We are generally made to believe that ‘change is the only constant’ and it is so good for our well-being that we must adopt it as soon as possible.
In our professional lives it is drummed loudly into our ears in measurable daily doses by bosses, managers and élite professionals. This myth has been repeated so many zillion times that we have grown to accept it as a truth.
The reason professionals keep harping on this myth and make it sound so real is the hidden strategic motive of manipulating others to align with their line of thinking so that the exercise of power becomes easier with a change of mindset.
But as we look around us we find so many things that don’t seem to change or are not desirable to change.
For example, who would like to change the Taj Mahal for whatever it is — to make it more beautiful or more attractive to tourists?
Or for instance, who would like the French vineyards to disappear overnight for some real estate development depriving us of the fine wine and champagne?
Or who would like to change sexual relationship between men and women for the sake of some great ‘spiritual’ attainment of human society or for the sake of containing global warming?
So, in any context of human activity it is a mix of ‘change’ and ‘desirable permanence’. And the two create what we know as culture.
While contemplating a change two important questions seem to be in order:
1. Does it help me and others to create more leisure time to pursue attainment of my potential as an ethical human being?
2. Have I and/or others related to me, come to the edge of doing something that does not offer any more happiness and love?
Leaders must pay careful attention to this aspect. If they are on a blind and thoughtless mission to zealously change everything they come across they would soon land into a big mess from where it would be difficult for them to come out. It would then create unnecessary ‘stress’ in whatever community or society they run to decimate material conditions, happiness and love of the collective. Such leaders, for the right reasons, soon get kicked out or aren’t respected anymore.
If so, the very purpose of leading a creative life would be lost.
6 thoughts on “Is Change Constantly Desirable?”
Excellent. Change is only desirable in certain contexts. In some situations, a lot must change in order to remain the same. So, it may be that “change” is not an appropriate meme when it comes to achieving potential. Do you think that self-organization is preferable?
I wanted to share a point of view I recently read that concerns change in organizations. It’s from Tsoukas and Chia (2002, p. 570) who have argued that ‘‘Change must not be thought of as a property of organization. Rather, organization must be understood as an emergent property of change. Change is ontologically prior to organization — it is the condition of possibility for organization.’’
I rather like this view. Hope it helps.
Sure, change is not the property of an organization. It can’t be. But the perspective would be quite different from the Nemetical point of view since organization is ‘no-self’. And from the Nemetical perspective a change may only happen through an interaction of nCells and nTubes operating within a nSphere or a given context. Therefore, Nemetics ontological view is simply different from that of Tsoukas and Chia.
What is the potential of the ‘no-self’ exactly? How would an nCell come to organize its nTubes without some sense of self? How is nCellular potential achieved without the organizing of its activity, which is, as I see it, generally motivated by notions of distinctiveness and essential characteristics of selfhood? Also, isn’t the sense of one’s unique self-identity a source of meaning around which others relate? What makes the notion of no-self attractive to participating nemeticians who engage and mull because of motivations of self and relations that are bound in the actualization of individual potential?
Your Q: What is the potential of ‘no-self’ exactly?
Ans: The potential of the no-self is to be one with Nature and still be distinct from it. The root of the word ‘individual’ comes from the root ‘indivisible whole’ which is meaningful. Down the way the real meaning got distorted.
Your Q: How would an nCell come to organize its nTubes without some sense of self?
Ans: It starts with the senses and then going beyond those (transcending) to sense the subjective and objective reality of our operating nSpheres.
Your Q: How is nCellular potential achieved without the organizing of its activity, which is, as I see it, generally motivated by notions of distinctiveness and essential characteristics of selfhood?
Ans: It is as such interacting, interdependent and interpenetrating activities of other nCells. To understand is the essence. An individual nCell is practically worthless and wasting. However, the idea is not forge uniformity and standardization and turning everything into commodities. The goal is to promote diversity with all its uniqueness to enhance collective consciousness.
Your Q: Also, isn’t the sense of one’s unique self-identity a source of meaning around which others relate?
Ans: May be. But that is a false relationship, which often generate inauthentic expectations leading to sufferings on both sides.
Your Q: What makes the notion of no-self attractive to participating nemeticians who engage and mull because of motivations of self and relations that are bound in the actualization of individual potential?
Ans: Since an individual can’t operate alone under any circumstances (in all probability waste its fragrance in the desert air) the minimum any Nemetician must adhere to are 1) Buddha self (non-self) 2) Principles and Learnings of Nemetics 3) The Nemetics Club/Institute/Organization. Without these three an individual loses the essential power needed to operate and meaningfully contribute, where individual contributions (or nEx) are acknowledged. Every Nemetician learns and teaches at the same time and is never alone. That is the refuge.
DD, Just weighing in to say it makes lots of sense to me. What I see is that we don’t really have a choice about change. It happens whether we want it or not. If life is good the last thing we want is change, and yet it will happen regardless. The issue is only how we respond to change.
MJ, Yes, agree. This ‘unwillingness to change’ (when life is all good) and natural change thrusting upon us all the time as an extension of labor creates the right tension for something new to emerge. That depends on our response on creating the right constraints or inauthentic constraints balancing labor and leisure. That is in itself beautiful.