A Philosophical Discussion About Change

You have weird conversations at work. Some topics come out of no where and for the life of you, you don't know where it comes from, but the discussion just continues. Here is one such discussion that was so interesting, I opted to keep it. I'll keep it anonymous as usual, and if the other person does ever stumble onto this blog, I'll have to let them know that, indeed, I performed a cut-and-paste of our IM client.

This runs a bit long, so I'll be sure and throw something else out there to balance it.

Geek: Hey, on ticket {number}... It's been around the world once. Is it supposed to go back to {who cares}?

Colleague: We don't have a choice - {long explanation that means yes}.

Geek: That's cool. Just making sure. Thanks.

Colleague: I totally understand. Thanks for checking

Colleague: Am I chatting like a Valley Girl? That's so 90's.

Geek: I don't mind. It adds character.

Colleague: So does beer. LOL

Geek: I would say it more or less detracts from character, though it certainly does present the type of character one has should too much be imbibed.

Colleague: Being drunk--yes. Just a little tends to relax a person a bit and people often become more interesting then. Inebriated people aren't generally appealing though, I do agree.

Geek: In that case, it would be more accurate to say that the slight intoxication reveals one's character. After all, building character requires trial. I suppose being drunk could create some trials, but the only character that would build is the decreased likelihood of being drunk again...

Colleague: Mild intoxication, while lessening normal social restraints--allows for the possibility of interaction with others in a manner that could facilitate more meaningful interaction with others. Trials are not the only means to building character--there is also being open to others and learning from discourse with them. People tend to be less fearful of alienation when drinking, and can actually accomplish a deeper interaction while mildly imbibing. Complete drunkenness of course would not do so.

Geek: I use the term very broadly. A trial is anything that forces you to accomplish something, usually pushing you in some way. It could be absolutely anything, not necessarily anything stressful or physical. Mere interaction, while essential for building relationships of any kind, does not usually force one into a trial-like situation (unless one is introverted and trying to mingle at a party). That deeper interaction, however, would certainly reveal much about another person that normal interaction would likely keep concealed. That discussion could be insightful for the listener, and has the potential to allow some level of personal growth on the listener's part, but the speaker is unlikely to grow in that situation.

Colleague: That is a valid point. If nothing else, character is established--and maintained from habit and past experiences. Few ever seek to truly change any of their characteristics--the effort is too great. But revelation of those characteristics already present can be revealed in trials, yes. Before anything can be changed--it must first be honestly recognized. Trials would establish that more readily than any usual series of events. But in some cases--an individual becomes resigned to such circumstances, until it becomes clear that there are previously unknown opportunities to change. In meeting another who possesses characteristics one desires, change within that person's character may occur. Gandhi was such an influential figure--and inspired change in others.

Geek: It is one thing to inspire the change within others. It is another for the inspired to put into their habits the change they want to make. As you said, character comes from habit and experience; hearing what you want to become is merely a catalyst to change.

Colleague: It will always be a cause/effect relationship in relation to change--or even to maintaining the status quo. It requires action to maintain circumstances or behavior and it requires action to willingly change one's character. So regardless of change--or the lack of it--effort is required. Initially, change requires greater effort. But once the habit is established, the effort to maintain it becomes easier. All of it is essentially a focus of one's thoughts & perceptions. Some have argued it is harder to suffer than it is to change, but change may still appear to be more difficult. Would the catalyst always be between suffering and inspiration? Of course--why would anyone ever want to change things when they are already content?

Geek: The dissatisfaction that generally precedes change could be the trial in question. There is usually something out there that creates the need to change, and some kind of benefit the individual will gain from bothering to make that change. Though Gandhi may well have been able to inspire change, the receiver of his message would not be likely to do anything if they never recognized a shortcoming in their life. People who are content rarely have that need to do anything, because they do not feel they need to do anything. The natural effort of surviving the world is required to maintain their situation, but that effort is is usually considered minimal, or "what I would do anyway."

Colleague: Yet there is always change. The environment changes, people change as they age, as some are born and others die. Trials are always present and change is what creates the trials as much as how they are influenced. In this, they are so fundamentally related that to cease to change is to essentially die. So whether inspired or influenced by whatever means--change will occur within a person whether or not they wish it. Choosing to change, however--is of course often a result of inspiration and discontent, but can also stem from understanding the inevitability of change.

Geek: But there is a difference between the natural order of change and change because you feel the need to. It would be the difference between taking another route to work because you have to and changing the route you take because you find it more beneficial to do so. Each is technically a change, but the former happens because you need to and the latter happens because you want to. If you are in a state of discontent before the former change and in a state of discontent after, then the new route is like an external change you have to adjust to, but it doesn't change you. The latter version is a change you initiate that may or may not have stemmed from the former, and where you may have been in a state of discontent before the change, after the change, you find that the new route leaves you happier (possibly because it happens to run by the donut shop) thereby enacting an internal change.

