Geometry

I feel certain it has become very apparent to any reader that I am not normal.  (Not that I don’t want to be, mind you.  In fact, I am always hoping that before I die God will allow me to live just one day feeling like I might be normal.)  If anyone were to doubt that assertion s/he would only have to hear me say that Geometry was my all-time favorite course.  On any occasion that I have shared that fact, the response has varied.  Those who are particularly kind have looked stunned and fumbled around for what they could possibly say.  Out of their kindness, some have tried to indicate that, well, that’s okay.  They seem to want to assure me that loving Geometry doesn’t make me a bad person.  Others, evidently not having ever met one person who liked Geometry, have laughed, assuming I was kidding.  Upon learning that no, actually I wasn’t kidding at all, they have been so dumbfounded as to only be able to mumble “Wow!”, or a similar one word reaction.  People who already know me fairly well before learning of my enthusiasm for Geometry, just reply something like, “Regenia, tell me you’re kidding.  That’s just too weird!”  In my now 63 years I have only recently met one person who did not have a keen aversion to Geometry.  

Having openly admitted my propensity for this discipline let me rush on to explain it.  Maybe I should say attempt to explain it.  Given how difficult my partiality towards this subject is to understand, that might be a far more accurate thing to say.  I like Geometry for several reasons.  First it requires one to learn something beyond straight memorization and/or feeding back of information.  You have to learn a set of basic, essential theorems and then apply them to a problem.  Another appeal of Geometry for me has to do with the theorems themselves.  They are mathematical statements which have proven to be true or which are generally and widely expected to be true before they are actually proven.  So, fact and truth are the basis for the problem solving.    Great way to approach a problem, I’d say!  A third reason I like Geometry so much is that, at least from my perspective, it teaches logical thinking that could and should (I think) be applied to any area of problem solving. 

In defining Geometry, I would say it is a course of study that teaches one to think in a step by step manner about how to solve a problem; and using as a basis for that process, only statements of proven fact/truth, or statements accepted as such.  So, the process of problem solving begins with common ground and the subsequent solution must be based solely on that common ground.  The problem can not be solved by interpreting a fact or making one up, or insisting upon a perceived truth that is not agreed upon as fact by the problem solvers.  What’s not to like?  I see it as a valuable tool for life, not just a dreaded course of study in the educational process, something to suffer through and expect never to use in the real world.  

My last “excuse” for liking Geometry so much is that the explanation of any solution to a problem must be presented in a certain way, in terms of “given” and “then”.  I like that one can not  just present his/her solution to a problem without also making perfectly clear the direct connection between the proposed solution and underlying fact/truth.  Knowing the premise/s on which a solution is based seems efficient for promoting discussion, which should encourage further thinking and perhaps an even better solution to whatever problem is at hand.   It allows others to see where a problem solver “is coming from”.  The full context of the problem’s proposed solution, as well as the thoughts by which that solution was reached is clearly identified.  Additionally, the method of explanation puts exactly the same “burden of proof” on any would be problem solvers.  

I expect that were I having this “conversation” with someone other than myself I would hear about the benefits of creative thinking; about how “thinking outside the box” is necessary for some difficult issues.  I do not disagree with that position because I do not see sound reasoning as an opposite to creative thinking.  I see the two ideas as full complements to each other.  Unless I have understood incorrectly, most of the creative inventions of history have necessarily come about by perseverance over failure/s.  They progress based on the truth of what does NOT work, along with any other corollary fact or truth they might have learned.   If I understand correctly, creative people who are not inventors mature by the continued applying of oneself to an art until mastery is achieved and new challenges relating to that art are pursued, which in turn result in new questions and new thoughts about how to develop further. 

Can I provide some examples to illustrate my point?  Sure.  When the Apollo 13 mission was in danger of being unable to successfully return to earth, crucial innovations were written in three days instead of three months!   Creativity saved the lives of the crew.  But that urgent creative process was based on certain known facts and proven truths.  These were the “givens” in that particular problem.  And the very creative solution had to be based on these givens.

 And I’m sure you’ve aware of the Picasso napkin story.  It is said that while at a Paris café someone requested that Picasso do a sketch on a napkin.  He quickly did so and then asked an exorbitant amount as payment.  The person who had made the request, being completely shocked, complained to Picasso, reminding him that the sketch had only taken him a very few minutes.  Picasso readily agreed but stated that it had taken him 50 years to learn to do such a sketch in a few brief moments.  I’ve never learned whether or not that story is true.  However, true or not, it illustrates that the creative process has some basis in facts and truths previously learned. 

The last reason I like Geometry is that I think it helped me learn the value of questions.  It helped me to learn to ask for the underlying assumptions on which opinions are based.  It taught me that for real problem solving there has to be some premise in fact.  And it taught me to look for that direct connection between those factual premises and the “then” conclusion.  I’ve found that invaluable because I hear a lot of “then” statements about proposed solutions to problems without any reference whatsoever about the “given” facts.  All of this has led me to use the Geometry method in question form, which I have found really helpful when thinking through an issue.  Sometimes I don’t have a concrete conclusion about something, but my thinking process begins by identifying and/or clarifying the “givens” followed by “why” or “why not” questions.  

Let me cite some examples here as well.  I’ll use some of the ridiculous things I have blundered upon lately.  As is usually true for me, these are things I have seen or heard only momentarily but which have caused by Geometry training to kick in.    

~ One presidential candidate, whom I work hard at never, ever hearing or seeing, has said that the right to bear arms “comes from God”. 

Given that this man makes such a statement with complete confidence and authority, and given that he says he is a Christian, then why doesn’t he tell me exactly where in the Bible I can find that truth so I can see it for myself?

~ This same candidate said that if elected president, he would submit to the UN a treaty that would make the right to carry a gun “a human right for every person on the planet”.  He goes on to say that, although we do not need to impose American values across the globe, “we do need to go across the planet and advocate human values”. 

Given that he sees carrying a gun  so important a human right and given that people are dying of hunger across the world, then why would he not advocate feeding the hungry first so they would have the physical strength to hold their guns?  (I ask such a pathetically ridiculous question only to highlight the absurdity of this man’s assertion and the priorities.  Given that people have supported this man, then I doubt their ability to recognize my intentional absurdity.)

~ Combining the above ideas of this man, I have to ask myself another question. 

Given that he speaks of God’s concern for us humans, then why has he never, to my knowledge, cared about (spoken out about) people being hungry and/or sick the way Jesus did?

~ Still speaking of this one candidate, let me quote what else he has had to say about guns.  “With your help, if you get a chance to go to________________.org,  I would like to have your support to then lead an effort across the planet to ensure that the right to bear arms becomes permanent and is a human right everywhere which will guarantee its safety in America.”  This candidate has consistently demonstrated his love of God and Christianity by speaking out about a war on religion, and a war against the Catholic Church, in particular.  (I should say consistently as I have seen it.  That would be fair.  That’s because, as I said, I do not listen or see this man unless by accident.)

 Given that this man speaks of God and his Christian church, and given the Christian principle of living a life free of selfish ambition (Phil 2:3), then why would he put his efforts on behalf of human rights in terms of what it can do for us Americans?

Let me end with myself.  Given that I am always distressed by views which seem totally lacking in compassion for critical, urgent issues, such as meeting the basic needs of children, then it behooves me to make every effort to avoid being exposed to such selfishness.  This is exactly what I do.  I just wish I succeeded more often.