More, Better or Different isn’t Transformation
Posted by Dan Tocchini on August 26th, 2008 filed in Conversations That Transform, MarriageHave you ever said, “I am going to be more loving,” or “I am going to make sure it is different next time,” or “It is getting better?” These are signs of rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. Culturally we view change as something that involves getting more of something, better at something or having something different. It is such “common sense” that my questioning it may even sound ridiculous.
But ask yourself, what is the primary focus when we use these terms? We are focused on the past, especially the part of the past that doesn’t work. So then, what is it that is determining our aim? The very thing we say we don’t want. We unwittingly make it the standard of change in our lives instead of just choosing the “new” thing we are committed to and declaring that and then gathering the evidence.
For instance, Jesus wasn’t an improvement over Cesar, he wasn’t a little more, or better or different than what people were used to, he was completely new and unprecedented. Further more Paul doesn’t say, Jesus makes you more happy, a better man or woman or even a different person. Paul says: “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away ; behold , all things are become new.”
The standard is the unprecedented future not the historical past. How much of your life and conversation are anchored into the more, better, different of what has already been?
What if there is “something new under the sun,” but the only way to access it is to give up being more, better or different?
August 26th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
This is profound.
September 6th, 2008 at 4:36 am
Thanks Dan,
I’ve been contemplating these human issues for a while now, and I wonder if “give up being more, better or different” isn’t more of the same conversation. The orientation is still focused on what to give up (still resistance to what is).
What if I can never give it up? What if having these conversations of “more, better or different” is part of who I am (human) and they will simply always be there? Then the challenge might be to add a new conversation to it and then shift my focus to the new conversation.
So then the question comes to mind: where then does the new conversation come from? If it’s frome me, it’s probably based on my history. So maybe the “new” conversation isn’t new either. Or if it is really new, it’s probably not from me. Or am I that creative?
Maybe it’s been around all along and its a matter of becoming aware of the many different conversations that are around all the time, so I can then choose the ones that are in alignment with my vision.
So then the question comes to mind: Where does my vision come from? What if “vision” is just another conversation, probably based on my life so far (my past)?
Then I can only pray to God to inspire me with His Spirit and guide me through this web of converations…
But what if God was just a conversation, too?
Then I would really have to pray to God, because otherwise I would be lost, having no clear guidance outside my own will.
Or maybe I could simply look to Betty and our two boys, and noticethe impact of the conversations I’m choosing have on them… Love will conquer all!
PS “conquer” from Latin “con” and “quaerere” is to “complete” “searching”: so no need to seek further! Once you found love, seek no further = Love is the answer to your search. Interesting!
September 6th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Arwin,
Thanks for your insight. What a great conversation! Thank you.
Actually, my use of “give up” isn’t meant in a permanent sense, (like we will get rid of it), but in an ongoing sense. As a conversation has me, I can give up the significance (resistance) I have to the past judgments I make of that conversation or my interpretations of it that are past based.
Where does the new conversation come from? I don’t know. If it is new, it is one I am exploring or becoming aware of for the first time. I am not saying the past is bad or that it shouldn’t be an influence but that it doesn’t have to be the determining factor for how I stand in life or for whatever vision I serve. The point is that I can take a new relationship to the moment other than one the past would automatically dictate. As you say here, I can explore. In exploring I must “give up” the significance it has up until that point to explore other possibilities beyond what the past dictates as the “way it is.”
One possibility is that vision comes from the past. The other place my vision may come from is the future. From what I don’t have or may never have had, but long for. For example, flight. It was vision that came from a future that was worth having, but that the past dictated was impossible up until it happened. That future was something that could be explored in the moment and would have included “giving up” what the past dictated as not possible along the way.
