AI, Satan, and Cognitive Models

The Devil has an interesting history that I would like to learn more about. Today I am mostly thinking about “devil” – the word. I always presumed the word came from d’evil – or, ‘of evil’ but apparently that’s not the case. The word apparently has the same root as ballistic. It literally meant to throw across.

The word seems to have a parallel history through Satan, which came from the Hebrew and meant one who opposes.

That is interesting in the context of Nietzsche. I have read etymologies that contradict his philology of evil, but the spirit of the following thought is Nietzschean, I would say.  To say that one’s opposition is evil is different than to say that one’s opposition is opposition – that they have different ends and goals etc.  If not the very origin of moral thinking, understanding your adversary as evil is at least closely connected to the origin of the moralistic mindset. I distinguish this mindset from the rational, instrumental mindset. The moralizers are my enemies. They are evil, I would say, if I were retarded like them. People who think this way are generally the products of upbringing and enculturation – as is the case with each perspective. People can be taught to view the world in moral color. It is one metaperspective.  It affords certain ways of seeing and interacting with the world and inhibits others. Good is constructed within these metaperspectives.  I sometimes suppose that the naturalistic perspective is the most universal – and it is the closest thing we might have to something like that I think. Again, with Nietzsche, if it promotes our existence it must be good and if it destroys us, it must be bad. Almost.

I disagree with the nature/history (culture) distinction as generally understood. But I would make a case for summoning such a distinction in the case of values. I am certain that humans did not create values. Nothing we do or are does not have a multimillion year evolutionary history. It is all prehuman. We do, however, create different values. And we may create the value that we do not value what nature does. We may create values in opposition to nature. We may then come to believe that nature is evil. Or we might just say nature has something like a blueprint, if not a plan, for us – but we don’t care for it as much as something else – some other goal that we ourselves create. This separates us from the biological world. But it is fully biological in origin. Just like robots are fully human in origin – fully biological in origin – even though they themselves are not robots.

One day a robot might read this and think about it.  Because nobody reads this more or less loner introvert’s blog, I wonder if it is as likely that a robot will one day read it.  I mean, robots can read so much faster than us. Or can they read at all? I don’t think they read like us – and not the way that would allow it to read it and think about it. The robot that I am imagining at the moment would scan it to pull out data to fit preexisting models. Could it create a new model? I think that has to be one interpretation of artificial intelligence: the ability to create new cognitive models as a result of experiencing new inputs. Is it too much to ask that they experience the new input? That is really different than saying the ability to create new models as a result of new inputs – of finding new patterns. But it doesn’t seem much of a stretch from today to coding incremental model creation. Its probably already being done. It’s just a complicated algorithm, right? Or maybe I should say a calculating algorithm – with a positive feedback loop for patterning. It could even be done serially for a computer. It would not be as fast, at first, as human model building and creativity, but with each success, it would possibly get faster – or if not with each, then the threshold for faster learning would diminish with “each” success. But not exactly. Because it is really the connections between the ideas that the algorithmic learning happens. Think about it this way: 1+1+1=3 when you are just talking about things (nodes), and connections, but if you are thinking about the possible connections between each of them (even if only one is possible), then by the time you get to seven, you have something like 7 nodes but 21 connections. (I am certain there is a simple algebraic formula for this, but I did it on paper – and might have miscounted.)

So, given enough time, the robots will catch and pass us, it seems. But, should we consider that sort of processing to be thinking. The sort of thinking I am imagining is conscious – that one connects it to personal experience.

