Author: Peter Freilinger

About a month ago, I got into a more heated discussion than I would have liked with someone.  We were in a group, having spent some time in a meeting earlier and out for that sort of dinner you have to bond with people at work, and this person – a woman in her mid thirties, upwardly mobile, successful, entrepreneurial – brought up her notion that banking would be eliminated by the rise of “blockchain.”  Her argument was pretty much what I’ve come to expect for intelligent people who use the word “blockchain” in a generic kind of way: a basic understanding – or more precisely, an intuition – that there is something fundamentally new about cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin or Ethereum or the like, and a similarly instinctual understanding that when something so fundamentally new comes along in our new world of reductio ad absurdum et acceleratum, chances are, our world will be disrupted.  Being roughly millennial, and having no real direct experience with banking beyond (as she admitted) her credit card, her checking account, and making payments with her phone, she took these two quite accurate intuitions and extrapolated out into the destruction of an industry which strikes her as antiquated, consumer-unfriendly, and monopolistic.

She was wrong about her observations, though, especially given that she is American and therefore faces American banks.  American banks are only antiquated, consumer-unfriendly, and monopolistic if you’re extraordinarily lazy or if you require certain specialized international banking services that trap you with banks with global scale who act much like their oligopolistic cousins in the rest of the world.  Otherwise, you have your pick of incredibly low-cost, incredibly competitive, and groundbreaking banks which ruthlessly compete for your business and are in living terror of the other 4000 banks and hundreds of quasi-banks trying to steal it away from them.  She was also wrong about what she called “blockchain,” which is simply a distributed, secure, and private ledger system which cryptocurrencies use to ensure the reliability and value of their currency.  The thing is, banking itself is also a distributed, secure, and private ledger system; each bank is a secure and private ledger keeping track of your (electronic) money, and enabling the periodic conversion of that private money into public banknotes or tax payments.  Arguing that banking would be replaced by blockchain, and thus will be destroyed, is like arguing that US “generally-accepted accounting principles” will be replaced by International Financial Reporting Standards.  Yes, Virginia, banks may employ blockchain to manage their internal ledgers and to communicate amongst themselves about their various ledger systems; but banks will still exist.

In any event, things got heated because of two things.  First, I have a strong sense that I was viewed as “mansplaining” – which I probably was.  In this #MeToo era, the rules of rhetoric have changed, particularly when you’re viewed as belonging to a privileged class: I’m white, male, middle-aged, and in banking, while she was white (no points there), female (subject to historical power factors which are still to be adequately addressed), young (in the eyes of youth, always a disadvantage – I speak from memory here), and in the non-profit sector (even if you’re making money in the non-profit sector, you still get to revel in the fact that your excrement is noticeably less pungent).  In that discussion, therefore, even if I had valid objections, I had to navigate a much different debating minefield, and I doubt that I did so particularly well.  I’m learning, but I’m not nearly fluent enough in the new art of persuasion to pretend that I can compete.

The other problem, though, only occurred to me after about ten minutes of verbal serve and volley.  It’s not that I thought she was necessarily pointing in the wrong direction with her logic: indeed, I agree with her fundamental intuition that the massive expansion of information technology will, eventually, transform how we think of the concept of “value” which has historically become bound to our monetary units of exchange and the system that enables it to be exchanged.  I don’t think blockchain will be the answer – for one, the computing power required to continually verify individual transactions seems to expand exponentially given the current instantiation of a distributed ledger system, which means it’s not sustainable as a technology – but I do think we’re on the verge in the next generation or so of a fundamental decoupling of “value” from a monolithic concept of “money.”  And that will change banking, or eliminate the need for it entirely, and in so doing it will bankrupt many individuals who have relied on banking as a source of power, as a place for storage of value, and as a means of usurping others who don’t understand it as a system.  I’m both excited and a little nervous about that day coming, but I was in total agreement with my younger, female, non-profit friend about it being not too far over the horizon.

