Is Change possible without admitting Error?

What a question..."Is change possible without admitting error!"  Is it an important question?

To define the discussion, let us assume that change made as a result of our own evaluation process is a change made by choice.  That is not strictly true, but space requires a condensing of the discussion. And let us also stipulate that change imposed by other people or outside events  are not "choice" driven.  With those boundaries in place, let us consider the question again.

There are two different kinds of changes we make in our lives;  First, we change to choose a better path or result; Second, we change to avoid a bad result that is contrary to our intention.  The first is an improvement and the second is an avoidance.  That is all well and good...but do we have to acknowledge that fact?  I would suggest that the change to improve the result often is not consciously acknowledged...unless it is in the business world.  If it is in the business world, that evaluation is often trumpeted as proof of ability to evaluate and succeed, so not only is it acknowledged, it is headlined to the public as well as in our own consciousness, and is not seen as labeling the initial direction as "wrong" but merely as an "interim" step in "doing the job right."

But...what if the change is imposed upon you by your superior at work?  Now the change is not your discovery or choice at all.  Yes, of course you will (it is your bosses command, after all) make the change and you will attempt to do your best to make it happen...but will your effort be the same 110% that you would have put in if it had been your discovery?  I would argue that it depends on whether you are able to admit that the first direction was in error, even if only by degree, acknowledge that fact, and commit to the new process or goal.  Otherwise, your effort will be something less than it could be.

So...when a change is imposed upon you it is logical that it will be less than optimally successful unless you can see that the original direction was in error.  Applied to the current discussion, "No, change is not possible without admitting error!"

What about our private life decisions and paths?  Those changes which we determine are appropriate...all by ourselves (or, at least not imposed by others) are likely to be successful.  But...do we acknowledge that the original path or choice was "wrong?"  No...I suggest that does not often happen.  But our subconscious mind does play games with us, doesn't it?  The "new" choice is better and the "old" one abandoned...at least in part...as "no longer being optimum!"  Isn't that just a polite way of saying that the "old" choice is now seen as "wrong?"  I think the answer is, "Yes, we do acknowledge error in the original choice and once again optimize the change because we do see the improvement and accept responsibility for ourselves to make the change happen.

However, now the trick question: "Does this apply to politics and voting?"

I argue that not only does it apply, but that history proves that it applies.  Just looking at the current administration (one could make the same observations about each and every other one, with the same result) we can see that a choice of who to vote for had been made twice.  The first was by and large an acceptance of a promise for "Hope and Change" in which specifics were never provided; each of us imagined that the definitions of "Hope" and of "Change" by the candidate were the same as ours.  For many, that was clearly not so.  Yet at the next election, the result was the same.  And dialogues after the second election showed that most people were unable to admit that their expectations were in error.  The majority of voters were not able to come to terms with their own error in evaluating campaign promises and character, much less commit to any change.  Only now, after almost 7 years of facing the facts on a daily basis does it appear from polls that the majority of voters are beginning to admit "error" to any degree, no matter how small.

Many in our country prefer that our subconscious deal with admitting error and putting it in an acceptable format before bringing it to consciousness.  Perhaps all of us do!  Either way, I suggest that no change is ever possible or successful without admitting error in the preceding choice, and denial only slows the correction.

Does Socialist Governing make for a resigned populace?

During my life I have had opportunities to visit many different countries.  Many of them were, at the time of my visit, ruled by governments that were Socialist in nature...some even coming close to Dictatorships.  And, over time, I have noticed a peculiar constancy of national attitude:  the level of "contentedness" is the inverse of the level of personal freedoms.  The higher the level of government control of personal and business life, the lower the level of happiness and the higher an attitude of "resignation."

There have been volumes written about the financial toll as well as the results of Socialist, Marxist and even Communist governing.  And one finds it hard to disagree with the fact that those types of governments have always ultimately failed...usually after having exhausted the earnings and savings of the "rich" to finance government benefits.  It is undeniable that during this period of governance there is a sense of "happiness" and contentment with this approach.

One difficulty with all of this is that during this period of euphoria over low cost or "free" benefits, the majority become accustomed to doing less work, lowering production as well as efforts to succeed; after all, the government is guaranteeing an acceptable existence without any consequences from failed performance...one need not "earn" anything.  It is, indeed, the good life...apparently.  And people adjust to that attitude.

But ultimately life demands the discovery and acknowledgement that there is no such thing as "free" anything...lunch, government benefits, guarantees, etc.  This is not a "happy" discovery, even to those who know in their depths of soul what the truth is...no one enjoys playing life's equivalent of Musical Chairs when the loser finds his family going hungry, without housing, and having lost the knowledge and conditioning to be independent.