Somehow your insight into love leaves me thinking it is “wrong” to want or to search, as if “searching” is not as it “should be.” Not that you are saying that, but it seems from what you are saying that if I love I shall not want to search for anything other than what I already have. However, my experience is that I will want for the beloved, whether it is noticing the impact of my conversation or standing in a way that opens possibility for them to be loved, I will search so that they benefit from my presence or lack of presence. Part of love seems to be the journey of wanting, searching or contributing to the well being of another.
If love is the answer to my search, then wouldn’t the other’s well being be what determines whether I am searching or not?
Your questions provoke me to consider love as an outreach to another, rather than how I am doing, i.e. searching or not.
Thanks,
dan
September 7th, 2008 at 5:27 am
Thanks Dan!
Two more thoughts came up when reading your comment.
1.Vision
I am really curious if my vision or the future is ever not based on the past. Now I don’t mean based on the past like extrapolate what I’ve done or seen before and take the next step. But even the vision to fly is based on a concept of flying that we have seen in nature (first attempts had movable wings like birds). So I guess there is always a big influence of my past in my vision; it just doesn’t has to limit the possibility.
2. looking for The Answer
I think there is a big tenency in our culture to look for The Answer. It’s like we need to find the right answer before we can move. I know this is part of my life anyway. The search for the answer doesn’t make us a learner necessarily, though. Au contraire! I think most of the time when looking for an answer, I’m searching to become and expert and my learning stops as soon as I have “the right answer”.
So to be a learner might require not to look for answers; either because there is no answer, or because the answer has already been given. In this perspective “Love is the answer” actually motivates me to stop searching for The Truth (to satisfy my need to write my personal catechism or ‘book of true answers’). Now instead of serving my hunger for knowledge, control and looking good, I’m set free and can shift and become a real learner: finding out moment by moment, in a never ending inquiry, what my impact is on the ones I love and what it takes from me to have them experience love. Now my focus is not on ‘finding out’ but on them.
So yes, like you say, now love is an ongoing outreach which requires a different kind of searching.
Cheers, Arwin
September 7th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Arwin,
Thanks for the rigor in your insights. They are powerful and I really appreciate the conversation.
I hear you on the distinction of being influenced by the past. There is no doubt that vision and a very large part of our life together is influenced by the past.
I can’t imagine a vision that isn’t influenced by the past. If you come up with one, I would love to hear it!
It seems the key distinction is between “influenced” and “based upon.” While the vision for man to fly is definitely “influenced” by man’s past involvement with nature, the possibility of maned flight though, seemed to be “based” on a state that had no precedent in nature, it was a future state that had yet to occur (man had never flown), and to actualize it meant to risk death. Man’s awareness of the possibility of death was certainly based on past experience. I think wisdom is “based” on the past and that influences how we engage the unprecedented elements that the vision is based on.
The distinction you made on searching caused an awareness in me about how addicted I am to finding the answers or having the answers. That “need” has often limited my ability to generate intimacy and connection in my relationships. I so appreciate your willingness to reach out!
Much appreciation,
Dan
November 1st, 2008 at 9:48 pm
NEW is inspired by actions from the PRESENT and PAST that has gone wrong. FUTURE and PAST COE EXIST together and they are the difference.. experience is the only factor that decides anything has to be better. that exact difference is the manipulation in perspective. awareness arise from noticing the difference and accepting the NEW.. and they all coralate…
January 14th, 2009 at 5:12 am
Hi Dan and Arwin,
Thank you for this nice conversation. I was curious about the roots of the word “conquer”, because it would make sense to me if love is a search for other people.
That’s why I search for the etymology of the word and indeed, it comes from “con” and “quaerere”. Quaerere means to search or to seek for, but “con” is explained as “together, in combination, in union” or “altogether, completely, totally”.
So, conquer can be “to search together” or “to search completely” rather than “to complete searching” as Arwin pointed out.
If we rephrase Arwins last sentence in his first comment: Once you found love, search together,or search completely”!
Our search will be more intense and bigger (with more people) if we find love! I think this is great!
So are you both, by the way!
Love,
Arjan