I am indebted to
Laurel Scheaf
who inspired this conversation.
When I own something (that is to say when I have
something) and I give some of it to you, I have less or even none of
what I had before I gave some of it to you.
Yes that does seem like rather an obvious
milquetoast statement to make. And it is - at least most
of the
time
when most typical things are involved. For example, if I have a wallet
full of
cash
and I give some of it to you, I have less or even none of what I had
before I gave some of it to you. If I have a pantry full of
food
and I give some of it to you, I have less or even none of what I had
before I gave some of it to you. If I have a wardrobe full of clothes
and I give some of them to you, I have less or even none of what I had
before I gave some of them to you.
There are countless examples like these. It seems as if this is the
way
it always
works:
I give something away, and I'm left with less of it. Or none of it.
Obviously.
On
closer
inspection you'll notice the examples I've given all involve concrete
things:
cash,
food,
clothes, etc. What's
interesting
to notice is this model will still hold its validity ie will still
work
even when its examples are rendered more abstract. For example,
I have principles. If I don't adhere to my own principles (which
is to say if I'm not
true
to my own principles), I'm not only less principled than I was before,
but I also have less of something else: I have less or no
power.
I have ideals, and if I don't uphold my own ideals (which is to
say if I'm not
true
to my own ideals), I'm not only less idealistic than I was before, but
I also have less or no
power.
So the
question
is: but isn't this
the way
it alwaysworks?
both in the concrete and in the abstract? ie if you take
something away from something, don't you always have less
or none of it left? Or is there a situation in which you can take
everything away from something, and still have something
left? ie is there a situation in which you can take all of
something away from something, and still have something left? Indeed (I
really want you to
get
this) can you take everything away from something,
and still have everything left? The answer is: no of
course not ie no of course you can't - ... not ... unless ... that ...
something ... is ... possibility.
If I invent a possibility and that possibility is
fulfilled,
what I have left is ... possibility. But notice if I invent a
possibility and that possibility is notfulfilled,
what I have left is ... possibility. Indeed if I invent a
possibility and that possibility isn't
fulfilled,
then what I have left is the same amount of if not more
possibility than I had before. That's
extraordinary,
yes? Possibility isn't constrained by
the same old
tired
ordinaryparadigms
which constrain our
same old
tired
ordinaryways
of thinking.
Cash
minus
cash
equals less
cash,
or even no
cash,
whereas possibility minus possibility equals possibility.
Food
minus
food
equals less
food,
or even no
food,
whereas possibility minus possibility equals possibility. Clothes minus
clothes equals less clothes, or even no clothes, whereas possibility
minus possibility equals possibility. Principles minus principles
equals less principles, or even no principles, whereas possibility
minus possibility equals possibility. Ideals minus ideals equals less
ideals, or even no ideals, whereas possibility minus possibility equals
possibility. Possibility is never depleted. Possibility is never
used up.
Listen:
if possibility were depleted or
used up,
it wouldn't have been possibility in the first place, yes?
Gee! I hope you
get
this. Don't just take my
word
for it. Look at it from your experience. Try it on for size. See if it
fits. You can't understand this. But you canget
it.