What got me annoyed, and ended up with me moving away from simple point-counterpoint discussion and into verbal smackdown, was my perception that my discussion partner simply didn’t care about moving to that next level.  She was content – in my perception, smugly so – to sit back on her two primary insights, that blockchain is new and disruptive, and that new and disruptive things tend to destroy the industries that they disrupt.  Blockchain is disruptive, it’s about money, banks are all about money, ergo banks will die, and now let’s talk about how great it is to be in a non-profit.  Not that I don’t want to talk about how great it is to be in a non-profit – I’m on two boards and have spent a lot of my banking career working for institutions which are not profit oriented – but hold on sister: just because I shouldn’t mansplain doesn’t mean you get to assert patently incorrect statements and move on.  Granted, you’re young and vivacious and are a master of the new rhetorical norms, but even Alcibiades had to answer to the old guy at the post-symposium dinner party.

I’ve been this way for a long time.  I can remember a study group at Georgetown when I was a way-too-young, way-too-angry sixteen year old freshman from Maine, where I verbally eviscerated some rich kid from New Jersey about the plot of Jamaica Kincaid’s A Small Place, her searing memoir of growing up in the West Indies, doubly a slave, first born of the descendants of slaves and now enslaved to a tourist economy that only offered jobs as waiters and maids and cooks to the rich visitors from their former colonial master countries.  The kid talked about how the standard of living in Aruba and Bermuda and Jamaica was only made better by integration into the global economy – not a false point, obviously – and, my Maine roots, my memories of New Jersey fathers looking at me at the mall wearing my fast food garb during the summers like I was a lesser being as they casually ordered for their brood and then yelled at me for taking too long, asking my friends to talk slower because they couldn’t understand their Maine downeast accents, all of it came roaring into play as I told the kid that he lacked both perspective and intelligence, and then gave a three-minute lecture on what it was like to come from the periphery, to have to watch the money come in every summer and leave every fall, to read the New York Times on your break and realize no one who read that paper cared about where you were from except to wonder how the lobster would taste there next July.

That came back to me, talking to the blockchain woman.

It comes back to me despite the fact that I still feel like I’m wrong about most things, despite the fact that listening to the blockchain woman made me think of new things and learn new things.  Even New Jersey boy at Georgetown made good points: without tourism, Maine would basically be northern Manitoba, and if you ask the people who drag themselves into Winnipeg – stabbiest city in North America – to get away from the black flies, mosquitoes, flooding, winter, and lack of everything but especially opportunity to be a valued human being, you don’t want to be northern Manitoba.  Tourism – and some government-subsidized shipbuilding and a few legacy businesses and the odd entrepreneur – is what allows Mainers to raise their children and hope they can be more.  It’s what allowed me to realize a dream and work away from Maine, in the world, in understanding and developing a view and perspective on the world, for the last twenty-five years.

New Jersey rich kid, in other words, had a good point to make, and I took it in, much though it annoys me to this day to admit its provenance.  And the blockchain woman was making a fundamentally good point: we live in a disruptive age.  I need to take that intuition, well stated by her, and apply it to all the things I think about, that Viktoria and Mark and I write about.  And, dammit, I’m doing that, and it’s been fruitful, and I’m playing with new ideas because of it.  Lots of those ideas are, candidly, terrifying, but it would be intellectually dishonest not to play with them and explore them.

But I’m still left with this frustration that many people – not all, but the overweening majority – take their two or three TEDtalk intuitions and then start making their assertions.  They don’t then spend the time to listen, to explore, or to challenge those intuitions from as many angles as they can.  They start laying down conclusions instead of exploring potentials.  They are clever, they often position two or three ideas that I’d never think of, let alone juxtaposition against one another, and they make magical new potentials emerge.  But annoyingly, they then start to conclude.

I’ve talked a lot about recursion in these pages, and I think what bothers me most in these discussions is that these people, boldly concluding and asserting their way through powerpoints and after-work dinners, are wasting their own precious capacity for recursive thinking.  Consciousness, sentience, consists of layers upon layers of potential.  There is creativity – the ability to imagine and posit things which have never existed in reality but can exist within our capacity for abstraction.  There is analysis – the ability to take both concrete and abstract things and see how they interact, see how they cause or affect one another.  But then there is the third degree: recursion, the ability to take both creativity and analysis and apply it to the fruits of each, to continually dive and swim and force interactions time and time again.  It’s the counterpoint to concluding, to asserting: it’s the questioning and inversion of the conclusions, forcing them to stand on their heads and repeat what they said backward to see if it still makes sense, to see if it still works.

