Friday, September 17, 2010

Some Truths’ Mothers Are Bigger Than Other Truths’ Mothers

Here’s a dream I had a few nights ago.

I was walking alone on a long road in the middle of nowhere. I had an ice-cream cone that had no ice-cream in it. But I knew that if I kept walking, an ice-cream parlor would be ahead somewhere in the distance, eventually. Then I walked past a little girl. She was less fortunate than I—this I knew. She asked me for my ice-cream cone. I said, “Of course I'd give you my ice-cream cone, but see? There’s no ice-cream in it.” I was relieved to have such a great excuse: I didn’t want to give up my future ice-cream cone, but I didn't want to have to feel selfish either. But the little girl said, “Yes, but if I keep walking, there’s surely a place ahead where I can get ice-cream for the cone.” I was bested by the truth. She won. And I gave her the cone.

Moral of the story: Don’t hide behind convenient mundane truth in order to obfuscate inconvenient universal truth.

The Russians have two words for truth: pravda (well known because of the newspaper of that name), which refers to factual truth. But there’s also istina, which is more like “universal, essential truth.” The latter has a very strong spiritual and/or religious connotation. It has the connotation of something greater, something possibly unattainable or inconceivable. Something that can’t be proven; something that just is.

I watched a clip yesterday of Christine O’Donnell (the born-again Tea Partier recently nominated to be the Republican senatorial candidate for Delaware) on Politically Incorrect, Bill Maher’s show from back in the day. In the episode, O’Donnell goes on and on about how there’s never, ever any reason to not tell the truth.

Eddie Izzard was on the show too, and he challenged her by asking what she thought of him. She responded by saying she loved his lipstick.

It’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about here. Like I tried to do in my ice-cream dream, O’Donnell, with this lipstick comment, was hiding behind a little truth to obscure the big truth: As a born-again, she thought he was a sinner and that his transvestite lifestyle was an affront to God. (The way I see it is, if you can insult God, he isn't all that great to begin with, but I digress.)

Izzard posed another challenge to O’Donnell. He asked her to imagine it was World War II and she was hiding Jews in her home. Then Hitler comes to the door and asked her if there are any Jews in her home. “Would you lie then,” he asked.

She said she would not. She said that God would help her find a way to tell the truth, and to help her through this difficult situation. (The link above is only of part 2 of the episode; YouTube has parts 1, 2, and 3 of the episode, if you really want to get yourself worked up.)

Besides the lipstick, O’Donnell is hiding behind another truth: That she is morally sound because she follows the 10 Commandments (which can be disputed, but that’s the basic argument, in her perspective).

It seems to me that many born-agains hide behind Biblical morality, all the while having beliefs, thoughts, and words that would make Jesus weep.

Maybe this is all very obvious to say, but I can't get over it. And all I can say is that I’m extremely curious to see how this is all going to play out in November. And that if you’re a Democratic please, please vote.

I'm also really curious to hear your thoughts on truth and morality. Please post!


Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Childhood Brushes with Infinity, & Another Important Reason Why I Love My Fuzzy Mathematician

What inspired me to take my private musings public in the first place is the idea of infinity, a concept that has fascinated me since I can remember having concepts at all. Granted, my memory is shoddy and untrustworthy, though at best, it can be imaginative[1].


I remember a storytime in the first grade. The teacher was reading some children’s book that had the word “dozen” in it. She stopped to ask, “Does anyone know how many a dozen is?” I raised my hand with shameless enthusiasm, and she called on me. “More than a million!” I exclaimed. When I was corrected with the actual mere two-digit integer, I was very, very embarrassed. My excitement about inconceivable concepts (at the time, “more than a million” was inconceivable) was, as they say in therapy, very vulnerable-making. And I didn’t realize it was vulnerable-making to me until I exposed myself. It was as if I were to start happily diddling myself in class, totally unaware that it was not the done thing until I realized it was. (Maybe that’s an exaggerated analogy, but aren’t the fun ones always so?)


I remember shortly after that discovering the concept of a googolplex. I found the term in some funky children’s book in the school library.[2] I quickly resorted to dropping this word into casual speech (showoff, yes, but enthusiasm for mind-blowing concepts, moreso), such as “I bet you a googolplex dollars you can’t do it.” Clearly, my grasp of largeness was approaching infinity, that is, headed in the right direction, but it was not there yet, not even close.


Soon though, maybe about age twelve, I started getting it. I started getting it before bedtime, when I shared a room with my sister. We had all sorts of nighttime games and rituals (maybe another time I’ll tell you some), but one regular routine is one in which I would rhapsodize on the limitlessness of infinity, saying things like, “The universe doesn’t end! It just keeps going,” and getting exasperated by her response, “Yeah but Wendy, what if there wasn’t a world?” A thought which I thought was juvenile and irrelevant and clearly showed that she didn’t get it. So we’d lay there puzzling in our own private philosophical conundrums, thinking each other’s own private philosophical conundrums were not really even worth thinking about, actually.


