Q: The fundamental difference between changing and improving is, as you describe it, changing to what is going to work, and to improve is to improve by adding layers. Is this correct?
A: To change would mean to divide oneself between the working and the not working. And to improve oneself would mean to work off the “already working” and then add layers.
Q: And you say that in the past, society has displayed the latter method?
A: That is correct, because though technology has not allowed for better results for medicine, we were improving drastically through artistry. And in today’s time, what is seen as useful is, of course, knowledge. Artistry is not at all useful, because things which produce emotion, like a painting or music is inherently useless. The word “useless” of artistry is related to how a human would not “make use” of a loved one, unless they’d put them to work.
Q: And you say that during the current times, society has displayed the former method?
A: The former method, meaning to change oneself, is the enactment of changing between the “working” and the “not working”. Artistry is inevitably lost in a society that gains more touch with the “useful” over the “useless”. Is a woman at all “useful” if they are held in a home, without anything to reveal use? They soon become useful, and are never truly loved. It is because love is stagnant, unchanging, as it is never meant to be anything other than love. To love is to love forever, and for this reason, it is why previous scientific methods were seen as inferior to the current ways, because “improvement” was not made for science, though was made consistently for art. To “change” is to merely change, and to do no more than swap between the “working” and the “not working”, until one eventually and inevitably settles on “working”. It is because one wishes to be seen as useful in a society that operates like a singular machine.