You probably have come across the following assertion, namely that time cannot be regarded to proceed in any sort of linear fashion. By this, proponents of non-linearity of time assert, conditional on evolution of time, that it does not appear as if history has much of logic of ‘cause’ during some current period, and ‘effect’ during some future period. In essence, history it seems is littered with a plethora of seemingly random events.
But is it true that just because there does not exist any tight causal link between the present and the future, that events, which characterize the future really are random? In this sense, can we really assert that, merely because it is impossible to directly extrapolate either of the horse and carriage or the Walkman to, respectively, the Model T Ford or the iPhone, that arrival of either of the two innovations have character of random events? In this respect, note each of the Model T Ford or iPhone had to have been under development for some period of time prior to their availability to the public. In presence of purposiveness of intent, arrival of the two innovations cannot be deemed to have character of totally random events. On the contrary, what seems inexplicable, or perhaps, yet random are, first, initial ‘blindedness’ of society to feasibility of either of the car or iPhone, and second, source of awareness of feasibility of the car or iPhone to, respectively, Henry Ford and Steve Jobs.
The simple yet profound answer for why exactly it seems history is characterized by randomness?
Randomness of arrival of the sort of solitude that provides man with opportunity for contemplation and critical thought; and randomness of willingness of man to accept solitude as opportunity for contemplation and critical thought are the two interlinked sources for randomness in history.
Steve Jobs did not arrive at the iPod and iPhone until he was laid off and had lots of time to spend at home attempting to make a success of what then seemed to be a post-Apple Inc. career.
It is not that time evolves at random, but rather that each of arrival of opportunities for solitude, and willingness to accept to thrive in midst of solitude for arrival at newness of insights, efforts, and outcomes are, in of themselves, randomly occurring events.
In this respect, when a guy bounces back from a just broken up romance into arms of another woman, it is because, regardless of arrival at opportunity for solitude, he is unwilling to accept to thrive in midst of solitude, rather welcomes alternate companionship. There is nothing wrong with desire for companionship; but delight in companionship does not produce the sorts of outcomes attributable to delight in solitude — that is, whenever solitude randomly arrives within a person’s situations.
Ideally, man does not seek out solitude, because the seeking out implies presupposition of presence of greatness on the inside — clearly evidence for hubris. Rather, it is solitude that seeks out a man, hence, randomness of its choice and timing of arrival.
Next time you have opportunity for solitude, consider that it just might be your opportunity to become a ‘Steve Jobs’ in terms of insights, efforts, and outcomes of the time that you spend in solitude.
So then, whenever it comes your way, embrace solitude like it is yours, like it deliberately is sent your way such that, merely because you attempt to make the most of it, the future turns out to consist in beautifully precise, beneficial, and productive randomness.
Make Your Opportunities for Solitude Work for You.