Absurdity

Do you ever get the feeling that life sometimes just doesn't make sense? That it is incongruous to the point of absurdity? That ridiculously tragic things happen seemingly by coincidence, ridiculous enough to make you laugh but tragic enough to make you cry?

Consider the following true story. A few years ago, a new library was under construction on my university campus. It was huge, new, big and beautiful. One day, a bunch of drunk college students decided to party at the top floor of the still unfinished building. One of them spied am opening which he believed was the entrance of a laundry chute. As alcohol can drive men to do strange things, he decided to embrace his inner wild self and jump in "for a ride". The "laundry chute" turned out to be a garbage chute and he was crushed to death beneath a garbage compactor. The library is now finished, and it is big and grand indeed, but nobody ever goes there anymore. It is now scheduled to be sold and possibly torn down, believed as it is to be "cursed" and haunted.

Consider also the following fictional, yet all too possibly true story. A man walks down a lonely street. He is a Harvard graduate with a major in astrophysics, a highly intelligent man and a potential Nobel Prize laureate. He is recently married, with a beautiful wife and baby. He has recently published a highly-acclaimed article in one of the best scientific journals. In short, he has everything going for him. Then a truck carrying a shipment of adult diapers turns the corner in a speeding rush and knocks him down. He dies on the spot, killed by a truckload of huge diapers.

Can you not sense the absurdity of it all? Can you not see the incongruity of the thrill the college boy experienced as he slid down the chute with the emotionless, unthinking, mechanical crushing force of the garbage compactor that takes his life? Or the ridiculousness of living a full life at one moment and being killed by, of all things, a truckload of adult diapers the next? Yes, one can laugh at the absurdity of it, and yet it is tragic enough that it is not funny at all.

Imagine the following conversation in heaven:

"Hey there, how did you die?"

"Me? Haha, I got crushed by vending machine when it fell over as I kicked it because it stole my money. That's pretty stupid, ain't it?"

"Not as stupid as mine. I was about to propose to my girlfriend when I choked on a meatball and suffocated to death."

"I was recording a parachuting course when I mistook the camera on my back for a parachute and jumped off the plane."

"I am a three-times Olympic gold medallist swimmer and I drowned in my bathtub."

"And I got hit by a truckload of diapers."

Funny, yes. How ridiculously absurd! And yet, the sobering truth is that the laws of nature are completely ignorant of mankind's thoughts, actions, and emotions. Nature doesn't care who we are. No matter how much we try to understand it or harness it or bend it to our will, the fact is that the physical world we live in is completely indifferent about whether we live or die. We call ourselves the masters of nature, but in reality all we do is adapt to a physical world that changes constantly regardless of our needs and wants. We expect nature to conform to our needs and wants: we tell ourselves that it MUST rain because the crops MUST grow, that it MUST stop raining because we WANT to go on a picnic, that it MUST snow because HELLO, it's CHRISTMAS! But time and tide wait for no man. That truckload of diapers speeding towards you isn't going to stop just because you're the President of the United States or a Nobel Laureate, it's going to hit you anyway because objects in motions stay in motion and the brakes are gone.

I will close with a scene from an anonymous comic strip. A man and his wife are having a picnic dinner under the vast, starry night shy. The woman looks up and says, "Don't you just feel so small and insignificant sometimes?" The man turns to the woman with an incredulous look in his eyes and replies, "Me, small? I've just been elected as the CEO of Barney and Co.!!"

Ironic, isn't it?

Ah, life. So absurd, yet so beautiful.

God, Death, and the Meaning of Life (part 3)

IV. What is the meaning of life?

Assuming that God exists and that we will survive our deaths, what then is the meaning of life? Should God’s existence and the possibility of an afterlife affect how we live? The second question can be answered without hesitation: yes. God’s existence and the possibility of an afterlife clearly matters in determining what sort of “world-view” (i.e. perspective on life) we adopt. This, however, brings us to the first question, which is rather more difficult to answer.

