One Reader's Response to a Fruitful Discussion

We received an e-mail from our friend Colin in response to Wednesday's fruitful discussion. We think it unfortunate that 27-year-old Colin was not around to present such arguments when we were seven, as they might have helped us to accept our parents' insistence that the brick simply exists. Here is what he wrote:


damon, i checked out your blog, and i couldn't get over your philosophical
musing about the supposedly lifeless brick. How do you know the brick does
not see or feel or think? Just because it can not (or does not) communicate
with you, doesn't mean it isn't aware on some level. It might be sitting
there the whole time asking the coffee table (in language imperceptible to
human ears - not unlike a dog whistle) why that goddamn kid keeps asking for
proof of it's existence.

Hey asshole, if you see me, my existance is as veritable as yours! Try
running through this wall and then ask yourself if we bricks exist!

Furthermore, why is existence predicated upon sensory perception and/or
thought? Can't an unfeeling unthinking object simply be? Just look at me
when I'm high. I'm thinking less, I'm feeling less, but I'm still there.
Just not as present as when I'm sober.

Colin


* Coming soon: We revive the campaign to convince Mooncalf to change its name to HOT ATMOSPHERE.