does not have the ability to exists as a moral and just institution.  In this case, he, like Thoreau, believes it to be the duty of the morally conscience individual to resist the corrupted authority.  In fact, he states that “an evil administration never deserves such allegiance.  Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil.  A good man will therefore, resist an evil system of administration … Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is, therefore, a duty” (quoted in lyer, 257).  In this system of thought, both men imply this form of resistance as the obligation of the conscience minded individual.

In general, both writers would agree that the moral violent manner and absorbed physical and spiritual individual disengaging from an unjust State would be an ideal form of civil disobedience.  Thoreau believed that this form of action would eventually influence the conscience of other individuals and ultimately lead them to disengage from society (Iyer, 268).  Gandhi, however, did not completely embrace Thoreau’s convictions and also felt such actions to be a limited form of resistance.  In 1931 he discussed Thoreau in an written essay and stated : “…Thoreau was not perhaps an out and out champion of nonviolence.  Probably, also, Thoreau limited his of statutory laws to the revenue laws, i.e., payment of taxes.  Whereas the term Civil Disobedience as practised in 1919 covered a breach of any statutory and unmoral law.  It signified the resister’s outlawry in a civil i.e., non-violent manner” (quoted in Iyer, 275).  Essentially, Gandhi felt that he was extending Thoreau’s ideas on civil disobedience.  He felt that the individual conscience ultimately influencing the conscience of mass individuals could lead to a violent rebellion against the State.  He also felt that this type of action was an appeal to reason.  Gandhi felt that reasoning to an individual conscience was sometimes ineffective because an “appeal to reason does not answer where prejudices are age-long.  ” ” (quoted in lyer, 289).  Thus, in order to embrace T’horeau’s ideas of disengaging from society without causing a violent resistance, Gandhi developed a system of civil disobedience, which he called Satyagraha.  In this system of resistance, Gandhi believed that the resister could reform individuals in an unjust State by undertaking a process of selfsuffering.  In 1932 he stated : “Suffering is the law of human beings … the penetration of the heart comes from suffering.  It opens the inner understanding of man” (quoted in Iyer, 287).  Gandhi felt that self-suffering would lead to a non-violent form of disobedience that would change the attitude of society by appealing to their emotions rather than reason.  In this system, Gandhi stressed a form of civil disobedience that would not violate the unmoral laws of that particular institution.  He believed that the individual that acted in a non-suffering without violence would be practicing the ideal form of civil disobedience.  Through the suffering of the resister, Gandhi argued, the individuals of society would realise the injustices of the State’s laws, thereby causing reform in an unanarchistic manner (Iyer, 276).

Comparatively, the philosophy of Thoreau and Gandhi to the relationship between the individual and  to the relationship between the individual and the State.  Both advocated individualistic free-thinking and the importance of individual conscience over the belief of a majority ruled State.  Both, also believed that conscience individuals could only prosper in a State that contained minimum intervention.  Gandhi’s vision of an ideal State was one where ‘everyone is his own ruler … In the ideal State, therefore, there is no political power because there is no State.  But the ideal is never fully realised in life” (quoted in lyer, 254).  Thus, his belief in a limited government very much coincides with Thoreau’s idea that “government is best which governs not at all.” However, the difference between the two writers falls mostly on emphasis.  In Thoreau’s case, he not only held the individual conscience as the highest test of truth, but also felt it “would culminate in conduct that would arouse and ppeal to the conscience of others” (Iyer, 268).  This form of arousal could lead to a state of anarchy and a violent form of resistance to a unjust authority, an idea that Thoreau does not deny in his essay.  Gandhi, however, felt that an individual following his own conscience could not be ‘dependent on social recognition” (Iyer, 268).  He envisioned a form of resistance that would not lead to violence and anarchy.  While Thoreau discussed the end and the means, Gandhi placed heavy emphasis on the means. While Thoreau discussed the rights of the individual to rebel against authority, Gandhi expressed the duty of individuals to reform an unjust authority while maintaining law and order.  Thus, through his political system, Gandhi was able to use Thoreau’s ideas in a non-violent manner.

 

Contrairement à mes habitudes de fin de semaine, ce dimanche, j’ai assisté à la messe de 9 heures 30 au lieu de l’office du samedi. Quelle merveille d’avoir eu le père Georges Chung comme célébrant ! Pour mon bonheur, son homélie était axée sur « la porte étroite ». Plus d’une fois je  me suis interrogé dans le passé, sur la teneur de ‘la porte étroite’ et n’ai jamais était bien convaincu du sens que j’ai pu en tirer.  « Efforcez-vous d’entrer par la porte étroite, car, je vous le déclare, beaucoup chercheront à entrer et ne le pourront pas. » Merci Georges Chung tu m’as donné aujourd’hui des pistes à creuser. Pouvons entrer par une porte étroite les mains chargées et encombrées de bagages ? L’image qu’a donnée Georges : n’avons nous pas déjà vu  ou imaginé le singe qui, ayant rempli sa main des cacahuètes, tente en vain de sortir sa main pleine du goulot d’un bocal ?