Looking back on my reading of late, which has been a bit immersed in works on consciousness and the structure of mind and its implications for the design of artificial intelligence systems, I’m actually shocked that the word “recursion” has very rarely (or at least, not that I’ve seen) come up.  I learned recursion when I was a pup computer programmer, working COBOL on mainframes in one of the few truly non-tourist supported companies in Portland (naturally it was bought by a competitor from Chattanooga not long after I left home).  It was a basic action for exploring data, and it’s become a kind of basic action for exploring everything for me.  If you come up with a concept, explore its implications, including the implications of the concept on the concept itself.  As a human being, if you think something about someone else, apply the same thought to yourself – what do you find?  What do you see?  If you judge someone, judge yourself through the same lens; if someone judges you, apply that lens to the other.  And repeat.  Look in the mirror, then return the gaze.  And repeat.

What annoyed me (to the point of becoming petulant) about the blockchain argument was the fact that the other person had a good idea but didn’t bother to apply her insight to the concept itself.  Yes, blockchain is disruptive – but so was fractional banking, and in fact, fractional banking was the original distributed privately secured ledger system.  Blockchain is banking in a semi-automated way – which, really, is banking, which itself is only semi-automated.  Blockchain is a new technology in the same way that computational data stacks replaced double entry hand written ledgers as a core tracking technology.  But looked at through that recursive lens, blockchain isn’t a new form of banking, it’s just a new technology for use in banking.  Banking, the exchange of value in fixed units defined socially and made abstract through the use of ledger systems to track possession by individuals or their proxies, hasn’t changed and won’t simply because it’s got a supposedly better software package: moving from Lotus 1-2-3 to Excel didn’t change the world, even though macros in Visual Basic made it move faster than backslash keystroke commands.

The discussion I wanted to have with the blockchain woman was about what happens when we no longer require fixed units.  What if we had enough data – and enough instantaneous computational capability – to not require the exchange of unit quantities of dollars for goods and services, but instead could exchange goods and services – or potential future goods and potential future services – for themselves directly, without intermediation through units of currency?  We’ve constructed layers upon layers of systemic intermediation to allow us to exchange across time (bonds, stocks, deposits, interest paid or capital gains made on such instruments) and across location (currencies, differentiated value for similar goods in different places, markets, Amazon.com) and across societal perception (a man’s wage is greater than a woman’s for the same talent or skill or output, some goods are priced openly while others are priced in the dark).  Each of those layers allows for greater abstraction in the higher level of exchange, but it also allows for some information loss, and also allows for what really bothered the blockchain woman: the extraction of economic rent for the privelege of operating each exchange layer.  What if we could exchange with one another all the things that we want to represent materially in realtime with no intermediation – and thus no enrichment of bankers, only the utility cost of maintaining the master system?

Blockchain wouldn’t work for that; instead there would need to be a kind of universal and yet individually tunable and constantly updated price list, a kind of total menu of things and concepts and abstractions that could be exchanged at once.  Blockchain is just a lame, incredibly energy-exhaustive title insurance scheme; what I’m talking about is a way to exchange a Picasso for so many hours of my future writing output, or my new house in South Portland for a collection of old automobiles and model trains and a top-up of yardwork.  A single, universally valid exchange for all goods and services.  And if we had that, wouldn’t we be able to focus that much more time on the things that aren’t value-able, that cannot be conceived of in terms of value – like the value I put on the love I feel for my son, that I felt when I woke up in a motel in Blue River, British Columbia, and realized that at some point in the night my dog had curled up on the bed around me, the value I seek in writing this, in meeting Viktoria and Mark and realizing there is another soul interested in what I have to say and who will require notice of their own words?

That would be interesting.  And thinking of the implications – recursively, referencing the implications of the system over and over again – is terrifying.  There would be some of us who would simply try to get more “stuff” than anyone else – although arbitrage would close out most of that quickly, but not before some people had been taken advantage of and effectively enslaved themselves by selling more of their future potential output than they could ever recoup in terms of material well-being.  Some other of us would underutilize our potential and sit constantly realizing more value than they could spend – that wouldn’t be arbitraged away, it would just be a permanent waste.  The process of constantly updating and recognizing value – the menu-build algorithm – would need to be  made aware of all transactions at once – hence, I think, why some people look at blockchain as the building block of such a system, although again I see the energy demands as precluding that – and would also need to understand concepts of logistical transfer of goods, services, and people in a similarly constantly updated way, such that you can begin to see how all-consuming such a marketplace would look like.  Much, though, in the way that the market consumes most of what we experience in life today.

