The law states that change is an undeniable fact and necessity yet however necessary it is, those who dare to impose it should be wary not to do so under a short period of time. Imposing or even influencing change must be done so in a very discreet manner because people, no matter how much they realize that change is indeed needed, still attach themselves to the familiarizations that they have formed over time. Once people are subjected to change at a pace wherein they feel that their familiarizations are being compromised, they become unruly and rebellious thus becoming the downfall of those who wishes to impose change.
As I read the book, I felt enthralled at the realities that it showed to me. People who realized the need for change can only do so by “cloaking” their innovations with the sweet and secure comfort that the past can give. Influential people such as Galileo Galilee, Henry Cromwell and even Einstein preached change. Their ideals are well respected today but back then they were at some times considered to be insane, corrupt and to some extent, evil.
A humorous thing that I realized while reading this law was that it is probably being used by the people of today. It may be possible that the recent events that are conspiring are all planned and manipulated to garner the best results. For example, people became very terrified during the 9-11 incidents. People clamored that it was foretold in the Bible and that it was a sign of the end of all things. My take on it is that it was planned to adhere to that belief. Those who are responsible for the whole thing could have read the entry in the Bible and decided to use it to add to the intensity of their intentions. Perhaps everything that is a disaster was and is planned. Now that I think about it, maybe all things are manipulated in such ways to make those who did so achieve better results. Even accidents that happen, no matter how random, could be manipulated and controlled in ways that would benefit those who would use them.
It seems possible and actually logically sound right?
How would you feel, if you suddenly realized that all things occurring now, are just planned and controlled and that you’re reaction is already known because you believe in the foundations that past generations have set up for you?
Alexius John Tejedor Hi-18 O
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
i don't think people are smart enough to predict what accidents would bring about a certain emotion, plus the human mind is way to complex to predict.
i think people are smart enough to see what is actually happening (no matter how random), and interpret it to accommodate their need or want, using as justification any sort of back up they can get, like the bible for instance.
nico mendiola
The title of the law itself speaks volumes. People have a tendency to reject anything new. Recall that during the introduction of vaccines, for example, people thought it was the work of the devil. This is because we were bombarded with so many innovations. It was too much at once.
Remember Akhenaten? His regulation to change Egypt's orientation from polytheism and monotheism was too radical that not many people adhered. This is the danger in attacking too many institutions at a short amount of time: people will refuse to concur, groups will revolt, and you'll eventually lose power.
Pia Angela J. Maske
II AB-MA Political Science
Hi 18, Section O
Radical change-- this is really the issue
People like Galileo had done so many of these. He disprove many traditional way of thinking. However, he was just branded an insane, or heretic. For me, redical change should be avoided, as the law states. Most are seem unfit of these change or just too distrubed. Therefore, change should be gradual, and like the law, start first with the proposition for change.
-Jedd Emille Chua
Hi 18 O
Its difficult to accept change, in all its ways. I believe that radical change does not apply to those in the past like Galileo, etc. It can happen today. If we introduce ourselves to change it would be easier to accept it.
Luigi Ramirez Hi18-O
I think people are too scared to step out of their comfort zones because they know that once they do, everything becomes a risk. It's fear that makes a lot of people shun change or find ways to justify themselves. Change is a necessary part of life and it's just how the world works and keeps going. Slow down the pace. Start low, like presenting the reasons for the need of this change, then the pros and cons. Make sure it's feasible. Be ready with back-ups and be sure you're consistent with facts and data and don't be one-sided about your proposal. Brace yourself with the possibility of a bombardment of questions or violent reactions. Basically it's just about how you handle the situation of going about the change to a populace.
-Bianca Michaela Bes, Hi 18-O
As the world changes, so too does the principles and beliefs of people. Change is always considerable if the need arises, so one must present positive changes to the people. but it has to be gradual, because not all proposals will be acceptable at the moment.
-Janine Cindy Santiago HI18 N
Change is a hard thing to embrace. As the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
However, if the situation is critical and things must become better in the long run, there is no choice but to accept change and hope for the better. This is very similar to Tiger Woods changing his swinging form in golf. It was working great before, but it was causing problems for his back. So he changed his swing and it worked wonders for him. And the long term effect is that his back doesn't hurt like it did before.
Alfonso S. Laviña
II AB MEC
HI 18 Section O
This law reminds me of the current situation of Katipunan Avenue and of our Leadership and Strategy Class (Intro to Management).
As all of us know, U-Turn slots were suddenly closed recently, and this was followed by the sudden ban on tricycles along Katipunan Avenue. We all know there is a need to improve the traffic situation in Katipunan Avenue. We all know something must be done. However, a lot of people got infuriated over the sudden closure of UTurn slots and disappearance of tricycles. The community wasn't informed before the implementation of such policies. Yes, change is needed, but I think it's just too much too quickly for for some people to handle.
As mentioned in our LS 11 class, there is a natural resistance of people against change. The status quo brings stability to the people; and 'rocking the boat' too much can cause your quest for change to fail, no matter how great, or how clean your intentions are.
