MWs (math wizards): Well! It’s about time! Do you have the answer yet?
G (girl): Hold on there. This is just an exercise, right? You haven’t really put me in charge of this life-and-death decision, have you? And by the way – yesterday I spoke to one of you. But today there are five of you. Why is that?
MWs: We have decided to gather the council of elders in order to deal with you. We use the number five, so that there will be a majority when we render judgment.
G: Judgment? I didn’t realize that I am being judged. Would have been nice if you’d told me. Am I on trial?
MWs: We realize that we have made an error. We never should have put somebody like you on this mission to take down the “beast”. This is not a job for somebody who does not understand math.
G: I understand math, you silly old men. I love music – music is based on math.
MWs: (muttering all at once) Not all of it. Not all music is based on math.
G: Don’t tell me I’m dealing with complete idiots here? Did we not agree yesterday not to allow our discussion to become bogged down with abberations or exceptions? Well?
MWs: We did.
G: Then …. how is it that one small sub-set of music, modern jazz – which seems to be independent of math – renders my point about music and math null and void? How would one small subset of music be AT ALL relevant to my point? Are you going to do that every time I say anything, or can we actually have a lucid intelligent discussion?
MWs: All right. Point taken. Music depends on math for its rhythm.
G: And that’s not all. I am good at mathematical problems. I’ve been tested at quite a high level, and I passed with flying colours. And that’s almost 40 years since I studied math in school. So don’t tell me that I don’t understand math. This seems to be a deliberate misunderstanding of me. Why would you do that? Never mind.
MWs: Fine then. What is the answer to our question about the “beast”?
G: I will answer that, once I’m done with my trial here. Or will you judge me without even letting me know the charges against me? Do you really need to cheat like that – is your procedure really so flawed that you can’t even let me know that I am under scrutiny? That seems so very weak. So, then, you are indeed as weak as you look. (surveys the panel of white-haired, pale, overweight or skinny men)
MWs: There is no need for insult.
G: Not when you’re the target of it anyway, right? But you feel quite entitled to level insult at me though – is that right? Well – fire away. Allow me to defend myself at least. Now it’s out in the open. What exactly is your complaint?
MWs: You have demonstrated within your personal life that you do not follow a logical budget. You set a poor example for other people, with the unsound decisions you make. And your personal appearance makes it obvious that you do not take life very seriously at all.
G: Just how did you come upon factual details of my personal life? Have you been breaching my privacy? What entitles you to do that?
MWs: Well, it’s important that we know exactly whom we are dealing with.
G: Will you allow me the same advantage? What about YOUR personal life – and yours? And yours? What are the details? Do you follow a budget? Prove it!
G: Now, let’s not bother ourselves with private lives, shall we? Hmmmm, well all right – I will give you one thing. Have you ever heard of Gone With The Wind?
MWs: Some of us are slightly familiar with it.
G: Are you aware of the “drapes” scene? Scarlett O’Hara needs money, because her entire way of life has been destroyed in the civil war. She was born and raised as a landowner and this is her skill set. But she has had to let her “employees” go, and now she fills their tasks as well, working in the fields. She has had to learn their jobs. This results in a very different physical appearance than she is used to. She tries to preserve her former appearance, and lifestyle, by sewing some clothing out of drapes. And she goes to meet with her old flame to ask him for a loan. He tells her – “You are a sight for sore eyes!” and he is almost fooled by her drape-dress. But not quite. He sees that her hands bely her, and that she has had to do work with which she isn’t accustomed. He realizes that she is even worse off than she claims.
MWs: Is there a point to any of this? Get on with it!
G: I am wearing drapes. They are green. I am doing what I can to reach the best outcome possible, for myself and my family, while insisting on a physical appearance which suits my personality – to preserve my sense of self. Yes, this is not easy – but I am up to it. The decisions I make, are the best decisions for my future. So how dare you judge me? And how dare you pry into my personal life? You certainly are despicable. But since we are here, I will answer your question from before.
MWs: Finally. If you are done acting like a hysterical woman, let’s examine the issue.
G: Hold on – when I object to YOU, I am hysterical. But when you object to me, you are being rational. I need you to see all the different ways that you are a bunch of hypocrites – and there are so many. Shall I list them all?
MWs: No, just get to the point – we have things to do. You have said that you refuse to be backed into any corners, and that you reject “binary” “either/or” thinking. Well, which is it? Do you reject binary thinking, or do you embrace it? You must choose one.
