Who Are You?

Who are you?

I am a man, I can tell this much. By this I mean there is a piece of meat dangling between my legs. The function, to recreate myself. I have been around forever in one form or another. I don't believe what they say, the lack of fossil records for humans in the past means that there are no records, not that there wasn't humans. Yeah, I am saying I don't believe in evolution, I think humans have been around for as long as the planet has, which is forever. I say this, but I don't entirely believe it. We got our heads wrapped around the clock and we don't understand time. Time might be a really groovy beast. I know because I have experienced other dimensions before. I have been tuned into different wave lengths. Suddenly I don't see the function of the day, I am seeing things geologically. Everything looks different. The things you would observe about a place are flipped on their head. I forget somethings and remember others. Is this a statement about me or about the functions of time? I don't see why I shouldn't be able to remember everything. I bet there will be invented a memory drug that takes you back. I don't know if you can change things, maybe. There are people investing in this kind of pharmaceutical technology. It will change the way we think about life. Life will become something else. We are driven by what we think the good life is. I think the common conception is that the good life involves a lot of travel. I wouldn't argue with this. If I could be doing anything, money no object, I would be living in a hotel, getting high daily, and focusing in on the lives of the people I dream. I dream about a lot of people who are not me. I hope I am answering the question. I start somewhere and go somewhere else. This is what I mean by travelling. I am travelling all the time. My thoughts roam freely. I think I am doing what I want. I would still rather be living in a hotel, or maybe a series of hotels. A bunch of hotels in one city, within walking distance, or maybe I would take a cab. I think you can learn a lot about a person from what they would rather be doing, because you know, it is kind of rare to find someone who is doing exactly what they would like to be doing. For instance, even the hotel thing I been saying is not quite accurate. I have this image in my mind of a man, naked, running through the woods and diving off a cliff into a cool body of water. This is what I think of when I think of the good life. This is what it looks like to me, but I'm not sure I would like to be this guy, because it would involve some unpleasant feelings, I mean an elevated heart rate and maybe soreness in the legs. I mean this is why I would prefer hotels. I guess my image of the good life is the primitive life, the life of Adam, but I'm alone on this one. I think most people would say the life of a celebrity, which has a lot to do with hotels, is the good life. It would be good to get in the consciousness of the times, I mean, I would like to tell people what to think. I think I been thinking for long enough that I could teach a course in being happy while completely unoccupied, but when am I ever unoccupied? I guess I'm a hypocrite. So sue me, I'm a hypocrite. Am I, or do I just have a different vision of myself, one that doesn't match the statistical representation of my daily life? Which me do you want to hear from, the me who I am or the me who I aspire to be? To tell the truth, the me I am is the me I aspire to be. Strictly speaking, just as the me that inhabits this body. What I mean is that my aspirations are a big part of who I am. It's hard to think of myself without thinking of the future. That's where I am going, and that is what I am interested in. I would like this drug that makes you relive the past. I think that actually is what MDMA is, though you have to take a lot to get clear visions. I'm just messing with you, not really. Though when I last took this drug I was visited by waves of memories. I like the word wave. It's easy to forget that everything is a wave. Can I change my answer? I would no longer like to be identified as a man, I would like to identify myself as a wave.

Well, I can ask the question again and you can start all over.

Okay, yes, do that please.

Okay. Who are you?

