A conversation around Charismatic person, Charisma opened up today. A Cafe conversation over a cup of coffee. Something made me think of, and it always does for me, the opposite of a Charismatic person. The Developer mentioned an emotional moment of tearing a book in two pieces, a gesture which symbolises something which should not be read, written, thought of, is not needed in this life, as it does not contribute joy, happiness, good ness to mankind, humankind.

This was also because the book was giving importance to, working towards hatred towards a certain race, community, culture etc. The act in itself spoke a lot and i remember it and i feel i should write it out as well.

Few names were floated around, of celebrities and a distinction was made how some just had that persona, that attractiveness to be Charismatic and others didn’t and not necessarily a charismatic person had to be famous in his or her own times. Amrita Shergill popped up, so did Nehru.

The man who made the atomic bomb came up as an instinctive answer to authors who would have that combination of being joyful and curious. Curiosity in anything and everything and being joyful in this act. For me, being a good human being was instinctive quality. To which the founder of NID, IIM and space program of India was mentioned. Someone who treats the sweeper to the president of the country equally.

I lined up in my head, my own list of people with charisma, of being good human being, having Oration skills, knowledge and above all an attractive pull. That you feel their presence when they are there in the room. But this can also differ depending on how you have wired your brain but yes, sometimes this would be intuitive without even knowing.

Would this exist in other species such as animals and birds, that one bird from the flock is so special, or that one ant who is so Charismatic ??

We dwelled for a bit in the country, their culture as being charismatic. Japan and its culture yet they have a suicide park. garden i think, a forest i think. you just go there and die. too much work load, loneliness or something else.

I am taking into account the following. Immense amount of hard work, many many hours in doing something and intense focus in something. We enter from the womb and end up on a pyre or a burial ground. This consciousness is open and working for a certain amount of hours. It burns as a flame and then dies. In this: intense amount of hard work, many many hours of doing and intense focus. Intensity in everything. I am connecting with – Relationship of Intensity and Curiosity and then the book mentioned of the Atomic bomb creator. Richard? that if i posed a question

Question:

“That we have so much to do, so much to engage with, whether business, or art, or household chores or other mundane things or further expansion into other things, that when we filter out, juggle from one situation to another, address one issue to another, delegate one thing to someone and another thing to someone, only to get that time to do something we want to do, and then when we complete it, we realise that months back there was a thought of wanting to do something and that idea, that thought remains pending and then we realise that we are engaging in too much and that one thing was always there, that was the most important and now it has come to the shore, finally and now i shall do it.

Answer:

One possible answer shared was that in the book, the author spends a considerable amount of time, in that curiosity, in that intensity, in that joyfulness for two weeks in a laboratory. And that moment, time is what all of us are wanting. That Laboratory time for that experiment where we don’t seek anything else but what is, can not be possible. Making something, a thought become a possibility or an action possible which was never part of a constructed thought because it was never thought of.