Eh oui ! Pour passer par la porte étroite, il va falloir nous délester de tout ce qui nous encombre. Il nous faudra n’avoir que ce qu’il faut pour entrer dans le royaume. Ce qui importe, c’est d’être reconnu par Lui pour qu’Il nous accueille.

Comment serions nous reconnus ? Ou alors, comment ne serions nous pas reconnus ?

‘Je ne sais pas d’où vous êtes. Éloignez-vous de moi, vous tous qui faites le mal.’

Comment serai-je reconnu par quelqu’un que j’ai ignoré toute ma vie ?

A également retenu mon attention ce dimanche la prière suivante :

Dieu qui peux mettre au cœur de tes fidèles un unique désir, donne a ton peuple d’aimer ce que tu commandes et d’attendre ce que tu promets ; pour qu’au milieu des changements d ce monde, nos cœurs s’établissent fermement là ou se trouvent les vraies joies.

 

For years now I have been signing off my emails with “Be Happy”. This morning I was thinking how the pursuit of happiness and fulfillment has been an essential driver through out my working life. Book Author Roderick Gilkey is of opinion that Executives can find happiness by cultivating perspective, balance, resilience and a sense of humour. I concur with Roderick Gilkey views on the subject and was lucky to have with the Covey leadership courses attended, been able to build up on the four characteristics mentioned by him.

Roderick Gilkey in article he wrote in 1986, which I found still very much relevant today, stated:

While many of today’s corporate fast-trackers may be too immersed in the day-to-day grind to reflect on their levels of happiness, such reflection is legitimate and even constructive. Studies from The Center for Creative Leadership describe an ideal corporate performer as one whose strivings are based on a healthy, even passionate, drive to achieve a form of success that includes both measurable results and personal well-being. Such individuals thrive in work environments where people participate on the basis of desire more than duty, and where creativity is more valued than compliance.

The executive who is motivated by corporate incentives is being replaced by the executive whose contribution is based on a personal quest for fulfillment and happiness. For example, at one point in its history, IBM expected executives to relocate when offered a promotion in the corporate hierarchy and an increase in salary of at least six percent. In contrast, IBM now gives its managers a questionnaire to take to their families. It helps them to consider all possible pros and cons associated with making a move to anticipate the impact of relocation on family health and happiness, and to avoid adverse outcomes. (Incidentally, the questionnaire is not returned to IBM; it stays with the family and is used only as a tool to help them make an informed and optimal decision.) This practice suggests that while the search for happiness may not be publicly acknowledged, the best corporations are aware that it is a primary motivator for many executives who are balancing individual, family, and corporate interests in an attempt to achieve a more broadly defined form of success.

Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that the more individualistic search for happiness is not only a legitimate source of motivation, but that it also promotes higher levels of contribution to the corporation. Dr. George Vaillant found strong correlation between high levels of achievement in the workplace and personal happiness in the marital and family life of his Harvard subjects. Happiness, then, strengthens other capacities that ultimately increase an individual’s ability to make significant contributions to the workplace and develop the potential in others to do the same.

Through my clinical work with executives and my consulting activities with a variety of organizations, I have observed a number of executives who have achieved exceptional levels of success and happiness. While there are no easily grasped universal truths that can be learned from their examples, there are four characteristics these exceptional executives share.

1. Perspective. A consistent capacity to keep ultimate goals and objectives in view, especially when the level of stress and demand is high. Such perspective contributes to the ability to evaluate complex, and even turbulent, situations and make optimal decisions. One high-ranking executive in the airline industry is affectionately referred to by his subordinates as “the Zen Master.” When asked to explain, one of his subordinates commented, “I guess we call him that because in spite of all the chaos around here, he never seems to lose his cool. It’s not just imperturbability, though. He keeps his sense of purpose; he knows why he is here and what he wants to accomplish; and he seems to be able to do it no matter what.”

2. Balance. The ability to prioritize the demands of work and family so that the most important tasks get done at the right time. Executives who are “balanced” avoid problems that are not theirs to solve, dilemmas that will not change, and virtually all unnecessary commitments. They also make appropriate trade-offs between present and future demands and between work and recreation, thus gaining both immediate and long-term gratification.

A prime example of balance is seen in the life of a very effective executive, Paul, who successfully developed a new marketing campaign for his corporation while taking several afternoons to go to his daughters’ ballet recitals. Known for his capacity to be self-sacrificing, Paul had attained a balance between narcissism and altruism. He was able to serve his own needs for advancement in the corporation and still have time to devote to family interests and community service.