I am a wave. I am made of the same stuff everything else is. There is a big fabric that extends across the universe and I am a protuberance. Certain patterns have converged and they make up the place I represent. I think an almost better question to ask would be “where am I?” because although I process information in a particular way, the location I inhabit has more to do with my reportage than what makes me up. This is true if you are familiar with people. I admit, I am the type of wave known as a person, plural: people, but I don't know why I explain this. I am treating you a bit like an alien. I am assuming you don't know anything. I guess typically when people ask who someone is, it is typical to reply with a word that refers only to that one specific iteration of person. This specific word is known as a name, but I am sure you know this. You appear to be an adult man, which means that you have years of experience on this planet. I say “this planet” as if there were other planets to belong to, or be from, but as far as we know this is not true. I suppose the odds would have it that there would be another planet, one with people like us, but what are the odds they speak English? I speak English, among other languages. It is the most comfortable for me and I think is a quite effective language. When you hear the things I am saying I am sure that you are thinking of things to say as well. This is an odd process for me because I am not used to speaking uninterrupted for so long. So If you don't mind I would ask you to perhaps ask another question, or preferably-- how about this, who are you?

My name is Miles Jurgen and I am conducting an interview with you. Although you asked me to ask you my first question a second time, it was fully my intention to ask you this question twice, or even more. In fact, “Who are you?” is the only question I intend to ask, repeating it until you are exhausted of answers. Are you satisfied by this response?

Miles, you know what, I am, and the reason is that you seem like an honest guy. I think you're trying something weird and I respect that. It is good to try different things. I don't ever remember reading an interview with one question. I am sorry if I have tainted the purity of your pursuit.

Although you have tainted the purity of my pursuit, I wouldn't say that this sort of thing is outside of my expectations for the process. I figured a question would be put to me. It is, after all, only fair.

Good, good, I'm glad we're on the same page. Is there anything you'd like to ask me?

Yes. Who are you?

Well unlike some people I know, I was born in a place. Upstate New York, a place called Canadanega. It's up near Ithaca. It means the Chosen Spot. Its called that because of the freshwater trout that fills the lake. It's near Ithaca and Geneva, two places associated with the idea of war. See, I'm an ancient warrior. It was what I born to do. I was born to fight. I joined the service for the first Gulf War and did my time. Now I'm having trouble, because in my opinion I shouldn't have to work anymore. I did my time and think that the government I fought for should support me. I'm not really fit for civilian life. I am much too crazy to hold a menial job. Now if you wanted to employ me in a think tank, that would be another story. I am comfortable in tanks. I like the military connotations of this enterprise. I know how to get around in a tank. The thinking part, well you may be able to tell, but I am a versatile thinker. There are many correct answers to any given question. The question is, which answer is the best? The best answer depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Who are you trying to convince and what are you trying to convince them of? In general it is best to be truthful, truthful to yourself, truthful to others, but these two truths may conflict. The truth to you may be my name. My name might be the most truthful way to answer your question, to you. To me, a person is much deeper than their name. Names are given arbitrarily. A name doesn't name a person's qualities. Now, I'm not sure a person has particular qualities. To understand what a person is capable of you need to see them perform in a particular situation. You can tell if someone is a warrior or not depending on how they behave in a situation of war. Did he retreat or did he fight to the death? The person who fights to the death is born to exist as a memory. Its hard to meet a person who would fight to the death, because they did and now they are dead. You may be that person before you're in the situation, but there is no way to know until it happens. I wish I could look at you and know what was going to happen to you in all the stages of your life. By stages I mean scenarios. Life is all stages. Its a drama, the best way to explain it. Surely there is someone watching, someone above us or below us. Or maybe not. Maybe the performers are playing for their own benefaction. But usually there is an audience, though they are part of the performance as well. We would still put on the play even if no one showed up, we rehearsed the thing, and so rarely is it that no one cares. Great thing about this world is that everyone cares. We like to think that everyone is so wrapped up in bureaucratic procedure that you might as well be talking to a forklift, but no, people are alive and want to see life. Really, that is what has gotten me through so many times. I can always depend on the kindness of strangers. That's a line from a play, but it works for me. You know, I go around, tell people my story and ask them for money. Its a rare occasion that I meet someone like you who wants so much patter, but I do it all for the dollar. Life is a game you see, and money are the points. You gotta score points if you want to keep playing. There are interesting ways you can get points and I am trying some of these outside methods. It, for me, panhandling, is the most direct way to play the game. I present a problem and let people help solve it. I interrogate their values and let the figure out how much they are worth--how much their values are worth, how much they, as people, are worth. I figure both sides get something out of the exchange. I, of course, get more, but that is because I am needy. You know, I'm in need. It is an uncomfortable game I'm playing, it really is quite exhausting. I am just walking around all day, looking for good marks. I mean good grades and people who will give me money. Its a particular type of person, though they come in all shapes and sizes. I guess the best mark is someone who looks like they are insane. They should be wary of me, I am after a dangerous killer, by which I mean a desperate guy who has been to war, but they aren't and when they are not I just know they will help me and I don't let them go until they have. It can be uncomfortable to both of us. I'm an unusual panhandler because I have a high target. You can get a bunch of one dollar bills or you can get big scores. Ask and you shall receive. It doesn't happen all that often but it happens enough to merit this approach. I think I'm worth it and my story is worth it and I have corroborating evidence and I think I can pull it off, and guess what, it works. Now, I wish what the government gave me was enough, but it just doesn't comport with my lifestyle. I don't cook myself. Well, I barely cook. I just can't bring myself to do it. I guess I don't know what kind of food I like. Eating is the biggest struggle. I know I have to do it, I just wish there was another way. Well, I seem to have run out of steam.

