Yesterday, I had a discussion with Adam.
Adam’s creating a documentary on Fukushima and the state of nuclear energy, radiation and related security.
He and I talk some. But in truth, we have some huge philosophical differences on our concepts of reality and fact versus fiction where the only thing we can really consistently agree on is beauty and women.
Last night was a great for instance of the chasm that exists between people like me and him.
I downloaded Neil Diamond and was listening to “Turn on your Heart Light”
Now when the song first came out, the song came out at the same time as the movie blockbuster “ET”.
Like him, I too thought the song was about ET, as the lyrics aligned with memorable parts of the movie well.
Until I’d heard an interview with Neil Diamond, who’d said the song was originally about Robots.
For years, I’d written off the interview. Thinking he was joking despite his straight face.
And then years later, the movie Bicentennial Man came out with Robin Williams in it, where the robots in that movie had been programmed with a glowing heart to indicate love.
I instantly knew – when I saw this movie – this was what Neil Diamond was singing about.
But it still didn’t make any sense. The lyrics seemed compelling, but there’s parts of the lyrics which imply the fully about ET such as “But now that he had to go away, I still feel the words that he might say”
Put specifically, who the hell is “he”?
And why would the lyrics switch midstream from first person to third person if it was about ET?
Still. I wrote off the interview. And the movie. Because, quite frankly, it wasn’t making a lick of sense.
And then. I got into Nostradamus’s work. Da Vinci’s work. And from there, with how much technology was being invented as a result of Star Trek, I began considering that maybe these songs, movies and art and people behind them aren’t just people writing stories…
But these artists – these screenwriters – are actually shaping and molding this thing called reality through their stories like a sculptor would working with clay or a painter would working on a canvas.
But this was all too touchy-feely fuzzy for a guy like me who’d been working with 1’s and 0’s, and if/then/else statements his entire life.
I had an epiphany. A personal revelation.
The hints had always been there. Columbus credited with having discovered the new world despite coming nearly 500 years after Leif Erickson. The war in Israel between Muslims and Jews about who was there first.
I could go on.
But there was this realization that cause can and often does come after effect, and the argument over who’s more accurate has been responsible for wars throughout history.
And a simple debate between two guys in a Starbuck’s concerning the origin of a simple song by Neil Diamond.
So as I looked Adam in the eye.
And said “You’re right, for you”
When he said Neil Diamond wrote the song about ET.
A place I’d been on the same page as him years ago.
“But I’m right for me,” as I asserted otherwise, not explaining the nonlinear references about how I feel more strongly that Neil Diamond’s song and the timing of ET was coincidental, and I feel there’s more possibility that Neil Diamond wrote it because he’d either seen robots like they’d been depicted in Bicentennial man, or he was trying to create robots with a heart as I remember having been depicted in that movie.
He protested “IF we can’t agree on something as simple as the origin of this song, then there’s nothing we can agree on”
Is this what happens between Israelis and Muslims?
“Will you ever admit to being wrong about anything?,” he said.
“Not with this,” I said.
You see, the robot in Bicentennial man got a heart the lit up at the end of the movie.
One of the most memorable parts of the otherwise dull movie to me.
“We can agree on gravity,” I said, as I bounced me hand off the back of the chair.
I suppose, in the end, for me I regard this much like I do a woman passing through Starbuck’s.
We can agree on her beauty.
And the song by Neil Diamond.
We can agree on it being unique.
But the story of origin.
Isn’t just about the origin of this song.
It’s about the origin of all songs.
Now I know what I’ve experienced in my life and how I create what I do through the manual, mental, and physical labor I put into things.
But after rendering my first observation of the origin of Neil Diamond’s song – and that since having been revised….
I have since learned that my experiences and interpretation of reality is rarely the same as others because of this often amorphic and interpreted nature of this thing called reality.
And that’s ok.
Something I think annoys people who prefer the bucketed Darwinist view of reality.
In part because it’s difficult to put into words what I know to be right.
And because it’s about origin.
It is a religious conversation.
Whether both parties see eye to eye and agree with that statement or not.
Even if we look and sound similar.
This does not mean we followed the same path to get here.
And Adam, I’ve seen the aftermath of a nuclear war with my own eyes, have seen the rings of Saturn from the ground, and have seen Yosemite when the giant redwoods were mere bushes.
Becoming a god like being by my own definition known as Q isn’t a joke. In part it’s a primal acceptance and knowing there are infinite realities and infinite potential versions of Earth and learning I have the right to choose any one.
With that said, you’re right. For you. Neil Diamond wrote the song about ET.
In the world I’m a part of and actively forming.
He wrote it about robots with a heart.