On “time and chance”

On “time and chance”

Here’s a thought.

You meet someone you really like and want desperately to be “the one” (notice I said “want” and not “need” – until the other party agrees the general consensus is – whether people actually say so or not – is that it’s “want” and not “need” – but once both parties agree to be a couple it magically turns to need – this is an over simplification on my part, but it’s an idea that should be explored further with respect to infatuation/obsession which are undesirable “traits” of course).

I digress. So you want this person to be “the one” (or well, you might also feel/know this person is the one), but he/she says no.

You feel you are heartbroken (or something akin to it – or maybe it’s just unfulfilled/frustrated desires and nothing else), but people (both sexes, all religions) say it’s OK, move on, there are many fishes in the sea.

All fine and dandy.

But if that’s the case, why do (the same) people then expect (or hold the view/idea) that the ceremonies of one single day (wedding) with its attendant exchange of vows (during which time you could have got the couple to say almost anything with their emotions running wild and them being on euphoric “highs”) would automatically or magically change that view/belief?

In short one could argue that this view is predicated on the idea that while a person is single it’s OK to believe that people weren’t meant to be faithful to one partner for life but once we eat the jollof rice, that believe must magically change to the opposite? (I know I am exaggerating/over simplifying things – again :-). Human beings aren’t that simple and believes don’t change that easily – just because you recite some words – even religion has had a hard time of it, otherwise we should all be saints but as I was once told (correctly), “there are no saints anywhere”.

The point I am making is that people are “confused” if they (and that’s largely the case) support the above position. You can’t say you believe there’s “the one” for everybody out there and then believe as well that there are many fishes in the ocean (I tend to go with the latter position from a point of view of “time and chance” may ultimately determine who you end up with).

So “we” must choose one. Either:

1. We are not meant to be with one partner for life; there’s nothing like “the one”; and there are many fishes in the ocean,

2. Or, there’s indeed “the one”; and you can be lucky enough to find him/her; and you are expected to be with the person for life.

Thinking about the above a little more, I guess we can add a third possibility or a subgroup of possibility “2” above, which is:

3. If you don’t meet “the one”, then you might not remain (or are under no obligation to remain) with one partner for life.

The issue with 3 of course is that it’s likely to be abused – people are going to use it as justification for everything from emotional laziness (not willing to put in the work when things get rough or the initial spark cools) to just plain sampling something new based on purely animalistic urges (men more than women). Thus, this third possibility will open a Pandora’s box (which we have already been toying with for quite a while going by the rate of divorce and unfaithfulness in the society).

(Personally, my religious self prefers option 2 while thinking 1 and 3 are akin to blasphemy just the same way that the good book says that “God rules in the affairs of men” while mentioning somewhere else that “time and chance” happens to all men and women.)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

4:30AM “rant”. Will (realistically probably not) return to it some day ┬áto explore the subject in more details.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *