The Resistance of Change

The definition of resistance is the act or power of opposing or withstanding. Resistance is measured in the electrical world as the ratio of voltage across an object to current through the object. Conductivity is the ratio of current across an object to voltage through the object. Taking into account Newton’s Laws of motion there is a certain probability that force applied to create a new direction, or to stop or start a motion, will influence an object permanently into a desired new pattern of movement. This probability includes the F = ma equation factors (Force, mass, and acceleration) and the exponential decay constant. A decisive new pattern of movement will have a certain probability of achieving permanency and retaining the new pattern against acting forces of further change, decaying change, or loss of conductivity.

In establishing permanent change, dramatic movement has less of a resistance to change than smaller increments of pattern shifts. Resistance of change may not always differ according to varying scale, differentiation, or suddenness of changes.

The Theory of Evolution demands that our species be adaptable. Adaptations only persevere if they are effective in the uses required to maintain them. Resistance to change loses the possibility of evolving to survive when other factors change independently of our own.

The resistance of change is a further question than the evidence of an adaptation’s perseverance. To determine resistance of change several factors need to be considered:

  • Mutability
  • Resiliency
  • Endurance
  • Constancy

We question the resistance to change in many ways. More important is the resistance of change. This affects the permanency of everything we do. A sculptor creates his images in stone. These images last longer than a sculptor’s images created in wet clay.

A preoccupation of modern man is preservation. We have found ways to preserve our art forms, our decaying materials, and our changes. Mankind is looking hard at change and seeking ways to keep what was before, even after change is affected.

Imagine a conscious will, capable of changing, evaluating changes, and reassembling the percentage of change acceptable- with the capability of re-establishing pre-change conditions when change is found non-conducive to existing conditions. The resistance of change would have to be one hundred percent. The resistance to change would have to be close to zero. The preservation of change would become an at-will function.

When discussing change in a social body of peoples, I believe it is valid to expect there will be a certain resistance of change. According to Newton’s Laws of motion, one motion is only achieved by uniformity. Social change must be a willful change. We must not be afraid to try the things that mean adaptations that may be useful. I believe we must also not find ourselves devoid of resistance of change so that all that was before is not lost and we retain or regain the answers that adaptations prove less useful in achieving. New ideas are not as frightening when old ones are not lost.

-Kimberly A. McKenzie


Black and White, Gay or Straight?

The world is not color blind and ignorant of choice. I have neighbors who are an African American and white mixed couple. I have worked for a company that promoted a club for bi-sexual and gay people in the workplace so that we could all “understand” ourselves. To understand my point of view, there are three things to know:

1) I believe people are allowed to choose according to their sexual orientation and preferences their own partners. I am not gay or bi-sexual; I am heterosexual. I do not participate in most cross-cultural or intra-cultural dating, although I have tried it once or twice (why I found it does not work too well for me). I find my soft spot has always been most weak in the knees for blue eyed blonde men….this is not a sin. In a world where “embracing our differences” is supposed to be enlightened, I am not judgmental of the preferences of others, but I am not quite okay with the condemnation of my own.

2) People that do not find compatibility in their life-styles and levels of social involvement do not work out well together. I am divorced. My ex-husband was a high school teacher and an athletic director. I put my writing behind me to try the social etiquette of wife, working for the children’s events and social functions while holding down jobs of my own to help our own income. I found both of us miserable in part because I gave up on my own life and writing for two years to do this correctly. I do need people. I do not need to abandon my own answers to have people. I married a man not so well off, I dated a man very well off. I find that the money in the wallet is not as important as the need to value the things in our lives that are important to us that we have in common. For example: I value my home, not my freedom to travel around without one. Someone that would like to live in a RV and journey all around the United States is not a good fit for me.

3) Differences are as crucial as similarities. Dating sites try to “match up” like with like profiles. E-harmony kicked off my profile as one of the “20% that could not correctly be matched up”. None of us are exactly alike. In my last serious relationship, I would always buy two tickets to wine tastings and my boyfriend would not usually ever show up. He hated the events. I still went on my own. People do not always enjoy the same things, they do not always have the same religions even though they are together (my ex-husband was Presbyterian and I was not), they do not always agree on their politics. Differences do not mean that we have nothing in common or that we cannot be together. We do need to enjoy one another.

Life-partners find better together.