A cultivated agnostic, with opinions, true, everyone does though, but - 

I've seen this before - was an enthusiast in the 70's following Geller and his spoon-bending routines, read "Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain", which, as best I can recall, was about a sly old Babushka who could move iron filings and needles with magnets on her knees, then nodded agreeing with Randi, these people are frauds, but...

The truth is I don't know. I'm agnostic. I don't believe the truth is knowable. I don't believe the mind of God - however simple - is knowable - think about it - can an ant know what you're thinking? And - the difference between you and God - it's easily as great, infinitely more great even, for God - if you believe in him or her - is infinite...

What is remarkable is that so much of the universe is knowable, that we have discovered laws, that we can predict and understand as much as we can.

My problems, that science reduces us to biology, physics, maths, ... which is to some degree true. But we are more than that. The universe is more than that. There is no way that in a few thousand years we have become Gods. There is so much more - but we're not asking the right questions. And so - even to trivial questions, to things that I would ordinarily dismiss out of hand, I've begun to answer that I don't know. It might suggest that I'm an idiot but it doesn't confirm it the same way that certainty does..

I've chosen the worse seat in the cafe. Beside 2 older Bozos, maybe sixties-something, one, dressed in a black jogging leotard with bright shorts and tanktop, grey beard and goatee, florid, oversized features, his guest, a little calmer, beside me, respectably dressed. 

They're talking about Brexit, the Florid one, loudly, I'm not eavesdropping, I'm trying to read my book, but they're too loud. Talking about Brexit, and it's obvious - within 30 seconds - that they've read some headline off of the Star Metro,, the free daily paper, and they're discussing it, they've got opinions...

...by opinions I mean they neither of them read the article, and for all their ejaculations and questions not one has ever thought to ask it to say their phone or google...and I want to interrupt, interject, see if they've considered the social, political, economic environments, but they haven't, clearly, this is the circle-jerk of "I love to hear me speak and don't you love to hear me too?", and after a few minutes it's too much, they're too old for such stupidity, it's like listening to an 18 year old car salesman tell you all he knows about pleasuring women, 'cause HE knows, but - in the end he's 18, these are men and somehow they're still going at it with their opinions, get up to leave, you want to smack them both, they're not smart enough for opinions, they haven't done their research, just-knee-jerking-off to a headline in a paper they couldn't be bothered to read...

It really pisses me off, but if there were conversational police in Calgary of all places they'd be busy. Real busy.

It's what you'd expect, really. I'd made my way over, nice day for a walk, I need the exercise, I gotta lotta miles left. And so I head over and am sitting, the table next to me, not a date (too early in the day), rather - I don't know? Indoctrination? He's older, fashionable, explaining his theory of the 10 dimensional God....is this for real? I'm making notes...Manifesters,...Generators, it's like he's been playing some sort of dungeons and dragons, like he watched Harry Potter and believed it, he's got it all worked out, obsessive amounts of detail, and is explaining it all to his "friend", a younger, attractive woman.

I put down my book, there's no pretense of reading, I just stare off abstractedly while he gets down deep into the topic...he's explaining how his theory works with group dynamics in companies, how it works in the real world, in relationships, the jargon, it almost gags you, it's every corporate buzz-word pop-psychology new-age shit ever heard all rolled into one, ... but he seems sincere enough...She's keeping up, with the "very interesting" and "Makes sense..."

...my face betrays me, that smile, like on 'shrooms, she's getting it as well, is she an employee? A potential multi-level marketer? Whats up? and she leans over and says "do you want to join the conversation?", and, oh-boy do I ever but he's sincere enough and I don't think I'd be the sort of conversational partner he's looking for so I apologize, it's all been so fascinating, finish my coffee and go...

The best eavesdropping I've done since leaving the Kootenays...

The daughter calls for a conversation, we've had a few of these, a bit of light banter followed by: "So, what to you think of...". I did really well in English 20 and 30 this year, now she's on to Social Studies. I don't mind, it forces me to think a bit...

..."the most important or transformative ideologies have been...", or words to that effect. This is good as I haven't given it a great deal of thought, but, running through it with her we come to 3: Agriculture, Monotheism, and Monogamy. In that order.

  • Agriculture - in that we go from being one with nature to harnessing nature, agriculture allows for the growth of cities and specialization by groups in mining, metallurgy, pottery, allows for the arts, the development of science, the accumulation (for better or worse) of wealth and power, in short - we went from being one with the land to being it's master, which is as transformative an ideology as there could possibly be.
  • Monotheism - 1 God. We take a pile of errors - praying to various deities, and combine them to make 1 error. 1 error, (presumptive of me - I know, maybe, then, not an error) - is better than many, and this is a huge evolution in thought - if 1 God created the world, we might by that discern the rules by which he created it; if many gods created the world there might then be many rules - as many, conceivably, as there are people - this small change in ideology makes a big difference in how we understand the world.
  • Monogamy - the equal distribution of resources (women), the earliest form of Communism. 1 woman for every pot, as it were. This had the effect of reducing wars (no longer was there are surplus of idle manpower that might usurp a kings position, hence wars were a good idea to keep down the eligible competition) - and allowed civilization to proceed. It's an easy thing to shrug, but without monogamy there would be no debate about equal rights for women - so - clearly I should have 50% of the populations support right there!

I could think about this a lot more and make better arguments, revise, tinker, maybe even abandon some ideas in favor of others, but - hey, it's not my assignment.

After this conversation she'll call her brother, and sound him out with the same questions, then counter with "her" thoughts, essentially rephrasing my own, but giving him an "A" for effort...