…any shift from one’s original state can be considered change, either evolution or de-volution. We are in a constant state of qualitative and quantitative flux. Am I speaking of We in the sense of the royal, an arm sweeping in a gesture that suggests all of humanity? Or am I referring, actually, to I and You, whomever you may be? The individual or the culminate masses?
I am speaking of both – that which we are and that which we are a part of.
We evolve. When we think of evolution only as the painstakingly slow morphing of our fundamental structural manifestations, such as, for example the simple truth of our bipedal skeleton – a trait developed over a period of millions of years – we fail to recognize the way that evolution can take place in less observable, but equally – if not more so – profound.
By considering evolution to be any adaptation to challenges and the measurable lasting effects brought about by changes in structure, behavior, or response we acknowledge that, yes, things do change, people change, and that we are, in fact, evolving.
One must consider many variables in the estimation of the qualitative value of the human experience. At the crux of it all is the consideration of function. One cannot measure efficacy if one does not know what, precisely, does the task at hand involve. In other words, what are we here for? With this, as well, one may become entangled in the relationship between the Macro We and the Micro We, between species and individuals within a species.*
*Species as defined by Linneaus…
Again, I am referring to us all and to us all together.
While there are numerous notions regarding the ubiquitous point of it all, considering the query from a logical perspective brings to light the obvious. We are here to, oh, and how shall I say this…
You see, the problem is that the language most readily available to describe the phenomenon of being a small and intricate part of something so huge as a species, on a planet…in the…what?*
*Let me guess, Universe followed by New Age connotations and whatever you, personally, feel about New Agers and all of their various oddities. Oh, did I say oddities, I meant…what? Celebrations? Rituals? Dopey expressions and rigid exclusionary tactics? Ah, yes, it is all very complicated when a simple word, in this case Universe can bring about thinking of the ways that people interpret the (…universe…)*
**as in song verse, as in story.
In any case, we don’t see the thing itself. We see what the word used to describe the thing means to us, individually. Often what things mean to us as individuals is, obviously, the result of our linguistic enculturation.
Thus, it becomes very difficult to explain the ways that the world, in an empirical sense, appears to function. Our ideas become tangled in our conception of what, for example, the word light means to us. For some, it is a lamp in a dim-lit room. Others may see a match ignite, a lighter flash to life. Others may…you get the point. If you perhaps do not get the point, consider the idea of, for example, dog.
What does the dog in your head look like?