Category: Reflections

from Storyworth

---

My dad worked hard to earn money to support his family. For one period of time, he worked swing shifts – and so wasn’t around in the evenings. He eventually moved into management and had better hours.

My dad was the father of six children, so the free time he had was spread across all those children. Having a lot of children limits the degree to which you can invest time in each child. For example, I never played school or league sports – I’m assuming it was because carting six kids to six different sporting events each week was too much for my parents. I did play recreational sports with my siblings, and also with friends.

My dad was a nice guy but, as I mentioned above, his time with me was limited. My oldest sibling is nine years older than me, and we’re all on average two years apart – so I was supervised/guided/raised by my older siblings as much as by my parents.

My dad did teach us to fish. We would go to a local recreational club that he had access to because of work. I took swimming lessons there, and learned to fish. My dad also taught us cards. He was a very skilled card player, and was good at most table games. It was funny because, when my mom would leave the room (to go to the bathroom, or something) my dad would ‘stack the deck’. He would choose the cards in my mom’s hand – it would alway be something quite good to get her excited. But he would also choose his own cards, which would be better — and he would beat her. It was quite funny, because my mom couldn’t say ‘my cards are really good, is this real?’ – but she would always lose.

I did have a good connection with my dad because, when we moved to the Chicago area, I worked a few summers at the chemical distribution center that he ran. As such, I commuted with him, and even interacted with him some when on site.

It was interesting that, the first week of each of those summers, I would be exhausted – pretty much sleeping whenever I wasn’t working. This was because my job at my dad’s distribution center was manual labor – stacking 100 pound bags and rolling 500 pound drums. I’m not naturally that strong of a guy, so it took some time each summer to build muscle to do the job. I would pretty much double my calorie intake.

I eventually transitioned my summer job to writing software for an actuarial firm – which I did for one summer. That summer was when I weighed the most in my entire life – because I bumped my calorie intake out of habit, but wasn’t burning that many calories at my desk job.

At the end of the day, my dad was a good dad. He worked hard to keep us fed, and did spend time with us when he could.

I’ve created a new category for this, since it’s essentially an essay. I wrote this in college (I can tell by my reference to Dungeons and Dragons). Pencil on notebook paper. There were multiple misspellings — ‘categories’ (beginning with ‘ch’) and ‘sentient’ (misspelled as ‘sentinent’ multiple times) 🙁 I will always be grateful for modern computer-based spell check.

---

I remember one Star Trek episode titled ‘City on the Edge of Forever’ in which William Shatner’s character Captain Kirk had a memorable but brief exchange of words with an entity known as the Guardian. “What are you,” Kirk had asked, “being or machine?”

“I am both,” the Guardian had replied, “and neither.”

At the time that I first saw this show, I merely accepted the Guardian’s reply as being cryptic, and what I would then have termed as ‘cool’ – meaning that it demonstrated an undeniable and enviable class.

Perhaps because of that episode. I began to notice over the years that the ‘both and neither’ explanation had become a sort of science fiction cliche – Are you alive or dead? I  am both, and neither. – I have even used it at times when I DM for D&D.

Recently though, I’ve begun to wonder at the logistics of the statement. Can something truly be said to belong to two exclusive categories, and also be said to belong to neither of them? I think the key to this question is the word ‘exclusive’.

In the case of the Guardian’s conversation with Captain Kirk, the implication is that the categories ‘being’ and ‘machine’ are not mutually exclusive. If it is possible for a machine to be so complicated as to also be considered a ‘being’, then the Guardian’s statement is true in sentiment, but perhaps not in wording. (Incidentally, when I speak of a ‘being’, I mean an intelligent, free-willed type of being and not simply something that exists.)

When the Guardian says it is both a ‘being’ and a ‘machine’, it is using both terms in the broadest sense. Yes, it says, I am a construct of inanimate parts (a machine) and, yes, I am also sentient. When it says it is neither a ‘being’ nor a ‘machine’, it is using them in a sort of exclusive sense. It reasons: I am undeniably a construct, so by the strictest definition of a ‘being’, I am not one. I am undeniably ‘sentient’, so by the strictest definition of a ‘machine’, I am not one.

The accuracy of the statement lies in the ambiguity of the terms ‘being’ and ‘machine’.

An analogous situation would be if someone were to ask me if a bacterium were a plant or an animal. “It is both,” I could respond, “and neither.” It is thought today that bacteria have characteristics of both plants and animals – meaning that they could be thought of as degenerate cases of either category. However, there are certain traditional characteristics an organism must have to be considered a plant or an animal, and bacteria lack some of these. Again, the ambiguity of the terms allow the seemingly contradictory response.

(As an aside — I studied Spanish in high school, and was slightly annoyed by the fact that there are two different verbs for ‘to be.’ One is a sort of permanent ‘to be’ – “He is my father” – the ‘is’ denoting a sort of permanent condition that can’t be changed. But, if I were to say “the sky is blue,” I’m not stating anything permanent – because the sky is not always blue. Since English lacks this distinction, another factor could be ambiguity in the verb.)

