Amoeba’s Dilemma
Lou Kauffman:
Replacement Perplexity
An intelligent amoeba confided
That he was perplexed and besided.
Which one is me,
said he to he
And where do I go when divided?
Nathaniel Hellerstein:
Divided Multiplication
The other amoeba replied
It is you you are floating beside
For surely you see,
I am you, you are me
By dividing, you-I multiplied.
On Self-Justice
The Bible often uses the word “dik”, which has two translations; righteousness and justice. The first is a personal quality; the second refers to society. American evangelicals, from an excess of American individualism, usually translate “dik” as “righteous”.
Alas, the word “righteous” is contaminated by association with “self-righteous”. Self-righteousness is the quality of an individual who self-regards as righteous, but this is an egotistical illusion due to lack of perspective.
Is there, then, such a thing as “self-justice”? Justice refers to society; therefore self-justice is the quality of a society that regards itself as just, but this is a tribalistic illusion due to lack of perspective. Self-justice is how an unjust society self-justifies.
So yes, self-justice is a thing, and it is as common as self-righteousness. Take, for instance, the policeman who kills an unarmed black man, but he gets off because he did it by the book.
Mass Litigation Events
There’s been talk lately about self-driving cars. One of the advantages attributed to them is greater safety; so much so that some plan to create dense caravans of self-driving cars at freeway speeds. Have the caravan go at high speed, tightly packed. How efficient! What could possibly go wrong?
Murphy’s Law, for one. Also recall the 90-10 rule: humans are 90% useful and 10% useless, all of the time: but cybernetic systems are 100% useful 90% of the time, and 100% useless 10% of the time. So most of the time those high-speed tightly-packed caravans will be perfectly safe; but every so often they will be not safe at all, for a lot of people, all at once.
After the mass crash, and the mass casualty event, lawyers will converge on the corporate entities responsible. Car crashes by individuals can be litigated only to the fiscal limits of mere humans; but corporations have deep pockets. Ka-ching!
I therefore predict that autonomous-car companies will be vulnerable to mass litigation events.
You read it here first.
On the Land of Alternative Facts
Kellyanne Conway stood up for “alternative facts”, and her boss, Donald Trump, stood with her and doubled down. So what do I make of alternative facts? Well...
As an amateur fantasy writer, I like to imagine perfect places for things. Now let’s imagine the perfect place for alternative facts, and their tellers. The place is perfect for alternative facts because it too is an alternative fact. It’s a myth, a fable, an imaginary realm honored in story and song. Legend calls it the home of many remarkable individuals. Conway and Trump would fit right in. It’s a fiction, it’s metaphor, it’s a lie, but sincere. I don’t take it literally, but I do take it seriously. It’s impolite to utter the place’s name, so for now let’s call it the Land of Alternative Facts.
In the Land of Alternative Facts, alternative facts rule because facts are stupid things. Gaslighting makes sense there because the whole place is gas-lit. It’s a fantasy world where exaggeration is accurate, hyperbole is truthful, inconvenient truths are inoperative, the ruling class creates reality, and up is down upon command. In that legendary realm, everything is negotiable. Folly is wisdom, war is peace, poverty is wealth, slavery is freedom, and above all, lies are truth.
By now you’ve probably figured out some other names for the Land of Alternative Facts. Kellyanne Conway and Donald Trump belong there; they deserve it; for although it doesn’t really exist, still if it did exist then they’d happier there than they are here. It’s their kind of place. And many would be happy if they went there.
So they should go there. They should go straight there. And they should take their alternative facts with them.
Postscript: On Alt
“Alternative facts” shortens to “alt-facts”; this, with alt-right, suggests “alt” as a new prefix.
I propose that it means ‘fraudulent’ or ‘bogus’. Thus the alt-right tells alt-facts about Trump’s alt-majority, and cited alt-statistics for his alt-promises and alt-presidency.
