Author: Peter Freilinger

I’m pretty sure I’m not alone (among people who get up in the middle of the night thinking of such things) in being uncomfortable with how political philosophers position “capitalism” against other forms of societal organisation. There’s something that doesn’t make sense; democracy isn’t capitalism, and in history, democracy has existed comfortably with other economic forms. Similarly, capitalism exists comfortably with authoritarianism (to a point); indeed, the Comintern realisation in the Soviet Union recognised the value of the market – the fundamental transformation process of capitalism – in setting objectives for the state.

The confusion, I think, comes from thinking of capitalism as a mechanism for control, instead of seeing it for what it is: a mechanism for establishing relative value. The confusion is understandable, and may stand at the root of much of the debate we are currently engaged in about the future of capitalism and of western liberal democracy. But they are incorrectly confused, which is the point of this scribbling – if nothing else, an exercise in establishing in my own mind the purpose of various activities which seem fundamental to capitalism.

I’ll start with some first principles and definitions. Capitalism is the system by which values are established by human societies through a market discourse: that is, instead of values being defined by either an external source (a religious expression of fundamental principles, for example), or the imposition of relative values by the state, values are established by a constant set of exchanges, which we collectively define as “the market”. The marketplace is where we compare what we have – our accumulated stuff which is available for exchange; our time and labour; the potential expansion of that labour through time; and most importantly, our own preferences for different combinations of things and labour and existential states of being – with what other people have. Capitalism simply expresses the idea that the marketplace is the most effective and most efficient way of determining relative value among people.

Capitalism is posited against other potential ways of determining relative value, most notably mechanisms which define absolute notions of value and require integration of those absolutes into the determination of relative values among people. Historically, the primary source of absolute values were religious, in all of religions various forms; these map today to other sources, both human – progressive notions of absolute human equality, for example, or ecological notions of “environmental value” which supposedly supersede any human expression of relative value, or quasi-scientific notions of absolute scarcity which in theory supply a set of baselines which must be observed by any dynamic system anywhere, including those of human beings establishing their own relative values.

Note that, while none of this requires a specific organisation of human systems of control, there are some obvious affinities. Systems which define an absolute source of basic values align well with control-oriented human systems, whether they be tribal or proto-statist or royalist or full-on authoritarian systems. On the other hand, capitalism – relying on dynamic and constant exchange – aligns far better with non-control oriented human systems, systems like diffuse democracies which fluidly establish rules which can be overruled in the future by common consent. But capitalism itself merely requires some consistency on the margin: the marketplace can adapt to changing rules, and indeed, can live within externally imposed rules – it’s just that externally imposed rules will tend to make a given marketplace susceptible to arbitrage and eventually to a reduction to the absolute principles which govern it, whereas dynamic rule processes will adapt with the marketplace to evolve new expressions of value.

Again, the point is that a system of organising human society – a control orientation – is not the same as a system of deriving human relative valuations of goods and services and future outcomes. Governance and valuation are two distinct – if intersectional – processes.

By observation, if we accept the idea that humanity consists of billions of individuals – and not that it is a differentiable mass of races or tribes or what have you – I find it hard to believe that capitalism is anything other than an almost base definition of the species. We exchange: it’s what we do. We do not survive solely on our own merits; we rely upon systems (parents, villages, families, etc) to grow into beings which then exchange on a full and equal basis with others. We raise new beings to do the same; if we don’t do that, the system does indeed collapse and the world beyond our species will grow to forget us. We exchange at every point of our lives, in various states of equality and superiority and inferiority, but the exchange exists nevertheless. Capitalism simply abstracts a space – the market – in which these exchanges exist. And importantly, it presupposes that there is a further abstraction – money – which enables a fluid exchange of value through space and time. In other words, capitalism is nothing more than the human condition of exchange enabled through a human, intermediary fluid.

We fear this fluid – and we fear the exchange – because at every stage, we unconsciously recognise that we have no direct control over it. But in so doing, we fail to recognise that that fluid mechanism only derives its marginal and total value in our expression of preferences and needs. In other words – if we stopped exchanging, money would be meaningless. Money needs us – but we can’t exist without a fluid mechanism for comparing and exchanging preferences and needs. That is to say, capitalism is merely an attenuated abstraction of what we as human being need to do to exist as individuals. As long as we have individual preferences, and individual needs and desires, we will have to form exchange relationships – and capitalism is simply the academic expression of that process in the form of the market with a fluid means-of-exchange to enable the further extension of that exchange through both time and space.

