Lucubrations of an Inquisitive Sesquipedalian: August 2010

10:15 am

I awoke thinking about thinking. I know, I know! Such philosophical moments rarely hit me, but there I was, laying between my beautiful teal sheets THINKING. Ok, to be completely honest, my first thought of the morning as I wiggled my toes was, "I wonder if I washed the sand off my feet well-enough last night?" Volleyball in the sand has a way of embedding the gritty substance in your epidermis in such a way that my lazy and halfhearted midnight rinse was probably not sufficient to keep my beautiful teal (dark teal at that) sheets from getting smudged with it. But then I moved on to thinking about thinking... In the physiological sense.

I closed my eyes to block out the light (and try to forget that I should be getting out of bed as it IS after ten in the morning) and I could see my brain thinking. Now I'm not speaking of some sort of out-of-body (or maybe "in-the-body") experience here. It was more like in an episode of House when they do those cool physiology animations. First I saw my brain, a squiggly mass of icky whitish sliminess. Then the camera zoomed in and I saw a bunch of lightning flashes that were electrical signals moving through my brain. Judging by their multitude, I must have been seeing the sarcastic humor part of my brain. Closer zooms the camera and Whalah! We have a neuron, the cell body ogling me with it's one eye, which is really it's nucleus (an amazing structure that contains all the info necessary to build a whole new me, not that anyone would desire TWO of me...). Branching out from the nucleus are hundreds of tiny tendril-like appendages (dendrites) that look rather too much like spider legs for me *insert involuntary shudder here*, which attach to other neurons. Like behemoth in Job 40, neurons have a "tail like a cedar tree". (Random cool bit of information that no one probably cares about, but just after writing this, I got the Dictionary.com Word-of-the-Day text and the word is "behemoth". I'm admittedly a wordaholic.) Only the whole thing is is microscopic, so it's a relatively minuscule cedar tree. Neurotic cedar trees are called axons and this is the part of the neuron responsible for transmitting information. Here is the huge mystery (to my understanding, at least). Somehow the combination of an electrical impulse and the release and re absorption of substances (neurotransmitters) with awesome names like acetylcholine and gamma-aminobutyric acid transmits THOUGHTS. Does this mean thoughts are really lightning bolts within the brain? It's like when I tried to understand light when I was in highschool. I read the chapters in my chemistry book over and over and just couldn't wrap my mind around it. Back then this was a new experience for me – it was the first time I'd tried to learn something and just couldn't get it. That experience has been repeated since, only now, it gives me a greater urge to learn instead of triggering my ever-ready give-up response. Surprisingly, I actually recalled all of that from the storage bin in my brain labeled "Anatomy and Physiology – the stuff you'll probably have to remember for nursing school". I did have to cheat on the spelling of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA is easier, though less cool), but as it turns out the three months since my last exam haven't affected my ability to quickly peruse my whopping Med/Surg textbook and find the chart in which the neurotransmitters are concisely outlined.

My reverie in physiological philosophy was interrupted by a prickling sensation on my neck which I momentarily mistook to be a stray neuron who'd escaped somehow from my brain and was tickling me with it's dendrites. After leaping out of bed in fear that it was a spider, I discovered a tick, which met it's untimely demise by being flushed down the toilet. Now I was out of bed and feeling inspired to write something. Much as I like writing, I'm incapable of turning out anything interesting unless I'm inspired, and it happens only periodically. I've learned that I must have either pen and notebook handy or my ever trusty laptop within range at all times in order to harness my creative writing potential. But first I needed a few minutes to mull over the subject at hand – Ayn Rand's Anthem. I'd read it a couple of days before while trying to avoid the awful idea of packing, but it turned out to be rather ineffectual in that way because it took me less than an hour to read and then the boxes where still there waiting and I still had time to pack.

When under the influence of creative literary inspiration, I have to eat. This morning I decided to apply the whole idea of creativity to my breakfast and tried breading my french toast with crushed "Life" cereal (delicious, by the way). I whipped up a yummy peach parfait and poured a glass of Simply Orange High Pulp, the most delicious orange juice known to man (in my humble opinion, at least). Then I settled into my recliner chair to eat breakfast while reading a book about germs (I'd some time before returned my borrowed folding chairs that used to function as dining table seating). This is not a great loss, however, as I usually sit in the living room to eat anyway. With this delicious breakfast passing through my digestive tract and my trusty Nalgene full of freshly brewed iced tea at my side how can anything but words of genuinely great wisdom drip from my fingers?

12:09 pm

I've noticed that these bursts of inspiration generally hit me after reading good books, which is part of the reason that I am always reading. I suppose I should define what I consider to be a "good book" here, as many people apply the same descriptive words to their vampire smut novels and tales of "Christian" romance. Books fall in the "good" category when they make me think. There I go being all philosophical again, but really, I find it hard to truly enjoy a book unless it either portrays my paradigm (why I read some theology books, for instance) or questions my paradigm creating a need on my part to defend it (why I read other theology books and why I read Ayn Rand). I know I don't look smart enough to read books for this purpose. Just ask the middle-age, overweight, goateed and bespectacled clerk at Borders who questioned my wisdom in purchasing three "deep" books by Rand last summer. Out of spite, I threw in Animal Farm for good measure. In actuality, I was already buying it, but I'd like to be able to say that I came up with something witty or ruthlessly sarcastic to say or do to the man. As it was, I was left uncharacteristically speechless by the unusual sales tactic of telling your customer she looks too stupid to read the books she's buying.

