The Earth might have taken a detour, and maybe it now takes a leisurely 12 hours to complete a day's spin on its axis...
Well, I recently discovered that we're currently in 2024, yet I can't seem to comprehend that we actually spent all 365 days of 2023. Within the sanctuary of my imagination, the Earth is spinning out of control, and it's daunting to keep pace.
To buttress my dazed consciousness of the world, I was visited by an intriguing dream on the 1st of January, and quite accurately, a new year had just unfolded as well. Not 2024, though. I was transported back to the starting line of 2023. All of 2023 was summed up into a mere déjà vu. Of course, there's zero incentive to relive 2023 if given the chance, but I hadn't quite amassed any excitement for 2024 either. When I finally woke up, I quickly cross-verified with Alexa—bypassing my other devices—just to ensure my entire 2023 wasn't some otherworldly joke. I could rely on Alexa's voice, annoying as it may be. As expected, she jolted me back to reality, as unready as I could be.
Playing catch-up...
One of my hardest struggles is with catching up—trends, news, and the constant influx of information, solicited or not. I'm not particularly a fast or eager learner, so processing this overload and distinguishing gems from junk with finesse is no casual task. While attempting to comprehend one batch load of concepts, another assortment of opinions is lined up on the other end. How hard is it to belong in this era?
Dumping here the bit of my confusion that I managed to weave into words...
I'm in awe of those individuals who possess a little more knowledge about almost anything but effortlessly stay updated on some of the 'buzzwords' of our time, such as AI, crypto, the growing climate concerns, social justice, gender identity, vaccine hesitancy, political polarisation, mental ill-health, and whatnot. Me? I am drowning! In my struggle to keep up, I agree it's beneficial to actively seek knowledge about such issues and possibly formulate opinions—enough to lean toward a stance amidst the myriad arguments they present. I think I understand up to the point that it shouldn't always be an 'us versus them' affair all the time. Aiming to be objectively aware, without the pressure of having to pick a side, should equally be another navigable road. Hence, for the controversial issues, I find it disorienting that genuine confusion or any semblance of neutrality is labelled the 'enemy of progress'.
Can't I simply acknowledge an ongoing debate or misunderstanding and leave it at that?
Recently, I watched a show online where opposing parties were asked a range of questions and expected to pick a side. One segment focused on "Flat Earthers" versus "Globe Earthers". Virtually all the speakers on each side made points suggesting that religion was in total opposition to science, which left me confused and disheartened. I’m inclined to ask if both can coexist and still be true, as I'm a Christian who believes and loves science. Disappointingly, the argument concluded on the note that religion is non-scientific, and scientists are atheists. Another segment explored feminists versus non-feminists. Both sides seemed to agree with many points raised by the opponents, yet they compulsively preferred to stick to their guns. I’m not sure what side of the argument I subscribe to the most but I keep wondering why they couldn't acknowledge that they were narrating the same story using different words or recognise they had a middle ground. To kill the glimmer of hope I was still nursing, one of the participants stated in pretty clear terms that anyone who didn't subscribe to her position on the matter was a something derogatory.
It's a fascinating era of pinning opinions, pegging ideologies, clipping convictions, and sometimes attempting to simplify (and complicate) issues. We have lovely prefixes and suffixes attached to concepts that probably haven't fully unfolded, causing those yet to make up their minds to tiptoe around collective social issues. So much for this chapter of our lives that prides itself on free speech. Well, yeah, each to their own truth, whether relative or absolute. It’s only a question of who has more compelling evidence or audience, or both.
In making a case for indecision here, I acknowledge that some individuals choose to straddle the fence, allowing them to enjoy the benefits from both sides without sharing in any of the liabilities or moral obligations that having a strong opinion shoulders. If it's not life-threatening, neutrality may as well be a blessing. I may not have all my points, but I believe understanding exists in a continuum. Can grace be extended to those who might take it all in a little slower, and perhaps need some more time or facts to come to the realisation of their stance? How about not picking a side at all? Remaining perpetually confused?