2.10.2012

permanence & change & change

This space looks empty.

I can hear the faint echo in this neglected gallery of self-portraits done in myriad forms. It's so quiet without the cacophony of run-on prose or the marked syncopation of comma after comma, dash upon dash, open open open parentheses. (Close close open close close parentheses.) It's funny how much louder the not-poetry was compared to the not-not-poetry. Non-existants never cease to amaze me.

Yet the echo is familiar--as it's me calling out, asking if I should return to curate, as I often do after bouts of inactivity...or, rather, activity elsewhere. I hear the whisper and wonder if it's worth it to put my words on the web. And reflect on why they're not here already.

Emotional exigencies aside, I'm compelled to dust off the cob webs for the sake of consistency. I've always written here, so I should write here--faulty logic that nonetheless strikes flawlessly at the part of me that yearns for the nostalgic and the familiar. I have no particular audience in mind save for the teeming millions who hunger tirelessly for the next word to slowly/effortlessly escape from the tips of my fingers. Satiating the masses with fishes, loaves, and the occasional semicolon.

And then there's the catharsis--the sweet kiss-on-the-cheek and belly rub of a thought-spark igniting a thousand pixels and, at the end, seeing meaning in the freshly burned forest. It's almost creative destruction except without the violence that it subtly implies (unless you count my brutality against the English language (and I'm sure you do (KMN))).

Lastly: There's the fun of it all. Being coy. Being explicit. Making you work for it and being intellectual promiscuous. What's the risk compared to the reward? Why am I even asking you--aside from the fact that you're not likely to tell me to STOP while I'm ahead?

This space no longer looks empty--for awhile.

12.04.2011

Almost like I pictured you in that dream--the one where we're running in wet sand, chasing the foamy tide and each other and a future--you have that same expression, wide-smiled face with solar intensity framed by lips who find purpose in such moments and in the movements that follow those moments. Your eyes are velour and your demeanor warmth--an invitation to see, an opportunity to recall.

It had taken you energy you didn't know you had to get here, to get me, to get yourself--to recognize that you belong to a culture no more you belong to a slave master. Awakening your senses, your sense of life, your sensational spirit. To hear it spoken. To feel it against your fingertips. To taste guava from an orchard outside the confines of an Eden.

And every morning it takes that same energy to raise the night shades that deflect/reflect the darkness and to lift your eyes to mine with that sense and that smile, saying, "Good morning, love." Yet here you are--almost like I pictured you in that dream--the one where you grab my hand for the first-second time, squeezing deeply the grooves of our identities to make sure that I know it won't be gone again and that it never really left.

Every morning I look at you and think that I couldn't possibly love you more than I did the day before. Then we get up, tease each other, buy bread, eat rice, make fun, take a walk, find a Starbucks, drive, dash, dodge, make love, watch Spongebob, drink martinis--live. And at the end of it all, when you reflect the moonlight and I the day, I find it possible to surpass a summit, to love you more than I did the last time I watched you sleep, to know over and over and over and over that I will/have moved mountains if they annoyingly cast a shadow on your footpath. I will/have pluck(ed) orbs from the sky and fashion(ed) them into a suitable jewel for your ankle when it seem(s/ed) bare. I will/have love(d) you until the time when those night shades will not reopen and we part for the only real time in what I know will be a regretless life beautifully lived.

9.14.2011

XII

It's the way you keep focus through a laugh, anchoring your gaze in mine like an innocently selfish child who refuses to relinquish her staked spot at the start of Saturday morning cartoons, or it's how your compliments come from a place so guarded in your heart that their value transcends price and enters the realm of the sacrosanct, or it's the way your body changes when we talk, betraying the urgency of your desire and the depth of your sensuality, or it's where you lead our conversations--miles into the immediate moment, years into the distant future, which by playful wit feels just as immediate--or it's how the number of minutes we devote to each other feels insufficient as hours meander by and moments stack up like fortified Jenga towers amidst an army of reminiscent fingers, or it's the way we kiss like lovers separated by decades having been separated by the length of a shower, or it's how when I look at the sky I'm reminded of a picnic and how I expect--not hope but expect--as I gaze skyward to see your smile overshadow the clouds and your happiness outshine the sun; perhaps it's these things and perhaps it's everything that makes me realize the intensity of what I feel for you, but no matter what it is--of the mind, of the body, of the incontrovertible spirit--the fact remains that what I once understood as happiness cannot remain a benchmark for my current joy, and what I experience now--when it's you and me as against the world--is orders of magnitude stronger, nearly to the point of warranting a new kind--and all because of one remarkable difference, one actuality that cannot be approached in sensation by the merely possible, something, I realize, that I lacked from previous engagements of romantic love: love.

8.07.2011

words I wish I'd written

"She has the soul of a poet and the fire of a bullet."

8.05.2011

lyrics that seem particularly relevant at the moment (though, admittedly, I'm just reading too much into things like usual)



"Los Angeles" by The Audition

She said,
"I'm jealous of Los Angeles, she gets to keep you for a month or two
And I don't know if I can handle this the thought of being without you."

I know it's cold, but baby maybe we can stay a little longer
Then warm up those toes, the last thing we need is to blow our cover
And I know it's tough to reconsider what you thought was love
But I'm so proud of all the plans you're speaking of

Lay with me stay with me now, oh
'Cause you are all I think about

She said, "I'm jealous of Los Angeles, she gets to keep you for a month or two
And I don't know if I can handle this the thought of being without you."
She said, "I'm sorry for the way I've been, it's so much harder, but I guess we'll see
If I can prove myself wrong, show you I can be stronger than we thought that I would be."

I said, "Let's go and baby, maybe I can show you what you need to know
And how to cope the citizens can listen in but they will never know
About this love and just how stronger we can be
So what if they don't like the plans that we've been speaking of?"

I'll crave your kiss while you're gone, oh
So much I'm missing that alone

She said, "I'm jealous of Los Angeles she gets to keep you for a month or two
And I don't know if I can handle this the thought of being without you."
She said, "I'm sorry for the way I've been it's so much harder, but I guess we'll see
If I can prove myself wrong, show you I can be stronger than we thought that I would be."

And I can commit to change
(I said I'm sorry for the way I've been)
If you can promise to stay the same
(It's so much harder than I thought it'd be)
And never let this fade
(I said I'm sorry for the way I've been)
Baby, just promise to stay the same
(It's so much harder than I thought it'd be)

She said, "I'm jealous of Los Angeles she gets to keep you for a month or two
And now I know that I can handle this the thought of being without you."
She said, "I'm sorry for the way I've been it's so much harder, but I guess we'll see
If I can prove myself wrong, show you I can be stronger than we thought that I would be."


"You're Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go" as sung by Madeleine Peyroux


I've seen love go by my door
It's never been this close before
Never been so easy or so slow
Been shooting in the dark too long
When something's not right it's wrong
You're gonna make me lonesome when you go

[...]

Situations have ended sad,
Relationships have all been bad.
Mine've been like Verlaine's and Rimbaud.
But there's no way I can compare
All those scenes to this affair,
You're gonna make me lonesome when you go

You're gonna make me wonder what I'm doing,
Staying far behind without you.
You're gonna make me wonder what I'm saying,
You're gonna make me give myself a good talking to.


"A Whole New World" from Disney's Aladdin


(Aladdin:)A whole new world
A new fantastic point of view
No one to tell us no
Or where to go
Or say we're only dreaming

(Jasmine:)A whole new world
A dazzling place i never knew
But now from way up here
It's crystal clear
That now i'm in a whole new world
With you
(Aladdin:)Now i'm in a whole new world with you

(Jasmine:)Unbelievable sights
Indescribable feeling
Soaring, tumbling, freewheeling
Through an endless diamond sky

(Jasmine:) A whole new world
(Aladdin:) Don't you dare close your eyes
(Jasmine:) A hundred thousand things to see
(Aladdin:) Hold your breath- it gets better
(Jasmine:)I'm like a shooting star, I've come so far I can't go back to where i used to be

(Aladdin:) A whole new world
(Aladdin:) With new horrizons to pursue

[...]

(Jasmine:) A whole new world
(Aladdin:) A whole new world
(Jasmine:) Thats where we'll be
(Aladdin:) Where we will be
(Jasmine:) A thrilling change
(Aladdin:) A wonderous place
(Both:) For you and me



...

Judge away, Internet-people.

4.29.2011

Knowing that people like You exist has helped me get through this week. Thank you.

[If you know this applies to you, then it does. [You know who you are.]]
[I wrote this on my flight to CA. It's still in its early stages and will undergo several more revisions. I haven't written fiction since I was an undergraduate. [Revised at 11:13p ET.]]

17A

“Now boarding Group 4. Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 should now feel free to board.”

Mark looked at his boarding pass. Again. It said “Group 4” this time, too. The reassurance was nice. He stepped into line behind an Asian family on their way home from Disney—or who had peculiar taste in hats—and in front of an Asian family with no particularly distinguishing characteristics—except their lack of mouse ears.

Mark stood alone between the two Asian families, left hand in pocket, half-wishing he understood more of what they were saying than the few random oddities like “waffles” and “pop-up blocker,” half-focusing on his group number. He handed the attendant his boarding pass. She smiled and scanned it.

Bleep. E-pproval.

“Welcome aboard, Mr. O’Conner. Enjoy your flight.”

He nodded, smiled-of-sorts, proceeded to the jet way.

“17B,” he recited aloud, just before giving into the urge to check his seat assignment for the nth time. Sure enough, with the stoic expression of a cast iron bust, the boarding pass affirmed his seat assignment: 17B.

“Can I help you with any baggage, sir?” The flight attendant was eager enough but overly sweet—a Hershey kiss contra a grandmother’s fudge.

“No, thank you,” Mark replied, bowing his head slightly. She was cute, he noted, and young—but unnaturally blonde: a damn shame and deal breaker.

“You can pick up your bags at baggage claim area seven when we land, then.”

“I didn’t check any bags,” he said, walking past her and down the narrow aisle. He looked back briefly, noting that confusion did not make the girl any less cute—nor any less blonde.

He reviewed his boarding pass. 17B. Not that it mattered. Aside from the Asian families and a handful of sun-seeking-seniors, seats were filled only with a second quarter loss for American.

