Attack or Attract? I'd like to follow Hobbes....

Attack or attract? Hang on. Don't jump to conclusions or, for that matter, jump to some other blog or post as the case may be! The phrase, in the absence of a context, sounds a bit strange, I know....but wait till I finish before you think I've lost it.


Despite several complaints from the folks at home, I can't stop tuning into all the worthwhile music shows and competitions on TV, during the weekend. I could perhaps spend my whole life listening to budding musicians and singers. I might not even know if the world was coming to an end! Anyways, in one such music competition, one of the judges (a new music director who has composed some extremely popular songs) advised some participants to "Attack!". Another judge (a playback singer with a voice that can scale the highest of pitches), meanwhile, sent a very different message to the participants. He suggested that the participants need not 'attack' and that things will naturally come to them if they just went about their life in a focused and passionate manner. There was no real argument between the two judges (on the show)...but both the judges repeated and emphasised their messages without challenging each other. It was a 'silent debate'...! And, well, it occurred to me that I could label the second approach as "Attract!"


So, do you think this is debate material? Are these really opposite/contradictory approaches - Attack vs Attract - to achieving something in life? Or are they quite similar underneath the deceiving covers? I am intrigued enough to want to dig deeper and see if this is just a game of meaningless semantics (hey, that sounds like an oxymoron!) or something more important. Let's explore this a bit. Shall we?
Attack, to me, indicates speed, a "go for it" attitude, aggression, and an impatient (?) "will not wait for things to fall in place" attitude. It probably involves an explicit show of one's approach and no tolerance for delay or failure. It perhaps involves putting the burden of achieving something or winning on oneself and not expecting any kind deed/favour to be returned unless we scream out loud for it?! Attack, to me, has a slight flavour of pessimism in the world's ways. It sounds like a recommendation to go get things from wherever they are and not believe in Karma (reaping the fruits of our action as a natural consequence). It reminds me of words like Go Getter, Forceful, Unforgiving and Dynamic. An attacker will want to go find the target and escort it to his place by hook or, sometimes, crook? And, arguably, Attack sounds like a short-term approach. Interestingly enough, the judge who recommended the participants to 'attack' stood up and pumped his fist in the air when he said so. That's complimentary body language for you!

Now, let's look at 'Attract'. Attract, to me, sounds like extreme faith in oneself, more specifically in one's innate qualities and everything complimentary to it. It sounds like faith in the concept of reciprocation, Karma and everything good. It smacks of a confidence akin to the knowledge that a piece of iron is bound to attract the magnet lying around in its circle of 'influence'. It maybe an intense approach but yet reflects patience rather than impatience. It could be labeled as an inward focused approach whose natural pace the achiever is comfortable with. But this approach may perhaps be misunderstood to be manipulation (rarely?) or indifference (more often?). It reminds me of words like Charismatic, Charming, Accommodating and Inner Power. An attractor will want to use her charm and inner power to get the world's positive forces to work for her, locate the target and get it to submit itself to her willingly! And, arguably, Attract sounds like a long-term approach.


Coming back to the people that triggered me into this thought-process, the judge who said things would come on their own, unlike the other, was seated when he said it and looked away when the other judge stood up and reemphasized that one needs to 'Attack'. :-) Body language aligned with the philosophy again.

So, of the two, which one do you like? Or does it....famously.... 'depend'? Maybe one needs to 'Attack' only when, for example, one has a formidable enemy who is out to spoil things and has to be necessarily stopped by force but work on the inner glow to 'Attract' life at most other times? Would I incur your wrath by suggesting that we should perhaps settle for an easy, obvious and non-controversial approach - get the best of both worlds and make it a combination of the two - Attack and Attract = Attrack?! ;-)

Whew. Er. I don't know, really. I am, admittedly, having second thoughts on whether this is genuine enough to merit a debate or if this is a not-so-critical story of whether the zebra is a white one with black stripes or a black one with white stripes (Courtesy: Madagascar). In one of Calvin's conversations with his dad, the latter confuses him completely and Calvin, as usual, goes to Hobbes and tells him that the world is a complex place....and is difficult to understand. Hobbes, who is half asleep, nonchalantly tells Calvin that he " takes a nap and waits for dinner" whenever the world seems so. :-D Brilliant and tempting, I must say! So, here goes. I am borrowing Hobbes's idea of what one should do when things seem complex and adding my own bit to it as well :P - I am going to check out today's music show, wait for dinner and then snooze off. Good night! :-) Hee hee