Oddly, I think as human beings, we struggle with the temporal, and that lies at the core of the confusion of capitalism-as-market and control-system-as-state. We can kind of deal with extensions of space: I get the idea that Joe in the valley over there might value a pig or a bushel of wheat or a strand of pearls differently than I do, because it’s a different space with different ecological potentials. But I don’t as easily grasp the idea that Joe in the future in this valley will value those objects differently, that the passage of time will create different valuations. And thus I look to an absolute to establish value here in this valley, and establish governance and control processes to make sure Joe-in-the-future sees the value of the pig the same as I see it today. It takes a massive mental exercise in seeing difference in place as being exactly the same as difference in time, to allow for the notion that there should be a single fluid to enable comparative value between both differences, and we’re not good at the one (time) even though we’re perfectly comfortable with the other (space). But it’s there.

Capitalism is the social expression of exchanging value across both space and time. Because of our terror at the strangeness of time, we establish regimes which mitigate or attempt to halt it: the state, governing processes, absolutes. But we then reflect back on capitalism and see it as a separate process beyond our control – and see it as a control mechanism itself. But it’s not: we control the market, always. We always set the values, both today and in terms of future value.

It’s our reluctance to admit that our own preferences are at the heart of the future of value – and a parallel desire to control the future the way we seemingly can control space in the instant – that lie at the heart of how we organise the state, organise the mechanisms of control. Western liberal democracies, in their best forms, flexibly establish norms to govern what we do today, while acknowledging the need to adapt in the future (although some of that adaptive requirement seems to have faded in recent times). Most other forms of governance establish a rigid absolute, and without the ability to evolve, eventually fall into some sort of decay or collapse – even if, in our limited four score lifespans, we fail to see the inevitable (and there’s no mystery in the fact that authoritarian regimes such as China or North Korea hate with a passion history as a profession, inasmuch as it reveals the inevitability of authoritarian failure at every step).

But any conversation of value and valuation starts from a single differentiation. Either we are a species of individuals, with individual preferences, or we are subject to an absolute. If we are individuals – and history would tend to support that notion – then we will inevitably tend towards the market as a place to exchange those preferences, and capitalism is merely the expression of that exchange in such a form to allow exchange across time and space. The means – money – is just a convenience, and its form is largely irrelevant as long as it is reasonably fluid: gold and bitcoin are poor examples, but fiat money is the ideal. If, however, we’ve gotten it wrong – evolution isn’t real, human beings are subject to absolutes – then maybe there is an alternative.

But all of this is to observe that the market is not a means of control. The state is: the state exists to assert control of some kind, even if – in its lightest, western liberal form – the control is to assert individual rights to not be controlled by a majoritarian mob. Capitalism feels like a force beyond our ability to control, and thus feels like a mechanism of control: but that ignores the fact that the market only exists by us supplying our idiosyncratic – which is to say off-market, which is to say solely in our personal control – pricing preferences constantly. The market depends on individuals being different, by individuals choosing to transact at a level higher or lower than the last market clearing price – it depends on personal control. That individual choice is what then sets the new relative value process: that individual price, even if seemingly invisible at the margin, is what gives life to the market itself.

The state can’t control your preferences, even if in places like North Korea, or medieval Europe, or within rigid tribal systems, it does everything it can to do so. You’ll still prefer that colour to this one; or you’ll prefer a bigger house tomorrow than a marginally larger flat today; or you’ll prefer to lie with a man in intimacy instead of a woman. Those preferences will always be there, and to the extent they inform what price you’ll pay for anything – a haircut, your rent, your marginal purchases for weddings – they enter into the grand constant integration process of valuation which is the market. No matter what state form exists, you’ll still be communicating your preferences in value.

We are subject to absolutes, of course: we all die. And we all were born of parents who were also human. But that just means time is the absolute, and any process which fails to acknowledge that is prima facie false. The marketplace, however, is the human invention which more than anything accepts difference in time as an explicit part of its construction, where time and space are traded alongside our preferences for stuff. It’s only our own confusion of the market-as-control – which is false – with the market-as-collective-process – not collective control mechanism, but process in which we all are just marginal, but without all of our marginal contributions, would be meaningless – that makes us think today that somehow capitalism is flawed. Drop that notion. We are not at late-stage capitalism: the market will always exist unless we’re at a stage of evolution where we decide to stop being individuals. Thankfully, evidence supports the opposite, that we’re more willing to be ourselves than ever before – and thus, we need the market more than ever.