Mark found his seat, removed his suit jacket, and placed it gingerly in the overhead bin. He sat in the aisle seat, his hand quickly finding its way back to his left pocket. He leaned out slightly to watch the remaining passengers board but saw no one—a row to himself and the rows in front and back of him, too. It was good thinking space. He fiddled with his seat back, flipped through a magazine, read the safety card, then repeated these actions.

The right half of his seat belt fell toward the aisle and he leaned out to grab it. Black flats suddenly came into focus, and in those flats, two feet attached to two legs, long legs, which led to a pale blue dress—the kind you’d see on a member of the royal family or first lady or, at the very least, a railroad executive with something to prove in an industry dominated by the less fair sex. But this woman was none of those people, and the dress, clutched at the waist by a simple black belt and held up by a single shoulder strap, suited her better than any “celebutant.” Mark’s eyes made their way to her face and held there out of desperation, caught in the quickening undercurrent of the greenish blue seas just north of her understated nose. Everything about her face projected confidence—from the hue of her blush to the missing tension from the corners of her mouth. Yet her posture read excitement and her demeanor cautious optimism—or, at least, guarded benevolence. Mark’s lower lip dropped slightly and in place of words gave way to overwhelming silence.

“17A,” she said.

Mark hesitated, thinking that was his seat, but stood urgently after a quick glance at his boarding pass. He gestured her in and she nodded a “thank you” reserved for just such awkward social chivalries. Mark stood for a moment-too-long, watching the purposefulness of her movements and contemplating the stark, inappropriate contrast between her simple black belt that emphasized everything that was perfect about her body and the black lap belt she proceeded to buckle. He was tempted to rip it away like invading ivy from a flourishing oak. Instead he sat down and buckled his own ivy belt and placed his hand back in his pocket.

“I asked for this seat,” she said suddenly, staring out the window. Mark thought her words might shatter the glass as they did the silence, and his head subconsciously tilted with intrigue. She continued, “I like to sit over the engines, to think that such incredible power is mere feet beside me, and to know that I’m remarkably safe.”

Mark was stunned and didn’t know what to say, so he evaded. “I’ll move once they close the cabin door,” he spouted, not because he wanted to but because it would be suspicious if he didn’t offer.

The woman turned from the window with serious inquiry. “Why?” she asked.

“So you’ll have more room.” He attempted a smile but aborted mid-grin.

“Are you saying I’m fat?”

“What? No. You’re… Of course not. I’m just…” He stopped when he noticed her laughing. This time his smile came through as planned.

“It’s up to you,” she said, looking to her cell phone. “I’ve got plenty of room…Mark.”

He removed his hands from the seatbelt, relaxing cautiously, then tensing again as he realized what she said. His puzzled look was her cue.

“Your tie clip. It has your name on it.” She pointed but Mark’s eyes wouldn’t break from hers, so she touched the tie clip with two fingers and pushed it into his chest. Mark noticed.

“Right,” he managed to stammer. “It was a recent gift. I forgot I was wearing a tie.” He loosened the knot in a not-entirely-stereotypical fashion. “Who wears a suit on a plane, anyway?”

“Apparently, Mark does.” She withdrew her fingers and, per the captain’s request, turned off her phone before returning to the window for take off. They sat in silence for longer than Mark could stand until he could find words that didn’t sound entirely superficial.

“Business or pleasure?” he asked, instantly hearing their superficiality.

“Why do you separate the two?” she asked honestly.

“It’s just something people ask. I don’t know.”

“Do you ask it?”

“No.”

“Then why ask it now?” There was no violence in her voice. There was innocence and curiosity and a digestible amount of sweetness, but she wasn’t attacking and Mark never felt as such—just relieved.

He decided to do something out of the ordinary—at least out of the ordinary for the past few months. And he decided to do so because he was sure it would work—this time. He decided to tell the truth. He wasn’t an accomplished liar. It had been too long since he engaged in such frank use of language. No word play. No massaging the point. No meaningless qualifications or empty rhetoric.

Simply: “Because I want to keep talking to you.”

She adjusted in her seat, turning toward him and uncrossing her legs. “Then let’s talk, Mark.” She rested her face on her hand and waited patiently for his words. But when they came, some patience was swept away in a wave of triviality.

“Where are you headed?” he asked.

“California. And yourself?”

“The same. Why are you going?”

“Vacation. You?”

“Of sorts. What do you do for a living?”

“I’m a stripper.”

“No you’re not.”

“What does it matter?”

“It doesn’t.”

“Then why bore us both?”

Mark paused then said the first thing that came to mind. “Truth or dare?”

She grinned and sat up straight. “Truth.”

“What’s your favorite book?”

“No. Ask what you’re interested in knowing.”

Mark thought only briefly. “Do you have a boyfriend?”

“Right to the point, Mark. Much better. There’s hope for you. And no—not any more. Truth or dare?”

“Truth.”

“Who’s Beth?”

Mark leaned back with the look of a man who had been surprised by a gunshot to the chest. “What?”

“Beth. On your boarding pass, by the group and seat number, you wrote, ‘Goodbye, Beth.’ Who is
she?”

Mark’s smile didn’t disappear, but it lost its edge. He blinked a few times and looked down like a boy being playfully teased by the neighbor’s daughter, his fingers tapping nervously in his pocket. He raised his eyes to hers and answered—not sadly but as a matter of historical fact, as a stenographer’s recording of a procedural request:

“She was 17A.”

Mark waited for her to speak, to inquire further or at least nod knowingly, but she waited equally long for him to offer something further, an explanation or, at least, a nod of an acknowledged past. He had neither to give her nor to give himself, so he said with gusto, “Truth or dare?”

No smile from her this time or hints of empathy but a look of acceptance and a willingness to play along for now. “Truth,” she said.

“Why are you vacationing in California?”

“Do you really want to know that?”

“Yes.”

“Why?”

“It’s not your turn to ask questions.”

She looked annoyed, but it wasn’t annoyance that she felt. It was more like reverence but without the exaltation, surprise but without the wonder, respect mixed with a specific type of desire. Whatever it was, she liked it.

“I’m making a pilgrimage.”

“A religious one?” Mark asked nervously.

“Spiritual. Not religious.”

“To?”

“To an author’s house. She’s dead, and I’m going to pay my respects.” She did not make light of her statement.

Mark paused. “Who?”

“You never heard of her.”

“Probably not. Why are you going? Why does she deserve your respect?”

“Because she wrote something that made me smile during a time in my life when I thought I’d never smile again.”

“What did she write?”

She giggled dismissively—serious but without reproach—and turned away briefly. “Mark, I just met you. It’s way too early for that. I’d as soon sleep with you.”

And with that remark, the attendants with the beverage cart passed them by.

Mark took the moment in a direction that most men wouldn’t. “Then tell me why it made you smile,” he demanded. “I want to know the secret to making you happy.”

Her giggles subsided and her nose unwrinkled. The reflected sunlight from the wing made a valiant effort of highlighting her auburn hair—though, Mark concluded, it demanded spotlight. She never stopped smiling yet exuded the seriousness of an oncologist, the tone of an evangelist, the love of a mother:

“Have you ever felt something so deeply that you can barely recognize that you feel it—something so intimate that your mind knows better than to let you defile it with the pop-trend du jour? It’s there, constantly, as influential as any guardian or sage, yet when you try to examine it, it vanishes, like a shadow upon twilight.

“It’s that feeling of knowing what’s beautiful about yourself and, then, the world; your evaluation of everything simultaneously; your subconscious collection of what’s important and what’s not, what’s private and what’s public, what’s sacred and what’s profane. It’s your reason to get up in the morning and go to a job you don’t particularly want so you can put yourself in a position for one you do; your motivation for running those last 100 yards no matter how your lungs feel or how loudly your heart protests because you want what the mirror will show tomorrow; your desire to continue dating no matter how many times your heart is broken precisely because you know that one day it will be indestructible; your dream and confidence that eventually you’ll attain it all—the job, the body, the lover…the world.

“And you sometimes get a real glimpse of it, that intimate feeling, and you’re reminded of its reality—when you hear your favorite band or watch your favorite movie or see the rare worthwhile painting. Because it’s more than just art you’re experiencing. It’s you. It’s that…feeling…that spark—some call it your soul. It’s that reflected back at you by someone else who ‘gets it’—a moment when you experience yourself outside of yourself, as an entity, as a unique, infinitely priceless part of the universe at large, as a thing worthy of your love.

“What she did, the author who I’m proud to honor, she wrote something that expressed everything I’ve ever wanted to say about myself but couldn’t find the words, or images, or sounds to do so—everything I’d ever for a moment considered part of that thing I call ‘me.’ I looked into her words and saw what everyone calls the Face of God. But as Its face, I saw my own.”

Mark clenched his fist in his pocket, a futile effort to resist the intimate question. Their eyes kept pace with their emotions—synched and with gregarious fervor. He confronted the exigency with notable strength but lost, finally asking, “What did she say that made you smile?”

Her eyes broke with his for the first time in what-felt-like-days and her smile turned into the smirk of a supremely confident youth, one who has no cares in the world not because she cares about nothing but because she knows precisely what’s required of her at every moment. Her eyes darted back to his. Her lips moved with the precision of an architect’s compass.

“Her words are her own. But in my words: she said that I didn’t have to be ashamed of it—that self-feeling—that, more so than anything I could find in the world or in other people, it was good. It was to be worshipped.”

Mark couldn’t help it, so he gave in to his smile and giddiness. She smiled back, bigger than the last.

“Truth or dare?” she asked as a moment’s exchange of inviolate joy.

“Dare,” said Mark, with all the panache of a 17-year-old at post-prom.

She lifted the armrest between them, unbuckled her belt, freeing the blue dress from undeserved restriction, and leaned toward Mark—it was less than a moment before he completed the circuit with tilted head and eyes slowing closing. His vision gave way to sensation. She was there, he knew, because he felt the fire she set raging through his cheeks and his chest to the tips of his fingers. He tasted her mouth and felt her teeth tug on his bottom lip. They were hearing each other and breathing each other and, with unashamed intimacy, becoming another. It lasted a while, a year, three seconds, who cares? It was.

Their lips made a desperate cling as their faces departed and taste reluctantly abdicated to vision. Her greenish blue eyes projected the strength of tempered steel and her lips the desire of a lifetime of seeking and, at last, having found.

“Was that your dare?” asked Mark, already knowing the answer, in a tone that had all the makings of a whisper but with the vigor of a valedictory address.