Who are you?

I guess you caught me in a lie. I'm not who I said I was. I was pretending I was someone I have met. I guess that would make me an actor. Or no, maybe a liar. No, just an actor. We aren't doing anything serious here, right? You're just interested in running your little experiment. You don't need to know who I am. You're just interested in what I might say to answer this question. This isn't a matter of national security, and you're not with the lottery commission. It doesn't matter like that. I suppose it would be best to give a truthful response, but lying fits better with the way I see the world. Who is a person anyway? They seem to me to be inter-replaceable. In many ways, but not quite. I guess anyone could be working in McDonald's, but not anyone could be a college professor. I am a college professor. I teach the Humanities, all of them. Humanities in general. I take a very idiosyncratic approach. Its like philosophy but less specific. Philosophy became something very specialized and the deeper you get into it seems like the less you know. Most people have the wrong idea about Plato. He says one thing and means another, which is something people don't grasp, at least not the first time through. Plato had one sided dialogues, something like what we are engaged in right now. I wish I could answer your question, but it seems like what I really want to do is to talk about Plato and Socrates. It is very tricky business. What they attempt to do, almost always, is to work with definitions. They try to define concepts. Sometimes I don't think that it is philosophy at all, but just an outside form of literature. That is the approach I take. I am more interested in the polite tone Socrates takes than the arguments he makes. You always know where the argument is going to go. Well, not always. It will always be dismissed as incorrect is what I mean. But sometimes even the incorrect definitions are the ones that stick, for instance, the definition of knowledge that is commonly assumed. Who am I? I am a sophist. I believe that truth should not be held as a standard, but only function. I am uninterested in the truth. I only care about what works. Is that sophistry or science? Take your pick. They are quite different concepts. I know that I am not a philosopher, even though I have the tendency to ramble on and am never satisfied by my own answers. Perhaps I am a philosopher. It does seem that I am chasing some sort of elusive dragon that will bring about my demise. What does this mean? I know you didn't ask, but maybe you should. I guess I am commenting still upon your process of repeating the same question. Maybe every question should be repeated until the subject is exhausted. But the worry is that the question will never be exhausted. Perhaps I am unique, in that I am the only subject willing to play this game with you. Is that a good enough answer? You see, you've asked the question enough times that you don't need to ask it anymore. I will continue puzzling this prompt, researching myself, knowing that nothing will ever sate you. Will any answer sate you? It appears to me that people hate questions. I mean, just generally. Most often you will receive a minimal response. This is perhaps untrue, I mean, I can remember people giving responses that go on and on and thinking, what a simple question, and I didn't ask for all this. I wonder now what the point of human communication is anyway. What is the point of this instance of human communication? What am I trying to achieve? Is speech a corollary to action? Are we trying to coordinate some other action to take place? I would definitely think so. I think I am communicating with you in the hope that someone hears my message and will want to dance with me. My hope is that someone will read this and be able to gauge the deep uncertainty I feel and will appropriately dance with me. I want every moment to stand as a question and the response be given with proper ceremony and primordial force. I myself would not know how this is done. What was your question again?