Anthem is Rand's version of a post-apocalyptic novella in which rather than barren wastelands and bomb craters, there are people with barren minds, unable to think (which I'm certain is a far worse calamity in Rand's mind). Immediately obvious as you read the book is the idea of loss of self. The characters refer to themselves as "we" and it is illegal to think or do anything that everyone else is not thinking or doing. All individuality is lost as well as all inventive capability since everyone is forced to be as dumb as the dumbest person. The hero, of course, like all of Rand's heroes, has an excellent mind and is extremely intelligent. Obviously, he begins to notice differences between himself and those around him. The rest of the book is the tale of his punishment for thinking "original" thoughts and doing "original" things like talking to the girl he's in love with. In the end, he finds books from a time gone by (maybe he discovered Atlas Shrugged) and discovers the forbidden word – I.

Rand, in the preface to Athem says, "I worship individuals for their highest possibilities as individuals, and I loathe humanity, for its failure to live up to these possibilities." (emphasis hers) Now here comes the thinking part as I dissect exactly what's wrong with that statement which pretty much sums up what the book is all about. I should start by briefly explaining the epistemology of my worldview, though, if you've made it this far, you're probably someone who has already discussed this subject with me. For the random few others who may have survived, I'll very briefly explain my epistemology and would love to discuss it further if you're so inclined. All belief systems have to go back to an axiom, which, for all those of you who have happily forgotten your high-school geometry (or maybe, like me you were lucky enough to have taken a high-school logic course), is an unprovable premise. All reasoning has to have a starting point and by definition, this starting point can't be deduced from any other premise. An axiom is something you just have to believe. It cannot be proven. I'm not sure what Rand's axiom was. She highly valued rationality and logic, but I'm not sure that she ever had a starting point for her logic. My axiom is that the Bible alone is the Word of God. (Should you care to debate this point, I'll define the terms therein.) This is not original to me. I totally stole it from the Westminster Confession of Faith, but I believe it all the same. I can't prove it, but I believe it. The Bible tells me all kinds of things about myself. I'm a sinner. I deserve an eternity of damnation separated from God because He is so good and I'm so bad. But it also tells me nicer things like God's Son, Jesus, came to earth to die so that his death could be substituted for mine. It tells me that I am loved by God and made in His image. I have access to God's thoughts through this Book he has given me and the understanding that He's blessed me with. And I have this calling to share what I've found with those around me. The Bible contains many other wonderful things. You should read it sometime.

Obviously, in my mind I'm trying to use the Bible to refute Rand's statement. First of all, the Bible teaches that it is absolutely wrong to worship anything but God (a). Additionally, people, or "individuals" to borrow Rand's verbage, are universally sinful, wicked, and vile. (b) Not exactly what I would call worthy of worship. Their "highest possibilities", therefore, are very low indeed. The Bible teaches that we should love humanity rather than loathe it. (c) Though we can certainly loathe the sinfulness (d) but I'm certain that's not what Rand was saying as she was a self-proclaimed atheist. Let us suppose for a moment that Rand is right. By definition, atheists believe that there is no God or "higher power". This in turn means that there there can be no objective standards. And therefore no morals (and therefore no sin), because, who then, gets to choose what is right and what is wrong. If it's man then which man? Or can all men choose their own morality? If so, then how can they be "loathed" for anything they choose to do? Herein lies a logical flaw in Rand's philosophy, because she places great importance on the need to be "moral". Certainly, men fail to live up to Rand's idea of "their highest possibilities". But they cannot be loathed for that because they chose it individually (which is to be worshiped, right?). There cannot be a "collective mind". Each person has to decide in their own mind whether or not to challenge the status quo. Going along with what everyone else is doing is therefore a choice and because it is made by an individual, it is infallible. Granted, some would say that people are forced into choosing a particular choice by say being offered the alternative of death. This only means that they were offered two choices and they chose (individually) to not die and along with life all that it entailed.

Which brings me to another point that the Bible addresses. Men always choose what they perceive to be to their benefit. (e) Rand is a great reviler of Christianity because it calls men to sacrifice something. As a worshipper of the individual, nothing could be more heinous than to sacrifice something personal. But we Christians are still subject to choosing what we perceive as in our best self-interest. While we may sacrifice everything in this life, including life itself, we are doing it because it is worth it. Because we will get unmeasurable eternal benefit. (f) So you see it's not really a self-sacrifice then, is it? I could belabor this point, but my brilliant friend, Seth, has written a lovely little piece of literature on the subject that I highly urge you to read and says it all much better than I ever could.

In conclusion, I have to say several things. I generally write so that I can organize the jumbled thoughts that are flashing around inside my brain. Writing them down forces me to collect them and arrange them in a coherent pattern. I also write because it may have some benefit to someone else. Additionally, I am by no means original and have learned everything I know from other people. For this I'm very grateful and hope that if I've said anything in error here, someone will correct me. Please note, however, that I won't be convinced unless you can expose a logical flaw starting with MY axiom. Yes, today has been productive. I'll now return to packing and finish my yummy fresh peach parfait maybe to the tune of some Brandi Carlile (I couldn't stand her at first, but now I'm quite a fan), Sixpence None the Richer, or The Cranberries. What indeed would life be like without music? And non sequiturs?

Being myself a person who likes to check the references of the things I read, below is a brief exegesis for anyone who cares to read further.

(a) Exodus 20:3 – "You shall have no other gods before Me."

(b) Romans 3:23 – "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

(c) Matthew 22:36-40 – "Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and Prophets.""

John 13:34-35 – "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

Romans 13:8-10 – "Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

(d) Galatians 6:1 – "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted."

Ephesians 5:11 – "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."

(e) Ephesians 5:29 – "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the LORD does the church."

(f) Matthew 19:21 – "Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come follow Me."

Matthew 6:19-21 – "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Lucubrations of an Inquisitive Sesquipedalian

Thursday, August 26, 2010

I'm now a city commuter...

Saturday, August 21, 2010

My "Anthem"

A Foray into Poetastry