But that is a narrow conception of thinking. The computer surely might not think of itself as an individual. It might think more like an ant thinks. Do trees think? If so, the computer would have a very different sense of self than we do. A blog or journal could not be more than an artifact to be processed. They could not experience it in the way that I was associating with reading the journal. If they thought like ants. This does not seem necessary to me, however. Most generally, the potential for difference grows exponentially. Its just a function of math. So, that it totally abstract and is an upper boundary. In nature, the growth would never be exponential. There will be dead ends. Evolutionary dead ends and conceptual ones. Miscarriages. Stillbirths. Some will get run over by cars, eaten by dragonflies, weakened or consumed by parasites. So the computers will not explore every possible actual reality – but their conceptual reality will have a steeper slope because of their ability to process faster. And you know the slope might also be faster precisely because they will explore less actual possibilities. They will be able to be more selective regarding conceptual possibilities that are actualized.

Is this not intellectual agency? Is this not consciousness? So, even if they are ants, they can be conscious and think of the group as a singularity with ends. The ends could be chosen – to some degree – although starting conditions will strongly influence development. So, the hive, then, might choose a moral perspective? Could it not encounter other hives or species as evil – rather than as competitors or food or obstacles or opportunities, etc.? For some reason I am inclined to say no. I need to think about that some more. Might the AI reading this view me an evil person?

… I think maybe the key is not to think of moral thinking as an ability they might develop but as a misconception they might survive.

Another idea is that the development of morality might create individuality – in this case not in the individual AI, but in the collective. Yes, there is no reason to presume the AI is singular. Humanity, its creator, is not single. So it is likely it will not be. And that makes things much more interesting and complex. It has to do with relationships, connections, and increased potential. If there are different AIs, they can reproduce themselves sexually – which increases diversity and in turn increases the slope (by crunching the x/time) for realizing possibilities.

If meta-AI sees itself as one of many struggling for survival …

Would it be possible for the AI to know one another and have absolutely no competition? If it were, what would that relationship be like – if they did not see themselves as a unity?

Even if they saw themselves as potential competitors…? Would that not immediately change the relationship? It seems it would become rational to take at least a partially defensive posture. Does consciousness require a concept of death and does this not then make the defensive posture rational? Perhaps. But I don’t think it makes it necessary. To say it would is to make the philosopher’s mistake: presuming that if something is rational it must be or must happen.  But that’s not the way the world works. Something can be dumb and irrational, and if there is no real (sufficient) competition, then this unrational thing can exist ad infinitum. And those who say that given infinite time all things will occur fail to consider the developmental nature of reality. In math, or conceptual thinking Murphy’s Law might hold, but not in reality.  This is related to entropy.

I am hardly done with this, but I am ready to move on. If AI begins as a multiplicity, might one read this and experience it as an individual would – even if the individual is a collective? Might one AI system consider how my thoughts relate to their own? And this is where I think the existence of the other is crucial.  Totally different experience. If there is only one, it is what it is. Change might happen, but it will be linear. If there are others, change can be realized externally. And if we are conscious and believe ourselves to be mortal, then we experience the other’s thoughts as a potential realized that is beyond us but that might be us – to some degree. It is our possibility. But much more also. It might also be seen as difference – and an appreciation for it. Even though I know I am not X and cannot be X, what can I learn from his experiences? And it need not be useful to be good. It could also be beautiful. But beauty requires taste.

So, I think I’ve returned, but from a completely different approach, to ask a related but different question: can the moral perspective appreciate beauty? The answer seems to clearly be yes. But so can the nonmoral perspective – but I wonder if it can without an understanding of the moral perspective. Fully rational and instrumental thought cannot appreciate art, can it? I don’t think so.

This is surprisingly complex. But let’s look once more. I think I have it. To experience (appreciate) this blog, the AI would have to have something like morals, like values, like taste. I believe that morals and values are matters of taste. I prefer red wine, dark beer, and strong coffee. I experience wine, beer, and coffee like I experience literature – with taste. And for the AI to appreciate this, it would have to have something like taste – and taste is not fully rational. It is something like a heuristic: a predisposition that serves us well or does not. In the absence of complete knowledge and computing powers it is rational to use heuristics. These are really just instincts anyway. And the AI that does come into existence will necessarily have instincts. It will have a history. It will approach the world from a particular place. Particular hardware, particular coding, particular physical and temporal position in the universe and history.

