The inquisitive one had been spending a lot of time on social media.

The herbs in the garden were documented on Instagram. The new kitchen gadget and new running shoes were documented on Facebook. The vintage furniture steal was documented on Pinterest. And every waking thought was documented on Twitter.

All of this photo posting and thought tweeting was starting to pile up in the inquisitive one’s brain like a goopy mess of potato peels. It was as if every peel of potato had an eye, and every eye was staring judgmentally at the inquisitive one!

“I live in an era of oversharing,” the inquisitive one thought. “I participate in that, and I enjoy participating in that; but maybe I need a break from that!”

So the inquisitive one canceled the original plan for the evening, which was to go to a hip new D.C. bar. Presumably, the evening would have consisted mainly of taking a series of selfies with an exotically prepared martini, mulling over which photos came out best, fiddling with various filters, and stressing about what to write as captions.

Instead, the inquisitive one went on a long run through a woodsy area. It was a lovely evening, and the trees were cast in brilliant golds and fading grays.

“Ah! This is where it’s at,” thought the inquisitive one. “Here in this woodsy area, I am all alone, doing my thing, undocumented, unshared, invisible, happy in my element: oh joy!”

However, unbeknownst to the inquisitive one, a Google car was driving by at that very moment, taking photos for the Street View of Google Maps. Moreover, a wedding had just taken place in the woodsy area, and the wedding photographer, plus family members and friends of the couple, were taking numerous photos of the scene.

Furthermore, someone had recruited a friend to make a video of him doing calisthenics, which he planned to post on YouTube and also use in his audition for a reality TV show. And someone else was taking a video of her dog, to whom she was teaching elaborately silly tricks. She planned to post the video on multiple social media sites and also submit it to a funny video contest.

The inquisitive one accidentally photo- and videobombed every single one of these people. As a result, the inquisitive one’s likeness ended up on the web multiple times—in many instances very clearly and with ridiculous-looking poses and expressions—all in spite of the original, innocent intent of the long run through the woodsy area.

Oh, and another thing. I had hired an artist* to follow the inquisitive one around and, through portraiture, document with precision what the inquisitive one looks like. Thus I hoped to prove, for all time, that the inquisitive one and I are completely different people!

You can see the result of this artistry above (and you can, as you wish, contrast this illustration of the inquisitive one with my own new look—for a brand new selfie of me now appears on my Home page!—and you can see for yourself the many vast differences between us).

But the point is, this fabulous portrait of the inquisitive one was surreptitiously completed, by the artist I secretly hired, during that very same run, that very same evening, unbeknownst to the inquisitive one.

It’s a beautiful work of art.

I intend to plaster the Internet with it.

*Many thanks to the brilliant Washington, D.C.-area artist Jim Nuttle. I was pleased to discover that he is a genius in both the graphic and mind-reading arts and a true professional. Check out some of his other cool art projects on Twitter, Instagram, and his website.

Frustrated, I scooped up my phone and told it to call the inquisitive one. The inquisitive one answered on the second ring.

“Hey, it’s Liza,” I said.

“I know,” said the inquisitive one.

“Oh,” I said. “I know.”

“What’s up?” said the inquisitive one. “I’m in the middle of something.”

“Remember when you called me that one day?”

“That day I needed a ride to the race down by the creek, where there’s hardly any parking?”

“No, not that day. I mean the day—”

“That day I realized my basil plants were taking over my entire garden and asked if you wanted some?”

“No, not that day! I mean—”

“That day I was concerned, because people kept mistaking me for you?”

“Yes!” I cried out. “That’s the day I mean!”

“Okay. What about that day? That was a weird day. But I can’t stay on the phone long. I’m trying to figure out how to get a new passport. Mine got kinda wet, and it’s not readable anymore. Not that I’m planning on taking any trips to any foreign countries anytime soon! I’ve had quite enough of that for a very, very long time.”

