The other day I got to read a saying on scribd & couldn't restrain myself with a thought:
"A diamond with a flaw is better than a common stone that is perfect".
Cool !!! No doubt sounds pretty interesting to our instincts.
It is so natural for any of us to start seeing ourselves as the diamond or the stone for the simple fact that they look like objects here and as a natural tendency we tend to compare objects in sayings with ourselves as individual or 'people' in general.
However the 'common stone that is perfect' refers to a person who is not recognized for any outstanding or clearly well developed or superior characteristics whereas by going the definition of words in 'Flawed Diamond' it seems to refer to people who are rare (as diamond is rare) with a lower level subject matter expertise (as they are flawed) but since diamond enjoys quite a popularity, these people must be the recipient of extraordinary recognition, unlike common stone (that makes it common).
But isn't it true that everyone of us can only be good at certain few things and not all? As it is, therefore, we all are flawed at certain things and extremely well at certain few. What makes us a diamond or a stone is just the "recognition".
Each person is a potential diamond but only if the observer is looking for diamonds OR common stone if the observer is looking for common stones. Therefore being a Diamond/common stone goes very much in the view of the observer and not the one under observation. Hence it is the observer that is the object in this quote not at all any individual.
A person who is not recognized for his/her good deeds will likely have low-self-esteem. I find it very important for every common stone to realize two simple things:
1. It is the observer who made him a common stone, it doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't diamond.
2. Some skills on other front demand little more attention to bring them some recognition, that may probably make them a 'Kohinoor' as they were already perfect.
All the left game is about recognition!
"A diamond with a flaw is better than a common stone that is perfect".
Cool !!! No doubt sounds pretty interesting to our instincts.
It is so natural for any of us to start seeing ourselves as the diamond or the stone for the simple fact that they look like objects here and as a natural tendency we tend to compare objects in sayings with ourselves as individual or 'people' in general.
However the 'common stone that is perfect' refers to a person who is not recognized for any outstanding or clearly well developed or superior characteristics whereas by going the definition of words in 'Flawed Diamond' it seems to refer to people who are rare (as diamond is rare) with a lower level subject matter expertise (as they are flawed) but since diamond enjoys quite a popularity, these people must be the recipient of extraordinary recognition, unlike common stone (that makes it common).
But isn't it true that everyone of us can only be good at certain few things and not all? As it is, therefore, we all are flawed at certain things and extremely well at certain few. What makes us a diamond or a stone is just the "recognition".
Each person is a potential diamond but only if the observer is looking for diamonds OR common stone if the observer is looking for common stones. Therefore being a Diamond/common stone goes very much in the view of the observer and not the one under observation. Hence it is the observer that is the object in this quote not at all any individual.
A person who is not recognized for his/her good deeds will likely have low-self-esteem. I find it very important for every common stone to realize two simple things:
1. It is the observer who made him a common stone, it doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't diamond.
2. Some skills on other front demand little more attention to bring them some recognition, that may probably make them a 'Kohinoor' as they were already perfect.
All the left game is about recognition!
2 comments:
interestingly i reckon u askign me the same question in my interview.
I disagreed with the quote.I still do
a diamond with flaw is a fool who could but didnt.
a common stone should eb respected for he made himself perfect
Dear Zahira,
A Diamond or the Common Stone is an observation of the observer. The object may not necessarily be any of these by virtue of it's individuality.
I urge you to read the post completely.
Post a Comment