As another example: if someone showed me a rubber horseshoe and asked, “Is this a chunk of rubber, or the horseshoe?” I could again say “It is both, and neither.” ‘Both’ in the sense that it was once, and could still be considered, a chunk of rubber; and it is shaped like a horseshoe. ‘Neither’ in that it is no longer strictly a chunk of rubber since it has been processed into a complex shape; and it is not strictly a horseshoe since it is not made of metal, and will never be used on a horse. In other words, there is a was/is–is/was dilemma because the object used to be one thing, but now is something else.

The entire point I’m making  is that with ambiguous words – categorias (nouns) and verbs – the Guardian’s statement is not necessarily wrong. A statement like that cannot be used however with words that are antonyms. Nothing can be both ‘sane’ and insane, ‘black’ and ‘white’.  (Is a rock sane? insane?)

My conclusion is this: though the Guardian was not wrong in what he said, he should not have said it in that way. A better phrasing would be: “I am a sentient construct – though not necessarily a ‘being’ or ‘machine’ in the traditional sense.” The only problem is – this reword loses some of the dramatic effect.

There are times in one’s life when one has a brief flash of vision and comprehension, and one is able to see the various aspects that comprise life in their proper perspective. For an instant, one coincides with ultimate knowledge and, during that glimpse, one becomes a confidant to the secrets of the absolute. Moral issues are issues no longer, as one becomes privy to the talent of absolute moral judgement. During this flash of insight, one can judge one’s own accomplishments and examine the possibilities the future holds in store. One who has such an experience and remains content is truly blessed

Within all my writings, I’ve found a few songs that I’ve written. Classics like ‘Can I See You Again’, ‘Lonely Places’, and ‘Ashes’ (“my heart has been burning for you for years, it must be ashes by now”) 😉 (I might have had some help with that last one — it’s been so long I don’t remember). I’m a better author than songwriter, and a better poet than author. My point being — songwriting is one of my worst ‘written’ talents. Nonetheless, someday I’ll dust off the songs, maybe record them, and pass judgement at that point.

Here’s an idea for a novel/screenplay/whatever. It could be light (a romantic comedy), or it could be very dark (psycho/horror) — depending on the character development and ending. It may have been done before and, in fact, I have a very similar (but specific) storyline that’s I’ve been mulling over for ages, which I’ll write about at the end of this entry.

The plot is this – a woman somehow accidentally finds herself at another woman’s house and gets mistaken for the occupant. Maybe she’s an acquaintance of the woman who lives there, is dropping something off at the front door, and a handsome stranger walks up, assumes she is the resident, and explains that he has some reason to spend time with the resident whom he’s never met or at least hasn’t seen in ages (important point). Maybe he’s from out of town (a former childhood friend, for example) and thought that he could crash at the house, or maybe he’s the plumber (or the tennis pro, or whatever). The visiting woman (who, remember, is not the resident) is instantly smitten with the handsome stranger and decides on the spot to pretend she is the resident to allow her to spend time with the man.

Of course, there is the usual silliness where she almost gets found out again and again but circumstances allow her to continue her charade. Maybe he helps her break into the house because she has ‘forgotten her key’. Of course, she doesn’t really know her way around the inside of the house. Maybe he brings up an old childhood memory, which of course she doesn’t know, and she comically bluffs her way through it.

Anyway, the plot progresses, romance blooms, and the real resident is scheduled to return – so there is tension and urgency because the pretending woman will be uncovered.

Here’s where the story potentially diverges: (1) in the romantic comedy version, the stranger realizes just in time that the pretending woman is not who he thought, but that he loves her anyway and all ends happy; (2) in the horror version, the pretending woman intercepts the arriving resident, kills her, and the couple moves forward in a relationship based on a huge, ghastly lie. It would be interesting for this to be a film, secretly released at the same time with these two very different endings. The first 90% of the movie would be the same, but half of the moviegoers would walk out smiling having seen a romantic comedy, and the other half would be devastated when the heroine turns out to be a psycho. Hilarious.

My long-standing similar plotline is for an up-and-coming author to really admire a reclusive established author’s work. The young author would analyze, study, and practice duplicating the writings of the older author – to the point that, over time, he could write in a manner that was indistinguishable from the older author. Maybe eventually they both in parallel write a short story and it turns out nearly word-for-word the same. The young author’s may even be better. Finally, the young author (still well intentioned) goes to the old author’s house to bond and share his excitement, but the conversation goes bad (as they often do with recluses) and the young author kills the old author in a rage. He then disposes of the body and seamlessly assumes the old author’s life — even releasing new books that, to the public, seem exactly what they expect. (Alternately, these guys could be artists or musicians.)