Our Barn Swallows spend our winters in a friendlier
place than do our Tree Swallows.
I write this sentence knowing that it is
flawed. They are not our Barn Swallows and they are
not our Tree Swallows. The other part of the sentence
that should be viewed with suspicion is the extent to which the same Barn
Swallow and the same Tree Swallow returns year after year to the same
nesting site. The final part of the sentence that might make some
cringe is the word 'friendlier'.
A scientist would put up a device that would require
a more substantial identification of Tree Swallows and Barn Swallows than
degrees of 'friendlier'. I would need to compare 'friendlier'
between disparate groups of Barn Swallow and Tree Swallow so that I might
have a more practical structure around which to build my theory.
So why do I issue such a flawed and sentimental
sentence. My answer is troublesome. I see the lectern with its
professor. I see the Scientist with his calculus. I see
generations of evidence demonstrating the unruly and often dangerous nature
of wild and undisciplined thinking. I know that more often than not
the random thought is wrong.
But I also know that minds are trained. They are
directed and dictated to. They are preached to constantly. They
are ripped open torn apart and rebuilt in a more correct way. This is
all done upon the basis of an assumption that could well be a good one,
because it is the assumption that accuracy is successful.
My own troubling position rests upon an
assumption too. The assumption I make is that good or bad pointless
thoughts satisfy randomness and therefore fulfillment.