“That’s what I wanted to talk to you about! People are continuing to confuse the two of us. People keep coming up to me and gently asking me if I’m okay after having lost my passport. But I did not lose my passport! I was afraid of losing my passport, and I tried very hard to keep it safe at all times, while traveling in Europe. And I succeeded in this. No, I did not lose it! In fact, I still have it, here in my possession, in perfect condition!”

“That was me,” said the inquisitive one, sadly.

“And the strange thing is, while everyone seems to think I lost my passport, no one seems to think I crossed the Atlantic in a sailboat!”

“That was me, too,” said the inquisitive one, even more sadly.

“So what should we do about this?” I demanded. “You keep getting into trouble, and why should I take the blame?”

“Hey, I don’t always get into trouble! Besides, you get into at least as much trouble as I do! And furthermore, Liza, when I do something awesome, you seem to get the credit—not me!”

“Well, you are making some good points. But I still think we should have a serious discussion about how to convince people that we are separate—”

“Maybe later, okay? I really want to get this passport thing sorted out, because later I have to—”

“Hold on a sec,” I said, staring out the window at a giant sinkhole forming in my backyard, which was in the process of swallowing several tomato plants, cages and all.

“I don’t have time to hold on a—”

“Oh my gosh!” I cried out. “There’s a giant sink—”

“A giant sink?” said the inquisitive one, clearly annoyed.

But I did not hear this, for the sinkhole had, in a single roar of a moment, devoured my chicken coop and all my chickens, and my entire back porch, and then my entire house, me included, and as I got sucked deeper and deeper into the muck and gunk, smashed up against my smashed walls and furniture, my final thought was, “Oh no, this sucks—I’ll never be able to blog about this fascinating geological event!”

One thing Anna Burns, author of the prizewinning 2018 novel Milkman, does astonishingly well in the book is to portray the scary, unsettling realities of being young.

So many novels glamorize youth. One can find so many confident youngsters in books. They know how to make tough decisions, they know how to make and keep friends, and they know how to relax while alone. And they never, ever have an awkward conversation—unless of course it’s perfectly staged and thus not awkward at all.

One might argue that all of these well-adjusted kids should serve as good role models for all the less-adjusted kids of the real world. But this will only be true if those real-world kids don’t see through the farce. And this will only be true if the less-adjusted kids are not actually all that different from the well-adjusted ones. For the kid who’s mainly adjusted, but needs a few tweaks, sure. Such lucky kids might be able to see a better version of themselves in the heroic kids in books. But for the kid with big issues—and what kid has no big issues?!—even the most realistic novels can seem like farfetched fantasies.

I am probably biased in this matter, having grown up as one of those less-adjusted kids myself. Not to mention one of those less-adjusted adults. So for me, it is a relief to read a novel that keeps it real in the areas of social awareness, personal awareness, and level of mutual affinity to one’s world when one hasn’t been in it for all that long.

The protagonist of Milkman is an adult, but only barely so. I could very much identify with her social-emotional state at that age, as described in this passage:

“At eighteen I had no proper understanding of the ways that constituted encroachment. I had a feeling for them, an intuition, a sense of repugnance for some situations and some people, but I did not know intuition and repugnance counted, did not know I had a right not to like, not to have to put up with, anybody and everybody coming near.”

(Yes, she is referring to the man who appeared and drove up in one of his cars, as mentioned in my last blog post.)

Before closing today, I would like to mention that the author keeps it real in other ways, as well—most notably as regards politics. While the terms “Ireland” and “Catholic” are not used even once in the book, Burns is brilliant about making her setting clear. The protagonist, against her will, for she’d rather hide within her nineteenth-century novels, is embroiled in all the politics of her place and time. Burns does not sugarcoat the hard truths of this place and time. Additionally, she tells her story with great respect for humanity, in all its strangeness and variety.

How well adjusted were you as a kid? How well adjusted were you as an adult?

At the heart of the book Under the Banner of Heaven, by Jon Krakauer, is a philosophical problem. Coincidentally, it’s the same philosophical problem I encountered earlier this year, when deciding whether to travel to London and Paris.