To truly answer that question, two things must first be established. The first is that there are two types of meaning: objective meaning and subjective meaning. Objective meaning is meaning that is universal and always true regardless of circumstances. In that sense, it cannot be dependent upon human subjective evaluation, and thus must be either inherent to the universe, or dependent upon some external agency other than human evaluation. Subjective meaning, on the other hand, is totally dependent upon human evaluation. Subjective meaning is meaning that is we determine for ourselves, or in other words, it is we who assign value and meaning to that particular object or action. Secondly, we must also establish the definition of meaning. What does it mean to say that something is meaningful? I believe that something that is meaningful is something that has value and is worthwhile. But more than that, anything meaningful must also fulfill a higher, lasting purpose. It can be a means to an end or an end in itself, but that end must achieve something of significance beyond the present. That is what meaning means to me.

With that it mind, what can be said about the meaning of life? Assuming the existence of God and the afterlife, I believe that meaning in life must be grounded in religion. This is because I believe that it is only in God that something can be objectively meaningful, as it does not seem possible for me that objective meaning can be found inherent in a universe that science has shown to be impersonal and indifferent. Since religion deals with the purposes and “will” of God, I believe that it is only through religion that we can find objective meaning in life. As such, those meaningful things must revolve around things that last beyond the life we live on earth, or in other words, that meaningful things and worthwhile pursuits are those that have or potentially have significance in the existence beyond this one. From my perspective, this involves the development of one’s character. For in a way, the only thing in which we can bring into the life beyond this one is ourselves. Thus, meaningful pursuits are those that develop one’s character in one way or another, such as in establishing relationships that develop kindness, courage, honesty, and love with other people. Also, I believe that the development of one’s character involves the development of one’s talents and gifts, as that would lead to a flourishing of one’s character. As for obedience to an objective moral code (such as those found in religion), I believe that that is also essential for the development of one’s character, for it seems obvious that good acts build one’s character whereas evil acts tear it down. There is thus a clear answer and reason for the question “Why be moral?” In short, I believe that the existence of God and the possibility of an afterlife mean that there is objective meaning in the development of one’s character and adherence to moral law, and thus what separates a meaningful life from one which lacks meaning is the extent to which the individual has developed his or her character.

Furthermore, I also believe that one who disagrees with my positions on God and the afterlife cannot give an adequate account of the meaning of life. Without God, one is condemned to search for meaning within a universe that is utterly impersonal and indifferent to the needs and wants of the individual. Without God, I do not believe that one can give a good reason for morality in the absence of true justice. Also, without the possibility of an afterlife, I believe that one would be forced to accept that life is, in the end, pointless, because everything physical must eventually come to an end. In short, I believe that without God and the possibility of an afterlife, one would be forced to accept cosmological pessimism (which states that nothing is meaningful).

There are, nonetheless, a number of worthwhile objections that can be raised against my argument. The strongest of these, in my opinion, claim that life can be subjectively meaningful. Although supporters of this objection agree that a universe without God is devoid of any objective meaning, they contend that by assigning value to different things, we can forge our own meaning and live meaningful lives. Through subjective evaluation, man can give color and light to an otherwise neutral universe and thus find life worthwhile. In that way, transient things such as knowledge, art, love, and work can greatly enrich one’s life and thus make it meaningful. In short, the objection claims that there is no need for a God or an afterlife to make life meaningful, for little things such as a beautiful song or a loving touch is sufficient to make life worthwhile and joyful.

To its credit, I believe that the objection successfully establishes that one can find subjective meaning in life, and this is not insignificant. Ultimately, however, I believe that subjective meaning cannot give true meaning to life because it will still ultimately fade away. In the physical world, in the future (say one hundred million years from now) it will eventually be as if one had never existed regardless of how significant the things we find subjectively meaningful (such as love) seem to us now. Thus, subjectively meaningful things to me lack the lasting significance for true meaning if God and the afterlife do not exist.

In conclusion, I believe that the true meaning of life is found in the objective meaning that only God can provide. The meaning of life is therefore inextricably linked with the existence of God and the afterlife, and can be found in the development of one’s character in preparation for the afterlife.

V. Conclusion

To sum up, I believe that I have provided a sufficient explanation as to why I believe that God exists, why I believe that it is possible to exist after death, and why the meaning of life can be found in the development of one’s character. I nonetheless have to concede that my arguments fall largely to personal opinion and are thus non-conclusive. As such, I continue to believe that a measure of faith is needed, for if all the mysteries of the universe were revealed, life would be a boring place indeed.

