???(Manana) 08/24: Change Anatomy

End of last Manana, I had resolved to take shelter in a philosophical approach to try and see if I could make further progress in understanding ‘Change’. An important question before dwelling further on this.

Why drag concepts of philosophy into this discussion?

• As we evolve and the rate of acceptance of limitations of the current prevalent ‘Cartesian’ approach accelerates, the necessity of adopting a more ‘Ecological’ approach will become mandatory. Philosophy is bound to become integral into both thought and practice.
• An amazing wealth of knowledge lies discovered but untapped.
• As a young student, the more I learn, clearer is the notion that not finding an answer here is only attributable to seeker and not the existing knowledge.

‘?????’ (Visesa):

Let me start by first acknowledging the fact that Substance and Attributes are two aspects. The paradox to be dealt with is that while attributes do not just subsist but actually exist and at the same time have no reality apart from the substance. Like the ‘Light of the Sun’, ‘the Whiteness of the Jar’, etc. It is the ability to identify both substance and its attributes as different but also at the same time recognize that the attributes are within the substance and not independent of it, which becomes critical.

Each element, be it sentient or insentient, has a set of attributes that give it identity. As an example, the ‘Cowness’ of the Cow- so to say. While the Cow undergoes growth (evolution), its form changes. However, at the core, its Cowness only becomes expressed more vividly, but does not change. For if ‘Cowness’ changes, there is no Cow anymore. Meaning thereby that the inherent unique distinguishable characteristics remain more of the same while the form continues to be continually different.

Problem with ‘Change’ definition:

When I was trying to define or classify ‘change’, I was lost in vastness of the manifest impact- which despite being unique and within the concept of change per se are multitude and different. Hence the nebulous definition and an outcome-based classification. Clearly the need was to look at ‘change’, not from the point of view of explicit phenomenon, but rather as Change itself.

Structure of Change:

Now applying this concept, I have come to an understanding that ‘Change’ too needs to be looked at similarly -its substance and its attributes. Meaning thereby that every instance when Change is being contemplated, in effect there are two aspects one is dealing with. One is ‘Change’ per se, that will, as a result of its implementation, manifest a perceivable difference and the other, at the same time, an element of what one might call the ‘essence (substance) or ‘visesa’ of the ‘Change’ that continually rallies to not be different.

Application of this Structure:

In my opinion the entire field of Change and its Management has vastly evolved, lost in what is just overtly manifest. I have not come across any effort to actually dissect change and study its attributes. This perhaps also explains as to why the field continues to be perceived as complex, the outcome most times being left to chance and the journey arduous.

Knowing the structure paves way for defining Change that much more precisely, understanding the nature of resistance and ways of dealing with the same. The trick then in managing change is, to protect the ‘?????’ (Visesa) - ‘Cowness’- while ensuring the evolution of a calf into a Cow. Of what use would it be to have a fully evolved calf that is no more a cow.

Will stop here. This post has become lengthy but was trying to at least put the essence together.

In conclusion:

1. Each time ‘Change’ is contemplated, unless otherwise overtly stated, change to both the substance and attributes of the element being changed are conveyed.
2. Change is almost always attributed to just what is manifest and the impact on inherent integrated unique attributes is either taken for granted or not recognized at all.
3. Ability to define the ‘substance’, its ‘attributes' and the relation between these two with respect to the element being subjected to change, is at the core, the sum and substance of understanding and thereby managing change.

This concept, I would admit, appears abstract from a distance, but becomes clearer on further contemplation. I will try and further elaborate this in the subsequent posts and also explore as to how this approach will help response to change.

In my own personal journey, this revelation has indeed helped me take a baby step towards beginning to appreciate the concept of being ‘devoid of paradoxes’ a message that Krishna constantly gives in the ‘Bhagavad Gita’.

Thanks you and appreciate your time and comments, as always!