Who are you?

I am a dancer wearing a sash. I am a bull awaiting a ribbon for my horns. I am a sycophant in line for the bathroom. I am a wolf in daylight, recalling the sight of the moon. I am a surge of power that destroys your electronic devices. I am a worm on a hook, wriggling. I am a demi-god demanding sacrifices in exchange for verdant harvests. I am a lizard under a rock in the desert of your mind. I am a libertine, dancing with senoritas, scratching their palms with my middle finger. I am the destroyer of worlds, looking for bad worlds that deserve destroying. Not all will be pitied. Some will be punished. Just as an experiment of course. To see if their behavior changes. There is no evidence that this sort of punishment works. It is not a corrective punishment. It is a harm management. You see this phrase captured something of my imagination. I would never destroy a world, no matter how miserable it was. Would the cosmos be better off without hell? What good would the light be in a world of seeing? We live in a world bathed in darkness. The chiaroscuro is beautiful, the way the two play together. Do I have to prompt you, or is my silence enough?

Who are you?

I am in between jobs right now. I answer your question with a mention of time because over the course of time I have become many different things, many different people. And interestingly enough, I have a pretension of things to come. I can feel the future, and believe I have seen it in my dreams. I don't know whether I should share this with you, what specifically fate has in store for me, but I should let you know that it all has already happened. It is just waiting for the time to become again. Slowly everything is becoming again. In my dreams the past and the future and all of time meet and tell me the truth of all of it. The truth of the whole thing, looked at forward or backwards. Sometimes my dreams affect my daily life. As in I tell people about my dreams, or I think about them in quiet meditation. I don't know how it all works, but it must be more complex then the simple answer given to us by our rulers. They believe in chaos, or the easy god, with very little reverence for the things they know. But why must I always descend into hatred? I speak about the minds of other people, an experience I have very little experience with. It is must more useful if I speak my own mind. But here I run into the problem of saying things you already know. If I assume I know nothing about the thoughts of others I would spend a long time explaining things that are quite basic, though perhaps in a manner you are unaccustomed to. I don't know, what was your question?

Who are you?

I'm a dragonfly.

Who are you?

I'm a swordfish.

Who are you?

I am flowing hot magma.

Who are you?