Many of those nation states then turn to anarchy and slowly develop new government entities that for a time do not forget the lessons of the previous experience.

This commentary is NOT about those.

There are nations that even after the early blush of easy benefits continue to support a Socialist style governing...it usually has some democratic element, such as elections and the appearance or fact of some popular representation, yet applying the leveling elements of a Socialist environment.  Much of Europe is governed in this manner.

One of these nations is Norway.  My father immigrated to the United States almost a century ago; he waited for years and had to have a sponsor that guaranteed that he had a job ready for him, and had a place to live, and generally could show that he would not be a burden to the government or to anyone if he were allowed to come to the United States.  In due course he became a citizen...and held the United States in high esteem for the rest of his life; we were told that while our heritage was important, we were first and finally Americans and this was our country and to which we owed our total allegiance.  We were here to be a part of the American existence, not to complain or try to change it.

Why did he come to America?  Because he was from a family that had fallen on hard times, with the early and unexpected death of his father.  Norway guaranteed an existence.  He would never have gone hungry.  He would never not have had a job.

But...he could never have improved his existence.  He couldn't save enough to buy property and build a house...the taxes were too high.  Sure, that meant that he never had to pay for Doctors or hospital or elderly care services.  But he could not improve his personal existence.  The governmental system protected his status, but did not allow him the financial freedom to improve it.

America guaranteed nothing...BUT the chance, the opportunity, to risk all but allow him the reward as well as the consequences of his own efforts.  THAT is what America used to offer; it is the essence of a Capitalistic and Democratic governing status.

That opportunity to succeed on the basis of your individual efforts...as well as the risk of failure...is what makes democracies different from Socialist nations.  And that governing approach encourages an optimistic point of view as well as the total effort to succeed on a self-reliant basis.  For my father and for many of his friends, a government guarantee would have been an insult...an indication that someone thought they weren't good enough to succeed on their own, that they were "less-than" others.  Even during the Great Depression, my father did whatever work he could find and never once doubted that he would survive and ultimately succeed.  Even during that period, my father remained optimistic, knowing...believing...that the hard times would pass and he would then succeed.

His attitude was the same that our Founding Fathers must have had; they wanted independence, not patriarchal or matriarchal care and governance.

Americans always have complained...but they also found much to support their internal happiness.  For every element in their lives that were a challenge, there was one or more that provided a source of happiness, of opportunity, of joy.  No one problem was insurmountable.

In socialist nations the government is the single, overwhelming element in your life;  if you have a problem and the government cannot "fix" it, it will never be fixed.  You are locked into a level of existence and, while that might be insured, you will rarely be able to change it or improve your place in that society.  And that promotes a certain sense of resignation and even sadness that colors your existence.  Oh sure, there are celebrations and moments of joy...but they are temporary and often seem transparently unable to hide the underlying sense of having to be satisfied with what and where you are.

Lately, I have found myself looking around and growing sad as so many Americans seem to be coming to the conclusion that their only choice is to take what the government can provide, feeling uneasy but finally accepting the not-always-so-slow incursion of government into their lives, regulating how they can live, what they can say, what they can read or hear, who or what they may worship in public.  Like wild pigs, they are becoming comfortable with being fed, instead of foraging on their own, and ignore the erection of a fence on one side of the food, to be followed by the erection of a second side...and so on, until they will find that they have allowed themselves to be imprisoned and no longer have any freedom of choice at all.  And then they, too, will feel what my father felt so long ago in Norway; an imprisoned existence.  And there will be no "United States of America" to hold the promise of a different way of life.

An Admittion

I admit to a habit.  I sit at my keyboard 2 or 2 1/2 hours a day.  Usually it is practice, but several days a week I volunteer at Senior Centers her in Santa Fe where I play an old 6 ft. grand.   it allows me to remember the joy or playing on a real piano.  I sold my 5 ft. grand when I moved here.  I love my keyboard.  I can hear the sound of up to 124 instruments on it. set it to do percussionkl, and it has the keyboard feel of a piano.  But...it isn't the same.  However, I can sit a my keyboard or at a piano for many hours and never come away tired.  I come away energized.

I suffer from depression.  I always have.  I didn't know that until late in life, and I was given medication.  It took away my depression.  It also took away my joy.  I decided to deal with it myself and gave up the medication.  It was difficult.  It is still difficult.  I am dealing with it now ... and it will go on for the next two or four weeks.  But...I will survive.  I always will.  And it is music that will save me.

Music for me is a substitution for words and for emotions...it is a substitute for what others use as an expression of their feelings...hidden from most.   I can remain real, ... yet remain hidden and private from most.  Hopefuly, it all remains subtle...