Category Archives: Rationalism

When I entered the accounting profession three decades ago, it was the preserve of middle-aged white males, conservative politics and the old school tie. I remember being expected to disclose my religion and school in order to win a graduate position at one of the big eight accounting firms in Sydney. And the cleanliness of my black lace-up Oxford-style business shoes (not brogues) was also a matter of considerable significance to the interviewer.

Comedian John Cleese reinforced this unattractive image of accountants in his description of them as appallingly dull, unimaginative, timid, lacking initiative, spineless, easily dominated, no sense of humour, tedious company, irrepressibly awful and whereas in most professions these characteristics would be considerable drawbacks, in chartered accountancy, theyre a positive boon.

While unkind observers might suggest that the personality traits of chartered accountants havent changed all that much, there is no doubt that the professional and business environment has changed a great deal. I was reminded of this when I received (circa 1985) an unusual letter from my professional body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, about the future of our profession. The letter informed me that the accounting profession had entered a new world of technology, marketing and economic policy, in which we would become chief executives, entrepreneurs and thought leaders.

As a result, the letter claimed, traditional professional partnerships were finished. These would be replaced by multi-disciplinary consulting businesses. They would be built on the modern concepts of profitability and return on equity, rather than the quaint notion previous generations adopted of engaging in a trusted professional vocation in the public interest, irrespective of commercial reward. We were told that if we didnt get with the program we would be left behind, reduced by the end of the 20th century to low-value bookkeepers and compliance officers.

Free-market origins

Its hardly surprising that the accounting profession jumped onto the 1980s bandwagon. Those were the days in which powerful and compelling forces of deregulation, securitisation, free markets and globalisation were transforming much of the world. Societies became economies and economics faculties became business schools. And it was into this securitised free-market environment that the aspiring profession we now know as financial planning was born.

One of the strongest political supporters of this ideology was UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher, who famously declared: I think weve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, its the governments job to cope with it. I have a problem, Ill get a grant. Im homeless, the government must house me. Theyre casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. Its our duty to look after ourselves and then also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. Theres no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.

Over the following decades, the dominance of these ideas, often referred to as economic rationalism or neo-liberalism was assured. Australian academic Michael Pusey describes economic rationalism as a dogma that argues markets and money can always do everything better than governments, bureaucracies and the law. Theres no point in political debate because all this just generates more insoluble conflicts. Forget about history and forget about national identity, culture and society. Dont even think about public policy, national goals or nation-building. Its all futile. Just get out of the way and let prices and market forces deliver their own economically rational solution.

This view of the world was channelled by corporate cowboy Gordon Gekko, played by Michael Douglas, in the 1987 film Wall Street: Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

An improper role

So pervasive has been the influence of this ideology, especially in the Anglosphere, that many professional designations have taken on the characteristics of product brands. This has coincided with the employment in professional associations of marketing managers and customer service specialists, many of whom apply their considerable expertise in the promotion of consumer products to the selling and protection of professional designations as though they are brands of soap powder.

As a result, the focus of many professional associations has turned to image, membership retention and growth at the cost of their traditional emphasis on the articulation and enforcement of professional and ethical standards. The problem with this approach is that it leads to the conclusion that the reputation and commercial value of a professional designation must be protected and upheld, right or wrong, rather than to the conclusion that the public interest must be protected and upheld, even to the detriment of the commercial interests of association members whose behaviour has been found wanting.

This misunderstanding of the proper role of professions in society has also led to the expectation amongst members that their associations exist principally to protect and enhance their commercial interests in a free market (as would a lobby group), rather than to protect the public interest in society as a whole. I was surprised to observe this confusion in the documents supporting the creation of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (formerly the Institute of Chartered Accountants), in which the following statement appeared: Our aspiration is for the new Institute to be recognised as the leading trans-Tasman voice for business. The danger here is that by taking on the attributes of a vested-interests lobby group, the public will conclude that chartered accountants are hypocritical and untrustworthy. I suspect many financial planners already think that.

At the heart of any true profession must be its members duty to society. This is often called our duty to protect the public interest. It is a higher duty than our duty to act in our clients (or our employers) best interests and it must always receive priority in the ordering of our duties as professionals.