You see I am trying to get on rhythm with you. I don't know if you prefer long drawn out responses or short terse replies. I guess I could do either, but it should be clear by now that I prefer long-form answers. If I already know the question and know that I can never give an answer that will satisfy you, so there is really no reason for you to even ask the question. Perhaps if you do not fill my silences with your questions you would still get the answers you seek. I am perhaps tiring of this game, but maybe I can try answering you with a different tact, though I don't know, it seems like I have tried everything. Who am I? I appear as a four-limbed creature who possesses his own will. I am able to manipulate your mind with sounds I emit from one of my face-holes. “Who are you?” from me to you, would be an important question to consider in order to give an appropriate response. You seem to be a creature very similar to me. What this means is that there is a hidden side to you. You are experiencing things that would not appear obvious. You have images that you see with your eyes and images that you see with your mind. The things you see with your eyes, how to describe it? What is there? You just know. Your eyes give you knowledge about the state of things that surround you. At the same time, there is a similarity between all things, so you are able to create new things that aren't actually there and it is as if you can see them, as if you can know them. But you know that all the synthetic objects you create with your mind are bracketed and do not necessarily exist. The imagination is a wonderful organ. We can see into the future with this organ. We see into the future by seeing into the past. We can re-see certain events, usually the strangest events. The events that are too similar are lost and we know we cannot remember them but can only imagine them. They are possibilities, not events. You see, when I get thinking for myself, and not assume things that everyone knows, I get rather confused and hung up on the basic facts of existence. I have this problem where think too much about the beginning of things, try to recapture the event of the origin, the origin of eyes, for example, and try to reproduce in myself the feelings that one most have encountered when this technology was first developed. I would think that the first creature with eyes thought that he or she possessed a god-like knowledge. It must have been a tremendous advantage. I have to wonder whether this creature was on of my ancestors or if the gift of vision was given to multiple creatures at the same time. Still, for all of them, it must have felt like a tremendous gift. The difference between seeing and not seeing is a whole world. I know there are people who can't see who are still human, and they get along remarkably well, but I would bet they agree that vision is a marvelous gift. Of course I know that vision developed gradually perhaps, and at first the creature knew some and successive generations of creatures knew more. It makes me wonder if a new form a vision could develop. Perhaps there will be a new organ that will just know, at first just a little and with successive generations more and more. I wonder if logic is that sense. I wonder if it is possible to know the future, if you just try to figure out, based on the past, what is likely to develop. I would think that with an active enough mind that anything could be determined. But what kind of thoughts would need to occur to predict the future? One of the first things you would have to know is the set of number you are dealing with. There are 8 billion people on this planet. If you can figure out what they will do you could figure out the future. I think people will do what ever they can. People are a form of fire and need to be in constant motion. I mean they sleep, but this isn't doing nothing. This is the good life. To dream is good. It is the highest pleasure there is in life. Even dreams of fear can be marvelous. But anyway, the things people do are determined by the objects they have around them to work with. People interact with objects. People are objects too, in some degrees. Back to an earlier point, I said there would have to be a new organ to give us knowledge and I think that the mind is this organ. It has certainly developed over the years. People are having more thoughts than ever. I can tell by looking into the eyes of a cat that the cat is not thinking very often. Wonderful creatures cats are, but they are not the forefront of evolution like people so clearly are. We do have a problem with human evolution in that the most intelligent people are not reproducing more than people with less money. I heard Lucien Freud had thirty children and I think he is doing his part. I just don't understand why millionaires aren't keeping harems. If the human project is going to work they really have to be producing as many children as they can afford. But maybe Bill Gates is a moron and it is good that he doesn't have four-hundred children. I would if I were him and hey, it's possible that I might have hundreds of children. I'm still producing potent semen. I know maybe it is inappropriate to talk about this and I apologize. I told you, first thing I said, I got meat between my legs. I am a man. It is an important part of my identity. It is important as far as you are a man as well and not a woman. If you were a woman, I perhaps would not have identified myself. I would have engaged in subterfuge, because what I'd really be after is producing children with you. I like thinking about reproduction because it gives you the long view of history. I mean I think about the origin of sex. I mean, in the beginning there was a thing and it would double itself. Somewhere along the line it took two things to create a new one. I wonder why this was. Perhaps to make sure that new ones weren't produced too often, but this is an unsatisfactory answer. Bodies that undergo mitosis don't always have overpopulation problems. Maybe sex exists to ensure variation. Variation is the way we move forward. Maybe Gates knows that he has not evolved. He would prefer variation to the propagation of his own traits. I'm not sure. When you really investigate evolution I am not sure it holds up. Really, it is quite an amazing idea, that with the right conditions people like us just become. Become out of nothing. Well there was never nothing. There was always something. This is quite a hard concept to grasp, that there was always something. It doesn't make sense to us, we who at one point did not exist. You got to wonder that, if there has always been something, whether we existed as an prior idea. There are so many ideas of so many different people and I predict they will all occur. I think we will live on this planet for ever. So right now, I am having pretensions-- I can see the people of the future, a different species, looking back on us. I can see them in their future libraries, researching ancient history. What would this species be like? They would just know all sorts of things that we have to find out. To them it would be an art, all the things we do with science. They would long to live in our world. They would think that it was a marvelous time to be alive, overlooking the terror of violence, which, honestly, is fading away at this point. I don't know, did I answer your question?

