Thinking Through

My friend Zach once described me as "cerebral." When I asked what he meant by that, he said I think & relate very analytically. I think he intended it to be a kind of complement. However, my first thought when he called me cerebral was, "Isn't the cerebellum responsible for movement, vision, judgment, emotions, reasoning, body temperature, & hearing? Does he mean I have good judgment? Good vision? Good body temperature?" Perhaps my reaction is precisely why Zach called me cerebral.

If you go on Buzzfeed, you will find quiz after quiz promising to determine whether you are a "head" or a "heart", an introvert or an extrovert, all based off which puppy you think is the cutest. We ground much of our identity & self-understanding in words like emotional or quiet. A whole branch of psychology studies personality theories in order to provide simple yet nuanced pictures of who someone is. All these tools aim to develop your self-understanding. But they also lead to people saying things like, "I guess I'm an introverted extrovert," or, "I'm an introvert who doesn't hate people." Perhaps we do not understand a tool like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Perhaps these tools only tease the thread of a complex tapestry.

I once equated being systematic with being methodical & smart. That's why as an undergrad I assumed any book with the word "systematic" in the title would read like a calculator manual. Then I read Dr. Sarah Coakley's God, Sexuality, & the Self. Here, Coakley embarks on a journey through art, sociology, sexuality, & Christian tradition to once again reclaim the messy & systematic scope of theology in practice. Here, however, I want to highlight the simple & subtle way she approaches the very task of systematics:

'System' connotes here: wherever one chooses to start has implications for the whole, and the parts must fit together.

For Coakley, you do not have to be overly intelligent to be systematic. A systematic approach means to discover 'the lay of the land.' You are attempting to trace the contours of a topic, a discipline, a subject, or maybe a cup of coffee. Systematic approaches are an attempt to be holistic. They are attempts to think through.

As in my previous essay, I would do well to hear the voice of another true genius, G.K. Chesterton. He described the whole field of philosophy as, "thought that has been thought out. It is often a great bore. But man has no alternative, except between being influenced by thought that has been thought out and being influenced by thought that has not been thought out" ("The Revival of Philosophy-Why?"). So if words like philosophy or systematic intimidate you, you have no need to fear. It all about simply thinking things through.

But trying to think through enough can also be a problem, as if a happy & successful life are all wide open as long as you can think things through enough. This hovering fact introduces an array of "shortcuts", pithy statements and vague, pseudo-profundities suggesting an easy out to the complex tapestry of life. At this point, if you read carefully, you will notice my repeated use of the word tapestry. I use this word because it relays an important image from my mind: at once the wholeness, the distinctness, the connectedness, the complexity, the non-reductionistic experience of life.

You are far more that an introvert or an extrovert. "YOLO" is not a fitting life philosophy to appeal your decisions to. The tradition I stand in (Anglican Christianity) beckons me into an understanding of life as a complex tapestry. No matter what thread I pull, all the pieces fit together whether I understand them or not. A good tradition is not a short-cut to life's complexity. It is an invitation, an "angle of entry" into a conversation. You don't have to be "cerebral" to live fully into the complexity & density of life. You just have to care enough to to begin thinking things through, because no matter what, you will always be influenced by either things thought through or things not thought through.