With that – hopefully you all have completed your holiday shopping, or if not, good luck with the Boxing Day sales… A very merry Christmas to everyone, and as always, thanks for reading.

So last Thursday, my son acted out a bit, and I called him on it. I had made a new dish for supper – slow cooked beans and vegetables in a tomato sauce with breadcrumbs, finished with garlicky shrimp – and I knew he’d be reluctant about it. He doesn’t like stews, and this was, admittedly, dangerously close to a bean stew with shrimp on top. But when he came home from school, he said the house smelled delicious, and I was optimistic.

He tried the shrimp and said they were delicious, and then he tried the beans and made a gagging noise and did that thing kids do where he faux threw up a bit of it back onto his plate. And I called him on it.

“That’s bullshit. And you know what I mean.”

“You mean you think I’m lying?”

“No, I think you’re just bullshitting. The food is good, but you decided before you tried it that you were going to play up not liking it.”

Cue blubbing face, accusations of not being a good dad, of wanting to see Mom.

“No, you’re bullshitting, and I’m calling you on it. Go to your room, no dinner, no electronics, no radio. I’m calling you on this and you are now officially punished.”

He ran upstairs, pounding his feet, and cursing me along the way. This isn’t normal – maybe happens every few months, although in fairness to him I can’t remember it happening since the spring, and he is eleven, and is normally a great kid. But for some reason this bothered me. I spend a lot of time cooking for him, and cleaning after him, and for some reason having him pretend-vomit what was, if I may say so, a really delicious meal, triggered a need for me to simply punish him. To discipline him.

But after he stormed up to his room, it occurred to me that I was also releasing some negative energy of my own. I’m not particularly happy these days. Work is a bit of a drag and, just last week, had a bit of a crisis that the principals I work with made me wear the public pain more than was justified. And it’s December in Maine: short dark days, a lot of clouds and rain and wind, the sun – when it appears – too weak to do anything more than illuminate the naked trees and the cold glimmer of puddles in the woods, inspire the kind of low-level, non-clinical depression that makes Mainers and Atlantic Canadians fodder for bad jokes about grumpiness and casual profanity. I have not had any romantic prospects in years and, if I’m honest, I’m romance kryptonite – single dad, unexplainable income and career, tendency to think overmuch about ethics and morality and politics, and a healthy love of gin.

This is not the right mood from which to unleash discipline on an eleven year old, I was thinking to myself, although immediately after that thought, the memory of him fake puking good food made me quite comfortable in the decision to punish; the question became one of degree. And “go to your room without supper” seemed about right.

So I finished my food, gave the dog a quick walk in the pitch black night where she could barely see her way across the street to relieve herself on the neighbor’s lawn, headed back inside, and waited for a few minutes, and then headed up to the boy’s room.

“You get why you’re in trouble, right?”

“Why did you swear at me?”

“I didn’t swear at you. I used a swear to refer to your behaviour, ‘bullshit’. Do you understand why I did that?

And he said yes, he did, although he added several swears of his own which indicated what he thought of me, and my punishment, and what I could do to myself having punished him. He’s eleven, so his voice was repeatedly breaking as he screamed at me, which made it much easier to not get angry because it was so absurdly funny to hear him, in effect, say “yes, Dad, I know exactly why I was punished, but I still hate it”. I told him I loved him, which is why I occasionally punish him, because the love of a parent requires me to push back when he behaves badly; exercising his expletive vocabulary further, he described exactly what he thought of my definition of love. He was screaming, and at one point I asked him why he was screaming, because I was pretty sure I had never raised my voice; he admitted I hadn’t, and that calmed him down slightly. But I let him get on with it, rambling out his frustration, and then reminded him no electronics and lights out at 9pm, and told him to get a good night’s sleep and I’d see him in the morning, and reminded him that he needed to clean up his room because he was heading to his Mom’s the next day. And I said that I loved him. He didn’t say he loved me.

No harm no foul there: one doesn’t become a parent to be loved back, you become a parent (hopefully) out of the love you feel for the person you join in becoming parents, and for the hope that you can create love in the world in the future – and if it’s not for you, well, so be it, as long as love is created. My son does love the world, I can see that: I’m doing well. If, on a random Thursday night, he feels only spite for me, I can live with that.