Simon Longstaff, executive director of the Ethics Centre, explained it this way: The point should be made that to act in the spirit of public service at least implies that one will seek to promote or preserve the public interest. A person who claimed to move in a spirit of public service while harming the public interest could be open to the charge of insincerity or of failing to comprehend what his or her professional commitments really amounted to in practice If the idea of a profession is to have any significance, then it must hinge on this notion that professionals make a bargain with society in which they promise conscientiously to serve the public interest, even if to do so may, at times, be at their own expense. In return, society allocates certain privileges. These might include the right to engage in self-regulation, the exclusive right to perform particular functions and special status.

We risk being devalued

Given this unique and privileged role in society, it follows that when aspiring professions such as financial planning choose to become involved in thought leadership and the development of public policy, our commentary must not be primarily motivated by a desire to engage in a public relations exercise or a brand management campaign. Furthermore, we should never allow commercially motivated pressure from vested interests to dictate our conclusions.

Sadly, we have seen the latter occur in recent years in our industrys compromised and misguided attitude toward the development of ethical and professional standards. In that regard, professional associations often refer to the importance of balancing stakeholders interests when, in truth, all they are seeking to do is maintain the commercial status quo of powerful members (or a section of powerful members). I accept that avoiding commercial pressures is not always easy, especially when they are sourced from our own profession. However, unless we do so, our members, government, the media and, most importantly, the public whose interests we are privileged to serve, will devalue or ignore our contributions to important debates in which our professions voice should be heard and respected and they will ultimately mistrust and devalue our advice.

Therefore, as we grow and evolve the profession of financial planning we must defend without fear or favour the fundamental ethical principles on which any true profession is built: namely trust, integrity, objectivity, conflict avoidance (not mere disclosure), technical competence, due care, confidentiality, professional behaviour and uncompromising support of the public interest. Of course, as individual financial planners, we are obliged to make important contributions to our clients wealth and financial independence, but that must never be at the expense of our overarching responsibility as a profession to create a fairer and more equitable society for all citizens.

TOPICS:Ethics and financial planning,Market forces,Professional associations,professional standards,professionalism

Go here to read the rest:

A dangerous misunderstanding - Professional Planner

I can get myself into a lot of trouble sometimes by making a blanket statement, but Im not sure that anyone ever rejects the Bible or Jesus Christ on philosophical grounds. Israel certainly did not.Israels decision to reject Christ was based solely on moral grounds (Gods definition of holiness differed from that of Israel).

It is my observation that the man who continues in his rejection of Christ has some hidden sin somewhere, a sin that he has no intention of letting go.Hes in love with it. He wants to keep what God declares is reprobate, and the result is a personal, moral conundrum.

At that point, because there still remains some shame should the sin become public (unless, of course, you are beyond shame: Ephesians5:12; Philip3:19), man hides behind a straw man an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.We call it a philosophical choice or an intellectual crisis and reject God, when the real problem is that man is morally reprobate.

Your rejecting God has nothing to do with Gods creating the world in six 24-hour days or the fact that Jonah was swallowed by a whale and lived to tell about it.

When we love our sin, we can come up with a thousand reasons to stay away from the cross.But when a person gives up his pride, puts away his sin and looks at the light that is in Christ and His gospel, that man will put away his rationalism and atheism.He will never be able to tell you why because psychology can never explain the new birth. But that man will smile and agree that the light of God has flooded his heart and soul.

A blind man can argue until he is blue in the face that there is no such thing as light but that doesnt make it so. Jesus said, For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved (John3:20).If that means anything, it means that people who reject God reject Him for His teachings on moral grounds.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil(John3:19).

Disregarding the light God has given you is bad enough (man is condemned already John3:18).But to reject the light you were given is the ultimate slap in the face to a holy God. Jesus called the men of His day stiff-necked and hard of heart.They had a perverse hatred of light because it interfered with their sin.

And thats mans problem today.

Do you have a question? You can contact Pastor MacDonald by writing to this paper or New Testament Baptist Church, 150 E. Trinity Acres, Safford, AZ 85546; e-mail:info@ntbcsafford.org.

Read more:

Ask A Pastor: 'I reject the Bible on philosophical grounds.' What do you say to that? - Eastern Arizona Courier

Mark Simpsons oratorio The Immortal, scored for large forces, has the chutzpah of Waltons Belshazzars Feast and recalls Elgars Dream of Gerontius in its treatment of the afterlife. But there the comparisons end.

The Immortal intriguingly presents the case of the noted 19th-century psychic Frederic Myers, who attempted to contact his childhood sweetheart after she committed suicide. But even a kilted Christopher Purves could do little to imbue Myers cogitations about faith and rationalism with urgency, and they were too often buried beneath weighty orchestral and choral textures (Crouch End Festival Chorus).

