Take the Cake and the Miracle

What is cast in stone?

Take the Cake and the Miracle

Stone

"Hear me!" I boom.

Like thunder, I roll. Like flames, I roar.

"For I am here!"

Clay

"Where are you?" you cry.

"To wield your sword of might against my enemies? For my enemies are yours."

Wounded, you rage. Aggrieved, you howl. 

"Hear our suffering!"

Stone

"I speak," I say.

I say and I say and I say.

Clay

You ask.

In silence and in audience, you ask, "Bless us.

Will us our lists, for our lists are wanting.

Wants we are wanting."

Stone

"You speak."

I wonder. Will I ever hear humility? I miss it.

"I hear," I sigh.

Clay

You appeal.

"Smiter of enemies, be not still."

You threaten.

"Forgiver of all, break not your promise."

Stone

I have. I am. I will.

That is all and that is enough.

Clay

You crow, "Enough!"

"Tomorrow is not for triumph."

Fists raised, you vow, "Today is for triumph."

"For ours is the glory!"

Stone

I sweep with my eye, the atom and the sparrow, the mouse and the whale.

"Breakers of promises," I lash.

"Take the cake and the miracle and believe nothing!"

Stone's Note

The Clay doesn't speak for the Stone; the Stone speaks for itself. For the Clay doesn't will for the Stone; the Stone wills for itself. So:

when the Clay purposes to be the will of the Stone,

what is such purpose for?

*

Clay's Note

The Stone is stone. But the Stone is also clay.

It is interpreted. It is commented on. It is parsed and translated.

Because the Stone is misunderstood. Only the Clay can make sense of it.

Its word. Its act. Its will.

As for the Clay:

the Stone is a stone of its word. It promises, so long as the Clay believes in the unbelievable, to be all and enough. But of course, no stone can reasonably expect to be all and enough for the Clay. The Clay is, after all, only clay. Hence:

there is no ambition the Clay cannot conceive. Including casting itself as the Stone.

In stone.

*

Postface and Postnote

What is cast in stone?

Ideas and ideals. What's unbelievable and miraculous. We cast in stone what's worth preserving against the erosion of time.

Democracies become kingdoms. Kingdoms become democracies. Theocracies become republics. Republics become theocracies.

When what rises, falls and what falls, rises, time alone preserves nothing. Even that which is cast in stone, is whipped by winds and worn by sands. Until all that is left, is us.

Therehence, what is forever becomes clay. Formed by interpretation and comment and parse and translation, a "new" forever is conceived.

Never mind what was once preserved against decay. By rage and howl, what's "new" is cast in stone.

Ideas and ideals. What's unimaginable and inconceivable. We harden what's eternal against eternity. As if the future present will not, by wound and grievance, reform what is clay.

*

Author's Note

Everyone wants to be immortal.

Everyone wants what's theirs to be immortal too.

But such wants are not gifts.

Except insofar as object lessons on the hubris of would-be stones are gifts of only clay.

Presents that take the cake and the miracle and believe nothing.

M

The Curse of Crocodile Gratitude

i feel your

crocodile life

belly low slung, swaying

conquest trophy

i feel your

crocodile lie

pleasing

of Crocodile Gratitude

Is a sorrow, a sorrow, if the tears are crocodile tears? Is a courage, a courage, if the heart is a crocodile heart?

*

I should tell a story.

That accomplishes what?

A play? A script?

How doubtful, a medium of crocodile tears to answer the question of crocodile tears.

A speech!

At a microphone, is there a difference between a speech by the author and a speech by the author of the author?

Of course, a poem. Surely, a song.

So a narrative isn't a narrative, when it's not in narrative form?

*

What about a letter? An interview? Or a post? How all the rage, a medium of crocodile hearts to answer the question of crocodile hearts.

What about a headline? An account? Or a testimony? How vive du jour, a crocodile crocodiles in statements witnessed.

*

It is effortless, crocodile tears that say: I weep, I weep. It is painless, crocodile hearts that say: I bleed, I bleed.

To spot the crocodile is to spot the hay in a haystack.

Do you know? Which hay is the crocodile in a haystack? Do your peers, your so and so, your own know? Which haystack isn't a haystack at all?

I should tell a curse:

more power to you.

To be the hay in a haystack means to be like all the others but only skin deep. Taught by life in childhood that acceptance and fairness is skin deep: How long before every child's acceptance and fairness is skin deep too? How long before swaths and masses, communities and civilizations, are populated and colonized by haystacks that are crocodilestacks? How long before the hay that is the crocodile is yourself and everyone else because that's what it means to be like all the others?

The Curse

On this season of gratitude, I'm grateful for crocodile tears, crocodile hearts. I'm grateful for drip drop, tick tock. I'm grateful, skin deep.

For anything but would rob me

of how good, how good, how good it feels to drip drop crocodile tears, to tick tock crocodile hearts, to skin deep gratitude.

 

Addendum

The Curse of Crocodile Gratitude is the curse of appearances.

Of what's sacrificed, when what matters isn't substance, when what matters is trivial. That is, when what matters is the appearance of civility, what's lost is the point. For the point of civility is not fake politeness or fake friendship or fake kindness, though this is the kind of politeness and friendship and kindness that is taught to every child and practiced. The point of civility is mutuality.