My son doesn’t realise yet that discipline – when done correctly – is harder than anything. You take the risk that the object of discipline will not get the lesson, not get the joke, and will build up some store of anger or hatred that not only prevents the lesson from being learned, but is a negative lesson. You take a real risk as the disciplinarian but, if you don’t take that risk, you also know you condemn the subject to not moving forward. You could patiently explain why what they are doing is wrong, but you also – as a human being – know that only someone who already wants to learn will be converted by the patient lesson. The child – or employee, or adult – who truly doesn’t care about a lesson needs to be shocked into awareness. But that is never fun, or easy, and it always runs the risk that you, as disciplinarian, gets a rush from the sheer assertion of power. Human beings like being in control, and being in a position of disciplining is a pure moment of such control – but the existential truth of being human is that we are never, truly, in control. So within discipline lies both a need – to make sure another person who is committing a moral error is shocked back into reality – and a vicious danger – that you fool yourself into the error thinking you can control a situation and “make it better” by your sole will.

Punishment won’t make my son better, or make him less likely to bullshit me: all it can do is shock him into awareness that I don’t like being bullshitted. Only love will make my son better – well, love, and some timeout time where he isn’t playing Animal Island or Roblox or whatever the hell he’d be likely to do; indeed, the curative power of maybe just some time staring at the ceiling or reading a Hardy Boys mystery is probably the best hope he has.

The outcome of discipline should be careful reflection for both the person disciplined, but even more so, for the disciplinarian.

The rest of the night for me was painful, but probably for the good. I’m not doubting the actions I took, but I did reflect a lot on what I should do in the morning, and what my own state of mind is, and what I need to do better in any situation, and what I need to think about when the days are long and dark and seemingly bleak.

He got up in the morning and was fine – he even cleaned up his room, in fact did a surprisingly good job. I gave him a hug on his way out the door to catch the bus. He hugged me back, but he didn’t respond when I told him I loved him as he walked down the driveway. But he wasn’t unhappy, and he waved at me as he crossed the street.

The boy and I were watching ABC Nightly News tonight while eating bratwurst and a nice salad with pears and raw onion. The salad was excellent: both of us were surprised. And the brats, boiled in bear and served on brioche buns, were delightful, and as I write this, I’m realising that the bountiful alliteration didn’t hurt.

This isn’t about that, though, because the news tonight was all about the Hamas invasion of southern Israel. The other day the coverage focused on the rocket attacks and the endlessly described “eerie silences” on the streets of Tel Aviv, but tonight was a lot worse, discussing personal stories of people watching their families get shot in front of them while their wives or kids or grandmothers were hauled off to go who knows where and serve likely as human shields, potentially worse. The boy and I talked about it, and I told him in no world is there an excuse for that sort of evil. He’s now eleven, in sixth grade, starting to study things like the Civil War and the like with more than just a patriotic “this is our country’s history” take on things, so I don’t want to sugar coat this particular historical moment.

In my heart of hearts, though, I was struggling a bit. There is no part of my psyche that can manufacture the kind of inhumanity that would allow me to sympathise with the Hamas gunmen over the past few days, but what was somehow easy to bring to mind was a sense of mindless, numbing, and inescapable despair that must go along with being a middle aged dad in the Gaza Strip. Unable to leave, unable to find a job, watching your kids grow up trapped in what is in effect a permanent and inescapable refugee camp, I could easily bring to mind an existential sense of non-being. I couldn’t transfer that to a sense that it would be okay to kill another human being because of it, or take away the child or spouse or loved one of the people who are running the camp to certain death; no, because that would actually separate me from being able to feel despair. The art of being human is, on a certain very basic level, choosing not to commit the willful atrocity in the face of personal hopelessness. Being human is to choose despair over dehumanising another: it is, to use Buber’s language, to always refuse to de-Thou the other.

It got me thinking of Mersault in The Stranger, whose creator would, I think, agree with me but he would make his creation do quite the opposite, in the nihilistic pursuit of being not human; or the coward in The Red Badge of Courage, acting as a human in his flight and ironically returning to his tribe gun in hand – renouncing his sinless cowardice in favour of murderous manufactured bravery.

It also had me thinking of the fact that, for the past few decades, Americans have been bombing, rocketing, and droning to death countless thousands of Arabs across the Middle East. That’s awful, of course, but it’s still no excuse – no reason – to kidnap an Israeli grandmother, rape her for the YouTube value, and then kill her, as one anecdote related on the ABC Nightly News last night. The terrorists even chose their film angles to maximise the intellectual horror: there is only one way to interpret watching young happy men with guns round up Jewish women, hitting them as the go, and loading them onto transports. My guess is the young men with the guns, abusing the prisoners for the cameras, were too stupid to understand the propaganda weapons they were being made to be, but the unseen men behind the smartphones photographing them knew exactly what they were doing, and the fact they never show their faces for all of that makes it even more abhorrent.