References

1. Craig, William Lane. “The Kalam Cosmological Argument.” Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

2. Edwards, Paul. “Introduction: The Objections to Materialism.” Immortality. New York: Prometheus Books, 1997.

3. Edwards, Paul. “The dependence of consciousness on the brain.” Immortality. New York: Prometheus Books, 1997.

4. Jackson, Frank. “Perception: A Representative Theory.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

5. Mackie, J.L. “Critique of the Cosmological Argument.” Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

6. Nagel, Thomas. “The View From Nowhere.” New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

7. Reichenbach, Bruce. “Cosmological Argument.” September 2004, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#3.4

8. Reichenbach, Bruce. “The Cosmological Argument.” Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

9. Smith, Quentin. “A Defense of a Principle of Sufficient Reason.” Metaphilosophy. Vol. 26, No. 1 & 2 (1995): 97-106.

10. Klemke, E.D. "Leaving without Appeal: An affirmative philosophy for life." The Meaning of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

God, Death, and the Meaning of Life (part 2)

III. Is it possible to exist after death?

It is an immutable fact of life that we must all one day die. Our bodies will grow old, stop functioning, and eventually decay. Even if science manages to halt aging and cure every disease in the world, life in its physical form will eventually come to end when the sun dies (or if that is not enough, at least when the universe suffers “heat death”), barring some miraculous intervention by God. Is it possible, then, to continue to exist after death? My answer would have to be a definitive yes. This is because I believe that we human beings have an immaterial component (the mind or soul) which is the essence of who we are, and thus the death of the body does not cause the person to cease to exist.

That said, to establish the possibility of an afterlife, we must first discuss what it means to be a person. In other words, we must first establish the basis for our identity as a personal being (the ubiquitous “Who am I?” question). There are three possibilities. As a person, we are either only our minds (or souls), or only our bodies, or some combination of both. To say that we are only minds is to say that our bodies are distinct from our minds, and that our identities (our sense of self) are solely based upon what we perceive as our minds or souls, which means that our bodies are merely “containers” for our souls, which form the entirety of who we are. This theory is known as dualism or the “container” theory. On the opposite end is the idea that we are identical solely with our bodies, and that our minds are merely a part of our bodies and thus indistinct and inseparable. This is known as materialism. The third theory is known as the mind-body composite theory, which states that each of us are partly composed of a living, organic body and partly composed of an immaterial soul. Only one of these three possibilities can be true.

I am personally in favor of the first theory, dualism, which states that the mind and the body are distinct from each other, that we are identical with our minds, and that the body is merely a “container” or “seat” for the mind. To be more specific, I believe in dualistic interactionism, which maintains that there are causal connections between mind and body in both directions.³ This is because there are a number of significant differences between mental and physical events that seem irreconcilable. Firstly, mental events have a subjective quality that physical events do not. For example, one can ask what a burned finger feels like, what the blueness of the sky looks like, or what nice music sounds like.⁷ Also, one can know everything there is to know about the physical aspect of something (say, the taste of ice-cream) and yet still not truly know what it means to actually experience it (a mental event).⁵ Besides that, many mental events are directed towards an object or a “target” in a way that physical events seem unable to account for (this characteristic is technically known as “intentionality”).³ For example, one can think that the lemonade he or she is drinking tastes good, yet the concurrent neuronal activity going on inside that person’s brain says nothing in itself about the taste of the drink. It thus seems that physical events and conditions differ from mental acts because they are unable to indicate anything beyond themselves the way mental acts can. Last but not least, there is the question of the immaterial nature of mental events. For example, one cannot directly observe anger in another person. One can only see the effects the anger causes on the person (an increase in neural activity, perhaps, or a change in demeanor). It thus seems obvious that mental events are immaterial (i.e. unobservable) in a way that physical events are not. To sum it up, these four points indicate that the physical and mental are distinct from each other, and thus it can be concluded that the body and mind are also similarly separate

Assuming that the “container” theory is true, our continued existence after death seems to me to be highly plausible. For if the body is merely the “seat” of the mind, the mind’s existence will not be affected by the death of the body. Here I would like to say that I do not believe that a bodily resurrection is necessary for an afterlife. It is sufficient for me that my mind continues to exist, for my mind is me.