I’m sure anyone reading this can imagine further implications.  And you’ll start to see that the market which eliminates money is so all-consuming that it would by definition need to eliminate privacy, demand openness, in a way that most of us would be uncomfortable with – hence my own discomfort with it, even as I can imagine such a system emerging over time from our predilection for automation.  Indeed, what I see in such a world is the very opposite of trust, of acceptance, of love – it’s the elimination of trust in favor of complete openness so as to allow that master menu, that master algorithm of instantaneously transferable value, to be updated appropriately in realtime.

That, in fact, is how the argument about blockchain ended.  The woman talked for a bit about how banks were untrustworthy – throwing in an all-too-obvious Wells Fargo reference for good measure – and how blockchain would allow us all to trust one another by knowing that every transaction was verified instantaneously.  I told her that I thought quite the opposite: blockchain represented a material step towards the elimination of trust.  Trust requires the idea that you might be lied to.  You can’t lie when everything about you is already subject to the awareness of the blockchain.  She paused and said that was interesting.

Then I said it was also too energy inefficient, with blockchain mining already consuming some significant fraction of worldwide energy consumption and thus contributing to global warming.  Being a millennial, she agreed that global warming meant blockchain wasn’t the answer.  I sighed and asked for another beer.

For the better part of seven hours, I tossed and turned in the upper bunk of an Amtrak “roomette”, their quaint term for attempting the impossible of putting two people in a six foot three inch by two foot six inch space and allowing both of them to get a good night’s sleep.  One of us did: my son, who at six years old and three feet eight inches high is perfectly sized for such a space, slept the sleep of the gods.  He also had the bottom bunk; despite efforts at dinner, from both me and from the random couple from Chicago who sat with us, to convince him how much fun the top bunk is, he called the bottom bunk.

Making it worse was the fact that he wanted the night light on.  The night light is a low-wattage bulb in a five inch by three inch blue plastic enclosure.  If it were glowing faintly across a room – or, say, you only saw the indirect shine coming from above the bunk directly above you – it would probably be soft and lulling.  If the bulb is a foot from your eyes, however, even the low wattage is enough to be an impediment.  I kept thinking about all the press recently about limiting the “blue light” from screens in the hours before bed as even with my eyes closed tightly I could sense the glow.

I finished a book while my son read Busy Busy World by Richard Scarry.  I looked down at one point and he looked up and said “Hug?” but getting down would have roused him a bit too much, so instead I asked for one of his stuffed bears, gave it a big hug, and told him to give my son an even bigger hug back.  He caught the bear and snuggled him tightly as he nestled into the covers, yawning below me and eventually falling still.

At dinner he ordered the steak, but not the salad, as he announced loudly to one and all.  He also asked for bacon bits on his baked potato, and said he wasn’t going to eat any green beans.  I told him that he needed to eat at least two.  During the meal the couple from Chicago convinced him to eat some more beans in the same forkful as a bit of bacony, sour creamy potato. That worked too.

He’s made friends with another young boy, a bit older but who’s a bit… special.  The boy carries around a stuffed bear which is slightly larger than my son, and despite being probably two or three years older, his eyes and his speech reveal a sense of wonder, a sense of absolute joy, that even now in my almost-seven year old son I can see being pushed out by a sensation that the world isn’t quite fair, that not everyone is getting the same good things as everyone else, that maybe life is going to be a lot harder than train rides with Dad and a really good teacher and a Mom who loves him makes it seem like on the surface right now.  The other boy, though, having kept a sense of unadulterated joy and love and life in his eyes for even a few more years than six, is marking himself out as someone different.

My son has been so designated, by a child psychologist three and a half years ago roughly seven months after his parents split up and he moved away from his dad and back to a Seattle that he didn’t know.  In the intervening time it’s obvious to almost everyone except my ex-wife that our son is really pretty normal – a bit bookish and not interested in sports, but given his parents and their families, that surprises no one.  He’s a bit ungainly in social situations but having observed him with his friends in first grade, it seems to be about the norm for boys.

