Nice blog Drew, but for fuck's sake, learn to use paragraphs, at least sparingly!!! And of course I have a bit to say - would it really be good writing if it didn't elicit responses from other writers?
Oddly enough I'm gonna take it from the back, because I think I can approach things more clearly that way. We'll start with your last statement. Cogito ergo sum, the original line goes, and more literally can be translated using mathematically symbolic logic, C->S (if anybody gets that, thumbs up). It's not a matter of a phrase, it's really two concepts with one relationship. You'd like to reverse that relationship - I propose that in a proper situation, the correct sentance is as such:
(C->S) ^ (S->C)
Which and logic student understands to mean C<->S
Translation, cognition implies existence, and existence implies cognition. And when two things imply each other, cognition and existence are equivilent (both are, or neither are).
I personally see more of the C->S side of things because I see it as recognizing the value of life,at least as we know it. Cogito ergo sum explains why we must price endangered animals over say, oil deposists. The creature, at least as we see it, thinks. The oil doesn't - and then, for all intents and purposes, may as well not exists in the greater sense of things. To go back a level, to Drew's concept of abundant life by layers of complexity, the creature is in of itself its own level, effectively a organ of the comparative human body. A certain oil deposit, which we would risk the creature's very existance for, is merely a pint of blood - replaceable, replenishable, and totally expendable. Yet these are the far reaching implications of this enigmatic statement. It is far in my view though, to say that C<->S, because I honestly do not believe oil thinks. I believe you can see Drew's perception of life, and it makes damn good sense from a philosophical definition, except I wouldn't call that "life." I might call that "being," but to be honest I interpret life to be defined our very narrow view of carbon based life as we know it. It's like if life the way I see it is a dog, and life the way Drew wants to see it is pets in general. Both totally acceptable concepts, I just accept mine as a little more strict.
Now we have to advance to bigger concept, because having looked over that I'm pretty fucking pleased with how well I wrote that out. True most of you won't understand it, and may ask for clarification - please feel free to do so, because the important thing is it makes logical sense to me, so I'll be able to explain what I mean. I also think Drew, and several others among my regular reading base (read, basically a couple of my good friends), will understand it as is - which is nice. Especially those of you readers who aren't mathematically minded, and I think honestly you know who you few are who I'm talking about, you know how much you guys mean to me individually and as a group. If that was wacky to you... let me know, and I'll try and explain in fewer numbers and more words. But I use too many fucking words as it is, and I'm about to use a lot more, so I tried to keep that short.
Most of that blog was about substance addiction, Drew. And funny, well, that's a bad choice of words, but interesting enough that you should be beating yours as I'm only beginning to discover mine. So let me explain this very explicitly: by most definitions of the word, I am in no way an alcoholic.
By Drew's, I am.
The drug has been in me, and from the first time it got in me it took hold. I know exactly what he means by that, because it took hold. It gave me something I can't quite describe, and with care it took very little from me. Most you know that once, I didn't take that care, and it took a lot more from me. That may have saved me from becoming a full blown alcoholic - no, I'm SURE it saved me. Because early on I got a shocking lesson as to the risk I was taking for the long run. And since then, I've been the single most careful drinker I know, obviously non-drinkers excluded. There's been nothing even CLOSE to trouble, and lots of situations in which there could have been.
And yet, it calls for another drink. And calls loudly sometimes.
By all standard definitions, I'm not an alcoholic. Because I tell it no definitively, and I shut it up, and I get my work done. I didn't drink for the two weeks I had finals to study for, and then finals to take - there was absolutely no question in my mind that it would be an absurd risk. But it reproduces too. I've given people alcohol, I've made people drinks. Usually drinkers already - but I happily bought a drink for my good friend and neighbor, who first experimented with alcohol here while with my roomate, her roomates, and I at a party. She's not the only one I've offered it to, and probably not the only one who's taken it, just the first that comes to mind. It's reproducing, because I honestly enjoy it. I probably shouldn't assume others will be strong enough to handle it - or scared enough. Because there was one night where I didn't get sick, I didn't get in trouble, but I DIDN'T handle it. My good friends bailed me out, caught me as I was falling, and no trouble came. That's what friends are for. But since that night, I've found God. And I've found faith, and truth, and well being, and utter devotion to humanity. I've found what it is I love about certain people that I could never put my finger on. I've found why that specific hug meant so much to me. What I needed to solve to deal with it, I've solved. Can I guarentee there won't be another issue? No, but weighing the benefits against the risks, I think I'm in fair shape. An alcoholic in the traditional sense doesn't do that.
In Drew's sense, he does EXACTLY that.
Drew, I'll probably watch myself more carefully because of what you've written - again, in the long run, you probably just caught my while I was falling, just a gentler catch on a slower fall.
Like I said though.... that's what friends are for.
This blog doesn't need to go on.
:: Peter 1:02 PM [+] ::
...