There are, though, some suitably spooky sounds deploying a semi-chorus (London Voices). Melanie Challengers remaining texts, culled from fragments of spirit messages, are intentionally indiscernible. Simpson says it should sound like a sance; more like an oriental bazaar, Id say. The orchestral fabric in these passages is no doubt multi-voiced too but comes across as monolithic.

Tchaikovskys Pathtique Symphony might seem a suitably morbid companion piece, but Juanjo Mena, conducting a routine performance with the BBC Philharmonic, had other ideas. He gave us an uninvolving first movement, a lightly tripping waltz with little minor-key melancholy n the middle section, and a less than heart-rending finale.

True, Tchaikovsky probably wasnt here channelling his suicidal thoughts, as myth has it, but theres no denying the intimations of mortality in the composers last symphony and the whiff of a sance would have been welcome here.

From a distant seat, orchestral balances were awry too; radio listeners may have fared better.

Are you a budding artist? Enter the Evening Standard Contemporary Art Prize in association with Hiscox and you could win 10,000. Visit standard.co.uk/artprize

View original post here:

Proms 2017, review: BBC Philharmonic / Mena - Evening Standard

Reed Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn, recently said that the first truth of entrepreneurship and investing is that the very big ideas are contrarian because being a contrarian is why other competitors haven't already done the same thing, which leaves the space for the creation of something. For entrepreneurs, that something is a company that can dominate its space and for investors its higher returns. This hero's journey isn't without risk as the pitfalls are plentiful, and sometimes the room to fail can seem large and lonely.

If this were a prom, not only has no one showed up, but we've also been stood up as the investment community abandoned the energy sector and energy stocks in droves these past two quarters. Energy has turned out to be the worst investments among the entire S&P this year, as the initial year-end celebration of oil cuts and inventory drawdowns gave way to the difficulty of actually seeing it come to fruition. We've seen the shares of our oil companies falter dramatically, and many famous oil investors have become apoplectic, abandoning their oil thesis and declaring that oil inventories will rebalance too slowly and that "lower for longer" is the new reality. Sentiment as they say turned negative:

As oil prices tumbled past 20% from the highs reached in Q1 to the lows reached in Q2, their sentiment became our reality, and yet . . . we're still bullish on oil.

We continue to test and retest our thesis because while we could be wrong, we just don't think we are at this stage. We frankly utterly failed to predict the sentiment shift, but the vagaries of emotions aren't where we've historically excelled at. Our advantage, if there ever was one, was in examining the fundamental data. So when you read that we're still "bullish" our conviction isn't borne of consistency bias or fear of reputation risk, it stems from the data.

For now, reality is that investors have effectively decided oil is worthless, but as capital retreats and stocks and bond prices fall, the bearish prophecies inevitably create a "new" reality (the opposite of "fake" news if there ever was one), one where the industry begins to contract, produce less and draw down inventories.

This is the nature of economics in the short term and the long; what's proven unprofitable will be starved of capital until supply and demand resets and profitability restored. It's an immutable law, and one of the few certainties in the capital markets. In the meantime when excessive inventories predominate, fundamentals and sentiment can dislocate. Prices first decline because that's what they do when there's too much of a commodity, but as the market tentatively begins rebalancing, the perception of if/when/how the market will/will not rebalance plays a much larger role. This perception change means prices can overshoot in either direction, and in times of plenty, it's usually down. Once fundamentalists abandon the sector, the energy market is increasingly left to traders and computer trading advisors (i.e., quant funds), which further exacerbates the momentum change.

Much of the recent fall is simply due to market sentiment, which turned from healthy skepticism to outright cynicism. Cynicism over OPEC/non-OPEC's production cuts, cynicism that the oil market can rebalance in the face of overwhelming growth in US shale production, and a creeping fatalism that oil will forever stay below $50/barrel because shale technological breakthrough means "this time it's different."

Our thesis has and continues to be that it's not. The logical frameworks are fairly simple. We're wagering that three historical rules that applied three years ago still apply today:

So unless economics reversed itself in the last few years, it will act as gravity to restrain and eventually constrain oil supplies and the downward spiral of prices we've seen the first half of this year will reverse.

Contrary to what you see in the price action, oil fundamentals are not that bad. There, we said it. Someone had to say it and we did -- italicized, no less.

"Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance." - Plato

Fundamentally, how the oil picture looks depends on how you interpret the data. Coming out of Q1 we updated our oil thesis and explained that the recent swoon in oil prices was caused by three factors that increased inventory and negatively affected sentiment:

These factors in Q1 rolled into Q2, masking the underlying demand and affecting the perception of rebalancing. For their part, OPEC and Non-OPEC also failed to inspire confidence. On May 25th, both groups decided to renew their 1.7M barrel per day (bpd) cut ("Vienna Agreement") for another 9 month (to now expire in March 2018) and rein in exports. Normally, you'd expect an extended production cut to lift prices, but the participants bungled the announcement. In an attempt to bolster the market a few weeks before the meeting, Russia and Saudi Arabia, the two key players for the agreement announced that they'd extend the cut by nine months, oil prices quickly rallied. This unfortunately heightened market expectations. It began expecting even better news such as a deeper or broader cut, but none materialized. Oil prices then fell after the meeting as the market was left with "only" a nine-month cut. In a nutshell it was a public relations disaster for OPEC and non-OPEC.

A week later, the calendar turned to June and sentiment deteriorated further. US oil data in early June showed light inventory draws, and the market began surmising that demand may have fallen off. A respite in domestic violence in Nigeria and Libya allowed both to increase productions, which negated close to 30% of the cuts in the Vienna Agreement. Faced with the additional prospect of increasing US production, investors lost faith and the sky promptly fell.

In our view though, all of the above, all of the shifting inventories, overproduction and subsequent "channel stuffing," OPEC and Non-OPEC's meeting and the market's bipolar sentiment is simply volatility caused by the ongoing rebalancing. If inventories continue to decline, then prices will rise. Everything else is noise. In the next series of articles, we'll look at what's happened, what's currently happening, and reasons we think the trend will continue to be favorable for oil bulls. In the meantime, keep the faith, being contrarian can be often dark at times, but we'll let the data and our rational mind lead the way.

As always, we welcome your comments. If you would like to read more of our articles, please be sure to hit the "Follow" button above.

Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

See the rest here:

Oil Today: When Emotionalism Trumps Rationalism - Seeking Alpha

Penn: Office of University Communications

Penn's Netter Center Expands Global Impact and Outreach Penn: Office of University Communications In the aftermath of the economic crisis, we face the emergence of populist politics and a rising tide of non-rationalism in which debate based on evidence and consideration is being displaced by arguments centered on emotion, which are then amplified ...

More:

Penn's Netter Center Expands Global Impact and Outreach - Penn: Office of University Communications

Silicon Valley has a political theory problem: the failure to engage with it at all. From tech billionaires to its many residents who harbor bizarre worldviews, the tech industry prides itself on changing the world for the betteras they claim, always non-ideologically, always apoliticallythrough tech. But this success is invariably measured through economic efficiency. This is all a farce; there is no such thing as changing the world apolitically, and good is measured in more than utils.

In my first month living in San Francisco, a friend took me to a party of people who work in tech. One of them insisted to me that Chinas single-party government is superior to American democracy because it is more efficient. In response to my insistence that, though imperfect, American democracy preserves many of our political freedoms and secures rights of workers to an extent unknown in China, he pointed to the massive growth of the Chinese economy over the course of the past two decades.

Before I moved, many friends warned me to brace myself for precisely this. The Bay Area, they told me, is infested by a bizarre free market-corporatist scientism, rationalism, a worldview which valorizes laissez-faire economics and innovation and distrusts democratic process, all while pretending at neutrality. Those who subscribe to it proudly reject political theory; in their eyes doing so makes them free from the divisions that characterize our political scene, and allows them to posture as purely rational thinkers who arrive at non-political decisions. By implication, all other policy proposals, those from people with explicit political or philosophical commitments, are irrational, arrived at because they serve political interests, not because the proposals are worthwhile.

But as Ive said, there is no such thing as nonpolitical policy, and techs failure to take political theory seriously has led it astray. Rather than serving as the purely rational thinkers they believe themselves to be, rationalists have arrived at where they are because of their failure to take theory seriouslya hollowed-out version of libertarianism that embraces the most oppressive aspects of its worship of the private sector, most notably the totalitarian nature of the employer-employee relationship.

The figures who loom largest in the Bay Area are just as bad, if not worse. They are rarely shy to weigh in on political matters, their confidence buoyed by their belief that their wealth is indicative of their brilliance and the continued fetishization of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). Mark Zuckerberg recently launched a listening tour, through which, ironically, which he has delivered numerous speeches across the United States. Some say he plans to run for president, despite the fact that he would barely meet the age requirement in 2020 and has not a single policy accomplishment to his name.

