Two Worlds Collide
There are two worlds, and for a short period of time, they occupy the same physical space. This collision, or melding, effects every one of the billions of people on the planet, in different ways. Let's look at two of those people. The first person delves into the melding wholeheartedly, experimenting with the differences between the worlds, and building their life around that in-between space. They deny the transient nature of the meld, continually fighting against the inevitable separation of the two. The second person understands the limitation of time, which is swiftly counting down until the two worlds separate once more, most likely forever. It is with this knowledge in the forefront of their mind that they make their decision to either invest in the meld anyway, or withdraw from it. The first person enjoys stronger emotions, positive and negative, and feels that they are able to extract more from the situation, although they will of course find the separation devastating when the time finally arrives. They'll agonize for a long time afterwards about what could have been, and wish they had only known how to holds the worlds together. Their denial will take many years to properly acknowledge, and they may never fully recover from the fall from Hope's highest tower. The second person remains guarded from the beginning, which protects them from the majority of the pain of the worlds' separation. By never fully embracing to the wonders of the meld, the separation is only a scratch, not an amputation. They'll spend less time exploring the space between the two worlds, and get almost nothing from the situation except a few intriguing stories about the peculiarity of the whole affair. After the collapse, they are able to continue life much as they had been, before the collision occurred. They'll feel sorry for the first person, and their only regret is that they hadn't tried harder to warn them not to invest too much in a fleeting situation. Which person acted correctly, in this scenario? Reading this scenario back, it seems clear to me that Person One is the person that I would follow. The interesting discovery for me was that as I was writing, I actually felt fully aligned with Person Two. This has led me to understand that I do not act how I feel. Whilst I emotionally agree with Person One, I am behaviorally in-line with Person Two. The appeal of behaviorally aligning with Person Two seems obvious. To sit back and watch the meld instead of participate is an inaction - it is the default state. Active participation in something requires thought and courage. It is easy to remain passive, and easy still to justify such passivity. There are any number of reasons to do nothing: - Why worry about something that will disappear soon anyway. - Why set yourself up for a future failure/loss. - Why spend effort on something that may turn out to be a waste of time. - Why expose yourself to a risk when you are comfortable and safe where you are. There's no denying that the above points are true. It is certainly the case that Person One was exposed to more risk, loss and pain than the second person. The separation of worlds threw their life into turmoil, from which they may or may not ever fully recover. Why then, does Person One's actions still feel more preferable to Person Two's? Because being safe and comfortable, counter-intuitively, is not what we truly desire from life. Person One may have lost something irreplaceable, but during the meld, they were a part of something irreplaceable, too. That's an experience that Person Two can only ever hope to have in their safe, fleeting dreams.
- Aluca Sol
