Channelize your fear

I read this article in Harvard Business Review, the other day, about points to consider for newly appointed managers. It started with the understanding that being in a managerial role, one is armed with a very potent weapon i.e. fire. Fire here is a metaphor for power. The power to execute. The power to influence. How one uses that fire will depend on success and failure. One of the points mentioned ‘taking counsel for fears’. It is said that fear is normal and if you aren’t scared, you shouldn’t be trusted with fire.

This line turns our usual understanding upside-down. Logic says that if you aren’t scared, you should be the one entrusted with fire. The new concept being explained here looks at the practical and underlying aspect of human psychology. Not the superficial one. The common catchphrase that when one doesn’t have anything to lose then they become free from fear, is wrong. Rather it makes them more callous. It also makes them think that others too aren’t fearful. The self-reference criteria sets in.

Fear of failure makes you take calculated risks. It doesn’t make you look at the best solution but the optimum solution. Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises shows this in an apt manner through Batman’s prison escape sequence. The rope acted as a safety net resulting in lack of fear. As soon as the rope was done away with, fear of failure set in. This made his resolve even harder. There were no second chances.

Not technically alike to Goebbels law, but a set of beliefs followed by the crowd does result in a ‘don’t-question-the-belief’ syndrome. 

How objective is objective

Do personal beliefs influence your professional work? Example: A Court judge believes in superstition. Would his belief affect his judgement on a god-man or god-woman accused of some wrongdoing? Or if a celebrity is accused of some wrongdoing. Would the celebrity's track record in public life bear an influence on decision-making of the judge. How much role does prejudice play in delivering a judgement.

Imagine your Boss is a god-fearing person, and a faithful believer in god. You on the other hand, aren’t an atheist but sort of an agnostic. Would your difference in belief be a criterion to be judged by your Boss?

Imagine your leader is okay with finding the gap between legality and ethics. Like, using a loophole in the rules to gain- personally or professionally. You on the other hand, have unwavering belief in ethics. You have shown your displeasure about it. Would you be considered a threat? As someone who might rock the boat in future or be a whistle-blower? Would you be able to be your leader’s confidant? Or would you be respected for your belief in ethics? Or would you be sidelined from important decision-making and be given mundane tasks. Consider the situation vice versa. Your leader is ethical whereas you don’t mind finding that gap between legality and ethics. The above questions still apply.

This begs the question, how objective is objective. 

What the Director wanted us to see: Manjhi- The Mountain Man

The central theme of the story asks us to take matters in your own hand. Not to depend on others. This is summed up well at the end of the movie. When asked how he feels about finally walking down the road through the Mountain, he replies “Don’t depend on god. Who knows, god might be depending on you”.

The movie shows people celebrating the abolition of untouchability, around 8 years after independence. I think the Director wished to draw attention to the fact that 68 years after independence, some of our villages still struggle for water and electricity. Untouchability isn’t an issue in the movie. It is used as a metaphor to talk about the current environment.

Manjhi’s quest to make a road for his villagers and believing in his task irrespective of people calling him fool and an idiot shows the focus we need to have towards work. There will always be naysayers. Single-minded approach always bears fruit. More important is the process rather than the end result. Because process makes fundamental changes in thinking or perspective. End result can be different from what one visualizes when set out towards achieving it.

Two issues the director touches upon though subtly. One, dwindling reserves of water and the Naxalite issue. Drought was a concern in 1960s and is a concern in 2015 as well. We have failed to provide this basic necessity to our people. Technology has improved healthcare and education and overall standard of living but hasn’t been able to address effective utilisation of our water resources. Unfortunately, companies providing water facilities will not get high valuation on stock exchanges. Same applied for the Naxalite issue. A concern in 1960s and in 2015 too. Capitalism has failed to uplift the masses especially in far-flung areas of India. Naxalites will not come into the mainstream unless they see an opportunity that this is addressed.

There is a disclaimer at the start of the movie which says that even thought the story is based on a real event, some creative liberties have been taken. A snake biting Manjhi, and him having to cut off his toe so that the poison doesn’t spread could be one of the fictionalised account. The director must have wanted to show that in a single-minded pursuit of a task, tough decisions should be taken. And if it means physical pain, so be it.

The movie, I suppose, takes a jibe at our democracy. When a make-shift stage during a political rally crumbles under its weight, a few people rush and hold it aloft with their shoulder. And the politician nonchalantly continues with her speech. A police inspector releases Manjhi because people outside the police station shout slogans for his release. And he is released under public pressure. I don’t mean that Manjhi was a criminal and should not be released, it shows that our laws have so many perforations, that arresting someone and releasing them is a subjective issue than objective.

The movie end with the road being built bearing Manjhi’s name. As the end credits roll, you feel sad that the government could only help Manjhi by naming the road after him. Countless un-named people are toiling in India and hope the government reaches them before they give up.

What the Director wanted the audience to see- Double Seat

The central theme of the story is to make one believe in himself/herself. To take that leap of faith into the unknown. A new house is that metaphor. How a young, newly wed couple along with their family takes that leap of faith.

Straddling through fear and an ambitious dream, the young couple take that leap of faith only to be pulled back by an insolvency of a local pathpedhi (a Non-banking financial corporation- like a credit society) in the process losing all their savings. The director wishes to draw attention towards these sorts of institutions. Though they are under the RBI rules, lack of desirable financial reporting make them vulnerable to non-transparency and frauds. A case in point being the CKP Co-operative bank in Mumbai & Thane or the Pen Co-operative bank in Khopoli (Maharashtra).

When the head of the house, their father comes to know about the intent of the couple to buy a house, he feels intimidated by the magnanimous thought leading him to not believe in the leap of faith of his children. Relationships these days are based on material possession and the director makes his point when the character Amit says that he was rejected by 7 prospective girls after seeing his dilapidated house whereas Manjiri, who is his wife now, saw the person in him.

Manjiri’s character is well-etched out. Rooted in traditional upbringing, she adjusts to the city life like a fish takes to water. Turning a snide remark by a neighbour (I don’t want insurance policy) into an opportunity to make her sales pitch (as an insurance agent), she shows perfect presence of mind. When they see their dream coming apart, she takes the lead to pacify her husband and in-laws and gives them confidence to try again. And that he should hold his head high for the efforts. She sums it well when she says that if we have been forced to take two steps back, it will help more in our efforts to catapult (like a high-jumper) into our dream.

The director wishes to show the life of an honest police-hawaldar (lowest in the police hierarchy) to manage in Rs. 12000 (USD 200) monthly salary. When asked whether he indeed does not take bribe, he feels pain to say that he has to justify that he is honest. This rubs off on Amit who rejects a proposal to buy a shanty (hut) in an area which is proposed for re-development by a builder. These two are much nuanced moments showing the society a mirror.

Amit’s mother is a balanced lady who understands her duties as a mother, wife and a mother-in-law. She gives the young couple privacy, stands by her husband and shows confidence in his son’s and daughter-in-law’s ability. Amit’s father acknowledges towards the end of the movie that he did not change his perspective with time. A lesson to all of us to find that balance between needs and wants.

Lastly, in this day and age of nuclear families, having your father and mother together can be so much helpful to take a leap of faith. Double-seat shows this well. 

Boeing and Airbus print ads in today's newspaper.. Both using birds.. similar beige background.. complete lack of creativity!!

Altruism

Overlooking the Ganga, Arjuna asked Krishna “Who is the biggest giver”? Krishna answered “Karna”. Arjuna seemed offended. And gave a list of selfless acts done by him. Krishna patiently heard him and thought it is better to let Arjuna judge for himself. He took Arjuna to a far-off village. He produced a mountain of gold and asked Arjuna to donate it among the villagers. Accordingly, Arjuna called all villagers and asked them to form a queue so that Arjuna can give each one of them a bag full of gold. The day ended without even an ounce of gold being reduced despite all villagers getting the gold. Similar story occurred the next day. Finally Arjuna gave up. Krishna then called Karna and told him to do the same. Karna called all villagers and told them that this mountain belongs to the village and that they can have it as they want. Moral of the story: If you want something, even blessings, in return for a favour, it isn’t a selfless act.

