Can we change?
Well by dint of the my writing this, I clearly believe we can change; that is we have all the abilities and the potential so to do, We can change. The Can represents the physical mechanism of ability, but the "can" has it a hint of reticent: of questioning doubt: the element that the possibility change hangs on, is the vagary of an attitudinal willingness to change. Although I would contend that all people have the physical ability to change the willingness would be at the idiosyncratic vagaries of an individual, perhaps dependent on their physical circumstance and psychi. In my opinion the disparity of thought and opinion directly relates to the disparity of wealth and circumstance. It is probably fair to say that the social differential of world to day is the greatest it's ever been. Make a more homogenous world and you will have a greater similarity of perspective and consequently a greater consensus of opinion in regard to what is an issue and of how best to deal it.
I have my suspicions that I am getting ahead of myself in regard to fully understanding what change is. The real focus of our attention must be suley in the fundamental process that change represents: the root of any change must surely within the mechanism of decision making?
How and why do we make a given decision?
For that matter What is a decision and how do we do it? sounds like a ridiculous question, the familiarity of the process, making an analysis of its mechanics unconsidered, that it just happens, where most are made as an unconscious assumption of its working, and yet some are of great deliberation and at times can be very vexing in the consideration. So what is it how does it work?
well thats just great, you have to wait till every one is the same circumstances before one can get an unanimity of perspective subsequently a nonadviserial a
But to carry on looking at our understanding the nature of our ability to change, I would again like to turn to the rest of the animal kingdom for examples of how they "change" (make decisions) Decisions for other animals are exclusively set to their instinctual nature, their daily routine being fixed with perhaps two main functions of: eating, and, not being eaten. the former being the primary and secondly to react to an imminent danger. As such it is fair to describe this decision making as change initiated by crisis; based on the perceived necessity for that change. Although the following example may not appear to be entirely apposite to man, nevertheless I feel it illustrates aspects that I believe to be true of man in the nature of his decision making.
An animal, say a gazelle grazing on a savanna would be engage in the status quo of eating, but be in constant alert to the potential of predatory danger, every rustle or movement smell or noise would be a contender for analysis to change.
The first point I want to make, illustrates (partly by metaphor) the the idiosyncratic vagaries of an individual's perspective which I have already suggested in the previous paragraph: The various sensory inputs representing a fractional interest; a contention of of importance would arise; If one was "an ear" (on the gazelle) ones interest would only be from the perspective of what one heard, and like wise the eyes and nose, so similarly with a fractionalised humanity; the poor the rich the oil company, countries religions etc each putting for ward their particular issue. Only when their is a mutual agreed consensus is there an avoidance of contention. secondly and similar is In some ways one can see a similarity in the way that we still run our lives : political lobbying or faction, putting forward its particular perceived danger (or better direction) to be determined comparative against other lobbying. This approach represents an adversarial determination relative to what is perceived to be the most imminent issue. This adversarial determination to decision making (change) is only reactive and of crisis, it is the animal instinctual coercive motivational force to survive. A motivational force of "coercion" do it or else face the consequences (to your survival). It is the principal motivator in the animal world, and is to my mind still the the principal motivator in human behaviour, (although I concede it has become a tad more complex).
As a rational thinking animal one might ask "what is the problem"?, as a process of determining the merits and demerits of a stance against another would not only make good sense but the only way to make any from of relative/comparative determination. I would have to concede that as purely a mechanism I could not argue but I suspect that the flaw lies in the nature of the rational being employed to make the determination.
So what is the rational being employed and where is the flaw in it?
yes we can if every one agrees to ti
I have my suspicions that I am getting ahead of myself in regard to fully understanding what change is. The real focus of our attention must be suley in the fundamental process that change represents: the root of any change must surely within the mechanism of decision making?
How and why do we make a given decision?
For that matter What is a decision and how do we do it? sounds like a ridiculous question, the familiarity of the process, making an analysis of its mechanics unconsidered, that it just happens, where most are made as an unconscious assumption of its working, and yet some are of great deliberation and at times can be very vexing in the consideration. So what is it how does it work?
well thats just great, you have to wait till every one is the same circumstances before one can get an unanimity of perspective subsequently a nonadviserial a
But to carry on looking at our understanding the nature of our ability to change, I would again like to turn to the rest of the animal kingdom for examples of how they "change" (make decisions) Decisions for other animals are exclusively set to their instinctual nature, their daily routine being fixed with perhaps two main functions of: eating, and, not being eaten. the former being the primary and secondly to react to an imminent danger. As such it is fair to describe this decision making as change initiated by crisis; based on the perceived necessity for that change. Although the following example may not appear to be entirely apposite to man, nevertheless I feel it illustrates aspects that I believe to be true of man in the nature of his decision making.