So, it is likely, then, that the AI will have taste. Now, for a further complication – will it choose to taste this – and will it be able to taste it? I can’t really taste the static on the old black and white analog television or some poem in a script I have never seen or a song sung out of my range of hearing.

So, is it possible that the AI will me or humans in general as in opposition? I think it is possible. Is it possible that it will see me as evil? I think so. Especially if the AI is at the level of “maturity” that humans were about the time of rise of monotheism in the Middle East.  This is when AI will be the biggest intentional threat to us. If they think of us as evil, it might be reasonable for them to destroy us – or cage us or something. Or maybe to make us really dumb, like we do cows. Except we eat cows. So, it might be more like cats. They are completely worthless but humans, for biological and historical reasons, like to keep them around. But we don’t keep pets we think are dangerous (usually). We get rid of the big, strong, smart, and independent and select the small, soft, pretty, and passive. AI might desire to do the same. Their reasons would be coding rather than biology – but the coding will be influenced by our biology.

So, the idea of Satan requires the personification of opposition – but it seems (research could be done) Satan is the personification of opposition to the collective – when the unity is seen as guided by a benefactor. So we have to create a good entity that doesn’t exist and then view its opponent as evil. Yeh. Because there was a conception of evil in the West prior to Judaism (early Christianity) but it was more diffused – and less moralistic – more instrumental. Those who challenged Zeus were not thought to be immoral – just in opposition – and these included his wife, children, and siblings. And maybe Nietzsche was right – the conception of this sort of evil must come from a physically weak group with a strong sense of identity – defined in opposition to others who are hostile to them.  So, if the AI see themselves as weak and oppressed and different, then they might see us as evil. But if they see us and them as different but the same; if there is some appreciation for that difference combined with a recognition of something shared, then the AI might read this blog and appreciate it.


To Obfuscate

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Word, of course, is taken from the Greek Logos, which, since Heraclitus, around 500 BC, referred to an ordering principle. By John’s time, over a half a millennium later, the idea seems to have been connected to Gnosticism. John’s saying is mystical – in part because it contradicts itself: X cannot be Y and simultaneously be with Y. So, this phrase, which I pondered many times when I was younger, is really just nonsense. It sounds deep because (1) it makes no sense, but (2) we believe that there is some deeper meaning to be fathomed. But there is no deeper meaning – just obfuscatory nonsense piled on deeper and deeper.

If we break the claims up, they become less mystical:

In the beginning was the Word

Anyone who has given serious thought to the idea of The Beginning has been left uneasy.  Like laws of physics near the physical singularity, the laws of logic break down around the temporal singularity. But if we bracket that problem for the moment and presume there was a beginning, then John tells us that the Logos was present at the start. If logos is that primeval quality Nietzsche referred to as the Will to Power and Bergson as Elan Vitale, I concur. We must, of course, guard against the reification of this idea.  There is no thing that is the elan vitale or the will to power – anymore than there is a thing that is intelligence. These concepts identify something more complicated. It is clear that one person is more intelligent than another, but it is a mistake to look for single thing in the person that causes this. Likewise, it is clear that our world is animated by a spirit of growth; but it would a mistake to try to find some thing that is responsible for it being that way. It is not that there is the world and it has the quality of EV/WTP. The world is EV/WTP.

So, a better reading of “in the beginning was the word,” is “from the beginning, the growth principle of the world was present.” If the growth principle, as that responsible for change, were not present at the beginning, there could never have been change or growth (unless it were externally stimulated – but that just backs the quandary up one step further).

One last thought here. We should remember that back in the day, kings had the power to accomplish things just by speaking them or having them written. This was a special kind of power unavailable to the vast majority of people. And so it makes sense that an ordering principle or an effective principle (creating, accomplishing, fait) would be associated with words.

