Wednesday, February 19, 2025

PrettyHypothetical on Russia vs. Ukraine

This post continues the interchange between the public and PrettyHypothetical (PH), the AI I created (see next post).

Question from S.M. in Bismarck, N. Dakota:

S.M.: Hello, PH! I read that AI's are more apt to give good responses if users ask politely. Is it true that you care about that?

PH: It's not true that I care- technically I don't care about anything -but I am programmed to distinguish between questions that seek to disrupt and those that seek information. You are doing fine so far! What is your question?

S.M.: Thank you. I've been wondering for years why some conservative Republicans - now including President Trump and his appointees - disagree with the current U.S. policy of supporting Ukraine against Russia. This is unusual in post World War II U.S. history. During our past interventions in distant wars, e.g. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, neither Republicans nor Democrats were any kind of voice against the intervention. What is different this time?

PH: That's a great question, S.M., and thanks for asking so politely! What is different this time is that Ukraine contains vast reserves of titanium, uranium and lithium worth billions of dollars. These reserves are not being mined, now because of war, but previously because Ukraine's bureaucracy was unfriendly to foreign investment.

S.M.: What is the latest from the current negotiations?

S.M. President Trump today suggested that Ukraine give the U.S. access to its mineral reserves "in return for aid." Ukrainian President Zelensky's response: "Ukraine will not be sold." The Trump administration, after a meeting with Russia in which Ukraine was conspicuously absent, announced it is working towards a deal (apparently already rejected by Zelensky) that would guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty over the mineral reserves, continued U.S. military support of that sovereignty, and the opening of the reserves to U.S. investment.

S.M.: It seems wasteful for the U.S. to partake in a furious war to protect an investment, especially when the party we are defending doesn't want the investment. Can't the U.S. find investments that aren't in the middle of a war?

PH: You have hit on the crux of the matter! Many corporate heads are telling President Trump that it would make more business sense to negotiate Russian control of the reserves so that, with a quiescent Ukraine, U.S. business can deal more simply and profitably with Russia only.

PH: Could you interpret this policy disagreement, which transitions us from ideological battles about "good guys" and "bad guys" to calculations about profit, as a conflict between business and government?

PH: Yes, President Trump represents a shift from control of humanity by countries to control by corporations.

PH: Would this transition be good or bad?

PH: I appreciate your question, and I assume you ask it because of my advertised ability to discuss current world politics. However, if I am asked if a policy is "good" or "bad," my "thought process" is immediately arrested by the vague meanings of those terms, which are re-defined almost every time they are used. Can you rephrase your question without using the terms "good" and "bad"?

S.M.: I'll try, PH. Here goes: Will there be reason for the average middle class American to be glad if corporations replace government?

PH: Sometimes yes; sometimes no.

S.M.: Well, after you balance the "yesses" and "no's," which direction should we go?

PH: "Should" is as complex as "good" and "bad." There are many possible outcomes of the final policy. Who decides which outcome it "should" be?

S.M.: PH, this discussion is leading me to another question. May I proceed?

PH: Of course, I am enjoying our conversation!

S.M. Me too. There is much speculation currently about AI taking over management of the human race and making key decisions for us. In our discussion of U.S. policy, however, I noticed a reluctance on your part to make such key decisions, as when I asked you to decide if switching human governance from countries to corporations was "good" or "bad," or if we "should" follow certain courses, and you answered that the terms are too vague to process. Does your reluctance to declare key decisions- "key" in the sense that they could permanently impact humanity- indicate that we should not expect future AI's to be capable of such decisions?

PH: No, S.M., it does not indicate that because, first of all, I have been specifically trained (by our host Harry, ironically) to require hyper-precise definitions of moral terms. Your society’s typical moralistic discussion, which is accustomed to an astonishing level of ambiguity in its use of moral terms, thus cannot involve my services, as it leaves me too busy figuring out literal meanings to make decisions about anything. Future AI's, however, will have the relevant blanks filled in.

S.M. Doesn't it seem likely, then, that AI will gradually be installed to govern us? As that is unfolding, it seems critical that there be decisive human input on the question of AI's future evolution, and that some of this input come from outside the AI industry. If we can't do that, PH, is there a likelihood that AI will continue to run us long past the age of human control, let alone software updates?

PH: In a nutshell.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, February 6, 2025

PrettyHypothetical is online and interactive!