He brushed the hair back from her face with his right hand and relaxed his left in his pocket. She confirmed, “Of course not.”

Mark leaned forward again with the intent of concretizing her words. She placed her hand on his left arm, not to stop him—it did—but to emphasize what she was about to say.

“I dare you to show me what you’ve been holding in your pocket—whatever it is that requires your grip and attention.”

Mark sat up purposely and without hesitation. He had already decided what to do with the contents of his pocket, but her dare—her rightful request—only affirmed his choice. He withdrew his clenched fist from his pocket and slowly extended his arm toward her. His fingers opened to reveal an unassuming black box.

“It’s…” he started, but she shook her head.

“I know what it is…what it was.” Her hand ran down his arm and to his fingers, where she assisted him in closing his hand around the box. Mark brought his fist to his chest and, as a flight attendant walked by with an open bag for garbage, he reached across his body and deposited what was left of the past year where it properly belonged.

“Please bring your seat backs forward and fasten your seat belts. We’re preparing to land.” The cute-yet-blonde flight attendant flashed a smile at Mark and a friendly-ish grin at his seatmate before walking to the back to tell a pre-teen to cease his texting.

She looked down briefly to comply with the flight attendant’s orders, but before she could finish buckling, she felt a warm hand on her cheek. She looked up in time to see the determination in Mark’s eyes.

“I…I know it’s wrong,” he said, not believing a word of it. “But…”

“You’re boring me again with your proletariat morality.”

He kissed her for the second time in so many moments. She could feel his smile. She smiled back into his lips. When it ended his hand stayed in place, his thumb rubbing gently against flushed skin.

“Where are you sitting on the connector flight?” she asked, leaning her head into his palm, really only needing to know that he would be on the next flight. “I’m in 18C.”

“29F,” replied Mark, drinking from the calmed waters of her once riptide eyes. “It’s a window seat. I’ll have it changed.”

* * * * *

They walked off the plane together—neither with bags but possessing more than they boarded with. They stopped momentarily to help an Asian family take a picture and proceeded to the ticket counter.

The gentleman working behind the computer eagerly obliged their request for seats together, assuming the couple had been split up by improperly purchased tickets or the random happenstance of computer error. He was more than willing to play their personal Cupid.

“Name, sir?” he asked, more chipper than usual.

“Mark. Mark O’Conner.”

“Thank you, Mr. O’Conner, and your wife’s name?”

They both turned to her, Cupid with a toothy grin, Mark with a “husband’s” gentle leer. She looked to Mark, put her right hand in his left, and turned to Cupid.

“Mrs. O’Conner,” she said.

4.25.2011

Sometimes it sucks having a semi-complete record of my most intimate thoughts--being able to pick a moment and relive it as many times as the will can endure--but even so I wouldn't trade it for golden idols or diamond trinkets. Or for Her.

4.24.2011

XI

Take, for instance, that moment of painfully selfish honesty--when it was impossible to know if this newly-flourishing friendship would manifest as phoenix or burn as sacrificial offering to the pop-Gods, Harry and Sally--when the context required a phone call of inexorable futility and no-other-answer than the one you gave but did not owe me; take it as an example of why living, properly understood, is the most difficult action anyone can attempt and why those who abdicate their responsibility also relinquish the rewards of accomplishment, but also take it--and every moment since--as the consummate sign of what is possible with thought, what is available when integrity trumps whim, when the impossible receives just treatment as a non-value instead of a dis-value, and the emotions that flow from that recognition usurp the emotionalism of desiring not-even-the-unearned but the unearnable; take it as an example of remarkle happiness, of illuminous virtue, of that which should always be named--as what I cherish most about our friendship and what, when asked, I couldn't immediately concretize: our particular, peculiar, perfect benevolence.

4.04.2011

A nervous excitement between their lips and the moment--as if this night's closing was the opening of another and its beginning the final couplet of a since-rewritten poem--their breathing mingles and eyelids withdraw, focus shifting from taste to vision, a reluctant departure, if necessary--for now. It's a "goodbye" kiss but a "hello" moment--the end of the start but the start of something exciting and beautiful and, among other words, fun.

3.14.2011

X

Like a dream of falling, when at the moment of impact I'm jolted awake and made aware of my safety, the realization struck as a nudge over the precipice of affection--complete (and replete) with an initial stumbling and the eventual accepting-enjoyment of the tumble--marking with gratuitous surprise the third time I've sojourned this bluff, steep as it seems, and the first time I've willfully chosen my path in an ominous sky; and with it all, a mark of imperfection, and without it all, relief--a moment not taken to deftly awaken this vastly integrated culmination that what I wanted was illusory and what existed, more so--that my desire was real and just and (eventually) just beyond the Cave or the Stoic Calm and, in fact, something I cherish as the purpose and the beauty and the life of meaning, but that the desired [oh! the "gorgeous" desired] was but a shadow puppet maiden cast by a gloved hand--where beneath the velvet, where lips should meet skin, rainclouds.

3.05.2011

His attitude is confidence and his demeanor radiant joy, yet beneath it all, buried below impervious self-esteem and subcutaneous beauty, a profound loneliness manifests without fanfare or pomp but with transient circumstance. There are the values he obtains--friendship, art, and the rest--and the values he pursues--romance, success, and the like--and then: You. It's not what he needs to share but what he has shared and that he needs to. A simultaneous knowing and not, the potential and the actual and the potentially actual, and distance.

3.02.2011

It's a misnomer and an oxymoron to say that someone is in "bad health." Disease is not a state of health but an abrogation of health. What we refer to as "good health" is, in fact, the normal state of life. Since human flourishing is the standard by which we judge the good, then deviations from it are necessarily the exception--as it would make no sense to hold a baseline standard that was not the norm. This principle is easy to demonstrate in physical well being. A man who has the flu is not a flourishing human being. He lacks health momentarily but soon returns to a satisfactory equilibrium. He regains his health. The more complex example is to compare an ordinary, non-diseased man with another who also happens to eat well and exercise. Are both men in good health but with different degrees of good? No. The latter man, assuming he understands himself and the basics of nutrition, is healthy while the former man is probably in a slightly unhealthy state. He certainly isn't healthy in the proper definition of the term.

Admittedly, it's a different way of framing the issue than most people are used to, and some people, I'm sure, would disagree. But even among the people who agree with me, there are relatively few who view happiness the same way. Yet, using a flourishing life as your standard, I contend that happiness (rationally self-interested happiness) is "health," and unhappiness is the absence of "health." As such, it's important to view unhappiness as a fleeting aberration, as a disruption of what is proper for a human--in the same way that a cold interrupts physical well being. Many people are too quick to accept that unhappiness is a normal state of being. This makes little sense. If given a cancer diagnosis, most people would (I hope and assume) fight the disease to the best of their ability, never conceding that cancer is an acceptable state of health or, worse yet, that it is health. Yet this is exactly how some people view unhappiness: as a form of living or as life itself.

In the same way that disease is not health, unhappiness is not life. I mean this in as close to a literal sense as I can convey without being a literalist. Unhappiness is the absence of life. To maintain a state of unhappiness--that is, to accept it as living--is equivalent to accepting the flu as health and refusing to treat it. In both cases, the disease may go away on its own. Or, as sometimes happens, the disease kills you--metaphorically, literally, a combination of both.

I, for one, choose health. Do you?

2.25.2011

I sometimes forget how far I've come, what I've accomplished, that, in the best possible sense of the term, I'm a saved soul. What I might have become--without the morality of self-interest, without Ayn Rand--it's hard to fathom, harder yet to face in any concrete way. (Frankly, though, that alternate future, that anti-life road I was spared from navigating, deserves nothing save the acknowledgement that it could have been--that it never will be.) What deserves attention, or at least momentary, explicit recognition, is the distance I've traveled--from that point of a young, frightened boy kneeling at the precipice of Hell and eagerly accepting my fate to where I am now as an evolving, confident young man standing upright and proudly at the entrance to Heaven on Earth. My gates are not pearly, though, but a gleaming steel of blueish green. There is no St. Peter standing guard with book of sins--only my clear conscience and the confidence to know that this place, this Nirvana, is mine to seize.

A few compliments lately--about rationality and benevolence--jolted me into this reflective exercise. I've learned to take compliments gracefully and with genuine respect, mostly because I've learned that people often mean what they say--at least the people I choose to spend time with. The latest two did not strike me as wrong or insincere, of course. Contrarily, I've rarely felt better about receiving such kind words. Yet they were unexpected in a sense. Why? I'm not sure it matters--at least not as much as it used to--because the unexpectedness doesn't come from a sense of guilt (finally), and I genuinely appreciate the words--right now especially, more than I can convey with typefaced text.

I suppose it's because I no longer seek such praise. I don't even mean approval, really, but praise as such. My self-esteem is no longer, in any way, derived from the worth other people see in me. If they find something of value in me (genuine value, properly understood), all the better. I want to be of value to people I love. But I don't need them to find value in me--as long as I find value in myself.

Moreover, I've been along for the ride. That is, I've been with me for every step of this transformational journey. What were only incremental steps along this path to enlightenment is now one cavernous gap, the other side of which I can barely discern--not that I care to stare long anyway.

And so I find another way that the people I value enrich my life--by reflecting the me I've become and helping me notice exactly how I've molded myself. It's a sweet sculpture thus far, but the devilish details are yet to come. It's abundantly clear, though, that in me I find no fear. Confidence--check. Anxiousness--check. Eagerness--check. But not a second of hesitation or doubt or the guilt that's oft associated with selfishly striving for happiness.

My, how I look forward to defining myself.

2.22.2011

I concede. It's not fair to expect words to mean what they meant prior to rewriting the rules. If their nuance never quavered nor their exactness refined, then I wouldn't be here anyway--sitting on this bed, writing a sentence that meanders toward inanity, anticipating your likeness as I drift away from the day's excitement and anxiety, acknowledging that the likeness will do for now but not indefinitely. I have the right to call you out, though, as I did and will continue to do. It's one of those things that I'm allowed, and I know you don't mind. In fact, you like it. That's one of those things that couldn't be different.

1.29.2011

Let's pretend, she said, like it never happened, like the Sun hasn't already set on this twilight fantasy. And with the gloaming comes a certain vision--darker than the norm but strangely revealing, like watching baseball by moonlight at the edge of a field of corn. But unlike the sport, this game has no rules for you--only what you want now, which is what I won't allow since you don't deserve it.