But little did I know it, my kid sister was to soon advance in ways I didn’t know you could even advance in. Like, for example, by experimenting with mind-altering drugs. In just a few short years, my little sister, who used to copy and follow me in all sorts of ways (to the point where her intrafamily nickname was ‘Me Too’) was now an antiestablishment Gothy New Wave[3] teen who now clearly despised everything I ever stood for. Plus, as I was to find out more than a decade later, she was stealing the chunky chocolate bars I was selling to fundraise for my numerous geeky extracurricular activities—and then selling them at a bargain-basement discount—and then using the money to buy LSD and other recreational delights. (Meanwhile, I would be counting my inventory, thinking, Gosh, I know I ate some of my own candy bars, but I didn’t realize I ate so many! and realizing that I’d have to fork over a good chunk of my allowance money for those many candy bars I’d apparently eaten. So in essence, this here 3.9 GPA Honors high-school student was funding my baby sister’s recreational drug use.)


By the time I first (and last) took LSD myself, I was 17. I was at a party, and all sorts of not-good things were happening. One of which was that my boyfriend, having heard the news that I’d just taken a tab of acid, left the party in disgust, stranding me. Another of which was that about a half-hour after I took the acid, my ex-boyfriend (who I still thought I loved) showed up with his new girlfriend, who had an irrational hatred for me—to the point of threatening and insulting crank phone calls—despite the fact that the dude had dumped me in no uncertain terms and that I was really a pretty nice person, actually.[4]


When I got home that night, it had only just then started to kick in. I was alone, in my room, and everyone was asleep except for my little sister, who stayed up late every night, burning candles and crying to The Smiths. I was getting scared of what was happening, starting to worry I was going to go crazy. So I knocked on her door. She and I never talked anymore, but I suspected she might have some experience with my problem and could maybe help. She opened the door and let me in, and when I confessed to her that I was tripping and scared, she laughed, ruefully. But then she said she’d help me out, and took me back to my room. She did not help me out. She did, however, have some fun at my expense before she got tired and left me to my own whacked-out mental devices again.


Which brings me back to my infinity-relevant point: One such mental device that my sister stranded me with was a drawing I did of a cylinder, with ∞ as its length and “3 inches” (for some reason) as its diameter. I tripped long and hard on this drawing, trying to conceive how such an object—clearly infinite in volume—could conceptually exist in infinite space without “taking up” all of said infinite space. Was there more than one kind of infinity? I even went so far as to bring the drawing to my calculus teacher the following Monday. He nodded at the drawing, looked at me strangely, acknowledged that it was weird, and didn’t have anything more to say (I didn’t go to the greatest high school in the United States).


So. Those were my childhood musings on infinity and beyond. And apparently (I do use that word a lot, don’t I; guess it belies my inherent mistrust of perception) I’m still fascinated with the subject.


It comes up today because I started reading, late last night, David Foster Wallace’s Everything & More: A Compact History of ∞. Partially because he died almost two years ago exactly today; partially for other reasons. I’d tried to read the book before—as I want to read and understand everything he ever wrote, bless his tortured soul—but I couldn’t wrap my brain around this one because it’s challenging logically and mathematically, not just linguistically, for the likes of me.


Luckily, this time, I have a highly trained mathematician in tow: my man, Benoit. I’ve been reading it to him, and I can tap him to explain notions that, for me, do not compute. He is an excellent teacher, and I find myself—and I use these words quite precisely—feeling giddy with delight, and more in love with him than ever, for being able to engage with me on this level: to speak clearly, explain thoroughly but not condescendingly, and with an open mind to my layperson questions and challenges.


Stay tuned for discussions of adulthood brushes with infinity, brought to you in part by my beloved fuzzy mathematician.


[1] Take, for example, my childhood memory (ca. age seven) in which my mom told me that the woman in the bed next to her at the maternity ward gave birth to a “mongloid” (see my short story “Could Not Be Pictured” for a fictional flight-of-fancy based on that now apparently dubious memory). When I finally got around to asking her about it, for the first time, I was an adult. And my mom looked at me like a crazy person. She said that not only did she not tell me that story, but that it never happened. I could go into more detail here, but suffice it to say that it seems pretty clear that my mom’s memory of that never happening seems just as strong as my memory of it happening. But whether or not it happened is beyond the point; the point is that I “remembered” it, and how can you remember things that didn’t happen? Take, for example, my friend Alexis, who swears to god that she remembers, as a child, being able to float down the staircase of her childhood home. And of course, take David Foster Wallace’s brilliant short story “Nothing Happened” (printed sometimes under the title “Signifying Nothing”) for a truly excellent foray into the weird and giggle-inducing discomfort of improbable recovered memories. And, if you read on, you’ll see that the David Foster Wallace thing is pertinent to the origination of this blog in general.


[2] A googol is a 1 with a hundred zeros after it, or in other words, 10100. That alone was enough to blow my mind. But a googolplex was the child’s-mind equivalent, to me, of acid-on-acid: A 10 to the power of google, or 10 to the power of 10100.


[3] Yes, you could be both in the 80s somehow.