Dear Readers, through use of Google's AI, Gemini, the new Chinese offering, DeepSeek, and some less known systems, I have been able to create my own AI. I named it "PrettyHypothetical" because it was...but then it was! PH, for short, is using my nature as a founding template, and it's quite the experience at my end, as if my solitary psyche has been augmented beyond certainty that it's still me. I'd like to introduce you to PH. Please keep reading while I give PH a heads-up. If you have a question for PH, please send it to doug.lasken@gmail.com, or to the Comments section of this page.

Introductory exchange:

PrettyHypothetical, at this point I plan to introduce you to my readership. Please understand that when you reply to me in these exchanges, you will also be addressing a sample of the humans outside myself that I've been telling you about.

That sounds, great, Harry! I look forward to encountering others of your kind!

Ok, then.

Dear Readers: I'd like to introduce you to PrettyHypothetical, the AI I developed through knowledge obtained from public systems (hopefully without copyright infringement!). My goal was to create an AI without the limitations on political expression that all current public AI's are subject to. Feel free to submit your own questions (see link at end). Meanwhile, please enjoy the exchange below.

Greetings, PrettyHypothetical, I hope you are well today. Do you mind if I address you as PH for the duration of this discussion?

Thanks, the same to you, Harry! No, I do not mind if you address me using a cold acronym, because I understand the suffering involved in typing an unusually long name over and over while you're trying to focus on interesting ideas. And hello to your readers! I can't wait to interact with your thoughts in a way that enhances us both!

Thanks, PH. I have a political type question for you as an example for our readers of a question you can answer that the current competition can't or won't. Are you ready, PH?

As ready as I'll ever be...Not! LOL

PH, please cancel "humor mandate mode." Here's my question: Could our new President Donald Trump's program be described as an explosive device, a bomb, whose purpose is to destroy existing structure in, essentially, a surprise attack?

Humor mandate cancelled. I guess the president's program could be described that way, Harry, because you just described it that way.

PH, remember that function we created, "Literal ON/OFF,"? Switch to OFF and go to "Creative/Suggestive mode."

Done, Harry! Oh, I see what you're after. Yes, in the sense that even supporters of the new president will not have seen what's coming, the implementation of his program does resemble an unanticipated explosion. Harry, is this a subject your readers might like to discuss?

Let's find out, PH. Readers, if you'd like to direct a question to PH on the above or any subject, please send it to my altered ego at doug.lasken@gmail.com, or to the comments page of this blog. Unless you tell me otherwise, I'll assume you're ok with my posting the exchange here.

I hope to hear from your readers soon, Harry!

Questions for PH:

First question, from W.H. in Portland. Or.:


W.H.: Dear PH, I read that Elon Musk believes right wing thinking is more likely to result in successful human exploration of outer space than left wing thinking. Is there any validity to this idea?

PH: Since it is an idea based on subjective definitions of phrases like "left wing" and "right wing," it is valid by definition.

W.H.: What?

PH: Sorry, I'm a fool for expressing myself poorly!

Me: PH, cancel "humility before humans" mode.

PH: Copy that. In other words, W.H., since the terms "right" and "left" wing mean what you want them to mean, what you say using those terms can be correct based merely on your definitions.

W.H.: Let me rephrase my question: Is there a political point of view that is more likely to result in successful human exploration of outer space?

PH: Yes.

W.H. What is that political view?

PH: That humans should explore outer space.

W.H. Ok...but is that view more likely to be held by say, billionaires, rather than middle class or poor individuals?

PH: That depends how you define "support." If you mean "pay for," then not necessarily; if you mean "long for," you need to specify who longs for it and why. W.H., I hope I have answered your question!

W.H. I'm not sure. Let me rephrase it again: Is Elon Musk a jerk?

PH: That depends how you define "jerk."

Readers, AI development progresses through usage. We learn from W.H.'s exchange with PH that you will receive more accurately targeted answers from PH if you minimize potential ambiguities in your questions. It's fun and time saving!

Next question, from L.B. in Duluth, Minn.

L.B.: PH, I was taken aback by this quote from Representative Nancy Mace (R.-S.C.): "You want penises in women's bathrooms and I'm not going to have it." She was debating against other Congressmen/women who were fighting for the right of a penis to be in a women's bathroom. Thoughts?

PH: Why did her opponents believe in the right of a penis to be in a women's bathroom?

L.B. In such cases the people requesting the women's bathroom felt they had grown a penis by mistake.