Such that when what matters isn't mutuality, when what matters is the façade of mutuality, what's missing is sincerity.

This is what you and I feel.

When every degree of superficial difference between us is experienced visibly and palpably, we feel insincerity, whether the difference is across our politics, religion, gender, income, or so on.

We often criticize such insincerity as hypocrisy, even as we exercise hypocrisy too.

After all, is every one of you authentic with everyone? That is, do you feel a mutuality with every human being on the other side of every degree of superficial difference between us? Do you feel a humility?

Or is what you and I feel, good that a pretense of dignity is good enough? That, but for performative respect, as heartfelt as playacting, we would be at war?

 

*

The Curse of Crocodile Gratitude is the curse of what's not special.

Differences aren't what's special about us. What's special about us is our capacity and will to recognize and acknowledge that differences don't matter, not really. 

What?

When differences are our everything, from our identity to our pride, we reject our obligation to shrug off visible and palpable realnesses of differences to cooperate. Never mind, what is there to cooperate towards together, when we feel no humbleness towards the different? Never mind, differences are no more accepted and fair, than realnesses of differences are visible and palpable.

What?

To the extent that the future is the consequence of our cooperation or lack thereof, directing our energy, resources, and bandwidth towards what's not real and what's not true, robs us of tomorrow to satisfy the present and we who seize lanes and appropriate flagpoles with the impunity of make believe.

*

The Curse of Crocodile Gratitude is not the curse of enemies.

It's the truth that reaping what we sow isn't specific and judicious. That is, the covenant that forgives all doesn't spare believers of such covenants from tomorrow. In other words, what we don't cooperate towards today, will bear fruit that engages hostilities tomorrow.

Such that, should we wish for a tomorrow that fulfills hope for something more real than make believe, the seeds we plant cannot double down on fictions that feel too good, too good, too good to be true.

M

*

Author's Note

Love is not a solution. Not when love is for the loved and hate is for the hated. Not when what is coveted is crocodile life and what is despised is all that repudiates greed and pride and vanity.

 For greed and pride and vanity are what crocodiles live and lie and love for.

M

Piling on Pyres

Piling on pyres isn't new or original or exceptional and it cannot be ignored. Not for what it is, what it effects, and what it intends.

Piling on Pyres

What's already been said doesn't need to be said again.

But you wouldn't know that by little flames everywhere.

Those little flames everywhere would have you see: no flame die. But they would be wrong. Flames do. Flames have. Flames will.

Because oxygen isn't forever.

*

Each of us is powerful. As bellows and pokers. As dousers and extinguishers. For every fire everywhere, each of us is responsible:

for doing something.

Because doing nothing is doing something. It's not dousing and it's not extinguishing. It's being a bystander who inacts. It's being an observer who ignores. And:

it's being present and walking away.

*

That's not to say that that isn't how we got here. Because of course an arrangement that enshrines flame wars is baiting and piling on and baiting and piling on, to the rhythm of ticket punching and dues paying. 

That's to say: and...?

That that's what is done, that that's what has been done since before our time, that that's what will be done for all time is no acquittal of responsibility. 

It's an indictment of all we burn to the ground: for what?

*

As if every consequence doesn't matter:

except one.

As for every other consequence? Fate, fixed and immovable, dispossesses us of our hand in every fire that breaks us. That is to say, a will not our own, relieves us of blame.

*

Consequently: here is where we are. Teacups ablaze. Bonfires roaring with torched matchsticks. Mega fires raging across swells of masses.

It's nobody's fault.

It is what it is. 

Then what? So what? Really?

*

When hearing with our own ears is nothing is heard and seeing with our own eyes is nothing is seen

what's already been said is echoed and amplified without friction and little flames everywhere are lit and emboldened without resistance.

Regardless of whether obliviousness or indifference or ruthlessness or hatred are to blame, each of us is responsible for every consequence of

what baiting and piling on and baiting and piling on is, what baiting and piling on and baiting and piling on effects, and what baiting and piling on and baiting and piling on intends.

*

Because

ignorance and ignoring how we got here isn't bliss; no more than how we got here is innocent. To the extent that the future is written here and now, 

what do pyres write?

Note

As for

"Piling on pyres isn't new or original or exceptional and it cannot be ignored. Not for what it is, what it effects, and what it intends."

When (i) we bewail the current state of affairs as if such state of things is new and terrifyingly so; (ii) we incite flame wars as if it is extraordinary to immolate each other; and (iii) we applaud ourselves as if the worst is exceptional; (iv)

we ignore what cannot be ignored:

(v) our agreements that enshrine flame wars; our culpability for every fire that breaks us; and what we get

 when that which we aspire to, takes our cake and eats it too.

M

*

Author's Note

When what threatens "life as we know it" is a fantastical figment of imagination, what "saves" life as we know it is a fantastical figment of imagination too.

Meanwhile, what threatens real life is not a fantastical figment of imagination. It's people who follow "violence resolves conflict." It's people who follow "money is everything." It's people who follow "freedom vetoes rule." 

Whether such violence assaults or imperils; whether such conflict is cultural or political. Whether such tenet exonerates hustlers who defraud what's fair game or tax shelter schemes that dodge accounting or material and immaterial currency boosted by baiting and piling on and baiting and piling on. Whether such freedom is tacit free will or upheld "right;" whether such rule is tacit norm or upheld "law."