Eric Andres
HI 18 Section N
I couldn’t agree more with Bes and Eric: don’t ‘rock the boat’ too much and start low. Also, change must be hand in hand with reason; as Bes put it, “be sure you're consistent with facts and data.” Back in the old days, eating shrimp was deemed as an act punishable by God because the people back then noticed that those who ate shrimp died within moments of eating it. But look! A majority of us right now are eating shrimp and are still alive. With reason, we have come to know the existence of ‘allergies’ and the ways of creating vaccines and medicines. Though changing beliefs may meet resistance, it is necessary that we do it so in the light of reasoning.
When Octavian emerged as the undisputed head of the government of Rome, he acknowledged the fact that the Republic had broken down into pieces; however, he also knew that reforms wouldn’t come easy as the Romans would never forsake the time-honored traditions of the Republic. In line with what Mr. Tejedor said, “People who realized the need for change can only do so by “cloaking” their innovations with the sweet and secure comfort that the past can give.” Octavian then solved the tension-filled dilemma by preserving the forms of the old institutions while reserving the real powers of the State to himself. “He created a new edifice under cover of restoring the old.”
Change is never bad. In fact, it is a normal occurance in our natural world. As the saying goes, it it the only thing constant in this world. But reforming too fast is a different case. It does more harm than good. Just like the case of China right now. China is developing too fast that economists fear that it is depleting its life support system. Its people and economy cannot cope up with the rapid changes. Sooner or later, economists project that China will reach its peak and rapidly drop economically.
Dexter Tanengsy, hi18-N
My response to Nico Mendiola:
On the contrary, I believe people take pride in themselves all too excessively. A good example of my point is on how the current president of a superpower made his plans for declaring war – to get what he wanted - all too plausible. You know what I’m talking about. The president of the red white and blue made use of this to get what he wanted and in the process he was able to affect the whole world. I now go back to the 9/11 incident. When it erupted the whole world was set in a state of fear and panic. Airports were made more uptight with their safety procedures, businesses were rocked to their cores due to the sudden changes in the economy, people started to hoard items from the groceries in worries of another occurrence of terrorism and so on. In all of the random madness that ensued, our Mr. Dingdong president declared war on the nation where the supposed terrorists came from. Only when in the midst of the ruckus that some individuals noticed that all of these were “planned” in order for our dear Mr. Dubya to get his hands on the world’s most prized possession – “black water.” His means of getting what he wants, manipulating the facts and filtering the details allowed him to ensure that what he wants he will get. In the process, he “influenced” a whole nation’s – to some extent, even the world’s - way of thinking by using “planned” events and occurrences. From this, I think that it is possible to influence the people’s way of thinking using the right means and ways – one of which is using the past.
"Panda" Tejedor
My response to Pia Maske
True, change imposed all too briefly will not ever work as we’d want it to be. What I am rather intrigued by is the thought that what if the people who run our world today made use of these knowledge to implement what they wanted for themselves? And maybe as a form of extending the discussion – allow me to ask of you this question: Why is it that in today’s time people are open to such new innovations and change; the creation of technology, the sharing of billions and billions of information in the blink of an eye, the start of the information age, why is this suddenly being welcomed if it is true that people generally do not accept change?
My Response to Jedd Chua
The law itself, to me anyway, seems a bit too simple and plain. “Preach the need for change but never reform too much.” That is the statement of the law, yet why is it that its content is different? Its content speaks of how to impose change – however radical and random it may be – with the use of the comfort of the past to make sure that what you want to compel is delivered and followed. It is – as I believe - not just as simple as saying that radical change is bad. There is always more to it than what is seen at first. What do you think?
My response to Luigi Ramirez
Yes, it is necessary to open up ourselves to the fact that change is inevitable and forever, yet how do we accomplish that necessity? What ideas can you suggest may explain how we as a people may be able to prepare ourselves for such a phenomenon as change?
My response to Bianca Bes
What you speak of is true, yet do you think that there may be people who use this for their own personal gains? I personally believe so, yet I would like to hear your side of it. Change is something natural and necessary however, what if some changes were only made so because some people knew they were going to benefit from it? What is your take on that? What are your thoughts on “manipulated” change?
My response to Janine Santiago
What I understand from your comment is that you think of change as an answer to certain necessities. If that is so, why then must there only be positive changes if it is brought about by necessity? Do take note that if it is brought about by necessity, then doesn’t that suggest the idea that the changes made would be biased and most likely rushed to provide the short-term solution to the problem? Adding to that, what kinds of necessities require change to be the practical solution?
My response to Alfonso Lavina
Taking your comment into consideration, you treat change as if it were an inevitable occurrence – meaning, as if we had no part in it at all. Is it really that way, that changes brought about by critical situations are forced on us and therefore making it something to be tolerated only? Isn’t it more practical to say that we impart on what changes occur because in the very first place we are the one who gave way to such phenomenon? What is your opinion on this?
My response to Eric Andres
Perhaps what’s wrong with the changes made in Katipunan is not because of the roads but because of the drivers who traverse there? We always blame the higher-ups whenever we don’t get what we want however, have we ever really considered the fact that maybe it may have gotten worse because we didn’t follow it like we are supposed to? It is true that the changes were abrupt and hastily implemented but isn’t it also true that when we found out we still tried to do things our way – the way we got used to? So if this is then the case, which is to blame: The implementer of change or the deviant populace?
