Episode 110: The Logic of Heartbreak (or Caveats Rock)

Slushies, get ready for some trailblazing poems in the form of mathematical proofs, theorems, and other types of mathematical reasoning that level their gaze at heartbreak. One poem even embeds a second poem as a footnote. Alex reminds us all of the hermit crab essay/poem format, prompting Sam to recall Maggie Nelson’s Bluets, in which the end of a powerful love is likened to the experience of shedding yet still living with an abandoned skin or shell. Come along for a ride with some poetic work that’s furious and logical in equal measure! 

 

Links to things we discuss that you may dig:  

 

Joe Wenderoth’s Letters to Wendy’s

 

Samantha Hunt’s The Seas 

 

Maggie Nelson’s Bluets 

 

This episode is brought to you by our sponsor Wilbur Records, who kindly introduced us to the artist is A.M.Mills whose song “Spaghetti with Loretta” now opens our show.  

 

At the table: Kathleen Volk Miller, Marion Wrenn, Samantha Neugebauer, Alex J Tunney, and Dagne Forrest 

Rei Alta is a black writer, disciple of science, artist, and proud supernerd. She resides in Massachusetts where she was born and raised. Rei spends most of her time supporting brilliant young people from historically marginalized communities in their exploration of science and engineering. 

 

Socials: Instagram: @reialtaspeak 

 

 

Inflection Point 1b

 

Theorem 1.1.  The pain, longing, and ambivalence I feel related to this particular past lover (hereafter “him”, “he” or “you”) is not unhealthy.

 

Proof:  By definition, “Time heals all wounds.”  Suppose for all purposes, 11 years is considered to be ‘Time’.    It is true that 11 years have passed, however I am not healed.  Thus, this thing I feel is not really a wound.   

 

Theorem 1.2. There exists a value in this lover that I use to cope with a deficiency in my current state of being. 

 

Proof:  By Theorem 1.1, this lover does not represent some larger, unresolved issue.   It is true, however, that I still have been unable to let him go.   Therefore, he must be notable for a different reason.   By supposition, that different reason is that he and I had an unrivaled connection. I.e. While there is no such thing as soulmates, our cognitive compatibility was substantially higher than that of my previously observed matches.  Hence, I feel an intensity through recollecting him such that most other things pale in comparison.  Therefore, I remember him in order to feel something when I don’t.   

 

Theorem 2.1.  There exists an absolute truth about why I loved him and why I haven't been able to let go. 

 

Proof:  By definition, “All things happen for a reason.”   Since it is true that loving him and being unable to let go has happened, there must be a reason that caused it.   This reason must be the truth. Suppose not; i.e., suppose this reason was not the truth. Then it would not have possessed the power necessary to cause such a consequential thing to happen.  Such a consequential thing did happen. Thus, there is an attributable reason that is the truth.   

 

Theorem 2.2. I must understand why I have not been able to let go—in order to let go. 

 

Proof:  By my own definition, I am a finder of truth.   By Theorem 2.1, there is a truth to be found. If there is a truth I have not yet found, then I must find it in order to exist since finding truth defines me.  Thus, I have no path forward but to find the truth.   

 

____________________________________________________________________________

CAVEAT: Due to the following factors, the validity of the proofs outlined above is questionable: 

Invalid underlying assumptions
Faulty reasoning
Insufficient information  

As a result, extrapolation based on the conclusions laid out in the preceding section is not advised.  

 

----more----

wave height 

CREST 

you approached 

after cycles of fire 

there was a tectonic shift 

fueled by molten rock and dressed up decay 

i believed your promise this time around — i felt it lift my feet 

 

 

 

TROUGH1 

you receded 

re-defining “forever”  

as “only thirteen days” (a real trailblazer!) 

and like eddies forming behind Pinnacle Rock 

    the reverse current dragged me in asymmetric swirls

 

 

[1]  i wish my love became

a two-toed sloth

like the algae on its fur

it ignores his simple existence

 

i wish my love became

a deep sea vent

spewing sulfur to fill his nostrils

and make him gag

 

i wish my love strutted

down the cobblestones in heels

with a long, deliberate stride

and a toss of its hair

 

  

----more----

I Outline the Hypotheses 

 

I got this 

This is 101 

I simply need to determine what a human woman should feel in this situation based on whether or not I can reject the null: 

 

H0 (null) = 

                 He’s a small person on a power trip 

                 Who never cared 

                 He wasn’t actually sick from bad Indian food  

                 Each time I felt we needed to talk 

 

H1 =  

                 He’s not small but broken  

                 It was shame that caused him to disappear without warning;  

                 I memorialized every scene of his trauma  

                 While he forgot my middle name 

 

H2 =  

                 He’s an emotionless sociopath in a decade-long grift 

                 Laughing about me with his friends  

                 Each month he adds some new mark to his collection  

                 One day he’ll be caught and I’ll guest star in a true crime documentary 

 

Yes, all very plausible 

Now all that’s left to detect an effect is to dampen the noise