Making sense out of a natural phenomenon such as fate often requires a substantial amount of research. To begin with one must answer the question:

What is fate?

This question it would seem has been answered many times

But not successfully

If by that you mean that no meaning has been created which is not open to interpretation

Isn’t every meaning is open to interpretation?

Not scientific meanings

Even those, do not forget that the earth used to be flat

Yes but as no-one cared that it was flat it didn’t really make a difference

And then because no one cares about fate, rather waiting for it to happen, it is out of our control

Some people care about fate!

Karma, Dharma and all that

Yes, but such wisdoms teach you to accept fate and acceptance negates worry

What about those that discuss fate?

Inaction may prove inspiring for those that can think

Fate only exists because we do not control it and in that sense fate can be said to represent the variability of the future

As determined by our actions?

Perhaps, but as thinking individuals we must maintain that the world would remain and have the same meaning even if we where not to exist in the same way that trees continue to fall in a forest

So the world would have no meaning for us because if we didn’t exist then neither would the world

For us, but for others perhaps

Yes, but then they wouldn’t exist for us either; indeed, nothing would exist for us except the void, which is nothing

Then there would be no fate

No, fate would be impossible without the essence of creation which provides the future with meaning,

In point of fact then, fate would be impossible without existence.

But even though we exist we do not have to believe in fate

No, fate is somewhat akin to the God concept; it exists regardless of the individual

Then is fate a collective action or the result of the collective action of all things?

What is the collective?

Is that easier to defining than fate?

Yes, the collective is easy, the collective is everything that isn’t the individual,

But then what is the individual?

The individual exists in conscious thought; I think therefore I am,

The I concept,

The Ego

Well perhaps, the imposition of psychology on individual consciousness in the last century has led to a great deal of confusion about what it means to be an individual

It has very little value now

Yes, because the individual only exists for him or herself, trying to define individual behaviour based on experiences generated in the collective only creates infinity

Because individual experience is unique

And you are a result of your actions and the actions of others

But does fate exist for the I?

We have to realise that the actions of other individuals

Whether acting as a collective or as individuals

Has a direct bearing on our individual fates; such that fate exists as the future result of interaction between the individual and the collective

But then the future can exist now




Yes, it is the past which does not exist

Can you explain that?

Perhaps later

I’d like to hear it

Fate is what happens to us as a result of our individual actions, of which, in the conscious state we have total control

Although this total control is a result of the ability of the individual to differentiate between right and wrong

Right and wrong have no bearing on control, although it could be argued that a consciousness that has lost its ability to decide such matter is out of control

So we can lose control of our consciousness?

Or sacrifice it to the collective



And fate is what happens to us as a result of the collective action, over which we have no control.

No control?

Surely someone is in control?

We like to think so and indeed governments and markets and influential individuals seem to have direct control over their immediate surroundings

But in fact they do not because the do not control the future, the theory of chaos has a direct bearing here because it gives us the means of understanding that no matter what decision is taken the outcome is never precisely that which is expected


Well, with an infinite number of possibilities

A monkey would write Shakespeare

But few would understand it even then.

They government doesn’t control anything then?

Well, it believes it does and the collective believes it does but actually having any control would negate the conditions necessary for fate.

I don’t understand

Me neither

The collective is bigger than governments; it is infinitely big and as such infinitely unpredictable

Thus fate, if it were to exist, requires unpredictability

So then fate can not be changed

Not the collective fate because that exists despite the individual

But the individual has the ability to change fate


The past does not exist

You said that before


It wasn’t me

Can you explain then?

What I said, yes, I think so, the past only exists in the collective consciousness, the act of remembering brings the past to life but as a concept, in the sense of time, the past is gone and as such the collective act of remembrance only serves to repeat patterns of behaviour

Or to not repeat them

Yes but this demands an act of will on the part of the collective

And is this unattainable in a society that says every belief has an equal value

Is that what democracy is?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s