My response to Marcy Pilar
Change is something that is natural and inevitable –as most of us has already confirmed and agreed to throughout this thread – yet now we speak of change as something that must go hand-in-hand with reason. What makes reason an important factor of change? If change is something natural why do we try to attach our ideas of rationality and logic to it? Is it because of our unwavering desire to control everything around us? Or is it just because we are just the only ones capable of doing so – hence making it necessary to do so? Finally, is change therefore a power of man or an unstoppable natural drive that we try to “humanize?”
My response to Dexter Tanengsy
We always speak of change as something natural, constant, and consistent yet why is it always that we are involved with it? Isn’t it peculiar that every time any changes occur, there are always us, people, mingling with it? As with China’s current situation, was it brought about by just plain natural change or was it because of the people deciding that they wanted to implement change? So therefore in this case, is change something natural or forced by us?
Yes people could use it for their own personal gains but if it would help the majority as well then why not right? :) And I'm saying you simply present to people what you think, give them options and let them decide. Eventually what you'd have to do should benefit them for them to see you as a good and effective leader and still keep your position of power.
- Bianca Michaela Bes, Hi 18-O
As said in the previous comments above, change is necessary. However, change must be dealt slowly so that the impact would not be as seen as if when you implement it right away.
I remember in my biology class that when a frog is put in a bowl of hot water, the frog would jump right away to avoid being burned to death. However, when a frog is put in a bowl of lukewarm water, slowly being boiled, the frog wouldn't jump because the body temperature of the cold-blooded amphibian wouldn't feel it because the temperature change is slow which would eventually cause it to die.
Lots of people today use what is called by psychologists as secure attachments. They become secure with something that they are used to. This makes people avoid change as much as possible. Change has two sides. It can be either good or bad. The ideal situation is a win-win situation for the reformer and the reformees. In this kind of change, change is allowable to be drastic. However, since you are searching for power, it is usually a win-lose situation, this is when you use this law.
Another example would be the Marcos Regime. Marcos caused a drastic change in the way the Philippines is governed. People didn't like Marcos. People were feeling the win-lose situation. However, in other countries where dictators are present, they like their present situation. Even though that it was drastic, they like the way it was being done. So I believe that this law is situational.
Alan Mamonluk
Hi18-O
My response to Alan Mamonluk:
It may be inappropriate to compare the idea of change between frogs and people. Not that there is a biological difference regarding the matter, yet humans – inasmuch as they are animals still – differ from animals in the sense that they can act beyond their instinct – they make use of reasoning. Animals act entirely based on their instinct and thus their reaction to change is always predictable. If you introduce harmful substances to animals they will always act the same way – they will avoid the harmful substance. However, humans, in this sense, can always think on how they would want to react to certain situations. Humans will always react differently to a similar situation – this is always supported by the fact that humans have a nature to be consistently inconsistent.
Take for example the Marcos Regime. My family agrees with the way Marcos decided to run the country before. My grandmother always complains that the country “needs a new Marcos” because she knows of how the Philippines was ironically more developed before in comparison to how it is now. However, not all people agree to this idea. Some still think of Marcos as an evil tyrant hiding in the cloaks of a doing-what-is-necessary dictator and they condemn the idea of the Philippines being run by “a new Marcos.” My point is humans always take things in differently from one another.
Extending the idea to psychology, I believe that psychology was made because it wants to fully explain the complexities of human reasoning. Secure attachments – inasmuch as it explains the idea regarding introducing change – still cannot fully take into account full human behaviour. Perhaps it is better to say that generally people adhere to the idea of secure attachments yet not all do so.
The law is ironically situational only because it is made to govern inconsistent beings. However, why is it then that some countries prefer dictators – people who have full authority and power and make use of that to impose change as they see fit in contrast to people who yearn for democrats?
My reply to Alexius John "Joey/Panda" Tejedor:
I'm not saying that frogs are similar to humans. I was just showing a similarity to their reaction to change.
Most people tend to be traditional until recent ages in which change is seen to be necessary in our ever-changing world. Yes, humans may be inconsistent. This is because everyone is entitled to their own opinion, like you and I. However, one thing is consistent on humans - they want to protect their wants and needs, maybe even at the cost of another.
Alan Mamonluk
Hi18-O
My response to Alan/Stacy Mamonluk:
*frogs are not humans - duly noted. :))*
True, true, we are consistent in that sense which you pointed out. So is it probably to say that influencing change for our own gains is what this law tries to impart?
change is good. it is a sign of evolution and adaptation. But, the drastic changes cause chaos. People resist change and want to stay in the status quo. And the people who can change the situation is a very powerful man.
Don Faylon
Hi18N
Transgression of the Law:
The Austerity Drive of the new government in the UK has provoked rioting in the streets, which is by no means finished.
Similar protests have taken place in Ireland and Greece. The authorities have tried to rush in changes too quickly and are now paying the price.
Post a Comment