Such that what saves real life is not a fantastical figment of imagination. It's people who with their own ears hear and who with their own eyes see: wrongdoing isn't nothing. No more than ignoring wrongdoing through obliviousness or indifference or ruthlessness or hatred, is good.

Such that when we follow "escape is real," (i) we are not investing in real lives, (ii) we are reducing energy, resources, and bandwidth towards addressing real people, and (iii) we are gamifying ignorance and ignoring real realities.

As if no one is answerable for pledging not our problem as our guiding virtue in all matters that threaten real life here and now.

M

No Big Deal Fantasy

I'm not in "the unity business."

I'm in the honesty business and the reality business; I'm in the business of observing honesty and observing reality not as an outside observer but as an example of both.

That is to say:

I'm not in "the division business."

Because unity and division aren't the point. Especially when both are peddled by the business of pretending to be the example of both honesty and reality.

No Big Deal Fantasy

The manifest hot potato of pretending to be an example of both honesty and reality is it corrodes discernment of real honesty and reality.

That is to say, pretending ignores its corrosiveness

because it can.

Because not being an example of both honesty and reality but acting as if oneself is, 

is no big deal.

Not only because the premise of "hustle culture" is acting as if the corruption of one's integrity is no big deal,

but also because it's the backbone of society.

In other words, pretending is the "civil" in "civil society"

because the "norm" in "norm culture" is nothing less than the premise of "hustle culture."

*

But! But! But! To abandon mannerliness is to sanction and condone coarse outspokeness. To be brutish to the point of tactlessness. To be courtesyless and blunt.

In other words:

nasty boarishness is a big deal.

*

This is having it both ways but acting as if there are no consequences to this whatsoever.

Moreover, this is having it both ways without altogether appreciating neither the former nor the latter are what they appear to be.

Notwithstanding, both, taffy pulled to extremes as if the heart and soul of a matter is the furthest point from center, are not what they appear to be either.

*

An example:

In a former life, I told people the truth and people charged. Rude. Unkind. Mean. That's what it was branded. As if the truth must be nice.

In a former life, I showed people the truth and people charged. Cold. Unfriendly. Arrogant. That's what it was branded. As if the truth must be pleasing.

In a former life, having it both ways meant being insincere was a choice that rewarded while being unvarnished was a choice that stipulated: be unemployed with integrity or employed without. Or less egregiously, be alone with self-respect or welcome without.

Needless to say, acting as if being fake is no big deal

is a big deal.

*

Meanwhile:

In a former life, people have been told caring is a trick that covers up intolerance. While those who shun it are brave and free and unafraid.

In a former life, people have been shown politicness is a sham that masks partisanship. While those who scorn it are authentic and legitimate and rightful.

In a former life, having it both ways meant appearing to be sincere was as easy as being a pot to a kettle.

Needless to say, appearing to be the nastiest and boarishest to appear to be the truest and bluest without a particle of bonaest or fideest being

is a big deal.

*

Real honesty and reality neither unites nor divides.

Fraud honesty and reality, however, does both by lying.

Hence the manifest unpopularity of actually hearing and seeing and discerning: what's fiction and what's not. After all, fiction engages. Never mind its contradictions. Never mind its irrationalities. It promises. It delivers. 

Because it lies.

Including oft amplified unities and divisions that are as honest and real as

fakes.

Postface and Epilogue

What do unities and divisions matter, if they're pillars of salt and sand?

As for what's the point of real honesty and reality? Real honesty and reality is the common ground that I've said and shown people who've been told and shown doesn't exist.

As if being so told and shown by fantasists isn't a no big deal fantasy propped without fail, by pillars of salt and sand.

Note Clare

"Real honesty and reality" are not equivalences of "facts", "sciences", "canons", or "religions."

If every fact also has its "errors," if every science also has its "refuters," if every canon also has its "disputes," and if every religion also has its "reformers," then what's real is not every thing that brands itself a "fact" or "science" or "canon" or "religion." No more than such brand is, in and of itself, sufficient to charge such "fact" and "science" and "canon" and "religion:" "real honesty and reality."

Alas "real honesty and reality" is no words. "Complicated" is too loose. "Neither black nor white" is too constraining.

Rather "real honesty and reality" are what "facts", "sciences", "canons", and "religions" should strive for. When, however, "facts", "sciences", "canons", and "religions" pretend to be the example of absolute honesty and reality, this not only corrupts the striving of "facts", "sciences", "canons", and "religions," this corrodes discernment of "real honesty and reality."

As if it's no big deal.

As if lying promises and delivers absolute honesty and reality

instead of lies.

That is to say, as if pillars of salt and sand are as trustworthy as

frauds.

M

*

More

There is something pernicious to our obsessions. The soaking drowning of topics and issues and events as if soaking drowning isn't torture adjacent. A harm that wounds and torments because it can. Because not being harmless but acting as if harm is harmless, is no big deal.

Hand in glove with something neither innocent nor banal. An intent purposefulness that malices. Because "norm culture" and "hustle culture" are its shroud and scythe. Because not being vicious but acting as if malice is viciousless, is no big deal.

On a rope of tug of war, we strain and wrest and heave as if the consequences don't matter. As if the center is the enemy because it stands between a side and winning.