I volunteer at his school, which is a nice thing to do I suppose but it’s also an opportunity to see what being a six year old is like.  I was not normal at age six and I could even articulate that fact: I knew I was having conversations in my head, and with adults, that other kids weren’t having, and mostly they didn’t understand them and didn’t care.  A friend of mine, who is also a single parent, has said that her goal is to let her child have fun, to just see world in terms of the beauty of Maine and a dog and snow and laughter, for as long as possible. For me, that all wrapped up around four years old when I started to read books without pictures.  I haven’t looked back, but I’m intruigued now to see how my son and his friends are doing.  I didn’t have enough objectivity when I was his age to see what “childhood” was like; I was busy guarding my incipient adulthood, too busy trying to make sense of self-awareness at an age when most kids were blissfully unaware.

The boys are ungainly: their sentences carrying their own weird cadence of incorrect emphasis, poor word choice, and neck-snapping changes of topic.  Their bodies are all a bit strange too: some lean and wiry with big heads, like my son, some already building a kind of linebacker dominance to them, out of scale with the rest of the room.  There’s a few dreamy eyed kids, a few social butterflies – my son is one of them – and a few burly types who are embarrased by their strength, and one or two pre-bullies, kids who insert themselves in front of others, demanding attention, demanding respect but not doing anything to earn it.  I vaguely remember those dynamics but mostly I remembered finding the quiet corner with the books and reading as much as I possibly could, and sitting in the back of group time and trying not to be noticed.  My son sits in the middle.  He’s occasionally reminded not to talk to his neighbor.  I’m sort of proud of that.

The girls at age six and seven are confident and happy, although you can already see signs of cliquishness and coquettery, the girl with the not-quite-perfect leggings being shunned at choice time, for example, the same four girls always sitting together despite the teacher’s best efforts to break them up.  Some are already wearing clothing that would be viewed as “sexualized” – they’re definitely dressed more thoughtfully than the boys, but there’s also a bit of preening, hair done up nicely and clothing that’s coordinated.  They also want to be noticed, especially by a father volunteer: one girl stood up during story time, locked eyes with me, and started to pirouette.  The teacher asked her nicely to stop, and without breaking the stare, she sat down in front of me.

The only coordinated outfit among the boys is for the only African-American kid, who’s also the strongest and fastest kid in the class.  I have a sense that all of that is a lot of burden for a seven year old kid in first grade.

The boys neither shun nor do much in the way of self-identification.  They sort of form random groupings, coming together into little groups or teams and dissolving again in the course of a few minutes.

I thought about all of this while drifting on the outer edges of being awake, between Klamath Falls in Oregon and Sacramento.  Although the cities didn’t matter, really, except as markers on the timetable, benchmarks for determining whether we’re time or not.

I thought of my ex-wife, after having our quarterly divorce coaching session on Friday with a lot to talk about.  I thought about the ex-girlfriend, and girlfriends before her, and I thought about it in a spiralling way back to when I was little, when I was my son’s age, searching for the thread that tied everything together.  It’s not there, but part of the mystery of not sleeping in an enclosed space it that your mind dangles out the hope of that thread as a means of both getting you to sleep and of keeping your consciousness alive.

I thought about a dozen things I should be writing, a dozen work things I should get done in the next few days.  We pulled out of Chico and my body started warming up for the day, despite it being barely past three thirty in the morning.  I stayed in the bunk, staring and looking away from the blue night light. Finally I got up, fished out some clothes, got dressed – thankfully yoga has given me enough flexibility to get dressed even in a bunk – and kissing my son on forehead, went out to the observation car and started to write.

Good morning.  He’s up now… he just ran down the hallway.  Maybe there is a thread in there somewhere.

My father taught me the finer points of people watching when I was in my late pre-teen years, those strange years from age 10 to 12 where young boys are truly not yet men but nevertheless we start showing signs of what we will eventually become.  For me, I was preternaturally aware, too conscious to be really a boy but still naive and blissfully unaware of the dominant, painful superabundance of sexuality.  I could understand myself and could see the moral nature of others but too much was still hidden, and in many ways I’m still that young man.  Despite being aware of the physical cravings of being human, I’m still caught in that unformed body but superaware mind that made me such a perfect student for my father as we travelled around Maine and the east coast.

