I looked in dictionaries for a definition of “consistency”.
How beautiful it is to be seen in the light of coherence. This quality is fascinating.
My research comes from this: a lighting that could define the boundaries and limits of a term, or rather a way of being with which we consciously or unconsciously come to terms with several times in a day.
Well I must say that all the dictionaries, faced with so much matter, have adopted a “Pilatesque” attitude.
One definition for many, all quite similar: “fidelity of a person to his principles, constant conformity between his words and his actions”.
They do not measure the coherence potential. In my own small way, I try, starting from an assessment that links coherence to the times of the story. Compared to today, I think the coherence concept has changed its skin throughout history. The rhythm of the past slowness mutations has helped the principle of coherence, understood as such the static one, proper to everyone’s imagination. It was easier, in the static, the coherence of immutable thoughts, otherwise in an era of speed and rapidity of changes of our times, coherence has a different value, in my opinion better, albeit more severely tested. Today, if we want to activate a positive vision of the concept, we must first identify its less static and immobile meanings.
We have to remove the concept of perennial position from the field, which can cause so much damage. Even in a temporal sense, we must think that coherence requires time to be recognized. In a certain period we will be recognized as the measure of our coherence in the linear and recognizable way that we have managed to maintain, in our works and thoughts, a linearity between behaviour and thought.
An adequacy that ethically we must be the ones to match as much as possible with what we really think in the most intimate and deepest thoughts. If there is no coherence in these, we run the risk of being proven wrong.
Today practicing coherence must mean the intimate legitimacy of change, of ideas and perspectives, a symptom of vitality and intelligence. A first fixed point: being coherent therefore is also change, representing what we are in any case, no masks. We are, changing over time, what we think, say and do: recognizable elements of our coherence, consequently of our being worthy of esteem and dignity. In all of this without having to compromise, without obstinacy or pride, the negative, pathological aspects of coherence, or rather, everything that is not coherence. A second fixed point: coherence must not be a cage from which we cannot get out, compromising our values and thoughts. We must not justify our mistakes with the excuse that at least we are consistent. We have to get out of the wrong corner. By confusing rigidity with consistency, we undermine strong relationships, we are weak in the face of the potential for the unexpected, we put our projects at risk and ultimately amplify our anger and frustration.
In the name of consistency, we can’t do that!
