If I had to pinpoint where it all changed, where it all went wrong, I’d say it was at the beginning, and if I had to pinpoint why, I’d say it was because of Jessie.
Imagine an axe lodged in the trunk of a tree. It disrupts the scene, or makes it, depending on one’s perspective, but from my perspective, the axe disrupts the scene. Naturally then, I want to remove the axe, but by doing so I will have to touch the axe, which leads me to feeling the axe’s smooth handle, then seeing the shine of the axe’s head, then experiencing the weight and the quality of the axe. After this occurs I will know that it is truly a fine axe, which makes me begin to question whether or not removing the axe from the tree trunk was a good idea, because now that I am aware that this axe is good, the question arises as to whether I inadvertently detracted from the scene when my only intent was to restore it. I must also face the reality that now that I have removed the axe, there is no putting it back without striking the already-cut tree trunk, further disrupting the scene, which means I am now fully responsible for this axe and must decide what to do with it.
To recap, first there is the axe which does the disrupting of the scene by being lodged in the tree trunk, and then there is me removing the axe and feeling the axe which leads to all manner of confusions. That’s Jessie. That’s what Jessie did. Jessie is the axe.
When I first got here, which was at the beginning, there was no axe. I can’t say for certain when the axe arrived or where it first became lodged in the tree trunk, but it wasn’t long after the beginning commenced, which was when I first got here. So technically, the axe became lodged in the tree trunk in the beginning, but the ambiguity lies in the temporal moment of impact, which I am uncertain of. Once the axe made impact with the tree trunk however, things began to change. Firstly, it was clear the scene had become disrupted. The paradigm had shifted and the circumstances were now full of doubt. Accusations were made which led to retaliation, which led to intervention from external forces. Now to clarify, while the removing of the axe did, in fact, come after the disruption of the scene, the removing of the axe was by no means immediate. In hindsight, given how quickly events moved during the period of the disruption of the scene, the removing of the axe did not happen until much later after the scene had become sufficiently disrupted.
Whether or not Jessie intended to disrupt the scene, the fact of the matter was that once the scene became sufficiently disrupted, the relevant parties involved went their separate ways within their new groupings. Except for Jessie, who, being like an axe lodged in a tree trunk, remained a part of the disrupted scene.
Between the disrupting of the scene and the removing of the axe, there was a time in which I considered the implications of the scene’s disruption, meaning, the decision to remove the axe was by no means impulsive. To be sure, there were times when I asked myself if the scene had even been disrupted in the first place. Obviously the disruption of the scene led to the separating of the relevant parties involved, but a part of me wondered if that change warranted being referred to as a disruption. Perhaps that is all it was – a change, not a disruption, no value judgment needed. I even entertained the possibility that the disruption, tentatively referred to as a change, might have been a positive event, in which case it would be called a growth. In the time increments that followed, all of the negative repercussions caused by the axe becoming lodged in the tree trunk drove me to the conclusion that the disruption was definitely not a change, much less a growth. It was a disruption of a scene that prior to the axe becoming lodged in the tree trunk, was a good scene.
After having been driven to the conclusion that a disruption had indeed taken place, I resolved to remove the axe from the tree trunk in which it had become lodged. Upon doing so, I felt the quality of the axe and for a moment I enjoyed the axe. I wondered how that could be, considering its disruption of what was formerly a good scene, but I enjoyed the axe nonetheless. It was instinctual, almost reactionary, my enjoyment of the axe. There were moments within the greater overarching moment where the image of myself and the axe dipped between being a scene in itself. During these sub-moments there was a constant uncertainty and awareness about the possibility of a scene arising, which caused the dipping in and out. The implication was that if the image of myself and the axe resulted in a scene, the disruption may no longer be considered as such. The disruption might even be considered a growth, if such a scene were to result. This doubt ultimately led to the termination of the potential scene of the image of me and the axe, despite its goodness and my enjoyment of the axe.
Jessie and I don’t talk anymore. There are no scenes that will arise from either of us, and all previously existing scenes and potential scenes have been sufficiently disrupted and not worth revisiting.