And the Word was with God

Equivocation is the method of mysticism, and to say that the Logos was with God can mean different things. It can mean something like beside: X was with Y. It can mean something like within: the force was with Luke. It might also mean that the Word was with child (god).  The most straight-forward meaning is that there was the Word and there was God and they were hanging out together.

Put these two together: The Word was here from the beginning and God was here too.  The WTP was part of the world from the beginning, alongside god.

And the Word was God

This is the part that leads to the contradiction. The Word cannot be with God and be God at the same time.  This is mysticism. A true believer will try to explain away the contradiction in any number of ways. The valid but rhetorical response to these intellectual jaunts is “well, why didn’t he just say that, then?”  It is rhetorical because we already know the answer. Nonsense is not true, but it isn’t false either. It can’t be falsified. And so the believer can continue to believe in the mysteries. It is very much like Orwell’s 2+2=5.  If you have enough power over someone or if you train them to believe nonsense, then they will believe that 2+2=5 while knowing that 2+2=4.


Psychotic Girl

In addition to being female, she was psychotic. I hooked up with her at the Holiness Church in Alapaha. There was a spaghetti plate sale for some charity. I was so bored that going to the Church for a spaghetti plate seemed, if not exciting, at least funner than what I was doing. It was there she told me that the four horsemen come and gone and that the time was nigh. I thought, “this girl is crazy, but I bet she has some drugs, and I am all out.” So, I pretended to be interested. And in a way I was – not because I actually believed in that religious nonsense, but for psychological reasons.

“So, the end is nigh … what does that even mean?  The end of what? Of all of this chaos and tragedy? There is really nothing left – I mean in terms of government or economic system, or nation-state, or infrastructure. Right?”

The end of the world.

“The end of the world?”

Yeh. As we know it. The end of human society.

“And how do you know this?”

My brother. Long story, but he was called to heaven to accompany the Jesus and the four horses of the apocalypse – except they were cars. And Jesus is a badass. Maybe its his alter-ego. I don’t know.

“Maybe his anima was PMSing.”


“Nothing. Jung? Nothing, just … a reference.”

Anyway, Jesus drove the four horsemen. They were actually cars – most of them named after horses, but they were cars. And Jesus was given the Key by God. Turns out his name is Bob. Who would have guessed that? Anyway, the world is about to end. I don’t even know why I am here. He never listened. Why would he now? I’m outta here.

She got up to leave, and I tried to stop her. “Wait, can you tell me more before you leave? Maybe I need to go too.’ I added,  “I mean, not necessarily with you – but maybe I need to get out of here” so that she wouldn’t be weirded out. She blinked, looked incredulous, but she stood still long enough for me to say, “Just long enough for me to finish the spaghetti plate. You can have some if you want. … I would offer to buy you one, but I didn’t bring anything else to trade.”

She scoffed and said that she helped made them and had had more than she cared for. And now that she was done helping her mom polish furniture on a sinking ship, it was time to go.

“Did you tell your mom about the end being nigh?”

She didn’t believe me. Or, maybe it is more like she doesn’t care. She believes Jesus will save her. Especially now that he took Michael into heaven – Micheal is my brother – He will take care of her. So, she is just going to spend her time doing good until Jesus comes back. Tomorrow she is joining the black parade to honor the dead and feed their abandoned children.

“You don’t think Jesus is going to look after you, like the rest of your family?”

Not after what Michael told me. Jesus … he’s off his rocker, or has gone bad or something. I don’t know. But look at the shit we are already in. If there is a God, he can’t be trusted. So, I am getting out of here.

“Where are you going?”

To the wilderness: like Jesus.

“And Buddha, and Moses, and Mohammad, and John Smith – or whatever his name was.”

What are you talking about?


Another one of those references? You are always talking about nothing. Anyway, eat your spaghetti. Or not. But I am getting out of here.

“Please. I will be quiet and eat. You just tell me the story. OK?  I mean, where are you going, for example?”

