If we look longitudinally at the history of humanity or our personal stories, our daily lives, we will always find repetitions and patterns. We see that everything is predictable. It couldn't be any different because the human being is structured as an organism maintained by a biological clock, by cellular and physiological demands. At the same time, we are also structured in societies and cultures, which in turn are determined by economic and productive factors.

However, despite this circumstance, we can ask ourselves: is this always the case? Are sameness and predictability the most striking features of stories? When we are faced with these questions, we realise that all these changes when we reach the dimension in which there is a transcendence of established limits, be they social or biological. When the other emerges, the encounter, the mismatch, and the possibilities for change and transformation arise. Everything can be different, unique, and unprecedented because the variables that shape the encounter are inimitable.

It's worth considering this aspect of being inimitable. We talk about encounters and how they can be unprecedented, but we need to consider the situations in which this doesn't happen. When encounters are displacements of the need to survive, maintain, respect, or deny social and biological rules, predictability creeps in and will be reached, it's just a matter of time. Everything is processed in time and space, everything can be continued or discontinued and can therefore be predicted. But when encounters realise integration and transformations that go beyond borders and boundaries, we are faced with unpredictability. These are, for example, the famous characters who are eternalised, even when they become novelised prototypes: Romeo and Juliet, Madame Bovary, and Raskólnikov.

The new quality of an event creates motivations that go beyond the characteristics already explained as determining the facts. In this way, what happens is of little significance, but the possibility of it happening is very significant. It is this condition, this possibility of occurring that identifies, individualizes, and makes human motivation unrepeatable. Even when someone is considered the equal of Madame Bovary or considered the equal of Raskólnikov, they are neither one nor the other. The double does not cover the unique, because existing as a double, as a copy, is only validated by the source, by the unity that generated it. The original, as René Chateaubriand said, is not what is not imitated, it is what cannot be imitated.

It is these unique experiences, these individualities, and these encounters that make human actions and the people with whom we interact unforgettable. Such interaction is only possible between human beings. When, in a relationship, objectification arises because the other is transformed into an object, the possibility also arises of exchanging people like one exchanges furniture, a house, or clothes, and so, everything is a repetition, everything is replaceable, and everything is reduced to being used. These repetitions generate loneliness and depression. Use alienates. To turn the other into an object is also to become a thing. It involves losing dynamics and giving up the interaction that makes unique and surprising experiences possible.

This possibility of integration is what guides and determines the human trajectory. However, the integration that results from an encounter is not very frequent because the fragmentation of the processes breaks the continuity and establishes obstacles, points of difficulty, breakage, and division. Fragmentation arises as easily as integration could. Continuing, meeting, and coinciding is as easy as breaking, mismatching, and interrupting. Everything just depends on availability or commitment. When we are bound by rules, desires, or needs, we undermine the possibility of experiencing the new, the unpredictable, the surprising.