Less and less every time. Who are you?

Less and less? Please don't offend me. I am doing hard work entertaining you. I am trying to explain who I am and it does require recourse to biology to do this. Evolution is who I am. It is the metaphysics of becoming that pertains to me. I don't know whether our knowledge of the process of becoming means we should use our knowledge or if we should follow our hearts. Maybe Bill Gates can't get it up for anyone but Melinda. I feel that he is just being conventional, and that is just who he is. I must be a true freak to go along with you. You must be a freak to be running such an unconventional interview. I'm feeling proud of us, Miles, we're doing a good job of creating memories. Remember what I said, memories are created by differences. No one can remember things that are conventional, the same. You remember something when something different happened. Speaking of which, what was your question again?

Who are you?

Yes, I'm just joking, I remember your question. I was just going to say that repetition is a form of difference. I had to make that caveat because it is true that we remember things that recur. In my theory of memory, if repetition isn't a form of difference, well the damn thing breaks down, but it makes some sense right? We are looked into a life of repetition. I mean the sun comes up and it goes down. It get hot, it gets cold, it gets hot. At least for us up here, located North. There are some people who believe the earth is shaped like a torus, or a doughnut. This is crazy because we have seen photographs of the Earth taken from beyond the Earth. Still, they say that its apparent roundness is an optical illusion. I, personally, would prefer to live on a doughnut shaped Earth. I think it is more interesting than a sphere, more complicated. But yeah, some things recur, but it's just some, like most things, it happens and are lost. We crave repetition. We live in homes, seeing the same places over and over. As I said, I would prefer to live in hotels where everything would be different. But I'm not answering your question, am I? Am I saying that we are memories, or that we are recurrent entities? I don't know what I mean by recurrent entities, so I must mean that we are memories. Yeah, that's how I got here. I must be saying the same things over again. Have I run out of original way to answer your question? I must be saying things I've already said, though its okay because it is in a different context now. I really do enjoy some things that recur. I'm not sure about my opinion on recurrence. I can't make up my mind, or you know what, maybe it's not a valid category of experience. All this other stuff I have said have been things I have thought about before, its a bunch of stocked quotables, but not really. But this I really have to work my way through. Repetition. Is it even possible? The example I am thinking of is “studying for an exam.” You read the same thing again and again until it has made a strong impression on you. It is unforgettable after you have reread it. I wonder if there is a physical process that matches the spiritual process. I mean, I wonder if it makes the neurons that contain the information swell up in size or something, or load up with charge. I know, neurons are a can of worms, you open it up and they're out, slithering on the floor and you don't want to pick them up because they are slimy, gross and weird, so know you got worms on the floor and you got to tell the kids to watch out for the worms on the floor and not to step on them, and you leave the door open hoping they'll find their way out, but they don't, they just writhe to death, and then they die and they are actually less gross dead so you pick them up and a few got squished under the feet of your children, but you have a vacuum so you decide to vacuum them up, but that was a gross decision and you get rid of your vacuum, and all I'm saying is that is what talking about the brain is like. It might be a useful pursuit some day, but today is not that day, But basically what I was going to say that each neuron is like one word. Does this make sense? It's how I would build a brain, but you know what talking about the brain is like. It's like talking about dead worms, and I, for one, do not want to talk about dead worms. I much rather be talking about the mind. I think there are some technologies we could design for the mind still. For instance, some technology that makes people happy. I think I could build a book that would make people happy, but it would have a lot of instructions and would have to be used like all the time. Yeah I'm talking about writing a new bible. In the future, people will always be revising their own bible. People will write their own instruction manual. Just one of my predictions, but I haven't done too rigorous of a thought-experiment to determine this. I can imagine it, but maybe it is on a television, or whatever device they are using, program and an object of ridicule. I'm just saying I'm planning on writing my own bible and I'm going to use and it an carry it around and it will be nothing like the things I'm saying now, it will be very specifically designed based on test results. It will be precise and to the point. It won't be conversational, but what bible is? I am enjoying this conversation, if that is what you would call it, and I wouldn't, but you're still standing there, and it really makes a difference. I am aware of you and am not behaving as if you were not there. But anyway, I think I am ready to re-answer your question, if you will.

