A coffee and Ayn Rand

You say there are two things, maybe three, in the world and by all means, I believe you.

So why does a jet stream cast a shadow on a cloud and split it in half and make me look at everything differently knowing that everything that makes life beautiful and fun, is an illusion, not there, made up by us :put to terms by us. And beauty is not in the yarn, the carbon atoms, but in the tangles we build above it, the mass we define as another human standing before us.

Who would look outside if we couldn’t see the O2 combined with the H suspended, as a cloud ? Who would so willingly learn that love is the meaning of life if that mutating mass before us wasn’t defined by us with features and chemical happenstances tweaked to resemble individuality, purpose and intention. (and does it match mine ? Is he what I’m looking for ?)

So it’s established: nothing’s wrong that the hat you make of twists and knots is more interesting than the yarn stretched, linear. Yarn and further, the fibers. Solitary in color- how many colors are there really? Three primary and white. Would you call white a color? Maybe there are only three things in the world, maybe four. Would you call white a color?

That hat- it keeps you warm if you need it to- now it has a purpose- does that give validity to or does that degrade the fibers?

Now the only problem is up on the tip top shelf of a bookshelf. Sturdy as it is, can only be built so high until the top begins to sway and make the foundation, sturdy as it is, creek and give and pop. This bookshelf, the shelves built on each other, every one a little further from the foundation, the network of tangles and the way we connect dots, simple dots, not even round or aware of one another, into shapes and conclusions, stacked higher and higher, making pictures of the pictures of the pictures of the dots that weren’t put on the page with any initiative, any picture in mind. And every level, is an extra distraction and every level is a little further from the foundation, resembling less and less the dots we started out with.

So my question is, does making the hat, a scramble, something perceivable, definable in our eyes- we can file it off, now that’s it categorized, write it off- deem the fibers, the foundation, invalid? And can I be genuine if I say that I cannot fall in love with just a mutating mass of carbon but this thing with eyes and insides as opposed to outsides, that's something that I can love. Am I defining it, so filing it away, so writing it off? Or am I finding a way to take astigmatism, give it glasses and tell it to walk like me? (If we all agree, there's no one to tell us we're wrong.) Or have I found a way, it doesn't matter how, to fall in love with a mutating mass of carbon and derive warmth (however much twisting and knoting) from a linear stretch of fiber?

So, is it worship or degredation to create purple, vermillion and shiny gold all from three colors, maybe four? so that everyone can find there own way to fall in love.