Colleague: Ah, but the need to change is not always from discontent nor even always from environmental necessity. Sometimes the influence is from the desire to continue a perceived positive influence or circumstance which has occurred. For instance, if a friend gets a dog and when you visit you find that you really loved the interaction with the animal--and even though you already have a happy family at home--you decide you'd like a dog too and get one. Was it really because something was missing? Or perhaps a desire to change the environment at home even though you are happy there already? Even if our environment remains the same, at some point we MUST introduce change, or our contentment becomes less over time, even if our needs and general desires are consistently met.

Geek: But those who choose not to get a dog and don't have environmental restrictions will say that they are happy the way they are. Hence, while they may admit the dog is nice, they do not have any desire for one, so the benefit is never perceived. What this reminds me of (to introduce a personal example) is my opinion of the game Guitar Hero. I'd seen this game here and there, and even seen it in action, but never had any interest in it. Then, I had the opportunity to play it and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Will the game in any way enhance my character? Probably not, but it did fill a niche where I love to play music and video games, and this game does both. The only game I enjoyed more was Rock Band, which is essentially the same thing, but it adds other peripherals to the mix. Do I feel I grow from playing it? No. It's a game. Will it improve my character? No. Do I have an inherent need for it? No. In every logical way, there is nothing that I would gain from this game except the enjoyment of playing it. Do I gain enjoyment from playing it? Oh yes. So from a philosophical perspective, it's actually a very shallow addition to my world. So why would I even want it? It provides a challenge, and I have fun. The Sims have several bars related to their well being, and one of them is fun. The game fills my fun bar, but psychologically does nothing else. While a dog in the Sims does also effect the social bar, the idea of it is similar. It is something that you found you wanted after experiencing it, and so you did what it took to add it to your world, if for no other reason than to provide that little bit of fun that you needed.

Colleague: In the realm of survival skills, no--such games would not improve your circumstances any more than owning a small dog but it could be argued that there is a degree of personal growth - for the game, you are no doubt faster hitting the right keys than you were previously and you have become more familiar with the songs' nuances than before. Whether or not it's a survival skill does not fully denote it's importance. It's been scientifically proven that video games enhance certain skills, such as hand coordination, response time, etc. For owning a dog, one would see changes such as responsibility for another besides self, possibly being around a new social group of fellow dog-lovers, maybe more time exercising outdoors when you take FIDO for a walk. My argument is more that all choices have positive or negative connotations but even when they do not seem significant when compared to bigger events, they still often make measurable differences to one's life.

Geek: To this, you make a valid point. To an extent, also, working to master a video game takes a certain level of discipline to push past the parts of the game that present a great deal of frustration in order to conquer it. In addition, you can satisfy a measure of social satisfaction through the cooperative play mode since it forces you to work together with another person to complete the songs. Caring for an animal does force one to achieve a higher level of responsibility than one had before since it takes a certain amount of work to keep the pet happy and healthy. But these aspects are the effects of getting these things and are usually unanticipated when the initial decision is made. With a dog, you know you have to feed and water and walk it, but do you ponder the elevated responsibility you will learn or the social groups you might interact with? Probably not until you've had the dog for some time and something else happens that reveals that to you. You might have the opportunity to share that knowledge of responsibility with another; you might react differently to an animal in need than you used to; or you just want to talk to other people who have dogs. With the game, you buy it because you understood it was fun, but only later do you realize the level of perseverance required to master it on the highest levels (not to mention the patience to not smash the guitar controller against the wall) and the social aspect of the cooperative play that you couldn't experience while playing the demo. This is to say you do not enter into either of these ventures to build any character traits, but by experiencing and enduring each of them do you gain the traits required to be successful at both of them.

Colleague: True--but it remains a choice of whether or not to rise to the occasion. With Guitar Hero, you can invest the money in the game, find that although it appeals to you, the effort to play it well and master levels isn't worth the effort and choose to sell the game or simply not play it. If you get a dog and find it's a greater responsibility than you originally expected, you could choose to give the dog away, or sadly--abandon it (some #(@*##!! idiots do) and not meet the responsibility you initially accepted. As people choose one choice, so they could choose another. It is in the persistence and the choice to continue with the decision or commitment that becomes in and of itself a choice to change.