In the corporate world, largely driven by capitalist philosophy, where we talk of competitive blood bath, guerrilla marketing, carpet bombing, pink-slips, cut-throat competition among others, how difficult it is to maintain altruistic nature. The answer squarely rests on your thought-process. Going beyond the superficial nature of physical things we see in this world, it is about your control over your senses. The need to go into the depth of the whys, whats, hows, whens, wheres is essential. Newton’s third law states “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. Same hold true in physics or philosophy. The difference is that, in physics, the opposite reaction is logical. In philosophy, the opposite reaction is not necessarily to oppose. All decisions taken by you have a reason and thus always ask the why of it. This decision will have an impact or effect. Whether the timing of the decision is correct. Once all the answers to these questions are in sync with your though-process, you will not need to the worry about the fruits of your labour.

There will always be a dichotomy between the goal and the process. Each will have its place under the sun at different times. The challenge is to be able to understand the difference. You will have reached the stage of self-actualisation when this challenge ceases to exist because fruit of labour isn’t your source of inspiration. 

Yanis Varoufakis- the pariah

No, no, this isn’t about the Greece crisis of 2015 which started in 2010 after austerity measures were put in place. This also isn’t about whether Greece or Germany is right. This is about Yanis Varoufakis. An academic who never practiced what he preached (not saying in a condescending manner, it is just that academics are not judged based on the result of actual policies). He was ‘selected’ as Finance Minister by a leftist-government to oversee a crisis which has no precedence. An economic union which has no precedence. An economic union on the verge of losing one of its members due to default in debt payment. A crisis caused by excesses of capitalism.

He is a political novice. And he is negotiating with the Germany, the strongest economy in Europe. Germany who have been its creditors. His naivety turned to be his strength. He did not have any baggage to carry. He had a free-mind and he came out with solutions. In spite of being from a leftist party, he was open to privatisation. In one of his interviews he said they wanted privatisation but that doesn’t mean to sell assets at fire-sale prices. Rather to bring in know-how to bring the economy back on its foot. He was stubborn on his thinking that the crisis was not all Greece’s fault. He wanted time and respectful help to revive the economy.

Normally, any person would have acceded to the demands made by the creditors. This is where socialism, despite its negatives, is better than capitalism. When they saw that its policy is going in unchartered territory, they went back to the people with a referendum. Being a democratic country having an elected parliament, they did not have to go for this. They had the right to take a decision. Yet, they went back to the people. They realised that the people had enough of austerity and depended too much on others. They wanted their respect back. And if it means being alone, so be it. Once the referendum vindicated Yanis Varoufakis’ of a ‘No’ vote, he swallowed his pride and stepped aside so that a solution could be found out. The hatred he faced from the creditors shouldn’t have acted as an hindrance for a deal between Greece and Europe. He will accept accusations of being obdurate. He resigned and paved the way for a new deal with Greece on a moral higher ground after the ‘No’ vote. If we have more men as Yanis Varoufakis in politics, the world will be a much economically stable place.

To catch the 6:06 am Churchgate local

Facing parched land and in the backdrop of Prime Minister’s announcement of Smart Cities, Ajay decided.

Dadar railway station intimidated Ajay. Roaming the streets in humid April weather of 2014, Ajay found work as a un-loader in trucks for agricultural produce. Rs. 20 for a hard morning’s labour. He had Mumbai’s famous vadapav. Month-long sleeping on station, the mundane continued. He saw physical development in city but without a moral well-being. He did not like it. But smart cities was the way forward. From working as newspaper vendor, hand-car puller, security guard at mall to delivery boy for online portals, Ajay lived life from hand-to-mouth.

With some luck he became an office-boy in a multinational company with confirmed job. Marriage, kids followed. Ajay wasn’t happy living a stressful life. He yearned for a simpler life. He turned in his bed to adjust alarm for 5 am - 14 May 2024. 

The art of asking questions

Confucius said “Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.” In a similar way, you can say “Teach a student to ask questions and you wouldn’t need an exam.” With individualist lifestyles inspired from Western countries, ego as an emotion has started to have an overwhelming affect on individuals.

If you ask questions, they seem to offend people. Questioning authority is a strict no-no. We were taught in school to ask questions and those who did were considered to have a scientific temper. Our knowledge is superficial these days. Conceptual understanding is not done. And therefore we are afraid of people asking questions. Thus, we muscle the thinking ability of people which makes them mute followers without a scientific temper.