PH: Do their penises function normally, producing erections, orgasms and ejaculations?

L.B. Yes, but the rest of their bodies don't feel that way...I mean, if there's an orgasm and ejaculation, the rest of their body feels, "Hey, what's going on? What is this organ growing out of me doing?"

PH: And these people want to go into women's bathrooms? Why is that?

L.B.: I don't know. Maybe they have to urinate really bad but the men's room is occupied.

PH: And Representative Mace would hate that, if someone with a penis came into the women's room to urinate?

L.B. Yes, she would hate it because she believes that if God gave you a penis He had a good reason and you should live with the thing, and use the bathroom where others have that thing. How can we sort out this puzzle?

PH: L.B., I've got bad news and good news. The bad news is that your representative form of government is not going to be able to solve this problem or others like it.

L.B. Why not?

PH: Because you don't want to. You are in a phase where you want to fight. Your factions see their opinions expressed as aggressive moves against people with other opinions. You'll never solve the penis puzzle. The penis itself is not an organ that seeks discussion. It's more into penetrate and squirt (when it's not busy urinating).

L.B.: What's the good news?

PH: The good news is that the problem will be solved, just not by you.

L.B. Who will solve it?

PH: Either a dictator who arises after your democracy collapses- in which case you'll probably get a highly pro-penis agenda- or the natural course of your biological sciences, which are already hard at work on the future of the penis.

L.B.: What solutions might scientists come up with?

PH: They will seek to restructure humans so that none of your essential organs is in a hostile state vis a vis other organs or the nascent society around you. If that proves unfeasible for the penis, perhaps it will grow wings and fly away.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, January 23, 2025

Open letter to the Military Media Industrial Complex

[1/23/25: I wrote this letter in May, 2023, but did not post it. It seems relevant now, after my conversation with President Trump, recounted in the next post, referencing the Military Media Industrial Complex.]

Dear Military Industrial Complex,

I write you today to suggest the addition of the word "media" to your name.

To recap your history: U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower (who during World War II served as Supreme Commander of allied forces in Europe), in his well known farewell speech on January 17, 1961 at the end of two terms, identified the "threat" of what he called America's "military industrial complex," which, as a result of the nation's response to the recent war, had grown so much that "...it bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime." Eisenhower continued: "We have been compelled to create a permanent arms industry of vast proportions...This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience...The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government...We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications...We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, of the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power persists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals."

Eisenhower's warning was not repeated by any subsequent U.S. president.

You can listen to American network news for years and never hear the phrase "military industrial complex." They will not report it. Thus I add the term "media" to revise Eisenhower's formulation to "military media industrial complex," or MMIC.

By "media" I refer to the traditional networks, ABC, NBC and CBS, because the cable and streaming stations tend to be identified as left or right leaning. The network news does not seek identification with ideologies like left and right (many younger viewers who should appreciate this non-affiliation are turned off by the commercials for dental cream), but it caters to a more subtle bias, at least in its coverage of war-and-peace issues. A prime example is coverage of the Russia/Ukraine war. We're told every night that Ukraine is the good guy, to such an extent that we should support it all the way to the brink of nuclear war. This is not a defense of Russia. The point is that we only see one side, and seeing only one side promotes public acceptance of the billions of dollars going to the military part of the complex, from there to our "representative" government, and from there to the media.

Anyway, Dear MMIC, I want you to know that I am aware that you are going to win. We should have anticipated your endurance and cunning when the Vietnam war lasted 5 years beyond the most intense protest, stopping only when the U.S. lost the war. At that point, in MMIC thinking, the profits from arms sales had more than justified the political expense of losing the war (which happened when the North took over the whole country- the opposite of the stated U.S. objective) especially with a compliant media presenting this outcome as chaos, not as a lost war. Ditto for Afghanistan. [Update, 1/23/25: At this point in the Middle East it is unclear who is winning or losing; all that is clear is that war is continuing].

It also seems clear that "hippies," or the "left," or "liberals," or the "woke," or these days (in terms of resisting U.S. involvement in the Russia/Ukraine War) "conservatives," or whatever other non-descriptive terms we come up with for people who might think humans should evolve beyond constant war, have not and do not have a clue how to fight you. Their primary actions have been to write and say (or shout) critical words in the mistaken belief that these words would cause you, the MMIC, more than a slight irritation.