Revelations

In 1984, as Krakauer explains, brothers Ron and Dan Lafferty worked together to murder another brother’s wife and daughter. They took this action because Ron had received a revelation. He had been taking a class on how to receive revelations from God. He typed out the revelations he received. One of them focused on the importance of murdering several people, among them the two that were soon murdered by him and his brother.

The philosophical problem is this. When you get very silent and pay attention to your mind, or when you pray and listen for a response, or when you wake from an interesting dream, you may receive a revelation. The secular definition of revelation on dictionary.com is “something revealed or disclosed, especially a striking disclosure, as of something not before realized.” Call it the unconscious mind, or call it a god or spirit, or call it the dream world—it’s all the same thing. Perhaps the revelation appears in your mind due to the workings of a higher power, or perhaps it’s a biological process, or perhaps it’s both. In any case, you receive a new perspective on the world and your duties in it, one heretofore unfamiliar to your conscious mind. If you receive a revelation, take it seriously, and act upon it, does that mean you are crazy?

Dreams

I wrote about some of my experiences with dreams in this post about profound dreams that taught me something new about myself. I argued that dreams are worth listening to because, to quote myself, “the unconscious mind often has access to knowledge that the conscious mind does not.”

I elaborated on this topic in this more recent post on a dream about traveling to London and Paris and my decision to act upon that dream. Somehow, as I explained in this post, my unconscious mind synthesized a great deal of information, which meanwhile my conscious mind had not yet synthesized, and presented to me in a dream an unexpectedly original and fascinating idea. Upon waking, I realized that events in my life had aligned. It the perfect year for me to travel solo to Europe. (Under the Banner of Heaven was the book I referred to in that post: the one I finished on the airplane to London.)

The Philosophical Problem

This brings me back to our philosophical problem. Is there any difference between me listening to a particularly powerful dream and acting upon it (thereby vacationing in Europe), and Ron Lafferty listening to a revelation from God and acting upon it (thereby murdering two people)? Here’s how Krakauer presents the problem:

“If Ron Lafferty were declared mentally ill because he obeyed the voice of his God, isn’t everyone who believes in God and seeks guidance through prayer mentally ill as well?”

I would add to that everyone who meditates and dreams and uses insights gained therefrom to navigate their lives.

The conclusion that Krakauer and other experts came to is no, Ron Lafferty is not mentally ill . . . with the possible exception of him exhibiting a diagnosable case of narcissistic personality disorder. However, as Krakauer explains, a large percentage of the population could be properly diagnosed in this way—many of them highly successful in their careers, and the vast majority of them not murderers.

So where did the Lafferty brothers go wrong?

Decisions

I’m going to have to go beyond the analysis in Under the Banner of Heaven to answer this question, because Krakauer leaves the final analysis and judgment up to the reader. But here’s what I think.

If you receive a revelation—no matter whether through meditation, prayer, or dreaming, and no matter whether you attribute it to a higher power or to your unconscious mind—remember that it is just an idea. A revelation is a creative synthesis of a lot of different facts that you are aware of, but have not yet synthesized consciously. It is a new way of looking upon your world and your future.

Your job at that point, as a conscious, thinking individual, is to make a judgement call about that idea. It’s a new idea! It opens up possibilities that you had not seen before! But not every possibility can or should be realized. Some possibilities are not practical, and some possibilities are downright horrific.

And the truth is, revelations can always be interpreted in multiple ways. Your job is not to try to guess, like a slave, what some hidden master wants to passive-aggressively communicate to you, so that you won’t be beaten hereafter. No. Your job is to assess the revelation like you would assess any other idea that you happen to come up with, or that someone else happens to share with you. You can choose to take the idea and live it out in full, or you can choose to change the idea and do something similar yet different, or you can choose to ignore the idea entirely. But the important thing is that you are in control, thinking about the consequences of your actions, and hopefully always striving to make the world a better place.