Beliefs, faith and religion are the only aspects which cannot be explained with a proof. All other things have a reason for their existence. Armed forces are the only places where we need a line of authority without questioning the decisions. Everything else needs to be questioned.

The most important aspect of a teacher is not to feed information but make the subject interesting enough for the student to be inquisitive about its contents. Then the teacher need not worry if the student will study or not. Leaders or bosses, too, need to encourage questioning because only then will the fundamental understanding of their subordinate improve. Questioning will make an individual look at the future. And try to understand what impact will a decision have in the future. This will make companies to make a second line of leadership ready who can fill in shoes in case of a retirement or attrition.

Sad though that inspite of all literature on team-building and working in teams, no one touches upon the idea of encouraging different view-points although it says to accepts different view-points. But if scientific temper isn’t improved upon, there will be no contrary view-points.

When arguing on a point and you know that you are right, keep on asking leading questions and over period of the argument, your opponent will understand the fallacy of his argument. 

Employees with a knack of asking questions are worried about their superiors getting offended with questions. They have to learn to ask questions in a round-about way and be apologetic of asking questions. The world these days is ruled by bottom-line and money-mindedness. If this continues, majority of the followers will lose their thinking-acumen and will be mere robots with power to a few. And as they say “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

So, if you encourage at least one individual to start getting to the depth of any aspect, you got a winner on your hands. There can be no better ability than to ask questions. The target should be to catch them young. Youngsters at impressionable age can be moulded like clay. Any questions?

Why did Anurag Kashyap get angry post Bombay Velvet failure

Acknowledgement: I am an Anurag Kashyap fan and will continue to remain so. 

Anurag Kashyap has never defended himself or his work. He never cared about what the critics said. He shows to the audience what he wants to show. Yet, when his magnum opus Bombay Velvet failed at the box office and critics were out with their knives, he comes out in a defensive mode and gives an explanation. This is completely unlike Anurag Kashyap. He did not get angry with the criticism but he is angry with himself. Because he knows this isn’t 'him'. Probably for the first time, the expectations and the ensemble cast got the better of him. He did not want a film on his resume which he thought, did not have the original ‘him’. It was slightly condescending to say that audience will take time to understand the shocking narrative. Even the average film-goer will say that the narrative wasn’t any different from usual period films let alone be shocking. But we will give him the benefit of doubt. It was the anger speaking rather than the director himself. We do find fault with others when others cannot see what we intend to show them.

It is a fact that none of his earlier films had the kind of star power that this film has. Ranbir Kapoor, Anushka Sharma and Karan Johar. The biggest pressure on him was the launch of Karan Johar. Here is a successful director and producer, loved by the metro audiences and the media, who has his own talk show, judges a dance reality show, and hosts award ceremonies. He wanted to try his hand at acting. Chooses a negative role and to be directed by Anurag Kashyap. The onus of his success lies on the director. If Karan Johar is successful as an actor, Karan Johar will win all praise singularly. If he doesn’t, the director will be criticized for wrong casting and not being able to get the best out of a newcomer.

For the first time, he was feeling the pressure of the box office as well. This can be gauged from a few mistakes in the script (Spoilers ahead). Karan Johar’s character gets impressed with Ranbir’s character all too easily. It was as if the director was short of ideas on this one. The turnaround of Siddharth Basu’s character from honest to corrupt was as swift as a formula one car. Ranbir’s character wanted to kill Anushka’s character himself then why did he have someone keep a bomb in her room. It wasn’t that he had not killed anyone earlier. The double role of Anushka’s character was laughable. There wasn’t any logical explanation to keep the union leader alive. Vivaan Shah’s character was not required. It would have reduced the length of the film which seemed stretched at the end. All these points in the script made it look like a typical bollywood masala film where one keeps the logic at home. Unlike Anurag Kashyap again.

It is a blessing in disguise that Bombay Velvet failed at the box office. It is a learning for everyone to not get swayed by 100 crore collections. Indian audiences are slowly moving towards meaningful cinema and Anurag Kashyap must take credit to be the one to start this. I hope he comes back stronger and with renewed vigour to show his true mettle. 

Why a strong Indian National Congress (INC) is essential for India

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't want to jump to that conclusion yet but fair to say that the indicators are not too good. The BJP having got a full majority on their own has made them feel invincible. Remember the India shining campaign. Similar thing is happening now with the kind of advertisement spree of the BJP. It is such a shame that they think they won the general elections 2014 due to a strong media blitz. Such lack of respect to the then Prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi and his team of lieutenants.