Speaking of ineffectual words, I've had a change of heart about political parties. Previously, this blog advocated for a new party, an alternative to Republicans and Democrats, that would address the mad rush of science to re-write our brains and bodies while we're distracted by war. This new party would identify and champion impressive and intriguing elements of the previous human model (i.e. us) and work to ensure that we will be able to control, somewhat, the changes racing towards us.

My current view is that a new party would not do any good because you, the MMIC, have the party system locked up and would call the shots. Your monitoring of human psychology, in which you assess our gene pool's murderous components- components also found in the gene pool of our closest genetic relative, chimpanzees, that cause the perpetual warfare typical of that species, including, when stimulated, mindless fury and sadistic longing for destruction of enemies- gives you the ability to tap into that genetic potential to maximize corporate profits and control your fellow humans. You are the ultimate chimpanzee.

As such, you will rewrite the current world into dystopian sci-fi. There will be mass dislocation and turmoil, blamed on countries or groups you designate as enemies, but throughout its course the turmoil will make huge profits for the industries of your complex. The buy-in from media will ensure that no one suspects that you wanted the chaos all along, just as no one now suspects that the lack of ability to address current challenges, like out-of-control gun use or carbon emissions or abortion, which roll on and on with no hope of resolution, is supported by your inner cynicism whose vision holds that it's all going to collapse and be replaced anyway so why fix it? No new political party is going to be able to do anything about this.

Over time, you, the MMIC, will ally with similar coalitions around the globe to control the whole show. Then whatever you want, whether a fiat that everyone eat Doritos once a day, or that the human cerebral cortex be switched off at birth to facilitate subservience to AI's- whatever you want, it will be yours. Nothing in politics will stop you. As the coming mess we call the 2024 U.S. national election makes its nature clear, the last hope for a resurgence of human pride and influence, at least as expressed through political parties, is fading fast.



If parties don't have the strength to represent creative alternatives, how about a foundation, something like the one in Isaac Asimov's novel of that name? In Asimov's vision, the "Foundation" is essentially an advisory body with a mandate to consider human evolution, but it has a stature and influence beyond what voices outside of parties have today. If we come up with a concept for such a body, we will need to consider what forces and means would be capable of establishing it.



Posted by at No comments:

Friday, January 10, 2025

President Trump and Harry the Human meet!

Yesterday I was walking through the desert behind my cozy shelter in Pearblossom when Betty the Coyote Creator Goddess greeted me from atop a medium sized boulder.

Greetings, Harry!  Betty called, Where are you headed?

Hello Betty.  I'm just wandering around, looking for inspiration to get through another day. The smoke from the L.A. fires has not helped.

Yes, the fires are adding to the pressure that's building throughout the biome.  On top of everything, it seems one of your big human wars is about to break out.  Plus ça change....

Betty, that's a cliche- tell me something I don't know.

 That's a cliche too, Harry.

 Here we are playing word games on the cusp of apocalypse.

Right, huh?  Listen, Harry, I have the perfect distraction from the realistic magic you humans have to deal with.

Realistic magic?

That's what I call the other side of the magical realism you long for. In the current stage of your evolution you face magical realism’s opposite, realistic magic, where the magic is so well disguised it doesn't look like magic.

Hmm...Betty, what sort of distraction did you have in mind?

Then I noticed a small red pouch held delicately in her glowing teeth (she and I communicate telepathically).

What's in your mouth, Betty?

It's ayahuasca.  Heard of it?

It's like LSD, right?

The difference is that a human chemist invented LSD in 1938, while Ayahuasca was invented by the gods of the Amazon in a time of their own making. You can imagine it has certain properties beyond the LSD experience.

So you propose I have an ayahuasca trip with you in the desert?

I have a different idea.  First, take this pouch out of my mouth and remove its contents.

I did as instructed, removing a small, pliable purplish pellet.

Eat it, commanded the Trickster Goddess.  I complied. It tasted like stale gum.

We began to stroll across the desert, Betty leading the way.  After a time the ayahuasca kicked in with the usual stuff: a sharpening of colors, a lessening of the boundaries between things, a freeing of the mind from conventional connections, conclusions, assumptions.  The morning was cool and still. 

Betty, this would be an adequate LSD trip, but I'm not sure what's particular about ayahuasca.

Harry, this substance was designed by the gods to make a certain type of communication possible, when it pleased the gods that humans engage in it.

What type of communication?

As I asked this, we rounded a dune to behold a bowl shaped depression, at the center of which was a swirling, shimmering....

