A Letter

My friend,

Greetings and salutations! I hope this letter finds you well. I received your last missive with great anticipation, and have a number of observations I hope you will receive in the spirit they were written.

You say that perception is less than the mind, that age-old dichotomy. But I beg you to consider the proposition once more. For what is perception? Is it not a mental processing of external phenomena? And how is that any different from the mind processing an abstract or mathematical thought? You might argue that perceptions are subjective and arbitrary; is not math similar? For 2+2=4 is most certainly not true - is it not more correct to say, "There is a number, which we call two, which, when a process which we all agree to refer to as adding is carried out, equals another number, which we shall all agree to call four." Thus is it not a simple linguistic coincidence that 2+2=4 and not 5 or 22? Is not math as artificial as art; indeed, are not the two inseparable? For there is math in art, and art in math. Do not mathematicians speak of "beautiful" or "elegant" solutions to problems?

You might reply that math and science are eternal, that linguistic variables aside, there is still some concept that when added to itself equals another concept. But, my friend, again, such an operation requires an external mover - an observer, if you will permit me a little license - to make it so, to comprehend the original concept, the operation and its result. Do the birds and bees have their own number systems? Do they count, add, multiply and subtract, determine sines, cosines and tangents? And though some might insist that the capability of certain animals to learn our number systems through repetition and systems of reward/punishment proves that math is somehow more permanent than perception, that it is eternal and all-encompassing, is it not more correct to say that they are simply being force-fed our own systems, the same millennia-old ones we foist upon our own children? They are taught to call a certain number of objects, "two," and that henceforth, referring to that many objects as "two" is rewarded, while referring to them as any other number is punished. Does this sound to you like an eternal, ever-present truth?

Do you see now that there is no difference between the truth of 2+2=4 and the truth of the sunshine on your face? That the answer, "four" is just as nonsensical and primal as the enjoyment one receives from basking in the sun? And who was it that first determined that transitory pleasures were less, were somehow lacking? Is there any pleasure which does not fade, does not wane and wither in time? And, therefore, is not transitory pleasure the only pleasure to be had in the world? Do you remember, when you were a child, the fascination you felt on discovering the world anew each morning, the pure and simple joy of moment-to-moment existence? Nothing is eternal, we are told; yet I submit that these words are the mouthings of foul and despicable creatures seeking to sell you their vision of your salvation. For everything can be eternal, if we wish it to be, if we open ourselves wholly to each moment. And then, my friend, you will find that each moment can last forever, that you can live lifetimes in a breath, a glance, a tone.

I beg you, my friend, to open yourself to the words I have written and consider their import as objectively as you can. I have no doubt that you will, and that your response will carry the same attentiveness and perspicacity that all your correspondence contains. Until then, I wish you nothing but the best.