If Luck is the derivative of Chance, then Chance is the derivative of…what? What or who governs Chance? Perhaps, it is the trinity of Fates who are the determinates of one’s fortune or poverty…
Or, is it Lady Luck herself; the incarnation of serendipity. During wartime, She was the protectorate of already-forsaken men. For don’t they say, ‘Fortune favours the Brave’.
That a force of destiny exists is a romanticism. A notion no doubt born of the Renaissance, formulated against a landscape of pre-industrial expansion in thought. Of metaphysics and in alchemy, magic is generated, the mystic reigns supreme and is prolific. It is reassuring to believe that we are guided and watched over by some matriarch perhaps, Mother Nature even, yet, that this is a Universal truth cannot be proven, or can it.
In addition, a mythical standpoint may be preferable; don’t we want more than mediocrity to exist, a sense of the multi-dimensional, less the superficial. I do believe in a supreme intelligence, you only have to look to Nature’s systems to know this exists.
Notionally, the primary quality of Luck is it’s non-existence. Intangible and without foundation, in and of itself it is a mere abstraction. However, once given context, and relativity (to action or belief say) Luck comes to life, for it is, in my mind, created and dynamically so.
We might liken Luck to potential. Did the ‘stars align’ or were we dealt a hand of ‘lucky cards’… We are all made up of complex and unique constellations of qualities, talents, tendencies, ideas, beliefs, values and characteristics, much of which is inherited. As we come to individuate in adulthood, we begin to formulate and identify more with that which we relate to ourselves, all that constitutes ‘I’.
Does a certain quality of inner divinity exist therefore. Are we genetically primed to be lucky, or is luck cultivated. In 1910, Wallace D. Wattles wrote ‘The Science of Getting Rich’ ~ Financial Success Through Creative Thought and in it he posits the monistic theory of the Universe, and its given formula. A series of factors and actions equal formula. Since the repeated proof of efficacy exists, it is therefore a science, a given. He states that if you do things in this ‘certain way’ that you cannot fail to become successful, in conventional terms.
I suppose fortune can be inherited in terms of favourable conditions or qualities, of talents say, like a child prodigy, or being born into financial and emotional security. Do we make our own Luck? Do we ‘own’ luck? or are we at its mercy. Is luck delivered to us or generated by us.
From practise, Faith emerges…for every time we have a repeat experience of successes we can be reassured that possibilities do not only exist but can be repeatedly realised. Mastery comes from practise, and to test our faith is a useful exercise and builds trust.
Development of faith is essential, but ultimately a faith in oneself is what’s required, not blind faith. How can we ever trust in the intangible: ‘In God we trust..’ To be dependent on that which is illusory can only lead to decline and disorientation. A sense that we lack the capacities to lead a successful self-directed Life.
Truth only exists, when it is experienced first-hand. No amount of telling Me that something is possible deems it so, only ever in the doing and receiving of feedback, both emotional and environmental feedback, can I arrive at a truth. A knowing comes into being in the moment of transition from possibility or probability into the real, manifest actualisation of the intention or cause. Only the protagonist, the individual, encounters himself within an experience, and determines his truths.
We can come to prosper against the odds. Perhaps we needs the odds in order to prevail, for the privileged are often quite comfortable, and resourcefulness and entrepreneurialism are often more the qualities of the under-dog. So is Luck conditional?
What is possible is referenced and framed with a world-view or a system of belief. Does luck exist if we deem it does? I for one need proof. I believe that our thoughts, words and deeds create our reality. Positive causation creates positive effect. Outcomes mirror intentions.
I wonder if secular belief systems encourage the idea of reward and punishment; if you are good then you will be rewarded accordingly and if you are bad, then you will suffer the consequences. This is in no way value-creating, and rather the opposite, makes for subordination and oppression, far less the glimmering prospect of Luck and its guaranteed prosperity. What’s to be noted, is that religious power, grandiose and celestial, is externalised and embodied in a God or deity. The individual is subject to circumstances therefore, subject to outer, and is disempowered. Not so lucky therefore, if luck is separate rather than innate.
Schools of thought differ of course; A Buddhist vantage point might look to the concept of Karma to justify happenings, but critically the protagonist here holds entire power. The infinite potential resides within him, the Buddhist practitioner (and in all living beings) and can be summoned, and expressed, actualised. He is partaking in a created life, not a default life. The gift of knowing that you can create and design your life exactly as you so desire, is in a sense revolutionary, if yours is a conventional appreciation…but mine is not so; I live on a creative plane, in a spiritual realm reality. The gift of knowing that you can generate and activate fortune and successes is the ultimate freedom, only second to the realisation of inner peace, which is pure gold no less.
Is Luck governed by Causality then. I believe so. Because Cause brings about effect, simultaneously.
It brings to mind Kipling’s well-loved poem ‘If’… For so much ‘if’ exists and only through focussed action does it come to pass, come to be realised.
The antithesis of Luck must be Responsibility therefore. Luck excuses us from our involvement in the outer world, for we can shelter and bask in the security of not taking responsibility. Luck as a concept is therefore a delightful one, for it allows for an absence of personal responsibility. To some degree, being identified with doctrine is easier that arriving at one’s own truth. There’s a risk of diversion from the project of self-actualisation, being reliant instead on ‘other’.
We have an overwhelming orthodoxy of science in the West and since science cannot accept the intangible, or the anomalous, given it cannot be quantified, it is the stymie of all creative thought and possibility (with the acceptance for quantum theory perhaps).
Without Hope how can we exist. I do question whether belief systems enable us an acceptable framework for existence. One does not have to explain oneself, though to question everything is a good exercise. All exploration leads us to new learning and experiences which inform our paths ahead; not necessarily divinatory, rather practical.
What the World needs now is the antithesis of Luck… we need to enact choice, and the means (which always exist) and activate free will in accordance with the needs of humanity. This is where our attention must be concentrated. Less looking to the stars for answers and more personal and community responsibility directed towards self-sustaining systems and the recovery of the natural world. A grand collaboration is what’s required.
One must appreciate that ‘not choosing’ or remaining passive, is also conscious choice, which infers agency; it is an act of ‘not doing’, active therefore. There is always discomfort in transgression, engage instead your drivers for advance.
Be assured that you are not at the mercy of the Fates, rather that you hold the key to your potential.