I ask:

What's the point of unity and division, if unity and division engage and ignite our fervor and resolve to strain and wrest and heave without end?

As if shade and smoke and specters, as if ghosts and their shadow, as if games that are realer than real: are no big deal because nothing good ever comes of actually hearing and seeing and discerning what's fiction and what's not.

M

Loopholes Here for Us

If everyone bullies except us -

if everyone caves to peer pressure except us -

if everyone is wrong except us -

then -

*

If everyone silences except us -

if everyone surrenders to populous mobs except us -

if everyone is biased except us -

then -

*

doubt everyone? doubt everything? until -

what's fiction and what's lie is everyone and everything except what's real and what's true is us and ours?

Loopholes Here for Us

If I want to make you believe me -

do I have to tell you the truth?

After all, no one hears what they don't want to hear, so why make you not hear me by telling you what you won't believe? As if belief believing has anything to do with truth truthing. 

If I promise to be honest -

do I have to be, well, honest?

After all, "I do what I want and I say what I want and I'm terrifically-not-to-blame when shit-goes-terribly-sideways," is not a twenty-four karat hallmark-of-trustworthiness, is it? As if "I-promise" has anything to do with "because-integrity."

*

I do what I want.

What do you care who or what I'm bullying or silencing? What do you care if I'm caving to peer pressure or surrendering to populous mobs? What do you care if I'm wrong or biased?

Are you the boss of me? The lord of all? The saint of saints? To judge me? By what you believe I am that I do?

*

Don't you do the same?

As if your consumed flags planted and posted, neither bully nor silence "because identity is liberty" you say. Likewise your ideas echoic of paid opinions affirmed and amplified, neither cave nor surrender to mobs of your peers and their influence "because loyalty is freedom" you say.

*

You also say -

you care about everyone but you. 

I say -

who and what do you really care about? and why?

Hint:

it's not me

and it's not good.

*

You care about you. When you say you care about everyone but you - that's what you say to be heard and that's what you say to be believed.

So long as neither your words nor you - "have to be honest or true" - to be heard or to be believed -

then believing-one-thing-and-espousing-another hand-in-glove-with saying-one-thing-and-exercising-another is you.

Until doubt is the only certainty, right?

*

That's the loophole of loopholes.

When nothing means nothing -

then -

what's real and what's true?

Doubt and belief. You.

As if the big stick is fair because the big stick says so; and the fair weather vane is right because the fair weather vane says so; and the partisan is just because the partisan says so.

What then -

am I?

The "everyone." Who merit distrust and defamation. Because you.

*

But -

if everyone stands with you - then aren't you one of everyone?

That's the loophole of loopholes, too.

To be one of everyone and exceptional, at once; to be liar and honest, in the same breath; to be only human and consequential, en masse.

Because the loophole of loopholes is here not to waste -

here for us.

*

Moreover -

if everything exists for you - then nothing exists that impede what-you-will. Except demons of your own invention. If what's real and what's true is what you believe - then there exists neither reason nor evidence to disbelieve what you yourself make believe. Whether you're right or wrong.

Not only is that too, the loophole of loopholes -

that is your stand.

*

To stand for good -

is to stand alone as the eye of a hurricane, as stillness with endless and circular and reiterative grievance and outrage and misrule.

Which is to say -

loopholes, endless and circular and reiterative, for which you stand and eye, for which I stand are as night and day as - 

you and I.

Note I

The loophole is the way we get away with it.

Like so:

We're not bullying. We're exercising our right to believe what we want to believe is real and true. Moreover, our right to believe what we want to believe is enforced through our silencing of dissent. Even when what we want to believe is racist and sexist and nationalist and of course, religionist.

Since our right to believe what we want to believe is our practice of religion, our practice of religion is righteous. Even when our canon and dogma avow and sanctify racism and sexism and nationalism and religionism. Therefore, our wrongs and our biases are neither wrong nor biased.

Or like so:

Our lived experiences, shared and dramatized, are real and true. Moreover, our voice cannot be diminished; derived from our identity and legitimately possessed, our power cannot be denied. As for those who would dispossess us from our identity and disempower us from our voice, their time is not now and their time is up.

We're not mobs who demand capitulation. What's real and what's true is what we believe. Fullstop. Even when what we believe monolithizes everyone by color and wealth and ideology and industry. Because identity so empowered is fair and right and just - so long as such identity so empowered is not theirs.

The loophole is the way we get away with it.

Like so:

Who's wrong is not us. We stand alone, therefore we're not sheep flocking to the bidding of globalists. Neither are we. We stand alone, therefore we're not afraid of armed corruption and we're not backing down. Nor are we. We stand alone, therefore we're leaning into fictional stories that need to be cast. Nor are we. We stand alone, therefore we're rising up against the monied and the established.

Because what's ours is what's ours. Not only are we not wrong and not only are we not biased - our solutions are not wrong and our solutions are not biased. Because our facts are our facts.

Or like so:

You're against us - therefore you are them. Believers in fictions and lies. Believers in what's not real and what's not true. You're everyone - except us.

The loophole is -

(i) what we believe manifests and defines "what's real for us" and "what's true for us" - (ii) therefore ignoring and opposing everyone except ourselves and our own - is "really" and "truly" - the practice of what we ourselves believe - (iii) never mind believing-one-thing-and-espousing-another hand-in-glove-with saying-one-thing-and-exercising-another - (iv) such that the "practicing of beliefs" is the getting away with loopholes - (v) whether said beliefs are ours or theirs or meaningless altogether.