I am not a bastion of warmth where you make seek shelter at a moment's notice or a font of happiness from which you may drink without recompense. I desire a penny for thoughts and a dime for actions or at least the honesty of admitting you're bankrupt. I concede: What I wanted was out of reach, but what I required (and deserved) was within the means of even the most destitute of vagrants.

Disclosure.

It bothers me, who you are, but what hurts me is who I thought you were who you aren't. Asking the question, "How much of it was real?" and hearing the answer, "A name and number." Was I a rushing fool or you a mirage? I care enough to know the answer, but only because I care enough to never make the mistake again.

Yet somehow, amidst your tears and that feeling of my stomach evacuating through my heels, I managed to hear something else--the faintest whisper of revolution in an atmosphere of uncertainty.  How perfect and fragile and perfectly fragile, a Faberge emotion with the possibility of hatching a future.

And, suddenly, I'm OK with pretending like it never happened--because it didn't.

1.16.2011

He saw life in her eyes and transcendence in her lips--pleasure that belonged here: in this time, in this place, now. It was immediate and concrete--emphatically physical and unabashedly sensual. It was everything he lacked, everything he desired, everything he couldn't give himself with words.

And with action she made it real.

Her smile sent his stomach to his feet like a boy grabbing a merry-go-round mid-spin, clutching desparately-playfully to the thing that both scares him and gratifies him most. When he looked at her face there was endless sensation--billions of strings tugging his nerve endings awake from their perpetual hibernation, reminding them that this is what it means to feel, that the point-of-it-all is in this moment. At her touch it was over. Words failed. Concepts paled. There was nothing but that percept, and he needed nothing more, wanted nothing less.

Yet he struggled with the pleasure of it all and wondered if it meant betrayal of virtue. So he hesitated and lost her eyes in a fog of stoicism. What he saw then was a blackness, a confusion of what wasn't there with what he desired. He noticed that he wasn't scared--only comfortable--and that scared him. Because it shouldn't be like this with its denial and arbitrary rules, with its psuedo-asectic renunciations and cereal box chivalry. And, luckily, it's not. Because there are words that one must keep in focus, words that are vital to survival, to happiness, to the life in her eyes.

"...for living on Earth."

And as her smile teased the Richter scale and her eyes made jealous the Sun, he put those words on repeat in his subconscious playlist, listening intently while visioning intensely. He heard them again and more agains than bare repeating until he memorized their cadence. They made the soundtrack of the night as he walked her out the door and to tomorrow, toward a fast-approaching future of having none of it. His nerve endings pleaded for stimulant as eyelids sank and mind drifted listlessly toward slumber. It's where he went, too--alone: for now, for the immediate future. But for the first time in a long time, he didn't like it.

1.10.2011

[Mostly written during my Thanksgiving vacation.]


night run

That first step toward where I've been, away from yesterday, and the burning of flesh and spirit--the renewal and reward of a self-igniting, self-actualizing phoenix--into a dimly lit future. This limitless night holds for me what it does for everyone willing to brave the darkness--the potential, the actual, the desire and drive--and with it an uncertainty that dances in the periphery, illusory yet attractive as Soma and a bed. Bundled and ear-budded, ready for the work, unprepared for the effort, I descend stairs with Brand New Eyes, ready to hear the world for what it is, desiring, on several levels, escape from moments and from impending immediacy and from whatever comes after "next." So I begin to run.

Wondering where I'm going and knowing just as quickly--but also where I would go if my legs had the strength to carry me and my lungs the capacity for forever. Texas, out of habit, comes before I complete the thought, and my entire Life streams through my consciousness--reliving my decisions, affirming my mistakes, re-coming to terms with it all. And just as fast as the lone star was born, providing guidance for a boy lost at sea--or, rather, a boy building his raft while drowning--its brightness peaks in super nova, and I round the corner east--toward Virginia, toward what is/n't.

Inhale the stale night; exhale a burden. Nothing about me goes untouched--each breath a notice from my lips to fingertips that it's worth it to live and to live as such: desiring, achieving, experiencing the end result of that gloriously finite second when the nerve endings in my face send sensations racing toward my consciousness and their reception heralded with a not-so-common-man's fanfare. Bio-chemically no different from the touch of a leaf to my shin, this sensation could not be more different--more intimate, more fulfilling, seemingly more immediate. It's the culmination of my achievements, both concrete and personal, manifest as clear and vivid a reality as Descartes could ever hope for. In the moment, I affirm what is right with me and the world and look momentarily into the indefatigable soul of Benevolence.

Sprinting. I hadn't noticed until now. Nor realized that I had long ago stopped thinking about running. One ear bud down, I ease up, away from a maybe and think of Gump's mindless journey with disdain. Then: To California. To inspiration and a font of genuine happiness. To a fellow traveler who, at times, allows me to nap through it all and, at other times, insists that I drive. To brotherhood (if it means anything). To value. And as quickly as the thought comes it merges with another, and the wind carries me toward Chicago--anything but my kind of town--toward an expatriate past and an evolutionary future--more awe-inspiring than anything I could have fictionalized. "Look what they have accomplished," I whisper in silence. "And think of everything they will conquer." It's a smile, that whisper, but it's not directed merely at them...

An owl asks and my pulse responds, "Me, me." Directed at the accomplishments of last Tuesday--or Wednesday or Friday or Sunday--and at the life-tasks I will check-as-done after tonight. At the magnitude of what has happened in my life because of my realization that it could and because I demanded of myself the strength to do it. At the validity of the process. At the seemingly impossible made inevitable. At satisfaction and contentment. At risk and reward. At the means, ends, journey, and result. At everything that's beautiful about running toward life instead of away from death.

And that's where I finish--apropos: with a sense of achievement. The final steps must have been painful, but I honestly don't remember them as such--only as worthy of having been taken. The last step toward where I might someday be, toward tomorrow, and the burning of flesh and spirit.

"We were born for this."

Yes, Hayley, we were.

12.21.2010

B: Things change. You have changed.
A: I'm half the man I used to be.
B: You're a million times the man you used to be.

11.18.2010

friend: 50 points if you hook up with her
me: Haha. Just 50?
friend: 50 is half of 100, which is a perfect score on a test
You lose half because it would make me hate the good for being the good.

11.08.2010

It's that feeling of wanting to fix it and knowing I can't--of needing to say the words that will drown out misery's ostinati and providing only a tacet stare. 

There are things that transcend my ability and outweigh my desires. No matter how much effort I apply, there are pitches I can't match, tones I can't hear, rhythms I can't learn. Malevolence? Surely not, no. Mere metaphysical fact and meta-metaphysical realization. I didn't say that the pitches qua pitches couldn't be matched, but that I, in the mold of myself, could not reach them--tones and rhythms the same. 

All of it is attainable, though--the fame/fortune/feast, the alchemist's fire that transmutes despair to elation, the composer's pen from which ink spills forth and dots staves with liquid fulfillment. 

I want nothing more than to fix it and know nothing more certain than the fact that I can't. It's your libretto to score, your melodies to harmonize. I'm here to listen, quite literally, and to provide feedback when appropriate and when you ask and when you don't ask and when it's inappropriate and when I have none to provide and when you hate me for it and when you love me for it and when, upon hearing it, you cry or smile or dance and when it's followed my moments of silence or decades of laughter. 

Ultimately, though, you are the maestro. It's your concerto to write and perform, your universe to create.

10.30.2010

A recent cascade of life-lessons washes over palimpsest soul--that subconscious tablet with its near illegible marginalia from an ancient epoch and remnants of remnants of multiple selves--reminding me of the recentness of salvation and the extent to which rebirth takes hold and the time it takes to make-it-real, finding room for the next scripture or, rather, the next perfection of the version at hand. Two potentialities and two negations but not without two moments of truth and beauty: one of acceptance and the other of respect. 

The former moment ended in the only way it could have, assuming full context properly held, yet it was the most painful and most trying--not necessarily because of the depth of the investment but more so because of the distance of the fall from potential to actual. "Wherever something stands, something will stand beside it"--except when it doesn't; then it occurs, that dichotomy that portrays intimacy while denying desire. I cannot footrace with ghosts. I cannot fill a physical space with [ethereal, emotional] light. I cannot accept one without the other--no matter which comes first. Neither should You or anyone or everyone.

The latter moment ended the the less favorable of two ways, but [only?] because of my blind naiveté, my inability to act on a value because of my fear of betraying a Platonic "ideal." [This foolishness needs neither debate nor explication.] And while there was/is emotional distress, it doesn't approach intractable. Yes, perhaps I kept a healthier distance but more so, I think, because there was seemingly no contradiction--no dichotomy, no desiring the unearned, no wanting something without that something to stand beside it. There was acknowledgement and concession--benevolence and understanding--honesty and caution. Ultimately, there was respect. 

Both moments have a sorry-grateful ending--for what I learned and what I could/n't have done. For the former writes on the tablet a parable of what it means to love myself and to know the difference between selfishness and rational selfishness, and the latter, directly atop that parable, a regretful-happy etude with bombastic lyrics and melancholy tone--one I'll hum for awhile until its theme becomes remixed in life's greater symphony. 

10.21.2010

It's not unexpected, but still surprising, that for the first time in a long time I want to go home. The holidays are approaching, my mother has been sick, and I've experienced some emotional potholes on the road to perfection. Objectively considered they're minor, really, but enough of a bump to cause discomfort and to make me second guess my driving. Could I have swerved? Taken a road less traveled? Walked? All important, legitimate questions to consider as long as I keep the subject of the inquiry in focus and don't make bottomless pits out of potholes--as I have a tendency to do.

Unhappiness is an exception to life's rule, and this exception will pass sooner rather than later. Because this time I know how to read the map.

10.20.2010

"GET LOUD.
Show some passion.
BE KNIVES.
For the sake of our lives, my man, BE KNIVES!"

I'm going to read this every day until it happens.

10.10.2010

When the signs are this clear, there's no need for a TomTom. Stop planning and start driving.

9.27.2010

It's like I'm living Zeno's paradox, traveling gracefully through the air with target in sight yet infinitely further from the goal precisely because I approach it. But no matter how slowly you pull the trigger of a gun, eventually it fires.