Who are you?

I am the most beautiful woman in history. I have a face that launched a thousand ships. I do what I wish and am not tied down to the conventions and legal boundaries of marriage. I, like I said, do as I wish. Sometimes it is nice to get away. I never knew that I would live so long, and honestly it has been a nice run. Have you guessed my name? Surely you have. I believe I have provided you with enough material to make a positive identification. Next question.

Who are you?

I could answer this question with so many categories, though I may exist at the intersection of all these. These are categories of experience that I share with many others. Perhaps this type of response would be more appropriate if I could answer in the plural, as in we are... We are black people, we are women, we are smokers. I admit that I may be indistinguishable from others that belong to the same categories. I wish I could could answer for myself alone, but the categories of identity don't exist to give me a unique identity. I can only identify myself in a way that thousands of others would be included. Perhaps if I were more schooled in the way people divide themselves I would be able to enumerate enough categories to limit the possibility of existence to me alone. As it is, I'm just not that creative. So I must answer this question in the plural. It feels good to stand together with others. Sometimes I worry that I may be the center of the universe, but when I look at things with the aforementioned perspective I feel less important, which relieves some of the pressure of being. It is hard existing knowing that every moment could be my last. You see I have a condition were I am highly prone to strokes. It could strike at any time and I would simply collapse and die. Still, I choose to be alone, mostly. This is dangerous, because if I were with people it is more likely that in the event that something were to happen to me, I could be given help. But really what help can they give? I should know this, given my condition, but I try to live lightly. If this is the only life I will ever have I want it to be fun. I approach everything like a game. Of course, I live to win. I do okay. Sometimes I don't connect the dots as quickly as I could, but I am capable of synthesizing knowledge and seeing the bigger picture, which is all the glory I need. You win the game by discovering the rules. Once you have the rule book, it becomes much easier. The hard part is that there are an infinite number of rules. But some is still better than none. A lot of people think they have the rules, but they only have an outline. I mean the religious. They think that a single book could provide all the direction one needs in life. It is true that they are referring to a very rich and complicated manual, but they don't work their way up to it. They don't have the analytical tools to make sense of the work. There are principles of light and darkness in everything. I find it easier to simplify things and abstract them. Understanding that everything has a physical quality makes it easier to comprehend and to work with. All language has elements of light and darkness. It is hard to see without both elements present. There exists language that is too heavily one or the other. I find mathematics to be too heavily light and French and German philosophy too heavily dark. It is good training for the eyes, the eyes of the mind I mean, but it is not the conditions one would desire to live in. It's true that I have investigated books, trying to learn what they offer. When I was young it became apparent that life was awfully complex and that being new to the planet I could do with more experience. I don't believe that direct experience is the only good experience. I believe you can almost learn more from virtual experience, like the experience you glean from art, specifically books and films. The truest experience of a piece of art occurs after the first experience. The way the things are assembled resembles memories or recollections. It is the best experience of piece when you know what will happen, just as the recorder of the experience does. This is an example of the ways that I differ from average expectations. I would assume that most people read a book once, drink the juices that come from the thrill of discovery and move on. It is truly a deeper experience when you remember a text. It is so hard to find a good piece of media that I have to explore it as deeply as I can. How does this relate to your question? I believe identity is constituted of memories. I live for memories. I am always trying to create a memorable experience. I try all sorts of different techniques to make moments last. I feel profoundly sad when I notice that I am living in a moment that will be lost. I remember watching the clock, waiting for a casserole to