Jay Fox - THE WALLS

“See: this is what happens when you talk to strange people at the bar.”

“Why are you only telling me about this now?” I ask.

“What? About the Baha'i faith?”

“No, about Coprolalia and Willis Faxo and Daphne…what’s this say?” as I point to the piece of paper.

“Karev.”

“Why is this coming out only now?”

“Because Americans hate talking to strangers, even at the pub. I figured I'd have a few drinks with some of the younger artistic types until it was time to go the party. God knows I've met enough of your types, but I still believe — perhaps foolishly — that I'm bound to stumble upon your generation's Kolya one day.”

“What is that supposed to mean?”

“Are you not familiar with The Brothers Karamazov ?”

“I get the reference. I don’t—”

“So are you curious about the implication that God's knowledge is all-encompassing?” he asks with a facetious grin. “Or are you more curious as to my frequent interactions with artistic types?”

“Either,” I proclaim.

“Well, in terms of God, I feel His — and might I say that this pronoun is obviously a homonym — omniscience arises from logical necessity, provided one believes God to be both eternal and omnivolent. Now, if one accedes to what I have said — that omnivolence and eternal life suffice for omniscience — then it must be acknowledged that the possibility of any individual will outside of God's is negated. This is a simple exercise in logic based on a somewhat Russellian take on definite descriptions. Not to depart from the subject at hand, but, as an aside, don't you think the word “univolent” would be a far better fit than omnivolent?” He scratches his head. “Regardless; it's best not to dwell upon the ambiguous lexicography one is doomed to encounter when prowling the tomes of theology.

“Either way, this whole — volent business presupposes the existence of God, which is an unverifiable position to take — as is the non-existence of God — because, from a purely epistemological vantage, a posteriori knowledge is a consequences of observation. In other words, faith is the only way to have either God or no God because any material proof or disproof of God is completely beyond our perception or cognitive abilities — furthermore, faith, as Bayle observed, is required if we are to even advance beyond the problems associated with Cartesian duality, the brain in the vat problem and so on. Regardless, this is the real reason why any material manifestation of God is a miracle — it contradicts the very nature of God.

“Now, I am not one of the faithful; I am an agnostic. Many people believe, to paraphrase Mr. Colbert, that an agnostic is just a dissident atheist; but it is really the only rational way to go about matters of religion. I mean, it is certainly more rational than the ludicrous beliefs of the Christians, who think a Trinity can be unified. You may assert that my view is simply contingent upon my rejection of Christ as my lord and savior, but I simply can't see how someone believes that God can be both eternal and temporarily encompassed within the body of a man, who lived some two thousand years ago, and who, at present, sits on the right hand of Himself — sounds like Someone is preparing for the holy stranger as opposed to Judgment Day, you get me, mate.” He takes a massive gulp. “And then there's the Holy Spirit, which no one seems to really understand,” he adds before gesturing with a dismissive hand and a slight whistle. “The Holy Trinity: Father, Cloud, and Tongue,” he adds with disdain. “Honestly, I do not understand why Christians refuse to doubt the validity of this doctrine and just accept Adoptionism or Nestorianism or Arianism — and, no, this last one is not related in any way to white supremacy—, but, then again, I don't understand why these same people, in this country, voted an admitted alcoholic into the White House.”

“An alcoholic?”

“Yes; once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic,” he says with conviction even though the comment is completely irrelevant. “Your president is, ipso facto , an alcoholic.”

“I see,” I respond hesitantly even though I share his disgust.

“I don't compare him to Hitler, as some are wont to do. While Hitler's rise to power was a democratic Volkerwanderung —and that includes an umlaut over the o —a democratic Völkerwanderung that came about as a consequence of an election, his policies and positions were violently antidemocratic. That's the real danger of Nazism — not its capacity for violence, but its appeal to the common people. Bush's win was simply a victory for a very conservative portion of your country, although I do find it troubling that he constantly refers to himself as the commander-in-chief, as that seems to suggest that he sees himself as, or his speech writers wish to make him out to be, a kind of imperator —even if he has not won occasion for a triumph, or even an ouatio for that matter — not that he would even know what such things are, as his head is even more vacuous than that of Calvisius Sabinus. Now, not to go too far off topic here, but I do wish to say that I am absolutely fascinated by the people who continue to support him and a foreign policy that echoes what Calgacus said of the Romans: ' Si locuples hostis est, avari, si pauer, ambitiosi, quos non Oriens, non Occidens satiaverit: soli omnium opes atque inopiam pari adfectu concupiscunt. Auferre trucidare rapere flasis nominbus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant .' I am—”

“What the hell did all of that mean?”

He pauses for a moment. “To paraphrase: A rich enemy excites their — the Romans — cupidity; a poor one, their lust for power.” He pauses again. “Their rapacity finds satisfaction from neither East nor West. Alone in this world they are covetous of the abject, as well as the rich. To robbery, slaughter, rapine they give the mendacious name empire; they leave…hmm…I guess deserts in their wake, and call it peace. Actually, that last line is a bit hard to translate. Solitudinem , I guess, is pretty much the same as solitude, but there's a certain aspect to it that….” He scratches his head. “Have you ever read Camus' 'Le Renégat'?”

“'The Renegade'?”

“Yes.”

“Is that the one with the guy who's lost his tongue and he's in the middle of the desert with some weird tribe of really hedonistic people? I know there's some metaphor that I'm fucking up, but I can't really remember.” Patrick nods hesitantly. “To be honest, I don't really remember it. I haven't touched any of Camus' fiction in three or four years.”

“Well, that's the one I'm thinking of.” He pauses. “Or you could think of the landscape, perhaps moonscape, featured in McCarthy's Blood Meridian .”

“That just came up the other day.”

“Well, it's an excellent novel.” He takes a small sip from his cup. “So, to reiterate, it's solitude in the sense of harsh solitude.”

“Okay.”

“As I was saying, though, I'm also amazed by the fact that there are thousands of people your age who support his economic policies even though they are nothing more than fodder for late capitalism's process of stratification. Furthermore, I am disgusted by those who support the war even though they do not fight in it. Rupert Brooke was overzealous in his patriotism, too, but at least he had enough personal integrity to reserve a portion of Greece for Britain.

“And yet the left cannot persuade the moderates of the country to reject the administration, which, with the help of some very Bush Senior-oriented CEOs, has looted this country without restraint, all the while making the conservatives more resolute in their belief that a Democratic administration will pillage the nation of its wealth with public programs that were considered necessary only a few years ago — during the Reagan administration. They quote Lucan— Arma tenenti omnia dat, qui iusta negat —as they bow to Caesar.”