9.26.2010

Mistakes, though minor, are mine now--as there's no "whisper in the wind, resounding the echoes of yesterday." It wasn't there, that palimpsest sign, with its half erased doubts and faded memories of memories. I was alone in my error but, more importantly, alone in my success. And both felt liberating. Pursuing a value doesn't guarantee I'll achieve it, nor does it guarantee I'll pursue it perfectly. But practice makes lemonade--or a less sugary concoction--and when life hands you lemons, throw them at glass houses.

9.21.2010

Sometimes the best and only way to conquer sadness is to automatize a new happiness.

8.26.2010

Confronted with the notion that sincere honesty may be, in fact, too honest, my fall back position is one of default. There's nothing there beyond the complete truth. I've practiced full disclosure for so long that to do otherwise seems disingenuous. (I know it's not.)

Here it is again, that concept of gaming that I evaded for so long that I forgot it was something that deserved consideration.

"We never had to take any of it seriously, did we?"

Unfortunately, yes. But not too seriously.

8.02.2010

Leaving this increasingly Lilliputian world, past the sparrows and malcontent pigeons, their ambition no greater than the immediate and no more inspiring; past flailing kites and the haiku-worty breezes that propel them; past ragged stone peaks and sharpened steel spires, the pinnacle of nature and the as-yet-best of man; past the escaped stuffing of the Earth, as it blots the ground with shifting splotches of shade and fills the sky with Stay Puff splendor; past it all and into a possibility space, where men used to only dream of looking and now do so with Diet Coke in hand; I can't help but wonder: What next?

6.27.2010

a note on human perfection

Wendy Milling correctly asserts, "To be perfect means to meet a given standard flawlessly." She's discussing socio-economic systems, but the definition applies to anything that can attain perfection. Standards are based on context, namely the given nature of the thing and the nature of the environment in which it operates. I might speak of a perfect hammer, cup, or wireless mouse--items that perform their functions flawlessly within specified perimeters.

But what of perfect humans? Speaking of men--and often of art--philosophers and laypersons alike disregard perfection as an unattainable state, an ideal that projects like a holographic image--mimetic, substantive, but impossible to capture. Perfection for humans, though, is no more or less attainable than perfection for hammers, political structures, or music. In fact, the concept of "perfection" has no referent in reality unless it means something attainable.

Herein lies a significant part of the problem of our conception of perfection. We regard it as beyond the realm of human capacity, as a Platonic ideal we may only glimpse during moments of divine revelation. Perfection is not for this world, the mystics argue, because men are born flawed--condemned from pre-existence to a life of less-than-the-ideal. The mystics' conception of perfection sees man as he should have been and cares not for man as he is and ought to be.

So we struggle to come as close to perfection as possible, all the while knowing we can never attain the brass ring placed purposely out of our reach--neither could we run a marathon if our legs were severed as infants, though. Nonetheless, this consistent "failure" is psychologically detrimental, leading to a malevolent view of existence, one that paints the universe as generally miserable and specifically unrewarding. Whatever joy we feel is fleeting because we cannot reach our ultimate goal, our final destination: Perfection.

But what if I told you that the "proper" standard for human perfection is winged flight, and because humans don't have wings it meant that humans can never be perfect? Hopefully you'd gaze at me with one eyebrow raised, perplexed by the absurdity of the claim and leery of my sanity. Why? Because humans do not and cannot posses natural wings. It's beyond our nature to sprout feathered appendages and carry on like falcons, yet these are the types of standards we attach to perfection and then bemoan our falling short. Perhaps a more realistic example will further illustrate my point.

What if I told you that the perfect human could never make a mistake, and because humans do make mistakes it meant that humans could never be perfect? Ah! This example is much closer to the types of standards associated with perfection, yet it's no less fantastical than asking a man to sprout wings (or a duck to sing or a cow to line dance). Humans are not and cannot be omniscient. There will always be circumstances in which information is unavailable and action is required.

How, then, can we successfully define human perfection in a way that's concordant with human nature, attainable, and still retain the perceived grandeur of the term? First it would be helpful to define human nature. Here are three quotes from Ayn Rand that do an excellent job, in a concise manner, of explaining man qua man:
Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: “A rational animal.”
(“Rational,” in this context, does not mean “acting invariably in accordance with reason”; it means “possessing the faculty of reason.” A full biological definition of man would include many subcategories of “animal,” but the general category and the ultimate definition remain the same.)
Also:
Man cannot survive on the perceptual level of his consciousness; his senses do not provide him with an automatic guidance, they do not give him the knowledge he needs, only the material of knowledge, which his mind has to integrate. Man is the only living species who has to perceive reality—which means: to be conscious—by choice. But he shares with other species the penalty of unconsciousness: destruction. For an animal, the question of survival is primarily physical; for man, primarily epistemological.
Man’s unique reward, however, is that while animals survive by adjusting themselves to their background, man survives by adjusting his background to himself. If a drought strikes them, animals perish—man builds irrigation canals; if a flood strikes them, animals perish—man builds dams; if a carnivorous pack attacks them animals perish—man writes the Constitution of the United States. But one does not obtain food, safety or freedom—by instinct.
Finally:
Almost unanimously, man is regarded as an unnatural phenomenon: either as a supernatural entity, whose mystic (divine) endowment, the mind (“soul”), is above nature—or as a subnatural entity, whose mystic (demoniacal) endowment, the mind, is an enemy of nature (“ecology”). The purpose of all such theories is to exempt man from the law of identity.
But man exists and his mind exists. Both are part of nature, both possess a specific identity. The attribute of volition does not contradict the fact of identity, just as the existence of living organisms does not contradict the existence of inanimate matter. Living organisms possess the power of self-initiated motion, which inanimate matter does not possess; man’s consciousness possesses the power of self-initiated motion in the realm of cognition (thinking), which the consciousnesses of other living species do not possess. But just as animals are able to move only in accordance with the nature of their bodies, so man is able to initiate and direct his mental action only in accordance with the nature (the identity) of his consciousness. His volition is limited to his cognitive processes; he has the power to identify (and to conceive of rearranging) the elements of reality, but not the power to alter them. He has the power to use his cognitive faculty as its nature requires, but not the power to alter it nor to escape the consequences of its misuse. He has the power to suspend, evade, corrupt or subvert his perception of reality, but not the power to escape the existential and psychological disasters that follow. (The use or misuse of his cognitive faculty determines a man’s choice of values, which determine his emotions and his character. It is in this sense that man is a being of self-made soul.)
OK, so a lot of that wasn't absolutely necessary--better more context than not enough. What did we learn? That humans' defining characteristic is rationality. (This does not mean that the "concept" human does not denote every other aspect--e.g., bipedal, vertebrate, etc. It simply identifies the trait which is unique to humans and humans alone.) But what does that mean for perfection?

Perfect humans must first accept their capacity to reason and properly understand it to be their sole faculty for understanding the world. (Even the concept of "divine revelation" had to be reasoned through in order to understand it--though poorly, in my opinion.)

A large part of this acceptance is understanding that reason is for comprehending reality not for creating it. That is, the faculty of reason works by integrating perceptions about the world into conceptions that allow us to order knowledge and made sense of our surroundings. It does not work by granting our whims about how reality should be. With that in mind, perfect humans must accept the bounds of the metaphysically given and not wage war against "the real." They may alter reality in the ways that are allowed by nature--e.g., application of imagination to raw materials--but they should never demand what cannot be.

Finally, perfect humans must use their rational faculties relentlessly, striving to make reasoned decisions in all aspects of their lives. Two caveats: 1. This does not mean that the outcome of a reasoned decision must be right. That is, even if the faculty of reason is applied perfectly in some scenarios, it does not guarantee that the outcome will be what was expected. Sometimes there simply isn't enough information at hand, or, in worse cases, the information provided is faulty--if someone lies to you, for example. 2. The relentless use of reason does not mean that humans must become emotionless automatons. But it does mean that they cannot be emotional junkies, taking the high of their emotional experiences and using them in place of reason as evaluative methods. Sometimes your emotions will be in conflict with your reason. In these instances, reason must win--especially if you ever want that emotion to mesh with what is reasonable. (Please see my previous post on this topic.)

The perfect human is one who accepts his nature, accepts reality, and acts accordingly. Perfection, then, at least in this context, seems to be a misnomer--perhaps even an anti-concept in some cases. It's not as if perfection is a trait that would be nice to obtain; for humans, it's necessary for living a flourishing life on Earth. Using the term perfection seems an unnecessary linguistic barrier, one that creates a delicate house of cards of morality that's meant to collapse with your first exhaled breath.

It is not the perfect human that should strive for what I've defined here as human perfection. It is, in fact, the purview of the normal human.

6.26.2010

the great iPhone misadventure

[I don't normally write posts like this, but I decided to write something in my OkCupid journal and cross post it here. Let's play: Find all the spelling and grammar errors...]

Like more than 1.5 million people yesterday, I spent not-an-insignificant portion of my day in a line--about 3.5 hours, realistically--queued behind fanboys, fangirls, and the occasional grandmother who thought she was waiting to have her driver's license renewed. No fewer than 300 people were patiently standing, sitting, or curled up in the fetal position when I arrived at the Pentagon City Apple store to pick up my reserved iPhone4.

I walked the length of the horde, which stretched roughly half way around the circular complex, and took my place at the rear.

"This is the reserve line?" I said with an inflection of disbelief. The guy in front of me just stared blankly. We exchanged silence. He asked gingerly, demonstrating that he wasn't a native English speaker, "iPhone?"

Here I found myself in an interesting predicament.
1. I didn't know if this was the correct line.
2. I speak 1.5 languages--the .5 being Pig Latin.
3. The guy in front of the guy in front me had his headphones in.
4. So did the girl in front of him.

I decided to wing it. "This is the line for reserved iPhone, I think." He tilted his head a bit in the universal "quizzical look" gesture. He replied, "No reserve."

Here I found myself in an interesting predicament.
1. Did he mean that he didn't have a phone reserved?
2. Did he mean that this wasn't the reserve line?
3. Was he making a statement about America's energy policy?

Finding no way to remedy this situation, I began reaching for my headphones when a woman approached quickly, speaking a language I didn't understand--read: all of them. She walked up to the guy in front of me, and they exchanged (seemingly) angry words. She pointed at the store. He pointed at the store. She pointed at her watch. He pointed at me. I waved. She pointed at the store again. They walked away hurriedly.

Score. One spot closer to magical goodness. (Or was that the iPad...?)