The Great Replacement Critiqued
“Replacement Theory”? Is that the worst the Republican Party can do? You call that lame-o whinge paranoia? Listen up, younglings, and I’ll show you how existential dread is really done.
For you see, in a mere 2 centuries - a measly 200 years, a blink of history’s eye - every man, woman, child, infant, fetus, and freshly conceived zygote, every one without exception will have completed their life cycles, and be dead and gone. All without exception! And not only everyone now alive, but their children too. There will still be people, but they will all be someone else’s kids.
And not only will everyone alive be replaced, their culture will not be ours either. They will speak different words, with different meanings, pronunciations, spelling, and grammar. Their technology will be radically different, and their economics, and politics, and culture. They will have heard of our culture, but they will misunderstand it. To them we’ll be quaint.
100% demographic turnover, plus major cultural turnover: how’s that for a great replacement? And here’s the cream of the jest: that’s normal! 100% replacement is how the biosphere works! Whoever has a problem with that has bigger problems than immigration policy. Their problem is with something called the human condition. Any objections?
Wait, they’re worried about skin tint? Listen up, younglings: no-one has white skin; everyone has white bones.
“Great Replacement”? I shake my head. What a bunch of losers!
Zen Wine
So red, so sweet, I quaff it quick;
I do not drink this non-wine. *Hic!*
Commentary on Zen Wine:
One morning, just before waking, I dreamed that I was visited by the ghost of Julia Vinograd, the Bubble Lady of Telegraph Avenue, and Poet Laureate of Berkeley. She challenged me to a poetry duel; she'd say one line, then I the next. How could I refuse such a challenge from such a muse? So we agreed.
Julia Vinograd produced a goblet of red wine; she drank, then said a line in praise of the wine in deliciously eccentric Vinogradian terms. She passed the goblet of wine to me; I drank deep, and it was sweet. I finished the goblet, looked down into it, and could think of nothing but, "I'm not drinking, and this isn't wine." Then I woke up.
I remembered the whole dream vividly. I counted Vinograd's line; eight syllables long. I counted mine; oh no, nine! Nor did it rhyme! I shortened it by one syllable, then two, and added the hic for comic effect. But by then - alas! - waking amnesia of dreams kicked in, and I entirely forgot what Julia said!
So as I lay there in bed, I rewrote that first line myself. I included the memory of the sweet red dream wine; then I found a rhyme, then a consonance. I edited it to eight syllables, and it worked.
I turned to the side of my bed, picked up my wallet, and wrote the poem in its datebook. Then I lay back in bed. Much later I rewrote Zen Wine as an email.
One friend of mine calls Zen Wine a Zen poem. Another calls it proof of a haunting. Well, it was good to meet Julia again, even though there's no proof that we met. Julia's eight syllables were brilliant and witty, but I doubt any of hers are in my poem. What I got from her was absence, which I, a lying poet, filled in. Ghosts haunt by their absence.
I have three rules about spooky poetic encounters like these:
1. Keep calm.
2. Play along.
3. Take credit afterwards.
So it was I who wrote this poem, but I dedicate it to Julia Vinograd, for inspiring it.
On the Tragedy of Optimism
(and the folly of mystic wisdom)
I am always pained to witness optimism; it's like seeing a small child toddle into traffic. Optimism guarantees that all surprises are unpleasant; and life is full of surprises. Failure, for instance. Failure is never an option; but it is always a possibility.
I have even heard optimists claim that everything is perfectly good, it only seems otherwise. But that is easy to refute. Is murder good? Is slavery? Are lying and theft good? And never mind human evil; what about earthquakes, floods, disease and other natural misfortunes? Are they good? For what?
And in general, is evil good? If there is no difference, then is there law?
Perhaps we don't understand yet, but we will, if only we believe. But belief without understanding is folly for the student and failure for the teacher. If a teacher is so wise that no student ever understands, then is the teacher really wise?