This government won on the basic premise of development with the Gujarat model of development as a benchmark. I do not want to dwell much whether the Gujarat model is a model which can be emulated nationally or whether the model is itself self-sustainable, as the naysayers would say. The Prime Minister has been quite forthright with his views and is in a combat mode to get the economy back on track. His direct interactions with people, and putting India on the world map through international engagements and diplomacy has no precedence in Indian politics. Kudos to that. However, all these good aspects have been over-shadowed with various aspects of Hinduism, ghar-wapsi, attacks on minorities among other things.

If BJP believes they won the general elections 2014 because of direct interaction between the PM candidate through Twitter then it should also realise the double-edge of twitter. Every small mis-step is blown out of proportion on Twitter and can come back to bite BJP in a big way.

Here it is required that the Indian National Congress, a national party in true sense of the word steps in. If INC are not strong, BJP will face un-sustained resistance from other parties and it will not be good enough. And it will allow BJP to get away with unpleasant things. Moreover, 4 years down the line when the general elections are due in 2019, the electorate would not have a viable option if BJP fails to perform. The Indian electorate has been intelligent enough to not give a fractured mandate in 2004, 2009 and 2014 and I would not want them to be a position where this could come true. Because as they say, lesser of the evil is better. The small regional parties in the Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and a few other states do not have the vision to take India forward nor are there enough intellectuals to know what is good. They have too many vested interests to be good for the country. Therefore, like it or not, do wish and pray fervently that Rahul Gandhi takes on the mantle and is ably supported by good people in the Congress. The Gandhi family is the glue keeping the INC together and we have to take the thorns for the roses.

A special note for AAP considering the positive attitude it gets amongst the middle class for taking on the establishment. It will be naïve to think that they will be a national player anytime soon. I wish I am wrong. They need to prove themselves in New Delhi before venturing on the national stage. It will be better if it proves itself in a few other states before going national. Else it too will add to the possibility of a fractured mandate in 2019.

To be less harsh on the INC, there did some miserable mistakes during their two terms. I hope they have learnt their lesson. Only if they get their act together will they have a chance of redemption and give India a viable and strong option, come 2019. 

Live for money or money to live

When the Sensex is down a few points, it becomes a headline. Farmer suicide never becomes a headline. Corporate awards are headlines. Why are there never awards for agricultural excellence. Attack on the rich in Taj Hotel becomes a headline. Attack in Assam never becomes a headline. Subsidies and loan waiver to farmers become a headline. Land at concessional rates and tax breaks to industry never make headlines. Oil spills in the Sunderbans never make headlines. Restrictions on industry to pollute makes headlines as anti-industry. Minimum Support price for farmer output makes headlines as subsidy but salary increments in April for industrial employees is a right. Profitability is measured on the Sensex but is employee life measured on the Sensex. Down-sizing of employees starting with blue-collared workers is acceptable when real down-sizing will start if white-collared workers in middle and senior management are asked to go. But that is not palatable because a white-collared worker is considered to be an asset for profit-making whereas a blue-collared worker is a liability during weak economic demand.

For all its good aspects, Capitalism fails on these points miserably. For a country like India where there is such a large population without basic food, shelter and clothing and there is constant pressure on urban infrastructure, capitalism can never be the answer. Because the vested interests for a capitalist mind-set will hinder increased standard of living across the spectrum.

We all have lost our first identity as humans. We prefer to identify ourselves by our nation, religion and name, in that order. Humanity and compassion are being lost in pursuit of materialism.  

FALSE GRATIFICATION

Growth is the most important word for everyone these days. How do we define growth? Simplistically, the amount of money we earn. As it increases, we are growing. And for others to grow, we need to spend. Velocity of money, isn’t it? Surprising though that in a world as divergent as the human race, money has become the sole parameter to define and measure growth. It doesn’t matter what we do to the environment. It doesn’t matter about the deep chasm between the haves and the have not’s. Ethics, values, compassion, love are all kept as ornaments on the mantle. It is not needed on an everyday basis. Use it as we deem fit for our comfort.