Elon Musk, even generally as a person, presents another example. He has repeatedly propounded the most implausible proposals. He wants, for example, to construct a hyperloop, which would transport commuters between New York and the District of Columbia in about thirty minutes. This is something he has pushed for years. When he first proposed it, he claimed a 100-mile portion of it would cost only $6 billion; in reality it would likely cost over $100 billion. Moreover, experts found the plan entirely implausible. One determined that theres no way the economics on that would ever work out. Others were skeptical of the technology itself.

Silicon Valley must contend with something deeper if it truly wants to meet its goal of changing the world. It is not enough to churn out half-baked policy ideas or run for president by force of having invented a social networking site; it is not enough to play policy. It is time to dispense with pretensions of neutrality.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read more:

Silicon Valley's Poverty of Philosophy - HuffPost

National Theatres production of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time at the Paramount stuns with inventive design and entertaining storytelling, writes critic Misha Berson.

Imagine, for a moment, that the human brain is a giant black box rimmed with neon and lined with black graph paper. The box contains the architecture and circuitry of thoughts, emotions and visual and audio perceptions as they crackle and hum in an over-amped psyche.

This container, which takes up the entire stage at the Paramount Theatre, is production designer Bunny Christies utterly ingenious setting for The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. The production by Londons vaunted National Theatre maps the mind of a 15-year-old autistic boy on a mission with stunning theatrical power and rare compassion.

Showing at the Paramount through Sunday in a worthy U.S. touring edition, Curious Incident is based on Mark Haddons novel of the same name. The scary-smart but socially dysfunctional protagonist, Christopher, has the classic signs of Aspergers syndrome a subset of autism that, according to the UKs National Autism Society, makes one see, hear and feel the world differently than others.

By Simon Stephens, based on the novel by Mark Haddon. Through July 30, Paramount Theatre, Seattle; $30 and up (800-745-3000 or stgpresents.org).

An admirer of Sherlock Holmes (whose fictive hyper-rationalism might be a sign of Aspergers), Christopher aims to solve two mysteries: the fate of his long-absent mother and the killing of a neighborhood dog. Through his first-person account, Christophers obsessive thinking patterns, social phobias (including a terror of being touched) and mathematical brilliance are cannily revealed, as are his problematic and essential relationships with others and unintentional but keen humor.

Haddons prose is dotted with lists (Christopher knows all the countries of the world and their capitals and every prime number up to 7,057), diagrams and the odd math equation, upping the degree of difficulty for any stage adaptation. However, the Tony Award-winning play by Simon Stephens, matched up with sensational production design and Marianne Elliotts seamless direction, successfully conveys Christophers viewpoint. Ironically, this takes leaps of sensory imagination, underpinned by empathy a very different kind of intelligence than Christophers.

During the tumultuous solo trip to London that dominates Act 2, long-sheltered Christopher (tireless, terrific Adam Langdon) encounters the clank and screech of trains, the crush of crowds and signage that most brains filter and temper. For him, the sensory overload is a ferocious assault via thunderous sound (sensitive ears may benefit from earplugs) and frenzied montages by video designer Finn Ross.

When he is emotionally overwhelmed by a run-in with his anxious, hovering father (an intense Gene Gillette), or a neighbors indiscretion or a series of impatient policemen, Christopher often comforts himself with numbers, which tumble from the back screen like droplets from a fountain.

Memoirs by high-functioners like Temple Grandin and John Elder Robison have helped dispel some misconceptions and myths about Aspergers, and Curious Incident neither romanticizes nor pities Christophers condition. His inability to empathize with others and hair-trigger flight-or-fight response to perceived aggression would challenge any loving parent. When his father loses it entirely over such behavior, its understandable if not completely forgivable. (If Christopher cannot empathize, we can.)

However, interactions with a caring therapist, Siobhan (Maria Elena Ramirez) who helps frame the story by reciting Christophers written account also suggest that some therapies may enhance behavior and emotional intelligence for those with Aspergers.

But Curious Incident isnt about curing Christopher. Rather, it does one of the things theater does best: It tells an entertaining story while immersing us in the experience and outlook of a fellow human being one whose brain happens to work differently than ours.