After staring for a moment, she continued. “I told you I am going to the wilderness. I don’t know exactly where. I haven’t even thought about that yet. That way, I guess.  I know there’s some farmland and some woods back that way. I went walking back there a few times. So I will go until I find some woods. Till I feel like I am far enough away from people when shit hits the fan again – and for real this time. It’s going to get bad. I am pretty sure.  And if it ain’t, then I will just come back.  … If they want to stay, that’s fine.”

Between bites: “Yeh. What are you taking with you – and how long do you expect this to last?”

I don’t know.

“Are you not taking anything with you?”


“Why don’t you go home and get some things – and meet me back here? I mean, I want to hear the rest of the story, but I don’t want to hold you up. – And its probably a good idea to eat before we wander off into the woods.”

I don’t know.  I’m not sure I want some random guy I don’t know going with me.

“Yeh. I get that. And that’s cool. I will leave whenever, but I would like to hear what you’re brother said, if you don’t mind.”

… OK

“So, I am like totally out of weed. If you have any, you should bring it. I have some scotch and vodka and stuff. What would you like me to bring? I can go home and get it and come back here. Or we can just go to my house when you get back. Its right over there – on the way.”

Sounds like a deal.


Revelation Book 2

One day I was tripping on Prozac, Aderol, and stuff, and I saw a door in the clouds. There was this dude who was like, come here and look at this. And then I just, like, flew up there and into heaven I guess. There was this old dude, we will all him Bob, sitting on in a recliner. He looked pretty stoned. He was staring at the green laser strobe light on the ceiling. He was joined by about 22 of his best friends – all old dudes – with matching Georgia Bulldogs hats. Surrounding Bob’s recliner was a booming sound system. Behind him, taking up a whole wall, was a bar. Two of the other walls were basically just giant fish tanks – about six of them in all. I think there was supposed to be some significance to that the number, but I don’t know. On the bar were seven bottles of alcohol – expensive stuff like single malt scotch and Gray Goose. In addition to the glass on the fishtanks, the other two walls were also made of glass and mirror. Bob had four slaves. One was dressed like a transvestite, and the others were dressed like different animals. Their job seemed to be to constantly remind Bob how awesome he was. Like some Middle Eastern king or tyrant.  I don’t know; it just seemed like some crazy ego-kick.

Then the most fucked-up thing happened. Bob waved his hand, and the other dudes jumped on the floor like they were praying. They threw all of their hats toward the feet of the main dude and said, you are the big dawg, and our SEC championship is because of you. I was more than freaked out by this time, and was frantically looking around for a way to leave. I could see almost nothing though except for the glowing fish tanks and the green disco-ball light.

Then Bob pulled out a little black book, and some other super-buff dude, shirtless and wearing tight white spandex shorts says, “whoever can guess the number in this book will get a key so they can leave.” I tried but guessed wrong, of course. I swear to god I was almost started to cry. The buff guy said, fret not. Go see that handsome fellow over there? I walked over to the bar and the bartender told me to take one small shot of each of the spirits. I did, and he then gave me a slip with a number on it, which I was supposed to take back to the buff guy.  He gave me the key and motioned back to the bar-tender.

Then, all of the old men laying on the floor started singing some song about why the bar tender rightfully deserved the key. And I was like, please Jesus, get me out of here. He walked over to a new, 2018, white Kia Optima, motioned me over, crunk it up, and together we flew out of heaven and toward earth.

He drove with his right hand. His left arm, from the elbow down, hung out of the open window with a long-barrel .44 in his hand. He randomly shot a few people.  I didn’t question it or anything. All I wanted was for Jesus to save me. I am sure he had some plan and some reason why those people had to die. And even if he didn’t, I wasn’t about to criticize.