The first time I really remember him teaching me the bright colorful arts of people watching, we were on our way back from a business meeting that he brought me on for some reason down east, I think in Rockland or Rockport – two separate towns, but Rockland has the ferry terminal and the fish processing plant and thus is a bit working class, or was thirty five years ago; Rockport just had lovely scenery and old farmhouses and thus was probably a bit more stuck up and definitely more Protestant; my guess is Rockport veered Trump, while Rockland was solidly Hilary.  Draw your own conclusions, but I don’t remember lingering in either place.  My father had his meeting, I read a book – probably a few books – in a poorly furnished waiting room, and then we headed back towards Portland and home.  On the way, though, we stopped at Moody’s, a popular diner about an hour and a half from Portland, and had a late supper.  I don’t remember what we had for the meal proper but over the pie, my dad noticed a table a few booths down which consisted of two local police officers and a Maine state trooper, the trooper being obvious from his large wide straight brimmed trooper hat, his three-inch fascist black patent leather belt, and the diagonal leather stripe over his shoulder.

“I wonder what they’re talking about,” he said.  And Dad quickly began spinning a tale about what they were likely talking about – something about pulling over drunk drivers and speeding moms, something benign and silly and pointless.  I started giggling and adding my own thoughts over the pie – I know I had blueberry, I always had blueberry pie at Moody’s – and after a few minutes the trooper came over, said hello to each of us, and let me wear his hat.  It was far too large for me but it didn’t matter; I was in heaven.  Maine state troopers were the closest things to the archangels that I would encounter in my youth, and wearing one’s hat was akin to Gabriel letting you blow his horn.

On subsequent trips – including one very fun trip to Washington DC for a convention – my father would take me to old dark wooded restaurants, and truck stops, and airport lounges, and hotel lobbies, and everywhere he’d point at some person, or couple, or group of people, and say “what do you think they are talking about” or “why do you think they are here” or something similar.  As I got used to the drill, I got better at thinking about what people might be actually there for – not predictively, of course, but creatively, coming up with better and more interesting reasons for why, say, an older man and a younger woman were bickering at a table across the aisle, or why a man looked so angry while he was writing in a journal, or why a family was so studiously disinterested in one another.  My father always had better stories – he still does – but it wasn’t about coming up with something better than him: it was about practicing the art of inhabiting another person’s body and situation, in a place of transit, in a place that all of us would soon, and happily, abandon.

Tonight I was killing time at a restaurant across the street from Sea-Tac Airport, having spent a lovely weekend with my son and having worked all day on phone and laptop for the job in Texas.  I’ll increasingly just work on phone and laptop: the Texas people have acknowledged that I have no desire to live in south Texas, at all, and have granted me permission – more than that – to work from Maine, so phone and laptop will increasingly be my office.  The restaurant is a bit of a throwback to the early 70s, with high-backed leather swivel chairs around the counter and deep mahogany booths in an otherwise nondescript ten story office block housing mostly the small local offices of foreign flag carriers and somewhat dodgy import-export specialty firms.  I had a salad and the Hangtown Fry, a West Coast classic consisting of oysters, bacon, onions, and eggs, whipped into a scramble, with toast.  I nursed a drink and next to me sat a couple in their late 20s, she was maybe a bit younger.

He was dressed, I guess in his best, in a clean and recently severely folded black T-shirt advertising some sort of music festival.  He was pale, with reddish hair, the type of guy who doesn’t have freckles but can only burn, not tan, and he was overweight in the pudgy way of videogame afficiandos, pudgy not from overeating but from eating normally and not moving enough.  He ordered a Sprite.  He found it difficult to smile or show emotion.  I kept thinking “gamer” but waited.

She was a bit overweight but nonetheless very attractive, with dark hair tightly braided and then wrapped up into a kind of bunnish do, wearing a lacy black blouse that was a kind of ideal mix of transparent and opaque, in that it wasn’t see-through at all, but the laciness of it made you imagine it maybe was, and that added to the allure of her stark white but almond-shaped eyes.  She ordered tap water.  Then the guy said they’d have a calamari starter and she looked at him oddly, and he said she’d like it.  Then he ordered bacon and eggs, eggs medium, and she ordered the buttermilk chicken salad.  The waiter looked at them for a second, first him, then her, and thanked them and went to put in the order.