finish cooking and thinking, this small moment of time, so painful to endure, this moment of waiting, it means nothing to me and will surely be forgotten. I can't remember most of my life. I have spent so much time in conversation and remember so little of what is said. I wish I could recall every joke that I have ever laughed at, but when I try to think of these things I can remember nothing. If you asked me for a joke I would be at a loss, though so much of my time is absorbed in jokes. An interesting feature of memory is that it can composite. I spend a lot of time in bed staring at my ceiling fan, but I cannot recall a specific time I stared at this device. Instead, I can imagine just what it looks like and can generally characterize my thoughts while staring. It blurs the line between memory and imagination. It is a fascinating divide. The two shouldn't seem too close, but they are very similar processes. I mean we think of something specific when with think of both these terms. We think of the object of thought and not the process of thought. Processionally, the two types of thought are identical. It is the way they reference the truth that divides them. When we look at the “what”, the two processes look different, but when we look at the “how” they look the same. In the game of capitalism, or life in general, there is an advantage to be given to the person with a different perspective. Difference is marked, not similarity. I would suggest trying out a vision of existence asking the question “how?” instead of “what?” Right? I'm criticizing your question, which I think you repeat to prove its absurdity. “Who” is the “what” in reference to subjects. “How” is a much more open question. It raises causality. “How” always refers to a period of time. “What” is frozen. While “what” may be appropriate to ask a rock, it is an inappropriate question to ask a person. “Who are you?” is a way to ask someones' name or profession and little else. It is a useful question in the game of life, but that is not what you are doing here, is it? I think we a performing a comedy. You have asked me a simple question and are getting a very complex response. I still, for instance, haven't given you my name. In some ways it is more comfortable a question than “how are you?” which generally refers to feelings. Feelings are a way we categorize thought. We have a block of text that runs through our mind and we give it a simple category, though these thoughts may be about a feeling we have. Are feelings are the results of thoughts or are thoughts the results of feeling? This returns us to the absurdity of causality. There doesn't appear to be an order to things. It is all happening at once. Which you must know already. This is why you ask one question, because you know that they all mean the same thing. The all seek a similar response. Is this what I mean? I feel like I am not expressing myself well. I am saying words, but they are not the ones I really think. I mean I think them and that is evident because I expressed them, but I have a feeling for what I was saying, but it was like seeing. You can't convert an image directly into words, and the way I feel about this concept was like seeing. It came in a flash and made itself clear but then was gone. I hope I have said enough to give you an impression of what I meant. Maybe I should repeat again that there is no causality. It is a radical concept that goes against a very common sense view of the world. But there have been small events in my life that have convinced me that this is the case. It would appear generally that things can cause other things, but this is an illusion. In truth, everything is simultaneous. This doesn't appear to make sense, but the key word was truth. The true exists outside of time. We know this. Things that are true are true forever. This is what gives the word force. The light switch is turned off. This is true, but what happens when the light is turned on? The statement is no longer true. Well, it was true at the time. Does this contradict the statement that truth has no relation to time? I don't know, but it still feels right. I don't know what your interest in this argument is, I was just trying to take a different perspective because I think it is useful to try. It can be dangerous, I warn you, but it generates a lifetime of interest. I mean, it is interesting to investigate outside perspectives. It is a way of alleviating boredom. Happiness is a result of activity. I am trying to teach you to be happy, and also convince myself that I am happy. It's not all about you. I may be addressing you and answering your questions, but I speak for myself, at least at this point. There is so much more I would like to say, but I feel exhausted. Do you mind if we stop?

Who are you?

Scott Redding. Do you mind?

Thank you for you co-operation.