|
change
What are your views on change?
Do you think change is neccessary?
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Miscellaneous category?
Maybe give some free advice about: Random Weirdos?
Unless a situation in harmful, there's no need to force change - the flow of life will do it for you.
]
If you mean the concept...
Then change is the most fundamental law of the universe. I consider it up there with time and space, because it is as necessary and constant.
If you mean the money...
Not really. I find it annoying, and I'm sure some smart person could find some way for us to do away with it.
]
If it's needed..
It's like the Magna Carta. It was written because King John was abusing his powers with his military campaigns and heavy taxes. The people weren't happy so change would be made.
So an army of barons forced him to sign it. He had to obey the law on which he signed- which limited the king's power.
So everyone was happy.
It is neccessary.
Like in the Magna Carta.. there's a council of people with high rank to meet at a certain time. They havelike a 40 days notice to get there and keep the laws going.
So if they didn't get the whole "40 days notice" .. King John could have tried to get more power and would have decided things with himself. Made people's lifes hard like before with taxes.
Some change is good and sometimes it's bad.
It just depends on how you use it/look at it.
For criminals back then,
it would have been bad because they could not just imprison/hurt someone they disliked.
]
Change is only necessary when you've slightly overpaid for something and need some money back.
]
yep -- at my school, we're writing some paper and we have to include something about change.
ask you grandparents if you don't get a good answer on here; they're great to ask.
my view on change personally though is that in some cases, it is neccessary. it can either be great or terrible.
"people don't resist change -- they resist being changed."
]
Without change the world would be a very boring place. In fact, if there was absolutely no change, the universe wouldn't exist, since the big bang wouldn't have happend. Humans wouldv've never evolved. None of the governments would be around. We'd be stuck under this capitalist regime forever.
From [Link](Mouse over link to see full location):
Destruction is a measurement of change. A change that from certain perspectives
appears to be the deconstitution of elements that formerly composed an element that
they came together to create. This dispersion of elements may have any form of
destructive cause, what the result is though, and what it is when one usually classifies
something as being destroyed, is when there is a recognizable disintegration of
connectivity that once held elements together in a singular form. In what ways those
elements disperse is a matter of circumstance and perception. What is classified as
destruction is the dispersal itself, the breaking down of one into many.
This is a natural process. It is as a season that all elements will eventually find their
current form entering into. It is not necessary to fear this process as it often times is as
it is a regular event. It is the coming of change. It is the process of change. The
shedding of old skin. The redispersal of parts so they may combine in new ways to
create the blooming of something new. This new thing need not always be a dramatic or
even noticeable thing, nor does the destruction that accompanies it mean certain death
or doom. What dies is an old form, what is doomed is stagnation.
Each act of destruction works with the presence of the elements in which it interacts
with. Those elements exist; therefore their message is continual despite their
interaction with a destructive conception. They, with the influence of destruction,
simply change form, they become something new. What they will become has many
influential factors based upon the circumstance and elements of circumstance.
- [Link](Mouse over link to see full location)
]
More Questions: |