Why are we moving towards such a consumption mindset, if we already not were? Why do we require material assets to be happy? The demon of inflation never had so much of fury than it is now. We are all defined by governments as economies rather than societies. What we offer to the world in terms of supplies and how much we consume show our place in the world pecking order.

Thus we have the Thanksgiving or Black Friday sale in the US, the Dubai Shopping festival, and a host of online sales by retailers at deep-discounts.

This brings up the question of online retailers which are the biggest thing in India currently. We have India’s locally grown flipkart closely followed by US giant amazon and other local players such as jabong, snapdeal, indiatimes among others. Every other day there is a big sale announced. The USP of these online retailers is less price vis-à-vis brick-and-mortar stores. And that too from the comfort of the house without having to venture out. This saves us a lot of time. But by saving the time, what good are we doing? Do we go out and play sport? Do we read more books-online or offline? Do we spend time with our family or friends? Do we explore nature? Do we go out and help the needy? Then why are we saving time. What is our achievement in saving time. This is least of the problem. The problem lies because the kind of promotional activities that are done makes one wonder how did we all survive and make purchases when online world wasn't there. We are enticed into buying a host of goodies which you would not bought in the first place were it not for the low price and deep discount. You begin to wonder that do we buy because we need it or want it or desire it or just because we are getting it at a low price.

In the Maslow's hierarchy of needs, after the first two stages, there has to be a third stage of deep discount. We all are swayed immensely by low prices. Digging deeper, one feels that consumerist mindset isn’t the real problem here. The real problem is our disillusionment with the world and our surroundings. There is lack of empathy among people. Tolerance levels have reached its nadir. And therefore we find gratification when we are in possession of physical objects. We love that object more than the people surrounding us. Why? Because the object behaves as we want it to. It doesn’t expect from us. Whereas people expect from us. Thus it is easy to be in the arms of a dispassionate object than having to make sacrifices or leeways with our loved ones. 

Did god fight with bhagawan? Then why are we fighting.

It is ironic and sad that there is so much of hatred in the name of religion. A common thread in all religions is live and let live. What is religion? In simple terms, religion is a set of ideals laid out by the Supreme force unknown to all and who we are in awe of. I will not say here if it is god or bhagawan or deva or or allah or give it any identity. The whole concept of an individual believing in the Supreme and the one who doesn't believe in Supreme (an atheist) itself is wrong. Because the Supreme is called into the field of play of our life only when we are taken over by the fragilities of human nature- happiness, sadness, fear, greed, jealousy, and to satisfy the ego of our five senses. Thus everyone believes in the Supreme at some point in life and is an atheist at other times.

Critics might point out that there have been wars since time immemorial on religion. This argument precisely defeats the purpose. Every religion has its sacred books and mythology which talks of the way of life and asks us to choose a path. It means we all have to learn from these stories and from the past. Therefore, if we have a history of wars based on religion, this should not act as a rationale to continue. No history in the world talks of a war between god and bhagawan or between allah and deva. It is individuals who have fought wars out of fear of the morbid.

In the current context, the people of all religions have been wary of existence of another religion. There seems to be an one-upmanship race between different faiths. This is like asking a mother to choose between her two children. Different religions ask you to search for the end result which, in Hinduism (or better say as Sanatana dharma) is Moksha, Christianity is Gratification or Nirvana and in other religions has different names. Wishing is done by people in different ways. Some say hello, some say namaskar, some say salaam, some say as-salamu alaykum. Does the underlying feeling of greeting one another change with the change in language. If it doesn't, then why should our belief in our Supreme change.

If some people do not believe in a particular religion and foul-mouth it, they will pay for their deeds. Letting your anger overpower the good in you affects the Self more than the other. And this has scientific acceptance than mere philosophy. Killing, to avenge the desecration of a Supreme manifestation, cannot have any justification. If everyone starts to think for themselves and not assume that self-thinking is a voice of the collective, there will be no bloodshed. Ever. We all are humans first. Humanity takes precedence over any other belief or ideology or faith. Humanity reigns the Supreme. Being humane will always be in fashion.  

PS: I have used lower case for god, bhagawan, allah, deva because, for me, these are the collective. It is an objective perspective, an idea rather than a material being. And I have used Supreme as a proper noun to signify that that is the only idea which, although non-material, is the one binding force.