THE CIRCLE

Editorial Avenue No. 15: 15th December 2024 

The ‘X’ finally takes flight. Despite the binary polarity intrinsic to the very essence of human existence, it is now possible to be reborn under the sign of the ‘X.’ This symbolic ‘X,’ which one might associate with the uncertainty surrounding the question of our place in the lives of others, has embarked onto quite the voyage in order to become the emblem of an open and inclusive society—one that is tolerant and at the forefront of the evolution of societal values in the 21st century. The ‘X’ alleviates the doubts and anxieties tied to the fundamental question that human society has long asked itself: Who am I, truly? Paradoxically, this very ‘X’ does not provide an answer to this question, but rather highlights the incompatibility between the two axes of the law of polarity: I am neither Male nor Female, but I simply am. In this regard, our biological envelope ceases to predispose us towards more masculine or feminine tendencies. The emphasis, instead, is placed on social and cultural determinism, and everything becomes a space for movement, where only free will holds the singular power to bear the Crown. Nevertheless, if this principle is truly applied, power has merely shifted hands, distancing itself from the law of causality. Yet, it still does not address the supreme existential question asked earlier: But who are we, truly, and what are we doing on Earth?

It is free will that now permits the marking of documents with the sign of the ‘X.’ In this instance, the ‘X’ offers the possibility of being recognised by others as a non-gendered, non-binary individual, or as one who identifies outside the categories of ‘man’ and ‘woman,’ or even as a neo-human. The ‘X’ infiltrates circles once closed, sealed, and confined to distinct social groups. Yet, beyond the minor human realities structured by the intellectual movements of each era, these circles continue to present themselves as eternal metaphysical structures, essential to the organisation of a Good and Just Universe, governed by a hierarchical authority transmitting the nature of its wisdom. It is entirely understandable that the type of circle we have just described might currently be unsettling, as it appears with a certain structural rigidity, where uniformity is considered the ideal to be prescribed. However, a fine distinction exists between uniformity and Unity. When a nation becomes a uniform crowd that integrates all of its compartments, each member performs a well-defined role in a theatrical piece. This is the standardisation of the human experience. But the children of God are not homogeneous beings; they are, in fact, heterogeneous beings, for to be is to manifest one’s ‘presence’ or individuality in the presence of the other This is precisely why any prolonged absence—regardless of how it manifests in human life—can trigger a breakdown in the ability to align with reality. Consider the example of any child in the world who finds themselves orphaned or institutionalised. Regardless of the cultural elements involved, the consequences of the absence of love on the development of the young human are catastrophic. This demonstrates that “presence” does not manifest in a vacuum or through absolute freedom. A central point of contact is required for the “presence” to develop in an environment where freedom can be granted. A healthy family circle becomes the finest example of a circle we might propose, for this circle contains pre-existing models of the nature of ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ human. The healthy family is the exemplification of the cyclicality of life and the representation of the infinite circle of life. We live, we die, but we do not cease to exist.

Beyond its genealogical and cultural transmission, the family circle thus begins the cognitive rooting, the territorialisation of our identity, and the ability to reflect upon one’s presence in relation to the other. Is the ‘X’ the first historical marker of the fracture zone within these circles? In a healthy family structure, the child establishes their points of reference in relation to the tension of the external world. Overwhelmed by the various threads of thought from a multitude of group minds, the child must be able to recharge within their intimate circle and rely on the presence of their family to organise their thoughts. The ‘X’ is by no means a manifestation of chaos or the loss of points of reference. The ‘X’ is, however, an expression of the collapse of circles that were once heavyweights in the lives of our children. Hierarchy is no longer regarded as the necessary symbol of a pre-existing model of the presence of God within these circles, but rather as an overwhelming authority, managed and dominated by a self-chosen patriarch. New models of existence are thus beginning to emerge. The Earth has become a world where the restricted family circle no longer serves as a reference point in the organisation and formatting of thought. All circles have opened to everyone without exception, and the human being now has the illusion of an absolute free will that consists of organising one’s thoughts around everything, all the time. This vision is regarded as the new utopia for the construction of human life on Earth, but inclusivity does not necessarily symbolise equality, for equality is another structure tending towards the uniformisation of peoples. It is strange, therefore, that the human being wages a relentless war against dictatorship when the greatest dictatorship of all already suffocates them with its imposing presence.

Are the circles, as originally conceived, then the solution to this modern dilemma of human society? Faced with “absence,” the human being ceases to create meaning in their life. This leads to existential anxiety or a hateful feeling of no longer “being,” no longer “existing” before another who signals to us how the manifestation of our presence matters so little to them. But the ‘X’ takes on this very role, even if it occurs under the banner of the illusion that everything in the universe can be controlled through absolute freedom of thought. The ‘X’ denotes absence, but the ‘X,’ as it manifests its presence, attempts to create meaning in the face of this absence. And with the snap of a finger, life resumes its natural course—a new circle has formed, the circle of the ‘X,’ where all ‘X’s can unite under a single, shared identity. This identity is what humanity currently calls the rejection of oppressive traditionalism. But let us reflect on this instead: Has the ‘X’ answered the question that was the opener for this month’s editorial? Perhaps not, for the ‘X,’ as absent form, is itself in search of absolute presence.

The Circle of Life (Image produced through AI over Canva)

AUTRES BLOGS

AVENUE ÉDITORIALE