I’ve never been in an earthquake, but I’ve heard that even if you escape its destruction, it can really f**k you up. I imagine it’s because we take the solidity of the ground to be a given.

In 1600, shortly before I was born, the Italian scientist, Bruno, was burned at the stake for cozying up to the Copernican theory that the earth travels around the sun. I guess, even taking into account the agenda of the Inquisition who may have called this heresy by three four counts, the psychological idea of a non-stationary terra firma was, at that time, threatening, too.

It would be very unhealthy to deny the fact that the world is a moving place that has the possibility of opening up. The likelihood of the earthquake would vary by location, but it would always be a possibility.

What is trusting another person? Is it healthy to keep that earthquake possibility in the back of your mind? Is that what prenups are?

I always thought that trust is trust. It’s 100% or it’s not trust. But I see people as not being dependable to varying degrees. If I live by that knowledge, I will be trusting my judgment. That seems healthy.

Maybe trust should max out at 99 and 44/100%. I don’t trust that either—shouldn’t it be in simplest form?

Advertisements