Late-night writing (is it worth getting up?)
(Pandemic Diary - day 10)
From my journal: 8 March 2020 (Sunday)
I had two bouts of inspiration last night, the first on the way to bed, the second after I was already snuggled under the covers. Each time, I captured it as best I could, in a quick WorkFlowy entry, because I knew the thought, or the words I attached to the thought, were unlikely to make it into today if I didn’t.
That feeling — that knowledge that the words in my head were at least potentially good ones, and the certainty that they would not persist — was strong enough to get me out of my warm bed and have me standing at my computer at one in the morning (or maybe it was 0200 — we “sprang ahead” in the overnight).
These thoughts had a power over me in the moment, and they seemed worthy of capturing, but they were late-night thoughts, from a brain well-lubricated with alcohol, and I’m curious to know if they were really as worthy as I thought they were at the time. I know for sure that I was correct with the second part of my justification for rising to capture them, because I can’t even remember the topics this morning, let alone the words themselves. But I did capture them, and now I’m going to pull them in here and have a sober look at them.
Here’s the first one:
I haven’t quite achieved “stable genius” status yet (I’m no Donald Trump), but I do pay attention, and I listen more than I speak. In fact I’m almost always listening, and watching, and sometimes things come together for me in novel (to me) ways and I get at least the illusion of understanding. And even though I’m a hardcore introvert, I have this urge to share what I’ve learned.
So, nothing great there, but it was still worth capturing. I guess this is probably part of my future “About” page (but maybe the long version of it, farther down the page). And yes, I’ll have to consider whether I want to mock the president that way (but I think I probably do).
Here’s the second one:
I believe in Michael Jay Gould's two-magisterium approach to the intersection of science and religion. The science part of it is easy, just mindless labor, really. The intriguing part is that second magisterium, the part that science can never get to. Science can tell us how, but it can never tell us why. That's the real question right there — why? Some would say that's the question that separates us from the beasts. There are only two paths leading out of that question. You can either choose the path that says there is no why, or you choose the other path (the one more traveled by), and answer “because”. Of course after that fork things get very complicated, and sometimes the different opinions on what words come after "because" lead to anger and even war.
Ok, that one’s deeper and more complex, and the result is less finished, but it is an intriguing approach to this question. And even though I have no idea why that was in my head last night, I’m very glad I followed the urge, overrode my comfort seeking stay-in-bed nature, and got up to capture it. Yes, it’s raw, but it also has that clear (at least to me) feeling that it is indeed a captured thing, not something I created but something I found, and the only genius part of it is that I was savvy enough to recognize its potential value. The next step is to see what I can do with it, how I turn that potentiality into reality.