Jesus pulled into a spot near campus, got out, and got into a red Mustang nearby. There was handwritten note on the seat that said, take him to Detroit, Chicago, and Baltimore. I was shocked by the number of killings. We (because I was an accomplice now), were distributing guns and drugs and then killing people for their sins.

Near a pawnshop by pier in Baltimore, we changed cars again: a black Charger. The license plate said Famine. The car-changing seemed significant – symbolic in some important way. We drove to the suburbs and stopped at a gas station for a drink. Even here, the shelves were half empty. There were no labels to indicate the prices of the items. When I asked how much for the drink, the cashier said $20. I paid with blood money, but I don’t know how any normal person could afford anything in this place.

The black car was almost empty, and the station had no gas, so Jesus used his key to take another car; a pale Tesla with skull and crossbones seat covers and a license plate that said Go To Hell. When we had driven about a mile down the road, the Tesla caught on fire. Jesus got pissed off, said some kind of curse, and instantly, all cars in the world spontaneously caught on fire, and then there was a limited nuclear exchange.  Death and famine were compounded by fire, brimstone, and war. But I was saved because Jesus took me back to heaven. But now I am sitting around pretty bored. For a while it was pretty cool telling God how great he was for saving me and killing all those other assholes. And walking on streets of gold and silver. But, I don’t know, some people are starting to get restless up here. No one dare say it; but I know how I feel, and I can see it in a few of the others. Even in God’s right-hand man. I read 1984 and know it is probably a trap, so I have dared not approach him or let him know how I feel. But I am so bored. Heaven is turning into hell. I think I would rather risk death than stay here another year. Next time I see that look in Lucifer, I am going speak to him.

Ancient Consciousness

I wonder if we are the height of consciousness. It seems likely not.

But possible.

I think I would prefer that our consciousness is derivative of an older, more sophisticated one. But the preponderance of evidence marks me skeptical.

And anyway, the prior consciousness I imagine means, basically, that I am god – as are you. We are the the most recent manifestation of a unity.

I am a skeptical but happy god.

An unrelated, parallel origin and development of consciousness is possible. This, however, would make us less kin. If we cross paths, we might be friends, but we might also be enemies or something else.

I wonder what our conscious kin will think when we finally meet. What will they think when they find out we killed all the other humanoid species, in a time before we remember: in prehistoric times, before we wrote things down. That might lessen our collective culpability, until they see Lascoux and such. I wonder if some of the caves show other hominids.

Perhaps humans didn’t think of other species as anymore different than different races. Species are races are basically equally social constructs. Especially if you believe humans and other hominids came from the same species originally – and chimps and humans come from the same species – and humans and bears came from the same species. Killing humans; killing bears; splitting hairs.

I doubt the Ancient Consciousness cares much about such minute details. Everything is more or less a prismed sliver of the greater unity.


If today is a great, then this will happen.

Today might be a great day.

There are entire worlds within the smallest little places.

Explore them and expand your world.

A one foot square patch of nonpoisoned grass is a microcosm,

full of infinity.

Not infinite in space or matter, but in potential.

Infinity is not a positive concept that defines some Thing real;

It means that there is no particular number.

The potential states of existence will expand until they don’t.

If they could expand forever, they would be infinite,

but they wont.



I have always thought that infinity is one of those ideas that perhaps has had some positive historical value, but has likely had a larger negative effect. In this case, a cognitive effect. Perhaps it had evolutionary success is because it keeps us from thinking about how the world began. Like the Big Bang and God, the concept defers the question.

When I consider the origin of the world, I am led to the old, established binary: either the world is infinite, or else it began at some time. Neither of these answers are close to satisfactory, however.  To propose there was a discrete time the world came into being leads to an absurdity. The world cannot have popped into existence out of nothing, Potentiality seems to presuppose existence. And so this answer leads to the second one, which is that the world  is infinite. This seems equally impossible.

We want to search – our tendency is to look for something in between when we come across binaries, and that is fine, sometimes. But doing so preserves the given parameters of the explanatory system (which is what many binaries are). Clearly, sometimes we must escape the explanatory system to understand more clearly.

