I want to take a break from our and/or discussion to talk about change. Change is something we can always write about on various levels. But let me begin with a phenomenological/existential examination and seque from there into a logical analysis.
Since I live in a fairly well populated city, New York, let us start from my daily walk to work. A block into my walk, I pass a person I have never seen before. A half a block later, I may pass a person I have seen before, but have never seen at this spot or at this time of day. The cars I pass are parked in different spots. Today, by chance, I didn't have to stop at the traffic light at Atlantic Avenue, whereas yesterday I did. Let us assign a letter to each of these events. For example, A = seeing Joe a block from my house. B = seeing Mary a block and a half from my house etc. The alphabet is quickly exhausted, and we have to start assigning double and triple and quadruple letters to each event, such as AA equaling seeing a fume belching truck at Pacific street. Many of these events are new. In other words, change, in its own way, is constant. But most of it passes by unnoticed.
We can call the above events, micro events. And they are subsets of larger events; i.e. going to work each day, arriving by a certain time etc. These larger events, which can also be assigned letters, (we can use bold faced or underlined letters), are the events in which there is relatively little variability. And when these macro events change, such as when we change jobs, move, etc., we notice. A person may notice, and if he/she is relatively strong or resilient, change will not change that person. There are times, of course, when a change in one's personality or being that comes as a result of external change, may be beneficial, and not a sign of weakness at all.
But I digress, because I must relate my phenomenology of the study of change to the study of andorian reality. For in our examination of micro-events, seeing Joe at Sackett Street, Sally at Kane Street, we see the presence of the "or", the newness of being, which we by and large close our eyes to but is nevertheless there.
In the continuity of macro events, i.e. working at this employer etc., we see the "and". And, as always, the continuity and presence of the "and" gives birth to the "or." These micro events would not take place without the continuity of the "and", i.e. going to work each day etc. The continuity of the "and" also puts these micro events into context, i.e. I see Joe while walking to work at my job at..., I see Sally while walking to my job at etc. The "and" both gives birth to and connects these micro events, in which we see the "or".
Intense and sometimes transformative change, occurs when the continuity of the "and" is broken, and replaced, for a moment, by the "or". Sometimes it is one of these micro events or these "or" events, that causes this break in continuity. For instance, I may be hit by a truck on my way to work. During my work day, I may have handled something in a way that caused me to get fired.
Thus, we typically see this sequence: The continuity of the "and" giving birth to the micro events of the "or". The "or" or one of these micro-events causing a break in the continuity of the "and". And, ironically, the resulting "or", gives birth to a new "and". For example, after I get fired from my job, there is a new routine created by unemployment, such as looking for jobs in various ways, online for example, visiting the unemployment office, etc. And then, hopefully, one of these micro events becomes significant, seeing such a job online leading to a break in the continuity of unemployment, a new "or" giving birth to a new "and".
So what came first, the "and" or the "or"?
No comments:
Post a Comment