| Context is Not Everything |
Alright, I agree. I overstated it.
Context is not everything. There is more than context, but context
is much more than is generally appreciated. I could go back and edit
the previous chapter, but I won't. I won't edit it because my mind
works this way. I argue with myself. I put out a position. I
reflect upon it. I argue against it.
In a way, this method confirms the
importance of context. Until I wrote the previous chapter, the
context for writing this one did not exist. You read the previous
chapter and formed an opinion of me based upon it, you now see that
your opinion was incorrect. It was as if you had seen me in one and
only one context and took that instance of me as the whole me. If
you did, you were wrong. If you reach a conclusion about me upon
reading this chapter, you've made the same mistake once again. After
all, there is no “real me.” I am not one dimensional. I am not
two dimensional I am not three dimensional. I more than those. I
exist not only in space but in time and at any moment in time I exist
within a multitude of stories, some my own and some the stories of
others.
Back to the point. Let me begin by an
analogy. You have a computer. The computer has a processor that
works within a particular range of speed. Your computer has a
particular amount of permanent storage. The processor within your
computer is of a particular type. If you install one operating
system, your computer will run software designed for the operating
system provided it is installed on your machine and launched. If you
remove the operating system and reboot from a different boot image,
your computer will have a different operating system. It will have
the ability to run different software. It will behave very
differently. Nevertheless, it has the same processor, the same
memory, the same permanent storage. These parts all have the same
capacities. In this sense there is a “real computer” that
persists from one operating system boot to the next different
operating system boot. The processor continues to obey the same
rules. The hard disk continues to store and retrieve data based on
the same hardware protocol. However, is that what we mean by the
“real machine”? When I say, “this is my computer”, do I not
really think of it in terms of both the hardware (its capacities and
underlying nature) and the software (what it does with those
capacities and underlying nature)?
Lets take this further. I plug an
Ethernet cable into my computer's Ethernet adapter and I am now
on-line. My computer now shares its data with the Internet and the
Internet shares its data with my computer. My computer is now part
of a network. Is it the same computer? Physically, it has changed.
It's physical manifestation is no longer limited to the “real
machine” that sits before me. It has become part of a larger
whole. When I visit a website and launch a web application, what is
my machine now? Where does my machine begin and end? If I plug a USB device into my computer, it takes on new abilities, new capacities, and new behaviors. Is it still the same computer?
Are humans not analogous to the
computer in terms of identity? We too can embed ourselves in
networks (social networks). We can love someone and when we do we
become not just who we were while alone, but we become someone who
loves that someone. The boundary of our identity extends to
encompass the other. From the two emerges a new two made from the
original two. This emergence does not negate the individual two, but
it gives rise to a new two. If A and B are in love
with one another, we no longer have only an A and a B,
but we have an A, a B, an A loving B, and a B
loving A. These different modes of being form new identities
which did not before exist. Surely, A will behave differently
than A loving B behaves. Which is the real A? If A
loving B ceases to exist, is A the same A that
existed before A loving B came into existence or do we now
have A having loved B instead?
There are things that a person may
never do because that person does not have the capacity to do that
thing and this will remain true without regard to new identities
arising from social relations. A person who truly believes that one
should never kill, probably will never kill, regardless of what bonds
he or she forms just as a person who cannot carry a tune will never
become a good singer regardless of what song he tries to sing.
With the above in mind, the most
powerful thing you can do to control your destiny is to exert
intelligence in deciding with whom to form bonds and with whom not to
form bonds. After all, this defines part of who it is that you are. The problem, of course, is that no one really knows
anyone. Choosing the right friends, associates, mates, and so on is
as difficult as choosing the right parents. The best you can hope
for is that chance will shine kindly upon you.
|
Copyright � 2008, Stephen DeVoy. All rights reserved. No
permission to reproduce is granted without explicit permission, in
writing, of the author.
|
|