sometimes in reading I give things a kind of half credit. I think it’s true in spirit but maybe too cute in the manner of explanation. Maybe the writer saw the truth of what they were saying to such a degree that they relaxed and got a bit fast & loose in the telling of it. Sometimes writers almost seem to try to do this. There is a sense of faith that an imprecise formulation might better demonstrate the truth it hovers around than if we drove at that truth more directly. A kind of poetic imprecision seems almost necessary, to avoid ruining the truth by explaining it too closely. I’m thinking of this because there is a passage at the beginning of the Cosmic Joke section of The Myth of Freedom that had seemed to take this approach, but I don’t think it does. The part about one proving zero, and two proving one, etc. It’s precise, actually. It’s not poetic.

It seems clear I want something to be true. I want something to be lasting, if not permanent. And so I have to be a little suspicious of myself.