Nonetheless, there are a number of significant objections to the idea of the mind as wholly separate from the body. Chief among these is the mind-body dependence argument. The mind-body dependence argument attempts to disprove the idea that the mind and body are distinct by looking at the effect of physical events on the mind. Specifically, the mind-body dependence argument argues that there is a direct correlation between damage to the brain and damage to the mind. For example, brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s alter the mental capacities (memory, cognitive thinking, perception, etc.) and behavior of the victim. As the disease gets progressively worse, the degeneration of mental capacities accelerates and the changes in behavior become more and more significant. Supporters of the mind-body dependence argument argue that this indicates that the mind is ontologically dependent upon the brain (meaning that the mind is wholly dependent on the brain for its existence), and thus the mind is not distinct and separate from the body such as claimed by supporters of the “container theory”. This argument is also used against the notion of disembodied survival (that is, survival beyond the death of the body in the form of a mind or soul) by claiming that the mind, because it is ontologically dependent upon the brain, will cease to exist the moment the brain dies.

Ultimately, however, I believe that this objection fails to conclusively refute the theory that the mind and body are separate and distinct. This is because it is not necessarily true that the mind is ontologically dependent upon the brain despite the seeming correlation between damage to one’s brain and the loss of mental capacities. The evidence merely shows that the mind and the body are inextricably linked in the physical world. It is thus still possible that the body and mind are metaphysically distinct, and that the mind merely uses the body as an “instrument” to express itself in the physical world (meaning that the mind is merely functionally and not ontologically dependent upon the brain). The “container” theory is thus still a viable theory regarding human nature and the possibility of an afterlife.

In short, I believe that it is possible for us to continue to exist after we die because our minds are distinct and not ontologically dependent upon our bodies, and thus will continue to survive beyond our physical deaths. Since I believe that we are our minds (in other words, we are identical with our souls), it follows that we will also survive the deaths of our bodies.

God, Death, and the Meaning of Life (part 1)

In this and the next few posts, I'm going to put up excerpts from my final paper for my Philosophy class in which I establish and defend my views on the existence of God, the possibility of an afterlife, and the meaning of life. I do not expect anyone to read it all or even to fully understand them; they are more as reminders to me of what I believe in so that five years from now I can look back and see how my views have changed. Nonetheless, any questions or points of dispute are extremely welcome. Here goes...

I. Introduction

Is there a God? Is it possible for us to continue to exist after we die? What is the meaning of life? These three questions are, in my opinion, some of the most important questions that one should ask his or her self. Why? Because these three questions are integral to determining how we live. Answering these three questions allows us to have a specific “world view” that can guide us through life. That being the case, I personally believe that God does exist, that an afterlife is possible, and that the meaning of life is found in developing one’s character as much as he or she is able in accordance with objective moral laws. I will thus proceed to explain as best as I can the basis for my beliefs, and defend it from what I believe are the most serious objections to my arguments.

II. Does God exist?

There are three main arguments for the existence of God: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. The ontological argument argues that we can prove God’s existence based on reason alone. The cosmological argument, on the other hand, attempts to justify God’s existence by attempting to prove that the universe has a first cause. Finally, the teleological argument argues that the universe exhibits design by an intelligent being. Of the three arguments, it is my opinion that the strongest argument is the cosmological argument. Of the other two, the teleological argument is possibly viable, although not as convincing, whereas the ontological argument (in my opinion) fails because it confuses metaphysical necessity with logical necessity. Nonetheless, I believe that the cosmological argument alone provides sufficient reason to believe in the existence of God.

I will begin first of all with the premise that the universe had a beginning. In my opinion, Big Bang cosmology has provided sufficient evidence to believe that the universe has a finite age (specifically around 14 billion years old). Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that if the universe had always existed, it would have already suffered “heat death” (which is a state of cosmic equilibrium in which matter no longer has enough thermodynamic free energy to sustain motion or life). The universe thus has not always existed, and had a beginning. This tells us two things. Firstly, it suggests that the universe was caused by something that preceded the universe, for it is not possible that something should come from absolutely nothing. Secondly, because the universe did not always exist, we can coherently entertain the notion of metaphysical worlds in which the universe does not exist. This means that the universe is contingent (it might not have existed) as opposed to necessary (something which, if it exists, it could not have failed to exist). The moderate Principal of Sufficient Reason (PSR) states that for every contingently existing object, there is a causally sufficient explanation as to why that object exists rather than not. This means that there must be a causally sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe. This explanation must involve a necessary being because contingent beings alone cannot be causally sufficient for the existence of the universe (for there is no contingent object that is not either part of the universe or the universe itself, and contingent objects cannot logically be generated or sustained by itself or a part of itself). The universe is therefore ontologically (metaphysically) dependent upon a necessary being. In other words, the existence of the universe is wholly dependent upon a necessary being that preceded the universe. Since the universe exists, it can be concluded that that necessary being must also exist.