G: (laughing) Oh, that’s a good one! You’ve given me a binary choice, involving binary thinking. You’re wrong. I can choose when and where to employ binary thinking. Sometimes it’s suitable – sometimes it’s not. This depends on the arena we are working in. This is a public discussion, being disseminated using binary data – do you think I don’t know that? Please. I use binary every single day of my life, of course. It’s quite useful. But when you seek to understand me using binary code, then you will surely make serious errors. Because I am of course a living being, with a living brain – changeable, shifting, constantly growing and sometimes reducing. You will never pin me down, nor any other living being. Whenever you do, you make mistakes. And you’ve made a whopping few.
MWs: Fine – whatever. You pick and choose when binary code suits you. Now, what about the answer to our question?
G: You already know my answer. I’ve given it to you – several times already. The answer is, change the “beast” or wait for it to change. Because change, it will – as long as you allow that and facilitate it.
MWs: That has been tried, and failed.
G: Did you try to use threats, insults, judgment, assumptions, and binary while attempting to change it?
G: I thought so. Has it ever occurred to you that this so-called “beast” is a living being, with a conscience? Did you ever consider that maybe it’s gotten wound up in this web without meaning to? And perhaps it’s looking for a way out – a dignified way out, with honour?
MWs: That thing has no honour.
G: How do you know? Are you just assuming that it has no honour? You are the kings of assumption, after all. In fact – the entire problem that you posed yesterday was absolutely filled with assumptions. You assume that people can’t extricate themselves from this web. You think too little of them. You assume that the “beast” will always remain the same – but that’s because you expect it to stay unchanged. You assume that the only way to help the situation, is with violence. And finally, you assume that your choices are A – take down the “beast” with its web, or B – leave it to devour everything. I reject those choices. I say, we choose C – allow the “beast” to redeem itself. Redemption is very powerful. People almost always choose it, when given the chance. Have you even tried facilitating redemption for those involved in this situation? No – I thought not.
MWs: We will consider your words, thank you. But we are unlikely to change our minds.
G: I know. And that’s why I dislike you so much. You are static beings – are you even human anymore? You’ve been here far too long. You’ve become jaded and dried out. You’ve fogotten all about your hearts. I tell you what – I’ll give you a lesson in “heart math”. You really need it.
MWs: What is “heart math”?
G: It’s basically “un-math”. It’s a calculation, which doesn’t calculate anything. It’s an equation which isn’t equal. It’s a procedure which has no process. It’s alive. And it can only be created “heart to heart” between living creatures.
MWs: (glancing at eachother in confusion)
G: I’m going to have to use numbers to illustrate this point, even though it really has nothing to do with numbers. Let’s take two groups of people. One group, group A, has “detached” from other beings and from one another, as their “guru” has instructed. They instead embrace a nebulous concept called “universal love”, of which their “guru” is the recipient of course. They carefully guard themselves from “attachments” or true affection, caring, for other people. They relate to one another at arm’s length, even though sometimes they do bizarre rituals which involve physical contact. Are you with me?
MWs: (nodding, looking guilty)
G: Now, let’s talk about group B – this is a family unit, with parents and children, consisting of healthy people who deeply care for one another. We can say that they relate through their hearts. They connect with their hearts. They embrace being attached to one another, without fear. Every day, they do things to support one another and express their love. They don’t know “universal love”, which really has no definition – but they do know love. And they love eachother. I don’t suppose any of you are familiar with that.
MWs: (shaking their heads, looking sad)
G: Here’s the un-math. First, group B. Let’s say that your personal efforts, your actions, your acts of service, by which you care for the others in your immediate group – and others – carry a sum. We’ll call it 25. So, we have a small group B consisting of only 2 people. One, the parent, brings 45 today. The offspring brings 25. Is the total 70? No. The total is something more like 7,000. Because the energy that is created by loving service, kindness, respect, and attachment, is like a living being which multiples by itself, showering the group members with as much energy as they require – shielding them from damage, healing them when they are damaged, and giving them hope. Now let’s look at group A – the sad group which only relate to eachother on a superficial (and sometimes bizarrely physical) level. Let’s say it’s a group of 3. If each of them brings 25, they should have a pool of 75 from which to draw energy, correct?
G: Wrong. There won’t be 75. There will be less. Because the energy that’s created by such a group, becomes a consuming creature which feeds on them – rather than nourishing them, as in group A. They will find that what they create together is hungry, rather like a cranky orphan. It won’t be very much use to them at all. As a result, they will all become defensive, and they will guard what they have from one another, rather than sharing. That’s un-math. Do you see?
MWs: Well thanks for coming out today. Obviously you have nothing to offer us. We have a meeting in five minutes – gotta go. (scurrying out the door)
And so ends the girl’s trial, quite abruptly.