Valentines 2012

Re: (A). The thing stuck to the bottom of your shoe (that you aren’t aware of). You may have noticed I haven’t written you as often of late but I am working on a book, a critique of existentialism and reductionism, that leaves me less time for indulgences. In the deep background phase of my research, I came upon the conflict between the two primary pre-Socratic philosophers, Parmenides and Heraclitus. Parmenides argued that permanence was the fundamental characteristic of reality: that it was one, single, permanent, unchanging thing. Whatever is, must be as it is, identical with itself and unchanging. Heraclitus took the view more in keeping with what is, now, the Western scientific thought: everything around us, and ourselves as well, is in a constant state of flux and permanence is an illusion. The irony here is rich: in the 2600 years that have elapsed since their tete-a-tete, the only conclusion that has been arrived at is that the argument continues. Parmenides permanence has been damaged by the obvious changes in thought and life but Heraclitus is still unable to overcome the persistence of his thought itself: the longer his change viewpoint remains, the weaker the impermanence becomes. Though I’m sure these ideas seem distant to you, let me draw them closer: this is the central argument in all governance, “Is it more appropriate, to these times, to change or to embrace the status quo?” The answer to the question is, at all times, unknowable but it is the argument, the process of the dialectic that forever surrounds it, that is vital. The more Congress argues ideology, from either viewpoint, the less they argue reality and that is the argument they need to embrace: that nothing ever changes and nothing is permanent. The important thing is action relevant to the times. What does this have to do with existentialism and reductionism? On a hot summer’s day, as you approach the entrance to a building, you happen to spy a piece of chewed gum glistening in the sun just in time to avoid stepping in it. Do you congratulate yourself on your perception or stop, take out your handkerchief (embroidered with your initials, hearts and flowers surrounding same [or perhaps the curious kittens tapestry one you keep on the weekends]), and pick up the gum, knowing that, sooner or later, someone WILL step in it, track it into the building where you will be, increasing, exponentially, the odds of it becoming stuck to you? I have chosen to pick-up reductionism and existentialism, knowing the despair that permeates these philosophies will eventually become stuck to me through the unknowing transmission of it from others.
It’s going to be okay, I’ve got a plan…
(B). Erin: I’m assuming we’re still good. Perhaps you recall (though, more likely, you have thought of little else since) last year I asked you to be my Valentine, asking only that you not reply in the negative for us to have a deal (and you didn’t), so thanks again for that. Through no fault of my own, I, again, find myself at loose ends on this “holiday”, so I’m putting myself out there again for you, though sometimes I think I give too much. I know you’re engaged to this, this…dude, I guess, but you know what, nobody ever reads all of these long posts anyway so it’ll be our little secret. Be my Valentine, okay? All the Best, TVA.
Ps. I’m assuming we’re now good until 2013. Thanks again.
Pss. He gave you a pretty ring but, you know, the sad thing about rings is that they’re hollow except for the love you put in them-and, even then, they don’t always stay full. Remember, what fills it is YOU, you are the love and the ring is just a trap. And you are too clever to be trapped, right?
Psss. I have no expectation that the preceding canard will actually work…
Pssss. I’m writing the book as Albert Camus meets Henry Miller, introduced to each other by Hunter Thompson. Should be epic: I’ll be sure to send you a copy.