See the original post:

'Curious Incident' at the Paramount offers empathetic glimpse into ... - The Seattle Times

Lucy Kirkwood is a playwright who tackles giant themes with a swaggering showmanship. Her 2013 work, Chimerica, meditated on US politics, Tiananmen Square, photojournalism, air pollution and much much more. Now comes Mosquitoes, a tale of sibling rivalry, set against a backdrop of particle physics at CERN. The production, directed by Rufus Norris, sometimes overreaches itself in its seemingly limitless ambition, but it is still a fascinating and provocative work which uses science as a way of questioning our humanity.

Alice (Olivia Williams) is a dazzlingly clever physicist working on the Large Hadron Collider. Her sister, Jenny (Olivia Colman), is based in Luton and sells health insurance to women with vaginal cancer. At the start of the play, Jenny is in the late stages of a longed-for pregnancy. Half an hour in and a year or so later, we learn that the baby is dead because her mother has followed some spurious online advice against vaccinating her. The two sisters represent success and failure, rationalism and emotion, perhaps even remain and leave. As Jenny tells Alice: Im Forrest Gump and youre the Wizard of F------ Oz.

More:

Olivia Colman is devastatingly good in Lucy Kirkwood's dazzling ... - Telegraph.co.uk

Yash Pal

New Delhi, July 25: The Manmohan Singh government had returned to power for its second term a month earlier, with a stronger mandate and without the Left's leash - intent on allowing foreign universities virtually unfettered access to India's domestic higher education market.

At 82, scientist-educationist Yash Pal was getting frailer. But on a June morning in 2009, Yash Pal, aided by a brown walking stick, walked into then human resources development minister Kapil Sibal's third-floor office at Shastri Bhavan, to tell him the government was wrong.

Singh had in February 2008 appointed Yash Pal to head a panel to prepare a blueprint for higher education reforms. Now, 16 months later, he handed in the panel's report, explicitly cautioning against throwing open India's education market without rigorous regulations.

Wavy-haired Yash Pal, a pipe-smoking cosmic ray physicist who pioneered satellite television in India, sought to propagate science and rationalism by transforming himself into a TV star, and coaxed universities to break out of silos to collaborate in research, died yesterday. He was 90.

His resume brimmed with standard markers of success - the first director of the Space Applications Centre (SAC) in Ahmedabad in the 1970s, secretary of the department of science and technology in the early 1980s and chairman of the University Grants Commission later.

Millions of Indians who watched television in the early 1990s recognised him through his appearances on a science TV show called Turning Point. And since 1991, successive governments turned to him for blueprints to reform school and higher education.

But to many who knew him the longest, Yash Pal was also a rebel - a man who would merrily breach protocol to assert his views, even at the risk of offending the day's political leadership.

"He never hesitated to speak what he believed in, to those in power," recalled Anita Rampal, veteran educationist and Delhi University professor who knew and worked with Yash Pal from the 1970s. "That's a trait we're going to miss even more in today's climate, where academic leaders are not so forthright."

Born in 1926 in a town called Jhang in what is now Pakistan Punjab, Yash Pal moved with his family to Jalandhar - where his father, a government employee, was transferred - and then to Delhi, where he witnessed the joy of Independence and the pain of Partition.

He bore the determination common to many of his generation, to study more despite the challenges of a young nation seared by violence and hobbled by poverty. As refugees from Pakistan poured in, he worked with Daulat Singh Kothari, fellow physicist and one of India's preeminent educationists in its initial years after Independence, to turn war-time barracks in the city into classrooms.

His passion to take science to the masses long preceded the official positions he held across governments of all hues. V. Siddhartha, a retired Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist, was 10 years old when in the mid-1950s, Yash Pal visited his private school in New Delhi.

Yash Pal was those days flying weather balloons using cosmic ray lead plate array detectors.

"Yash was persuaded by the school principal to allow me to watch a flight," Siddhartha remembered today. Siddhartha stayed at the school overnight, woke up at 4 am, and sat in a jeep that took him to the launch site - the roof of a Delhi University building. The balloons were tracked by a World War II British military radar mounted on a truck-trailer.

By the 1960s, Yash Pal was working at Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. He went to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he earned his PhD, and then returned to TIFR to continue research before he was appointed director of the new SAC in Ahmedabad.

Rampal, who had started science teaching schools in Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh, in the 1970s, was surprised when Yash Pal, then at the TIFR, visited her.

They worked together to set up Eklavya, a rural science education programme that attracted scientists and teachers from premier universities across India, like the Indian Institutes of Technology, the Indian Institute of Science and TIFR.

"Scientists from the big science institutions didn't always think that much about linking their work to society," Rampal said. "Yash Pal was different, and his support was critical for the success of Eklavya."

