One moment I think, “I am broken.” The next moment I ask, “am I broken?” “Or is reality broken?” Which leads me to ask, “is my reality broken?” “Or is our reality broken?” And then, “shouldn't they be the same?” If reality is something that exists independent of consideration, this implies there can be no interpretation; something either is or it isn't. Guided by facts, my reality should not differ from our reality. But, interpretation (of a fact as premise or a premise as fact) produces disagreement, and disagreement leads to multiple realities, which by definition is simply not possible. Yet in a contortionistic perversion of reason, multiple realities is our reality; and I suppose it has been for our entire history.

So perhaps it should not be a question of who or what is broken, nor even a question of reality or fact, but rather a question of one's ability to reason. If to reason is “to form conclusions, judgements or inferences from facts or premises” then it feels to me like one's ability to reason begins with one's ability to differentiate between a fact and a premise. To argue a fact as a premise is reasonable and may lead to some productive truth. But to argue a premise as a fact is dangerous in that (if done reasonably) it may lead to an ignorance and denial of actual fact. A fact is provable. To be reasonable, a fact that is provable but not easily provable, must be argued as a premise. A premise, by virtue of an assumption or a leap, is not provable. If we disagree on what is fact, we should argue everything as premise. This requires an objective patience, a patient empathy, and empathic respect.

An unreasonable individual will dispute facts not consistent with their agenda and put forth personally beneficial premise as indisputable fact, and in so doing may argue reasonably and appear reasonable. A reasonable individual then must argue everything as premise and risk that their objective, patient, empathic, respectful voice will be lost in the noise and distraction of indisputable disputation. The reasonable individual can continue in this vein, or the reasonable individual can more loudly dispute premise held as fact thus appearing to the unreasonable individual (and to many reasonable individuals) to be unreasonable.

And this is where we are at. But again, isn’t this where we have always been? Unreasonable individuals in power? Unheard individuals on the sidelines, arguing reasonably? And purportedly reasonable individuals on the playing field appearing unreasonable.

So perhaps my very first statement above is the most correct. I am broken. Broken by the unreasonable power of individuals. And broken by the insentient machinations of bureaucracy. And broken by unreasonable reason. And (perhaps worst of all) broken by my own (objective, patient, empathic, respectful) inclination to reason.

I believe we are changing, evolving, progressing, but I am afraid we are not doing so as quickly as what may be necessary for our survival. To move past 1) unreasonable power and 2) insentient machinations and 3) unreasonable reason requires first, (on the part of all three) an ability to differentiate fact from premise, thus finding agreement; a common ground. Yet unreasonable power likes the status quo. And insentient machinations are, well, insentient; heedless, uncaring, unfeeling, and in the service of unreasonable power. And unreasonable reason, though willing and capable, resist objective, patient, empathic, respectful reason that may remove it from the playing field.

And this is where we are at.

A couple of years ago, I believed it might take some sort of national or worldwide emergency, crisis or catastrophe to shake us up enough to move us away from divisive arguments of premise as fact and toward some agreement differentiating fact from premise. I was wrong. Nearly one year into a worldwide pandemic and we are still incapable of even beginning the process of necessary, interdependent reason. We are still incapable, as a community, as a culture, as a nation, as a species, of productively and efficiently moving forward. We are still incapable, as individuals, of acknowledging our mortality; the inevitability of my individual mortality and/or the possibility of our mortality as a species. This acknowledgement sorta kinda feels important.

Evidence of our mortality is all around us. Today could be my last day. Tomorrow, (a foreseeable tomorrow), could be our last day. These are facts. Facts that cannot be changed by denial and ignorance. Facts that one day, (How About Today?!!), we will no longer be able to ignore. Facts that are leading us and will follow us to our graves.

To argue requires a fact or premise. To argue reasonably requires some agreement on what is fact and what is premise. To argue productively requires reason. To reason requires an objective patience, a patient empathy, and empathic respect. Objectivity, patience, empathy and respect are difficult in the face of denial and ignorance. How about we begin by agreeing that on this planet, individual and species mortality is a fact. From there, those who do not believe the survival of Humanity into future generations is of consequence, should opt out. Because we, as a species, are on this planet, occupying this plane of existence, and because future generations are already here, perhaps our focus, our consideration, our concern, our efforts, should also be here. And perhaps from there we can argue productively?

Or we can continue to misinterpret fact and premise, continue to argue premise as fact, and continue toward an early grave, because reason is on the sidelines playing with itself.

Mortality is the First Fact!