There are two worlds, and for a short period of time, they overlap 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 changes between the two worlds, and builds their life around the in-between. They deny the transient nature of the meld, and continually fight against the inevitable separation neccessitated by the universe.
The second person understands the limits, or at least that they exist in a discreet, unchangeable way - this includes the limit of time, which is swiftly counting down until the two worlds separate once more, most likely forever. With this in the forefront of their mind, they make their decision to invest in the meld, 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 find the separation devastating when the time finally arrives. They agonise for a long time afterwards about what could have been, and wish they had only known how to holds the worlds together. The acceptance of their denial takes many years to properly aknowledge, and they may never fully recover from the fall from Hope's highest tower.
The second is guarded from the majority of the pain of this separation. By never opening themselves to the possibilities of both worlds, the removal of those possibilities is only a scratch, not an amputation. They spend less time exploring the space between 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 occured. They 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 situation known to be fleeting.
Which person acted correctly, in this scenario?
Reading it now, it seems like a no-brainer. Person one is the person that I would follow. The interesting discovery for me was that as I was writing it, I actually felt fully aligned with person two.
I realise that I am split, and whilst I spiritually agree with person one, I am behaviourally in-line with person two. I do not act how I feel.
I suppose that this is because person two's path is easier. It's one of inaction, no change, and safety.
There have been a few situations in my life recently where I think that I should have considered the choice between action and inaction more thoroughly. It can take many forms, and often disguises itself behind voices of expectation, fear, or common sense.
Take note of how you felt whilst reading the above scenario. What person do you most identify with? Does it depend on the situation? Who's voice do you hear in your head when needing to decide between action and inaction - between commiting yourself to a thing or just watching it glide by.
If you had the chance to live those moments again, would you act (or not act) differently?
My hope is that this post encourages you think more about your decision making process next time you find yourself at a crossroads.
This originally moved into an exploration of our tendency towards loss aversion, as well as the arbitrary nature of decisions, but I will save that for a separate post, so as to not detract from what is written here so far.
- Aluca Sol 