7. ….braAaiNS! bRaaaAAins! br-bRRRAAINS!

Bear with me for a bit of meandering? Excellent, I knew you were the adventurous sort.

Nifty little fact-nugget: boundless as the brain’s capacity for information may be, the manner in which it processes and files that information is not without its hiccups. Physiology and chemical high-tailing are a mite bit restrictive and, like bouncers at a night-club, they are quick to shut the door on the metaphoric trouble-maker.

“You. Yeah, you with the velvet suit. Sorry, pal, but there’s no room for you in this club. Better luck next time.”

Velvet Suit Guy is harmless, of course. But they don’t know that, nor do they care to. Because they’ve formed a belief, you see; and once that belief has been accepted as an accurate truth, the brain handles it in a rather miserly way: by sticking it in a cement of sorts, where there is no room for debate. (By belief, it’s important to understand that I do not mean the hesitant, “yeah, I think so” sort; but rather a firmly-held impression of reality. The belief that you are alive, for example.) Thanks to its needy nature, our brain cannot hold two opposing beliefs simultaneously, with equal regards to their truthfulness. For instance, bouncers one and two cannot believe our VSG is at once harmful and harmless. He may be harmful on some occasions or in certain regards, and harmless on others, but he cannot be both at the same time. The existence of one inherently diminishes the other. The brain may accept mid-points. It may alternate between beliefs. It may even replace an existing belief with an opposing one, but only if it can make room for the possibility that a belief may potentially be incorrect. If it cannot, your mind will automatically discard the outside notions that contradict it for as long as that belief is active. This is why we see such amusing political discussions on primetime television, with pundits talking AT one another, rather than TO one another. And why I hold nothing against those who do their best to avoid me.

From here, mom’s inspiring statement should rightly take an evolutionary turn. For the question should no longer be simply whether a belief is inherited, but whether it has any foundation whatsoever. Those many years ago, I'd placed my belief on the table, given it a scrupulous thrice-over, and walked away empty-handed. Those who’ve taken that first step, at least, and given themselves the leeway to doubt are not typically threatened by my label. To everyone else, I’ve become the opposing belief. My every word is indecipherable.

But anyway, back to the matter at hand…