I looked more closely at the guy as the two of them settled into awkwardly looking at their place settings, not talking at all.  He had a lousy beard – what the hell has happened to this country that beards now seem de rigueur – and I now noticed the tattoos on his arms, Gothic lettering that I couldn’t decipher wrapped around some kind of Celtic cross or sword-like thing, lacing up his arm until disappearing under his sleeve.  Then I looked at her, noticed how she didn’t really want to be there but she kept flashing a smile, kept flashing interest in him to him, kept reassuring him with her glance and her demeanor and her body that she wanted to be there, was enjoying being with him, even though it was clearly an act.  Only someone who wanted to be deceived, who needed to believe in the act, would fall for it, and it wasn’t entirely clear he wanted to be deceived but then he wasn’t checking his phone, he was nervous and fumbling, he was trying to figure out what to do before the food came.

The waiter came with a refill of water for her and the guy ordered another Sprite, and the waiter, sensing the awkwardness, told both of them that the calamari would be out in less than a minute.  He caught my eye and asked if I needed anything and I made something up – “could I get some more cocktail sauce” – and I think the waiter knew I was just making time.  All of us were uneasy.

I shouldn’t say that.

The woman was uneasy; as a black woman with a pale white, possible ex-convict white guy, clearly either (charitably) on a first Tinder date or more likely on not so much a date as the first part of transactional evening, she wasn’t sure what was to come and she was trying to find her way.  The man was uneasy; he had probably “ordered” a woman on the website or via the back page of a free newspaper and he wasn’t suave about it, this was either new to him or he was aware of the feebleness of being in this situation, and he was struggling.  The waiter, clearly not unaccustomed to dealing with these situations in the only decent restaurant on the cheap hotel strip across the street from a large airport, didn’t want to dwell on the situation and wanted it over quickly.  I wasn’t sure what my role was in this little drama and while, as a student of my father’s, was interested in the human drama, was also slightly too involved for comfort.

But the core relationship – the pale pudgy man and the buxom young woman – was comfortable with itself.  Whatever it was – first date, transactional, future slasher film fodder, or just heartbreakingly awkward time kill – was appropriate in and of itself.  It was unfolding on its own terms, and somehow – despite crossed racial boundaries and the amazing inability of either person to maintain more than four sentences of conversation at a stretch over the course of an hour – it was all it needed to be.

I came up with a dozen different potential narrative, potential answers to Dad’s old questions.  But much stranger, much more challenging, was to watch the non-conversation that emerged.  They had their calamari – she had never had calamari before but seemed to enjoy it, and both were stymied when they asked the waiter what the white sauce was and he said “it’s aoili”, which required explanation and even after that, the idea of a garlicky mayonnaise didn’t quite register.  Then the meals came quickly and they ate in silence, but a couple of times looked at one another and smiled and made those eye gestures indicating “this is pretty good” or “gee, this is better than I expected”.  He ordered more Sprite, she stuck to ice water.

I ate my Hangtown fry and read the news on my phone until, about ten minutes after I finished the eggs, I realized one of the oysters was, er, not good.  I removed myself to the gents in short order and when I emerged again, ten minutes later, quite a bit paler, they were gone.

I don’t imagine they registered me, but I wonder what they would have said about the guy sitting next to them, reading, checking his phone, eating an omlette and then hurrying off.  Single diners don’t make for stories that are quite as interesting, I’ve found, but then again, who could come up with the tale that got me there, across the street from the airport, on a rainy and dark Monday night?  Why do you think I was there?

 

I started writing this blog because I couldn’t not write it.  I kept writing it because I couldn’t not write it.  But last month, I couldn’t write.

I still really can’t.  It’s been an eventful month, though, don’t get me wrong.  I have things to say – I’ve read John McPhee’s 2006 book, Uncommon Carriers, about freight transport in North America, and I’ve read a 1979 assembly of Hericlitus, and I’ve read my son The Trumpet of the Swan by EB White, and my parents gave me Walter Benjamin’s The Arcades Project, and I’ve finally finished the second volume of Proust’s Remembrance of Things Past.  The ex-girlfriend has ignored my happy new year’s message.  The ex-wife has railed against the existence of our ex-marriage.  My son has gotten more amazing, more loving, more open, and at the same time more curious and more independent and more individual.  My father has gotten better and much worse all at once.  My career has gotten more interesting and more confusing and more wrong and more right all at once.  I have too much to say, too much to think about, and I can’t write.