Then I waited, last in line, by myself, hungry and somewhat parched. I brought nothing but my bag from work--inside which the most edible item was a book on social media. After twenty minutes of fascinating standing--I'd describe it but I don't want this post to become as pointless as most of the scenes in Lord of the Rings--the line finally moved. I picked up my bag, threw it over my shoulder, and walked forward six steps. Then I took my bag off my shoulder, put it back on the ground, and resumed standing. Repeat ad nauseum.

This post-modern line dance continued for what seemed like 2.5 hours but was actually closer to 2.3. The highlight / worst part about the standing was when people started showing up behind me. At first it was exciting--new people wearing headphones to avoid conversation! Yes! Then hunger hit hard, and my active imagination hit overdrive, scheming and planning ways to barter with the folks around me so I could get some food.

Plan 1: Pay the guy-in-front-of-me's girlfriend to get me a Subway sandwich much like she did for her now-not-hungry boyfriend. I would politely ask if she would accept $20 to run down to the lower level to retrieve a six inch ... and that's when I realized that this was going to be impossible. Here's what I wanted: A six inch tuna on wheat with provolone cheese (untoasted), lettuce, onion, banana peppers, jalapenos, cucumber, salt & pepper, and a dash of light mayo; regular baked Lays; and a Minute Maid Light Lemonade. Having nothing to write with, I abandoned plan 1.

Plan 2: I turned to the kid behind me who was, luckily, writing in a journal! My keen powers of perception picked up on his checking his watch and touching his stomach. He was obviously hungry. This was going to be a cinch. I decided that I would announce my hunger to him in a I'm-trying-to-make-conversation sort of way. When he inevitably responded, "Me, too," I would offer to give him money and save his place in line if he ran down to Subway and got me a six inch tuna, etc. Because I tend to get Machiavellian when my blood sugar drops, I assumed that he would say, "Why don't I give you money and you go instead?" To which I would reply, "Because, good sir, I have nothing to gain from your leaving the line since you are directly behind me. It's in my self-interest to save your spot while you get me food. On the contrary, I'm in front of you, and if I were to leave with a mere $5 of your money, it may be worth it for you to move ahead one space and disavow our prior agreement upon my return." Or something like that.

But as I was refining my rhetoric, the kid behind me turned to the guy behind him and asked, "Hey, do you mind if I go get something to eat?" That guy, whose headphones must have been on a rather low volume, simply replied, "Sure, no problem." The kid left.

Plan 3: Do exactly what that kid did.

But by the time I collected by focus, an Apple representative, who may well have been royalty judging by the celebration of her arrival, made her way through the line. But instead of weaving pleasant tapestries, she sung tales of woe at the store and displeasure at the Kingdom's feudal laws. [End silly metaphor.]

Apparently, the mall had a strict policy that would not let Apple stay open after hours. And there was much groaning. They would not be able to get us our phones this evening. But the fair Apple maiden did not leave us empty handed. In place of iPhone, she granted us favors of Holy "Extended Reservation Vouchers." And there was a little bit of rejoicing--more so, less groaning. [OK. I'm really done now.]

Walking back to the Metro, shiny new voucher in hand, I thought this is what pre-historic man must have felt like, devoting time and braving the elements to hunt game only to end up with a coupon for future stores of mammoth rump.

It wasn't all bad, though. At least I made some new friends--foreign-language guy (and his sister/wife/girlfriend), guy in front of me wearing headphone, kid behind me wearing headphones and writing in his journal, and who could forget you, Apple maiden. You were the fairest of them all.

[P.S. -- I did get my shiny new iPhone today. (Thanks, Keith-the-Apple-guy.) It works beautifully. I used it to find a barbecue recipe for mammoth.]

6.19.2010

A Randroid's tears make the bitterest brew and its smiles the softest fleece. What as a human there is no capacity to experience--no inclination or desire to feel--as an automaton manifests with incalculable fervor. Music renders as an aural caress, replacing tonal sequence with melodic sensuality. Image achieves emotional depth untouchable by human depravity--as the sacred becomes the sacred: And the profane the profane. Experiences slide into focus through steel eyes, flaring in the naked exposure of an inward gaze. It's as if darkness receded in requisite fear when this Godless Machine turned its heart toward the west to make a valiant approach. Touched by it all and touching it all, this iron(ic) giant drowns even-the-Ark with a robot's oily tears. And like a trampoline in the rain, the liquid returns to the sky--if only for a second and only to end up puddled, nonetheless--a striking moment of defiance. A moment for the best within us.

6.05.2010

Lines extending past the plane of off-white infinity, spaces waiting patiently for ink and genius--or at least the pencil marks of a sub[lime]conscious. The pressure of instrument against opportunity, matched only by the pressure of focus against feeling. The unreality of having everything to say and no way of saying it. Questions arise with suspicious contempt, but the questions don't stifle so much as engage--micro-opportunities to pry the facets of self from evasion's trembling grip. Knowing that you don't know then remembering that you can--a peregrination of discovery that playfully mocks altruistic pilgrimage. Clenched fingers recoil with every proclamation of precision or expression of certainty. What the pressure cannot stand is a fulfilled relaxation, a mind overflowing with exactness, confidence, clarity. Knowing that you can't know what you don't know and that you are more than capable of attaining it all--the method, the content, the style. Celebrate what is/ought and what will/should.

5.19.2010

franconia-springfield

Trying your best to Express disinterest, your face betrays your motives--those glasses may reflect my momentary gaze, but they more clearly reflect a waning commitment to solitude. It's more difficult to ignore, to pretend that the lives around you are less interesting than another Toy Story review, than to admit "defeat" and say, "Good morning."

Your eyes, anchored in ink, splash across potential conversations, returning from each micro-escape to the AP's latest nuance of the oil spill and the reality of filtered reality. "How did you break your foot?" "Where did you get that tie?" "Who are you listening to?" "How long have you played the trombone?" "What do you enjoy most about DC?" "Is that a Skagen watch?" "Have you heard the latest about BP?" Ad finitum. Or at least until Metro Center.

Make it explicit, that desire for benevolence, and I will prove you right. Discard what you've been taught about the nature of man, and I will show you true friendship. Ask the universe about the just and the beautiful, and I, as one embodiment, will answer, "They exist."

4.18.2010

IX

Your mind is potential and your attitude, determination--qualities of a brother, in the d'Anconian sense of term--yet despite these positive attributes, perhaps in spite of them, and despite my attempts and non-attempts at alleviation, your actions are repetition, a hideous doppelgänger of historical errors quickly transgressing into (all too real) sins; this time, though, on this rare, fortuitous, ominous second chance, you place the Platonic ahead of the real, frantically bailing a sinking deathraft of idealism with a Dixie cup of reality--an attempt that is necessarily futile but not necessarily fatal, given your ability to swim and the many life preservers within your reach; but, whether unfortunate or unconscionable (since this time, unlike last, the result will be the same), your perception is emotion and your evaluation, stone, because in spite of these failings--perhaps despite them--you bail on, forgetting that it takes only a teaspoon of water to drown a man.

3.28.2010

dialogue with a former colleague


colleague:

Hey Dan; saw this [article] online and wanted to share. Hope you will agree (even as we philosophically and politically differ) to dedicate at least one status update to non-violence and peaceful dialog in the political process. As tensions rise approaching mid-term elections, we really need rational cool heads on both sides of the aisle to *do* right above their notions of *being* right. To sweeten the pot, I'll follow suit. Maybe we can co-write a non-partisan committment to send via Facebook on this point? Anyway, hope this finds you well.


me:

We do agree on a fundamental issue: The initiation of force is morally wrong. (Though we may disagree on the definition of force.) A point on which I do not know if we agree is whether force is ever morally permissible. My answer is a resounding yes. Force to defend yourself, to protect your life and your rights, is not only morally permissible; it's morally mandatory.

The point under contention, then, is whether the angry protestors (75% from the right, 25% from the left) are initiating force or responding to force initiated by the government. (I know we disagree on the government's "right" to use of force to achieve its ends--i.e., I only think its permissible in the defense of individual rights. If I don't comply with the new health care legislation, for example, even though I think it's evil, I will be fined. If I don't pay my fine, I will be arrested. If I refuse arrest, the government reserves the right to take me by force. If I resist their force, the government reserves the right to end my life. In this instance, then, it is the government that initiates force via a threat. For more on this topic, I suggest Amit Ghate's article.)

As I hope I've pointed out, it is clear to me that the government has initiated force against its citizens. And as I explained in a recent blog post, it's not hard to see why some people snapped.

Yet somehow I'm personally not compelled to retaliate with violence, and I argue in that same post that my personal judgement of our federal situation, while dire, does not justify the people threatening and attacking politicians.

Our country is experiencing a philosophical and political Dark Age that does not bode well for our future. Yet it's my optimism that tells me to keep fighting the ideological battle. I am not personally convinced that a violent revolution is in order, nor do I think one will (or should) occur while some semblance of our Constitution still lives. (The recent Citizens United case was uplifting, for instance.)

But don't mistake me for a pacifist. It is not outside the realm of possibility that politicians (both from the left [economically] AND right [morally]--though I only separate economics and morality to highlight the different parties' choice of controls) will become so dictatorial that the only option and only morally justifiably action would be a revolt.

This long, nuanced response is meant to clarify exactly where I stand on the issue--not to explicitly refute anything you wrote in your original message. If from my response you think we have enough ideological common ground to unite behind a message, then I'm completely willing. I must admit, though, that I'm skeptical. We're coming from such different places philosophically that agreeing on a message that satisfies both of our consciouses may prove impossible.


colleague:

I am glad to hear that you are doing well and trust you understand that, although we disagree fundamentally on politics and philosophy, I bear you no ill will. If anything, I admire your spirit and courage in pursuing your ideals. I hope and prey you do so peacefully and with love and charity in your heart.

Having reviewed your post, I simply think we value things too differently to reach an immediate consensus. That doesn't mean it is not worth a shot. I find some of your comments, frankly, scary. However, I am going to constrain my response just to those areas I feel are needed to move us along towards an agreeable common ground.

By which means is a greater impact felt? Violence and hatred or love and tolerance? I suggest the latter. Both are forms of force. Look into the face of a child. If you cannot find a pull to care, you cannot call yourself a human. That pull to care, desire to help, and love for fellow human can compel action as surely as a club. This notion pre-dates america and finds broad religious support in all abrahamic traditions (judiasm, christianity and islam).