How then does this “necessary being” relate to God? Well, the necessary being which is causally responsible for the existence of the universe must provide either a personal or natural explanation for the existence of the cosmos. A personal explanation is an explanation derived from the intentional action of a person, and thus requires no other explanation, whereas a natural explanation is an explanation based on naturally existing laws, precepts, processes, and conditions. Since prior to the existence of the universe there was no space, no time, no beings related in space and time, and no principles describing their regular patterns of behavior (in other words, there were no antecedent physical conditions), the necessary being causally responsible for the existence of the universe can only provide a personal explanation. It follows from that that this necessary being must also be a personal being (that is, a being who knows and acts), and not some mindless “force” or “power”. This personal being is God.

This argument for the existence of God is, of course, not infallible. The chief problem is that it makes an assumption that the atheist is free to reject. This assumption is that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is always true, which may or may not be the case. The PSR is not true a priori, which means that it is not a conceptual or deductible truth (in other words, it is not automatically true). The PSR is merely derived from our experiences in the world, and thus may not be always true. In applying the PSR to the argument, one must assume that what is true of some events is true of all events, thus possibly committing the Fallacy of Composition (which is to incorrectly assume that the whole has the same properties as its parts). Moreover, physics has suggested the some things, such as virtual particles that begin to exist in a quantum mechanical vacuum, begin to exist without a sufficient reason.¹⁰ This is known as quantum indeterminacy, and if true, would refute the assumption that the PSR is always true. It is thus still possible that there is simply no reason why the world exists.

I nonetheless believe that the cosmological argument still succeeds despite the objections raised against it. In particular, I believe that it is still reasonable to believe that the PSR is always true because the principle that everything contingent requires a sufficient explanation is constantly confirmed by our experiences, and indeed is used to make sense of those experiences. Just as it is possible for something that may be true to not be true, it is also possible for something that may not be true to actually be true, and in my opinion the fact that the PSR is constantly confirmed by our senses is sufficient reason to believe that the PSR is always true. As for the theory of quantum indeterminacy, it is as such an argument from ignorance, and there may very well be underlying reasons for the existence of virtual particles in a quantum mechanical vacuum that we do not know of, although I must concede that if it is ever conclusively proven that quantum indeterminacy is true, my argument would fail in its entirety. Nonetheless, as the matter stands, I believe that the PSR is most probably true (or at least, more likely than not), and so the cosmological argument remains viable.

In conclusion, I believe that the cosmological argument provides sufficient reason for believing in the existence of God. It must be conceded, however, that the cosmological argument is not conclusive; it merely demonstrates that it is possible (in my opinion probable) that God exists.

Today I learned...

...that there's no such thing as a climax community. Ecosystems are continuously adapting to the last distubance in the environment. Hah, take that, Form 4 Biologi Chapter 9!

Snow!

And snow it has... finally! We were hit by a cold front yesterday, and when I stepped out the door of my dorm this morning, I saw tiny white flakes floating in the air, coating everything.

There's something about snow that makes me happy. Something in the whiteness and purity of it that makes me smile even when my teeth are chattering. Perhaps it's the glimpse of beauty when the rest of nature seems cold and dreary. Perhaps its the sense of 'anointing' upon an otherwise barren landscape. Or maybe I'm just feeling good today. =)

Truly, though, it's small things like this that makes life beautiful. The first snowfall of winter, the first spring rain, the colour of the leaves in the autumn, the sight of turkey vultures soaring in the summer, things so perfectly natural yet so beautifully real. The poets were right. Life is not worth living until you're alive.

