
First of all, Happy Halloween to everyone who celebrates this day in any fashion. Even if you don’t celebrate it, you might as well have a good day.
I don’t discriminate based on Holiday celebrations. How very admirable of me.
Once again, I mean to keep this post short by making my target 701 words to start with, because I’m very tired this morning. It was difficult to get up at all, and I still feel as if I’m vaguely sedated. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to have been one of those sedatives that’s associated with euphoria. It would be nice if it were, right? If they would agree, I would agree.
Unfortunately, I’m just groggy and weak and blurry. By which I mean I feel that the world seems slightly blurry to me. I don’t mean that I am blurry if you look at me. I might imagine that I could be blurry (meaning as a function of me not just poor vision in the observer) but I have looked in a mirror already this morning, and while I am far from easy on the eyes, I seem to be in focus.
Thinking of atypical interpretations of things people say, I was listening to one of the guys on the phones in the office yesterday, and I heard him use the expression “qualified individual”. Now, I know what he meant, and it’s a perfectly valid term when discussing a promotion with a customer. But it occurred to me that one could use the term to refer to someone who is an individual…but only from a certain point of view.
For instance, Norman Bates could be thought of as a “qualified” individual. Yes, he’s a single person in the sense that he is one organism*, but there is more than one distinct personality in his head. You could also say that the narrator in Fight Club is a “qualified” individual, as is James McAvoy’s character (should that be “characters”?) in Split.
Oops, sorry, I guess I could have given a spoiler alert for those movies. But if I had done that, it would have ruined the surprise!
Of course, from certain points of view, even your typical unqualified** individuals are not as monolithic or monotonic or monotropic or, well, monopersonic as one might imagine. We know that in split brain patients, when the corpus callosum is severed to reduce the problem of, for instance, uncontrollable seizures, the two sides of the person’s brain can act and think in some ways like two separate people. They act like two individuals in other words, though in such circumstances, that word is least applicable, since if anyone is “undivided”, it is not these people.
But they are only a special, more extreme version of that which is true of the rest of us. Our minds are all divided into many separate modules and centers, often running largely in parallel with each other. There is no one central, “terminal goal” region of the mind; there are separate and conflicting areas and aspects, and even they are not constant. Many introspective practices, particularly those associated with Buddhism, recognize that the concept of an individual, homuncular “self” is nebulous at best and is never even close to being real.
It seems the term “individual” is just as incorrectly presumptuous for people as the term “atom”*** is for, well, atoms. However, if we’re referring to more physical literality, then it’s still pretty accurate, certainly for everything more complex than a flatworm. If you start splitting people (and other animals) in pieces, what you get, at best, is a creature with missing bits and lots of dead former body parts. You don’t get more than one being. Often you get no one, because you will have killed the person with whom you started.
In such a case, one divided by two might in a sense equal zero.
Of course, even in basic mathematics, if you divide one by ever larger numbers, you get closer and closer to zero (it’s the limit as the denominator goes to infinity).
Speaking of going to infinity, the value of 1 / (701 – x), where x is the number of words I’ve written, has now crossed the singularity at infinity and is asymptotically approaching the x-axis from below. On the positive side of the x-axis, starting from the beginning of a post’s first draft, that number can never be smaller than 1/701, since even I cannot write a negative number of words****. But once I’ve passed the 701 point, the numbers can become an infinitesimal negative fraction, in principle.
In practice, I’m practically finished here. I hope you all have a good day. I will probably write a post tomorrow.

*Not counting skin and intestinal flora and the like. If we count those, then we can all, like Walt Whitman, truthfully say “I am large, I contain multitudes”.
**Again, this has nothing to do with the person’s skills or résumé or experience or innate abilities, it’s just saying that one wouldn’t normally feel the need to add any caveats when calling a person an individual.
***Which means, basically, “uncuttable”. And what we call atoms can indeed be “cut”.
****A number of negative words, on the other hand…