An animal, say a gazelle grazing on a savanna would be engage in the status quo of eating, but be in constant alert to the potential of predatory danger, every rustle or movement smell or noise would be a contender for analysis to change.
The first point I want to make, illustrates (partly by metaphor) the the idiosyncratic vagaries of an individual's perspective which I have already suggested in the previous paragraph: The various sensory inputs representing a fractional interest; a contention of of importance would arise; If one was "an ear" (on the gazelle) ones interest would only be from the perspective of what one heard, and like wise the eyes and nose, so similarly with a fractionalised humanity; the poor the rich the oil company, countries religions etc each putting for ward their particular issue. Only when their is a mutual agreed consensus is there an avoidance of contention. secondly and similar is In some ways one can see a similarity in the way that we still run our lives : political lobbying or faction, putting forward its particular perceived danger (or better direction) to be determined comparative against other lobbying. This approach represents an adversarial determination relative to what is perceived to be the most imminent issue. This adversarial determination to decision making (change) is only reactive and of crisis, it is the animal instinctual coercive motivational force to survive. A motivational force of "coercion" do it or else face the consequences (to your survival). It is the principal motivator in the animal world, and is to my mind still the the principal motivator in human behaviour, (although I concede it has become a tad more complex).
As a rational thinking animal one might ask "what is the problem"?, as a process of determining the merits and demerits of a stance against another would not only make good sense but the only way to make any from of relative/comparative determination. I would have to concede that as purely a mechanism I could not argue but I suspect that the flaw lies in the nature of the rational being employed to make the determination.
So what is the rational being employed and where is the flaw in it?
yes we can if every one agrees to ti
As to whether we do, well that is the conjecture of belief, the unprovable realms of hope. Belief, hope, two words that we use with alacrity but do we really have a conscious understanding of what we mean or are they like so many words just terms that we consider there to be an assumption of universal meaning? Hope, for me, is not just the whimsical notion of wishful thinking; hoping for the best. But rather the (albeit unprovable) Faith and trust I put in what I believe.
Belief; an alien concept
For many belief is not an practiced concept in our day and age and when considered is often associated with religion which is tacitly perceive to be the realm of fanatics of one flavor and degree or another.religion has had its day say some as having been the not that belif is exclusivly the preserv of religion ;
Believing in belief: There can be no doubt that we live in the belief of our perceived reality. We tend not to see our reality as a belief as the evidence of its certainty takes it out of the vagaries uncertainty to that which we would call fact. But as we saw in the wisdom of the sceptics, nothing can be that certain. Beyond that perceived certainty we perhaps can find "shades" of belief from absolute blind faith to those that have a varying degree of rational. The man of today is, by virtue of his scientific knowledge and understanding not the same as the man of history, who through ignorance and fear accepted explanations of those things that mystified him, to the point of superstition. Where as today, perhaps as a reaction to our religious past, for some people there should be some form of rational to their believing, even if the overall concept still resides in unprovable conjecture. In the past many beliefs have been seen as religious corollaries": the complex constructions that have gone to make up a many a religious faith, for which the prerequisite has been "blind faith" in such beliefs. on the other hand one could argue that in seeing the corollary of the Petri-dish and speculating on its appositeness to humans and in having an understanding of our own motivations as being "lost" to our instinctual nature, that although these are things to believe in, (to convince us of the necessity of change,) they are beliefs with a "pale shade" to them in terms belief, because of their rational corollary.
I do believe in the power of belief mostly in terms of "things to believe in"; with a rational. I would have to concede that my beliefs are not exclusively in the rational of things like the petri dish but also in more abstract notion that I choose to subscribe to like that of Love but even in love there is in part a logical substance to its adherence. But nevertheless, substantively my hope it is not in the realm of wishful thinking. My hope is in the faith and trust I put in my beliefs.
But what motivates us to have a belief? fear, guilt, anger, utter conviction, what we would like to be the truth to our existence: the gamut of motivations that reflect the pitiful nature for mans emotional psychological state. I say pitiful without pejorative but in recognition of the extraordinary emotional difficulties his self awareness gave him. Death ,impotence as to the nature of our existence, it is no wonder that flooded with a plethora of emotions we look to find resolutions to the truly philosophical through belief constructs. That might beg the questions can our beliefs be anything more than just the working out of emotional turbulence? What would be a "true" motivational criteria for a belief if such a thing exists? well I have talked my way into a mine field that
intellectually explainable substance, expressed in principles to set attitudes that direct thinking decisions and behaviour held on to and acted out with passion.