Today ‘we’ debated. For how long, I’m uncertain; however, what I do know is that I was left with more questions than answers. Everyone had their own interpretations, their own p.o.v. (point of view) and they argued/defended their part well (or relatively so). We had those who believed in randomness as it was a simplistic explanation. We had those (who were most likely science majors!) who declared that truth was absolute, and that things in life were interconnected as they were governed by rules (ie. Gravity is around 9.8 meters per second2). There were others who claimed that all events in life were controlled, or at least influenced, by God. And still others who held other interesting views which I will not elaborate upon as I don’t remember them too well.
Every comment fascinated me though, as there was always an ounce of ‘truth’ to each one. However, as an agnostic I wasn’t persuaded much by the ideology of an omnipotent god or being acting as the puppet master behind everything (from the rules governing ‘our world’ to how ‘we’ act). I didn’t like the idea of having “something” out there granting ‘rewards’ or ‘punishment’ based on what ‘it’ (or should I say “He”?) thought was right or wrong. Maybe that’s why at first I wanted to support the idea of randomness. Not because it was a simple answer, but because it allowed for spontaneity? The thought of having my life guided by “fate” didn’t exactly seem extremely appealing. But after hearing from a few more people I began to consider the idea of synchronicity. Maybe I didn’t fully understand what it meant at first, and maybe that’s why the concept of it wasn’t so intriguing. I can see why we’d want to see connections between everything. (I know I’m generalizing here) We want to know that our existence has a meaning and that our actions have significance to some extent. Knowing that our actions had affected something (sometimes no matter how small) brings satisfaction, hence the notion of synchronicity may be, in a way, reassuring. Making this claim, however, does not mean that I can spot a connection between two events, say 9/11 and the Columbia incident.
Personally, though, the opinion that I ‘resonated’ most with was the interpretation that life consisted of a “series of random events”. Now that I think about it, I’m not quite sure why I did; possibly because it seemed to merge the two ideas (coincidence and synchronicity). The “random events” part reflects coincidence, where as the “series” component shows that there is still some connection between each event? (this may not explain my idea all that well). So although the events are random and not controlled by any outer force, there exists some relationship between each coincidental occurrence. So for example, I dropped a banana by accident, then a day later I drank a cup of apple juice. Although there is no direct relationship between the two, we can find seek for connections, such as they both involved fruits, were done by me, et cetera. So the bottom line is everything depends on each individual’s perceptions, which are in turn influenced by their backgrounds, beliefs, and other environmental or biological factors. It would be nice at times if things were all “black and white” or had absolute answers, so there would be less dispute, however, it be a little dull without all our “intellectual debates” don’t ya think?
P.S. Found a rather interesting image. Wonder if anyone can decipher it?
Art, Science & Technology 