I was once asked in an interview to describe change; the only word that came to me was “magic”.   That’s it… one word.

Looking back now, years later.  I think I was right… magic is the word that still comes closest.  You know what they say; first thought, best thought.

As it turns out, my life’s work has emerged as an elaboration on this theme.

So let’s talk change.

The problems with common sense notions

So what’s the problem with our common sense idea of the change process?   In a nutshell, the problem is we think we know what it is.  That’s because there’s a common sense feel we have when defining of it.

Our definitions go something like this; first there’s one thing, then there’s something new in it’s place.  Conclusion: changed has occurred.

But there’s danger lurking in this type of thinking.  Our common sense notion gets in the way of looking further; why bother, we already know what it is… everyone does.

But in reality, we haven’t touched upon the essence of change.  And we haven’t noticed the miss-step.

Oh boy, the problems with common sense!

The problems with scientific research

And now with our increasingly sensitive instruments, we can delude ourselves even further into thinking we’re increasing our understanding.

Since we’re getting deeper and smaller, it seems as if we’re getting down to a more fundamental level

With these sophisticated devices, we can detect really subtle phenomena in real time: things like neurons firing in altered patterns, hormones or transmitters being activated and released, blood chemistry changing, and a whole myriad of other physiological switcheroos.

But do neurological firing patterns define change… or are they just the deeper biological counterpart to “first there’s this, then there’s that” kind of thinking?  I dare say, all we’re doing is looking at subtler after-effects; but we’re not any closer to understanding the nature of change, itself.

So what is it?  Is it something even more fundamental?  Something more magical, perhaps?

Here’s my take.

The problems with language

First of all, I think we miss the mark because our language has the funny habit of creating nouns out of process words.  We do this with all sorts of words; depression, anxiety, relationship, communication and of course, change.  Then we begin to relate to these fluctuating movements as if they were solid things.

But change is not a thing. Not a noun, not a static, solid object, not even a single point in time.  It’s a process.  It flows, moves, pulsates, vibrates, resonates, entrains, envelops, expands, contracts, regenerates, disperses, evaporates… along with all the other action verbs you can think of.

Can we use words to describe something indescribable?

So what is it?  OK, I have no choice but to use words ( ah, the paradox)… but here goes: I think it’s a vibrational shifting process that lives in the ephemeral never-never land of the most unformulated reaches of our humanity… or something poetic like that.

I hypothesize that change takes place fully out of consciousness… somewhere in the gaps between thoughts or maybe in the vast open reaches of a cell’s atomic structure.  I know, nebulous, right?

The problems with force

Because the change process is activated in this no-thought, matter-less land, we can’t will or force it to happen; it happens on it’s own when conditions are right… out of sight and way past the realm of  logical analysis.  It’s simply beyond what thought can think… which is why we become so willingly satisfied with our common sense notion.  It’s comforting… makes us feel like we have some control, some choice.

But guess what? It’s all an illusion.

This stuff used to scare me, but I’ve changed. Get it?  Ha-ha.

If you liked this article check out Part 2 and Part 3