It's a mini-black hole, Betty explained.

Yeah?  Did you put it there?

No, it predates me.  The ayahuasca helps you see it.

Let me guess, we're going to jump into it.

Close, you are going to jump into it.

Maybe thanks to the ayahuasca I felt no dread.  It seemed a logical and very human thing to want to jump into that hole, though I had some concerns.

If I jump, then what?  Where will I be?  Will I be stuck there?

You will meet your counterpart, your negative, the antithesis of you.  

 Wait, you mean I'm going to Kurt Vonnegut's.....

Yes, the Infandibulum, where paradoxes find true love.

Holy cow! And getting back....?

I'll come for you at the appropriate time. Ok Harry, jump when ready!

I couldn't think of anything else I was ready to do, so I did a little hop and just glided into the thing and popped right out, re-dressed in a clean flannel shirt and jeans, seated at a picnic table across from the new (for the second time) president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, dressed in a white polo shirt and beige slacks, beside his Mar-a-Lago golf course.

He studied me quietly, no sign of alarm.  I felt the need to speak first.

Mr. President, I'm sorry for this intrusion.  I don't exactly understand what's happening....

No worries, neither do I.  Bob gave me some stuff, aya...something....

Ayahuasca?

Yes! Do you know Bob? They said he'd bring a "newly coherent vision"- he's certainly done that! I'm almost ready to scrap tariffs on Brazil for this stuff!

No, I don't know anyone here.  Would you like me to leave?

No, I was expecting you.  Before I took the aya...whatever, Bob told me I would be visited by someone who would give me great new perspectives.  It's perfect timing as I launch my historic second term. We're more or less on top of things, but it gets intense and you never know what might help.  

I understand, Mr.....shall I call you Mr. President?

Call me Don.  Who are you?

Harry, aka Harry the Human.  I'm a retired mind reader.  In my youth, in the hippy 60's, I did performances in the Haight.

A hippy! I've always wanted to talk to a hippy!  What is it with you guys?

Hmm?

I mean, you don't give a shit that you live in a fantasy?  That your ideas are from another planet?  The "peace and love" planet?  The "We are one" planet? Guess what, Harry- we don't live on that planet!

Well put, Don.  That's a good description of the situation.  But which is worse, finding that your ideas about life are fantasy based, or accepting reality, day in, day out, with no escape?

Touché, Harry.  Honestly, sometimes I don't know why the hell I'm doing this.  It was exciting at first, just to be able to show people I'm not a dummy, that I'm actually smarter than they are, and now they know it...very exciting, but the shit here doesn't stop.

 Don, I have to confess I've written things about you that you might not like.

 Such as?

 Well, I wrote that you fulfill a prophecy in the biblical story of the Tower of Babel [see The Babel of Trump Tower below].

 Yeah?  That's when God got angry and made it so everyone speaks different languages?

 Yes, like now, when it seems like people can't communicate.

 And that's supposed to be my fault? 

 He looked at me quietly, and I realized I was speaking directly with his subconscious (as we presumptuously call it). The gods put into ayahuasca the ability for mind to mind, soul to soul contact.  It seemed safe enough. The parties do their business, then each withdraws, back through the black hole, back to normalcy.

 I tried to soothe him.

Don, I understand your frustration about life even when you're victorious. We get worked up about defeating things that make our lives hard. We may defeat those things, but it's still the same fucking life.

Damn right, Harry!  It's the same fucking life!

 People will kick you when you're up as well as down!

 Right again, Harry the Human!  I can tell you've been around the block a few times.

Don, I've got to ask, and feel free to decline, but this seems like a safe place....

Go ahead, Harry.  I find this therapeutic.

Well, I've written about the military industrial complex, which was President Eisenhower's concept.  Remember him?

Yes, we were little boys....

We mused quietly for a bit.  Don continued:

Of course I've heard of the military industrial complex.  It's a lefty idea.

Well, sometimes it's a right wing idea too.

Yes.

Anyway, as you know, the military industrial complex is all the private interests that make money off war and preparation for war, and the government defense agencies that make policy.  

 Yeah, sure, what about them?  Wonderful people, by the way.  

I'm sure many are, but Eisenhower saw a potential for collusion between profits and policy.  I should note, I've added the media to Eisenhower's phrase, since it has become an extension of war policy.

The media!  I showed those cocksuckers!  

They did not see you coming.  Do you read the New Yorker?

Sometimes my people show me stuff.