As secretary of DST and then chairman of the UGC, he encouraged government funding for rural science education programmes like Eklavya, Rampal said. "He opened up these institutions that were closed before him," she said. "He was a collaborator, an ally, a mentor who went out of his way to encourage and promote those he believed in."

Bureaucracy frustrated Yash Pal, said Rampal, who recalled how he often told her about a sense of helplessness when he was at the UGC.

But he nevertheless succeeded in creating premier hubs of collaborative research like the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics in Pune and the Nuclear Science Centre in New Delhi.

Even those theoretically in his line of fire admired him.

"He would look at higher education in an integrated manner, and refused to accept walls between different streams of education," recalled Sukhdeo Thorat, who was chairman of the UGC when Yash Pal, as a part of his 2009 recommendations, suggested the body be merged with other regulators - like the All India Council for Technical Education and the Medical Council of India, and be reformed to ensure greater autonomy for universities and colleges. "Freedom and autonomy of higher education were critical to him."

The school education reforms Yash Pal proposed in the 1990s as head of a panel set up by the Narasimha Rao government remain a benchmark frequently cited by educationists. In the mid-2000s, when the Singh government asked him to help draft a National Curriculum Framework, he withstood bureaucratic pressure to propose new-age textbooks, Rampal said.

But Yash Pal was also open about his policy views even at times when they were sharply contrary to those of the political leadership of the day. Sibal wasn't the first to realize that.

In 1990, the Rajiv Gandhi government had been voted out of power, and Sam Pitroda, one of Rajiv's closest aides, was no longer welcomed the way he once was in government policy circles.

But Yash Pal, as President of the Indian Science Congress that year, used his address in Kochi to laud Pitroda's contribution to the spread of telephones across rural India, pleasantly surprising the US-returned technocrat who was present in the audience.

More than 25 years later, Yash Pal took on the Congress government in Chhattisgarh - at a time the party also ruled at the Centre - after it had pushed through a controversial law that had in two months spawned dozens of private teaching shops that could call themselves universities.

Yash Pal approached the Supreme Court, which struck down the Chhattisgarh law. "When he thought something was wrong, he acted on it," Thorat said.

As he aged, his hearing had started failing him. But the naughty twinkle in his eyes remained - as did the search for his approval among educationists.

Rampal recalled the comfort she felt each time he responded to her ideas with an approving nod and a hug. The last time they met was a year back, at a television studio where they were on a debate panel.

After the show, she recalled, she held his hand to walk him down the stairs. "'Aah,' he told me in his typical way," Rampal said today. '"You realize I need help.'"

Link:

Scientist, rebel & reformer - Calcutta Telegraph

The title characters of the Marvels Royals are an eclectic group of Inhumans who are on an intergalactic quest to find the missing element that imbued members of their culture with superhuman powers. The initial leg of their journey has brought them to the devastated home world of the Kree, the empire that created the Inhumans, and soon theyll head into the far reaches of space.

RELATED: Inhumans: How ABCs Maximus Differs from His Comics Incarnation

Come October, artist Javier Rodriguez joins writer Al Ewing on the series with Royals#9, a Marvel Legacy arc that introduces the title characters to the Progenitors, a brand-new alien race with ties to both the Kree and the Inhumans. CBR spoke with Rodriguez about designing the Progenitors, their wondrous home world, and his love for the Inhumans and the legendary Stan Lee and Jack Kirby comics they debuted in.

CBR: In Doctor Strange and the Sorcerers Supreme, you got to visit a number of otherworldly locations and bring to life a diverse cast of human and fantastic creatures. It feels like with the protagonists of Royals embarking on a cosmic odyssey into the farthest reaches of the Marvel Universe, youll get the chance to continue to let your imagination run wild. Is that what drew you to this series?

Javier Rodriguez: Yes! Comics mean to me a constant dialogue with the readers. I lay down my visual input, the audience fills the gaps and connects the dots. Their interpretation builds their rapport with the comic. This is when the story comes to life. Its the main reason for me to love this language; particularly the fantasy or sci-fi genre. I love Kirbys Fantastic Four run it might be my favorite comic ever. In my opinion, Inhumans are the best characters in it. I have no words to express how much I love them.

Two of the most prominent characters in Royals are Medusa and Maximus the Mad. Theyre both in interesting situations in this series with Medusa apparently being ill, and Maximus having successfully swapped positions with his brother. Whats your sense, as an artist, of Medusa and Maximus? Which of their qualities did you really want to capture in your depictions of them?

