On Why “Change” Should be Used More Diligently and How I Would Like to Apply it.

On Why “Change” Should be Used More Diligently and How I Would Like to Apply it.

Change is a word often used nowadays in all aspects of life.  President Obama ran on his platform of change and we welcomed and voted him into office.  Currently, the Tea Party is suggesting/demanding a “radical” change in US spending policy.  Our foreign policy is geared towards changing the perception internationally of the US.  China is going though drastic changes in government.  North African and Middle East rebellions are fighting for change.  All are considered change.

We often change many aspects of our conventional lives as well.  We change diets, jobs, homes, lovers, devices, etc.

I would like to inquire into the word “change” and see if we can utilize the word with more weight, significance, and, ultimately, responsibility.

Change is conventionally defined as: to cause to be different; to give different form or state; to make radically different (google it).  Etymologically speaking, it can be considered as barter (although etymologically speaking, barter’s meaning is to deceive or to cheat, but I digress).  If one barters, one switches a thing or act for something else, which usually is nothing like the act or thing they were switching.

With this conventional understanding in mind, I will define change as a process that makes an act or thing different, or radical transforms it.  This process “switches” the state, form/kind, or function radically.  When some particular thing or action has become subject to change, that particular thing or action has radically transformed.

This definition is provided so that we can pay close attention when I present several examples, some provided above.

In the case of Obama’s political platform, his intention was to change the political environment in Washington.  He was going to counter the policies of Bush.  He was going to differ from his predecessors through changing the way Washington does business.  The result so far:  Obama is still using political strategies and maneuvers that have been utilized in the past.  He differs to Bush, only in degrees.  In fact, the change he so promoted and we accepted is not really a change.  It is a shift, in degrees—a movement in an alternate direction to a certain degree, on the same political system we are all too familiar with.

Obama is also attempting to adjust the foreign policies by changing how other countries perceive the US and how we make decisions in the global arena.  He is attempting to demonstrate to the global community that the US is a partner in global problems and that the US will play a responsible role, along with the rest of the global community.  He wants to show the world that the US wants to include the other countries who want to play leadership roles.  He also wants to integrate and not exclude countries from the global community if they are so willing to interact.  All judgments about his foreign policy aside, can we really believe that these actions are a change?  Do we not see that we were once a global partner, respectful ally to the global community, and perceived with high regards for our inclusion policies?  So, are Obama’s “changes” really changes or are they a mere redirection within the same plane of foreign policy?

The Tea Party’s intention to radically change fiscal policy in the US government should not be seen as anything “radical” or of “change.”  The Tea Party believes, all judgments aside, that the US was better off the way the government and its people comported themselves in a particular era of US history.  Its intention is not to “radically change” the government but shift its behavior to match a particular mindset of a past era (Thus the historical reference of the Tea party).  So the Tea Party’s “radical change” does not seem to be in line with their original intentions.  It seems as if their real intention is not change but movement from one ideology to another, within the same spectrum—the utility of government.

In our conventional world, when we tell someone, “Dude, you’ve changed,” do we mean that he has transformed into a butterfly?  Most likely we recollect a certain image of the individual as a reference point, compare that image with the present image, and notice that there are slight alterations—of degree, not of kind.  When we change our eating habits, we do not suddenly eat with our ears.  When we change from non fiction writing to fiction writing, we still use the same references to create a modified worldview—instead of horses and horns, we create unicorns.  We cannot (or perhaps should not) write something outside our reference terms, otherwise our common connection is lost.  I could go on, but I think my point is clear:  Change is often not being used in the correct manner. 

What we usually refer to change is not change at all.  It is the movement in degrees opposite to the reference point.  Think of it this way, if you are travelling on a train, and the train is going on one direction and then goes the opposite direction, is it really changing—radically transforming?  Unless the train is a transformer and suddenly becomes an airplane, there is no change happening.  It is a simple movement on the same track.

Actually, there are only a few instances when something or some act seems to change.  Butterflies seem to change.  Plants seem to change.  Some very few items seem to change.  So we should use the word more carefully.

The reason I am exposing and delimiting the usage of this word is because I have a critical question I want to ask:  Do humans have the capacity to really change?  Do we have the capacity and conditions to radically transform our existence—the way we live and see the world?

Here we can see why I needed to delimit the meaning of the word change because when I ask the question:  Do humans have the capacity to change, I do not mean change in the way it is erroneously construed—a mere change of direction on the same system.  What I mean is profoundly more intense.  Can one radically change our human condition?  Can one change the way we see the world?  Can one really transform who we really are?

I guess that begs the question:  Who or what are we?

It would be tempting to dive into the rabbit hole of philosophical pondering of human identity, existence, epistemology, etc.  But I will not bore you at this moment with these inquiries, they are not necessary in order to address the question.