Geek: That's the case with any trial, though. The game and the dog are trials that you elected to get yourself into, and like so many trials, there's usually an "out" you can take if you choose not to endure. Those are the ones you basically get yourself into, and you can either grow by sticking with it, or you can remain as you are by backing out. Growing will usually build your character by creating or advancing a character trait. Backing out will demonstrate the kind of character you have, while, granted, it means a whole lot less in a video game. With a dog, if you back out, people might look down on you. With the game, if you back out, people shrug and move on. The true character builders are the situations you cannot back out of. These are the ones that you may have created yourself, but more likely some other external force was the catalyst that acted with you to create the situation. My first inclination was to say "marriage," because I hold to the belief that you can't just back out of it, but society at large would disagree. My best example then is the situation with my eye. When I rammed it with a screwdriver, that was a situation I could not, under any circumstance, back out of. I had no choice but to endure it and choose to either grow from it or sink into oblivion from it. There was no status quo to back out of it into, but I still had the choice as to whether the outcome would be good or bad. I shrugged it off as "one of those things," was happy I didn't fall off that 3 story roof, and while I lost my binocular vision, I still had one good eye to go on with. Everyone was impressed with my attitude in how I handled it, and that situation earned me more universal respect than pretty much anything else I'd done. But it boiled down to the choice of how to handle it, since very good or very bad were the only outcomes available.

Colleague: In many cases, the trials you get yourself into are the ones you most need to learn from--so it will often result in a reoccurring trial (always paying bills late, losing car keys, whatever) until the needed lesson is learned. Therefore it could be argued that trials that are created by oneself are lessons we subconsciously or consciously know we need to learn from. Technically though your eye could be counted as self-inflicted, without knowing the details--I would still be inclined to categorize it as an accident because unless you were doing wantonly risky behavior while wielding it, the chances surrounding that injury were likely unique and more circumstantial than predictable. Your choice of determining the outcome of your behavior in losing sight in that eye showed to others the character you already possessed that enabled you to deal well with the change in your life and likely strengthened those characteristics. If you had started out with depression, anger or developed some sort of bad habit afterwards and then later changed your perspective to a positive outcome--then that would have shown a change in character. Still makes you very cool though. I know too many that have trouble dealing with far less impact. Strong character is never a result of circumstances or choice though; rather, it is always a result of persistence in a positive and productive attitude to chose to act instead of react. Choice and circumstances reveal who you already are--and give you an opportunity to either change that or continue in that same vein. Ever heard of James Allen? It's kind of like that.

Geek: No, I don't know who James Allen is. My eye was the result of an oversight (haha). I was working at the time and doing exactly what I was supposed to be doing. There was no wanton risky behavior (unless you count failure to wear safety glasses). I knew that the way I handled the situation itself demonstrated the kind of character I had. I also know that I gathered a thing or two from the experience that gave me some measure of growth, but it was more related to the events leading up to the accident than the aftermath of the accident. Circumstances and choice are only a piece of the puzzle, so while it is true that strong character doesn't result from them directly, they contribute to the outcome, as circumstances do lead to the experience through which character is built. It is in the experience that you make the choice to either act or react, gain the subsequent experience of that choice, and consciously or subconsciously evaluate what just happened. In a vein like that, though, it would be easy to confuse character with simple experience.

Colleague: Character does have a direct relationship to quality of existence at the very least. But each choice or action, each circumstance or unforeseen event still leads to a personal decision for each of us. What you said about the events leading up to the accident helping you to grow sounds intriguing--but it also supports what I'm saying. Because of your character, growth is inevitable to you regardless of circumstance--you seek it out, whether it is through environment, opportunities, whatever. James Allen is an author of a few books...I've only read one--"As a Man Thinketh". Essentially, his perspective is that whatever is in your thoughts, your environment reflects. Thoughts, whether positive or negative, build up or tear down a person's character. Circumstances reveal what you already are--and the thoughts you choose directly affect the choices you perceive--and their effectiveness in your actions. Circumstances and choice might be pieces of the puzzle--but character is the substance in all the pieces because it determines how everything else fits together.

Geek: That leans towards perception more than anything else, but it is said that perception is 90% of reality. It boils down to the truth being only a small part of the equation and the perception of that truth being the lion's share of the reality of the person. While growth is important, there is also something to be said for the stability of the status quo. It is equally important to take moments of stability to evaluate yourself and discover the things you've learned from the experiences that you've had. It can be said that the quiet moments of reflection are as important to growth as the experiences themselves. It is well known in the world of musicians that while practicing an instrument for an hour or two a day is important, the time spent in not practicing is equally important because it allows your muscles to adjust to what they learned, and allows your mind to adjust to the experiences you've given it in the practice time. I forget who said it, but one musician said the time he spent sleeping was as important to his practice time as the time he spent on his instrument. In addition to the reflection on the experience, though, having some time where no growth is experienced allows the mind time to relax and learn about who it had become. Through this time, one can discover what one's own shortcoming, be it character or some other facet of personality.

That's where the conversation ended. Mind you, this conversation began at 8:30 in the morning and lasted all the way till around 4:45 when I posted the last reply. It was an interesting way to back the background of the day.