EmotionallyTonedGeometry

Bill: I hope this is starting to make sense.

Frank: It is in a way, but I still have my reservations. Let me run this analogy by you.

Bill: Shoot!

Frank: The way I see it, it’s a lot like watching football on the television. Some people passionately follow one team to the degree that they buy tons of memorabilia and jerseys, name their dog “Elway,” and passionately scream for their team each Sunday. They really devote one part of their life to such a team.

Bill: Dude, we’re talking about A here, not just some football team.

Frank: Well, from my perspective, this is how it looks.

Bill: That’s tragic…

Frank: Well follow my argument anyway and see where it’s applicable. Any way, I don’t see a problem with it at first glance, but some tremendous problems arise at times. First of all, it seems completely arbitrary how one chooses a team. Me, I was born in Minnesota. Do you think it is at all odd that I’m a Vikings fan?

Bill: Ha, ha. Not at all.

Frank: This was pure chance. If I was born in Dallas, I may have been a Cowboys fan. Do you see the “throwenness” of it all?

Bill: The problem with your analogy is that the Vikings didn’t create the NFL.

Both: Ha, ha, ha!

Bill: You see, it isn’t simply a matter of choosing which team to follow. There’s really only one team.

Frank: Then it seems you’ve missed my point, for there are many teams -countless teams. To continue with my analogy, there are people everywhere who swear by their team’s supremacy, regardless of performance. They can be 7-9 for the season and people will still claim that they are the best team in the league. Isn’t that strange?

Bill: It’s gotta be hard living in Detroit!

Both: Ha, ha, ha!!

Frank: I can’t imagine! But people do love the Lions.

Bill: I see where you’re going with this, but I still think you’re way off the mark.

Frank: If you haven’t followed my analogy so far, at least please humor me a bit more. My concern is that when people who follow different teams get together, they tend to get quite upset with each other. If my team is losing and the guy I’m watching the game with is celebrating, you cannot help but become frustrated. It seems to me that at the very least tension is inevitable. This is especially true when it comes to the Super Bowl. “There can be only one.”

Bill: This is where I think your analogy falls apart. The way I see it, there’s really only one team and if everyone would cheer for that team, we could all live together happily.

Frank: I just don’t see the world that way. What of other teams then?

Bill: Other teams are simply in the wrong league, or wrong sport. It’s like converting someone who watches elementary school kick ball over to watching the Vikings.

Frank: Well, to return to my analogy, I think that the overwhelming bit of information that you are overlooking is that every last team in the NFL has the exact same attitude as you do. What do you make of that? I mean they seriously have the same passion as you, the same conviction as you and even came to accept their truth through faith as you did.

Bill: Well, it saddens me that they have fallen upon false words for the fact of the matter is that they are mistaken.

Frank: That is exactly what they would say about you.

Bill: Hey, their loss.

Frank: I really don’t think you see the big picture here.

Bill: Well, I’m afraid you’ve missed it too. A is love and life, there is no more perfect truth than that.

Frank: “A truth revealed through faith” you mean?

Bill: No, just look around you. Is this not self-evident?

Frank: No, it isn’t. What is evident is that you are referencing the vocabulary of your placard to talk about everyday things that add superfluous metaphysics.

Bill: Humanity would be lost without these teachings!

Frank: Perhaps that was true, but I just don’t see that to be the case anymore.

Bill: Again, that’s your loss, Frank. Say, I never realized that you don’t have a placard at all. Everyone has a placard to define themselves, but I don’t recall seeing yours. Where is it?

Frank: Well, I don’t think you’ll like it.

Bill: I’m an easy going guy, try me!

Frank pulls out his placard and shows it to Bill. It reads, “Please put down your placard and investigate the physical world and the workings of your mind-body.”

Bill: I’m sorry, but that is the craziest placard I have ever seen. It, it just doesn’t even make sense. It isn’t even a statement.

Frank: You’re right. This isn’t a statement. This one defines a method. From my perspective, this makes worlds of sense.

Bill: I mean, I’ve seen some “B = B” placards and even came across some “C = C” and I could sorta follow what they were getting at, but this takes the cake! It just doesn’t even make sense!

Frank: This doesn’t make sense? You’ve got to be kidding me!

Bill: Well, to me faith makes perfect sense; A created all then sent a message about A which is to be accepted through faith. But what you’re saying is circular and just, well, non-sense.

Frank: Bill, to me your perspective is circular non-sense.

Bill: I was kinda getting that impression. This doesn’t bode well at all.

Frank: Hmmm… can you at least see my point, where I’m coming from? Because I think I see your perspective, and I even see the merits of yours.

Bill: Frank, this perspective is just soooooo different. I’m not sure if I can make heads or tails of it.

Frank: Well, the more I think of this impasse, can we both conclude that our systems of orienting ourselves towards the world are both linguistically and logically circular?

Bill: What!?!?

Frank: You see, my placard says to drop the placard, which is a self-referential negation. Your placard then says “A = A” which is a self-referential affirmation.

Bill: I would never conclude that!

Frank: Could you just humor me for the sake of argument?

Bill: Well, I suppose.

Frank: You also must admit that the perspective of your placard is quite absurd. And by absurd, I mean not conforming to ordinary ways of thinking.

Bill: Well, A does work in mysterious ways and there certainly are many stories that are pretty off the charts when it comes to following “reasonable” ways of thinking, so in the sense of “a-typical” and “normally unaccounted for,” I’ll say it’s most defiantly absurd.

Frank: As I mentioned, absurdity is not necessarily a bad thing. Next, do you see my point about self-reference in faith? A is true because A is true?

Bill: I disagree fundamentally, but I see how you are forcing my beliefs into that logical formulation.

Frank: Good. Now, it seems to me that each of our systems require self-reference because they are trying to address the individual. “A” without “you” would not be an A worth investigating, would it?

Bill: You have a good point there. If A were not the very core of my being, I would have no reason to celebrate it, like if A were only that which animated some people but not all. Clearly A created everyone and not just some people, so if It was not universal, It would hardly be worth my energy.

Frank: Well, that’s certainly an interesting way to phrase it. So you agree that in general every placard must reference the individual in some way?

Bill: Absolutely!

Frank: Getting back to absurdity, it seems that in logic, computer programming and the field of artificial intelligence that self-reference makes for a very difficult problem as self-referential systems tend to be wildly absurd. It’s kind of like the statement “this statement is true.”

Bill: But doesn’t that make the statement true?

Frank: Hardly, because there’s nothing to refer the statement too. We tend to think that such things are just self-evident, but the fact of the matter is that they are insanely absurd. Next, take the statement, “This statement is false.” Isn’t that a humdinger?

Bill: So, if the statement is false, that means it isn’t true, which negates its own falseness making it true. But if it’s true, then its true that it is false, so it is also not true. Whoa, my brain hurts.

Frank: Excellent, Bill! The absurdity of the first statement is not so apparent, but the absurdity of the second comes out pretty quickly.

Bill: And how!