A perspective on sentimentality and nostalgia, the past and the present, probability and the equivalence of memory and experience
Content Advisory: This piece is NOT grounded in mathematical or scientific theory and can only serve as a mental model.
_
should
/ʃʊd/
verb
modal verb: should
used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
"he should have been careful"
could
/kəd,kʊd/
verb
modal verb: could
past of can.
used to indicate possibility.
"they could be right"
_
Today I wish to address two concepts that are relevant but not related.
PART I
It is the mark of a tactful policymaker to identify the discrepancy between what "should be" and what "is", and to create policy that addresses the root causes of the reality of the situation instead of assuming the truth of the ideal outcome.
I think we are so conditioned to provide and respond to politically correct answers that we often fail to identify how insensible or unproductive some solutions can be, the tragedy of which is that we continue to operate in a shameful manner of hiding the truth of the process instead of improving it, just to put up a facade of "the right way" without realising to modify the process to achieve that desired outcome through transparent means.
There is but I don't intend to address any specific present issue that inspired this conclusion, but state this as a general observation of the mechanism of policymaking through the institutions that I have had studied or worked under. A common occurrence of the aforementioned is when it is decided to ban a good or service with negative externalities, but do not provide alternatives or solutions that target the root causes of the market demanding those services (such as better education to reduce imperfect information; alternative solutions that achieve the same desired outcome without the use of the undesirable method), thereby driving the entire market and its practices underground. This might even make it harder to regulate and enforce, contrary to the original intentions of the policy.
I may loosely exemplify this by describing the blanket prohibition of smoking, without the provision of subsidised programmes to help interested individuals in quitting smoking, nor without solutions targeting some root causes of the desire to smoke (eg stress management programmes; a review of the employee work plan); Just because people "should not smoke" does not detract from the fact that people do, demonstrating the muddling of "should" and "is". A counselor or therapist does not tell a client with depression that they "should not be sad"! Pardon my dangerously rudimentary understanding of the process of counseling or therapy, but I suspect that it involves not immediately dismissing the reality that the client has constructed for herself ("is") in favour of the acceptable ("should be").
PART II
PREAMBLE:
The platitude: "Don't be sad that it's over; smile that it happened" is often shared as a reminder to be grateful for the past experiences that we have gotten to, because it is important to remember that we are and had not been entitled to receive or experience all that we had, underscoring our position of privilege. We should thus not feel sad because there is no good reason to feel sad!
I understand the motivations behind this phrase, but am peeved when it is used as advice in a way that expects the recipient to suddenly change their perspective to embrace this outlook. Akin to rich people sharing that money is not important, I suspect that the people who effectively embody the truth of the statement are not those who are the most sentimental or nostalgic in the first place.
In this section, I attempt to articulate a perspective that I have been playing with, regarding the dimensionality of events, and share my preliminary conclusions here today because being sad and oversentimental for "no reason" is something that I too have been struggling to overcome, and hope that my rationalisations might be able to help you if you may be in a similar position.
THE MENTAL GYMNASTICS OF THE DIMENSIONALITY OF EVENTS: A HYPOTHESIS
On a map, we pinpoint location using 2 coordinates: latitude and longitude (x; y)
In a 3D space, we require an additional coordinate: elevation (x; y; h)
However, to arrange for a rendezvous in person, notice that we require a further common point: time (t)
Thus, to effectively meet a friend for lunch, you will both need to agree on which storefront on which floor and what time to gather.
Language is the means of expression; we are inherently unable to express that which language does not allow us to. Thus, it follows that languages shapes our thinking.
For the following exemplification, suspend your understanding of the tenses of grammar and treat all past or present tense as timeless: As of 12:50pm, you were standing outside the storefront. Suppose the truth that your friend arrives at the storefront at 1pm. In the moment of 12:50pm, you could say that your friend is "here, just not now".
However, suppose that she cancels and does not meet you and has never been at that storefront before, you may say that your friend is "not here, not now". You cannot say that she is "here, just not now" because she has never been to the physical coordinates of that place before; If she has visited that storefront before, you may also say that she is "here, just not now", or specify the she is "here, 2 weeks ago".
