The making sense of becoming different
How does one become different in an environment that is constantly changing?
click on image to link to SBS cultural competence study guides
Sentients' sense their internal and external realities as uniquely as they feel nature, nurture and pain. Humans also have the cognitive ability to think about nature, nurture and pain as behavioural activities that are able to be witnessed. Behaviours that may or may not conflict with the conscious capabilities of the human brain. Behaviours that may or may not conflict with the biological properties of the human body. and those that come into contact with our tangible selves. Behaviours that through the wonders of human language, can be scientifically measured in the seeking to make sense of how an authentic individual makes sense of becoming different.
In the measurement of difference, scientists may agree that there is a beginning in the measurement of a tangible behavioural process, that should the ending be witnessed as different from the beginning, or malignant from the expectation, the outcome probably contains change. So, hypothetically, say the behaviour being witnessed is a human 'Pavlov dog' who has the unique capability of retaining control over salvation. The human performing the salvation in response to the stimulus is behaving differently; yet retaining the same cognitive properties during the salvation as beyond it. This is on the assumption that some humans do have the acting ability to produce saliva on demand in order to meet the expectations of an audience using control method thinking: and they do have the ability to do this while cognitively retaining none of the noted behavioural changes. Outside of neuro-scientific advances, what if the integrity of the character of the person being witnessed as different, is not, despite testimonies of change in their behaviour? What is change when it is about observable behaviour? Educated human societies do contain character traits of measurable competencies of behavioural performances. However, the performance of another through eyes susceptible to perceptional bias, offers very little insight into any individuals truth about making sense of becoming different. Modern humans do have the ability to behave differently in front of witnesses seeking to see change, while behaving unchanged and in harmony with their true authenticity in private. Psychological deception clearly demonstrates how public demonstrations of authenticity can appear very differently when seen from behind closed doors.
Therefore, how do we make sense of becoming different should our integrity and authenticity be challenged by another who may or may not have our best interests at heart? Also, why should we make sense of becoming different should the strategic behavioural imposition appear harmful as in bullying or war. What then can be making sense of becoming different if it is not about behaviour? How can making sense of becoming different be digested by the almost spiritual synaptic sensors of our changing brains, or even be labelled as change, other than through the emotional sensors that respond to feelings. Psychological probing about why we think we feel the way we do, may be one way of seeking to understand cognitively motivated behaviours. However, there can be no guarantee that any change in the psyche of an individual is anything but a label used by probing forces to externalise character secrets.
Transactional exchanges or substitutions named change may help to facilitate a human sense of control over the changing environment that is life on earth, but the becoming of different for the making of a sense of difference could be our dismissal of our differences as uniquely organic individuals living on earth. Should human societies be the evolutionary challenge to whether or not change is about making sense of becoming different, it seems to me that there has to be a slowing down of the challenge in order for us to measure the meaning of change. In an unscientific and non-religious realm of living, change would not exist for there would be no requirement of us to understand change in order to control it. However, we are forever changing and maybe the secret to making sense of becoming different is that change is a factorial of a much bigger number.
A number that is knowingly culturally diverse and constantly changing.
More change insights @ Catalysts Of Change
In the measurement of difference, scientists may agree that there is a beginning in the measurement of a tangible behavioural process, that should the ending be witnessed as different from the beginning, or malignant from the expectation, the outcome probably contains change. So, hypothetically, say the behaviour being witnessed is a human 'Pavlov dog' who has the unique capability of retaining control over salvation. The human performing the salvation in response to the stimulus is behaving differently; yet retaining the same cognitive properties during the salvation as beyond it. This is on the assumption that some humans do have the acting ability to produce saliva on demand in order to meet the expectations of an audience using control method thinking: and they do have the ability to do this while cognitively retaining none of the noted behavioural changes. Outside of neuro-scientific advances, what if the integrity of the character of the person being witnessed as different, is not, despite testimonies of change in their behaviour? What is change when it is about observable behaviour? Educated human societies do contain character traits of measurable competencies of behavioural performances. However, the performance of another through eyes susceptible to perceptional bias, offers very little insight into any individuals truth about making sense of becoming different. Modern humans do have the ability to behave differently in front of witnesses seeking to see change, while behaving unchanged and in harmony with their true authenticity in private. Psychological deception clearly demonstrates how public demonstrations of authenticity can appear very differently when seen from behind closed doors.
Therefore, how do we make sense of becoming different should our integrity and authenticity be challenged by another who may or may not have our best interests at heart? Also, why should we make sense of becoming different should the strategic behavioural imposition appear harmful as in bullying or war. What then can be making sense of becoming different if it is not about behaviour? How can making sense of becoming different be digested by the almost spiritual synaptic sensors of our changing brains, or even be labelled as change, other than through the emotional sensors that respond to feelings. Psychological probing about why we think we feel the way we do, may be one way of seeking to understand cognitively motivated behaviours. However, there can be no guarantee that any change in the psyche of an individual is anything but a label used by probing forces to externalise character secrets.
Transactional exchanges or substitutions named change may help to facilitate a human sense of control over the changing environment that is life on earth, but the becoming of different for the making of a sense of difference could be our dismissal of our differences as uniquely organic individuals living on earth. Should human societies be the evolutionary challenge to whether or not change is about making sense of becoming different, it seems to me that there has to be a slowing down of the challenge in order for us to measure the meaning of change. In an unscientific and non-religious realm of living, change would not exist for there would be no requirement of us to understand change in order to control it. However, we are forever changing and maybe the secret to making sense of becoming different is that change is a factorial of a much bigger number.
A number that is knowingly culturally diverse and constantly changing.
More change insights @ Catalysts Of Change
Change, Conflict and Chaos.
Dr. Marx offered his followers a theory of social class on the basis of which modern thinkers can derive stratification or inequality in society. The Marxian perspective provides a radical alternative to a functionalist view of the nature of social stratification. It does this through the proposal that systems of stratification, derived from the conflicting relationships between social classes, result in power inequities. One criticism of the Marxian perspective is that social conflict does not always lead to structural social change. However, when looked at from the quantum perspective of chaos theory, stabilisation can be achieved in an unstable environment should strange attractors emerge creating organisational structures. To one observer, chaos may not be desired should the Marxian perspective prevail where the more powerful of a society seek to control the trade exchanges of the most vulnerable. However, to another observer, chaos may be the preferred option should uncontrolled human activity be the desired environment of exchange. While both theories are correct in their perspective camps, the simple answer of how to balance conflict and chaos out of the human condition may begin with who is going to be the change.
More change insights @ Catalysts Of Change
More change insights @ Catalysts Of Change