Ineffable by David Eagleman

Vladimir Nabokov percieved numbers as colors. He had synethesia, a mixture of the senses. David Eagleman has his Ph.D in neuroscience and wrote a book about it. In his spare time Eagleman writes fiction. He recently published Sum: Forty Tales From the Afterlife, which is 40 vignettes about the afterlife. It’s an amazing book. Imaginative and powerful.

In one story God is a married couple who fight and then make up. In another, people created their consciousness in computers so that they could make their afterlife whatever they wanted it to be. In another, a man chooses to become a horse in his next life and then realizes when he dies again as a horse he won’t be smart enough to change into something other than a horse. In one, those who die wait in a waiting room and don’t move on until their name is completely forgotten and uttered for the last time.

I first heard him talking about some of his ideas on Radio Lab’s podcast.

I was so struck by one of the vignettes I reproduced it here. Of course I don’t believe in this version of the afterlife (they aren’t meant to be believed, they’re intended to make us reflect on the life we have now), but the metaphor struck me and I wanted to share it. It’s titled, “Ineffable”.

When soldiers part ways at war’s end, the breakup of the platoon triggers the same emotion as the death of a person–it is the final bloodless death of the war. This same mood haunts actors on the drop of the final curtain: after months of working together, something greater than themselves has just died. After a store closes its doors on its final evening, or a congress wraps its final session, the participants amble away, feeling that they were part of something larger than themselves, something they intuit had a life even though they can’t quite put a finger on it.

In this way, death is not only for humans but for everything that existed.

And it turns out that anything which enjoys life enjoys an afterlife. Platoons and plays and stores and congresses do not end–they simply move on to a different dimension. They are things that were created and existed for a time, and therefore by the cosmic rules they continue to exist in a different realm.

Although it is difficult for us to imagine how these beings interact, they enjoy a delicious afterlife together, exchanging stories of their adventures. They laugh about good times and often, just like humans, lament the brevity of life. The people who constituted them are not included in their stories. In truth, they have as little understanding of you as you have of them; they generally have no idea you existed.

It may seem mysterious to you that these organizations can live on without the people who composed them. but the underlying principle is simple: the afterlife is made of spirits. After all, you do not bring your kidney and liver and heart to the afterlife with you–instead, you gain independence from the pieces that make you up.

A consequence of this cosmic scheme may surprise you: when you die, you are grieved by all the atoms of which you were composed. They hung together for years, whether in sheets of skin or communities of spleen. With your death they do not die. Instead, they part ways, moving off in their separate directions, mourning the loss of a special time they shared together, haunted by the feeling that they were once playing parts in something larger than themselves, something that had its own life, something they can hardly put a finger on.


Share

Why Sri Lankans Don’t Get PTSD and Forcing Amy Grant to Apologize

Part of the problem (my personal problem) with blogging is that I don’t always (for various reason) go into as much depth as I’d like about subjects. For instance, I’ve read numerous articles about a variety of subjects and I’d like to share them and dissect them and critique them and expand on them.

Sometimes the thoughts don’t come, sometimes I just don’t have the time, other times what I do say seems stupid or irrelevant.

That’s why I hadn’t posted anything for awhile. Except about how you should take the time to prepare and plan and write your best stuff. Which of course I don’t always do.

So here are two things that I found super interesting, but don’t have the time to comment on.

The first comes from an article in NewScientist titled, “Invasion of the mind-snatchers” about how Western notions of mental illness are one world view out of many and aren’t always helpful when crossing into different cultures. It’s adapted from Ethan Watters’ book Crazy Like Us. Here’s an excerpt:

[In post-tsunami Sri Lanka] Sri Lankans didn’t report pathological reactions in line with the internal states making up most of the west’s Post Traumatic Stress Disorder checklist (hyperarousal, emotional numbing, and the like). Rather, they tended to see the negative consequences of tragic events in terms of damage to social relationships. Fernando’s research showed the people who continued to suffer were those who had become isolated from their social network or who were not fulfilling their role in kinship groups. Thus Sri Lankans conceived the tsunami damage as occurring not inside their minds but outside, in the social environment.

The next article is from Patrol Magazine about a journalist who was forced to ask Amy Grant to apologize to the readers of CCM Magazine for divorcing Gary Chapman. It’s adapted from Hear No Evil by Matthew Paul Turner.

A few days before the interview [with Amy Grant], I received an email from Gerald, my publisher, asking me to come to his office at my earliest convenience.

Just reading the email caused my heart to beat like a conga drum. Gerald frightened me. At least half of what came out of his mouth was meant to break somebody down.

I deleted the email and told myself to think of Gerald’s office like Daniel thought of the lion’s den. God will shut the lion’s mouth, I thought as I poked my head into his office.

Gerald, can you talk now?

Without looking at me, he said, Yeah, come on in.

He threw an old copy of CCM on his desk in front of me. It was the issue with Amy on the cover, and the interview inside focused on her divorce from Gary Chapman.

Have you read this interview? Gerald asked.

Yeah, I read it.

Pretty pathetic, isn’t it? He thumbed through the pages of the interview, waiting for me to agree. When I didn’t say anything, he looked up. Well?

How is that interview pathetic? I loved that story.

She doesn’t apologize, Matthew. For getting a divorce. Gerald shifted in his chair. Not one time. It’s as if she’s not sorry for disobeying God’s command to stay married. She needs to apologize.

He closed the magazine.

Who does she need to apologize to, Gerald?

Her fans. Us at CCM. And everybody she failed.

Our chat went on like this for fifteen minutes. Eventually, Gerald got to his point.

On Wednesday, when you do the interview, get her to apologize. Ask her to apologize if you need to.

Are you kidding me? You’re asking me walk into Amy’s house and get her to apologize for something that happened more than three years ago? She’s remarried, Gerald.

Gerald threw his hands in the air. I want her to apologize.

Gerald, this isn’t Watergate. We cover Christian music. Can’t we do a fun story and let the stupid divorce topic remain in the past?

God has rules. He spun his chair toward the laptop sitting on a table next to his desk. Either get Amy to apologize or we won’t run the story. Period. Get out of here.

I walked out.


Share