*

Note II

Though reason and evidence abound - 

that neither race, color, sex, wealth, nation, ideology, religion, nor industry are "who we are" and that neither race, color, sex, wealth, nation, ideology, religion, nor industry are "who they are" -

we say:

this is not only categorically "where we come from" - this is categorically "where they come from."

This is the fixed persistence of the "indelible virtue of monolithizing."

This is the loophole that affirms -

"in the right hands" and "for just purposes" 

monolithizing is neither wrong nor harmful.

That every hand affirms itself "right" and that every purpose affirms itself "just" - is

the loophole too.

Because every hand and every purpose is everyone and everything - and

the exception

for whom the loophole is here not to waste.

*

Note III

Loopholes are words by which actions are permitted - not by explicit approval - but rather by absence of explicit prohibition.

Never mind consequences.

As if "I do what I want and I say what I want" is consequenceless. To wit, so many labor so vigilantly to effect the "freedom" to exercise loopholes because there is no price too great for such "right" to wrong.

*

Note IV

Loopholes conjure "tax loopholes" and "contract loopholes" and "getting away with something that should not be gotten away with if only such loopholes were closed" and so on and so forth;

but loopholes are far more than "ad hoc" or "bad apple" evasions and avoidance of meritorious consequence.

They are -

availing oneself of advantages and exploits - while aware that such advantages and exploits are neither explicitly nor affirmatively "right" - while saying to one's audience of one to everyone :

only a fool would not scorn the rein of integrity and only a fool would not use what exists to be abused.

This "culture" of parasitic disdain of explicitly and affirmatively fair and just conduct isn't limited to taxes and contracts; this "culture" is everywhere as

the "freedom" to exercise loopholes is the "right" to wreck the ship and take everything and everyone with it - and

only a fool would not.

*

Note V

Loopholes as "praiseworthy," as "identities," as "free will because free," ad infinitum exist because we manifest and define "what's real" and "what's true;" it's unlikely that loopholes or loopholers will ever not exist. Therefore the choice before us is not if or how or why or even to "close" loopholes; the choice before us is to loophole or not.

Thereupon, the choice before us is to disbelieve loopholers' praiseworthiness; to ignore loopholers' identities; to oppose loopholers' acts; or not.

Needless to say, while I'm not holding my breath, I know:

the possible is possible.

M

All the Janus

Preface

This is a story.

About receipts.

And the absence of them.

And justice.

And the absence of it.

This is a story about "I know people are good" and "everywhere in the world, all our good is being drowned out" and the real world where wrongs of every magnitude never see justice and what's absent isn't all the words - it's all the real good.

All the Janus

The Store

There is a woman with children so many so small like saplings with no aspirations to be other than reproductions of reproductions. At the store their cart rattles with spareness and water and bread. With them a man for whom wear and ravel are humility badges dispatched to the maws of saplings through the magic of electronic debit for provender. 

Tell me.

What's "good," exactly, about these followers of the rod of God who know that an eternity in Hell awaits all who do not do as they do: fear God and knowledge else the road to Damnation be their own?

This practice of "faith," enshrined by the authors of seventeenth century institutions as a "liberty" and a "right," repels the self-determination of ova bearers and condemns ideas and would present day institutions do the same.

*

The Enemy

There is an empire nakedly ambitious for more than a bottom line, last place never, cake and eating it too. Say what does a calculus as black and white as grayscale luminance and as hot and cold as amplitude modulation serve anyway?

Itself of course, the best course spoken for. As for the audience in the pockets of beholden finer than dust, crumbs and found parking lot pennies and a hand that fills the darkness, are the courses to be had. 

Tell me.

What's "good," exactly, about choking on monotony as brittle as lip service to "telling it to you straight" and getting away with it because the audience gets what the audience wants: mouthfuls of ash?

This "nothing's real it's all an act" muleta of lookherenotthere! serves neither you nor me who are but means for the purpose driven axiom of the empire and its ends: squeeze every word and every idea and every life of utility for itself.

*

The Small

There is a stack of boxes on hand trucks. There. Nonononono. There. Because free shipping like a boss | drop shipping like a boss | making bank like a boss | making rainrainrain like a m!@#$r f%^&*ing boss. Here. Yesyesyesyesyes. Here.

The sharp sweet must of hardwood pulp | expectant promise oh! borderlessness of electronic credit | hashtag you know you want it yesterday. So what if the smell of success and the smell of failure are evasion adjacent? If not this then that | if not that then another | if not the door then the window | if not the window then the corner never rests.

Tell me.

What's "good," exactly, about these evangelists of "faking it is making it" who spurn the yoke of workworkwork for praise be the dream manifested by absence?

This "sweatless hustle" bubbles fraud and deceit, unbroken and unspoiled by rules and regulations derided and despised, for paydays through the pockets of the fleeced, the suckered, the gullible: hashtag fair game m!@#$r f%^&*r.

*

The First

There is a hunt as the day as granite polished to every rainbow revelation of what lava forms fast in a sunlit kitchen. But, croons the professional whose opinion is spray-on-effect-paint is better imho not that you're soliciting my unsolicited opinion mind you which is professional though, look, this is a sign. Of what, you and I and the hunter muse.

