You know how you can look back and point to key decisions or events that seemed to change the course of your life? Sure, you do. All of us can say, “If I hadn’t done such-n-such, I wouldn’t be where I am today”; “If I hadn’t missed that opportunity, I would be rich.”
I’m thinking of Susan Boyle’s first audition on Britain’s Got Talent that I recently saw on YouTube. Had Susan not seized the moment at age 47, she might have remained anonymous, a good voice in a village, maybe occasionally performing in the background for a wedding reception. (Margaret: "Who was that lady singer?" Henry: "There was a singer at the reception?") Her performance was one of those special moments that launched a professional career and worldwide fame. Did she know the significance of that moment at that moment? True, she was elated, but she could not have seen that step one leads down a path of many unforeseen steps along unexpected twists and turns.
In your own life, did you know at “that moment” that it was “that moment”? Probably not, even if you were pleased and suspected great (or bad) things to come. It’s in retrospect that we assess any moment’s significance. And that principle applies to today. Are these historic times?
NOT YET. Will they be among those times that others down the path of time will point to as ultra-significant? You have to live to know.
In every political season, the hyperbole rings like a cathedral’s carillon over the rooftops. “These are historic times”; “These are the times that will decide the future”; and similar statements made in every free society.
Yet, we truly live the butterfly effect, an incident here or there exploding into a larger context, as in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 that set World War I in motion and cost millions their lives. But aren’t all times times that decide the future? Although we can in our knowledge of history anticipate the possible ramifications of today’s events and actions, we cannot predict their exact probabilities. In our daily lives, we are very much like the physicist who wants to know where the electron is going, but who is limited to saying that it has a probability of being “somewhere” in this vicinity. In the moment, our macro lives mirror the quantum world.
So, what are we to conclude? Try this. The future isn’t singular, but it’s also not multiple. There is simultaneously, like Shrödinger’s cat in the unopened box, a future that is both alive and dead. As for a future determined by today’s “moment,” you can hypothesize, but, in reality, you’ll just have to wait to see. Historic times? Aren’t all times potentially historic?
I’m thinking of Susan Boyle’s first audition on Britain’s Got Talent that I recently saw on YouTube. Had Susan not seized the moment at age 47, she might have remained anonymous, a good voice in a village, maybe occasionally performing in the background for a wedding reception. (Margaret: "Who was that lady singer?" Henry: "There was a singer at the reception?") Her performance was one of those special moments that launched a professional career and worldwide fame. Did she know the significance of that moment at that moment? True, she was elated, but she could not have seen that step one leads down a path of many unforeseen steps along unexpected twists and turns.
In your own life, did you know at “that moment” that it was “that moment”? Probably not, even if you were pleased and suspected great (or bad) things to come. It’s in retrospect that we assess any moment’s significance. And that principle applies to today. Are these historic times?
NOT YET. Will they be among those times that others down the path of time will point to as ultra-significant? You have to live to know.
In every political season, the hyperbole rings like a cathedral’s carillon over the rooftops. “These are historic times”; “These are the times that will decide the future”; and similar statements made in every free society.
Yet, we truly live the butterfly effect, an incident here or there exploding into a larger context, as in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 that set World War I in motion and cost millions their lives. But aren’t all times times that decide the future? Although we can in our knowledge of history anticipate the possible ramifications of today’s events and actions, we cannot predict their exact probabilities. In our daily lives, we are very much like the physicist who wants to know where the electron is going, but who is limited to saying that it has a probability of being “somewhere” in this vicinity. In the moment, our macro lives mirror the quantum world.
So, what are we to conclude? Try this. The future isn’t singular, but it’s also not multiple. There is simultaneously, like Shrödinger’s cat in the unopened box, a future that is both alive and dead. As for a future determined by today’s “moment,” you can hypothesize, but, in reality, you’ll just have to wait to see. Historic times? Aren’t all times potentially historic?
RSS Feed