19 November 2012

If it's not better, why replace it?

Our patterns of behaviour be they personal or relationship and our systems be the commercial, political or economic are not real systems in that they're made from iron, steel or concrete. They are psychological, the intellectual product of our fears and aspirations of our thinking, assumptions, values, knowledge and beliefs.

I.e. money and money systems are not a real things. They are ideas supported by processes and systems... simply the product of more thinking.

It stands to reason that in working to change the status quo without first or at least simultaneously having transformed, evolved and developed the thinking that designed them, then the effort is destined to fail. Or in political terms the leader may change but the regime stays the same.

If our systems are creating more problems than they solve, which they are. If they're unsustainable, which they are and if they're inequitable, which they are. We can change them. 

But it's unreasonable to expect that those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo be the agents of that change. In much the same way that would be unreasonable to expect a monarch to be the instrument of his own reform, even demise.

This is neither good nor bad and in it I see no judgement. I'm not sure how interested I would be to change a behaviour or system within which I prosper, especially if I believed that I had worked hard to achieve my success and influence.

I guess I may be tempted to say, 'stop being a bad loser'.

But that's not the end game. What's better that we can offer. What are we bringing to the table. Just opposing something because we don't like it, even if it's defunct, is not the same as replacing it with something more intelligent that works even better.

No comments:

Post a Comment