Tonight, I got to the airport five hours ahead of my flight.  It’s the red eye, as usual, the typical flight every two weeks between the desolate Pacific Northwest and the strange airy desert dust hellscape of south Texas.  I got to the airport early because I had a conference call that started at five thirty Ante Meridian, well before my son woke up, I took the call on my laptop and my cell phone from behind the bathroom door while he slept, and after the call I was exhausted and just wanted to crash in a familiar place, which for me is an airport.  At seven Ante Meridian I opened the door and turned on the lights and put the phone on mute and woke the son up, and made bacon and put a plate of blueberries and pear and while I had one ear on the conference call talking about fixed income asset management which had no chance of being relevant to the people whose savings I’m responsible for, and I encouraged him to put on proper trousers and eat fruit and semi-crispy bacon and color in the star which represented the story I read to him the prior night.  I put on proper trousers myself, and a t-shirt and a sweater, and made myself a coffee, and tried to convince myself that the whole package, of conference call and studio apartment and upcoming flight back to office and flight back in a week and a half, was worth it.  It was, because I put the call off mute and asked a question and it stopped the call and the global megacorp airhead on the other end realized that they weren’t going to get the contract.  The question helped nine million depositors, most of whom have no idea how a bank works.  My son needed to get his socks on.

I asked my friend if she liked horror movies.  It made more sense than the question I asked the global megacorp.  But it was on text, so no one cared.  I hit send and realized I had asked a question that meant a lot but really just cared about whether she responded.  She could say she loved horror movies – which I don’t like – and I still would care.  If she said she loved them and needed me to love them, it would be different.  But she didn’t.  Horror movies aren’t her favorite genre.  My favorite genre, frankly, is probably spaghetti Westerns.  That and romantic comedies.  Sports related romantic comedies.

The ex-girlfriend hated earnest things, but she watched earnest movies – Finding Nemo, Coco – with a kind of desperation.  She craved validation through the exultation of the heroes; I kept finding sympathy with the bit players, with the servants in the background, which queered her narrative.  She hated that.  And now I have a job that exists to help the servants in the background – the ones who don’t know what a bank is for and never will.  And I spent eight hours this morning on a conference call on behalf of the background heroes today that made me realize that there are no heroes any more.  The best we can hope for is service, of those who serve us.  A bad pun.

I had a bad day today and don’t know why.  But for all of that, I woke up to an alarm and a conference call, and an hour and a half later the most beautiful creature on earth stirred and asked me to be quiet.  He was in his bed, next to mine even though mine was empty, he stirred and curled and purred and went back to sleep, and I remembered why I had done everything I had for the past six years, during which I left my wife, during which I torridly joined with the ex-girlfriend, during which I left her and let her leave me.  I thought about why I longed for the voice of the new friend in Maine who called me that night, why I needed this time on my own, this time finally, to read The Arcades Project, why I didn’t want to leave Seattle but didn’t either want to head to San Antonio, why I knew I’d never be able to tell my father what I wanted but knew he’d also understand it all.  It wasn’t really a bad day but it felt that way.

Collapse time and I’m at the airport bar again, hungry.  I ordered the Alaskan Ling Cod fish and chips, along with a couple of dry Gibsons, and the phone rang, silently, letting me know I had missed the calls.  I called the missed number back.  I spoke idiotically, happily, amazed.  She had called me, and her voice was amazing.  It was a voice that let other people tell their story.  I wasn’t sure how to tell mine.  But it was good to hear her voice.

Two hours later, I’m waiting to board the flight to Chicago.  I’m just glad I’m writing again.  I’ll write something worthy of Mark and Viktoria soon.  But tonight, I’m just glad I’m writing.

I went for a walk with Gordy last spring and met an oral historian.  I was impressed; I studied history at university, but it was “traditional” history – reading texts and crafting narratives which attempted to weave a credible story of how it is that events in the past came to happen, with the goal more broadly of understanding the process by which events unfold at any time, including our own, including tomorrow.  Oral history was mentioned peripherally – mostly in discussions on historiography, the study of history as a discipline – but it was almost casual.  Meeting a real, live oral historian was pretty cool, and meeting one with a dog and a child who lived in Maine was mind-blowing; it was like hearing rumors for years that a famous movie star lived in your town, and then you run into Bill Murray and it turns out he hangs out at the dog park, too.  Or to put it in my son’s terms, who’s now reading Harry Potter, it’s like being a muggle but finally getting to meet a wizard and realizing that yes, there are places like Hogwarts where it’s normal to be one.  (Not that that in any way means he’s getting the Hogwarts Castle Lego set for Christmas, mind you.) Continue reading “Orality and history”