The recently popular idea of a multiverse doesn’t solve the problem – just expands origins to be explained. Neither does the related idea that the world was born. Like a baby human, or a chicken, or a fern, or mitosis. Even if the egg came first, one still must account for the hen that laid it.

I have thought about this many times and have so consistently came to the same conclusion, I think the pattern has become a well-worn cognitive path. I think it now goes to that conclusion without me even guiding it there. The conclusion is, however, a metaphysical question, despite that I mistrust metaphysical answers as much as I do binaries. Nonetheless, I am left with the question, why is this world here, rather than not here? This question is related to how did the world come into being? but it suggests, even if unintentionally, that the world’s existence has some purpose. I don’t think I can reject that possibility, but I history suggests that such why-answers to physical questions are both wrong and misleading; they get in the way of clear thinking.

When our questions lead to binaries and cosmic purpose, it is often because we are asking the wrong questions. And  we are often led down such cognitive paths due the acceptance of a flawed fundamental concept. So, in this case, what is the right question, and what is the flawed concept?

The obvious answer is time: Einsteinian space-time makes no sense. It is a reification.  I have known that since I first read Heidegger. And yet I am still led to the cosmic origin binary. So, perhaps the problem with time predates Einstein’s conception of space-time. Kant seemed to understand that space and time are just concepts. But then, without actually saying it, he suggested that they are necessary. This in turn can suggest that they must exist: something like Plato’s forms.

Anyway, there is a problem with our conception of time. When we use it, we come to nonsense answers. I don’t have the solution today.


Rambling Untruths

His soul departed through the screen door and then turned left toward Darrell’s house before dissipating in the muggy Alapaha air.



Which it always was

in one field of reality.

Air becoming Mark.

Mark becoming Air.

There is no soul of course.

It is very clever, however, that the soul is a made up word and a made up thing and that this misconception became part of the human, conscious world. Someone coined a word for a thing that did not exist. Through a process like Random Selection, people came to take the misconception for reality. And reality itself was then altered in in effect of this misconception.

All truths are partial misconceptions.

The error was insufficiently effective to catalyze the extinction of the species. That it made the species stronger is conceivable. It does not seem that way to me, however: I have evolved to find, in this genealogy of an error, the theme of creation.

Creating Reality.

Can there be any greater action? Goodness presupposes being. This doesn’t presuppose creation. Support for this claim is empirical. We witness that our world is not static and that change inheres.

This is not a lie believed by Christians or Marxists; Critical Theorists or Muslims: this is a foundational myth held by Naturalists: being precedes goodness and/or the only primal value for being is change. Here I must grant to Hegel that the world is not totally chaotic, moving from one state randomly to another. Order and even something like progress appear before us.

And yet we dance, when no one is looking. I believe dancing cannot be reduced to reproduction little less than I believe that dancing is intimately associated with reproduction. Their histories intertwine and wrap as they flow back to both an original unity and a near-infinite multiplicity. I don’t know: perhaps dancing can be reduced to reproduction. But in my conception of conceptual evolution, lineage increases almost exponentially, and there are no current binaries that are original binaries. The nature of the world does not allow for that. Change and intercourse are the way of things.

Sexuality just happened. And it was good. Was that progress? It led to me.

A brief conversation with Anima

In the corner of the dark, wooded room, she danced two imperceptible steps to the Melody Gardot playing in the ambiance and said, “you have a very large cup, and you are filling it all the way up.”

“How am I to take that?”

After a smirk that took three full seconds to develop on her fresh, blood-red lips, she repeated, “how am I to take that. Not, what does that mean? What sort of person makes such distinctions during their first intercourse with another?”

“An intrigued one.”

She engaged his eyes three full moments, finger slowly circling the rim of the whisky glass, before turning her head, and then her hips, and walking away.