A professional opinion though, right? is impartial? essential? real? Because the business of cash commissions and cash bonuses and cash awards for sales and services that meet targets and exceed goals in fiscal periods and commercial markets is not the business of money money money?

Tell me.

What's "good," exactly, about minted advertainment coin that all but vilify transactions between persons or principals that dare tread without representatives or agents never you mind self-dealing self-preservation as pure as twenty-four karats of reason?

This "no one who does what I do is in it for the clink of the till" as convincing as "no profession is more trustworthy than [fill in the blank]" integrity for a price as if this ensures it for sure because of course it does.

*

The Janus

Like "good luck" said at the Store when it means "go to Hell" by the Enemy when it means "as if exploiting 'granting sincerity' isn't what we do" by the Small when it means "don't blame the gamer, blame the game" at the First when it means "Karma's a bitch" this is a story about the real world.

Because sometimes there are receipts. Sometimes there aren't. Sometimes it makes no difference one way or the other. Because a word that means its antonym, an idea that is the opposite of itself, a person who wears not one face but two are not wrongs that justice sees.

Sure there are occurrences of selfless generosity with and without receipts shining a light but briefly but limitedly but the once. But also there are mountains whittled to pebbles rolled in ones in hundreds in millions until grains of sand outnumber the once.

Tell me.

What's "good," exactly, about these acts of "human nature" as vital as natural disasters to which indifferent habituation is but free willed inaction?

This "humanity is what it is" monuments so-called "good being drowned out" by so-called "exceptional wrong," while all the real good hear all the words that monument all the exceptional nothing in the world. 

Epilogue

The Ugly

There is an idea: a wannabe audacious reversal of ideas themselves spit spat spurt the opposite of themselves and the words rumbling tumbling bumbling for power and wealth and fame aren't priceless, you know. 

Oh! the burden, the crisis, the terrible weary wearing not one face but two, not two faces but hundreds, not hundreds but all the words not one of throwaway consequence, I know.

Tell me.

What's "good," exactly, about "all the real good" that's wrong of every magnitude? Of no justice for the practice of "religion" that effects the powerlessness of ova bearers for the powerless and their "sanctity," as if without having consented to be subject to the practice of such "religion" all are subject to its "authority," its "law," its "right" anyway? 

This "good" wears not one face but two, not two faces but hundreds, not hundreds but all the words not one of throwaway consequence, I know. For all the words that wannabe "all the real good" while exercising the "liberty" and "right" to fool and foul are as just as carved stone and as pitiless.

M

*

Postface

Of course "I know people are good" and "everywhere in the world, all our good is being drowned out" is the story we tell.

But

first blood optimized for revenue and earnings because twenty-four karats of reason is not "real;" fairy dusting "positivity" currency to sell indulgences is not "honest;" agreement without transparency because opacity guarantees "integrity" is not "fair."

That that passes for "real" and "honest" and fair" is fame imagined and wealth pretended and power believed; where wrongs never see justice and all our words take the cake and eat it too - this real world is the story we live.

M

Game of Feet to Fire

"Performative persecution" is game of feet to fire. "Meritorious consequence" is not. Though the former would that the latter be game too.

To this antonymous gamification, I ask: couldn't we all do with a little less... playing at fire? Alas, What's the harm! say too many of us. As if we could all do with a little more... flame.

Game of Feet to Fire

 

    Preface

Game of feet to fire is antonymous gamification. Whosiwhatsit?

Holding feet to the fire is, ostensibly, what we do when we hold each other accountable. But when we game holding feet to the fire, we're gamifying.

We're scoring points. We're rewarding achievements. We're cheating to win. Because legitimately earning, say, a real badge of courage, is neither the why nor the how; much less the why or the how of holding feet to the fire. 

Games, as artificial as they are arbitrary, are gamed. Therefore when we gamify, say, accountability, neither the why nor the how is earnestly legitimate.

In other words, games of feet to fire need not really hold feet to the fire; whether via pretend or empty posture. Hence "performative persecution" is one such game.

*

     re: Governing platforms

There are two conflations that are the basis for governing platforms via laws written and championed by anti-technology advocates. 1: Technology is monopoly and monopoly is un-democracy. 2: Platformed speech is free speech and un-platforming is un-righting.

When baked into such conflations are assumptions unquestioned and unchallenged, such conflations are a means to cheat to win; pretend or empty posture; performative persecution.

There is real meritorious consequence to, say, algorithms and processes whose designs lack sufficiently robust integrity to identify and notify, for example, self-harm seeking. Not because gamification algorithms that reward harm seeking are (1) or (2).

Because the solution to (1) is "breaking up" technology and how exactly does this solve the actual problem of the case example above? Likewise the solution to (2) is "enforcing" platforming and how exactly does this solve the real problem of the case example above?

Such that (1) and (2) are nothing to do with we the people or public good; they're game of feet to fire. To score points; whether we are right of the ideological center or left.

*

     re: "All people are created equal"

Although a self-evident truth of equality is a bedrock of democracy; and equality and accountability are promised bedfellows; we fight tooth and claw for privilege; right; exception. From "qualified immunity" to "absolute immunity," we would accountability be its antonyms: favor; commutation; pardon.