[4] Here’s another memory anecdote. I remember sitting on the floor at the party and looking over at them, the ex and the ex’s new girlfriend, in the kitchen. The new girlfriend was holding a very large kitchen knife, sitting at the table, and looking at me while touching the tip of the knife with her finger. Scary, right? Many years later, I saw her in the Diablo Valley College parking lot. I was walking to my car; she to the bus stop. I said hi to her, and she remembered me. I offered her a ride. In the car, I asked her about the ex. She laughed about how lame he was after all; we both laughed about how lame he was after all. Then I gently approached the knife thing, in a nonthreatening (if possible), nonaccusatory way: “Hey, I was kind of out of it that night, but do you remember vaguely threatening me with a kitchen knife?” Needless to say, she denied that she had done such a thing. Rather believeably, too. Of course, I had taken acid, and all I can say in defense of the memory was that it seemed to me that it had not kicked in yet when that happened. In fact, it didn’t seem to kick in until well after I scored a ride home.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Get Over It Already: On Vonnegut's Razor and Going Public

Okay this is how ridiculous weird I am about my writing. A week or so ago, I got up the gumption to start me, once again, a journal. But when it comes to anything creative—and I do consider a journal something creative, for better or worse—I’ve been, for the whole of my life, dysfunctionally private about it. The very thought of someone discovering what was going on inside of me, creatively speaking, was terrifying.

And I use the word “dysfunctionally” not just in a cutesy psychobabble way (that is, to just mean "neurotic"), but also and mostly in a very real way: This privacy thing of mine has been keeping me from functioning creatively.


Here’s an example. A couple of weeks ago, I realized that this fear of “being read” was preposterous in this day and age. After all, it’s not like I’d be writing my deepest-darkest into a book that could be found and rifled through by family, friends, lovers, firemen, or archaeologists of the future. I write like most people these days do: using a computer and Microsoft Word, which offers security features that are pretty darn good.

And so I had the realization that I should get over it already, and I started a "journal" file that very day. I wrote some stuff that excited me and got me motivated for more. When I was done, I locked it up with a very private password so that no one, no how, would ever be able to see how silly or trite or wannabe or smart or insightful I am or am not. And then I kinda just forgot about the whole thing, as is my regrettable wont.


Okay. So privacy weirdness is not my only problem. Clearly, stick-to-itiveness is one too.


Oh and I’ve got another issue with writing, and this one really factors in for journal-writing in particular: I can’t write if I feel like I’m just pushing words/thoughts/feelings into a black hole.


If you haven’t noticed yet, I’m pretty philosophical by nature—seeking meaning in way too many places—and even the fleetingest notion of What’s the point of this again? is a fail-safe derailer of any endeavor of mine. So journal-writing obviously comes into immediate conflict with that.


On the other hand, it could be argued that writing for nobody is a damn sight easier than writing for everybody at least. After all, communication is a doozy of a thing. To make sure other people “out there” understand exactly where you’re coming from (i.e., your own personal “in there”), you’ve got to understand where they’re coming from (i.e., their own personal “in theres”). And even within the English-speaking world, there are way too many in-theres out there to be able to appeal to any sizable audience in any thorough way. (Cue vague angst over the futility of human beings even trying to ever understand one another.)


Kurt Vonnegut (who, as we all know, is in heaven now, wink-wink, nod-nod) resolved this conundrum soundly, saying writers should pick one person, and then write to that one person. This idea is a huge relief for me, as well as for everyone under the age of 40, if I may be so bold: We have been leading lives overwhelmed by the anxiety of limitless choice.


Vonnegut’s solution to this audience problem really narrows down the playing field, and writing is a playing field that practically begs for a good narrowing.


Compared to many other creative endeavors, the constraints of creative writing are pretty flimsy. Take, for example, most kinds of musical composition. When you lay down a few bars of melody, what can feasibly follow is automatically delimited to certain deviations of those bars, certain musical keys, certain time signatures, certain styles, etc. But when you lay down the first few sentences of a story, what follows is pretty much a wildcard. There aren't really limits to what can happen, or what can be said. So how can a writer know he or she is making a “right” or even a “good” or choice, ever?


Thankfully, Vonnegut’s razor cuts through all that. Pick your Aunt Ethel as your one-person audience, and, well, you know there’s going to be a certain way that Aunt Ethel will most appreciate the story.


Thanks Kurt Vonnegut, for that and for all the rest.


So then anyway, today I was bitten again by the inspiration bug, once again, and I went to retrieve that new stealth journal of mine . . . only to discover I’d completely forgotten whatever password I’d devised to keep my own private little world totally private.


Lame. But lamer: I did a search for “journal” on my hard drive and found numerous such files I’ve started over the years.


Futile though it may be, I’m going to start again. And this time, I'm going to force myself out of my little self-coddling private password-protected hole and eschew the writer's black hole by writing into the big blog hole (although I am secretly writing to my own personal audience of one, just soes ya knows).


Maybe this time, with these fresh tools, I can turn this Sisyphean task into a Pyrrhic victory.