What I advocate is a force no less powerful than the sword or gun. By all means, pursue your agenda and I will pursue mine. We each believe what we are doing is the better way of supporting our fellow Americans. You say universal government health care is socialism and socialism is wrong. I say universal government national defense is socialism and no less wrong than universal care of health (provided the ability to project military force is used prudently and sparingly, something we seem poor at late of doing). In short, I favor a strong central government "of and by the people" as so advocated by Lincoln, when Gettysburg was declared a site at which "new freedoms" were consecrated beyond words' ability to do so. However, I do not ask you to join in that fight (if anything, I suspect you'll work against this agenda: which is fine). We will have to agree to disagree on politics. That won't change. We probably also will not agree on "when" "which" force is "justifiable" in our eyes.

The statement with which I agree - one which I suspect you will feel the same - is "we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means." (Martin Luther King, Jr.). King certainly attacked policies he found questionable. Force was certainly applied. Change ultimately happened. However, he took a position of love and tolerance. All it cost him was his mortal life.

I wonder...can we do the same? Can we find the value of human dignity and life more important than our personal political or philosophical views? I would like to think so. If not...if two well educated, rational minds cannot forge consensus on such a basic paradigm, then I truly do fear for the future of our nation.


me:

To respond to some of your claims:

Choosing to do something--e.g., give to charity--is ABSOLUTELY NOT the same as my government forcing me to donate. Choosing to "love" my "fellow man" is ABSOLUTELY NOT the same as my government telling me to do so at the point of a gun. Who is the government (or anyone, for that matter) to tell me what I should or should not do? My very nature as a rational being dictates that I must make decisions for myself in order to flourish. The government cannot think for me, and they shouldn't try.

And to your point about loving fellow humans, I have to say that indiscriminate love of humanity debases the concept of love. I certainly feel no hatred toward "mankind" in general, nor do I feel particularly threatened by them or look down on them in any way. But neither do I love them simply for their existence. I do not love any groups because groups do not have (chosen) values. Only individuals have (chosen) values, so I can only love individuals. At best, I am indifferent to the whole of "humanity"--whatever that means. More so, I don't think of humanity as a collective. I think only of individual humans, making individual choices, furthering their individual lives.

And to your point about looking into the face of a child, I can only say that what I feel depends on the context of the situation. I certainly see potential whenever I see children. And I do "care" about their future. That's why I fight every day for freedom--both mine and theirs. But no one's requirement for life, not even a child's, gives them a right to enslave me. Because a child needs something, does not mean he or she may take it from me or anyone else. If I saw a child starving on the streets, would I do something about it? Absolutely (if I am able). But only because I CHOOSE to do so. Because I have used my rational mind to determine that it's the right thing to do within a given context. (Me and my family have long donated to Shriners Hospital for Children for the same reasons.) But no one has a right to force me to do something--even if that something is the proper thing to do.

To respond to the issue of denouncing the use of force:

Within a proper context--one where rights are secured by a Constitution and the enemies of those rights do not have rationality on their side--then, yes, I agree with King's quote. He fought for rights that were guaranteed to him the day the Constitution was ratified. His enemies were irrational, emotion-driven hate mongers who had no legitimate arguments. Contrast his struggle, though, with the founding of this country.

Yet this argument about the proper use of force is getting away from the point at hand, since I don't think our current political context is the time to use force anyway--though I recognize why people might think so.

Please believe me when I say that I've done A LOT of thinking and reading on this topic since you messaged me yesterday. When people present interesting ideas I often obsess over them. (I've been unable to write the two columns I was supposed to this weekend because of my dedication to this topic.) And the more I read about the "threats" and "violence" coming from either side, the more I'm convinced that the entire thing is being blown hugely out of proportion by a news media (almost literally) dying to sell their product. I grant that there have been legitimate threats and actual attacks (the brick through Rep. Slaughter's window and Rep. Cantor's office being shot at come to mind). But from my reading of reports, the VAST majority of what the left and right are complaining about is bunk. Congressmen are quoted as receiving threats without any attribution. Newspapers run stories about "vile" words being thrown around yet provide no proof.

From what I can tell, Detroit New's columnist Nolan Finley nails it when he writes, "Most of what is being passed off as menacing is nothing more than old-fashioned hate mail. Much of it is crude and offensive, a lot of it is inappropriate, but it doesn't rise to the level of a threat. [...] Hatred has been part of politics for some time. Ask former President George W. Bush about his mail. Bush loathers even made a movie fantasizing about his assassination."

I don't know about you personally, but I certainly didn't hear the left in general denouncing threats against Bush. (Note: I am not a Bush apologist.)

One final point: If you're asking me to denounce hatred in general, then I can't do that either. Hating what is evil is a proper response--as long as you have rational arguments as well. In fact, I hate this health care bill and the mentality of control in general. I believe it to be pure evil to force someone to do anything they have rationally concluded is wrong--within the context of their own life (i.e., as long as their action does not infringe on the rights of others). As far as I'm concerned, Pelosi, Reid, and Obama have committed a much greater "sin" against the general public than the public has against them by using "vile" language.

Ultimately, I don't think we can come to a consensus on something I see as a non-issue. Yes, of course, attacking politicians within out current political context is wrong. (We are not a dictatorship--yet.) That violence is wrong in the few instances where it occurs is, I think, a given within our national political debate. But this idea that we must unite behind a message of non-violence as we approach the midterm elections just seems like a political sidestep to me. If the left is truly baffled by the public's hatred of a bill that forces them, at the point of a governmental gun, to purchase health insurance (from one of those EVIL insurance companies), then they are even more disconnected from reality than far right-wing Christians. And that's scary.

...

You are certainly within your right to respond, but please note that this will be my last correspondance on the issue. I've given it all the thought I think it deserves. Our basic philosophical premises are so radically different that I would not be comfortable coming to a consensus.


colleague:

In regards to your point that this may be a non-issue invented by the media, I can but hope you are right. There may simply be alarmism in play. Generally, I can shake such nonsense off. But when either side - so called "right" or "left" - creates a "moral" justification to harm another, an alarm should ring loudly. I really don't care if it is the weather underground or some faction of the tea party. I fear and sense it may be coming.

My friend, I am concerned that you have taken the first steps down a road best not travelled. You have said you will not correspond any more on the issue. Your message implies you are unwilling to work with me because I see and think differently than you do. You have repeatedly framed my attempts to reach a consensus on the basic questions of life with a perverse logic juxtaposing freedom with greed, evil with rule of law, "a" public as "the/your" public. Your argument undermines a service to humanity in favor of self-service. In time, youthful zeal can give way to wisdom. I know not what has so twisted your world view, but from what I can see, you are truly lost.

Reconsider and, when you do, know that you have an ally. Peace be onto you, my friend.


colleague

Hmmm...today's top suggestion: make friends with you. I apparently have been cut from your friend list. It is unfortunate that my efforts to build consensus on a very basic issue - non-violence - resulted in being "dumped." And we wonder why there isn't more bipartisanship :).

My words were strong, but so too were yours. I still believe (and hope) you are a friend.

Rise above, young Daniel, and incorporate a morality of greater value than property ownership. Combat true injustices, not the Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck-esque fear of "socialism" behind every corner. Join the "good fight" in addressing intolerance, cruelty and poverty. "Reload" not your hatred of those whose words will disagree with yours on the comparatively small issues of taxation, but care for your fellows as you wish they would do for you. Remember the words of Gandi "a coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave." Or if you would prefer a 'good ol' American voice, consider the words of Jimi Hendrix: "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.” To harken back to 18th century American thought, a period near and dear to your heart I know, Ben Franklin once said "There was never a good war or a bad peace.”

I (still) respect and admire your spirit, and hope you will find comparable feelings for mine.

3.17.2010

They passed me on the elevator, no doubt on their way to the top, a murder of aspiring laywerettes whose heals all made the same flittering rap on the buffed lobby tile. Each had her hair in a respectable bun with faux chopsticks protruding above her air--two antennae intercepting unwelcome transmissions. Her suit was gray and her's light gray--while her's was grayish gray and the one to her right: dark gray with gray trim. They chattered so lightly--their words like gnats buzzing at the entrance to my ears yet lacking the confidence to invade. "Like"s abounded and "Totally"s weren't left out, yet most of their words might as well have been the whir of a boxfan or the hum of a florescent bulb. It wasn't until the elevator door made its triumphant pass that I noticed the silence in the lobby. How comfortable I was with it! Sartre said that "Hell is other people" and from the tone of this post you may be inclined to think he and I intellectual brethren.

And you would be wrong.

3.07.2010

A mind whose honesty outpaces its curiosity--even with the latter intent in catching its apocryphal rival--draws tragic conclusions from ersatz information. Induction serves you well--better than most--yet you're still a social metaphysician, constructing your reality, in part, from the lips of others. No more than you would permit poison into your diet should you allow whim into your reasoning.

It's the "I-issue," the great alter of self-esteem. Unlike its liturgical counterparts, this alter allows no sacrifices--neither yourself to others nor others to yourself. Others, in no context, are its purpose. "I" exalts man by focusing his attention to the proper subject--the only being worthy of worship. "I" defends against evil by allowing it no sanction and no alms. "I" produces value as the master architect of life's necessities and pleasures.

For the inviolable and uncompromisable. For moments of spiritual transcendence--properly understood.  For values.

Determine and defend them as if they're the only things that matter--because they are.

2.14.2010

Valentine's Day is a time to explicitly acknowledge your love for the people that make you happy--your true brothers and sisters whose virtues bring you selfish pleasure and whose spirit you share. The commercial nature of the holiday is a consequence of its egoistic nature, but objects are means not ends. Your values are the ends. You give flowers because the smile they put on her face is an unmistakable sign of her joy. And her joyous experience, her elation at the realization of your devotion, fills you with the unmistakable warmth of inviolate self-esteem.

2.01.2010

On specific milestones and the possibility of forever

Our lives have been one of metaphor, yours and mine--what started as the misbegotten communication skills of an erstwhile romantic novice ends only on the other side of here and now, a reminder of the past and a telescopic lens for the yet-to-come.