Such that whether holding feet to the fire is performative persecution or meritorious consequence, such effort is gamed. Whereby miscalling meritorious consequence, performative persecution; and miscalling performative persecution, meritorious consequence; are the why and the how of not really holding feet to the fire.

Because democracy need not hold its believers accountable to its self-evident truths. Not when gaming feet to fire is winning loyalty left of the ideological center and right.

For who, then, is such erosion of a bedrock of democracy; and for what? We the people and public good; or we the blameless and justice toothless and inert?

*

     re: Populous popularity

There are real dilemmas that deserve meritorious consequence. The popularity of performative persecution, therefore, is nothing to do with real solutions.

From tools to privacy; from integrity to corruption; the questions that deserve answers, aren't answered by antonymous gamification. For antonymous gamification evades actual obstacles and mines instead depths of pointless point scoring; achievement rewarding; win cheating.

After all, I ask: couldn't we all do with a little more... resolve for results? Nay to results! and Yay to resolve! say too many of us. As if we could all do with a little more... pander and posture.

Author's Note

save your whatabouts and buts, your shibboleths and juridications, neither game of feet to fire (above) nor notes (below) nor addendum (below) nor limited annotation (unpublished) are exhaustive

enjoy

M

*

Notes

     (i) "I ask: couldn't we all do with a little less... playing at fire?"

this is not playing with fire; this is playing at fire

as in, fire and brimstone and passion, etc.

played at, mocked, and artificed;

     (ii) "Games, as artificial as they are arbitrary, are gamed."

if the point of a game is to game, then regardless of the game, will there not always be those for whom the point is gaming? 

as for when and where fabrications and incoherence are carbon and oxygen, ethics is a four letter word;

     (iii) "In other words, games of feet to fire need not really hold feet to the fire; whether via pretend or empty posture."

backbone as costume is not holding feet to the fire; else telling bona fide nonfiction is costumed comic superhero;

     (iv) "There are two conflations that are the basis for governing platforms via laws written and championed by anti-technology advocates."

campaigns of governing platforms, anchored by antipodality to technology, include authorship of laws samewise anchored;

     (v) "1: Technology is monopoly and monopoly is un-democracy."

this and the conflation below (vi), employ emotionally charged illogic to play at making sense

needless to say, pitching a wet blanket at this fire-breathing smoke is beyond the scope of this note; that said, I say:

cutting newswires into eighths, does not make we the people more well-knowing; nor does cutting education into quarters, make public good more well-learned;

such that a whole newswire and a whole education are both invaluable towards technologies for we the people and public good;

     (vi) "2: Platformed speech is free speech and un-platforming is un-righting."

see above (v); moreover, I say:

speech that intends harm is neither a right nor right; else

platforming hostile doxing for the facilitation of targeted abuse; wrongful posts that subject strangers to senseless flame throwing for badges; invectives that rally would-be blameless mobs to violent recourse; etc.

is righting;

     (vii) "There is real meritorious consequence to, say, algorithms and processes whose designs lack sufficiently robust integrity to identify and notify, for example, self-harm seeking."

"sufficiently robust integrity" as, say, bulwarked against, say, gaming; that said:

that gamification algorithms that reward pleasure seeking also reward harm seeking, is unquestionably known

that an appetite for facing this known with question-asking and answer-seeking is budding, is meritorious consequence hijacked by, without irony, antonymous gamification;

see also below (xv);

     (viii) "Not because gamification algorithms that reward harm seeking are (1) or (2)."

because above (vii);

because flawed design isn't an immutable native feature of (1) or (2); notwithstanding neither the solution to (1) nor (2) is the solution to flawed design;

     (ix) "the solution to (1) is 'breaking up' technology"

false would-be facts and false would-be conclusions

would achievement rewarding be "winning" never mind who loses and what is lost because false is fire, amiright?

see also below (x);

     (x) "the solution to (2) is 'enforcing' platforming"

such solution sounds improbably facile, as such panacea eschews ugly beastly realities, for pander and posture;

     (xi) "Although a self-evident truth of equality is a bedrock of democracy; and equality and accountability are promised bedfellows;"

much like consensus is frictionless within tyrannies through deception

democracies, wherein equality is neither enforced nor ensured (as via accountability), are frictionless through evasion, denial, and opposition, that would equality persist as but figurative hyperbole; 

     (xii) continued from above (xi): "we fight tooth and claw for privilege; right; exception."

the existence of government (including governance intrinsic and extrinsic and so on) is the acknowledgement that abandoned to instinct, self-interest, and self-rule, civilization would consume itself

such that it is no surprise at all that privilege, right, and exception are still enshrined by we who would submit to no government but instinct, self-interest, and self-rule;

     (xiii) "From 'qualified immunity' to 'absolute immunity,'"

these and below (xiv), are examples of privilege, right, and exception

legally defended, won, and exercised;

     (xiv) continued from above (xiii): "we would accountability be its antonyms: favor; commutation; pardon."

see above (xiii);

although privileges, rights, and exceptions herein and above (xiii) have been exercised as corrective, such effort and such effort gamed are not mutually exclusive;

notwithstanding below (xv);

     (xv) "Such that whether holding feet to the fire is performative persecution or meritorious consequence, such effort is gamed. Whereby miscalling meritorious consequence, performative persecution; and miscalling performative persecution, meritorious consequence; are the why and the how of not really holding feet to the fire."

like gaming corrupts the meaning of winning (after all, cheating to win is not winning; it's cheating)

miscalling subverts meritorious consequence

poisoning the meaning of why and how we hold each other accountable (after all, favors, commutations, and pardons aren't holding feet to the fire);

     (xvi) "Because democracy need not hold its believers accountable to its self-evident truths. Not when gaming feet to fire is winning loyalty left of the ideological center and right."

will there not always be those for whom winning the loyalty of believers is worth fissuring a bedrock of democracy?

