If change is for good, let it happen

Pre-Darwinists or post-Darwinists, evolutionists or intellectualists, capitalists or socialists, change has always been a sought after phenomenon among everyone. I'll restrict myself to the intellectual change and also to the change that happens for good, because I can't really have my freedom writing about the other changes. But whatever the change is, it's a fact that if we don't cope up with it, we're only exposing ourselves to some tough time ahead.

I think I've seen four kinds of people with regards to their willingness to change. While I've broadly tried to categorize people here, which in the first place is a wrong attempt by itself, it is fair to note that all of us traverse among these different categories during different confrontations and phases of life.

1. The proud and immutable: These are the people who are partially self-righteous and are very difficult to induce change into. For example, if they believe in something, they're probably going to feel superior about their belief and silly about any other belief that they might reject other beliefs. These are the people who don't seek to rationally evaluate the confrontation.

2. The proud and hungry: These are also the proud people, however they're open to change. For example, if they believe in something, they may or may not feel superior about it but will surely accommodate any other belief, at the least. Sometimes however, these people are a little stuck on not losing what they're that they fail to look at change in an unbiased open manner.

3. The humble and hungry: The crave in these people to know more and grow more is so very evident because they do not let their pride interfere with knowledge. For example, if they have a belief, they know why they believe in it and so will be able to figure out the rationale behind any other belief too. They don't just accommodate other beliefs, they appreciate and accept too.

4. The humble and mutable: These are people who dangerously tread at the border. For example, today they might believe in something while tomorrow it could be something else. They just go far beyond accepting to actually embrace. They may not make popular leaders, but they surely create conducive confrontations.

Trying to find out which category is better is like trying to find out whether the tiger is better or the deer is, in the ecosystem. Everyone has to exist to complete the ecosystem. For the sake of the concluding paragraph of this post, let me try to differentiate personality from character. Personality, I feel, is something with which people try to identify us and is unique to us. Character, I feel, can usually be classified as either a virtue or a vice and is something we imbibe as we go.

I think as long as we save our personality and change our character for good, we're in the right direction. I'm not sure how much it's possible though to disintegrate personality from character, but life is not that simple anyway - sometimes we've to change our personality too. If change is for good, let it happen.

The relative necessity and the absolute luxury

I think it was when news about Ambani's luxurious home in Mumbai penetrated the Indian media, I thought about this again. People had all kinds of abuses about this act of his, which in the first place was very much his personal choice. If you questioned Ambani's choice of building a luxurious home, you're probably not too far from questioning Ambani's choice of getting married, which he obviously made many decades back without anyone's frown.

Let us leave the discussion of evaluating what is personal and what is not to a different post, right now let us focus back on luxury and necessity. I think while we're a little generous talking about necessity in relative terms, we're very scrimpy when it comes to evaluating luxury. This evaluation is even more skewed in a country like India, where the disparity between the rich and the poor is huge. For example, when you buy a small car, there is always someone, who can't afford a motorbike, who thinks you're spending on luxury. When you buy your big car, there are even more people who think so. And when you buy a luxury car, almost the entire country is going to be thinking so.

The value chain of abuses is so complete that it starts right from the slippers and clothes you wear to the cars and houses you own. I think before we start questioning people about the lavish slippers they wear, the pricey clothes they own, the expensive cars they drive, or the luxurious homes they stay in, we should just look behind us for a moment. Before we preach them altruism, we should evaluate if we would sell our car and donate it to the poor. Before we preach them detachment, we should examine if we can stay in a house that is as much cheaper.

If necessity is relative, please let luxury also be relative.