And yet: not so abhorrent that I could imagine ever participating in any of it. I can vaguely imagine what it might have been at age 20 to get drafted and serve in the military, and I have enough friends who have served to know that a part of the induction experience is to tone down one’s humanity enough to allow that killing spark of inhumanity to emerge. In battle, it can be the difference between living and dying – to say nothing of victory or defeat.

I wasn’t enjoying myself thinking any of this; it seemed to lead nowhere, or rather, it leads only to a recognition that, even if I can’t imagine it, a substantial portion of the world not only can imagine it but lives it, they choose it. Earlier in the day I had watched the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom on Bloomberg TV effectively lose her shit: “never has the Holy Land seen atrocities such as this, never”, she said, ignoring the Israeli massacres during the pre-1947 civil war, ignoring the Crusaders and Saladin, ignoring Masaba, ignoring half the Old Testament. Even as I thought that, though, I thought “well, she’s upset, and this is part of the process by which you recover your humanity.” And then the Israeli defense minister popped up and told a press conference that Palestinians – not Hamas, mind you, but Palestinians – had to be fought without mercy because they were “animalistic”. Oh Buber, where are Thou?

My son interrupted my bleak reverie. “I think the Palestinians have just given up, I mean really just given up. They are probably mostly all going to be killed by the Israelis, Dad, but they don’t seem to care anymore.”

He talked about how someone at camp told him that rats, if you corner them, will attack you, even though they know you’ll kill them, because it doesn’t matter any more. They watched a lot of Ratatouille at camp on the weekends, so I think that’s what he was talking about – I remembered the scene.

I told him people aren’t rats, except when others treat them that way. And even then, I told him, we still get to choose whether or not we want to kill on our way out, like rats, or if we want to forgive, like human beings.

He thought for a moment and said he understood. I told him I hoped he’d never face that choice, but if he did, that he’d forgive in his last moments of life, instead of trying to keep justifying the other person’s desire to kill. He said he wasn’t sure what he’d do, but he understood what I was saying.

There is, of course, a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, just as there is a solution to racism in the US, and to tribalism in the Great Lakes region of Africa. The answer is for one side to simply stop viewing the moment of their torment as a reason to torment further, even if it means their own death. And if one side does that simultaneously, indeed, it will simply be wiped out – the mechanisms of hatred being so ingrained that they’ll be unable to stop themselves. It won’t even be a sin: it will be a heroic, saintly act on the part of the side that chooses to martyr themselves, and the follow through of the other side to wipe them out will just, simply, be a Pavlovian response. Pure animalism kills pure rationalism dead – it is what it is.

What’s worked in the past is the symbolic refusal that comes up against a random forgetfulness or arrogance or whatever to act in response. P.W. Botha choosing to let Mandela live – and write, and be his best human self – in prison instead of just killing him like Biko, for example – wrong move for the white nationalists, right move for humanity. Had all of South Africa’s black Africans simply laid themselves down, it would have been a simple bloodbath, and every single one of them doing the same caused a private death. But one guy taking a step back, and facing one evil guy who forgot to be evil that day, and you have the potential for something to spark, something good.

Oddly, though, that requires continuing to care. My son’s right, today: it feels like the men and women and children of Gaza have given up. Some are now wandering aimlessly in their tiny strip of land, trying to avoid getting hit by Israeli shells or found by the inevitable wave of invading soldiers to come sometime soon. Some are arming themselves up with what, in the movies, would be a comic sense of purpose, even though we can guess what the outcome will be. Thousands of Israeli soldiers are girding for a battle with a predetermined narrative arc, getting ready for what will surely be decades of future moralistic PTSD to haunt their dreams.

In and amongst them are plenty of people like me, I think – those who may be called upon to shoot, or called upon to rear up after being cornered, and who are unable to imagine themselves doing anything other than reflect. They’re terrified, I think, but I also think they’re more ready for what will come in the next few hours and days than the barbarians on either side of the barricades. They haven’t given up, the way my son put it, and they haven’t stopped imagining the other side as human. In a place like Israel and Gaza, maybe the numbers of those in the middle, those who can still distinguish themselves by their inabiilty to hate, are approaching limit zero. And if that is the case, then it will not have mattered who started the violence this last time – whether it was the accumulated horror of living in an occupied land, or the immediate horror of living through a pogrom conducted by an amatuerish horde of monsters. Blaming those who respond to the last spark is a pointless exercise.