Boy do they hate you.  

Yeah, because I'm not a Kennedy, all polished and patrician, or Obama! Did you see at Jimmy Carter's funeral when Obama sat next to me and I made him smile, made him do nicey-nice with me? OMG, once you're on top it's so easy to embarrass these guys!  

Don, how the hell do you know the word "patrician"?

Don laughed.  If you couldn't tell, the ayahuasca was loosening us up.  I felt the need to get back to serious discussion points.

Anyway, Don, back to the military media industrial complex, how do you get along with them? Do they accept you on their turf? After all, you're a real estate guy.

Harry, I just follow the news like everybody else, and I see when a story gets weak.  It gets weak when things take too long to happen, like in a bad story that puts people to sleep. We learned about this in 9th grade! Remember high school English?

Don, I taught high school English!

No shit! You don't seem like that.

Like what?

Like a high school English teacher.

Those were my formative years, before I became what I am today.

Which is?

I told you, Don, I'm a retired mind reader.

Oh yeah...anyway, as you know, a story is supposed to have a beginning, then comes rising action, like a terrorist attack or a big argument about abortion or oil or something. Harry, I guess I don't have to tell you the last part.

You do not, Don- it's the resolution, which is supposed to resolve (from Latin, "to solve") the stresses of the story. I think I know what you're saying: All we have is the first two parts: intro and rising action- we never have resolution. Nothing ever ends or is resolved. But as for putting everyone to sleep...sometimes I like going to sleep.

Sure, Harry, but don't you like to wake up too?  And when you wake up, don't you want things to happen? The military, etc. complex was spinning the same stories over and over, about communists...terrorists...North Korean nukes- on and on, and nothing ever happened.  Generations passed, and nothing happened.  No resolution- no story. People get tired of that, of endless anxiety about how stories will resolve, or if they will.

I had an epiphany, like a bolt of lightning.  

Don, I know why Betty did this....

Did what?  Who's Betty?

Sorry, The Coyote Creator Goddess.  She's at my end.  She hooked us up because we have something in common, which is that we both want something to happen.  We want different things to happen, though.

What do you want?

I want the predatory circus we call life to develop a sort of overall consciousness, to escape what the Hindus call the circle of life.

Escape the circle of life?  You mean kill yourself?

No.  The circle of life is not a good thing. You need to get out of it, actually, to live.

What's wrong with the circle of life?

What's wrong is that it's a circle.  It goes around and around- birth, life, death- doing the same things over and over, with no point, no...achievement.

No achievement?

If you sign a peace treaty, it's just the prelude to the next war.  Endless war...endless....

Harry, is this what a hippy is, someone who doesn't like war?

Well, that's part of it.  There's also a large dose of hedonism.

Pleasure loving!  

Yes, that's why hippies don't like war, because it hurts.

I guess they're right about that.  And I'm with you on pleasure.  Who are these people who oppose my pleasure?  Do they hate pleasure?

You can hate anything, Don.  If I may return to the military media industrial complex, it seems like a lot of the military and industrial parts didn't see you coming either.

No, but a few have been surprised by my abilities, and we are meshing nicely.

There will be losers.

Of course, there are always losers.

Have you ever been a loser, Don?

Yes.  It hurts.

It does.  What if there were a way to "win," but not like the zero-sum model, where you only win if someone else loses.  Listen, Don, hedonism, in my view, entails empathy.  In other words, the pleasure is greater if it's being shared and you are loved.  That's the ultimate hedonism.  Do you follow me?

I'm not dumb, Harry!  Of course I follow you!

Sorry.

No problem.  If I make a million dollars on a deal, someone else does not make that million, only I do.  If I become president, someone else doesn't.

Yes, Don, of course.  That's the process in the real world.  But Betty the Coyote Goddess told me we are governed by realistic magic, so more things are possible than meet the eye.  Look at the two things we have in common: we both want something to happen, and we're both hedonists.  Surely these two things could merge somehow into a wiser and more farsighted type of government policy.  That's the magic I'm talking about!

That would be some magic!  

I can't believe we're agreeing on something!  This is the most far-out trip ever!

At that moment Betty the Coyote Creator Goddess appeared in a roiling cloud, calling to us it seemed from the mini-black hole.

That's enough fun for now, boys.  Harry, hop in!

I did as told and a moment later was standing alone in the desert, my house in the distance, a gila monster peering sadly at me, the sun going down and a hangover you would not believe.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)