Now suppose that you both meet at the carpark instead. She is physically before you in this moment. With reference to the original storefront, you might say that "we are there, just not now" or that "in now, we are not there".
Notice that in modern English, the use of tenses entrenched within its fundamental mechanism of expression through Grammar scopes our thinking to reference the current moment (ie "was", "will be" are past and future tenses referencing the current moment that the speaker is in). Thus, because language shapes our thinking, this may subconsiously downplay the emphasis of events that have past or have yet to happen in favour of those that happen in the present tense.
With this understanding, I posit that there might not be as big of a difference as we may come to think, between memories and the present experience. The only differences are two:
One, the present experience extends into the immediate future, thus encompassing uncertainty. We thus cannot be sure of the truth of the occurrence of the event until it has taken place. In the first exemplification, we say that your friend is "here, just not now" at the point of 12:50pm because we suppose the truth of the claim that she will be "here, now" at 1pm. However, in reality we cannot ascertain the occurrence of future events. Thus, we may describe that memories have a 100% probability of taking place (because they "have already taken place").
This model is also hence useful to discern between our "rational" and "irrational" worries about the uncertainties of the future, by determining the probability of its occurrence and the impact that actions you take today can affect them. Whilst we cannot fully assume the truth of the occurrence of future events, I posit that it would be acceptable to effectively do so if the alternative (ie the event does not happen) does not produce a directly more undesirable series of events.
For example, suppose that the national assessment schedule states that the final examination will occur on 31st June this year. Further suppose that you deem the postponement of the examination as favourable to your preparations. Since it is highly unlikely that a published national examination schedule will move the examination to an earlier date, you may claim that the paper has a "100% effective probability of now on 31st June". This is not to say that it will happen for sure on 31st June, but that we suppose it to effectively be the truth under this mental model. Hence, we should prioritise our preparations around these such events of 100% effective probability. Similarly, not every event has such a high effective probability. Some may refer to these events as the "irrational worries"; I think it is still important to remain cognisant of them due to the nature of black swan events that are highly improbable but have an outsized impact (I don't think there are "irrational worries" because all worries stem from some rationalisation; but rather, some worries are more probable to occur than others).
Two, memories may degrade and get warped over time, blurring the distinction between truth and imagination. This may be dangerous because it affects the fundamental mechanism of our mental model in discerning the truth of its occurrence; a memory when revisiting a place has a "here, just not now", whereas an imagined event has neither and is "not here, not now" (the "not now" component remains because we cannot dismiss the effective probability of its occurrence in the future ie "here, just not now", unless it is obviously impossible within a reasonable interpretation of our current reality).
Thus, with this understanding, we shall revisit the claim in the preamble, taking note of the following highlighted points:
The platitude: "Don't be sad that it's over; smile that it happened" is often shared as a reminder to be grateful for the past experiences that we have gotten to, because it is important to remember that we are and had not been entitled to receive or experience all that we had, underscoring our position of privilege. We should thus not feel sad because there is no good reason to feel sad!
Because we cannot fully assume the truth of the occurrence of future events, and the "future" is only a period of time in relation to the present moment of the speaker, in the moment before the occurrence of the event, its occurrence was less than 100% and has no guarantee of occurring. The fact of its occurrence to make it a true memory implies that it has occurred with 100% true probability! and since we are not entitled to good things happening, we must be mindful to be grateful when they had happened in actuality; "here" is not guaranteed since we are not entitled to anything, so the "here" of a memory ("here, just not now") is a privilege to be able to claim. This finally rationalises to me the pain of a breakup: in that we may not be so sad from the fact that it's over, as much as we are explicitly about losing the future that we have envisioned with that person.
Though seemingly absurd initially, I can see some worldly basis for this original mental model through journaling and taking photos as a means of capturing the truth of memories to "revisit" or "relive" them in the future removed from the present. Thus, perhaps there might not be as big of a difference as we may come to think, between memories and the experience of the present, and it follows that we should not be so sad that the memories exist in the past, as much as be grateful that they had once been the present.
Comments
Post a Comment