 I've been thinking about something recently... Suppose you don't do something or don't attend a certain event and find out after the fact (i.e., upon its conclusion) that what you didn't do was probably for the better. How much assurance do you have that this something would have turned out the same way if we did, in fact, participate or engage in or tried to do something about it? Take this picture for example. This image is a continuation of my series on street photography this week (see the other pictures I have posted this week here and here). I don't have a clever title for this image because I captured the image and moved on elsewhere. But suppose I did something different. Suppose I walked up to the girl and asked her name. Actually, perhaps the first question I would have asked is 'What are you reading?' But I didn't do either of those things, and chose to continue my exploration of New York City (the pictured scene is just outside of Washington Square Park). But if I did have that conversation, do you think the title of this blog post would be different? I want to say yes. I might have had a more interesting story to tell as well. Here's another example. I had the opportunity to go to a Braves game tonight. But after they lost the game last night, I was still reeling from their disappointing loss, and I chose not to go to Turner Field tonight. The Braves ended up losing again (it didn't matter: the Colorado Rockies won their game earlier, so they officially eliminated the Braves from playoff contention). But if I attended the game, might the result have been different? Is it absolutely absurd to believe that perhaps the result might have been different if I had chosen to attend the game? Perhaps I am the only one that thinks like this sometimes. But I will say this: all too often, we look at events in hindsight and generalize. I want to quote two inspiring quotes from one of my favourite books, Milan Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being: Chance and chance alone has a message for us. Everything that occurs out of necessity, everything expected, repeated day in and day out, is mute. Only chance can speak to us. Two takeaways from the quotes above. First, take chances. And second, per the latter quote, we can't be entirely confident in our decisions after the fact, because, as Kundera writes, there is no basis for comparison. Which isn't to say that our lives are (or should follow) some random progression. It's just that taking chances is important, but we cannot be overly confident (or displeased) when things turn out in our favor (or don't). What do you think? Note: the observer which I mention in the title is both the gentleman standing under the lamppost looking at the woman holding the notes and it is also myself, observing this interesting scene. If you are willing to believe it, you are an observer as well. Thanks for looking! |
||
| < | main | comments | archives & galleries | prints | RSS | coolphotoblogs • listed • VOTE | Doors of Prague | hire me | > |
| facebook page | flickr | reading | about | share this! | Tweet | ||
| Copyright © 2006-2011 Erudite Expressions | contact me | ||
| ||