3. Resilience. The ability to rebound from failure. Many very successful executives have experienced major setbacks in their careers. The Center for Creative Leadership found that what separates the “arrivers” from the “derailed” is, in part, the capacity to rebound from failure without losing confidence and motivation. The fact that there are significant failures among the most successful executives is not surprising, since these individuals have the courage and vision to set extremely high goals for themselves. Having the strength of character to deal with the inevitable disappointments associated with high standards and expectations is a cornerstone of the successful executive’s personality.

4. Humor. A lively sense of humor appears to be both a prerequisite for psychological health and an outcome of it. Good humor is a sign of perspective, balance, and many other qualities associated with the highest levels of personal and professional achievement. And yet amid the seriousness of boardrooms and stockholder meetings, executive humor can be as elusive as happiness itself. Oscar Wilde’s dictum that, “life is much too important to be taken seriously,” may well describe a form of constructive detachment that allows the best executives to maintain purpose and perspective through turbulent times.

Other Common Characteristics

There are many other more specific characteristics shared by executives who have attained personal success. I would include among them:

• The ability to take genuine pleasure from the accomplishments of others, both superiors and subordinates.
• The desire to serve, mentor and develop others.
• The strength to compete effectively and derive appropriate pleasure from winning.
• The energy to maintain a broad range of interests despite the pressure to narrow one’s focus in response to the demands of the workplace.
• The capacity to take interesting vacations that provide periodic renewal.
• The ability to maintain rewarding marital and family relationships.

While it is not in the power of organizations to grant happiness, the best executives recognize the legitimacy of the quest for personal happiness and respect it as a laudable endeavor with several side benefits to the organization.

Lc 12,49-53.
Je suis venu apporter un feu sur la terre, et comme je voudrais qu’il soit déjà allumé ! Je dois recevoir un baptême, et comme il m’en coûte d’attendre qu’il soit accompli !
Pensez-vous que je sois venu mettre la paix dans le monde ? Non, je vous le dis, mais plutôt la division. Car désormais cinq personnes de la même famille seront divisées : trois contre deux et deux contre trois ;
ils se diviseront : le père contre le fils et le fils contre le père, la
mère contre la fille et la fille contre la mère, la belle-mère contre la
belle-fille et la belle-fille contre la belle-mère. »

Les commentaires de Denys le Chartreux (1402-1471), moine
sur la première partie de l’Evangile me conviennent.
Allumer dans les coeurs des hommes le feu de l’amour de Dieu
« Je suis venu apporter un feu sur la terre » : je suis descendu du
haut du ciel et, par le mystère de mon incarnation, je me suis manifesté aux hommes pour allumer dans les coeurs humains le feu de l’amour divin. « Et comme je voudrais qu’il soit déjà allumé » — c’est-à-dire qu’il prenne et devienne une flamme activée par l’Esprit Saint et qu’il fasse jaillir des actes de bonté !
Le Christ annonce ensuite qu’il subira la mort sur la croix avant que
le feu de cet amour n’enflamme l’humanité. C’est, en effet, la très sainte Passion du Christ qui a valu à l’humanité un don aussi grand, et c’est avant tout le souvenir de sa Passion qui allume une flamme dans les coeurs fidèles. « Je dois recevoir un baptême », autrement dit : Il m’incombe et il m’est réservé par une disposition de Dieu de recevoir un baptême de sang, de me baigner et de me plonger comme dans l’eau, dans mon sang répandu sur la croix pour racheter le monde entier. « Et quelle n’est pas mon angoisse jusqu’à ce qu’il soit accompli», en d’autres termes jusqu’à ce que ma Passion soit achevée, et que je puisse dire : « Tout est accompli ! » (Jn 19,30)

Par contre, je trouvai difficile de comprendre la deuxième partie du texte. Comment le Seigneur soit venu pour la division ? Qui plus est, la division dans la cellule familiale. Je demande à comprendre, car le Dieu d’amour me parle de division. Depuis ma messe de samedi soir à laquelle j’ai assisté et où j’ai entendu la proclamation de ce texte, je suis resté perplexe. A mon action de grâce après ma communion à l’eucharistie, j’ai demandé le Seigneur de m’éclairer. Mon état de perplexité m’a amené à ouvrir ma bible pour chercher une explication. L’intitulé du texte se lit ainsi : Jésus cause de division. Et le texte me renvoie à Matthieu 10,34 : Non la Paix mais le combat.

« Celui qui aime son père ou sa mère plus que moi n’est pas digne de moi : celui qui aime son fils ou sa fille plus que moi n’est pas digne de moi. »

Ainsi la division dont Le Seigneur me parlait était bien ce combat que je dois mener. De Le reconnaître avant tout mon être. De l’aimer plus que tout. L’amour divin qu’IL met à ma disposition ne se compare pas en magnitude avec mes tracasseries & préoccupations humaines. L’amour filial des hommes, aussi puissant, fort et producteur de bienfaits qu’il puisse être, n’est pas comparable à l’amour de Dieu.

Le Seigneur, par son amour, saura m’armer pour ce combat si je m’abandonne à Lui.