Numbers: Day 41

[S+B] Is this Jim Carrey starring in the 2007 thriller? (41,472 / 1,000,000)

Inside a blank, featureless void (where does one find one of those?) exists a foot. Attached to the foot, a leg. From the end of the leg sprouts a man. The man, unperturbed by the apparent lack of anything other than himself, walks. Where he steps, there is no ground to support his weight — he is in, after all, a featureless void. The man notices, however, that wherever he places his foot, another identical foot steps from below to meet his. Where his foot descends, the other’s sole rises to meet it, applying equal and opposite force upon it. The pressure of one footfall against the other perfectly balances between the two, allowing the men to walk. With each step, the soles part, only to rejoin each other moments later.

In this fashion, the man is able to traverse the void. He walks alone but for his counter companion, his parallel partner. The question which might not pop into his mind, but which might pop into ours, is: who is the reflection? Are the two men one man? Why is there a man (or two) in an otherwise featureless void? Okay, that was three questions.

The man exists, of that much, he is sure. But the mirror-self, the place where his feet find purchase — does it exist? Are they two identical men, walking through a featureless void together, perfectly mirroring their movements through happenstance or otherwise? Or is there one man, walking along a mirrored surface in an otherwise featureless void? The man proclaims his existence to his companion, only to receive an identical proclamation in return.

On one hand, if the man were to count himself as existing but not the other, then he would exist alone in a featureless void with nothing but an infinite mirror upon which to walk. That is a rather unlikely place to find a man, he may think. On the other hand, there could be two people walking through a featureless void together, each moving identically yet opposite the other, enabling each of the two to move through the void. To what end, neither knows. An equally far-fetched scenario to match the first.

---

Which is the most important number? One is too obvious, inelegant. Infinity could be argued, but that feels like a cop-out. Three, after the Holy Trinity or the Three Treasures of Buddha? Pi? No, Two is the definitive answer. So dictates the omnipotent overlord of this blog. So claims the powerless being of limited human perception.

The significance of Two is deeply ingrained in our perceptions. The significance of Two resides so deep in our psyches that its neighbors are the likes of something and nothing. Now that I mention it, maybe the pair — something and nothing — reside inside the home of Two. Who else may live in the house of Two? Sun and Moon, light and dark, left and right, up and down? The stench of Two-ness may be whiffed in any cranny where one thinks to stick their nose.

The existence of a limited perception, that which we can all be said to possess, definitionally splits reality in two. There is the self — the limited perception, and there is the other – everything else. From my head to my toes, I am one. Though I may be composed of many other things, the awareness which inhabits and controls my being is singular. That singular existence, if I were an omniscient and omnipotent being, would force me to conclude that the significance of One reigns supreme. Alas, I am but an individual with a limited perspective¹. As such, I am forced to conclude that there exists at least one thing outside of myself, that being all of everything which I do not consider to be me.

This brings me to my, as you may have guessed, second point. The significance of Two is by no means a real or defining feature of our universe, according to my calculations². Where similarities can be drawn, shared observations can be made. That which we all share — a sense of a limited self and all of the accompanying drama which comes along with it — allows us to connect with one another in a way that the rest of the universe can’t understand. When we observe a phenomenon like Two-ness, it isn’t to draw a line which me must all toe, it is more to laugh at the arbitrariness of it all.

“Us vs. Them” may be an observable phenomenon in places where multiple humans exist, but it isn’t a law. Our perceptions are bombarded by Two-ness from every angle, and so we sometimes get in the habit of Two-ing things that aren’t Two. If you were going to draw a line between humans, and define that line as the divider between “us” and “them”, you have but two choices³. Draw the line between yourself and every other human being on the planet, for you are the only one exactly like you. Alternatively, draw the line around yourself and every other human being on the planet, because we are all sharing in an experience unlike any other.

---

Thank you all for reading and supporting my writing. Like anyone who cares about a thing⁴, I occasionally find it difficult to allow myself to write. Writing can feel like I’m cracking my head like a gourd, scooping out all of the soft bits, and spreading them out on a page for you all to sift through. Dramatic, isn’t it? Well, blame the unyielding weight of existence which squeezes these thoughts out of my head like a distressed tube of toothpaste. Thanks again, and as always…

Totally nailed it,
Michael

1. Really laying it on thick, aren’t we?

2. Editor’s note: what calculations?

3. Bet you didn’t see that coming

4. The horror!