That statement is a paradox. If change is the only truth than that truth can change as well. This is, however, a statement that is ultimately produced by what is essentially a wholesomely anti-dogmatic view - a dogma that contests its very own essence.
However, as the wheel of this particular paradox continues to spin (or chase its own tail rather) it emanates the power that can, if embraced, allow us to evolve much further and even much faster. Those who embrace this value into their views and living are what I would call perpetual journeyers, perpetual explorers and even sometimes perpetual dreamers. They are constantly living on an edge between perceived reality and the unknown that can alter it. They accept that their personal truth is never absolute, that the reality they know is never fixed and that theirs is only one, perhaps unique, among the truths that exist in our world and beyond.
I would suspect that such people would have good empathic skills, very high tolerance and a very high level of curiosity. They would, by all means, be excellent diplomats and peace makers. The unknown does not scare them, it excites their imagination and challenges their logical processing. At the same time they are content with the possibility of there being things which will always be unknown to them. Life after death? They don’t have to imagine an answer to a question just because they couldn’t find a real one.
Considering their ongoing openness towards change of what they know, albeit balanced with the reasoning they possess in that knowledge, they are capable of learning and adapting quickly, crossing the boundaries and making breakthroughs and hence evolving their thinking faster than those who tend to get stuck in the comfort zone of their current beliefs. An open minded people. 
Those are the humans I’d like to see more.
Here is a toast… for the journey!
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 am
I’m not sure if change-people are necessarily good diplomats and peacemakers. It’s possible to be both open-minded and hot-headed, and when someone like that encounters intolerance, diplomacy and peace aren’t very good descriptions of what’s going to happen
.
I think a good diplomat has to be pragmatic. Pragmatism and liking change don’t go together very well, a pragmatic person is more likely to say “it’s quite good as it is already, if it ain’t broken don’t fix it”. Also a good diplomat would try to find a middle ground in a debate instead of arguing in order to find a better “truth”.
A true change-person will always be visionary (but happy to change visions when it’s better to do so), and will work towards positive change (so eventually more peace), and some of them may be good diplomats when they need to be, but definitely not all of them.
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
The thing is that people who accept that theirs is not the absolute truth (because they accept what they currently believe to be true can change at any point) are therefore also more capable of “watching through somebody else’s eyes” - seeing different perspectives. That’s why I said they could be good diplomats and peace makers.
As they are open to alternate perspectives they will be more willing to recognize each of the two opponent’s wishes and desires and try to strike a compromise between them. Such a person would not go to great lengths to “convert” the people they are dealing with in some “peace negotiations”.
So when encountered with intolerance, they may recognize that, despite how stupid and childish it seems to them as observers, it is a personal truth to those they are talking to. They’d look for the source of this intolerance and try to find a compromise you’re talking about - in the process, they are in a sense affecting these intolerant people by showing tolerance for themselves in action.
That said, one thing that can easily get in way of any level headed philosophy, turning its holder occasionally into a “hot head” are emotions. Considering how broad a view of those who accept change in a way described can be, this can make them feel a bit superior which would make them sort of “look down” on people who are still stuck to their old beliefs, which could induce anger that would block some diplomatic efforts.
However, such result would be a failure to live up to the principle described above. If emotion is making you intolerant and blind towards different perspectives, your mind isn’t as open at such times as it should be.
So yeah, I think to a point you’re right, but the cause of some “change-people” not being good diplomats would stem from them being too emotional. I think you may have even implied that already so.. yeah. To be honest I tend to be quite emotional as well, so don’t mistake me rationally talking about all this with me actually successfully being, in every sense, the person described. However.. it is an attractive philosophy and I can embrace it and just keep trying to be in accordance to it, despite my emotion. Nobody is perfect and nobody is perfectly aligned with whatever they believe in either. But one thing perpetual journeyers understand well is that this perfection doesn’t matter so much - it’s all about the process, the journey.
Cheers (and thanks for the commment
)
October 24th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
I remember that not too long ago you were totally against too much relativism… and now the same thing in a different package (”being able to look through anyone else’s eyes”) is a good thing?
By the way, being emotional can be very good, if one handles ones emotions the right way:
Negative emotions - curse, shout, write angry posts on the web, and be happy the rest of the day once relieved of them
Positive emotions - motivation for constructive action! cherish them!
October 25th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Hm indeed I was against too much relativism. My main concern was that it would lead to the inability to care about anything and stand for something, and I have actually been giving that exactly some thought as I was turning more to the kind of “relativism” described above.
And in essence I would conclude that I still am against the relativism at the expense of caring for and standing for something - when the balance is off.
The answer is in the proper balance between embracing the new things and holding on to what you believe in right now. See my earlier post that was exactly about that: http://www.memeverse.com/2007/10/17/living-on-the-frontier/
Basically we have to have some ground to stand on, which is formed of beliefs we currently hold and we shouldn’t just destroy this at a whim of new reality we discover. In other words, we should be very cautious about what we embrace, open, but cautious and critical of it.
Otherwise we would become numb, believe in whatever comes our way but for so insignificant a time that we would never be able to *really* care for it and therefore anything. Thrown by the waves and seeking for the next train of escapism all the time, as the only “real” sanctuary that we would have.
So, yeah, again.. I think I’m still against such absolute relativism. It’s all about balance.