The following is a rewrite of a paper I wrote for Non-fiction writing. To be honest, it's the end of a honing process that started out entirely as a rambling, complaining, meandering piece of trash that no one would want to read. The first final that I turned in earlier this year had a whole paragraph ripping apart Dr. Hovind, who's been in and out of trouble for years, and I believe is in prison right now. This one is focused, finally, on the argument, but still within the context of my life, and without hovering over specific garbage that spewed out of me while I was trying to get this paper started. There was at least one line I didn't keep, that I still like, italicized below. From the first version:
"As I began to see how over-investment of identity into my beliefs, or vice versa, kept me from approaching new information with an objective openness, I started to search deeply for any cognitive dissonance within my worldview. I set out by researching everything I could find that spoke against my current beliefs, and began correcting or reinforcing them. I swore from that time forward, when approached with new information, I can change my mind without feeling as if I have sullied my own integrity. This is the hallmark of open-mindedness, a concept that now seems more inline now with non-judgmental attitudes towards social behavior, but truly means being open to re-assess anything you believe, given new information. Rejudging, and perhaps coming to the same conclusion, but not without careful objective consideration."
+
I just watched a new-to-Netflix-streaming documentary, Death By Design, that is actually 15 years old already, about cell death. I imagine we're quite beyond the understanding demonstrated in this film, but it's a nice hour long exploration into, as its subtitle says, "The life and times of life and times". Its biggest revelations are purposeful cell death in the service of life. A cell actually must first create a certain chemical in order to die "cleanly" without triggering an inflammation response, like when we do physical damage, which is "dirty" destruction. So, a bit in line with my paper, we can see how death is a complicated process, it is a building tool, and healing tool, and was certainly not a part of the earliest single celled life-forms. They also make a point that self-destruction is inextricably linked with the ability for a single cell organism to evolve into a multi-cellular organism. Once again, it fits the timeline I propose.
The documentary, filled with whimsical clips from entertainment history to illustrate the interviews with biologists from London and Germany and MIT, takes a slow path into understanding some of the cell processes. They do insist on using the word "death" to describe it though. The process of destruction, as I understand it is so purposeful, one would have to say either suicide or sacrifice, or perhaps, move towards the less stigmatic scientific terms such as re-absorption. Cells that do dismantle themselves from a signal, are indeed reabsorbed locally.
A few more thoughts have crossed my mind after watching this one. One is about large scale construction, the scaffolding that is used (once used?) should be an integral part of the material that the end building is made of. Steel is wonderful, but takes massive amounts of power to use. Just ask Venezuelan industry owners. The government owned power industry is so poorly managed that the steel factories are being cut off, as they are some, if not the biggest users. This lack of steel of course, which needs tons of coal to produce and also needs great deals of electricity, hinders industry. I think, careful consideration of both architecture AND construction could allow for more efficient use of steel, allowing the great deal of material that is there for the construction, to be used in the final product. I believe some building cranes use the structure itself, so that's a similar idea that is currently in use. But the whole of construction, especially home construction, needs to be completely re-designed. (Well, I suppose that its going toward off-site construction of modular pieces and quick on-site assembly. See, Bensonwood homes, specifically the This Old House that covers the new tech.)
The other thought that crossed my mind is in reference of another study about "lean times". Its been discovered that periods of low calorie intake, or calorie restriction (referred to as CR in the paper), during a lifetime seem to prolong life (in rats, mammals). I imagine, in a reduced state of caloric intake in turn reduces cell division. The paper cited speaks of the many different ways our bodies react to "CR", including hormonal and metabolic changes, the pancreas does new things, etc. A reduction in cell division seems fairly likely as well, and would be a reduction in cancer risk, as cancer is a cell division gone bonkers. Malcom Gladwell makes this point in his article about birth control and breast cancer. Perhaps it's not just the reduction in cell division, but the simple exercise of body signaling. When was the last time you're cells were told to hang on a second? Does the fact that we don't go through a yearly lean time mean our bodies don't have experience in slowing things down, and changing things up? Does this atrophied signal reaction lead to poor control of cancerous cells? I don't know, but its this careful balance of creative (angiogenisis) and destructive (controlled cellular 'death') forces in our body that seem to me the place we should be looking. Cancer is not a foreign object remember, cancer is when a small part of us quits listening to its orders. I think a fast may be of order? It's not a hippy construct remember. All of life cycles, and most of our celebrations of life are based on the lean times, before and after.
On that note, I want to share one last final insight. Our eyes are essentially edge-finders. If you think about that, we perceive space, objects and communications through contrast. It's within this reality that good graphic design and environmental design (that is, the design of a space, not green roofs or what have you) must understand in order to guide people, in order for us to make sense of their communications. It is the contrasts that are important. It's this duality that I have started to understand, like when Socrates appreciates the two-headed yet singular beast of pleasure and pain when his shackles are finally taken off, it's the pleasure of relief, for which there would be none without hard iron shackles to begin with (Phaedo, 60b-60c). It's these edges in life that are the most evocative. This is why there is no fun in unemployment, but a day off after 6 days straight is bliss. I've been coming to understand that it's not so much moderation that I seek; an elusive goal that seemed to me the definition of a life well lived, its coming apart a bit. I think what I seek is moderation in a series of cycles, an average of moderation, with periods of feast and famine, keeping the peaks not too high, and the troughs not too low. But perfect moderation is meaningless. There are no edges, no seasons, no changes of time. This is what David Byrne sings about when he says in so many words, heaven is a place, as place where nothing, nothing ever happens.
No season, no edges, no life.
I seek to appreciate lean to appreciate the fat. The sober to appreciate the highs. Effort for rest.
Fasting, though often religious in nature, seems perhaps to be based on persistent realities and rhythms. Perhaps we should heed the advice?
GeorgeP
I'm a big fan of the starting out as a "serious fact finding/debunking" paper and then transitioning to a "holy shit people need to fast to live longer" kind of paper.
ReplyDelete