Far better, though, this evening most of all, to be focused on those in the middle, however few, the ones who haven’t given up, who still radiate warmth towards their fellow man, regardless of past transgressions, and who see themselves in the sins of others. May the bullets not find them, and let them be the ones who emerge tomorrow – and may they face off against others who feel the same. The ones who rape, who kill, who order the shellings, who enjoy targeting the missiles; who perpetuate the hatreds on both sides – I cannot imagine killing them, I cannot imagine doing evil to them. But I can wish them to go away.

After the ABC Nightly News, we watched “Wheel of Fortune”, where an almost unbelieveably dim set of good, happy, honest Americans – one hispanic, one white and (to be honest) quite portly, and one black – did an absolute hack job of guessing some pretty easy clue phrases (it took forever to get “A thing of beauty”, the morons). Alan and I made reentry to our reality, and I was thankful.

Because we both have to get up tomorrow morning and face the world again. Good luck and Godspeed to all of us.

Everyone needs a change of scenery now and again, and unlike Mark, I don’t have a second home in an idyllic Irish village. So, needing a few days of quiet and separation, I booked three nights at the Hotel on North in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.

Pittsfield is the largest city in Berkshire County, Massachusetts. The area is known mostly for twee villages, upscale resorts, “cottages” built by the Gilded Age elite, and now, horribly overpriced liberal arts colleges and the fine arts accoutrements they bring with them to justify the tuition they charge their upper middle class (actually no, upper class and desperately aspirational upper middle class) families to get their degrees from Williams and Amhearst and Bard. But Pittsfield: no, it’s just Pittsfield. It is not Massachusetts, and they know it.

The ex-wife was born in McKeesport, Pennsylvania, and we used to take a drive through its downtown whenever we visited where her parents then lived, Monroeville, and it was sort of like going from a gated community to the netherworld, getting worse as our marriage went along. In the late nineties, it was just a trip from suburbia to a crappy milltown; by the time we were getting close to splitting up, oxycontin was in full swing, and leaving Monroeville and doing the swing through McKeesport was negative poetry: we should have picked up Virgil somewhere on Route 130 to be our guide through perdition. The buildings kept getting more decrepit, even as the traffic stayed constant through downtown, and with the mills closed down, you had to imagine what the people walking across the street, sometimes sullen, sometimes friendly, were marching towards.

Pittsfield had that McKeesport feel to it, and it wasn’t bad, don’t get me wrong. McKeesport today, I’m sure, is both struggling with East Coast bluesville opioid devastation, and also doing its best to attract the kind of middle class aspirational folks that have abandoned Manhattan and Brooklyn because of high rents. The midsized mill towns of New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and the like are all in their way renormalizing around the tertiary economy. Come here: the pot is legal, the upper floor loft space is cheap, your parents and grandparents and their disposable income is close enough to buy your bad artwork and probably very high quality foodstuffs. Come back, says McKeesport and Scranton. And post pandemic, the creatives come, out of the laziness that develops from trying to compete too long on the Lower East Side and the New Brooklyn. All good.

I went to Pittsfield because I had to do about 20 hours of online continuing education requirement for my odd gig economy job as senior employee of a mortgage servicing company. The absurdity of the entire situation every now and again give me pause, literally: I have to sit and breathe deeply, marvel at how a decent portion of my living wages are supported by a set of tasks which, if explained to an alien, would make no sense, to the point where I’d rather my job to be something like a civil engineer specializing in sewage systems. At least the value proposition would be obvious: at least the aliens would see clearly what I do to be of real, actual value. As it is, I’m particularly good at estimating the rate at which home owners will pay off their mortgages, and how that will affect the timing of certain cash flows which banks and investors like to trade. I’m good at other stuff too, but for the time being, not many people care about those other things. And the people who want to value the timing of mortgage payments are happy to give me quite a bit of money to tell them what I think.

Also I have some required licenses, which make my thoughts on the timing and value of said mortgage cash flows more valuable for the people I work for because I enable them to buy said cash flows in a highly regulated environment which requires people to be licensed. But I have to keep my licenses every year. And yes, this is rambling, because this was a week where I spent roughly 30 hours completing my annual compliance training, 20 hours of endless recorded redundancy which stretched into 30 hours of actual physical space-time consumed watching online train videos and answering meaningless quizzes designed to ensure I hadn’t simply set up a Linux bot to do this for me, and I wanted a place which was effectively a blank spot so I could conduct what was an effectively blank task in a blank spot.