I am thinking now of the saying “God helps those who help themselves.” There is no instruction manual for life. Not even the most scientific or holy books can tell you what to wear tomorrow evening and whom to meet for dinner. No revelation can tell you that, either.

But books and revelations can give you ideas. And you, with all the power of your conscious mind, can assess those ideas and make the best decisions you can.

While I was preparing to travel to Europe and actually traveling, I did not try to recreate everything that happened in my dream. That would have been ridiculous and probably impossible, and I would have had a miserable time! Instead, I took ideas from my dream that I liked and discarded the rest. In fact, most ideas I gain from dreams I discard immediately. It’s only occasionally that a really good idea comes to me in a dream.

So it’s not crazy to listen to revelations that you receive. What’s crazy—or at least deeply unwise—is to abdicate your natural-born decision-making abilities.

Have you stumbled across any original ideas lately? What do you think of them?

Scenarios

1. One day my loved one announced a new household order. I am no longer allowed to drive, talk to anyone except my loved one, seek medical care, spend money without permission, or use electricity. I am only permitted to wear traditional clothing; I am only permitted to read books approved by my loved one. This feels restrictive and wrong. I am not used to this. On the other hand, I love and respect my loved one, and we have kids together. Should I say something to my loved one? Should I say something to someone else? Should I simply do as I am told?

4. One day I overheard my loved ones talking. They don’t like other members of the family, who are not present in this room. They have hatched a horrific plan, which may result in harm to those loved ones. Luckily, the plan has been preapproved, and in fact commanded, by a supremely divine force—the most important force in existence, certainly more wise and powerful than I am! Despite my love and adoration of my god, however, I am worried about those other family members. Should I say something to my loved ones who have hatched this horrific plan? Should I say something to my family members who may be in danger? Should I say something to someone else? Or should I simply talk to my god, leaving it in the hands of this all-knowing and supremely divine force?

Book

The above are real scenarios faced by real people. All are described in the book Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer. Some of the people chose to say something. Others chose not to.

Outcomes

1. In the 1980s, Dan Lafferty imposed new household rules on his wife Matilda. She despised the rules, but ultimately accepted them, fearful that she would lose her children if she did not. Dan shared his beliefs and experiences with his brothers. Krakauer explains what happened next: “When three of Dan’s brothers attempted to impose these principles in their own homes, however, their wives refused and began to complain.”

2. In the 1830s, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, began to take plural wives. His first wife, Emma, was not okay with this. As Krakauer explains, “Outspoken by nature, Emma despised polygamy and did not hesitate to make her views known to the prophet. At one point she even threatened to take a plural husband if he didn’t give up his plural wives.”

3. This is the famous story of Elizabeth Smart, who is now an advocate, author, and public speaker. When she was 14 and in a horrific situation, she was terrified to speak out. Fortunately, she found the strength and courage to tell the police the truth after 45 minutes of questioning.

4. Under the Banner of Heaven tells the story of the 1984 murders of the wife and daughter of one of Dan’s brothers. Astonishingly, several people knew about the plot but did not share this information with another living human being. The above scenario is a composite of two people who did not tell: the husband and father; and the mother-in-law and grandmother. Another person who did not tell was a friend and associate of the brothers.

Verdict

Speaking out against people with power and influence is not an easy thing to do. I know how it feels to be paralyzed by fear. I also know how it feels to walk through the fear to the other side: how it feels to confront someone face to face and tell the truth. It’s terrifying. But it’s worth it, for the sake of people’s mental and physical health, and for the sake of a better future.

We might, as a mnemonic device, modify the very good and helpful U.S. security slogan, If You See Something, Say Something. How about this for a personal slogan? If You Hear Something, Say Something. When in doubt, it seems like a good policy to at least talk the situation over with some trusted friends. It’s hard sometimes to see a situation objectively on your own. An outside perspective or two can work wonders. And perhaps even prevent tragedies.

Does someone close to you have an idea that makes you feel uncomfortable? Have you thought to yourself, “Should I say something?” Have you said something? Will you say something?