Though no one blinks at the appearance of a ‘new’ technology, the basic conundrum of where our own unique individual ‘selfs’ are derived from defaults to so great a mystery that in the contemporary sense it less often discussed. In fact, by the standard of times past, it is positively ignored. By virtue of the mechanical aspects of the science of genetics, one is told, and by the musings of its dubious half-sister, the amalgam of the behavioral sciences, an idealized model of the individual is statistically re-imagined. Though this declaration might serve the public goals of manifest destiny by the dominant culture, it is insubstantial to the task of explaining those uncommon qualities of presence and uniqueness of same that every living organism is found ultimately to possess. Those special qualities that cannot be reproduced repeatedly ad infinitum in any other. Only someone who completely lacks the quality of empathy could conceive otherwise.
That is comes as no surprise that the inevitable fact of eventual decline and deterioration of the physical aspects of the human body always comes as a shock at some point to its occupant is of itself unremarkable and expected. Yet the will to continue on in the coming light of day as one has in the previous day spent speaks to the question of what lays beneath the simple inertia of existence? ‘Living’ for most at common ‘street level’ includes unconsciously devoting a significant part of the day to the calculation of profit and loss. The ability to instantaneously make a judgement about character and the demeanor of of one’s fellows is still the most significant survival skill that Cybernetic extensions such as the Internet cannot replace. Though it is in vogue to evaluate our own daily operation akin to that of the metaphor of maintaining a plumbing facility, in truth the assessment of persistent habits weighed against the appearance of the ‘unexpected’ is more noteworthy to one’s sense of self. This sort of awareness rewrites the definition of personal destiny that all of us operate under the assumption of in the longterm of continued existence. The context of our own history is in the sense, previously ‘written’.
So what does that leave one to believe in at journey’s end? Are we that ‘WE”, that as part of a greater unit of political usefulness to the amorphous doctrine of the culture currently holding sway? An animated object composed of a basic number of commonly available substances found throughout the universe? Or is there something occurring that promises only to eternally defy definition by any earthly science beyond simple daily experience? The adherence to the persistent daily tension of ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ affecting one’s appreciation of personal destiny as laid down by the inevitable approach of long established habit. One can look endlessly at the mundane if one aspect of the object focused upon violates the accepted convention and inspires the inexplicable phenomena of wonder. Yet how does one survive the sense of strangeness embodied in that object being contemplated if the tables are reversed? What then becomes the major issue of definition in this contest of who gets to choose the most appropriate standard of definition beyond a simple recognition of external traits as interpreted by basic social conventions of black, white, skinny or fat?
Even more confounding is how the external explanation of another ‘self’ immediately poses one’s own definition in contrast to same. The process of evaluation that is automatically exercised presupposing a unique stand yet ignoring perhaps that ‘WE” are all under the same spotlight.