But the problem is, no real place is blank. I should have gone to Dubai and stayed in a hotel suite, but because I have a dog, I had to go to a place which was dog friendly, and I made a bet that Pittsfield would be it. But it’s not. Pittsfleld is a real place, and the more I walked the dog around thd downtown for morning and late night walks, and found parks and places for the midday long walk, I realized more and more that Pittsfield is a real place. Not like Manhattan, or the West End of London (or alas, much of Shoreditch), but a real place. Don’t get me wrong, Pittsfield is a shitty place – it’s used up, GE having sold out to SUBIC which relocated its real staff to Houston; the General Dynamics plant being a hollow shell; the downtown being just where the county has decided to relocate its abandoned senior and drug addict population where they can be close to diabetes and overdose clinics – yeah, a shitty place, but it’s a place. It’s not globalized, it’s not Disney-fied: it’s its own place, no question about it.

And therefore, it’s not Massachusetts. Massachusetts has loud mouthed Red Sox fans, and bad traffic, three deckers close in to one another but set off the broad boulevards where you find bagels, and bad coffee, and pet grooming, and off-puttingly liberal bookstores. You can find that in Berkshire County, but not in Pittsfield, its largest city. There, you can find a mile long, 100 foot tall manufacturing building that is lying fallow because no one wants to manufacture electric turbines in western Massachusetts anymore (begging the question why anyone wanted to do there, ever, of course… but therein lies the point[:

(I’m going to invent a punctuation form here: [: is the way to break out of a parenthetical comment without having to go through the effort of closing out the nested thoughts explicitly}

Traveling through old New England, you’ll find ancient mills, built of brick or sometimes granite, which are limited in size and scope by the building materials available in the early 1800s, and therefore readily reusable by the mid twenty-first century economy of creatives and financials and crafts. But the mid-Atlantic – the endless shapes of mid 20th century industrial Connecticut and New York (think Rochester, not Brooklyn) and Pennsylvania and Ohio, extending in massive industrial blight from there – the mid-Atlantic isn’t friendly brick and granite: it’s massive steel framing, the kind of metal buildings which grew dark and black from absorbing the acid emissions from too-small smokestacks. These blackscapes are surrouded by paved parking lots and after-thought rail spur lines, the towns around them marked by too much parking, too many lots which used to be poorly thought out diners and used car lots and half-assed stores selling vinyl siding and bad furniture and Thom McCan shoes.

That’s Pittsfield. And oddly, it’s trying, desperately, to emerge from that mire, and become a decent town. It doesn’t have an overpriced liberal arts college; it’s off the Mass Pike by a good 15 miles; it has an oxycontin problem. It has nothing going for it, but it’s trying. It’s not relying on nostalgia from now-middle-aged undergraduates, and it seems to recognize that the nostalgia of its old milltown townies is a losing game.

But it has a couple of good bars, one run by a lesbian couple and another run by just a bog standard bearded Gen Y type. It has a lot of social services downtown which are desperately needed even as they aren’t an encouraging landscape for future tourism or service economy storefronts. It is, thankfully, not Concord, or Lexington, or god forbid Newton. It’s not Massachusetts.

I stayed there for four days, three nights, had great Korean food and a surprisingly good Neopolitan style pizza, hiked the circumference of an abandoned regional mall with the dog (who enjoyed it), passed seven states’ worth of continuing mortgage education requirements, chatted with a number of kidney dialysis patients waiting for treatment on a lovely afternoon, riffed with a nice bartender and tried (but failed) to create a good rye-based yet fruity cocktail, and left my car unlocked and no one broke into it.

It was not Massachusetts. I loved it.

I have, more or less, a day off today. I got up slightly after the sun at 6am or so, had my morning “check email check Financial Times” routine to reassure myself that the world had not, in fact, imploded over night, did the normal morning ablutions, and took the dog for a walk. I prepared the boy’s lunch and, as the hour of departure approached, gave him the morning weather report (quite chilly this morning, almost freezing: shorts are fine because you’re a boy and this is Maine and it’s May, but wear a fleece jacket please) and then, come 7:54, pushed him out the door and down the street to get on the bus.

My day, though, was blessedly free. I had managed to apply a scheduling flamethrower to the day after a couple of past weeks of non-stop activity, travel to Texas last week, 8am to 6pm nonstop calls this week, and I wanted a day off.

