Par Excellence

Just the other day, I was thinking, whether, you know, there is such a thing as a 'right'.

Now, I'm not referring to the direction, which I know you would certainly have put out of the question, or the Constitutional Principle- that which allows me, forthwith, to express freely here -or the moral doctrine that goes a long way in dictating most of our actions.

Nah. What I want to tell you about is much simpler, because it's colloquial. And if we can get someplace else with the meaning of the word, starting from here, I can bet you that it'll be a worthwhile journey.

What I've been hinting at (which is easier to guess if you say the word 'right' five times than with a thesaurus at hand), is that it's sometimes alright, oxymoronic as this may sound, for there not to be a right.

For there not to be an 'accurate'. For there not to be... accuracy, correctitude, pointedness, unblemished-ness. (Pardon me the coinage of the last one.)

There is a fundamental that is driven into us since the day we are born- this need for excellence. Now, I think that's paradoxical, because if there is a need, things are not excellent, and if all is above-board and excellent, there would be absolutely no need for anything. 

But it essentially is the paradox that, like Asimov's First Law of Robotics (which I will presently quote, for clarity) drives us humans to create, create well, create the 'best'(?!) Now I think that last bit is indefinite. Oh, pardon me. I'm a Math student, tending to confuse these antonyms because a single symbol can denote both. Not boundless, but so far from the truth that it barely exists. Umm.. undefined.

To quote Isaac Asimov, the Father of Robotics,

"A robot may do nothing that, to its knowledge, will harm a human being; nor, through inaction, knowingly allow a human being to come to harm."

Since humans make machines, I am of the opinion that this Law is unwittingly based on the very fabric, the first fundamental, that we are ourselves governed by, and I'd like to rephrase this as adeptly as I can.

''A human may do nothing that, to their knowledge, will disrupt the balance of the surroundings, nor, through inaction, allow the blessings with which they are endowed to come to harm."

So I think it's safe to say that this 'need for excellence' is not misplaced. The concept is one of maximum input, to ensure minimum output. Keep things simple, unfazed, peaceful. It's an idea of non-disruptiveness, of cohesiveness. It's a notion that breathes balance and restoration. Just like its robotic parallel.

Have you heard people, umm, say, an artist par excellence. I don't think the Impressionists dubbed themselves that, but art connoisseurs certainly did, them, so there.

 A mathematician par excellence. Which is, to a great extent, uncontestable, because a theory, validated repeatedly against the backdrop of forefathers' theories or approved posthumously by predecessors, proved infallible.

A chef par excellence. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. In the common sentiment of aficionado and novice alike. If it tantalizes the taste-buds and calls for repeat savoring, definitely- check. 

An athlete par excellence. Milli, micro, nano- the more one narrows down on a finer unit, the less fine they're cutting it, because they are preparing themselves for finesse; ironic, but there.

A student par excellence. Now that hits deeper home, doesn't it?

Because we have worn those boots. Or seen them being worn. Both equally frustrating- because it has forced us to push ourselves from the warmth of 'just the right pace for us ' -dictated by our common- sense and perception- to 'the only right outcome', dictated by figures on sheets of paper. Which, sadly, implies that we are allowing the latter to be the master of the former, becoming slaves of material evidence rather than masters of human intuition.

This is not strictly confined to the academic sphere. 

'You're not on the basketball team.'

An enthusiastic novice, too shattered to ask why, mumbles the same.

The answer is bolder than ever. 'You can't even reach the hoop. ' Unapologetic, because victory, perfection, excellence, always are. Unapologetic. 

'Stop ruining the Team Dance with your coquettish moves.'

And the young lad or girl just thinks to herself, 'Well, don't they want us to have fun? And I was doing my happiest best.' Only to realize, sooner or later, that in pursuit of victory, having fun and giving your happiest best are like outliers. They don't fit, and they draw attention, so they are unwanted.

I read in the paper that happy teams produce great work-efficacy. Now happy teams can include the bourgeois of the craft, striving for perfection, happy with steady progress. Allowing biased joy to purge their walls as disheartenment, disillusionment for those outside. 

Or, they could just spread wide enough so that everyone willing to put their best foot forward could indeed do so; in this case, kindling warmth, mirth, buoyancy, inclusiveness. Leaving no shadows in its unbiased light, but penetrating far and wide to allow for.. imperfection. For error.

Because the more we strive for excellence, the more walls, castles, towers we will build. Comfort and efficiency brewing on the inside, pain and exclusion seething on the outside.

But the more we aspire for inclusion, the more lanterns we will light. A body is a gift. A faculty is a gift. A person, is a gift.

We are not robots. We are living, breathing, feeling, growing beings. And if everyone is to flourish, then the ultimate goal, in achieving an outcome, should be that everyone involved it should be permitted to blossom in just the way they wish to. As long as they wish to. As long as they care about the common goal.

That, my friends, is excellence. I don't think there is any paradox about that. 'Progress over Perfection.'- about it there is authenticity, fortitude and realism. It's an excellent way to live, thrive, enjoy and grow.

So, do you still feel a need for excellence?