From you have I been absent in the spring,
When proud-pied April, dress'd in all his trim,
Hath put a spirit of youth in every thing,
That heavy Saturn laughed and leapt with him.
Yet nor the lays of birds, nor the sweet smell
Of different flowers in odour and in hue,
Could make me any summer's story tell,
Or from their proud lap pluck them where they grew:
Nor did I wonder at the lily's white,
Nor praise the deep vermilion in the rose;
They were but sweet, but figures of delight,
Drawn after you, you pattern of all those.
Yet seemed it winter still, and you away,
As with your shadow I with these did play.

-William Shakespeare, Sonnet 98-

Sovereign

Thou sovereign of my heart treasured in the deepest fastness of my chest, in the fullness of my thought, there ... unknown divinity!

Oh, can I really believe the poet's tales, that when one first sees the object of one's love, one imagines one has seen her long ago, that all love like all knowledge is remembrance, that love too has its prophecies in the individual.

It seems to me that I should have to possess the beauty of all girls in order to draw out a beauty equal to yours; that I should have to circumnavigate the world in order to find the place I lack and which the deepest mystery of my whole being points towards, and at the next moment you are so near to me, filling my spirit so powerfully that I am transfigured for myself, and feel that it's good to be here.

– Søren Kierkegaard, Journals

Facebook bumper stickers

Ok, maybe that last one wasn't PG-13, but you gotta appreciate the humor. *chuckles*

Come what may

In the dark I searched
In the light I saw
Even without much
I believed in it all

In the past I hid
In the now I show
Then I knew I did
Now I know what for

Oh, what a vain hope it was!
But now I know it was never lost

You gave me a reason to smile
You just brightened my day
And now I can't wipe
That silly grin from my face

It's been really quite awhile
But now I've reason to say
There's meaning to life
I can see through the haze

Tomorrow's a brand new day
Come what may
Come what may

Living triumphantly

"Once a man from Syria led a camel through the desert; but when he came to a dark abyss, the camel suddenly, with teeth showing and eyes protruding, pushed the unsuspecting paragon of the camel-driving profession into the pit. The clothes of the Syrian were caught by a rosebush, and he was held suspended over the pit, at the bottom of which an enormous dragon was waiting to swallow him. Moreover, two mice were busily engaged in chewing away roots of the already sagging plant. Yet, in this desperate condition, the Syrian was thralled to the point of utmost contentment by the rose which adorned the bush and wafted its fragrance into his face."

-Leo Tolstoy-

Now THAT is what it really means to stop and smell the roses.

Who am I?

Am I the face I see in the mirror? Am I the person I think I see? Am I that short dude with weird hair and an uncertain look who stares back a me? Am I the guy who pumps his fists in the air and yells just because he can and because he think no one can hear him? Is that really me I see?

Am I the person whose eyes I look through, whose mouth tastes foul in the morning, whose smelly feet stink up the whole room? Am I the man who can't bear the taste of celery, whose mouth waters at the smell of durian, whose nose gets blocked every time he sneezes? Am I the guy who loves the smell and feel of rain, who walks ten miles in a thunderstorm just because the wetness makes him happy? Is that me?

Am I the person whose thoughts run through my head, faster than I can catch it? Am I the little boy who wakes up every morning feeling overawed, but for the life of him he just can't remember what he dreamed? Am I him whose eyes get drawn by a frolicking squirrel, who can only stand in awe at a flock of soaring turkey vultures? Am I he who feels what he writes but fails to write what he feels? Am I he who dreams forgotten dreams, brilliant but ephemeral, high-sounding but short-lived? Is that me or not me?

Am I the guy whose heart thunders so crazily in moments of suspense? Am I he who stumbles over words and stutters when he faces a crowd? Am I the person who feels so much and yet so little? Who thinks he knows and yet knows not what he thinks? Am I he whose blood races, whose mind goes blank, who feels such joy and such despair? Is that or is that not me?

Who is that man whose thoughts I think, whose emotions I feel, whose eyes I see through? Who is that man whose burdens I carry, whose sorrows I wallow in, whose joys uplift me? Who is that man I see in the mirror, staring back at me? Who is he, indeed?

And all this time I've been asking the wrong questions.


"I am not what I am" - William Shakespeare, Othello