It has been lovely. But I’ve also realised that I’m happily, permanently done with the notion of ever having a day off again. It’s not that I have so much to do: I had to swing by the grocery store for some supplies, sure, and I’ve been working at a low level on a few long term projects, but really, the successful construction of a human life consists of having a series of things that require your attention. They may feel trivial to an outside observer – living up to my erstwhile “duties” as a library trustee, or making sure my son’s mother is on the same page as me for upcoming doctor appointments, or even just making sure my water bill is paid, which was the subconscious reason for my waking up substantially earlier than I really had to today. But it strikes me that the slim and fragile interconnectedness we have with others is, in a real way, the high point of being human.

As the boy gets older, I keep marvelling at how he seems to be settling into self-sufficiency with surprisingly little effort on my part. I cook, clean, and do dishes, and this spring, I’ve started giving him more substantial household chores (he’s mowing the front lawn this year, his first big landscaping task; he’s getting schooled in replacing light switches and changing the oil in the MG in coming weeks as well). But all in all, he’s showing all the good signs of realising without explicit education the basic “activities of daily living” which, in coming decades, my future incompetence in which will eventually relegate me to a skilled nursing facility: making tea for himself, cleaning up after himself in the bathroom after a shower, finding clean clothes in the laundry instead of asking me to bring them up. Separating lights from darks, and knowing to aggregate the various hampers upstairs before bringing dirty clothes to the mud room. Keeping his boots off the rugs. I may or may not have told him to do this, don’t do that, but I don’t remember it: he’s just picking up on the simple civil activities that keep my house – will keep his house, already keeps his house – clean and easy to live in.

Similarly, I’m pretty sure I’m not lecturing him or even occasionally sitting him down for Parental Conversations (note the capital lettering, indicating severe significance) on how he should treat other people or how he should react to uncomfortable situations. Instead, I try to demonstrate good behaviour – always treat strangers kindly, and listen to them; once someone is known, however, if they are a jerk, treat the with reciprocal respect and avoid them and redirect others away from them whenever possible. The boy is doing a fine job at that too, albeit sometimes he’s too willing to reveal explicitly who he deems to be deserving of respect and, vice versa, to reveal who he deems to be disreputable. But discretion is a second – or maybe even third-order task. I’m just thrilled that, at age 11, his direct discernment and his polite behaviour is now so routine.

The lesson that puzzles me, right now, as he starts to hit puberty and as my rhetorical and pedagogical skills begin to reach their natural limit, is how to show him what it is to love. I associate love with surrender – not a milquetoast kind of hangdog panting, mind you, but an acceptance of love as an absolute, with me as a fixed, finite, variable being. Embracing love – of a partner most especially, of one individual to another; but even in the way we fall down and embrace our parents, or our children – is an act of surrendering in all of our capable-of-fault individual human selves in front of a concept of absolute love. I want to show the boy that I love him no matter what, even though I’ll continue to monitor and enforce limits on his screen time and will demand that he stay open to trying new things at dinner. I want to show him that he is free and open to explore what love is knowing that I will never, ever stop loving him, no matter what he does to me or doesn’t do to me.

Demonstrating that is an odd trick, especially when I have no one, day to day, in my adult life, who fills that role for me. So I’m caught in an interesting bind, where I wish to reveal to my son the possibility of love for another adult – in all of its messiness, in all of its power, in all of the powerlessness we inevitably feel in the presence of such force – without actually having a subjective magnet in front of me who absorbs, reflects, attracts, and generates my will to surrender.

Instead, I just have him. I’m hoping he sees it all, and I think he is actually smart enough to pick up on the subtleties. Or rather, not smart enough: just aware enough, even at age 11, that there is something worth surrendering too, that his father has seen and recognized and will never abandon, ever, and that merits staying aware, humble, and ready to give oneself up to when the moment and the person demands it.

A midweek day off is a good day to ponder such things. It’s almost over; the boy’s bus will drop him off in about a half hour, and I’ll have to go pick up the dog from day care, and there’s a Zoom call for the town at 4:30pm. But I’ve had the time, and the upcoming connections make me keenly aware that I’m part of the great collective experience that is being a loving, open human being. I’ll be ready for tomorrow when it comes.

Oh, and a quick shout out: I’ll be in London – finally again, for the first time since the pandemic – from 10 to 13 June. I would love to see any and all Essence of Water fans who are in the area. I will pick up the tab.