We, the observers, are always the reference point to decipher the other.  Therefore, we are always keenly or intuitively aware of whom we are.  The moment one acknowledges another, we, in that instant, know very well who we are.  The “I” who recognized the other is distinct from the other in that it is not me (whatever that may be).  The moment one cannot distinguish oneself from another, the other is no longer there.  Therefore, we are always well aware who we are in the most primordial of ways.

So can we, the observers of the world, drastically change who we are?  Do we have the ability to radically transform ourselves?

This begs another question:  Why would we want to change ourselves?

No matter how technologically advanced we have become, no matter how the human race has grown, our human nature—our human condition—has not changed much.  Like Colin Quinn states in his first segment of his play, Long Story Short, we have advanced in a broad range of technologies but our human nature still needs to place a reminder to “wash your hands before you leave the toilet.”  Our human condition has not changed much.  We still suffer.  We still strive for happiness.  We still long for love.  We are constantly in violent conflict with our neighbors.  We still feel empty and alone.  Our human condition has not changed much through centuries.  So the question should not be would we want to change, but why not.  Why can’t we change to eliminate these pains?  Can we change?

One obvious answer is no.  Based on what the human race has gone through, repeating the same mistakes over and again, our human condition cannot change.  Furthermore, based on the definition of change above, in order to change, we would have to radically transform from our human condition to a butterfly.  It seems inconceivable to change in such a fashion.

Yet, there are moments in each of our lives, moments of great anxiety, times when the weight of the world is on our shoulders.  Moments that tempts us to explore whether this life can be transformed.  For the most part, we see these moments and turn away—we revert to our status quo and, for the sake of our consciousness, we modify or distance our existence away from what it was before.  Yet these moments come again challenging us to explore our very Being.  That must tell us something.

Can we really change?  Can we have a radical transformation?

The question needs to be undertaken by each one alone.

However, there is one thing that I can supply.  I can supply you with what I call two metaphysical presuppositions—two ways that one can comport with the world. 

The common presupposition is that we assume that there is a world out there that interacts with me, influencing me and thereby affecting me to judge, measure, calculate, and act, affecting the world in return.  Our mind presupposes that there are units out there that we need to relate, measure, calculate, and distinguish—separate—from us.  Reason means to calculate the relationship between things (from ratio, ration, reckon).  If our metaphysical presupposition is that there are things out there, then our rational mind is there to analyze, distinguish, differentiate, and categorize those things so that they can fit in our worldview.  As we separate and distinguish apparent things in the world, we distance ourselves from them, believing that we are different from them.  The greater the separation accumulates, the greater the conflict within us.  A conflicted mind at that point has two options: should it stop distinguishing or should it continue on? 

On the one hand, the rational mind has had many luxuries given to it.  Due to its ability to calculate the presupposed units out in the world, it has been able to manipulate and generate many technologies to better deal with the world the mind has enabled.  There are a lot more things to keep busy with and a lot more things to keep distinguishing, separating, and differentiating.  On the other hand, there is conflict.  Why do we kill?  Why do feel alone?  Why do we have anxiety about meaning?  Since making another different from you—Jew and Muslim, Black and White, Eastside and Westside—has brought you to become hostile to the other, perhaps one can consider a cessation of distinguishing—what seems like a drastic change.  However, what are you going to stop distinguishing?  As soon as you distinguish the things you want to distinguish, you have failed in your intent.  The project becomes so viciously problematic and empty that fear seeps in and you revert to the rational mind’s status quo. 

This cycle repeats itself every so often when one deals with great ordeals.  Most of the time, our anxiety demands change but our rational mind convinces us that change means distance and not kind (to the mind that measures, there is no such thing as something not measureable).  So one “changes” in many ways to deal with the ordeals without realizing that one only has the capacity to distance itself from that which one has anxiety about.  True change, under this paradigm is impossible.

The second paradigm is indeed radical and requires deep attention and hearkening.  It involves the metaphysical presupposition that the observer and the observed exist codependently.  If the observer is the observed, then the world is I and I am the world.  This might sound incomprehensible at first but with some personal observation, one may see the fruits.  What this means is that if we see the world not as a unit separate from oneself, but just another way one interprets itself, then changing in form is possible.  If one can transform their worldview from I/other to something entirely empty of such dichotomies and differentiation, then true change is possible.

Unfortunately, this is the point for personal departure and exploration.  As our calculating mind tries to make sense out of this, continuing to explain the second paradigm will fall trap to reason’s calculating grips.  I implore those who have read this to explore this second notion on your own.  I will continue to supply food for thought on this subject since the blog is predominantly created for this intention.

The word change is a terribly important word.  I hope that this exposition exposed the limitations of the usage of this word and explained the way I would like to see this word used and practiced.  Is change possible?  It all depends on what you do and not on what you think.  To change demands courage and responsibility, I encourage you to explore it more thoroughly.  There are many pressing issues in the world.  Conflict and anxiety are crashing with hope for change.  I hope this presentation will reach those who really are sincere and serious about change.