Medusa is my favorite Marvel character. To me, she represents the terrestrial forces, unlike Black Bolt. He reigns in the sky with his infinite power. He is a king, Medusa is the ground, the rationalism versus the divine. She is the question, not the answer. Her power is tangible, visually speaking, connected with the earth. Her red hair evokes hot lava, whipping red veins moving under her control. I wanted to show an empowered Medusa. Knowing that she is not under the best circumstances, she goes through some predicament. The best stories emerge from conflict.

And of course, Maximus is capital to understanding the Inhumans. He has a Shakespearian antagonist role. In my opinion, he represents the Marvel foundation. The essence of the Lee and Kirby origins, where the bad guy could be grey. Not evil per se, often a victim of the environment. He can work with the heroes at times I love him.

RELATED: Royals Marvel Legacy Arc Reveals Secret Origin of the Kree

What was it like bringing to life your other cast members? Which of these characters did you especially enjoy drawing? Were there any characters that were hard to get a handle on?

As a Fantastic Four lover, Crystal and Gorgon are special to me. Im really enjoying the chance to do my own take on characters that I loved and followed since I was kid. On the other hand, the Nuhumans and Marvel Boy are fresh concepts. I wouldnt say hard when I refer to the art. But it is true that they deserve lots of attention to detail. Their costumes and behavior were new to me, but it was interesting. I know by experience, that often, these kinds of characters, the ones with less background, all the sudden become a huge thing. It happened with Roger in Spider-Woman, and with Nina and Kushala in Doctor Strange and the Sorcerers Supreme. So lets see!

One of the biggest elements youll be bringing to life, both metaphorically and literally, is the Progenitors. The designs Ive seen indicate theyre a pretty diverse species in terms of appearance, but they all share a few common traits: theyre giant-sized when compared to humans, they have both mechanical and biological traits, and they dont appear to have necks. What inspired you to give them these shared traits?

The background and clues come from Al. He gave me lot of info, character stories, and a lot of room for me to be creative. One of the most interesting features were the floating heads. It is random and seems out of place, but makes them quite interesting. Are they living beings? Artificial? They live in a hi-tech environment, isolated from the rest of the galaxy. Is their task to control the wild nature of space? Research the knowledge hidden in the coffins of the universe? Are they good? Evil? All of these elements were on my mind. That, and that I love to draw big characters, giants. Artistically speaking, you need ample spaces to show where they live. This allowed me to play around with a group of characters like the Royals.

What inspired some of the unique traits and looks of the Progenitors we saw on the cover of Royals #9?

Wil Moss gave me an idea. We are suggesting that the Progenitors are behind the Inhumans origin. Michelangelos Creation of Adam was an inspiration. That cover should show that the Progenitors are beyond the galaxy and knowledge; some puzzling space creatures doing their business. Black Bolt represents the Inhumans, looking for answers, pushing the wall of wisdom.

We have about five Progenitor designs, and each of them have a task, a reason to exist that affects the design.

ABCs New Inhumans Posters Unleash Medusas Hair

Concept art is just a starting point. The way the story evolves. How to tell the story through panels effects a lot of the character design. I always try to keep them flexible, visually speaking. Same applies to the other characters. The mood and the narrative thread have a huge impact on the way that you reveal the characters. Using their appearance is a key. One of my achievements, is to show that character development when I have a chance to draw more than one issue.

Finally, the Progenitors are still shrouded in mystery at this point but we do know theyre capable of astounding seemingly technological feats like The World Farm. What was your reaction when you heard about that? What was it like bringing to life something so big and crazy as the World Farm?

When I read the script I thought to myself, How am I gonna portray this astounding, mind-boggling world? It is a big deal because the Progenitors world is fascinating. I dont want to spoil it, but its not only a task for me, the penciller. It requires lots of work by lvaro Lpez. Doing a detailed and clean ink job plus the wonderful color work that Jordie Bellaire does. Youll see what Im talking about in the last pages of #9.

It is a pleasure to work on a book with some of my most loved Marvel characters and all under the talent of Al Ewing. To me hes one of the most interesting and brilliant writers in business right now. I love the way he build the characters. On the art side Im delighted to have the Sorcerers Supreme team together again. I love to collaborate with lvaro and Jordie, they make everything easy and beautiful.

ShareOn Facebook

Pint It

Email

Read more:

EXCLUSIVE: Rodriguez Unveils New Inhumans Designs for Marvel's Royals - CBR (blog)