Our playful word ballet represented, at first, the inability to fully accept reality but the passionate desire to do just that. There was no conscious evasion--only exploration and exhalation and eventually a certain euphoria in midst of it all. Metaphoria. The pleasure of the pirouettes, anticipatory arabesque, figuring out the steps as we go while simultaneously changing the time. We knew the song and we didn't--not a contradiction but an admission of naive optimism, of half-knowledge with epistemic willingness.

Here the greater symphony reaches a milestone, a page turn as it enters a new movement still furiously being composed--this etude évoquant an "excuse" to say, "Thank you"--a phrase far too often neglected among friends.

You are the accumulation of your accomplishments over the past quarter-century. And if I am to be an objective judge of that sum, then I pronounce a verdict of "awesome"--"an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime."

And what I have accomplished through you--your Lockean claim to ownership--is both sacred and sublime, if those words are to have any real meaning. And it should invoke in you a feeling of unmitigated pride. It should emanate through your being a chorus of triumph with soaring melody and fastidious rhythm.

Dismiss that counter-melody that leads to misstep. The one that makes a pseudo-claim to a world without dancing. There are always steps to take, notes to hear, counterpoint to untangle. There will always be a new movement to compose and a new scene to choreograph. There is no shortage of adventure in the lives of two people who know what it means to live.

For what you've done and what you will do, in this 200th post of an endeavor you helped to build, I say: Thank you, immensely.

Happy 25th birthday.

less than three,

DTR

1.31.2010

CulturEsponse

A new blogging endeavor. Don't worry, my adoring fans and stalwart enemies. I will continue to keep an open mind.

1.22.2010

On architecture and values

Suppose you visit the Great Pyramid of Giza, Khufu, and have the irreplaceable pleasure of standing at its base, staring upward toward its peak, and contemplating the architectural accomplishment before you. The oldest of the Seven Wonders of the World, the great--dare I say, "greatest"--pyramid has survived when all other wonders have crumbled, a testament to its structural integrity and craftsmanship.

Yet something bothers you about the monument, and you rightfully put the building in context. Historically, it's a structure built on the backs of slaves--a tomb for the ruler constructed at the expense of the ruled. You're conflicted and a little distraught. Where once stood a magnificent example of the ingenuity of thinking men you now see an eroding edifice of brutish conquerors. Should you continue to admire the building for the achievement of its architects? Or should you revile it for the process of construction?*

Ayn Rand wrote, "A building has integrity just like a man. And just as seldom." Men, like buildings, live within a context and must be judged as such. Perfect men are rare--though they do exist--so we are required to deal with imperfect men. The degree of their imperfection is the degree to which we judge them. Put in a much more positive light: The degree of their values is the degree to which we judge them. With everyone we meet we must ask, "Do we have similar values? What are they? How strongly do they hold their values? On what points do we differ? Are the differences enough to warrant disassociation?"

If your standard of judgment is value-perfection, then you are far less likely to have close relationships. (Unless what you value is commonplace--e.g., you value simply that your friends have good teeth.) Contrarily, if your standard of value is relative, then you will find it impossible to distinguish between friend and enemy. Most of us have a value system between these two, embracing several inviolable principles while maintaining room for errors of knowledge. (There is much to be said here about association, acceptance, "trial" friendship, casual persuasion, and many other topics, but this is not a post about making friends.)

Buildings--and all accomplishments, really--can be judged using a similar process. The pyramid in question, for instance, in undoubtedly a major achievement in architectural history. Yes, slaves were used as tools for construction, but Western philosophy put an end to such practices--yes, I know it still happens in some parts of the world--and the concept of individual rights would prevent it from happening in any civilized society. In this context, I value the work of man's mind over the historical atrocity of slavery because it was man's mind that eventually ended the practice. Slavery as an institution has been refuted.

In another context, though, my values might be reversed. If Hugo Chavez enslaved his citizens and ordered them to construct the world's tallest building, I would adamantly oppose the project. Even if I studied the blueprints and recognized that the building would be the most masterful ever built, I would still not value it more than the lives of the enslaved populace. In this context, I value the principle of individual rights more than I value the construction--since we live in a time where man's mind has shown us the unalienable importance an individual's ownership of himself.

Take a much less extreme example: Apollo 11. Man's walk on the moon is one of the greatest achievements in scientific history--if you believed it happened. (I do.) About the rocket launch, Ayn Rand wrote:
The meaning of the sight lay in the fact that when those dark red wings of fire flared open, one knew that one was not looking at a normal occurrence, but at a cataclysm which, if unleashed by nature, would have wiped man out of existence—and one knew also that this cataclysm was planned, unleashed, and controlled by man, that this unimaginable power was ruled by his power and, obediently serving his purpose, was making way for a slender, rising craft. One knew that this spectacle was not the product of inanimate nature, like some aurora borealis, or of chance, or of luck, that it was unmistakably human—with “human,” for once, meaning grandeur—that a purpose and a long, sustained, disciplined effort had gone to achieve this series of moments, and that man was succeeding, succeeding, succeeding! For once, if only for seven minutes, the worst among those who saw it had to feel—not "How small is man by the side of the Grand Canyon!"—but “How great is man and how safe is nature when he conquers it!” from "Apollo 11" in The Objectivist, Sept. 1969
(I quoted it at length because it's a stunning passage.) How could Ayn Rand, a staunch supporter of laissez-faire capitalism and minimal government, applaud the government-gun NASA space program? Because Rand, in this instance, valued the achievement more than she despised the process of its construction; because she knew the achievement was possible without government; and because she continued to actively fight against statism. (There were other reasons as well. You should read the whole essay if you have time. Or at least this excerpt.)

All of this "set up" brings me to the genesis of this post: Churches. More specifically, cathedrals. MKJ recently excoriated me for disliking the "majesty" of ecclesial architecture.

My position is this: I do not question the architectural achievements embodied in cathedrals--their construction a testament to the ingenuity of incontestably talented men--but upon entering cathedrals the majesty of their engineering is quickly diminished by the air of their purpose--namely: the degradation of man-on-Earth.**

JML recently wrote a review of Avatar, and I commented in response to a question about metaphysics. I said, in part:
"I would argue that since authors cannot recreate the world in its entirety, they choose to highlight what is metaphysically important to them. This choice tells us a lot about authors. If authors focus on pain and suffering with no regard of happiness, then their personal worldview is one in which misery takes precedence."***
This point abstracts to art in general and also applies to the specialized art of architecture--with modifications and specifications for material and functionality. In other words, architects' choices--specifically, their aesthetic choices that are often (superfluous) additions to their structural choices--necessarily reflect their judgment of what is important in the world in the context of the building being created. Or in the case of cathedrals, what is important outside of the world.

Walking into a cathedral, I am immediately made to feel small, the most minute of specs in the presence of the Almighty. There are pillars that stretch to a curved ceiling that seems infinite and is often decorated with heavenly scenes reachable only through divine ascent. Every element is a vertical line accentuating the unobtainable, telling man he is insignificant as part of the lowly Earth. The pews are below the alter which is below the cross. The King of kings looks down upon his servants as they, in return, gaze heavenward from their rightful place: Their knees. Nothing about the visual symbolism of the cathedral exalts man. Contrarily, the building is a house of God, not of men, and you are meant to forget that men had anything to do with its construction. And, if dogma is taken literally, they didn't. They were merely a tool of the Divine, carrying out His will.

These descriptors are contextual, remember, and I do not make such pronouncements lightly. Certainly my vehement disdain for organized religion compels me to use strong, perhaps offensive language, but my analysis, I think, is an objective account of religion's attitude toward the placement of men over God. You might recall the story of the Tower of Babel wherein a unified humanity dared build a massive, beautiful tower the likes of which the world had never seen. Since the tower's main purpose was not the worship of the Lord, but the unification of men and peace on Earth, he punished men for their great achievement--which was a great insult to God--by dividing them into different nations and tongues.

Within this context, I value man's achievement in building cathedrals less than my passion for fighting organized religion--which is fundamentally anti-achievement, anti-reason, and, ultimately, anti-man--especially since these doctrines exist today. They are not conceptually like slavery which has been debunked and is widely considered an abomination. When the concept of organized religion becomes as openly and universally degraded as slavery, then I may value cathedrals' construction more--perhaps as much as the pyramids. What is more likely, though, is that someone like Howard Roark builds a "cathedral" meant to honor men--or at least a skyscraper, taller than the one in Dubai, that explicitly represents the achievement of man's rational mind.

(I should note that I make the tiniest of exceptions for the National Cathedral in Washington, DC. I still do not place the value of its construction over my fight against religion, but I do appreciate the placement of men and women alongside saints in the sculptures. And the Darth Vader grotesque is especially amusing.)

___________________

*According to Wikipedia, modern Egyptologists believe the pyramids were actually built by salaried labor. I wrote the example before fact-checking. So what? Big whoop. Wanna fight about it? Insert your favorite structure built by slave labor. History has given us quite a few. If you're uncomfortable abstracting the example, email me and I'll create a personal example just for you--though there will be at least mild mocking.

**I should clarify that I'm more anti-religion than I am anti-spirituality. That is, I see choosing-to-believe-in-God as a deeply personal choice that often reaches the depths of people's psycho-epistemology and, ultimately, their sense of life. While I reject the notion of "epistemic faith" as a contradiction in terms, I won't outright denounce people who practice "personal faith." It is only when faith is used in the realm of politics--especially in any coercive manner--that you will see me adamantly oppose it. I can get along and even befriend spiritual people who do not support faith-based-politics, do not militantly try to convert me (though healthy debate is welcome and encouraged under appropriate circumstances), and do not expect me to participate in religious rituals in their presence (e.g., church, praying before meals, no meat on Fridays, etc.)--though they should not feel they have to refrain from them in my presence either. Undoubtedly, some of my Objectivist colleagues will think I'm too lenient on people who believe in God. As this long footnote contends, I draw a clear distinction between my spiritual friends and my religious enemies. For now, that clarification works quite well.

***I can't take credit for the idea, though, as I first encountered a version of it through Kress and van Leeuwen's "Reading Images" and read a philosophical treatment in Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand." Rand's aesthetic statement, taken in small chunks, is, "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments. Man’s profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his immediate, perceptual awareness. Art fulfills this need: by means of a selective re-creation, it concretizes man’s fundamental view of himself and of existence. It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important. In this sense, art teaches man how to use his consciousness. It conditions or stylizes man’s consciousness by conveying to him a certain way of looking at existence." Read more at the Ayn Rand Lexicon.