I’m starting this blog post a bit later than I usually do—roughly an hour later—because, as I planned yesterday, I have walked from the house to the train station, which is about 4.8 miles, it turns out. It took me almost exactly an hour and a half, which I guess is a decent pace, though I used to walk more quickly.
I suppose with enough training I shall improve.
Now I’m at the train station (not the one to which I take the bus, but the one from which I always used to set off), waiting for the very train I would have caught had I taken the bus to the train this morning. So I won’t be arriving at the office any later than usual, but I may be tardy in my posting of this blog entry.
While I walked, I listened to The Fellowship of the Ring on Audible. It’s a brilliant book to which to listen while walking any distance, because the characters are walking, themselves. When I started, they were in the Prancing Pony, first meeting Strider (my namesake)*, and by the time I’d gotten to the train station, Frodo had just been stabbed on Weathertop and they were getting ready to repack the pony and head off the following morning.
It’s inspiring stuff for an otherwise mundane journey.
I’m not wearing my Timberland boots today. I fear that part of the issue with them is that they don’t fit my feet quite snugly enough, and so I slide around a bit in them, and of course, that can lead to blistering. I’m not sure why the fit is overlarge, though. I’ve looked at the various reviews and whatnot of those boots, and people generally say that they are true to size, or else a bit small.
Whereas, for instance, the Under Armor shoes I had are actually a bit snug at my usual size, and a pair a half size up seem a more comfortable a fit around my toes. New Balance walking shoes, such as the ones I’m wearing today, and more or less just right.
I’m leery of trying a pair of Timberlands a half size smaller, not least because they are not cheap. Though, of course, Amazon does have a try-it-on thing you can do, but if you don’t want to keep a pair you have to send it back, and that’s annoying. I can’t deal with crap like that anymore; it involves interacting with humans I don’t know and changing my schedule and my routines and all that other stuff, and it’s just not worth the effort.
Maybe I’ll figure something out. Possibly just the walking itself will strengthen my feet, or alternatively will make them swell enough that they fit the boots snugly. I will admit, after wearing the boots yesterday, they already feel much more comfortable than they did before, but I did not walk more than about three and a half miles yesterday, total.
I’d like to find something out that is more or less ideal, but there may be no such thing in the real world. Reality is extremely complex, with all sorts of high order equations interacting with other high order equations all over the place. It may well be that the possibility of finding something ideally suited in all aspects for any given purpose is functionally impossible.
This is one reason I dislike it when people use the word “perfect”, because in most cases it’s a notion that isn’t even well defined, let alone achievable. Unless one sets clear and specific and precise criteria, judging anything or anyone to be perfect is just rhetoric, it’s not reason. Powerful rhetoric can be enjoyable, like watching a boxing match or a martial arts movie, but it absolutely should not be allowed to sway one in important matters that bear on facts of reality or choices of morality.
Should we really let our politics, let alone our judgments of the facts of reality, be shaped by the words of someone who is—effectively—the best name-caller on the playground? The difference between juvenile remarks—“Neener-neener,” “Your mama,” and “I’m rubber, you’re glue” for instance—and the words in most political discourse and debate is one of degree, not of type.
Imagine if Wiles’s proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem*** had consisted of him saying, “It’s true ‘cause I said it’s true, now what are you gonna do about it? My grandma knows number theory better than you do.” Or perhaps he could have invoked the seemingly more mature arguments: “Of course, my political opponent would be skeptical of my proof, even though it’s obvious to anyone of intelligence that it’s correct. The members of that party don’t want you to have the freedom brought by knowing that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of n greater than 2. That’s because it threatens their power structure, and their special interest groups and wealthy lobbyists. My proof may, like Fermat’s, be too big to fit in the margins of a letter, but believe me, my opponent’s brains, together with his genitals, are more than small enough to fit in such a space.”
Would that be a convincing mathematical argument? Would it have anything at all to do with the truth of any proposition whatsoever?
Why do people both use and fall for such manipulations? I know, I know, they’re just a bunch of tailless, nearly-hairless monkeys; why would you expect them to be more reasonable than baboons? But it’s so frustrating mainly because nearly all of them appear to have the capacity to be rational, contrary to popular belief.
The very use of language itself requires syntax, grammar, logic, all applied at quite a sophisticated and often abstract level. Almost all humans are capable of language starting at a young age. They have the wherewithal to be truly reasonable and sharp-minded, almost all of them, with but a bit of effort. This makes it all the more irritating when they don’t do so.
One doesn’t get angry at a starfish for having no curiosity about astronomy (despite what we call it), or a worm for not grasping quantum mechanics****. And what does a sea squirt need with philosophy, especially once it’s achieved tenure? But humans nearly all have the capacity for exceptional achievements.
Though I suppose “exceptional” wouldn’t be the right word if everyone did it.
How did I get on this subject? I don’t remember. Anyway, that’s more than enough of a post for today, and as I write this last sentence, having arrived finally at the office (and having now walked just shy of six miles already), I still need to do my editing. So I’ll call it good. I don’t think I’m going to be working tomorrow. It would be good, after my first day of longer walking, to have a day of relative rest. Then, next week, I shall do my walking, about 12 miles, every day. That’s not too bad for a start, but not as much as my eventual hope.
We’ll see what happens.
*That’s Aragorn, of course, but for those of you who have only seen the movies, you may not know that his name as king of Gondor, in the fullness of time, was Elessar Telcontar. Elessar means “elfstone” and refers to the green gem given to Aragorn by Galadriel, whereas Telcontar means, more or less, “strider”**.
**If ever I were to assume a supervillain name of some kind, I might replace my current last name with “Melkor”, because it would lead to possibly the most egotistical concatenation of name meanings ever. My first name, Robert, apparently means “bright fame” or “bright glory”. My middle name, Eugene, of course means “true born” or “well born”, as in “eugenics”. And my counterfactual last name, Melkor, would mean “He who arises in might”. That’s a heckuva collection of names. And, of course, I’m a doctor by training and by degree, so that just makes it all even mightier. “I’m Robert Eugene Melkor, MD. You can call me Dr. Melkor. Bwa ha ha ha haaaa!”
***Which, to be fair, should be called Wiles’s Theorem.
****Though they are good at tunneling. Ha ha.