The Flame Alphabet

"Spreading messages dilutes them. Even understanding them is a compromise. The language kills itself, expires within its host. Language acts as an acid over its message. If you no longer care about an idea or feeling, then put it into language. That will certainly be the last of it, a fitting end." pg. 44

One of the most compelling concepts discussed so far is the claim that comprehension and understanding are destructive to the power of the original idea presented, especially in the context of religious teachings. The discussion of ideas is likened to a dirtying of them, the purity of that idea worthless once marred by the bias of an individual's attempt to understand. I can see how language fails to capture the raw power of an emotion, and only feebly succeeds at conveying a nuanced version of it to another person. However, what is the point of having these unadulterated, unspoken versions in our heads if we cannot even share share them? What use is loving someone, for example, or having answers, if they never leave the fringe of your consciousness? A huge part of human connection and collective progress has come from our ability to manipulate ideas with speech, making them more accessible and tangible, more relevant to application in our lives. Without this, we end up stuck in our heads, unable to translate these abstract urges and fledgling ideas into anything concrete.Man is not an island, and cannot exist as such. Preventing 'understanding' only isolates him further.

Another element emphasized throughout the text was this idea of empiricism, and substantiating claims. Clearly, there is need for the scientific process as doctors and researchers attempt to discern the source of the epidemic, or when Samuel experimented with drugs at night to develop effective treatment, documenting trials for future reference. But this mindset was observable in the way he narrated as well. Even phrases said in passing, such as 'we came across one another by accident' were followed with justifications like 'I had no evidence to believe otherwise.' Samuel seems as though he is hyper-aware of the bias his own observations may contain, always elaborating upon his statements to clarify his intent in making them. This applies more broadly to the explicit nature of the narration; direct, intentional dialogue ensures very little is left to be inferred or assumed.