Argumentum

Dearest Iqbal-

Every time I get back the automated response from you I re-read it, searching through those uniform and consistent sentences for a tone, a double meaning, a hint that I may have missed in the past or that has evolved over the time you have spent out of country.

Think of the changes that will have become manifest since you were last here.  Nothing has truly changed.  My middle name is still the same, and the color of the sun is pretty consistent, and 4 is still NBC, but changes that have been occurring over our lifetimes have become distinctly manifest, and that is usually the moment that matters.

In this sense we miss the boat.  We mistake a hundred million grains of sand for a dune.  Is it better to say 'that's a dune' or to say 'I cannot even fathom what it is'?  It reminds me of Borges' 'Argumentum  Ornithologicum':

I close my eyes and see a flock of birds.  The vision lasts a second, or perhaps less; I am not sure how many birds I saw.  Was the number of birds definite or indefinite?  The problem involves the existence of God.  If God exists, the number is definite, because God knows how many birds I saw.  If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because no one can have counted.  In this case I saw fewer than ten birds (let us say) and more than one but did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds.  I saw a number between ten and one, which was not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc.  That integer-- not-nine, not-eight, not-seven, not-six, not-five, etc-- is inconceivable.  Ergo, God Exists.

Now of course there is a slight glibness to Borges (detectable in the the title and the unecessary "ergo").  Speaking from experience I can tell you that librarians (even blind ones) have a sense of humor.  But isn't he quite right? 

It reminds me of The Gospel According to Luke, Chapter 12.  Luke quotes Christ as saying: "Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one them is forgotten by God.  Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered."  (Conveniently mirrored in Matthew 10:22: "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?  Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father").  

Those two quotes go hand-in-hand with the Borges piece, no?  Birds are an ideal vehicle for ontological discussion.  First: they often travel in flocks, which happily blur the line between independent creatures (each of which is numbered) and a collective identity being guided by a divine or all-powerful force.  Second: they fly!  Nothing reminds us of the rules we must follow than seeing them broken ('I am tied to the earth like a silent slave').  In fact, I'd say that we can't recognize something as a rule unless we see it broken.  No? 

Hope all is well!

-Robert de Saint Loup