     (xvii) "For who, then, is such erosion of a bedrock of democracy; and for what? We the people and public good; or we the blameless and justice toothless and inert?"

after every point is scored, after every achievement is rewarded, and after every win is cheated

still standing would be who and what? no doubt, a consensus will be;

     (xviii) "There are real dilemmas that deserve meritorious consequence. The popularity of performative persecution, therefore, is nothing to do with real solutions."

it is so seldom that a real calculus of real solutions to real dilemmas "wins" a popularity contest, is it not?

see below (xix);

     (xix) "From tools to privacy; from integrity to corruption;"

with such examples of what's mocked for antonymous gamification

it is no mystery at all that we who game "winning" full-throatedly belove antonymous gamification; 

see below (xx);

     (xx) continued from above (xix): "the questions that deserve answers, aren't answered by antonymous gamification. For antonymous gamification evades actual obstacles and mines instead depths of pointless point scoring; achievement rewarding; win cheating."

can the point be gaming and legitimately earning, at the same time? this is gaming:

consequencelessness for the former thanks a bushel and a peck to we the 'what's the harm!' saying populace for whom the latter is decidedly true conditionally proportionate to self-importance and self-gain;

     (xxi) "I ask: couldn't we all do with a little more... resolve for results? Nay to results! and Yay to resolve! say too many of us. As if we could all do with a little more... pander and posture."

meritorious consequence is that which is deserved and earned and merited, oblivious to popularity (flash in the pan or otherwise) or vote (of, by, or for minorities or majorities)

such that exponents of antonymous gamification who would subvert meritorious consequence for spoils and vengeance and disdain are but opportunists for whom pander and posture is road paved with "winning;"

etc.

M

*

Addendum 

     re: Technology

Whatever your relationship with technology, I ask:

Imagine legs. They're built by leg-builders. Arms: they're built by arm-builders. Not to mention, hearts and brains; they're built by heart-builders and brain-builders, respectively.

Moreover, let's imagine they're built by builders who speak the same language; let's call it Buildish.

When they're altogether assembled, as smoothly harmonious as any miracle of machinery, they'll work together.

Right?

If all the builders endeavor together, collaborate, and share a vision of their machine, what marvel, what culmination of genius such machine could be. 

If, however, all the builders endeavor alone - after all, their proprietary efforts are pit against those who would their economical or rushed or adequate efforts be enough - then, such machine is unlikely to be equal in every way, much less better and improved.

Now consider news. With so much content demanding so much awareness and so much engagement, are we well-informed? Are we better and improved now? Then consider education. With more teaching and more instruction more accessible than ever, are we well-schooled? Are we better and improved now?

When we consider capitalism, we rarely consider this:

Four orange vendors at a market. One sells overripe oranges soft and granular. One sells oranges dyed and waxed beyond credulity. One sells oranges visibly crawling with mealybugs and snails. (Nay pesticide! Yay protein!) The last sells practically perfect oranges. These oranges are the result of extraordinary research and development and painstaking cultivation; the mission of one orange-obsessed whateverillionaire.

Needless to say, three orange vendors would such free market correct its course. Because three out of every four orange buyers are buyers of practically perfect oranges, three orange vendors make a case to cut one dominant monopoly down to size. Now three quarters of market share are up for grabs as practically perfect oranges exit the market. Are three out of every four orange buyers well served by this better and improved market?

In other words:

Who loses and what is lost by less choice of oranges? Notwithstanding also: who loses and what is lost by more choice of education and news? Such that it's neither unobstructed markets nor corrected markets - that is to say, hallowed hallmarks of market capitalism - that we the people really value.

It's oranges three out of every four orange buyers actually consume. And educations that open real doors to employment and prosperity. And news that's actually newsworthy.

And technologies that are marvels.

Not because machines are successes or failures of whateverillionaires. But because technologies themselves are of incalculable value. Without which, are we the people and public good, better and improved?

When all is said and done when we lose sight of what is improbable without real scale and resources, will what's standing be a Frankenstein built by the greed of three orange vendors? Or will what's standing be a testament to just because we speak different languages doesn't mean we can't endeavor together, collaborate, and share a vision and just because we're as alike as apples to oranges doesn't mean a relationship with technology is fruitless for we the people and public good?

M

*

Addendum

     re: "What's the harm?"

An affirmative defense that would be vindication against meritorious consequence is playing at fire; it's disdainment of accountability; it's I did nothing wrong therefore I deserve no consequence!

Near and far and then and now, such subversion of reason impels us to witness I am therefore I am blameless! pave a road of unscrupulousness to trustlessness.

Ergo positions of What's the harm if I game to self-gain? aren't stands for rights or righting; they're excuses

for harm.

M